# American English...no "true" version



## aigle491

If you think about it...there is no one version of the American English language. Back when all of the Irish the French the Dutch the Chinese all came here, they all came in one area of America. They did not know English so they mixed up their own language with English. I believe this is why American English is different than English. Also, when I believe the American Indians had something to do with the language change.
      Also there are different versions of American English depending on where in America you are. This would again have to do with the migration of different people in the 1800's and early 1900's. 


I'm intrested in your thoughts...


----------



## modgirl

If you're speaking about colloquialisms, you're absolutely right.  However, the mechanics of the language do not change.  That's why we have grammar books and dictionaries!


----------



## aigle491

Yes...but still even though we have dictionaries and grammar books nobody completly follows them. If you go to different parts of America people speak differently. So, I believe there is no one true version of American English


----------



## modgirl

Do you mean regionalisms?  For instance, southerns say, "y'all" when speaking.  But it's like that in every country.  Native French speakers can tell the differences in different regions of France.  Same with Canada, China, and so forth.  But I do believe that the basic language is the same.


----------



## vachecow

Yes, up North in the Fargo/Duluth area people sound completely different---and I suppose if you compared that too the english that people speak in Louisiana, it would sound like a different dialect of English


----------



## elroy

I agree with modgirl.  In every language there are speakers who "don't follow" the rules, but that doesn't make the rules any less valid or applicable.  And I think the differences aren't so extreme as to constitute significantly different versions of the language.  Basically, mutual intelligibility remains.  

In Arabic, for example, the Arabic of some countries is so different from that of others that there are actual barriers to understanding!  Perhaps that has to do with the fact that America is one country, as opposed to 22 (number of countries in which Arabic is an official language), so the differences aren't as extreme.

If we were to consider the differences in American English large enough to constitute "no true version of American English," then there would be no true version of any language at all.

Those are my two cents, anyway.


----------



## timpeac

*Aigle491 says - "They did not know English so they mixed up their own language with English. I believe this is why American English is different than English. "*

I read that in fact American English is closer to how English was spoken a few centuries ago than English English is. In other words Shakespeare would identify more with the American speakers than with his present-day countrymen. It is English English that has changed more rather than American English (despite what many Englishmen and women think)!

One example of this is fall/autumn difference. Fall reflects the basic anglosaxon usage (cf fall in German) for what I would call autumn, but autumn triumphed in England after the pilgrims left by our French influence (cf Août).

Can't remember exactly where I learnt that, but we need to be careful of thinking that just because English was "born" in England that the way it is spoken here is in some way truer or better than that of America. (Although I must say I prefer the English accent - but maybe I'm biased...) Althhough why do we always have to be the Hollywood baddies dag nam it!!?

The English spoken around the world remains remarkably similar, however, - compared to say the way that Spanish is spoken around the world in terms of vocab or grammar ie voseo. Personally I don't think that there is any doubt that we all speak the same language. I don't think the English of London is more different from the English of New york than of Liverpool - and arguably the two are nearer than the English of London and Glasgow!


----------



## kens

timpeac said:
			
		

> I read that in fact American English is closer to how English was spoken a few centuries ago than English English is. In other words Shakespeare would identify more with the American speakers than with his present-day countrymen. It is English English that has changed more rather than American English (despite what many Englishmen and women think)!


Written English has changed more in America than in the UK, though.  When the Americans came out with their first dictionary, they deliberately changed the spelling of certain words, like _labour_ and _centre_, to distinguish their language from that of their formal colonial masters!

As for pronunciation, I've always had a theory that the Scottish accent is the closest to the English of Shakespeare's time, only because certain words that Shakespeare tried to rhyme would only work with a quasi-Scottish pronunciation.  For example: "Doubt that the sun doth move / But never doubt that I love."  Not a very scientific proof, though.  Does anyone else know about which pronunciation is the "oldest"?


----------



## timpeac

kens said:
			
		

> Written English has changed more in America than in the UK, though. When the Americans came out with their first dictionary, they deliberately changed the spelling of certain words, like _labour_ and _centre_, to distinguish their language from that of their formal colonial masters!


Intersting! I didn't know that! I knew however that the Americans were so p* off with the English that they seriously discussed making the main language of the USA German!



			
				kens said:
			
		

> As for pronunciation, I've always had a theory that the Scottish accent is the closest to the English of Shakespeare's time, only because certain words that Shakespeare tried to rhyme would only work with a quasi-Scottish pronunciation. For example: "Doubt that the sun doth move / But never doubt that I love." Not a very scientific proof, though. Does anyone else know about which pronunciation is the "oldest"?


