Talk:British English/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 10 November 2001 and 24 April 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:British English/Archive02. Thank you.



Contents

General comments

Someone please check this! As an American I think of British English as any dialect in Britain (except Scots which may in fact be a separate language since it is mainly incomprehensible with English). Queen's English is what happens to one after public school has been inflicted on oneself. --rmhermen

A resident of Scotland speaking English may well use non-standard lexis and grammar and thus is speaking a British English dialect. So too a resident of Eire (Irish Republic). The page on British English British refers to it as "the different forms of English spoken in the United Kingdom." This is true but the UK is only a part of the British Isles, which includes the WHOLE of Ireland. So the entry should refer to The British isles, not the United Kingdom here. Oh yes, I also notice as I am about to submit this, that there is a warning not to submit "COPYRIGHTED" (sic) work.....oh dear!-- Freemorph

What on earth is wrong with "copyrighted"? -- Picapica 09:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The British Isles doesn't include any of Ireland. The UK consists of Great Britain (the British Isles) and northan Ireland.

That is an unresolved political issue - I too regard the whole of Ireland as rightfully part of the UK, and I'm not ethnically English either.
Scots English IS a distinct language from English, and always has been - it's just as old as English too.
macdaddy

That's not true. Scots didn't become a distinct concept until the 16th century, evolving mainly from Northumbrian Middle English Calgacus 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to get a purile here, but this the above really isn't so. Scots English is dialect like Geordie or indeed RP. I think your getting your politics mixed up with your linguistics.

The British Isles doesn't include any of Ireland - not so. See British Isles. Andy G 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some people do learn the Queen's English that way, but for most upper-class Britons, it's their native language, and they don't need to learn it at school, public or otherwise. As for the different dialects within Britain, I'm sure that you would find Geordie, Yorkshire or West Country just as difficult to understand as Scots. Most RP speakers certainly do. -- Derek Ross

And what is Received Pronunciation? (Shows up on the rhotic page) --rmhermen

The term Britons, at least for most British people is fairly obsolete. It is generally only used in conection with the word ancient. This is possibly reinforced by the Monty Python sketch which inludes, "Who are the Britons?" British people use the term British people.

The word Briton has strong historical connotations, and suggests Welsh person. Calgacus 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation is the accent of the Home Counties of England. It's also the BBC's preferred pronunciation. An RP speaker is normally thought of as someone who speaks the Queen's English with a Home Counties accent. -- Derek Ross

True. The name RP is outdated, and patronising. My received pronunciation is quite differnet to any "Geoffrey" from "Sassix". It should be renamed Posh English - 'cos I think even the term "Home counties" is elitest.

macdaddy

(Question for Brits: is the two-syllable form "learned" still used to mean "educated" in BrE??)

Yes it is, although not often.

Its most often heard in Parliament: When an MP addresses another in the house of commons, and the addressee is a barrister, the correct form of address is "My learned friend"

Oh, and we'll cheerfully use "fucking" as an adjective. "Bloody" is considerably milder, "this damn car" = "this bloody car"

Few people say "damn" - usually middle-class suburban old farts. more colloquial ones are: "sodding, bastard, shitting, cunting, and of course fucking and bloody." aaah the joy of swearing!

macdaddy

I have never seen the word "bank" spelt "banque" here in the UK; although all this changed when I went to France! Does anyone have another example of this kind of spelling we can replace this with?

No. There aren't any (he boldly asserts). I've moved "cheque" vs "check" into the miscellany.

I'll agree with both of the above points: I think 'learned' is usually writen 'learnèd', to put emphasis on the pronounciation, and I've never seen bank spelt banque either. I'm not sure about the fitted, forecasted, knitted, lighted, wedded bit, either. Lit, wed, forecast are British English too, but I'm not entirely sure about the context.

Archeology, encyclopedia and medieval are also highly acceptable variants in British English, almost preferred; upwards would be only preferred to upward. I'd personally also write 'skillful', not skilful; 'argument' not arguement, 'jail' not gaol.

NO WAY! NO BRITISH PEOPLE SPELL ARCHAEOLOGY, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OR MEDIAEVAL LIKE THAT UNLESS THEY'RE ILLITERATE! AND "ARGUEMENT" IS NOT A CORRECT SPELLING IN ANY DIALECT... HENCE, I DON'T THINK YOU GOT AN A IN YOUR ENGLISH GCSE! MACDADDY

The list should be split into cases where there are additional British English words and where the words aren't understood. Balls is perfectly unacceptable, whilst Dialling Code, fag, lorry, lounge, pissed, pudding, randy, ring someone and shag are all just alternatives... the american words are acceptable too. 'Concession' generally refers to a reduction for certain people (old people, kids... generally classed as 'concessions'), where as a discount is general. I think I'm right in saying 'tube' would just refer to the London Underground. -- almost but not quite: see The Tube. sjc

WHAT ARE YOU WHITTERING ON ABOUT?! MACDADDY

I think the most important thing to say is that American English and British English are growing together. With the world spanning media, within a few hundred years there will be no American English or British English - there will be only English. (Hell, by that time, there might only be one global language.)

