# The cradle of English



## Eloy1988

Can anyone tell me what zone of England English was born in?
I would also like to know what region is considered to be the zone in which the "purest" English is spoken.
Thanks to everybody.


----------



## Hutschi

What exactly, do you mean? Do you consider Old English? Do you start with the Anglo-Saxxon language? (ca. 450)? Or do you want to know about the roots of "modern" English? (I do not understand the term "purest English" - that is why I ask such little stupid questions.)

Best regards
Bernd

PS: About Old English, you can find some information in the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language


----------



## Eloy1988

I'm talking of modern English, of course.
As for the other question, every single language has a place where the language is supposed to be spoken best. (I'm not saying that I agree with this statement, but it's common knowledge, and it almost always coincides with the place where the language was born.)


----------



## Hutschi

Thank you. This was not clear to me. I wanted to write about the history, but this does not make sense in this case. 

To the other question, the native speakers may answer.

I can give you only a short statement. Laguage is not static. And there is no "best" as far as I think. There is "appropriate" or "wrong". There may be different kinds of accent and other aspects like dialects.

Best regards
Bernd


----------



## fenixpollo

Eloy1988 said:


> every single language has a place where the language is supposed to be spoken best. (I'm not saying that I agree with this statement, but it's common knowledge, and it almost always coincides with the place where the language was born.)


 This statement is absolutely ridiculous. It is not "common knowledge" that every language has "best" form -- not English, and especially not your native language.


----------



## cuchuflete

Eloy1988 said:


> I'm talking of modern English, of course.
> As for the other question, every single language has a place where the language is supposed to be spoken best. (I'm not saying that I agree with this statement, but it's common knowledge, and it almost always coincides with the place where the language was born.)



Please allow me to dissect and reply to this string of....I'm having trouble finding a polite term... Shall we call them misperceptions, just to avoid such infelicitious words as hogwash?

"Modern English, of course."  Of course we need a definition of Modern English.  At what date did English become Modern

"...every single language has a place where the language is supposed to be spoken best."  Yes, there are lots of ignorant people running around who believe such a totally absurd thing.
They should be forced to learn to think.  What on earth does
"Best" mean?  To whom? Why?   Who judges, by what measure, what makes any language variant "better" than another?   The inherent stupidity of thinking about languages and regional forms and dialects in terms of "best" is so obvious that this question should be preserved, encased in a large block of clear crystal, as a monument to intellectual vacuity.

Moving right along...

"...it's common knowledge, and it almost always coincides with the place where the language was born."  Common knowledge?
Sure, as common as can be.  This is not knowledge, but irrational, uneducated prejudice.  

Languages evolve. Duh!  The implication of this supposed "common knowledge" is that older is better.  That's foolish.
By that measure, Canadian French is much "better" than European French, as it has evolved less, and thus is closer to the original, whatever that was.  In the Iberian peninsula, we would have to say that Asturo-leonés and Portuguese are "better", as they are closer to vulgar Latin.   

The entire premise for these questions is contorted and illogical.


----------



## Sepia

I know of several cultures where such prejudice exists - recently there was a similar discussion in the German forum. As usual, though, really rational arguments base such claims on, were missing. How would you decide which is finer or purer? How would you decide that the changes that took place over centuries are in any way of higher quality in one region than in another region?


----------



## Eloy1988

I don't want to be rude, but this discussion is not about whether one thinks that the statement is true or false. I'm just asking if anybody knows where modern English was born, that is the English spoken from Shakespeare onwards. Moreover, I want to know what is the region that is considered to be the cradle of English, and so the variety on which the current English language is based. This is something OBJECTIVE, guys. English wasn't born in the US nor in Australia. 
Thanks for your understanding.
If you want to discuss the statement, you are free to start a new thread.
Thank you.


----------



## Benjy

Eloy1988 said:


> Moreover, I want to know what is the region that is considered to be the cradle of English, and so the variety on which the current English language is based.


There is no region of England which could claim that title to my knowledge, and even if such a region did exist why would the English spoken in the US or any other English speaking country be based on it? There are no normative bodies for the English language  



> This is something OBJECTIVE, guys.


Of course it is. Not subjective at all!



> English wasn't born in the US nor in Australia.
> Thanks for your understanding.



Good, now by a similar process of deduction we should be able to answer the question!



> If you want to discuss the statement, you are free to start a new thread.



What's the point in trying to formulate an answer to a question which makes no sense, and consequently has no meaningful answer? Why should I scrub my armpits with the white cliffs of cheese every 5th day of febuary? HMM?



> Thank you



No, Thank you!


----------



## fenixpollo

In order to tell you where "English" started, I would have to agree with your statement that there is a "cradle" of English and that such a geographic location would correspond with a "best" form of English. Since your question is illogical and subjective, I cannot provide you with a logical and objective answer.

edit: my post says the same thing as Benjy's, but more dully.


----------



## Eloy1988

uel, it is tru dat der is nou normatif for inglix, sou, luk, meibi, dis is de best inglish?
it be tru dat inglish mast bi da interneixonal lenguich, evry singel zing is balid!!!


----------



## cuchuflete

If, leaving out the nonsensical notions of "best", your only interest is about the geography in which English arose, then the question is a research topic, and, as such, is not appropriate to this forum.  

There is a message on the forum menu page that is titled

Cultural Discussions Guidelines - READ BEFORE POSTING!


Here is a pertinent excerpt:



> b) Remember the Cultural Discussions Forum is basically just that: a place for discussions. Formulate questions that are _open-ended_ and _promote thought-provoking, insightful conversation_;
> 
> c) Please *do not* start threads
> -- that can be answered by a simple yes or no;
> -- that would promote chat (i.e. "what should I get my French boyfriend for his birthday?);
> -- that ask for homework or* research* help, or where to find a resource;



Any search engine should give you thousands of references that describe the history of the language, including the geographical references you are seeking. ​


----------



## cuchuflete

Eloy1988 said:


> uel, it is tru dat der is nou normatif for inglix, sou, luk, meibi, dis is de best inglish?
> it be tru dat inglish mast bi da interneixonal lenguich, evry singel zing is balid!!!



Impressive.  You do love your "common knowledge".

Here are more examples of that most instructive branch of linguistic science:


The best quesadas pasiegas are made in La Montaña.

The best Maine lobsters are caught off the coast of Maine.

The best Brazialian vatapá comes from Brazil.

Now, doesn't it feel good to be so usefully enlightened?



> The assertion that something is "common knowledge" is sometimes associated with the fallacy _argumentum ad populum_ (Latin: "appeal to the people"). The fallacy essentially warns against assuming that just because everyone believes something is true does not make it so.


 click


----------



## invictaspirit

*Within the United Kindom* the 'best' English (in as much as there is still a prestige variant) is not confined to a zone, but a type of person.  RP or 'BBC English' is still regarded as the most prestigious way of speaking English and is spoken by (generally) the very well-educated, important, or aristocratic.

As RP is itself a fake accent (supposedly dreamed up and formulated in the 1800s) it has no geographic base.  Every single square cm of the UK has a regional accent that differs from RP.

As for which zone English was born in...where does one start?  Kent?  (Kent was the first Saxon kingdom and therefore the first region where Old English/Saxon became the lingua franca.)

By Shakespeare's time, everyone was speaking something not *too* distant from Modern English.  I doubt one can identify a region where modern English began.  The whole point of the modernisation was the slow filtering of the language across the country until it more or less organically became the language we speak today.