Maybe... but Shakespeare was born not far from where I was born and it would seem strange to me that a people living several hundred miles away would speak more similar today. Also Shakespeare (and myself) live below a line (between the wash and the bottom of wales for those who know UK geography) which represents how far south the Vikings invaded (and less closely how far north the Romans (successfully) invaded). This invisible line still represents the line between North and South England speakers which reflects quite different usages in terms of vocab and grammar - ie "bairn" in the North "child" in the south "thou" in the north "you" in the south (ok some of these differences are dying out but you know what I mean!) - and since the Scottish are above this line and Shakespeare born below I would doubt that their language was particularly akin.


----------



## munchkin5000

timpeac said:
			
		

> Intersting! I didn't know that! I knew however that the Americans were so p* off with the English that they seriously discussed making the main language of the USA German!
> 
> {/QUOTE]
> 
> I believe there were only 5 votes in it...
> 
> Just imagine if the language of of the superpower were German!!!


----------



## Sharon

It is all "true" American English, there are just widely varying dialects. I can tell if a person is from northern or southern Ohio as soon as they start to speak.  

Elroy, you have made me curious when you say there are "barriers to understanding." How high are these barriers? We have temporary misunderstandings, but eventually they get figured out. For example, in the state of Maryland, (or at least parts of it,)  if they do not understand you or hear you correctly, they don't say: "Pardon me?" "Excuse me?" "What did you say?" or the ever so eloquent "huh?" They will say "Please?" 

While on Spring Break in Florida, my sister's college roommate (from Maryland) went down to check out from the hotel when they were leaving. They had various charges to the room, so the desk clerk asked her if she would check the bill, to make sure it was correct. She hadn't heard him, so she said "Please?" and looked at him expectantly. He sighed heavily, rolled his eyes, and said in a pained voice, "Would you _*please*_ check the charges?!!"    



Sharon.


----------



## elroy

munchkin5000 said:
			
		

> timpeac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intersting! I didn't know that! I knew however that the Americans were so p* off with the English that they seriously discussed making the main language of the USA German!
> 
> {/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I believe there were only 5 votes in it...
> 
> Just imagine if the language of of the superpower were German!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would have been awesome!  But I'm a Germanophile (I know that's a neologism; I mean I'm a lover of the German language!) so I could be slightly biased.
Click to expand...


----------



## munchkin5000

Sharon said:
			
		

> It is all "true" American English, there are just widely varying dialects. I can tell if a person is from northern or southern Ohio as soon as they start to speak.
> 
> Elroy, you have made me curious when you say there are "barriers to understanding." How high are these barriers? We have temporary misunderstandings, but eventually they get figured out. For example, in the state of Maryland, (or at least parts of it,) if they do not understand you or hear you correctly, they don't say: "Pardon me?" "Excuse me?" "What did you say?" or the ever so eloquent "huh?" They will say "Please?"


Ha! I live in the south of the UK (Southampton to be precise) and have a good solid RP accent.  I had to phone Glasgow to sort out my gas bill.  Couldn't understand a word.  Bit more extreme than just being able to recognise the accent!

I'm guessing these barriers can be pretty big.....ie US and UK English....
Pants - we say trousers, purse here is a handbag, puny doens't exist here, and don't think you guys really get what we're banging on about when we say that we're knackered!

Makes for great conversations when your friends speak American English!!


----------



## timpeac

Sharon said:
			
		

> It is all "true" American English, there are just widely varying dialects. I can tell if a person is from northern or southern Ohio as soon as they start to speak.
> 
> Elroy, you have made me curious when you say there are "barriers to understanding." How high are these barriers? We have temporary misunderstandings, but eventually they get figured out. For example, in the state of Maryland, (or at least parts of it,) if they do not understand you or hear you correctly, they don't say: "Pardon me?" "Excuse me?" "What did you say?" or the ever so eloquent "huh?" They will say "Please?"
> 
> While on Spring Break in Florida, my sister's college roommate (from Maryland) went down to check out from the hotel when they were leaving. They had various charges to the room, so the desk clerk asked her if she would check the bill, to make sure it was correct. She hadn't heard him, so she said "Please?" and looked at him expectantly. He sighed heavily, rolled his eyes, and said in a pained voice, "Would you _*please*_ check the charges?!!"
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon.


I had a similar misunderstanding when I was living in France, with some Americans I knew. First you have to know that in the UK to be drunk is to be pissed whilst in the US to be pissed usually means to be annoyed (in the UK = to be pissed _off_). Anyway - 

I was on a bus and bumped into my American friends. It was about 3 in the morning I'd been to a party. They asked me if I wanted to go to play pool. I said no because I was too pissed.