BOLLOCKS! MACDADDY

-- I disagree strongly with your theory of convergence of language. English and American are becoming different languages by slow and sure degree. Also, if history teaches us anything, it is that languages are strongly culturally based entities, and that meaning will never ever be truly global. I (and most British people I know who are literate) would never write archaeology, encyclopaedia, or mediaeval in the fashion you indicate above. sjc

Whether you disagree or not, it's still true. Since the advent of the mass media British English has become more and more similar to American English in line with our culture which is doing the same. The whole western world is becoming Americanised. This may or may not be a good thing. But it's true. I myself would certainly spell the word above 'ae' but i would often use center and color (unless it was in an exam or something) and i freely interchange different spellings where appropriate.

And frankly, it is this kind of slackness in the use of language which debases it. Language is like currency: bad usage and spelling drives out good. If you are English you should use the orthodox spelling and not resort to the incorrect. In France the Academie des Belles Lettres would be down on this like a ton of bricks. sjc

YOU ARE A QUEER CHAP AREN'T YOU! MACDADDY


I recall reading a book by Mario Pei written in about 1950 which said that American English and British English had been converging for about a century, due to improved global communications. Presumably the rate of change of langauges is sufficiently small that even relatively small amounts of intercommunication are enough to prevent dialects drifting apart. --Zundark

The improved global communications hypothesis is an interesting one, but actually is underdetermined by the physical evidence. In 1978, Robert Burchfield, chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionaries made a speech in Chicago in which he thought that on the balance of all the evidence available that 'British' English and American English were moving so far apart and so inexorably that in 200 years they would be mutually unintelligible. This did not go down too well with the convergence theorists at the time. But in the last thirty years or so, that gap which Burchfield predicted between the implementations of the languages has actually widened by a great deal. Usage has changed significantly on both sides of the language. American English has considerably more Hispanic loan words now than thirty years ago; it has changed grammatically; it forms verbs from nouns more easily; it is altogether a more flexible language than 'British' English.

I think the confusuion here stems from the fact that the majority of the population of the UK do not speak 'British English' as it is defined here. We speak what could be considered American English with a English/Scottish/Irish accent. We form verbs from nouns, i.e. Text has been officially changed to a verb recently. And speak in a grammaticallt similar way. I think the American perception of the British is of people such as the Royal Family and 'well spoken' people such as Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley who do in fact speak 'British English' though these people form a small percentage of the population.

The real worry, however, from my point of view is not that the languages will diverge but that they will become one homogenous grey mess... sjc

But what about the Internet? What about globalisation? The next thirty years are going to be very different from the last thirty. And even if they continue to diverge, so long as the whole world watches Hollywood movies they will still be mutually intelligible. -- Simon J Kissane

The Internet will ultimately accentuate divergence more than ever before, and the prime movers will fight tooth and nail to protect their own particular implementations since they recognise that language is a key feature of self and cultural definition. Certainly the future of English as the dominant language itself is not unconditionally guaranteed. It is by no means a rational language and it is not easy for novitiates to acquire. Grammar, and usage are only to a certain extent ever going to be determined by minor cultural epiphenomena such as 'movies'. sjc

I didn't want to get involved in this rather silly debate, but I can't imagine anything I disagree with more than the above statement. The more the "prime movers" you mention want to protect their uniqueness, the more it will become apparent that they are completely impotent to affect the real users of language--you and me and the kid in the drive-through at MacDonalds, who just want to watch TV, buy stuff, and do all the other ordinary business of life that will cause us to do whatever it takes to commuicate. Nobody in the real world cares--or should care--about authority or purity in language. Language is a tool of the common man, and it will bow to what what people actually need and use to get their work done. If a Brit needs to know what "que pasa" means to understand an American sitcom, he will. If Americans need to know what "knickers" are to understand a British one, they will. Both will make it into dictionaries on both sides, and whichever new coinages are most useful will spread to the point where we won't even remember where they came from, just as most Americans have not the faintest clue that "bread" as a slang for money came from Cockney rhyming slang. "Educated" users of the language should strive for clarity and precision, but they still have to use the language that their audience will understand; they just have to use it more carefully. But they don't get to define it--their audience does. --Lee Daniel Crocker

There is nothing silly concerning this debate about language whatsoever. As The Blessed William Burroughs once opined: 'Language is a virus'. These 'real' users of language you seem to advocate do not do whatever it takes to communicate: the preponderance of this putative polis are barely articulate, let alone literate (current estimates suggest that fewer than 5% of the US population read books). My native language (see Cornish language) was systematically suppressed over four hundred years and has been brought back from extinction by people who care about language, meaning and culture; if language was a matter of life and death for my forebears, then so it is for me. Let me state this one time unequivocably: languages do not converge, they diverge. The only way in which two disparate languages can possibly merge is by absorption which is not at all the same thing as convergence, and this can only be brought about by the sort of expedients mocked so effectively in George Orwell's 1984.

