The French speak French, the Spanish speak Spanish, The English speak?

[Boom129]

however the language of Switzerland is just a different dialect of German and it gets its own name too

 

[Heathrow]

Also, on a less serious/curious note.. what is the reasoning behind the unsual order of the American Date System? The progression is usually in ascending/descending order, such as seconds>minutes>hours>days>months>years or years>months>days>hours>minutes>seconds but whenever it is written on an American document it flows seconds>minutes>hours>months>days>years, why is it in such an unintuitive layout?

Where is there a place on the planet that organizes hourly increments by reverse chronology? The standard worldwide is HH:MM:SS with some debate on whether 12 hour or 24 hour systems are preferable.

If you wanted a purely logical method of organizing dates your best bet would be YEAR/MONTH/DAY (WEEK, optional) HH:MM:SS.

UK and US methods are both derived from the linguistic rules of spoken English and therefore decidedly illogical as these things go.

EDIT: Just so we're clear.

Colloquial UK dates are organized: 20 December 1980

Colloquial US dates are organized: December 20, 1980

YY/MM/DD HH:MM:SS is decidedly less common but still in use in both countries usually in scientific journals or more modern records.

 

[Therumancer]

Any language is going to have differences when spoken in locations so far apart. If you think Commonwealth English vs. American English is bad, you should check out European Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese, they're almost like two different languages compared to English.

Yes, my question was not specifically aimed at the English language, it was simply picking the one that caused me to start the thread, i'm curious as to how other former colonies also treat their language such as Brazil and Mexico, by all means please discuss it!

The largest snip I have ever done in my life.

I profess ignorance to the filing systems used and as such defer to your knowledge, this is a thread to sate my curiosity, nothing more!

I never really thought about the efficiency of the filing system in terms of archiving, in modern times it would be on a computer obviously, but understandably 200 years ago I can see the benefits of altering the standard methods. Also, I can see the globalisation as being led by the US market into English being a common language too, who knows what may happen with China over the coming century, for better and for worse (though moving forwards I believe a common language is realistically for the better, regardless of origin!).

I have to say, before coming to the Escapist, i've never had anybody mention "British English", I come to understand it as an American term rather than an English one myself, primarily because the other two constituent countries, specifically the Scottish, aren't too keen on being lumped together with us English!

May I ask, what is the reasoning for the US system sticking to the Imperial measurement system, it is another topic that I am curious about.

Even in modern times filing systems are important. Anything of note is not kept entirely on computer systems since they can become corrupted, or wiped out. Typically you have the electronic records, and then physical records which are kept in storage to verify them. That way if there is ever a question about alteration, they can go back to the hardcopy. This is why in a lot of fiction and such, it becomes a major effort to destroy the hardcopy of records instead of just having a hacker wreck the system. The abillity to alter electronic documents also means that anything that is going to be used legally has to be availible in a hardcopy. What's more one of the big issues with EULAs that has yet to be challenged in the US, is that a lot depends on the existance of a physical signature when it comes to anything that is legally binding because handwriting can be verified.

When I filed reports at the casino, it was almost always hardcopy. If I used a computer to do it and put it into a system, I'd also have to print it out and put a physical signature on the print out and then have it filed. That way if say some drunk I ejected/walked out or shut off decided to go after the casino legally, and my report as the responding officer was needed as part of the case, there would be a hardcopy signed by me, to prove a real person was a witness as opposed to something contrieved electronically after the case started. In such a case I could also be called in as a witness.

At least in the US if something is ever questioned officially, if you don't have a hardcopy you don't have anything. Ironically EULAs and TOS agreements are the one major exception to this, and I think that's because none of the cases I've ever heard of where they were challenged were ever fought properly.

The point is that physical filing isn't a quaint thing from the past, it's still VERY important.

-

When it comes to the measurement system, people were crying out about the "big metric changeover" since I was a kid, but the bottom line is that the metric system isn't really all that more efficient. I remember there being comparisons between them when I was in school, and the whole "myth of metric superiority". I haven't spent much time thinking about it since, so I don't remember all the arguements from both sides of the equasion. Another part of it was also infrastructure, a massive "metric changeover" would have involved replacing and redoing billions of dollars worth of signs and equipment, with very little in the way of actual benefit. I seem to remember there being points about the extent of the US infrastructure and how it was funded, compared to that of other countries, and how what was practical elsewhere, wasn't all that practical in the US as a matter of scale. It's a case similar to why other countries haven't adapted our filing system I guess.