Well, we spent about the next 30 mins going "why are you pissed?" me - "because i drunk too much" them - "but then what happened?" me - "nothing I just didn't notice how much I had drunk" - repeat ad infinitum.

Well after a while we were honestly all getting quite cross (= pissed in the US  ) when I realised what was going on! ( I genuinely was drunk which is why it took me so long to pick up on it!)

Anyhow, you had to be there - it was funny alright?


----------



## vachecow

In fact, Websters dictionary has added new spellings/pronunciations of words due to regional differences.....so although the same grammar rules apply, I think that our language is "evolving"


----------



## timpeac

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> In fact, Websters dictionary has added new spellings/pronunciations of words due to regional differences.....so although the same grammar rules apply, I think that our language is "evolving"


Grammar too - I believe that the present continuous form (I am playing) was unknown to Shakespeare.

Someone'll probably prove me immediately wrong by posting a quote, but that's what I heard...


----------



## Sharon

Munchkin5000 and Timpeac, 

Yes, a friend of mine went to England and when she came home she told me a funny story. 

She had just finished a big meal in a fancy restaurant, and loudly proclaimed, "What a great meal, I'm _stuffed_!  She said that a hush fell over the room, and she had the attention of everyone. Later in the evening, both a little pissy, (UK version ) you can imagine her surprise when her companion  told her he was going to _knock her up_ at 8:00 a.m.!



 "knock her up" in the US is: get her pregnant.
 I know the meaning of "get stuffed," but is that the reason for the hush? Or is there another meaning to that? 

Sharon.


----------



## Edwin

timpeac said:
			
		

> First you have to know that in the UK to be drunk is to be pissed whilst in the US to be pissed usually means to be annoyed (in the UK = to be pissed _off_).



In my experience it is more natural to say ''I'm pissed off'' for ''I'm angry'' than to say ''I'm pissed''.  But I agree with you-- had I not heard it in movies, I would be hard pressed to interpret ''pissed'' as ''drunk''.


----------



## webtrek

I have read this discussion with interest. There is a rule in linguistics: whenever a group of people leave their mother country, they will tend to preserve many words or expressions that were in use at the time they left. 

This happens because there is a breach in communication (or a great distance). Sicilian-Americans do not speak the present Sicilian dialect, in fact they speak the language of their ancestors (quite a world apart). 

My Sicilian parents who have lived in Northern Italy for a while use many words that have disappeared by now disappeared in Sicily.

Shakespeare said "cast", "can", "half" with the same "a" as is used in "man". He burred the Rs. This "a" mutated in England because of Kentish influence. On the other hand, Shakespeare's R is trilled, while the North American R has something of Irish R. 

Other differences are due to the fact that the "vowel shift" (the vowel change taking place in the 1500s) was not exactly the same in Northern England. 

So i think there's no saying which language or accent is better than which (is green better than blue?), as every language contains different words and phrases and concepts. The same goes for variatieties of the same language.
"Caucus" (US) is virtualy untranslatable.  

Fresh contents and ideas come with every new tongue you learn. The purpose of historical linguistics is to study the "evolution" of languages, and this can only be done by comparing different varieties (imagine if varieties did not exist!!!) so you can tell what the root language sounded like. No one recorded Shakespeare's voice, but we can get close to it studying the "Englishes".

Far from being a divisive factor, difference is once again something that brings us together. "Vive la différence!"

webtrek ;-)


----------



## timpeac

Sharon said:
			
		

> Munchkin5000 and Timpeac,
> 
> Yes, a friend of mine went to England and when she came home she told me a funny story.
> 
> She had just finished a big meal in a fancy restaurant, and loudly proclaimed, "What a great meal, I'm _stuffed_! She said that a hush fell over the room, and she had the attention of everyone. Later in the evening, both a little pissy, (UK version ) you can imagine her surprise when her companion told her he was going to _knock her up_ at 8:00 a.m.!
> 
> 
> 
> "knock her up" in the US is: get her pregnant.
> I know the meaning of "get stuffed," but is that the reason for the hush? Or is there another meaning to that?
> 
> Sharon.


 
Haha - Pissy, I hadn't thought of that one. Actually if someone said that to me I would interpret that as annoyed!!! Isn't it complicated.

We do also use to knock up to mean to get pregnant, but as you say it is perfectly ok to say that in the UK to mean knock on your door to wake you up too.

Erm "i'm stuffed". I'm not aware that this means anything particularly more than "i'm full". However it is extremely colloquial (at least in the UK, maybe it's just familiar in the US?), and not the sort of thing you'd say loudly in a posh restaurant... I can't think of any other connotation. Fellow UK compatriots - is there a meaning to this I'm not aware of?