The arguments about lexical equivalents are entirely consistent with the sort of arguments levelled at Burchfield 30-odd years ago, and it seems that the convergent hypothesis has apparently got no further in the intervening timespan. Never have languages converged in the history of humanity: what makes you think they will now? The Internet? In twenty years, let alone two hundred years time, the Internet will not exist in its present form. sjc

--- Found a resource on Cockney slang, but it's copyrighted: http://www.byrne.dircon.co.uk/cockney/cockney3.htm. It's on my todo list to request permission to add the info to the Wikipedia. <>< tbc

--- On the subject of the terms 'Underground' and 'Tube' British people use these terms specifically to refer to The London Underground in London and would not normally refer to other underground transit systems as such. I am British and i wouldn't for example refer to the New York subway as the underground or the tube, i'd just call it the subway and i'd call the subway in Paris the Metro because that's what it's called. Am i making any sense? - JamieTheFoool

But what term would you use for an underground railway system in general, as opposed to a particular one? A subway? -- Simon J Kissane
Yes, a subway - JamieTheFoool
But your usage certainly isn't universal. A subway is a pedestrian passage under a road. I would refer to the New York underground as the New York underground, unless I was speaking to an American. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 14
Well, Australians like me call it what the Americans do -- we say subway, not underground. We also pedestrian passages under roads subways as well. So obviously that is an example of a case where Australian English is closer to American than British. -- Simon J Kissane
I disagree. Outside Sydney, underground railways don't really have a name in Australia (in Melbourne the underground railway is usually called "the loop", and the rest of the system is usually referred to as "the train"). Using "subway" as a canonical example of where Australian English is closer to American English is not a particularly good choice. -- Robert Merkel
Well, the cannonical example would have to be truck vs. lorry. But anyhow, I grew up in Melbourne, and I have always called it a subway. The Melbourne subway may be nicknamed the loop, but what it is is a subway. Just as that human over there is called John, but what John is is a human, not a John. -- Simon J Kissane
I would not be so sure. In the UK underground passages under road have always been called subways.

ALSO: The Tube = London Underground minus The Bank to Waterloo Line, Docklands Light Railway, etc. London Underground = All the lines now and historically controlled by London Underground Limited inclusive often of few primarily overground lines such as Docklands Light Railway. The Tube and London Underground, or even 'the underground', are not coterminous. sjc

I am British and have lived all my life in Britain and from this perspective (rather than an interpretation of the phrase from outside the country) I would agree with an earlier comment on this Talk page that British-English is not the same as Received Pronounciation (RP). I would use British-English (or more often English-English, somewhat argumentatively) to differentiate the usage of words from, say American-English (or, again, what I might, somewhat pointedly call American).

RP refers to the way that the language sounds when spoken. To my mind British English characterises things like spelling, e.g. tyre instead of tire or expressions, e.g. queue instead of wait in line and whole rafts of other differences and confusions in terms of meaning and usage, e.g. pants instead of pants.

I think the issue is complicated by the fact that the other 'dialects' mentioned in the article might include Scouse or Geordie or other regional uses of British English which are characterised by both particular word use and particular pronounciation. It should also perhaps be noted that Scotland and Wales actually have 'their own' languages. Although Gaelic may not be widely spoken, Welsh certainly is. The issue of the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland probably opens too many cans of worms to even mention....oops...I just did...

Anyway, I'm not sure what the best approach is here, but I do feel that the article as it stands is somewhat misleading or at least fudges the issue. -- Mazzy

It is difficult. I too am British and have lived in Britain all my life. I just don't like the term British English which seems to me to be a term used by people from other countries to denote a non-existent linguistic homogeneity within Britain. Scots, Geordie, Kent and West Country dialects are extremely different. That's why I'd rather title the article English in Britain. However like it or not overseas English speakers do think of an entity which they call British English so we need an article on it.

Yup, I think you're right. -- Mazzy

100% True. When they say "British English", they mean "English English" - it certainly isn't spoken like that in Scotland, Wales or Ireland!

As for RP, that's why I referred to it above as an accent rather than as a dialect. I normally use the terms Standard English or the Queen's English to describe the dialect, often spoken using the RP, which overseas English speakers think of as British English. It seems that you have a different slant on it.

As for fudging things, if you think that, try rewriting the offending parts and see what others think. -- Derek Ross

Okay, I'll maybe take a little time to gird my loins and check the lie of the land. It's a big subject, perhaps I'll wait and see how things settle and then plunge in some time with my tuppence. Having spent the past few years trying to learn American off native-speakers (mainly online) I think any suggestion (as earlier on this page) that the languages have converged to any linguistic identity is a gross simplification & over-optimistic/pessimistic (depending upon your viewpoint of that end-result). Just try catching up an American and see how long it takes the two of you to figure out who was ahead in the first place (the phrase opperates entirely differnt in British English and American English. -- Mazzy
Well I've leapt in and added a paragraph about London accents, since I get the impression some outsiders think h-dropping is standard British. Perhaps I should have specifically mentioned h-dropping. Also, I've added something under the written language saying that it's basically the same in all English-speaking countries. I think these two points are where convergence and divergence come in. The written language will remain uniform, possibly being preserved like Latin or Arabic over the centuries, and films will ensure there's a continual sharing of new words; but the actual pronunciation will diverge as fast as it ever has in any other language. I often literally can't understand children who used the newest London variety. I think London speech is undergoing very fast change. Gritchka

Just testing... do we have an article on Estuary English? -- Tarquin 20:01 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

"t" dropping is standard English only a minority say "worta", most people say "wor'uh", (wiv a gloal stop like!), and Americans say "waadr".