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, at last someone who sheds some light on the issue. Thank you so much, Invictaspirit, you are really invincible. 
Could you also tell me whether the Oxford accent, which is where one of the most prestigious universities is, is rhotic? I heard it is.
Thank you afresh.


----------



## cuchuflete

> George Bernard Shaw said " *the best English is spoken in*                  Ireland".





> Interesting. I always thought - or had it drummed into me by Scots - that *the best English is spoken in* and around Inverness. One explanation: Scots around there used to learn English as a second language, Scots Gaelic being the native tongue.


 source


----------



## John-Paul

I think you can speak of the literal cradle of Christianity, not of the cradle of the English language unless you believe languages were created by intelligent design. The English language is a bastard language. There were the Angeln and the Saxons who moved to the island from Germany, the Kelts already lived there and the Frisian were all over at the time. (My grandmother spoke Frisian which is very similar to English.) Then the roman expansian came which added a whole bunch of new words. Oddly, out of this strange mixture which gave us Beowulf, modern English appeared. In the second half of the 15th century this new thing exploded and brought us Shakespeare, Hakluyt and Ben Johnson. The rest as they say is history.


----------



## konungursvia

Asking where a language is born is like askiing where a family originated. Sometimes there is an answer, but if you look deeper, it is not meaningful. Anyhow, you are looking for the answer "Oxford." But like almost everyone else who has answered the thread, I disagree with the premise that there is an answer. History is written by victors, and the places perceived as the most "correct" in speech are usually simply the ones who conquered their neighouring regions through military might, and then imposed their own tongue. So, I think, if you were a person with a good understanding of philology, you wouldn't ask the question at all.


----------



## Eloy1988

I think English lacks an authority on the language unlike many other languages
When a foreigner is learning English, he doesn't know what dictionary to buy, what is correct and what is not. 
As a student of Philology, I can tell even native speakers don't even know how to punctuate or whether a construction is correct or not. It also happens with vocabulary. A word enters the dictionary even though it is irrational. This doesn't happen with Spanish. Every single Spanish-speaking country (the US and the Philippines are of course included) has an academy. They contribute to the work that the RAE, the central Spanish Academy does. This is not something "NGOic", it's something official. The academy issues official dictionaries of lexicon, ortography, grammar and so on so forth, so, if anybody has any doubt, he just knows where to go.
That's what we call a normativized language. Draw your own conclusions, but thanks to this body, all Spanish-speaking people can understand each other and there is only one correct spelling, which is the basis of a united language. I don't know if anyone wants a fragmented and split English, maybe there are some hiden interests.


----------



## cuchuflete

> A word enters the dictionary even though it is irrational.


That is almost as funny as the notion of a "best" form of a language.  

Dictionaries record terms in use, once these have become well established.  Dictionaries are not arbiters of what does and does not exist in a language.


Sorrowful English, without any association of academies of the language, suffers from the general ability of hundreds of millions of native speakers in different parts of the world to easily understand one another in both written and spoken forms of their common language.  Spelling variations, while relatively few in number, do exist.  They seem to cause no particular difficulties.


----------



## ireney

Ah! The reason for this thread was to bash  the "come-as-you-are" - no Academy English language (at least that's how you seem to perceive it  !

Why is it bad that "English lacks an authority on the language" (which I take it to mean a body of people deciding what is right and what is wrong)? Even from the perpective of a non-English speaker learning the language?

I've managed to study English even though there isn't one and I didn't find it all that hard really. True, I prefer to write (and pronounce really) colour i.e. but I don't think that the fact that my boyfriend writes (and pronounces) color hinders our mutual comprehension nor do the endless debates about how to pronounce "sword".

Can you give us an example of an irrational word?

Greek has no Academy either (I am trying to insert a CD note here   ) and we manage to do just fine for the last thousands of years. There are arguments  (often heated but then we ARE Greeks) but the language plows forward with and despite them.

I must say that the conspiracy theory was very amusing. Do you really believe that the differences between regional types of English are so big and so sinister?


----------



## fenixpollo

Eloy1988 said:


> When a foreigner is learning English, he doesn't know what dictionary to buy, what is correct and what is not.


 You're assuming that when a foreigner is learning Spanish, he knows what dictionary to buy, what is correct and what is not. That is not the case with either language.

You should look at these previous threads: 
¿Para qué sirve una frase gramaticalmente correcta?
Speaking like a native, or speaking correctly?
Should we accept in English any kind of talk or stick to rules to speak correctly?


----------



## konungursvia

I understand the point about the "academies" but these are rather political, and generally not effective. Ronsard and Du Bellay tried to standardize a new form of French with their "Défense et illustration" but failed. The Académie Française tried to impose all sorts of substitutes for English load words such as "Disc compact" for CD (now pronounced cédé in French), but failed. The Quebec Office de la langue française also tried a huge long list of such substitutes, but failed. The AF also tried to introduce modern spelling into French in the early nineties, but the entire French-speaking world has all but ignored the new spellings.

  Since the Collins Dictionary did for the first time create the sense that some spellings in English were correct and others not, you are right that there must exist some authority. For English, it is the Oxford English Dictionary in the UK and elsewhere, but for many Americans, the Webster's Dictionary is the main authority. These days, all good dictionaries also recognize alternate and regional spellings. English is very democratic, and doesn't need and official academy. They don't work, so we don't want to pay for them.


----------



## Eloy1988

Of course it is. In Spanish, what is correct shouldn't be transgressed. It is a matter of speaking well, for Spanish-speaking people, speaking well has always been regarded as prestigious, so everybody obeys the RAE.
I'm afraid the RAE hasn't failed, but on the contrary, it has had a roaring success.


----------



## cuchuflete

I admire the RAE and its dictionary.  I keep my three volumes of the Diccionario de Autoridades by my desk, and consult the current on-line edition constantly.  But to say "...so everybody obeys the RAE." is worse than absurd.  I would venture to guess that the majority of Spanish speakers worldwide have never seen, much less consulted, it.

The RAE as an institution is prescriptivist in terms of language, while the dictionary can't seem to decide if it is descriptivist or prescriptivist.

Deciding which dictionary to buy should be a function of the use to which one expects to put a dictionary.  In English, we have many varieties, for many purposes.  

These links may help:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=14801


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=136975

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=48858


The uniform obediance of rules in Spanish is a myth.  So many people break so many rules so much of the time that the RAE and its correspondent academies felt the need to publish the 

DICCIONARIO PANHISPÁNICO DE DUDAS:  


> [*]Soluciona las dudas lingüísticas de los hablantes de hoy mediante *respuestas claras y argumentadas.*
> 
> [*]Está escrito en un *lenguaje de fácil comprensión, accesible a los no especialistas.*
> 
> [*]Su contenido está avalado por *el acuerdo unánime y la autoría conjunta de las veintidós Academias *de la Lengua Española.


----------



## ireney

Elroy1988 what exactly are you saying here? And what is your point?


----------



## invictaspirit

This tired old argument is just as silly as the just as commonly-heard assertion that Spanish and Italian are limited, boring, over-technical, dry languages with few really interesting turns of phrase and a poverty of nuance.

I believe neither.

English is the true European language, the perfect bastard-language that is the bridge over which Germanic and Latin influences criss-cross. I don't much mind that it has no Academy. And I disagree profoundly with you that Spanish speakers inhabit a realm of perfect adherence to and agreement on language rules. It seems to me, having lived in Madrid and travelled very widely in Latin America, that Spanish is just as varied in use, and is sometimes spoken just as badly, as is any other world language.