----------



## elroy

Sharon said:
			
		

> Elroy, you have made me curious when you say there are "barriers to understanding." How high are these barriers? We have temporary misunderstandings, but eventually they get figured out. For example, in the state of Maryland, (or at least parts of it,)  if they do not understand you or hear you correctly, they don't say: "Pardon me?" "Excuse me?" "What did you say?" or the ever so eloquent "huh?" They will say "Please?"
> 
> 
> Sharon.



I mean there are barriers that actually impede understanding on many levels, not just in everyday expressions.  I guess an example would help...but I have to preface by explaining that there are two versions of the Arabic language, that are themselves very different from each other: the classical version and the colloquial version.  The classical version is used for writing and for speaking in formal contexts, and it is common throughout the Arabic-speaking world; that is, a book in Syria would be completely understood by the average educated Arabic speaker from Tunisia, Oman, or Iraq.  However, not only is the colloquial version vastly different from the classical version, but it is not the same in every country; indeed, it differs within countries!  Now, the degree to which you can understand the colloquial Arabic of somebody from a different country or region depends both on the degree of linguistic similary and on the geographical proximity...which leads me to my example.

I was in Belgium, and I was watching a television documentary on Algerian immigrants in Belgium.  Since this is a relatively formal register, the narrator was speaking in classical Arabic, which I could understand perfectly.  However, at a certain point in the show they showed some of the Algerians being interviewed - and as soon as they started speaking, I did a double take.  All of a sudden I could hardly understand a word!  I could literally pick out only about 10% of what they were saying, and that by paying very close attention and gluing my eyes to the television screen.  

Now, you might say that sounds extreme - and it is - but I'm sure that if I were to spend a few weeks in Algeria, I'd soon grasp the vocabulary and accent difference and be able to understand and make myself understood.  The thing is that it has a lot to do with accent as well as vocabulary, so that even words that are the same are pronounced so differently that you don't understand them.

This has to do with geographical distance.  I am Palestinian, and Algeria is quite far away geographically (northern Africa).  However, I can understand Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Egyptian Arabic quite well.  The first three are similar linguistically (again, due to geography) and while Egyptian is not (possibly as different as Algerian) I have been more exposed to it because of geographical proximity, and I can therefore understand it fine.

I hope this answers your question?!    If not, please let me know!


----------



## elroy

Edwin said:
			
		

> In my experience it is more natural to say ''I'm pissed off'' for ''I'm angry'' than to say ''I'm pissed''.  But I agree with you-- had I not heard it in movies, I would be hard pressed to interpret ''pissed'' as ''drunk''.



I guess I should share a story too.  Although not American, I speak American English.  When I was in London, I was on the subway (or rather, the tube, as I soon came to know is the vastly more popular name), and a girl across from me dropped a coin.  I picked it up and gave it to her, and she said "Cheers."  I was completely stumbled and didn't know what to say, so I just awkwardly turned around and said nothing.  I had only seen the word "cheers" at the end of letter closings, so up until this incident I had assumed that it was just a greeting.  When I shared the incident with some English friends, they explained (much to my surprise) that "cheers" was a very versatile term with a number of different usages, one of which is to mean "thank you" (as in the case in question)!  Apparently you also say it when you meet somebody new, sort of as a substitute for "nice to meet you."

But it gets better.  When I asked my friends what I should have replied, they say, ever so naturally, "Oh, I would have just said, 'It's all right.  No dramas.' "

NO DRAMAS?  That has got to be the best version of "you're welcome" that I have ever heard!!!  If someone were to say that in America I would think he/she was calming the other person down, telling him/her not to make a big deal out of something.

So that's my story.
Cheers, mates!


----------



## Edwin

elroy said:
			
		

> NO DRAMAS?  That has got to be the best version of "you're welcome" that I have ever heard!!!  If someone were to say that in America I would think he/she was calming the other person down, telling him/her not to make a big deal out of something.



--or telling him/her not to be a ''drama queen''.  If you want to take a test to see if you are a drama queen go to

http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/drama_queen.html


----------



## modgirl

Elroy, very interesting comments!  I hadn't heard "cheers" used as a "thank you" substitute.  "No dramas?"  That's new for me, too!


----------



## elroy

Edwin said:
			
		

> --or telling him/her not to be a ''drama queen''.  If you want to take a test to see if you are a drama queen go to
> 
> http://www.queendom.com/tests/minitests/fx/drama_queen.html



Lol, Edwin, that's exactly what I thought of when they told me that!