Is it correct to say that New Zealand English contains many words from Maori? There are many place and bird names from the Maori language used, but I've heard of very few everyday words from Maori being used in everyday English.

I'm not sure how many, but my godfather was born in New Zealand, and he refers to whites (as opposed to any other race) pakeha, which is the Maori word for a Westerner or European. He uses that word as a matter of course - I've even heard it used when he's contrasting, for instance, whites and American blacks; he doesn't even have to be talking about Maori people. thefamouseccles 23:16 08 Oct 2003 (UTC)

New Zealand English does contain some references to Maori, but very few are used colloqiually. Most efforts to integrate Maori into everyday life are part of government awareness schemes and are generally ignored by European New Zealanders (pakeha). A few slang words ("ehoa" used where an english person might use "oi", originally meant "friend", "hamu" for a scrounge, "tutu" for someone who fiddles too much, "nono" for rear end etc) are often picked up in the course of young education, where some exposure to Maori is mandatory, but amongst the white population, these commonly become pejorative during late teens. Chargedphoton 209 (internet time)

Kiwi = Posh Australian! (fosh and chops etc...!) I would expect some parity with the US-Canadian relationship - especially as like Canada, NZ was largely peopled by Scots at first.

macdaddy

"Due to the combined effect of the wide reach of US media and American insularity, knowledge of American English in Britain is more common than the reverse." (my emphasis) - I think if I were American I might be a little offended by the unqualified assertion that I was insular; it certainly doesn't seem necessary to explain this particular asymmetry. --Shaydon 18:53 31 May 2003 (UTC)

as an American I find it a fair description, but certainly the important part of the sentence is the second part. Let's not lose that. Rmhermen 19:02 31 May 2003 (UTC)

It's still there I think. I'm a bit prone to ponderous phrasing - maybe it should be as it was with a link to a new article explaining American insularity. Maybe not... Shaydon 19:54 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I do notice, and get annoyed by people saying "fill out" instead of "fill in" - but actually, I think this comes from Australian influence more than US influence - at one point there were about 9 Australian Soap Operas on in the UK. The UK and Australia are arguably as culturally close as USA and Canada; loads of people migrating and holidaying in both, and a healthy interchange of TV (rather than the less healthy relationship with America).

macdaddy

Just a quick note - "Pidgin English" (or Tok Pisin) is not a dialect of English, but a creole language based upon it. The grammar is quite different, even though an English speaker can understand many of the words. Pidgin English doesn't distinguish singular and plural, does distinguish inclusive (yumi) and exclusive (mipela) first person plural pronouns (compare Fred i bin singautim yumi long pati Fred invited us (including you) to the party and Fred i bin singautim mipela long pati Fred invited us (but not you) to the party), and there is a transitive verb forming suffix -im which, for instance, can distinguish em i rit he is reading from em i ritim buk he is reading a book. Saying that Tok Pisin is a dialect of English is like saying that Afrikaans is a dialect of Dutch. thefamouseccles 23:29 08 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Pidgin English is actually a Pidgin language - i.e. a predecessor of creoles - but no pidgin is in fact a creole.

I believe it's called "Tok Pisin" in Papua New Guinea (or Ripablik belong Papua Niu Gini as they call it)

macdaddy This entry is offensive to British and English people. The term "British-English" is a derogatory term invented by Americans who wish to imply or even state overtly that their dialect is legitimately called "English", the correct name for American-English is not English, it is a dialect of English, but it is not English. To use the term British English - as exists on computers is to imply a. that English is a dialect of American English: denegrating this mythical language; and b. subserviency. It's tantamount to cultural theft - like the way American films are made to lay claim to parts of British history as if they were done by the Americans: the cheek! I actually want to go further - to insist that in all the code, the term "EN" refers only to the English of England - i.e. Standard English. The Americans can have "AM-EN".

Any native British person (like myself) will tell you that they do not speak "British-English" we speak English, and Americans do not speak English, they speak American-English. It's like Brazil turning to Portugal and saying "we speak Portuguese, and you speak Lusitanian-Portuguese"; it's derogatory, offensive; and blatently about power. Or the same with Quebec and France, Mexico and Spain, Afrikaaner South Africa and Holland. The truth is that there is no such thing as "British English" - there is not one English that applies to the whole of the British Isles. There are several layers of distinction, by nation (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, England), and then by region. And it should be added that English dialects within Britain are far more divergant than those of America or anywhere else. (If you've ever seen a Geordie, an East Londoner, a Scouser, a Brummie, a Bristolian, a Tyke, a Dubliner, an Orcadian, an Ulsterman, and a Glasweigan having an argument, you'd swear down they were speaking different languages.) At no point is there ever the distinction of "British English".