Do you assume other posters are *unaware* of how people speak in Vallecas, Huelva, Buenos Aires, Arica and Oaxaca?

It also seems to me that Spanish in everyday use is just as democratic, functional and practical as English. I have heard and read Spanish which would make hair curl at RAE.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Eloy1988 said:


> all Spanish-speaking people can understand each other



So can all English-speaking people.



Eloy1988 said:


> and there is only one correct spelling, which is the basis of a united language.



While spelling might differ a little i.e. _labour_/_labor_, they're still the same words and hardly incomprehensible to another English speaker.

Anyway to answer your first question, I guess Modern English was born in London seeing as that was the dialect on which the language was standardized.


----------



## maxiogee

"Common knowledge" frequently turns out - upon inspection - to be misinformed romour.

It used to be said that the 'best' English was spoken in Dublin - but that migth have been a result of no-one wanting to plump for any region of England, Scotland or Wales.
One thing is for certain, no part of Dublin had any part in the early childhood of English - not as a cradle, a pushchair nor as a nursing chair.
We have, over the years, done such things to the language as to possibly qualify as its playground in adolescence - James Joyce, Sean O'Casey, Roddy Doyle and many others.


----------



## invictaspirit

maxiogee said:


> "Common knowledge" frequently turns out - upon inspection - to be misinformed romour.
> 
> It used to be said that the 'best' English was spoken in Dublin - but that migth have been a result of no-one wanting to plump for any region of England, Scotland or Wales.
> One thing is for certain, no part of Dublin had any part in the early childhood of English - not as a cradle, a pushchair nor as a nursing chair.
> We have, over the years, done such things to the language as to possibly qualify as its playground in adolescence - James Joyce, Sean O'Casey, Roddy Doyle and many others.


 
Beautiful analogy!


----------



## LouisaB

Eloy1988 said:


> Can anyone tell me what zone of England English was born in?
> I would also like to know what region is considered to be the zone in which the "purest" English is spoken.
> Thanks to everybody.


 
Hi, Eloy,

I'm afraid there's no easy answer to this question (as you'll possibly have gathered!) but it seems quite a natural one for a non-native speaker to ask. Resorting to anecdotal evidence for a moment, I have a friend who did Oriental Studies at University, and was devastated to discover the Chinese he had so painstakingly learned over three years was considered in Hong Kong to be of a very base and even 'peasant' nature, not fit to be used in business. He should (apparently) have studied Mandarin instead... On the other side of the coin, we have reports from SOE during the war, that British agents learned such perfectly textbook French they were instantly identifiable when trying to operate in regions with a dominant local dialect.

England is no different, in that it has a number of regional dialects, where vocabulary as well as accent can differ significantly. However, there is no real perception of what is 'purest' or 'best' - except, as you've heard, the value attributed to so-called RP. I am not an expert in philology, so my answer is of limited value, but I did at least study Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Middle English, and Modern English at Oxford, so I can at least have a feeble stab at it.

'Modern English' officially begins with Chaucer (!!! Honest!) By this time, the language has indeed become the 'bastard' it is today, being liberally peppered with borrowings from the languages of the many people who conquered us in the past - especially Norse from the Vikings, Latin (and interestingly Greek) from the Romans, and most importantly French from the Normans. For this reason, in England the 'purest' English is far from being the easiest for most people to understand, and is probably the furthest away from RP. The modern languages closest to Old English are indeed the Gaelic of both Scotland and Ireland, and traces of it can also be found in most regions from the Midlands on upwards to the far North. There are far more 'Anglo Saxon' words in current use north of Leicester than there are in the south, but many of these are no longer understood in London.

Ironically, the supposedly 'best' English (and I'm sure I don't need to point out I'm only referring to a common perception here, as I would no more make such judgements on a language than anyone else in this forum) is actually the least pure. This is probably natural, considering that our 'foreign borrowings' always (by definition) were used more by the 'top people', who were the invaders. One example of this: in England, we have two words for 'sheep' - the Anglo Saxon 'sheep', which is only ever used of the animal you see in a field, and the French 'mouton', here written as 'mutton', and only ever used to describe the animal you see on a plate. The reason for the distinction is that a nobleman would only ever notice a sheep when he/she was eating it, whereas the peasant would have to look after the animal itself.

Thus words of French, Latin and Greek origin are considered (as a massive generalisation) higher register than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. When we say 'Anglo Saxon words' here, we normally mean 'four-letter words' of the kind you can imagine.... Thus, the highest register English is heavily influenced by these other languages, which is reflected in its pronunciation as well as its vocabulary. For instance, it's considered 'higher register' to use the soft French 'g' and long 'a' when appropriate, so that the Queen would say 'garage' with a soft second 'g' and a long second 'a', whereas in Yorkshire (where my family come from) we'd say something that sounded more like 'garridge'.

The 'Oxford accent' is, I suspect, a myth. The local accent is no more rhotic than any other I know, and would not be considered especially 'good' English. I think what is really meant by this is the accent associated with those who have been to Oxford (or Cambridge) universities, traditionally a bastion of the upper-middle class and a natural destination for those who have been to the more exclusive public schools. Thankfully this is no longer so (or I would not have been there!) but the stereotype persists, that highest register English is most associated with this area.

Apologies for such a long ramble. In the end, I can't really answer your question at all, except to say that:
1) I can't think of a dictionary that would be unreliable in teaching you good, easily understood English
2) No region is really considered to speak better English than another, but if you want to speak in a way that the most snobby among us would recognise as being 'higher' in some sense, then follow the BBC - on radio, not television. The accent of West London (but NOT East London) is perhaps the closest to this in terms of region.
3) If in doubt, go for the 'least pure' - ie the English that owes most to French or Latin. American English, however (probably simply because of its association with popular cinema) has not the same kudos.

I'm sorry, I know there are a lot of generalisations in here, but it is a very general question. At least I've had a go!

Louisa


----------



## fenixpollo

Eloy1988 said:


> Of course it is. In Spanish, what is correct shouldn't be transgressed. It is a matter of speaking well, for Spanish-speaking people, speaking well has always been regarded as prestigious, so everybody obeys the RAE.


I think you were responding to me here, so I'll reply as someone who learned Spanish as a teenager. Which is the correct word for a swimming pool: _alberca_ or _piscina_? Which one does everyone always use?

Your elitist attitude grows tiresome.


----------



## Qcumber

Probably the whole of Southern England, particularly the London-Oxford-Cambridge triangle.


----------



## cuchuflete

Eloy1988 said:


> When a foreigner is learning English, he doesn't know what dictionary to buy, what is correct and what is not.





			
				H.L. Mencken ~ 1926 said:
			
		

> *It is based upon propositions  that are palpably not true and what is not true, as everyone knows, is always  immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than  what is true.*


----------



## ernest_

Sorry mate, but I think you've lost the plot here.

The RAE has as much authority over the Spanish language as the Queen of England has over the English language. That is to say, none at all. I tell you, according to the RAE the correct spelling of 'whisky' is 'güisqui'. Do you know anybody that uses this spelling? I don't. People laugh at it.


----------



## Hockey13

You can learn what some people sometimes call "the Queen's English" and you can take that attitude to Australia or America and see how far it gets you. If you intend to learn one corner of a language and dare to call that modicum the "best," be prepared to get a harsh reception anywhere they don't speak that form of English. It's rather offensive. Imagine if I learned Portuguese and went to Spain to say that they all spoke the modern derivation of Latin completely _wrong_. How might people react?