----------



## elroy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Elroy, very interesting comments!  I hadn't heard "cheers" used as a "thank you" substitute.  "No dramas?"  That's new for me, too!



Yup, I was pretty surprised, too!


----------



## kens

Sharon, I loved your "please" story, it's really cute!  I want to go to Maryland now to hear someone say "please"! 

Another regional difference in the English language is the word "toilet".  In North America, this word usually just means the thing you sit on, while in the UK it can also refer to the room in which a toilet is found.  When I was living in Scotland, one of my co-workers came up to me and said that he had found a sweater in the toilet and he wondered if it was mine.  I told him that, if it was, I certainly didn't want it any more!!


----------



## vachecow

Wonder what would happen if I said "Cheers" in Philly....


----------



## Sharon

kens said:
			
		

> Sharon, I loved your "please" story, it's really cute! I want to go to Maryland now to hear someone say "please"!


 I'm glad you liked it. 

Now I'm sitting here giggling as I picture a man spending a week in Maryland, mumbling everywhere he goes, in the hopes of hearing "Please?"   

Sharon.


----------



## Vanna

modgirl said:
			
		

> If you're speaking about colloquialisms, you're absolutely right. However, the mechanics of the language do not change. That's why we have grammar books and dictionaries!


 

The mechanics of the language are the same, but there are words that clearly the British use that Americans do not. The only two that come to mind, although there are more, are loo which Americans do not use, and flat, as in apartment. 

We have also incorporated into our American English some French words that many American English speaking natives do not even realize are French. I do not know if the British do this. So, our languages are basically the same, structure, mechanics, etc. etc, but not necessarily all of the words we use.


----------



## paolorausch

webtrek said:
			
		

> This happens because there is a breach in communication (or a great distance). Sicilian-Americans do not speak the present Sicilian dialect, in fact they speak the language of their ancestors (quite a world apart).
> 
> My Sicilian parents who have lived in Northern Italy for a while use many words that have disappeared by now disappeared in Sicily.



I can relate to this personally, this is why I declare myself Fluent in Sicilian and by no means Fluent in Italian. (Also the lack of a future tense, makes it impossible to understand Italian if you only speak dialect).

Ciau webtrek, Parri sicilianu? .

I would like to say though the change from labour to labor was actually a spelling reform by Webster, done in attempt to simplify spelling. Written British/International English, which I prefer, I believe attempts to maintain more etymology in words. However, sometimes falsely (fetus (US) is the latin, whereas Foetus (UK))

Furthermore, a lot of Dialect comes from socio-economic origin, and I will say the US has very little difference in terms of dialect, We all watch the same television, and I think that seriously limits varying dialects. Which is a bit of a shame, because I think a variance to language makes it much more fun to learn. I love switching from High German to Bavarian, and one can never know enough idioms.


----------



## Sharon

I found an article our linguists might be interested in reading.  http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/linguistics/news/boontling.htm
 In a small hamlet named Boonville, the residents invented their own version of American English called Boontling. They incorporated sounds, for instance, a .22 rifle is a "spat" and to travel in horseback is to "keloppity." They used resident's names... the words for "tattletale" and "drunk"  are people's names!

_____________________________________________

* I just posted this in a different thread,   but I know some of us "follow" the threads we have posted in, and I thought this was interesting.  When I found this article, I deliberated which thread to put it in, then I decided it belonged in both!  

 Elroy, I would not understand Boontling!
 kens,  you go to Maryland, I am going to Boonville, California! 

Sharon.


----------



## webtrek

Hi Paolorausch, hi Sharon,

U Siciliano u parru, picca, ma u parru! (i speak sicilian, albeit little). You're right about Tv and the media jeopardizing local varieties. There are advantages and drawbacks. Once cities were surrounded by walls, valleys guarded by forts. No wonder the Old World has produced so many languages and dialects. Language diversity here was often bought at the price of ideological and political strife. But now, we can promote cultural diversity through peaceful means. What about native indians producing their own websites for example? Isn't that invigorating!

However, new languages or varieties are born everyday even though we think it's wordplay. Linguists who have recorded babytalk, have seen that small children can develop their own idioms when playing together. Don't teens develop their own lingo in high school for eg? It's spontaneous. It's nature. it's fun. Just figure out spending a day in that village!

Webtrek


----------



## MadTomVane

Finally, I decided to dig up this thread because (A) I wanted to, yet again, let anyone interested in this sort of thing know that I made a website about it. You have to substitute . for , and / for ? because I'm not up to 30 posts yet.
students,csci,unt,edu?~kun It even has a discussion board now.