I'm serious, I want the heading "British English" removed. It's not only false, it's offensive.

JACK, YORK, ENGLAND, GREAT BRITAIN,

PS: And as for the article below by Simon J Kissane, that's wrong too. a. Those who adopt Americanisms are predominantly middle-class university brats. b. In fact, the tide of the flow of words and grammar across the Atlantic has turned: Americans are adopting British-derived words and grammar: words like "whinge" for instance, and even the Hip-hop culture has decided to use "Alright" and start replacing their "d" sounding "t" with our famous glottal stop. PPS: In response to the points by Daniel Lee Crooker: We should care about the lack of national pride in supporting our own language, the way Channel 4 just shows wall-to-wall American TV, the way so-called new British movies distort the language by making British actors talk in an overtly American and UnBritish way. We have every bit as much ability to produce quality media and export our culture and language across the world aggressively - British people should have a little more pride instead of just wanting to be subsumed into either American or Globalised Euro-culture. Don't let you kids watch the plethora of cartoons which only have american accents on them, don't watch the tedious formulaic american garbage - boycott it. When we do make our own stuff it is often a superior product, and we need to send a clear message to the media warlords in our own country that we want it to predominate, instead of us becoming a faded Greece to America's imperial Rome.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A CLEAR CONCENSUS THAT THIS ARTICLE, AND IT'S TITLE ARE UNSATISFACTORY... (THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRY IN SUPPORT OF THE TERM "BRITISH ENGLISH", AND PLENTY AGAINST... HOW CAN WE CHANGE THIS ARTICLE? MACDADDY ____________________________________________________________________

It should be made clear that while Cornwall is officially a county of England. It is also a Duchy, and an ethnically distinct Celtic nation, with its own language, which is autochthonous like Welsh. While the article contains the term "Cornwall" when refering to dialects of English within England, it should be made clear that Cornwall (& Devon) does not have the same status as somewhere like Kent or Shropshire. And a link should be provided for those interested to pursue. The term Corno-English might be appropriate, if we are going to advertise terms like "Hiberno-English".

Geography

Can anyone draw up a rough map of the distribution of the dialects? I think this could really help non-Brits to understand what the article is all about. Kokiri 18:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree that this would be very informative. --snoyes 18:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm doing this right now!!! 8) (ricjl 15:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • Done. Any thoughts? SHould it not be thuimnailed... I dunno. (ricjl 16:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))

This article was very confused between the UK / Great Britain / the British Isles. I've changed it so that "British" uniformly means the British Isles. However, it may be that "British" should mean Great Britain. Hence a separate page for Hiberno-English. But I don't see why Irish English should be distinct while Scottish English should not. And there are Irish (ROI) contributuions to the British English articles.

  • British means UK. I'll give you a tenner (that's £10 =] 0 if you can find an irishman who would call themselves British! (ricjl 15:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))


There's plenty up North, mate. The one's down south are more part of the English cultural world than the Scots anyway! Find me a Jock, a Taffy or a whatever Cornish people are who tells you they're English, and I'll give you a pony (Cockney monetary unit)!

Anyway, Scots English is actually a seperate language from Inglis (Scots for English)!

macdaddy

Canadian English

Also, come to that, why is Canadian English listed as a "Major English Dialect" when it is surely far less different from US-American English than Scottish English is from English English?

Confused : Andy G 20:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Canadian = posh American! (it's inbetween Am-En and English/Scottish English IMO.)

Macdaddy

Which of these is correct??

  1. As several decades go by, American English and British English get more differences.
  2. As several decades go by, American English and British English get fewer differences.

66.245.7.158 22:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The former, I feel; AE seems to be becoming yet more lax in its rules, yet more rapidly. But then, what BE is and what is understood by those who speak BE is increasingly diverging to the compliment of AE, perhaps.
James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This needs to be properly researched. Unless any of us is a language graduate I don't think it's a good idea to make statements like this (also the grammer in the 'later' is way off!!!) (ricjl 11:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • I'm no language graduate, but I will be (currently studying linguistics at uni), and ricjl is right, it's probably not a good idea to make a definitive statement one way or the other. While it is a well-known fact that geographically separated languages become increasingly divergent, and that this has occurred between British and American English in the past few centuries, the advent of mass communication has caused them to exchange features and become more similar in certain respects. It would be best to not definitively say that the languages are converging or diverging, as it seems the jury is still out on this one. Livajo 11:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neither. "...get more/fewer differences" is not any kind of English, while "As several decades go by" is unlikely English. I would suggest "The differences between AE and BE have increased/decreased in recent decades".
"grammer"? / "best to not definitively say"? - surely (as we BE-speakers would say), this must be a "wind up" (in Estuary: you're 'avin' a laugh, aincha?) -- Picapica 09:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One wasn't going to comment on the correctitude or otherwise of the submitter's syntax, merely semantics :-)
James F. (talk) 13:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know: that was a bit of a sly dig, James -- but I couldn't resist it :-) -- Picapica 17:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

STILL, whoever wrote that question was not a native speaker, as neither makes proper sense; nor is it natural English.