----------



## elroy

Eloy1988 said:


> I'm talking of modern English, of course.
> As for the other question, every single language has a place where the language is supposed to be spoken best.


 _Every single language? _All 6,000+ of them? Where could I find a list of every language and the region in which it is allegedly spoken best?

I'll have you know that no version of spoken Arabic - and there are hundreds - is considered better than any other. We have a standard version of the language that is the same across the entire Arab-speaking world, and the dialects are all viewed as tantamount to each other. While standard Arabic is arguably more prestigious than colloquial Arabic (it is reserved for very formal contexts), it does not correspond to a particular region - so at least one of the top ten most spoken languages in the world definitively disproves your claim that _every single language_ is spoken in a particular region (its cradle?) that boasts a superior variety of that language. 


> (I'm not saying that I agree with this statement, but it's common knowledge, and it almost always coincides with the place where the language was born.)


 I would ask everyone who believed - or had even ever heard of - this crazy claim to raise his hand. 

Where was German born? 


Eloy1988 said:


> uel, it is tru dat der is nou normatif for inglix, sou, luk, meibi, dis is de best inglish?
> it be tru dat inglish mast bi da interneixonal lenguich, evry singel zing is balid!!!





Eloy1988 said:


> I think English lacks an authority on the language unlike many other languages
> When a foreigner is learning English, he doesn't know what dictionary to buy, what is correct and what is not.
> As a student of Philology, I can tell even native speakers don't even know how to punctuate or whether a construction is correct or not.


The above statements are fundamentally contradictory. In the first, you sarcastically imply that there are obviously rules and standards to follow when writing and speaking English, and in the second, you paint English as an anarchic language in which "everything goes" and even native speakers are at a loss as to how to use this language correctly.

If English had no rules, I would not be able to legitimately make the following corrections to your text:


> It also happens with vocabulary. A word enters the dictionary even though it is irrational. This doesn't happen with in Spanish. Every single Spanish-speaking country (the US and the Philippines are of course included) has an academy. They contribute to the work that the RAE, the central Spanish Academy, does. This is not something "NGOic", non-governmental; it's something official. The academy issues official dictionaries of lexicon vocabulary, orthography, grammar, and so on and so forth; so if anybody has any doubts, he just knows just where to go.
> That's what we call a normativized standardized language. Draw your own conclusions, but thanks to this body, all Spanish-speaking people can understand each other and there is only one correct spelling, which is the basis of a united language. I don't know if anyone wants a fragmented and split English; maybe there are some hidden interests.


 How come the vast majority of English speakers can understand each other despite the absence of a prescriptive Academy of the English Language?
How come many dialects of Arabic are not mutually intelligible even though the spelling is standardized? 
If English is "fragmented" because of dialectal differences, then so is Spanish.
The differences in English were not _deliberately put in place _by some underground cabal of pseudo-linguists attempting to wreak havoc in the English-speaking world by destroying unity and impeding understanding. Rather, they reflect the _natural development and evolution of language_, a phenomenon you seem to underestimate or dismiss and one I would have personally assumed was familiar to most educated people - not least to students of philology.

Your conspiracy theory is so absurd I have a hard time believing that you were being serious.

You seem to be under the grossly false impression that the absense of a body like the RAE necessarily means that there is no correct way to speak a language. If you truly believe this, why do you bother with English grammar books (which you must have used judging from your English)?

The RAE, like any other academy of a language, tries to prescribe rules for language use, but reality shows that in practice people continue to use their native languages in exactly the same way that they would have used them without such an academy. They may consult the academy if they have to submit a formal paper and need to adhere to these rules to appease a rabid prescriptivist - but other than that such academies hardly dictate real usage. 

The standard Arabic language has remained relatively unchanged over the years, but that has not prevented various dialects from deviating from it, developing, and indeed flourishing. Language is constantly changing and no prescriptive academy is going to thwart that process. On the contrary, these academies repeatedly find themselves having to modify their own rules to reflect usage, defeating the purpose of having the academies in the first place. 


Eloy1988 said:


> Of course it is. In Spanish, what is correct shouldn't be transgressed.


 "Shouldn't" is right. "Shouldn't" according to a unrealistic body of prescriptivists.


> It is a matter of speaking well, for Spanish-speaking people, speaking well has always been regarded as prestigious, so everybody obeys the RAE.


 Oh, and speakers of other languages are content with lousy, inarticulate speech? 


> I'm afraid the RAE hasn't failed, but on the contrary, it has had a roaring success.


 What has it succeeded in doing? What advantage does the Spanish language have as opposed to other languages with no such academy?

Are you aware that composition and speech courses are extremely common in the United States?
Are you aware that in American schools "spelling" is a school subject?

I hope my comments open your eyes to the reality that Spanish behaves just like any other language - and the RAE has done little to change that. It would be sad if you continued your pursuit of philology with such a distorted image of reality.


----------



## Brioche

LouisaB said:


> Hi, Eloy,
> 
> On the other side of the coin, we have reports from SOE during the war, that British agents learned such perfectly textbook French they were instantly identifiable when trying to operate in regions with a dominant local dialect.


 
If the British agents had all be native speakers of French, they would have had the same difficulty. 

Compare the situation in England. Could a Scouse go unremarked in Newcastle?  A Cockney in Cardiff?


----------



## Hockey13

Brioche said:


> If the British agents had all be native speakers of French, they would have had the same difficulty.
> 
> Compare the situation in England. Could a Scouse go unremarked in Newcastle? A Cockney in Cardiff?


 
So what you're saying is that the Scouse and the Cockney are running secret agent missions to promote their hidden interests to keep English having distinct dialects?? PM me if you want to hear my theory about how the RAE is really a secret paramilitary organization dedicated to the eventual promulgation of their own existence as a paramilitary organization. As yet, they have clearly failed...but any day now...


----------



## Flérida

Eloy1988 said:


> It is a matter of speaking well, for Spanish-speaking people, speaking well has always been regarded as prestigious, so everybody obeys the RAE.
> I'm afraid the RAE hasn't failed, but on the contrary, it has had a roaring success.


 
XDDD I'm afraid you should go out and talk to people (outside university is better if you can do so). 

I'm Spanish and if you just watch Spanish TV once a week you can see how people speaks Spanish and their "genuine" interest in speaking well... any resemblance to RAE is coincidental XD


----------



## LouisaB

Brioche said:


> If the British agents had all be native speakers of French, they would have had the same difficulty.
> 
> Compare the situation in England. Could a Scouse go unremarked in Newcastle? A Cockney in Cardiff?


 
Absolutely not, Brioche - that's exactly my point  .There _are_ regional differences in English, as well as with many other languages, so it's quite natural for a non-native to want to know the kind of English they're learning, and whether it's going to be acceptable everywhere. If they learnt English from a Cockney in order to take up a job in Cardiff, they would indeed be highly noticeable! But since Cardiff is in Wales, perhaps the Scouse in Newcastle is the better example..

(Actually, I'm a little suspicious of the SOE and 'perfect textbook' English story. If they were anything like me, I suspect some of the agents spoke with such atrociously British accents they'd have stood out anywhere...)

But eloy's conspiracy theory is obviously something I can't take seriously. Perhaps (as s/he's not a native speaker) that's not exactly what he meant by 'hidden interests'? It's true enough to say that many regions of England are parochially proud of their own brand of the language, and would fiercely resist any attempt to standardise it. I would resist it myself! It's also true that over time the positions have become to some extent polarised in politics - the far Right being associated with RP and 'Oxbridge English' as representing the privileged classes, and the far Left being associated with regional dialect, possibly because of the birth of the Labour Movement in the mining industries of Wales and Yorkshire, and also because the Left is seen as representing the right of individuals outside the centre of power in Westminster to have a 'voice'. It may be this is all eloy means - and as a non-native speaker, we're bound by the rules of the forum to give him the benefit of the doubt before we attack.

