Americanisms and British...isms?

[Dahni]

I was quoting a woman when I said that? I really gotta start checking avatars. But they do! I mean, why else would really bad actresses get more of them if they didn't simply make them "better" in some "objective" way. And if you think about it, you'll understand why I used the quotes I did. Okay, I have 3 more pages of this topic to read. Happy Zombie Jesus Day.

They don't really. Bad actresses don't get more work or more respect if they get bigger tits. If you think about THAT, you'll see why.

Thought about it, still do not understand why you used the quote you did.


I don't understand AT ALL how tits are in any way related to accents, americanisms, or this thread in general.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

And that bit in arrested development about 'pussy' meaning a sweet person is a complete joke. It's only ever had the connotation of 'coward' or 'cat'.

You can say of someone, affectionately, and probably not directly, that they're a pussycat, which does mean they're sweet, ish. Generally used in terms of
"God almighty, he's a bit stand-offish..."
"Ah, wait 'til you get to know him, he's a pussycat, really."

And that sort of thing. Incredibly seldom used, mind.

Here in the US you could replace 'pussycat' with 'teddy bear' and it wouldn't sound too odd. Likewise, seldom used due to being incredibly lame.

My contribution:


UK - knackered, US - beat or bushed.

I have no idea if beat/bushed are used in the UK but I know for a fact that knackered isn't common in the US.

 

[Nickolai77]

I feel like my point's not getting across.

And what would really help is if I had my sources, but unfortunately I researched this years ago.

I can provide a piece of anacdotal evidence to back your case, i believe your correct in saying that American English is, in parts, an older form of modern English. When i was at the Greenwich Observatory in London they had extracts of various letters written by one of the earler Astronomers Royal's (so were looking around the 18th century)reading them i noticed that the spelling of those letters was American. Likewise, the word "Diaper" was in use in Tudor England, continues to be used in America but in England today we now use the term "nappies".

thus American-English represents an older, "purer" form of what original English was; before some guys in England decided to "Europeanize" or "Franco-nize" it.

Now, interestingly, Samual Johnson's dictonary from 1755 spells colour how the English today spell it today. If i recall correctly, and in light of the anacdotal evidence above, prior to Johnson's dictonary there were different ways to spell words in the English language- in England Johnson's dictonary standadised English, but perhaps had less influense in the American colonies- who ended up using the alternative spelling to words such as colour, whereas the English went along with Johnson's standadised English.

Even if the English language in England was influensed by French between the 18th and 19th centuries that does not mean that American-English is somehow more pure and orginal than what the English speak today. This because this line of reasoning seems to imply that there is a "correct" and apsolute way to speak English- which there isn't.

I mean, what "made" England a recognised entity was the fact that a number of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in a portion of the British Isles between the 6th-10th centuries all shared the same language, English. By your logic, the English which was spoke prior to the Norman invasion should be English in its purest form.

But even if we compare Chaucer to Shakespeare and Wordsworth, the periods between the 14th and 18th centuries, which experienced no drastic language altering foregin invasions, we see that the English used between these writers is considerably different. But to ask which writer wrote the purer English is almost a meanigless question. English-English, and American-English are slightly different, but neither is more correct, more pure or more orginal than the other, they are just different in the same way that Chaucer is different to Wordsworth.

 

[Squarez]

Someone has yet to mention Solicitor = Lawyer

Are you sure...? I thought they were two different things. Hm, you're probably right.

Nowadays things have become more Americanised and we use the term "Lawyer" to refer to both Solicitors and Barristers, seeing as they both practice law, but in different ways. It's just easier to say "Lawyer", than "Solicitors and Barristers".

 

[Squarez]

Gas/Petrol: Okay, Petrol sounds kind of cool, but for functionality, Gas is shorter and simpler. Also, "Give it some gas" sounds way better then, "Give it some petrol".

No, no, no.