One of the odd things about the USA is that while other countries criticize us for the point, or try and take credit for a lot of the things we did, the US pretty much invented the modern world. Our infrastructures for a lot of things were among the first of their kind, things like our power grid are pretty much antiques compared to what aof other countries wound up with, because we wound up building the first massive systems, and then other countries did it after us and got to learn from our mistakes. Sadly we didn't make things in a modular format with the intent of ever taking them apart or upgrading them (which other countries learned from), so as a result the US is left with a lot of fairly inefficient garbage that would take billions upon billions of dollars to change, and leave a lot of people without vital services while it was happening, as well as leaving our country relatively vulnerable. A lot of old systems are of course using old measurements, and were intended to be read/measured that way, and as we keep using the same old stuf, I'm sure that has a huge influance on what system people wind up learning. It wouldn't be of practical benefit to say teach eveyone metric, and then when it came to actually working with a lot of the stuff we actually have, having to learn a whole new system of old measurements for everything from liquid storage, to distance, to whatever else. Kind of sad on a lot of levels.

 

[YouBecame]

I like what Oscar Wilde said: "We have everything in common with America now, except, of course, language"

But also, the evolution of language is natural. I consider american-english more a dialect than a fully fledged new language. Not really an issue though. After all, a lot of our words are derivatives of Latin, so at some point I'm sure people speaking that language were crying themselves to sleep about the English alterations.

 

[funguy2121]

Hey so i'm wondering after seeing a few comments from US citizens on this site about English grammar. When a person is Spanish and they speak Spanish, their language is called Spanish. When the Japanese speak Japanese, it is called Japanese. When the English speak English, it is called British English rather than English.

Does this also happen for French Canadians, who call the French version of French 'European French' and Brazilians who call the Portuguese version of Portuguese 'Iberian Portuguese' or is it just the US citizenship who modify the name of the original language If so, why?

I am curious because the majority of Australians, Indians and New Zealanders, who speak English too, don't seem to categorise English into 'British English' and 'Indian English' as much, despite the differences being clear and defined (Such as in India where English isn't really a well established language as most people speak primarily Hindi I believe).

Also, on a less serious/curious note.. what is the reasoning behind the unsual order of the American Date System? The progression is usually in ascending/descending order, such as seconds>minutes>hours>days>months>years or years>months>days>hours>minutes>seconds but whenever it is written on an American document it flows seconds>minutes>hours>months>days>years, why is it in such an unintuitive layout?

Slang aside, I can't tell much difference between the English, Irish, Aussie, Kiwi and Yankee dialects - not enough to make it difficult to understand a person, anyway. Anyone who can discern what someone from Michigan is saying based on context clues can do the same when speaking to a person from Manchester, even if they've never heard the word or expression before. Based on what I hear from my Mexican and Puerto Rican friends, this is not the case with Latin countries. They can understand each other somewhat but they don't always know exactly what the other person is talking about if they're not climbatized to the appropriate regional dialect.

 

[Pilkingtube]

Hey so i'm wondering after seeing a few comments from US citizens on this site about English grammar. When a person is Spanish and they speak Spanish, their language is called Spanish. When the Japanese speak Japanese, it is called Japanese. When the English speak English, it is called British English rather than English.

Does this also happen for French Canadians, who call the French version of French 'European French' and Brazilians who call the Portuguese version of Portuguese 'Iberian Portuguese' or is it just the US citizenship who modify the name of the original language If so, why?

I am curious because the majority of Australians, Indians and New Zealanders, who speak English too, don't seem to categorise English into 'British English' and 'Indian English' as much, despite the differences being clear and defined (Such as in India where English isn't really a well established language as most people speak primarily Hindi I believe).

Yes, in Spain there is "vosotros" which in Latin American countries doesn't exist.

The main difference is the time, America retains much of the old system from when they were British colonies, so while Britain changed its language and its colonies adapted the changes the Americans English stayed the same. So pretty much the few differences are merely a leftover of old English, this is why if you go into rural places like America like Appalachia where people have been living outside of technology their English despite stereotypes is actually Shakespearian type English.

Also, on a less serious/curious note.. what is the reasoning behind the unsual order of the American Date System? The progression is usually in ascending/descending order, such as seconds>minutes>hours>days>months>years or years>months>days>hours>minutes>seconds but whenever it is written on an American document it flows seconds>minutes>hours>months>days>years, why is it in such an unintuitive layout?

Because they would say "It is September the 8th" rather then "It is the 8th of September".

See, I very rarely hear Shakespearean English protrayed when rural Americans are on television or film, usually more of a "southern drawl" (which I don't mean as a disrespectful term, I simply don't know the correct wording). With English moving on independantly to American English, my question is not about the differences themselves, but at what point the languages are different enough to simply be called "American" much like the Latin American countries use now.

Oh, and the date system was explained to me a little earlier as an inprovement to American archiving from pre-computerisation of storage, which makes sense when you think about it.