However, if s/he_ does_ mean to say there's a conspiracy to keep English disparate, then I'm bound to agree with Hockey13 and everyone else. The nicest thing I can say about that theory is that it's rubbish.


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, I'm going to answer some questions.
Both "alberca" and "piscina" are correct for two reasons. The first one is because "alberca" is now a word only used in Mexico but understood in Spain because it IS a Spanish word which was brought to the New World.  The second one is very simple: it is in the RAE dictionary.
Well, I don't know, Ernest, if you write it wrong, but if the RAE says it is "güisqui" I'll write "güisqui" and not let's say "whyski" because some people think it's cooler and more fashionable. I'm sure that you, as a native of Catalan, are aware of the amazingly crazy puritanism that some freaks try to impose over Catalan, so I'd like to know whether you write nyu instead of ñu. I'm sure you do, don't you?
Well, in Spanish, although there is a region where people are thought to speak best, with a wider range of vocabulary, I mean, there is no distinction as the absurd Londonian one. I find it amazing that there are different accents within 6 kilometers. I think it's time for you guys to set up an Academy. Moreover, don't be hypocritical. Whether in some languages you are supposed to speak best according to your place of origin, in English, it hinges on your social class (cf. Pygmalion, Martin Eden, and so AND so forth). Amazingly democratic. No matter whether you are from the Australian outback. If you are a millionaire, you'll try to mimic RP. This doesn't happen in such an accentuate way in Spanish. The purity in Spanish is not based on the accent but on the person's vocabulary and grammar. So it's not important if you have "seseo" as long as you don't say "anglicismos" or make any other mistakes. I think this is far more democratic.


----------



## Benjy

Eloy1988 said:


> ...there is no distinction as the absurd Londonian one. I find it amazing that there are different accents within 6 kilometers.



Eh? 



> I think it's time for you guys to set up an Academy.



Because that will solve all our "problems" overnight. If we had an academy dictionary to tell me that not using a back a when I pronouce the word grass or bath was wrong and not just a regional thing then I would change right away, along with the rest of the West Midlands. Everyone would stop using words that were not included in the dictionary and would treat its contents as sacrosanct.



> Moreover, don't be hypocritical. Whether in some languages you are supposed to speak best according to your place of origin, in English, it hinges on your social class (cf. Pygmalion, Martin Eden, and so AND so forth). Amazingly democratic. No matter whether you are from the Australian outback. If you are a millionaire, you'll try to mimic RP. This doesn't happen in such an accentuate way in Spanish. The purity in Spanish is not based on the accent but on the person's vocabulary and grammar. So it's not important if you have "seseo" as long as you don't say "anglicismos" or make any other mistakes.



EH? No one has ever told me that because of my background or place of birth that I was or wasn't allowed to say anything. I was born in Truro, therefore by your logic any accent other than a Cornish one would be frowned upon by my peers. My dad was an orphan from wolverhampton so I guess I should have an accent which relects my working class roots or something.

You make it sound as though the whole anglophone world is homogenous and trapped in some archaic class system, that sharp stratification exists between all layers of society and that mobilty within them is impossible.



> I think this is far more democratic.



How so? In what way is a prescriptivist body deciding what's right or wrong people power? Don't you think that a wider vocab is due in large part to education and thus reserved to those who have access to it? How is that democratic? Doesn't word power also vary according to intelligence? Democracy?

That's so lazy as to not even merit a proper rebuttal.


----------



## cuchuflete

So nice to see that some of the most recent questions have been deemed worthy of a reply.  What about the thread topic questions?  They have been declared to be nonsense, based on false premises, illogical, and ridiculous.  That led to a diversion into the theoretical merits of an academy for the regulation of language.  That, in turn, has provoked some spoutings about what is more democratic.  At this rate, we will soon follow the wandering theme into dietary habits as a function of spelling conventions.

These were the topics that were presented by the thread starter, who, as one may detect below, has chosen to abandon them in favor of things scarcely related:



> Can anyone tell me what zone of England English was born in?
> I would also like to know what region is considered to be the zone in which the "purest" English is spoken.





Eloy1988 said:


> Well, I'm going to answer some questions.
> Both "alberca" and "piscina" are correct for two reasons. The first one is because "alberca" is now a word only used in Mexico but understood in Spain because it IS a Spanish word which was brought to the New World.  The second one is very simple: it is in the RAE dictionary.
> Well, I don't know, Ernest, if you write it wrong, but if the RAE says it is "güisqui" I'll write "güisqui" and not let's say "whyski" because some people think it's cooler and more fashionable. I'm sure that you, as a native of Catalan, are aware of the amazingly crazy puritanism that some freaks try to impose over Catalan, so I'd like to know whether you write nyu instead of ñu. I'm sure you do, don't you?
> Well, in Spanish, although there is a region where people are thought to speak best, with a wider range of vocabulary, I mean, there is no distinction as the absurd Londonian one. I find it amazing that there are different accents within 6 kilometers. I think it's time for you guys to set up an Academy. Moreover, don't be hypocritical. Whether in some languages you are supposed to speak best according to your place of origin, in English, it hinges on your social class (cf. Pygmalion, Martin Eden, and so AND so forth). Amazingly democratic. No matter whether you are from the Australian outback. If you are a millionaire, you'll try to mimic RP. This doesn't happen in such an accentuate way in Spanish. The purity in Spanish is not based on the accent but on the person's vocabulary and grammar. So it's not important if you have "seseo" as long as you don't say "anglicismos" or make any other mistakes. I think this is far more democratic.



We still await a definition of "purest".  Purity of logic would be refreshing, as a companion piece to purity of emotional attachment to erroneous suppostions.  

RP didn't come into existence until centuries after English evolved into "Modern English".   Therefore, any attempt to link RP to an earlier, "purer" form of the language is suspect, at best.


----------



## ireney

Eloy1988 said:


> I think it's time for you guys to set up an Academy.



May I ask why? It's their language you know. If  tomorrow people, in any part where they speak English as a native language, decide _en mass _ to always pronounce "a" as in "space" why would that be wrong?



> Moreover, don't be hypocritical. Whether in some languages you are supposed to speak best according to your place of origin, in English, it hinges on your social class (cf. Pygmalion, Martin Eden, and so AND so forth). Amazingly democratic. No matter whether you are from the Australian outback. If you are a millionaire, you'll try to mimic RP.



You sure about it? Bill Gates talks with the RP pronunciation for instance?



> This doesn't happen in such an accentuate way in Spanish. The purity in Spanish is not based on the accent but on the person's vocabulary and grammar. So it's not important if you have "seseo" as long as you don't say "anglicismos" or make any other mistakes. I think this is far more democratic.



Are you sure you know what democracy is all about? We have regional dialects and/or pronunciations around here too. I never considered the fact that I can tell if someone is from Macedonia, or Crete or the Ionian islands i.e. undemocratic nor did I feel somehow bad or anything that when visiting there people could tell I am not a local.


----------



## Eloy1988

Have you read what I said, Ireney?
I precisely stated that in Spanish we don't discriminate against anybody for their accent!!!
By the way, in Macedonia they speak Macedonian, Greek is spoken in the Greek region of Macedonia.