When he says petrol he means the stuff you actually put in your car, as opposed to slang you use when you want to go faster. i.e. to "fill up with petrol", I don't think we have any equivalent to "give it some gas", we might say "step on it" or simply "go faster", but no gas giving is involved, I'm afraid.

 

[Xanadu84]

Gas/Petrol: Okay, Petrol sounds kind of cool, but for functionality, Gas is shorter and simpler. Also, "Give it some gas" sounds way better then, "Give it some petrol".

No, no, no.

When he says petrol he means the stuff you actually put in your car, as opposed to slang you use when you want to go faster. i.e. to "fill up with petrol", I don't think we have any equivalent to "give it some gas", we might say "step on it" or simply "go faster", but no gas giving is involved, I'm afraid.

You do realize that it is the Gas (Petrol) that you utilize to go faster, right?

 

[ugeine]

I knew someone would say this. And that's the exact same thing I said. I won't get into a major argument here, but I'll give you this basic idea. Before the 1700's, England was greatly influenced by a multitude of different languages. what I'm referring to happened well after this, thus your points about all those other languages are null. I am not disputing that "fact", it simply irrelevant to the time table I established.

Next, you're absolutely right about the standardized english, but from my research, during the 1800's when this occurred in England, it started with the elites of society to "franconize" England.

But as I said, this didn't stop with language. It went from everything, including archetecture, clothing, philosophy, etc.

Even many of England's modern political ideologies have roots in French society (it's ok, so does America's).

Does that make a bit more sense?

Oh, and the reason why America has the more pure form is because America existed away from the influence of other European nations. Although all languages have changed radically over the last one-hundred years, America is more rooted in original, non-elitist english.

Mate, the language was heavily influenced by French culture as early as the 1200s. My own surname, 'Marshall' comes from the old French for servant and came into the language around the same time of the Norman invasion.

Samuel Johnson and the standardisation of the English language in the 1800s had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to seem more French. I'm not sure if you know your French / English history to well, but during this period (from about 1750 - 1850) The French Revolutions were under way and British aristocracy and nobility were fearful of the French, and scared that a similar thing could have happened over here.

It would have been the Chartists who would have been influenced by France, and more their politics then anything.

And how can a language that's made up of several different European languages become 'less pure' when it is influenced by a European language?

I feel like my point's not getting across.

And what would really help is if I had my sources, but unfortunately I researched this years ago.

The only thing that I'm very annoyed about is when I get this, "Look man, France has influenced English for almost a thousand years, not a couple hundred. You obviously don't know what you're talking about."

I know that. I know that VERY well. I'm not talking about the influence French or any other language had on English past 200 years ago. As I said before, THAT'S IRRELEVANT! It has nothing to do with my statement that France influenced English about 200 years ago.

Here, I'll fix it:

Everyone knows that the French influenced english, but few seem to understand the drastic implications the French language had on English just 200 years ago.

Does that satisfy the, "BUT FRENCH HAS ALWAYS INFLUENCED ENGLISH!" crowd?

good.

Now on to the actual point: Maybe if I put it in this way, you'll get it more: In the 1800's, England standardized English to appease and sound more civil to the other royal courts of Europe. Because of the beauty of the French language, the standardized version compiled many French tones and accents into the English language (Such as saying colour vs. color. Pronounce that; what sounds more "fancy"?). America, having become independent from England, never acquired these "traits" in their version of English, thus American-English represents an older, "purer" form of what original English was; before some guys in England decided to "Europeanize" or "Franco-nize" it.

Does that help? I suppose it's improper for me to say that the "French" influenced England, it's more like the English sat there and said, "hey, the French say things kinda cool, *insert epiphany here* WHAT IF WE SAID THINGS COOL TOO?!"

The last thing I'd say is: The only real reason why I put this in the first place is because people from outside America seem to burst a vain when they hear this, and that is amusing.