Vocab from the British Isles is increasingly finding its way into the US lexicon. "Correctitude" is not a word - it sounds like a Bushism!

Oh, but it is :)

Map

I like the idea of a map, and congrats to ricjl for making one. I do think it's perhaps a little crowded though, perhaps a map with colour shading actually on the map rather than big labels would be better. Mintguy (T)

The map that's on the page at the moment isn't massively accurate. This should prolly be discussed at the image's Talk: page, where I've started the discussion. If Photoshop worked on my PC at home, I'd have a stab at a better version (especially as half of England appears to be without accent), but it don't, so I won't… ;o) — OwenBlacker 16:59, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

there is a part of Britain called the "East Midlands" where people don't really have a particular accent - it's more like a watered down mix of East Anglian, RP (or Posh English), and Esturine English.

Mank (Manchester) is also not quite the same as Lancastrian - the dialect north of Manchester. Cumbria has it's own weird gargly drone, and Ireland has more than just two accents. Northeast Wales' and IoM English is like Scouse. The English near the Forest of Dean (The West Country) sounds like American, and is quite distinct from Cornish English and Somerset English. Likewise North Yorkshire English (especially in York) is different from urban South and West Yorkshire English (Tyke) - I know - 'cos I commute between the two. East Yorkshire (Hull) also has it's own distinct twang. There's also a difference between Newcastle Geordie, and the Tees area accent - which is softer and more aspirated. Interesting to note that most dialects in Britain and Ireland are not only based around smallish concentrated areas - like a city, but there's also a rural-urban divide. Imagine taking the train from Liverpool to Darlington: you'll pass through 5 different distinct accents in just over 1 hour! Scouse (Irish Sea southern coast, very distinctive), Mank (Southern Lancshire, somewhere inbetween Scouse and Tyke), Tyke (Urban S&W Yorkshire, very distinctive: own vocabulary), and then Yorkie (Rural North Yorkshire, softer and more nasal than Tyke with some different vocab), Cleveland or Tees (very distinct from Yorkshire, soft aspirated).

macdaddy


Umm the area you seem to refer to is Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbysshire, Liecestershire and Cambridgeshire. Contrary to your inaacurate opinion, all thoses counties have distinct dialects:

For Lincolnshire try http://www.lincolnshirecam.co.uk/dialect.htm or try 'A Lincolnshire Dialect Dictionary" by JM Sims-Kimbrey, ISBN 0 902662 68 6'. Wragby Resource Centre even does courses in Lincolnshire Dialect.

Cant speak for the other counties, they are all foriegners...........

Lincolnshire Poacher

Page move

This has just been moved from British English to British English language; I think this is a mistake, as it's not a language, but a set of dialects/accents/&c..
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 11:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are no other definitions (that I know of) of "British English". If there were perhaps appending language onto the end may be appropriate but I seriously think this should be moved back. I've not seen any discussion of this and, though we are encouraged "to be bold" I think this is a bit too much of an opinionated change. I'm now looking to see if User:Gilgamesh changes the other (related) articles and the template. violet/riga (t) 11:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The entry "British English" should be changed to a stub saying "There is no such thing as British English, it is an erroneous, and derogatory term for English as spoken in England, please search for Standard English, the language of England, or Dialects of English in the British Isles.

Macdaddy

PS> They should also remove this on the grounds that it is not a referenced entry - just a copy and paste entry from a old book. How do you challenge authenticity of articles?! I've tried editing it, but it just returns it to normal!

Bonepicking

This hasn't been addressed elsewhere, other than where I had on a couple other sites. I despise the Commonwealth, and to a lesser degree American, corruption of the simple and basic verb "have" into a meaningless and nonsensical phrase "have got". Although it may look like and be used as a hybrid of two straight sayings, it doesn't work. I want to strangle the cretins Jamie Oliver and Steve Irwin for their abusive language. There is no excuse for that, and I demand the explanation. Of course, the former region instigated, or enabled, this by the longstanding corruption of the past participle from gotten to got, for no reason, but this is no excuse. I want an explanation for that too. CwE moreover has been taking in too much Latin, or Latish, whilst AE too much Spanish, or Hispanic. I've been trying to withdraw from these needless wordly insteppings and if I ever get my own website will rally for a sheerer (purer for ye Latish slaves) English. lysdexia 08:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"have got" is totally natural English in England. I (as a native English speaker from England) absolutely despise the nauseating unnatural overuse of the word "have" by American-English speakers. Having said that I agree with the strangling of Jamie Oliver - I nominate his bete noir Mark Lamarr to do it.

Macdaddy.

Where I come from, to say "I have a pen" is completely natural. To say, "I have got a pen" is not. Whereas saying "I've a pen" is not natural and saying "I've got a pen" is. 80.229.14.246


They should move it to "English English". See my article below, no.13. Or perhaps someone has a better suggestion. But let us English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Northern Irish pull together and sort this out.