Having a wider range of vocabulary is not only due to education, Benjy. Some Spanish regions have a sort of pure vocabulary that is not learnt at school and which is unknown by other educated speakers of other regions. That's what I'm referring to when I am talking about the purity of the language of some regions.


----------



## maxiogee

Eloy1988 said:


> By the way, in Macedonia they speak Macedonian, Greek is spoken in the Greek region of Macedonia.



Is, then, the Greek region of Macedonia an exclave and not * actually in* Macedonia? Otherwise there are some "they" in Macedonia who do not speak Macedonian.


----------



## cuchuflete

Eloy1988 said:


> By the way, in Macedonia they speak Macedonian, Greek is spoken in the Greek region of Macedonia.



By the way, the RAE doesn't have, as far as I know, a textbook that teaches one how to read English, even pure English, while ignoring context.  Not only was it clear from the context of Ireney's post which part of Greece she was speaking of, but in English, pure or colloquial, Macedonia is not the name of the country you seem to be confusing with a similarly but distinctly named region of a country.  It is "Republic of Macedonia".  

Is ignorance of context a castizo trait sanctioned by the RAE?
I don't think so.

So tell us, please, what does "pure" mean in terms of language?  So far you have offered only this:



> Some Spanish regions have a sort of pure vocabulary that is not learnt at school and which is unknown by other educated speakers of other regions. That's what I'm referring to when I am talking about the purity of the language of some regions.


  Have you just pointed to "regionalism"?   Just for your information, regionalisms are not synonymous with linguistic purity in English.


----------



## Sepia

This is pretty much what I was searching for almost at the beginning of this thread. When somebody is claiming that this or that version of a language is more correct or pure than another one, I always ask for logical criteria by simply asking: "Why?"

A good try might be - which version/accent/dialect/sociolect is generally understood, but it usually turns out that people can speak different dialects and they still understand each other perfectly. Even minor regional differences in vocabulary and grammar are not always important. (Employees of different companies in the same city also often have different meanings to the same words.)

So the question is still unanswered. 

But one big difference between English and languages like Italian, Castellano/Spanish and High German, is that it has gone through a natural development in a pretty large geographical area. The other three have a history of being spread by means of authority - governments introducing it a the official language, the church spreading the WORD, printed in the regional language of the area where the Bible was translated and printed, etc. Thus these languages were spread into areas that already had highly developed cultures and their own regional languages. 

That, of course makes it easier for Spanish-, Italian-, and German-speaking people to believe they could put their finger on one version of the language and say, this is it! Usually they put their finger on a modern day version of the language which differs just as much from the "original" version from "Dante ..." or the Gutenberg Bible as all the other modern day dialects, that may or may not be generally understood in a society.


----------



## John-Paul

I think purity discussions are scary because it implicates that one party is more pure than other parties, just like the pure-bloods and the mudbloods in Harry Potter. What is the point of creating a standard for something we all use and abuse other than create differences between people?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

An Academy wouldn't work because the Americans would refuse to abide by it. Remember, they call a tap a faucet and even spell the date backwards over there 

But seriously maybe English could do with some sort of a governing body for spelling as I think English spelling might be the most ridiculous in the world. 

Other than that, an Academy wouldn't work. English is too diverse a language for people to be told what words are right and wrong to use.


----------



## invictaspirit

I think Eloy's arguments have been comprehensively blown out of the water by the Spanish speakers who have derided his argument. And by the non-natives who have disagreed with him. And by me. And by everyone else.

In Madrid, do the people of Vallecas speak the same way as the people of the Barrio Salamanca? How does the way people speak in Huelva compare to the the speech of Segovia?  Both RAE-compliant, I hope. The RAE unites the use of Spanish grammar and vocabulary in Burgos and the slums of La Paz, right?

Nah...of course not. You are mistaken, aren't you.

Philology, eh?  Hehe! Right...

I'll send him a shot of "güisqui" for his impudence, the lovable little franquista.

Plvs ultra!


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, Sepia I can only tell you to revise History.
That English hasn't imposed itself over other people by cruel means is just absurd as to say that teenagers are old people. 
Just one case in order not to be heavy: immediately after Spain lost the Philippines to the US after 400 years of respectable control, the holler-than-thou Americans devoted their time to KILL Spanish-speaking people (cf: the massacre of Manila), and demean our language, imposing a language that was totally foreign to them. There has been no case like this in the history of the world, I'm afraid, so please don't talk without knowing. The result, for your information, was that it was not very effective, rich people went on speaking Spanish and today we have Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the president of "la perla de Asia" as a member of the the Academia Filipina de la lengua española.  
Spanish spread over America because of the laws that fostered the marriages between Spanish men and indigenous women but remember that Spanish was never imposed, but quite the other way round. The priests didn't preach in Spanish but in the regional languages in order to be understood by the whole population. Later on, this situation changed, and there was a major shift to Spanish mainly because of the prestige that Spanish had. 
By the way, it is undoubtable that Spanish spread over a LARGE zone, but I can't see the LARGE territories on which Italian and German are spoken. 
Well, Invictaspirit, of course the RAE unites the grammar of the Spanish spoken in La Paz and Burgos. If some people from La Paz don't speak duly, it's bad for them. But at least there is a body that tells them that their Spanish is not correct so that they can improve it. But that's not the important thing. What is essential is that the RAE unites the standard language, it creates a world standard Spanish that has the same spelling and the same grammar, with just a few differencies concerning vocabulary, which is majorly due to the different aspects of daily life.
Well, I've been many times to Madrid and I don't know about people from Vallecas, but I can tell you no-one would say I'm from Catalonia in Madrid. I could perfectly speak to a guy from the magnificent neighborhood of Salamanca and he wouldn't realize I'm from Barcelona, 600 kms. away from the capital of our country. I don't know if this is possible in the UK.
Well, Invictaspirit, don't bother to send me a bottle of "güisqui", I don't like it. Instead, give me an English Academy.


----------



## ireney

Eloy1988 said:


> Have you read what I said, Ireney?
> I precisely stated that in Spanish we don't discriminate against anybody for their accent!!!
> By the way, in Macedonia they speak Macedonian, Greek is spoken in the Greek region of Macedonia.



a) You said that the English speaking people do though. That it's a matter of education and so on and so forth. And I say that it isn't. You also claimed that millionaire's go for the RP and I gave you one example out of many that shows that this is not true
b) I am covered by what cuchuflete and maxiogee said about the ... "Macedonian" question. You surely don't expect me to try to find an alternative name for that region of Greece just because there's also F.Y.R.O.M. (just to be on the safe side I decided to go with the official provisional name of the country  ).

Anyway, I still haven't understood why it is bad to have a different pronunciation  . I also would like to clarify something; are you saying that all the countries in which English is the native language should have one Academy or should they have one Academy each?

And another thing: Although, from what I've read and what little I know, Spanish is not so uniform as you make it sound, let's say, for argument's sake, that it is completely and utterly uniform. English isn't. Why is that bad? Those who speak English as a first language don't seem to mind (haven't met one that minds at least) and they don't have a problem either learning the language or communicating with each other. 
No one pressures any non-English speaker to learn English but I have still to meet anyone who, having learnt English with whichever pronunciation and whichever spelling (it's not as if we're talking about vast differences anyway) had a problem communicating with English speakers.
I personally learnt the British "formal" variety and tend to pronounce things "Englishesque". That last neologism means that I often pronounce words in a way no native-English speaker does but many Greeks who know English do . That a) gives away that fact that I am a foreigner b) means that I have a distinct pronunciation . No problem communicating in an equal basis though. Not even when I "close the lights and open the PC" (that's Greek creeping in my sentences again I'm afraid)


----------



## Eloy1988

In Spanish, for instance, every single Spanish-Speaking country has an Academy. They are controlled by the RAE, which is the central Academy, situated in Madrid. The different Academies give to the RAE their help concerning regional differences in HispanoAmerica, the US and the Philippines.
So why not have an English language Academy with a base in the US, Canada, Australia... having its seat in London?