 

[Ramrunner7]

Any language evolving in different places is going to be different, but I don't think that puts them two entirely different categories.

We use different expression and so does spanish and french etc.

You would never hear the word "vosotros" outside of spain and you would never hear the word "wicked" outside of Massachusetts

 

[HentMas]

this is kind of dumb

i´m Méxican and i dont speack "Mexican" i speak "Español-Latino" (or latin-spanish, i dont know the actuall translation in english) as does "argentina" "Bolivia" and other latin-american countries

thats all i wanted to explain here

 

[Random Argument Man]

Canadian French is an abortion, and should die. Everyday, I worry my French might became, nay, might have indeed become bad already thanks to the Quebecois.

...I do hope that was sarcastic...

 

[MrShadowzs]

I SPEAK AMERICAN

 

[octafish]

I am curious because the majority of Australians, Indians and New Zealanders, who speak English too, don't seem to categorise English into 'British English' and 'Indian English' as much, despite the differences being clear and defined (Such as in India where English isn't really a well established language as most people speak primarily Hindi I believe).

Many Indians speak English actually. I'm stressing to think of a single Indian film that doesn't have every actor, even with characters from lower on the social rung, speaking a mix of Hindi and English.

As for the point, I don't think most people even make a distinction. Dialects change a few things, but that's true with all big languages. Look at the differences in Spanish between North and South America compared to Spain.

I think more Indians speak English (India's official second language) than Hindi (India's official language) because English is the language of commerce and convenience. India is full of different languages and dialects, Hindi-Urdu, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Saraiki, Punjabi, Assamese, Sindhi and Oriya, which are all influenced by Persian then those that are from an entirely differnt origin like Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam and I don't think that is all of them.

OT: I always heard "Queens English" for nice proper spoken English even if the speaker was Australian, and we have the word "Strine" to describe the broad Australian accent and the use of Australian colloquialisms. We spell everything about the same as the UK, but we have words that are anachronistic in the UK and words based on indigenous languages that proper English doesn't recognise. In my Windows language options I have English, English (Australian), and English (US). I guess they are all English.

 

[Chaos Ruler]

as a british person myself we never refer to it as british english. we just like to moan at the bastardization of our language by americans.

 

[Ghostkai]

British English?

Never ever heard that before.

It's just English. At least, it always has been known as that here.

 

[AceAngel]

There is Spanish, but we also have Italian Spanish which is essentially Spanish spoken, but with context and grammar of the Italian language changed.

We also have Venezuela, which have their own way of doing the talk...I mean literally, they change around stuff so much, I'm not sure if...ahhh!

Canadian French is an abortion, and should die. Everyday, I worry my French might became, nay, might have indeed become bad already thanks to the Quebecois.

So yeah, American English or British English both exist, depends if you want to say Color or Colour.

PS: Also, please don't debate about stuff like "Metric Systems". While I'm a user of the Metric origins and love it (Canada, woohoo, yay, crikey, etc...) leave US alone. They're entitled to their own system, as much bloody idiotic and pointlessly complicated as it is, they're still entitled to it.

What i'm curious about too is at what point it's acceptable to stop calling it "bad French" and simply consider it "Quebecois" instead, such as Mexican etc. I wasn't specifically picking on the American dialect but more on former-colonial dialects in general (including French-Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian). Focusing on the American dialect, at what point is it acceptable to simply call it American?

I don't think you ever can dry cut a language into it's own little 'work' and call it a day, you could, but it will never happen. French, English, Spanish, all these languages had an origin, and sometimes, are the father/mother language of their own selves.

Yes, we can argue that all languages are nothing more then subsets from Latin and Greek at it's core, that we should instead name English into something appropriate; Latin-Greek-English-American, but they have changed both in the grammar sense as well dialect and expression set, that they essentially have separated from their original language and origin enough, that they're only tangentially related to their previous origin.

Colonial language does not have this advantage nor benefit, since it's retaining a large system of it's original language. It's different enough to be different, but not different enough to have it own language 'word' (unless it's the bird).

Here's an example of what I mean, and I'm paraphrasing my Prof. in a half arsed quote:

"A Language, can only be an idea, expression, offset of it's original form and be called something totally different if it loses it's identity enough that people don't accept part of it's culture.

We humans only have so many ways of expressing something, and sometimes, even the slightest change in a sentence could give a totally different meaning to the idea of the sentence. If this happens enough times, if enough everyday words are changed, and enough expressions are turned then that is when a language loses it's origin and becomes something different."

So basically, Spanish and Italian are pretty similar, however, if you want to say "Day", you either say Dia or Giorno respectively, an everyday expression in which both don't match in anyway or form, plus, certain sentences in Italian essentially are spoken like Yoda when translated to English and vice versa for other sentences in Spanish.