That was all I was going to write here but I keep seeng people insisting that TV makes local accents go away. However, real sociolinguists know that that is just a popular myth, and language acquisition simply doesn't work that way. Linguists have been documenting plenty of new regional sound changes that only started within the last 100 years. And they haven't found any evidence that mass media "evens out" anything. Here is an article from linguist Jack Chambers of the University of Toronto: (once again , =. and ?=/ and add 3 w's at the beginning)
pbs,org?speak?ahead?mediapower?media
To sum it up, in the words of Naomi Nagy (U of New Hampshire) "We don't talk to the TV, nor does the TV care how we talk,"


----------



## Edwin

MadTomVane said:
			
		

> Finally, I decided to dig up this thread because (A) I wanted to, yet again, let anyone interested in this sort of thing know that I made a website about it. You have to substitute . for , and / for ? because I'm not up to 30 posts yet.
> students,csci,unt,edu?~kun It even has a discussion board now.



Tom,  your website A Guide to Regional English Pronunciation 
would  be easier to read with a solid background. The blue marble (or whatever the background is) makes it unpleasant to read.  Maybe I'll read more of it if you change the background.  --Edwin


----------



## MadTomVane

You know, with all the different backgrounds I used, I thought someone, eventually, is going to say that one of the pages is hard to read.  I'm actually surprised you didn't mention the "Matrix" background on the Philadelphia page, that is probably the most unpleasant to read.  Now I think it's time to make a few changes.


----------



## Edwin

MadTomVane said:
			
		

> You know, with all the different backgrounds I used, I thought someone, eventually, is going to say that one of the pages is hard to read.  I'm actually surprised you didn't mention the "Matrix" background on the Philadelphia page, that is probably the most unpleasant to read.  Now I think it's time to make a few changes.



Generally speaking I hate backgrounds. It is very annoying when trying to read something.  I really don't see the purpose.  Not everthing should be done, just because it can be done.  

My dos centavos: if you want people to read what you write make the background white with black writing. If you want people to just look without reading then be as fancy as you want to.


----------



## Panpan

Great post timpeac!

There is some authority for the theory that american english is a relic of Elizabethan English, while British English has changed vastly, and continues to change.  

In 'History of the American Revolution', Dr David Ramsey said that Americans tended to drop their British regional differences, and use what was common to all of them.

However, Bill Bryson (Mother Tongue) says that the relic theory is too simplistic.  However, there are some features of American English that are closer to the British English of 400 years ago than modern British English.

It is interesting that many words that are refered to as American imports by British English language snobs e.g. 'normalcy', 'antagonise', 'maximize', 'input', were common currency in England, travelled to the new world and survived, while they died out in England, and then returned home in the 20th Centuary.

Panpan


----------



## webtrek

I agree. American English has a phonetics core of Elizabethan English to it, even some old words have been preserved. On the other hand, there's been much later influence on terminology from Dutch and German minorities and native Americans have contributed many new terms like pow-wow, canoe or caucus if I remember correctly. English phonetics, meanwhile, has shifted to the Kentish dialects, and that's what makes pronunciation a little different. I have read an interesting book by A.C. Baugh, A History of the English Language (London & New York, 1978) which explains these changes in detail, but you could find them in many other studies.


----------



## aigle491

thank you for all of the people who agree with me!


----------



## mzsweeett

vachecow said:
			
		

> Wonder what would happen if I said "Cheers" in Philly....


There's a bar (pub) not far from where I used to live in Philly. From my perspective they would probably reply in kind or lift their glass to ya!! 
Cheers fellow Pennsylvanian!!

Sweet T.


----------



## french4beth

Sharon said:
			
		

> Munchkin5000 and Timpeac,
> 
> Yes, a friend of mine went to England and when she came home she told me a funny story.
> 
> She had just finished a big meal in a fancy restaurant, and loudly proclaimed, "What a great meal, I'm _stuffed_! She said that a hush fell over the room, and she had the attention of everyone. Later in the evening, both a little pissy, (UK version ) you can imagine her surprise when her companion told her he was going to _knock her up_ at 8:00 a.m.!
> 
> 
> 
> "knock her up" in the US is: get her pregnant.
> I know the meaning of "get stuffed," but is that the reason for the hush? Or is there another meaning to that?
> 
> Sharon.


 

Hi Sharon,

A friend of mine who had lived in Germany for a year told me a similar story about the word "stuffed" - he was having a meal with some German friends, and the group had invited a couple of American tourists to eat with them.  At the end of the meal, one of the girls said, "I'm stuffed" upon which everyone else burst out laughing.  Apparently, "stuffed" in German can be slang for "having a sexual encounter."  This happened many years ago (80's) so I don't know if that's still current slang.