----------



## cuchuflete

You are almost correct, Pedro.



> I think English spelling might be *is* the most ridiculous in the world.


  La ortografía inglesa es una verdadera macedonia de frutas.  


Is it just my impression, or do threads abandon their original topic when that topic is so empty as to quickly repel even the thread starter?


For a correct view of history, please "revise" the life and times of Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde, who, as far as is known in philology circles, is not related to the thread starter, despite some apparent similarities in vocabulary, syntax, and orthography.


----------



## Eloy1988

Now that you mention Francisco Franco, I can tell Spanish at that time was pure, so if you want to know what I understand as "pure", just watch programs from that time.
P.S: (Spanish required)


----------



## invictaspirit

Eloy1988 said:


> Well, Sepia I can only tell you to revise History.
> That English hasn't imposed itself over other people by cruel means is just absurd as to say that teenagers are old people.
> Just one case in order not to be heavy: immediately after Spain lost the Philippines to the US after 400 years of respectable control, the holler-than-thou Americans devoted their time to KILL Spanish-speaking people (cf: the massacre of Manila), and demean our language, imposing a language that was totally foreign to them. There has been no case like this in the history of the world, I'm afraid, so please don't talk without knowing. The result, for your information, was that it was not very effective, rich people went on speaking Spanish and today we have Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the president of "la perla de Asia" as a member of the the Academia Filipina de la lengua española.
> Spanish spread over America because of the laws that fostered the marriages between Spanish men and indigenous women but remember that Spanish was never imposed, but quite the other way round. The priests didn't preach in Spanish but in the regional languages in order to be understood by the whole population. Later on, this situation changed, and there was a major shift to Spanish mainly because of the prestige that Spanish had.
> By the way, it is undoubtable that Spanish spread over a LARGE zone, but I can't see the LARGE territories on which Italian and German are spoken.
> Well, Invictaspirit, of course the RAE unites the grammar of the Spanish spoken in La Paz and Burgos. If some people from La Paz don't speak duly, it's bad for them. But at least there is a body that tells them that their Spanish is not correct so that they can improve it. But that's not the important thing. What is essential is that the RAE unites the standard language, it creates a world standard Spanish that has the same spelling and the same grammar, with just a few differencies concerning vocabulary, which is majorly due to the different aspects of daily life.
> Well, I've been many times to Madrid and I don't know about people from Vallecas, but I can tell you no-one would say I'm from Catalonia in Madrid. I could perfectly speak to a guy from the magnificent neighborhood of Salamanca and he wouldn't realize I'm from Barcelona, 600 kms. away from the capital of our country. I don't know if this is possible in the UK.
> Well, Invictaspirit, don't bother to send me a bottle of "güisqui", I don't like it. Instead, give me an English Academy.


 
If you don't like "güisqui", you have no heart.  If you campaign for an Academy of English, you have no brain.  

Some (a small minority) of students of our language, such as your good self, resent the vast reach of it for political and national reasons.  They would appear hugely less hypocritical if they simply stopped learning and relied on the courage of their convictions by refusing to use it.  Many others (and I speak as an ex-teacher of the Colegio Britanico in Madrid) embrace English and realise that its demonstrably maleable and oftentimes quirky character can be the source of a great deal of fun, wisdom and inspiration.

*I wonder if I might test my theory?  I'd appreciate it very much if you would allow me.  Give me a few days and I will PM you ten or twenty single English words (nouns, adjectives and verbs).  Each will describe a highly precise concept that exists in Spanish culture or Spanish life.  Your task will be to provide me with an exact and absolutely precise Spanish translation.  By that I mean one word which entirely encompasses the meaning of the English word.  Phrases or sentences will not be permissable.  I must stress that I promise only to use words that describe a thing, concept or idea about which I am 100% sure exists in your culture.  We'll see if the RAE can cope.  I would like to do this with you in public, but fear it may go beyond the scope of this message board.  I may, however, publish what I consider to be your test results on this thread.*

I challenge you to this test because it is my strong belief that the Academy-less English language is more able to precisely describe reality than is the Academy-endowed Spanish one.

Up for it?


----------



## ireney

Why in London? And should that Academy go by the way the Londoners speak? Which Londoners? If not Londoners why in London? (strange as it may seem it's not exactly a circular argument)

Thanks for the clarification by the way


----------



## cuchuflete

Please spend some time reading back issues of Alerta, for an example of linguistic purity.  I used to see pages from it hanging in appropriate places with holes in the floor.  

It seems that the ideology of José Antonio Primo de Rivera has formed part of the philology curriculum in one school.


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, if what you want to test is that there are some popular words that are not in the RAE dictionary but exist in our language, I can tell you you are 100% right. No need to test it, a minor number of them is not important. What can be harmful is if every single country starts inventing and coining new words that are not understood by other Spanish-speaking people, because it represents a danger for the language and it would be a shame that an Argentinian, a Mexican and a Spanish wouldn't be able to understand each other because of their stupidity to invent already-coined words, don't you think?
Anyways, if you want to test me, I agree.


----------



## invictaspirit

> Well, Invictaspirit, of course the RAE unites the grammar of the Spanish spoken in La Paz and Burgos. If some people from La Paz don't speak duly, it's bad for them.


 
_Some_ people?  Try virtually *no* people!  So...the RAE isn't working?  It's "bad for them"?  How can the RAE improve its work to make the people of La Paz speak 'proper' Spanish?  Isn't it true that they ignore the dicatats from Madrid?

I don't mran to be rude but...you do realise the Latin Americans make fun of Castillian Spanish?  I mean...from my experience, *far* more than Americans laugh at English English.  The accent, grammar, vocabulary of Madrid seem to be the source of enormous amusement in Mexico City or Santiago de Chile.  Should these people be contacted by RAE?


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, you have just said something groundless. Castilian Spanish is the prestige dialect everywhere. Every single Latin American person that I know tells me that "in Spain is where they speak true Spanish", so, please, don't manipulate things.


----------



## Flérida

Eloy1988 said:


> Well, you have just said something groundless. Castilian Spanish is the prestige dialect everywhere. Every single Latin American person that I know tells me that "in Spain is where they speak true Spanish", so, please, don't manipulate things.


 
Please... this is going too far...

I'm from Burgos, educated in Valladolid and Salamanca, currently living in Barcelona and the idea of talking about "pure Spanish" or "true Spanish" makes me laugh or cry, depends on the moment...

On the other hand, I lived in the US for some time, where I was totally surrounded by Latin Americans who always made fun of my accent and vocabulary. Obviously, sometimes it was me (and a couple of Spanish people) who made fun of them, so we can say we made fun of each other. The same happens to me in Barcelona, where I have met argentinians and peruvians mostly. They and I also make fun about each other's accent and vocabulary. But what I was trying to say is that none of them has never said to me that I talk "the purest Spanish" or "authentic Spanish" or "true Spanish". And if some day they do, I will tell them that are completly wrong.


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, I think we live in complete different worlds, Flérida. No-one has never made fun of my accent, and many people have told me to correct their essays because of speaking Castilian Spanish, and so being less infected by interferences from Catalan.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I think you do indeed live in a different world, Eloy.