British English and American English don't have this MASSIVE change between them, since a Good Day is a Good Day, sure we have different ways of talking and accents, but even expressions are easily translatable between the two.

So until USA or Britain decides to go Pangea on us, I would say we still have a long way to go, besides, I'm pretty sure Aliens would think we're stupid if we did that at this point.

 

[aakibar]

its english, and then there are different dialects like with any other language
English english, american english, canadian english, southern american english etc.
/thread

 

[Kurokami]

I am curious because the majority of Australians, Indians and New Zealanders, who speak English too, don't seem to categorise English into 'British English' and 'Indian English' as much, despite the differences being clear and defined (Such as in India where English isn't really a well established language as most people speak primarily Hindi I believe).

Many Indians speak English actually. I'm stressing to think of a single Indian film that doesn't have every actor, even with characters from lower on the social rung, speaking a mix of Hindi and English.

As for the point, I don't think most people even make a distinction. Dialects change a few things, but that's true with all big languages. Look at the differences in Spanish between North and South America compared to Spain.

You've watched that many Indian films? My sympathies.

 

[Pilkingtube]

this is kind of dumb

i´m Méxican and i dont speack "Mexican" i speak "Español-Latino" (or latin-spanish, i dont know the actuall translation in english) as does "argentina" "Bolivia" and other latin-american countries

thats all i wanted to explain here

My apologies, I didn't mean to offend you as much as I did. My reasoning was simply that due to the invasion and assimilation of Spanish colonists, the indigenous languages of Mexico began to mix into that of the original Spanish language, resulting in differentiation to the point where there can be significant difficulties in communication with a modern Spaniard, leading to changing the name of the language away from simply "Spanish" into "Latin-Spanish" as you call it.

Any language evolving in different places is going to be different, but I don't think that puts them two entirely different categories.

We use different expression and so does spanish and french etc.

You would never hear the word "vosotros" outside of spain and you would never hear the word "wicked" outside of Massachusetts

Rather than simply calling them two different languages simply by location, I am asking at what point languages should be seperated. Clearly people view English, German and Indian as different languages.. despite them having exactly the same original language, they grew apart over time, at what point did they begin to call themselves more than simply different dialects and more different languages?

 

[Kathinka]

I am curious because the majority of Australians, Indians and New Zealanders, who speak English too, don't seem to categorise English into 'British English' and 'Indian English' as much, despite the differences being clear and defined (Such as in India where English isn't really a well established language as most people speak primarily Hindi I believe).

Many Indians speak English actually. I'm stressing to think of a single Indian film that doesn't have every actor, even with characters from lower on the social rung, speaking a mix of Hindi and English.

As for the point, I don't think most people even make a distinction. Dialects change a few things, but that's true with all big languages. Look at the differences in Spanish between North and South America compared to Spain.

I think more Indians speak English (India's official second language) than Hindi (India's official language) because English is the language of commerce and convenience. India is full of different languages and dialects, Hindi-Urdu, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Saraiki, Punjabi, Assamese, Sindhi and Oriya, which are all influenced by Persian then those that are from an entirely differnt origin like Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam and I don't think that is all of them.

having been to india twice i'm not quite sure of that. it seemed to me that the large part of the lower class population, especially in rual places, spoke very little english, if any at all.
especially funny with some who try to impress foreigners with almost non-existing english, repeating over and over the few words or sentences or words they now, disregarding the current context^^

 

[AceAngel]

Canadian French is an abortion, and should die. Everyday, I worry my French might became, nay, might have indeed become bad already thanks to the Quebecois.

...I do hope that was sarcastic...

Yeah, I don't use "Nay" in a serious post. It's simply that I find it irritating on how people say these two languages French-French and Canadian-French are sooooo different, when the only thing different in the dialect.

I mean sure, I might say "Place Sain. Henrrie" since I had a French-French education and my friends might say "Plase Son Honry", but I can still perfectly understand them. Sorry if I made you mad mate.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Hey so i'm wondering after seeing a few comments from US citizens on this site about English grammar. When a person is Spanish and they speak Spanish, their language is called Spanish. When the Japanese speak Japanese, it is called Japanese. When the English speak English, it is called British English rather than English.

I believe there are several variations of Spanish and Japanese.

Typically, people refer to foreign versions of the language as something like 'american english' whereas the form they are used to/native to will just be 'english.' To me, English is what people in the British Isles speak (albeit with lots of variation) and American English is a bizzare form where 'trousers' become 'pants' 'arse' becomes 'fanny' or 'ass' or whatever.
I think this kind of rationalisation is pretty much universal. If you are French, then you think you speak 'French' whereas a French speaker form somewhere else will call it 'European French.' It goes with everywhere, every language.