Ciao,


----------



## JazzByChas

That is what I thought too, because the Yiddish word for "stuffed" (schtupped...I am probably spellling this wrong) is slang for sexual intercourse...




			
				french4beth said:
			
		

> Hi Sharon,
> 
> A friend of mine who had lived in Germany for a year told me a similar story about the word "stuffed" - he was having a meal with some German friends, and the group had invited a couple of American tourists to eat with them. At the end of the meal, one of the girls said, "I'm stuffed" upon which everyone else burst out laughing. Apparently, "stuffed" in German can be slang for "having a sexual encounter." This happened many years ago (80's) so I don't know if that's still current slang.
> 
> Ciao,


----------



## bartonig

I knew however that the Americans were so p* off with the English that they seriously discussed making the main language of the USA German!


This is a myth. There was a couple of hundred years back a proposal by some Virginians to have federal laws translated into German but never to have the language of the 13 states changed.


----------



## Derringer

aigle491 said:
			
		

> If you think about it...there is no one version of the American English language. Back when all of the Irish the French the Dutch the Chinese all came here, they all came in one area of America. They did not know English so they mixed up their own language with English.


 
To the extent that's true, American English could amost be called a Creole.


----------



## Brioche

timpeac said:
			
		

> Intersting! I didn't know that! I knew however that the Americans were so p* off with the English that they seriously discussed making the main language of the USA German!


 
There was *never* any serious discussion about making German the official language of the USA. It's just one of those Urban Legends forever floating around the web.

Read all about it here:
http://www.watzmann.net/scg/german-by-one-vote.html


----------



## Brioche

Derringer said:
			
		

> To the extent that's true, American English could amost be called a Creole.


 
American English is not even vaguely like a Creole.

Most of the time North Americans and people from the UK/Australia/South Africa/New Zealand &c, have no real trouble understanding each other.

They can read each others books, newspapers, magazines &c.

The difference between standard BE and standard AE is far less than the differences between the various dialects of English still spoken in Britain and Ireland. In parts of Ireland, people say 'starving of cold', preserving the old English meaning of '_starve_' which was '_die_', rather than _'die of hunger'_

Some words and expressions in the US are preservations of usages that were once common in England, or in one part of England; some AE is newly minted in USA.


----------



## Derringer

So if you read my reply carefully, you saw that I said "_to the extent that is true"_  and "_almost _call it a creole." I was, perhaps, being facetious?



			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> American English is not even vaguely like a Creole.
> 
> Most of the time North Americans and people from the UK/Australia/South Africa/New Zealand &c, have no real trouble understanding each other.
> 
> They can read each others books, newspapers, magazines &c.
> 
> The difference between standard BE and standard AE is far less than the differences between the various dialects of English still spoken in Britain and Ireland. In parts of Ireland, people say 'starving of cold', preserving the old English meaning of '_starve_' which was '_die_', rather than _'die of hunger'_
> 
> Some words and expressions in the US are preservations of usages that were once common in England, or in one part of England; some AE is newly minted in USA.


----------



## Curmud

I'm very late in this thread, but it is of high interest to me. I am in the process of reading H. L. Mencken's "*The American Language"* and he convincingly shows that American is quite different than English.  
The pronunciation of words, of course, is quite different (with the exception of the Boston area) and it is difficult for most Americans to follow an Englishman's conversation. The reverse may be true as well. As to dialects, they are quite different but not to the extent that communication is impeded. Here in Louisiana we have "broken english" spoken by many Cajuns and New Orleanians have a most distinct way of talking. I am a cajun myself, but I like to think my English is not "broken".

But Mencken says that the Americans have added thousands of words to the English language, many of which have been taken up by England, especially through Hollywood. Anyway, it is more than just dialects.


----------



## thrice

If you'd like an interesting read on this subject, check out "The American Language" by H.L. Mencken. It's incredibly interesting, as it compares American English with British English, American Italian with standard Italian, and on and on. Since it's about 85 years old by now, it's especially interesting because it was written around the time films with sound were just starting to show up, and this was the first time most British people heard the American dialect spoken with an American accent. Their disgusted reactions are pretty amusing to read  The most interesting part about the book, I think, is learning about all the words and phrases that the British thought were hideous, but seem so commonplace now, such "raising a family" and "quitting". Anyways, I recommend it to anyone who finds all this interesting!