EDIT: Just because I know people on the escapist, I can just see someone nit-picking with my "to appease and sound more civil to the other royal courts of Europe..." comment. If you're gonna comment on this, just don't worry about that, I don't want to explain how, what, who, when, where, or why. I just want people to understand I DO have a justifiable reason to believe this basic idea.

*Facepalm*

During the 1800s the English and The French had a testy relationship for reasons I've already stated, so it's highly unlikely they would want to copy the French Language. England's main period of infatuation with the French was the Norman times.

I'm really finding it hard to explain to you your complete lapse of logic, obviously.

Let's say, in the 1300s, words entered the English language which were borrowed from French. You're stating these very same words had their spellings altered in the 1800s to seem more French, even though they were French words and spelt in the same way that they were spelt in old French.

How does this work?

You're saying that Johnson, a noted racist and spelling traditionalist, deliberately changed the spelling of words to make them sound more French.

How does this work?


You're telling me that Webster, one of the most famous spelling reformists (IE someone who'd quite blatantly take 'o's out of a word if he felt they weren't needed) in the English Language, turned his back on this habit of a life time when writing his most famous work to date.

How does this work?

You're saying this is why Americans don't spell any words in The English Language 'our' even though you do: contour, velour, paramour, troubadour

How does this work? Maybe Webster hit his head whilst writing his dictionary and forgot he wasn't adding 'o's to words?


On a side note, I tried acting civil, but if you're going to attempt abject attempt of sarcasm to prove your point all I can say is that I've made my point, and you're flying completely in the face of any contemporary thought on the subject and you're embarrassing yourself, quite frankly.

It's funny you should add a little anecdote about 'people from outside America bursting a vain' when ever you bring me up, because this whole argument reminds me of the time I was arguing with another Yank who thought WWII went from 1941 - 1945.

And if you don't know what's wrong with that, there's really no hope.

 

[ugeine]

My problem with this is your not contradicting anything I'm saying.

And I was never rude? I'm at a loss for how any of this went down the road it did.

I've had completely mixed reactions. On one hand, I've had people who deliberately believe it simply for the same reason I say it, "America has a better form of English, hur hur" And then on the other hand, I've had people who are far more educated than either of us bring up very good points as well.

So if you're willing to let go of everything that's been said (I mean literally; let's just start from a clean slate of paper here), than I'll make my point one last time (albeit, slightly differently).

From 1750-1850, the English language in the UK underwent many cultural changes (some from outside influences, others from interior motives/the rising middle class). This caused a divide in the versions of the language spoken in America and the UK. Thus, it can be concluded that American english is more representative of (or more closely related to) an older form of "modern English" than the version spoken in the British Isles.

Forget anything I said about the French. My discussion on this forum, as well as further research, has suggested that the amount of influence the French had on English was not necessarily the driving factor, although it was a[/a] factor. the statement i just made in this post is more accurate from anything else that I've said before.

If you continue to stay testy with me, I just won't talk to you. I really am sorry that what I said came across as uncivil, but I have no need for such a discussion.

And besides, I suppose I should be thankful, because you're challenges to my logic (as well as some more level headed considerations to my points from others) have developed this understanding so that it's more refined; more true.

EDIT: It's fine if you disagree. I'm just reitterating another man's research. Just don't treat me like I'm an idiot because I'm not. This isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass.

Apologies, I thought you were trying to be sarcy. I sometimes find it hard to understand tone on the internet. Obviously I was wrong, and cheers for acting decent and civil until I realised this.

I think we can both agree on the influence of French, it's just that I think we disagree on the idea of American English as been somewhere closer to the original form of the language.

I've read back through my posts and I realise that someone might think that I'm suggesting either that American is not as 'pure' of English, or that there's something inherently wrong with reforming spelling, I think it makes a lot more sense to leave out obsolete words and letters.

For instance, you might not believe it, but there's some Brits who still insist on calling jails 'gaols' because it's closer to the Norman French.