International English

I just did a light copy edit of the article, and I deleted that British English is often regarded as International English. I'm not saying it isn't, but I've never heard of this before. It should probably be referenced. I also moved the map and reduced it in size slightly as it seemed to be having trouble loading at 300 px. Slim 04:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Examples of "International English" meaning approximately "British English"

I have returned the "International English" references on the basis of the following:

The new Microsoft Office 2003 integrations to Microsoft CRM will be available in both American and International English in August. [1]

Languages Supported: US English, International English, Basque, Simplified Chinese, ... [2]

Constant shifts between U.S. and International English spelling could do just that. [3] (Other examples on this page of this usage.)

Harry Potter was written in English, but in what is known as "British" or "International" English, as opposed to the American English spoken in the United States. [4]

My site is written in 'International English'. I'm reasonably happy with my keyword ranking (no 1 for one keyword, no 13 for a second).
Many of my keywords end in '..ise', '..ised', or '..isation'. An American user would be unlikely to find my site, because they would use the American English spellings of '..ize', '..ized', or '..ization' when searching in Google. [5]

(Choice of video messages in "International English", "American English", and "Spanish".) [6]

But if somebody contributes a British (rather, international) English variant, what's the problem with maintaining this also? [7]

I had originally downloaded the international english version, so i figured i should try the north american english version. [8]

For this reason, only Microsoft Office 97 Professional Edition for Windows is released as a separate "International English" version. All other differences between the U.S. English and the International English versions are behavioral differences that are based on the settings in the Regional Settings control panel for the system. [9] (Here Microsoft is moving away from earlier software which distinguished only between U.S. English and "International English" meaning essentially British English.)

The standard English of India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Commonwealth and some other countries where English is used follows the conventions of British English. It is often therefore called International English to distinguish it from American English. ... There are enough differences between American English and British or International English that many books, including Bibles, are produced in an "American" edition and a "British" or "International" edition. [10]

These are examples I found with some quick Googling. The last one might do as a general reference in the article, if one is actually needed. I would prefer something more authoritative, commenting on this usage rather than simply exhibiting it. But the use of International English to mean approximately British English, particularly in respect to spelling, is not uncommon, although confusing. See International English for discussion of two uses of this term.

Jallan 21:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jallan, thanks for sending these references. However, I don't find them authoratitive or relevant. The Microsoft references don't say that Interational English is regarded as British English. They simply say there is, on the one hand, American, and on the other hand International. No mention of British. The website about Harry Potter that is run by a fan is not a good source. And your comment that, e.g. Canadian English is based on British English is not correct. It has much more in common with American English. Some newspapers (the ones that follow Canadian Press) follow some, but not all, British English spellings. But all punctuation and syntax, most of the vocabulary, and much of the spelling is American.

Could you please find an authoritative source that says International English means British English if that claim is to stay in the article? Sorry to be a pain, but I haven't seen this claim before. Also, other Wikipedia articles can't be used as references. References do have to be external and reputable. Are there any reputable International English dictionaries that make the same claim? Slim 22:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, I removed the claim that International English is British English. If you want to reinsert it, could you please find a reputable, authoritative reference? Slim 00:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Language Change

Hello,

I am doing an A-Level product regarding the change in language of cookbooks. I am looking at Mrs. Beeton, Fanny Cradock and Jamie Oliver.

Would any one be willing to give their opinions on this?

Do you think language has changed - if so why? Which author appeals to you and why?

Thank you very much.

Natalie Edwards nataliesarahedwards@yahoo.co.uk

Encylopaedia Britannica

Hi Gene, I reverted your edit saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica was an American publication retaining only a few Britishisms for flavor, because you didn't say what you meant and provided no reference. Also, you wrote in AE though the rest of the text is in BE. Could you provide a reference please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 07:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

English not British

Ok, I find this article racially offensive.

Lets get this clear , for the benefit of the rest of the world, and then we can edit this article to remove all the offensive references.

The United Kingdom consists of fours countires - England, populated by a racial and national group called the English, Scotland, populated by Scots, Wales, populated by the Welsh, and Ireland, populated by the Irish.

Only the English speak English. We invented the language. Note that. Not the Americans, the English. The Scots, the Welsh and the Irish all officially speak Gelic, in there own variants, but they also speak out language, English.

The phrase 'British' is a political category that means nothing. There is no racial group that currently calls itself 'The British' and no country that is the homeland of the 'British'. Anyone can become British. All you have to do is successfully obtain a 'British' passport from a United Kingdom Embassy. On the other hand, you can only be English, or Scottish, or Irish, or Welsh by being born in that country.

SO, in the interests of not inflaming us, kindly do not call us, any of us, British.

We, the English, took our language to the undiscovered country now called the USA, and left it there, during which those persons developed a variant, American English. The implication by Microsoft that OUR language as spoken by us is a variant of American English is highly offensive, and quite frankly a damn arrogant cheek. We originated this language, and treating us like intruders into our own language is a bloody liberty.

Neither is International English the same as English English, thats just another bodged variant designed to make Europeans feel smug.

SO lets remove all the references to British and replace them with 'English' or 'Gaelic', eh ?