*EDIT* Wow, sorry for posting exactly what Curmud just said.... I got 2 pages into the thread and thought of the book, and decided to make a quick post. My stance still stands, though. Read the book


----------



## learjeff

Brioche said:
			
		

> Most of the time North Americans and people from the UK/Australia/South Africa/New Zealand &c, have no real trouble understanding each other.
> 
> They can read each others books, newspapers, magazines &c.
> 
> The difference between standard BE and standard AE is far less than the differences between the various dialects of English still spoken in Britain and Ireland. In parts of Ireland, people say 'starving of cold', preserving the old English meaning of '_starve_' which was '_die_', rather than _'die of hunger'_
> 
> Some words and expressions in the US are preservations of usages that were once common in England, or in one part of England; some AE is newly minted in USA.


 
Right. Sure, AE is a dialect, but it's closer to the parent than many dialects of languages spoken in adjacent regions.  And while the US has wide variations in accent, it's rarely enough to be called a dialect.  (With some notable exceptions, no doubt.)

Time matters much more than space, when it comes to language differentiation. For example, the root of the language and culture from Madagascar to Easter Island is most likely the southern portion of the island of Taiwan. Yet the differences in language between the first two are smaller than those found in the source, even ignoring recent immigration. It's because of the vast time they've had to accumulate differences. (This happens in genetics, too.) If you're interested in this kind of thing, read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

One of the main reasons AE is so different from BE is that after the revolution, Americans were so anti-British that any mannerisms that were considered British were scoffed at. Funny when you think of it, the two being so similar at the time. So what happened is Americans at the time willfully widened the gap.

Meanwhile, folks living in remote areas such as high Appalachians, many of whom had been there since early 1700s, were not affected by this. Therefore, their speech has many traces of King James English that have disappeared in most other places (with notable exceptions in early settled but remote sections of Australia and similar places).

Cheers
Jeff


----------



## SofiaB

English has a standard which is understood in all countries. There are regional variations but all people who have gone to school know the standard. According to linguists a dialect is derived from the original language but not intelligible to other speakers. So most variants are not dialects.If one word or phrase is different they can be easily explained.


----------



## learjeff

Thanks for the clarification on what a dialect is.  Clearly, most regional versions of English can't be called dialects by that definition, and I stand corrected.

My mother is from West Virgina, and I've heard people in the hills there speak and not be able to make out a word of it.  One time my mother had to translate for a grocery store clerk, in Michigan, who couldn't make out what she was being asked by the customer.  But this is an extreme case, and I think it's dwindling.

English has an ad-hoc standard.  However, AE is not standardized the way French is.  It's a "democratic" language, and what was considered incorrect yesterday will be considered correct tomorrow.  That's probably true of most languages, and French is an exception.

Of course there is general agreement for most of AE about today's correct vs. incorrect.  Interestingly, "ain't" is considered incorrect or slang, yet it was a perfectly valid contraction for "am not" back in the 1700's.  But it was not used in the part of England where Webster's family came from, and was not included in Webster's dictionary.  So, historically at least, "ain't" should be considered correct when used as "I ain't", but incorrect when used as "you ain't" or "he ain't".

Another example, we all hear people, even on BBC, say "long lived" and pronounce "lived" with a short "i" as in "I lived in vain."  But it's not a past tense verb, it's an adjective form, and should be pronounced with a long "i".  This abuse began in the US but has now reached the British Isles as well.  If you say it correctly, you'll get strange looks!

My high school English teacher used to say that democracy is good for governments but bad for languages.  I think he was at least partially right, but in the long run it's the people speaking a language who define it regardless of academics, and the most academics can do is resist the trends and fight the worst abuses.  But I agree that many popular changes to language cause useful distinctions between words to be blurred, leading to less effective communication.


----------



## Dr. Fumbles

modgirl said:


> If you're speaking about colloquialisms, you're absolutely right.  However, the mechanics of the language do not change.  That's why we have grammar books and dictionaries!


  How do the mechanisms of language not change?  How do you explain that 1000 years ago we would/we'd be saying: Ic ne cann noht singan?  But today we say I can't/cannot/can't not sing.  Just curious as to your response.  And another more noticeable example:  How change not the mechanisms of language?  How explainst (thou) that 1000 years ago we would/we'd be saying: Ic ne cann noht singan?  But today we say I can't/cannot/can't not sing.  Just curious as to thy response.  Language is not static, it's like the stuff in a lava lamp, always fluid always changing.  That's how we go from the very first one to the 6000-7000 we have today.  So I don't see how it can be static; in any faucet.


----------



## Cagey

I am closing this thread.  

It is outside the scope of this forum by our current rules. We now require a clear focus on specific language question.   

Cagey, 
moderator.


----------