Anyhow, I'm sorry you lost your sources because reading back over the comments it'd be quite interesting to see what you'd found. I decided to look back over my old English Language lessons material and there's this link to an essay by Noah Webster you might find interesting.

In it, he explains the reason he wanted to reform the spelling of certain words, to make it easier for children to learn to read, and for non English readers to learn it easier.

It's here: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm

Unfortunately, it doesn't explain his writing of the dictionary and many of the alterations he suggested didn't make the final cut but it gives an interesting look at his mindset and if you don't agree with me after reading it then you might at least be able to see where I'm coming from.

And again, apologies if I came across a bit harsh. Though I hope you can understand why an Englishman might get a bit tetchy if somebody says his ancestors wanted to act like the French!

 

[ugeine]

I've just realised that in the first point as well he says '1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as a in bread.'

You can see that the logic could be applied to removing the 'o' from 'colour', which was what I was trying to say.

 

[Ren3004]

Well, having recently had a guy from Colorado stay with me, I can reel off some, English first:

Chips - Fries
Crisps - Chips
Lift - Elevator
Toilet - Bathroom
Trousers - Pants
Jam - Jelly
Tap - Faucet
Garden - Yard
Pound - 1.52 Dollars


There were a few others but I can't think of them right now. There was a group of us and we discussed this stuff a lot.

I thought that a bathroom had a bathtub and a toilet didn't. My English teacher... lied to me?
[sub]NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO![/sub]

 

[Duskwaith]

Abit of irish-ness.

People use the word "craic"(Cr-ack) all the time. I said "whats the craic" to an english friend of mine and he got flustered thinking i was reffering to crack cocaine.

 

[Midget52]

Fanny? Though that may be more Australian. Seriously, don't go there.

 

[Connor Lonske]

Sidewalk = Pavement
Highway = Motorway.

Hm. Can't think of anymore right now either. There are a hell of a lot more, though, I'm sure.

British fanny = vagina
American fanny = arse.

That one can lead to some horrible misunderstandings.

The last one made me laugh.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

Football is a favorite of mine, can any Ammerican honestly claim the sport they call "football" is not massively misnamed in comparison to football(soccer)?

Actually, no. Soccer, rugby, gaelic (Irish football)and American football. Are all forms of football. I think soccer is just generally accepted as "football" because it's the most common game. What American football is however, is rugby for pussies. Just kidding, those guys would beat seven kinds of shite out of me and I know it.

The point I was rasing was the fact it seems badly misnamed, in American football the ball is mostly handled like it is in rugby where as in football(soccer) the ball is mostly propelled with your feet. Feet, ball, football. All these games may come from a similar root but to my mind American football is badly named.

 

[Nickolai77]

I know of this facebook group which seems relivent to this topic. Here is the group's link-http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?v=info&ref=mf&gid=2208523152
and their infomation is below-

Petition to revoke the inderpendance of the United States of America


To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to competently govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories.

Except Utah, which she does not fancy.

Your new Prime Minister (The Right Honourable Gordon Brown MP, for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a Minister for America without the need for further elections.

The House of Representatives and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'; skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters.

You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise."

You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to re-spell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up ?vocabulary." Using the same thirty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "uhh", "like", and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

Look up "interspersed."

There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary, then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier).

You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents --- Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.

While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters.

British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness. Popular British films such as the Italian Job and the Wicker Man should never be remade.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football." There are other types of football such as Rugby, Aussie Rules & Gaelic football. However proper football - which will no longer be known as soccer, is the best known, most loved and most popular. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.

The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.

Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies).

We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2010.

You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of North America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. The 4th of July is no longer a public holiday. The 2nd of November will be a new national holiday, but only in Britain. It will be called "Indecisive Day."

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap, and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call 'French fries' are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat.

Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling "beer" is not actually beer at all, it is lager . From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in the Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From the 10th of November the UK will harmonise petrol (or "gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it until the 1st of April) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $10/US gallon -- get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.