Lincolnshire Poacher (whos speaks Lincolnshire English)

Actually, the concept of Britain predates that of England, Scotland or Wales, at least in the sense of 'the Kingdoms of Britain' which were of pre-Roman, Celtic origin. While this is of course of little linguistic importance I feel it should be noted.

'British English' as a orthographical rather than a phonetic record most definitely does exist, moreover. The conventions which govern spelling in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the R.O.I. are for the most part identical. The term British English does I feel also have an appropriate application as a blanket term for the dialects of the British Isles; while it may be a little indelicate from an Irish perspective it certainly is used in such a way.

Your claim that English somehow belongs to England or that 'we invented the language' is of such massive narrow minded idiocy that I'm not even going to bother correcting you.

Map

I also notice that you seem to think Lincolnshire is part of Yorkshire, in the map on the top right of the article.

Can we please edit this and correct this further calumny against my homeland please? For a start, they were Roundheads and we were Royalists.............and weere not as mean as Yorkshiremen either...........

Lincolnshire Poacher

Scottish clarity

The article contains the statement "English spoken with a Scottish accent has a reputation for being especially easy to understand." Can this be true? I'd say that among people who speak English natively the opposite is true. Hardwick 18:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think so, you go to Glasgow and talk to a few people, I bet you wont understand one word in ten. Listen to Billy Connolly in his early years, when he was going round folk clubs, theres still stuff I cant understand after listeneing to these tapes for 30 years........I suggest we remove this statement.Lincolnshire Poacher


I have removed the statement, as no one objected. Lincolnshire Poacher 08:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should never be called "British English".

This language "English", originally the language of the people of England, and ought not properly to be called "British English" by anyone with even the most basic grasp of the history of these Isles.

Like others on this page, I find this label both inaccurate and offensive.

It is inaccurate because English comes from England and not from Great Britain. It is inaccurate because it creates the altogether false impression that there is a homogenous type of English spoken throughout Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, which may be conveniently labelled as "British".

It is offensive because using this label shows a complete disreagrd for the fact that the original language of the Welsh people is Welsh, and the fact that the original language of the Scottish is Scottish Gaelic. It is offensive because English, to Scottish, Welsh and many Northern Irish people, is the language of those who conquered them and endeavoured to extinguish their respective native languages and cultures. It is offensive because there are strong independence movements Scotland and Wales, not to mention in Northern Ireland, and as a label it promotes a linguistic unity where in real life there is none. It is offensive because "British" is only used in these places where the adjectives "Scottish", "Welsh", "Northern Ireland" or "English" would be wrong, for example, a foreigner applies for a British visa because we only have one unified Embassy, but when did you last see the British football team play?

Since the popularity of Mr Gates' products necessitate such divisive labelling then I advocate that the content on our versions of this language be relocated to pages named "Welsh English", "Scottish English", "Irish English" and "English English", with a link to those pages from the former "British English" page. (I didn't employ a comma ',' after the last item in my list. That is not a grammatical error, it is a feature of English English). If those people who are in charge of these pages have any respect for Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English people then this misnomer must be abandoned.




Well, I having just re-read the article I note that it says "The broader use refers to the language of the entirety of the United Kingdom.". Nonsense! Absolute nonsense! English is the language of ENGLAND, there's a little clue in the name that gives it away ;)


The 'original' language of Scotland (original from what point?) would in fact predate gaelic by several thousand years, Scots gaelic being derived from the tribe which colonised Scotland from what we now consider to be Ireland, namely the Scotti. In more recent history Scotland has been linguistically divided into three, with English being spoken in the lowlands, Scots (which may or may not be considered a dialect of English; it certainly shares many syntactic links with English - see the poetry of R. Burns) being spoken in Lanarkshire and the Lothians up towards Perthshire, and Gaelic which was spoken in the highlands. Until the 1600s a language very closely related to Norse was spoken on Orkney and Shetland, and a dialect called 'Doric' continues to be spoken in the Aberdeenshire area which retains Norse features, as well as displaying Gaelic influences.

My point is this: if it is so difficult to establish an 'original' language for Scotland (which you so confidently postulate above), how can you then claim that even the term English English, Scottish English etc is appropriate for the description of the vast number of dialects which exist even within these national sub-groups? British English as a term is useful in that it provides a blanket term for the orthographical conventions used in Britain where English is being written down. 'English English', 'Scottish English' and 'Welsh English' are diminishingly different from each other in terms of orthography. Your assertion that British English 'promotes a linguistic unity where in real life there is none' is plainly ridiculous. While Welsh is spoken by 20% of people living in Wales, English is spoken by all of them; less than one percent of Scots speak Gaelic as a first language; Mandarin is spoken by more people living in Northern Ireland than Irish Gaelic. You are applying political opinions to a linguistic situation with misleading and comically incorrect results.

Gaelic is the original (in its proper sense) language of Scotland, although not the first or only one. That's just like England with English, where several languages were spoken in the area before the coming of English. But both languages are "original" because the speakers of each language (Gaelic & English) gave their name to each country Calgacus 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)