Never, ever, in thousands of interactions, did I ever hear any Latin American or Filipino comment admiringly about the "purity" of Castillian Spanish.

It must be the result of some dreadful defect in their education.


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, do you think English is the autoctonous language?
A language that has been in a country for more than 5 centuries can perfectly considered the autoctonous language.
Otherwise, Spanish should be speaking Iberian and not Spanish, which is a modified Latin. That's ridiculous.


----------



## maxiogee

Eloy1988 said:


> Well, Invictaspirit, don't bother to send me a bottle of "güisqui", I don't like it. Instead, give me an English Academy.


Why should anyone give you an English Academy?

The millions of native English speakers - spread all across the globe - aren't looking for one.
Who would have the 'authority' to create one?
Which of the current forms of English would be chosen to be the chosen one?
How would such a decision be reached?

Would anyone, anywhere, pay any attention to its pronouncements?
I'm almost certain the Irish wouldn't, for starters.


----------



## Flérida

Eloy1988 said:


> Well, I think we live in complete different worlds, Flérida. No-one has never made fun of my accent, and many people have told me to correct their essays because of speaking Castilian Spanish, and so being less infected by interferences from Catalan.


 
My small piece of advice: go out, meet people (if possible Latin Americans and outside university), talk to them, watch "castilian" TV in order to hear "the purest Spanish" and if after that you think the same, I give up!


----------



## Eloy1988

I have many friends from HispanoAmerica and they all think Castilian Spanish is the best one. Moroever, they admire our pronounciation, so you can already give up. 
P.S: Don't forget that we are "La madre patria".


----------



## LouisaB

Eloy1988 said:


> Well, I think we live in complete different worlds, Flérida. No-one has never made fun of my accent, and many people have told me to correct their essays because of speaking Castilian Spanish, and so being less infected by interferences from Catalan.


 
I would now like to apologise to everyone on this thread for having taken the initial question seriously, and doing my best to find an answer.

_'Infected'? 'Interferences?'_ Eloy, the moment someone in England says something this crass and snobby about the language differences of region is the moment they disappear under a hail of brickbats, and I will personally be throwing the first.

Philology studies language, it does not establish a league table. This kind of snobbery has no place in any kind of scholarship. I suspect you do indeed live in a different world from Flérida. I suspect you live in a different world from most of us, and quite possibly it has only a population of one.

I certainly hope so.

Louisa


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> Why should anyone give you an English Academy?
> The millions of native English speakers - spread all across the globe - aren't looking for one.   But Tony, it would be good for us.  We have that on the word of a philologist.
> Who would have the 'authority' to create one?  According to our resident philologist, Spanish "control" of the Philippines was benevolent.  The RAE "controls" the other Spanish language academies,  Spanish language was "pure" during the Franco dictatorship...isn't it obvious who should do the choosing?  Our philologist, of course!
> Which of the current forms of English would be chosen to be the chosen one?  The one that most resembles "pure" cradle talk.  Waaaaaaaah!  Bah Bah Bah.  All in a good RP accent as spoken by the appropriate class of people.
> How would such a decision be reached? How did Francisco Franco make decisions?
> 
> Would anyone, anywhere, pay any attention to its pronouncements?  How did Francisco Franco enforce his decisions?
> I'm almost certain the Irish wouldn't, for starters.
> I'm almost certain the Americans would be close behind you Irish in ignoring such twaddle.





___________________________________________________________________________________
"in Spain is where they speak true Spanish" —Alfonso el Sabio


----------



## Eloy1988

I'm afraid it isn't a world of one. You can enter the Spanish chat and you will find many opinions like mine.
Moreover, many British people are always criticizing American English. I'm sure you have heard the sentence: "Look what the Yankees have made to English", so it's not only me but many people.


----------



## LouisaB

Eloy1988 said:


> I'm sure you have heard the sentence: "Look what the Yankees have made to English", so it's not only me but many people.


 
I can't say I have. I haven't even heard anyone say 'Look what the Yankees have made _of_ English'.

Lucky for them, I'd say...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Eloy1988 said:


> I have many friends from HispanoAmerica and they all think Castilian Spanish is the best one. Moroever, they admire our pronounciation, so you can already give up.
> P.S: Don't forget that we are "La madre patria".



I revise my earlier post. I think what we have here is an over ardent nationalist.

Does it make you angry that the Catalans and the Basques want their own country?

Do you wish Spain was still the world's dominant military power?

If the answers are yes I suggest you take your head out of your ass and get into the real world. There is no such thing as a pure language dialect and if there was your version of Spanish is certainly not it.

Spain was certainly not a spreader of great culture if anything they destroyed most of what they touched.

So please stop talking crap.


----------



## Eloy1988

Well, I have heard it a lot of times

Spain spread catholicism everywhere, which is something that civilized all America.


----------



## LouisaB

Eloy1988 said:


> Well, I have heard it a lot of times


 
And this, in your Academy, would count as evidence?
Q.E.D....


----------



## elroy

I can't believe I wasted my time addressing every one of your points and trying to knock some sense into you.

Your arrogance, impudence, and disrespect are too pathetic to warrant attention.


----------



## cuchuflete

Even the Opus Dei would reject such a massive display of ignorance and arrogance. 

Eloy hath spoken.   

On your knees, everyone.


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

Eloy1988 said:


> Castilian Spanish is the prestige dialect everywhere. Every single Latin American person that I know tells me that "in Spain is where they speak true Spanish"





Eloy1988 said:


> being less infected by interferences from Catalan.





Eloy1988 said:


> P.S: Don't forget that we are "La madre patria".





Eloy1988 said:


> You can enter the Spanish chat and you will find many opinions like mine.





Eloy1988 said:


> Spain spread catholicism everywhere, which is something that civilized all America.





Eloy1988 said:


> Well, I have heard it a lot of times




Oh, pardon me.  I was looking for a serious discussion of languages, but it seems I've come to the bad joke thread instead.

Sorry,
Raphus


----------



## jabogitlu

> If some people from La Paz don't speak duly, it's bad for them. But at least there is a body that tells them that their Spanish is not correct so that they can improve it.


This is from the guy who claimed that "pure" Spanish-speakers don't hold prejudice against those who speak "bastard" versions, eh?

But thank God that Spain's Cathartic... oops, Catholic... influence helped tame the wild, savage-language-screeching Americans, so now we can communicate _a máquina!_


----------



## invictaspirit

This is the most extraordinarily nationalistic and political thread I have ever come across on WRF. It has nothing to do with language.

It is made all the more heartening by the *Spaniards* who disagree with the nonsense being spouted by this person.

I would recommend ignoring Eloy now. He has made his miniscule Francoist point.

That point is, to summarise:

*I, Eloy, mourn the demise of fascism and hyper-nationalism in Spain. Instead of realising that Spain is a fast-growing, fascinating and progessive middle-ranking European power with a socialist government  , I will continue to comfort myself with the stupid illusion that Spain sits regally and benificently at the centre of a vast network of hispanidad. I look on all other hispanic countries with the patronising and culturally colonial view that they are all 'sons of Spain' and berate the British for not having a similarly paternalistic view of their ex-empire, and for not foisting on the Americans, Irish, Australians, Canadians and others a haughty and largely irrelevant codification of how they should speak and write. I am jealous and resentful of the way the English have spread their language across the world and the fact that the United States has augmented this process by impudently being the world's primary economic power. To give vent to this miasma of cynical and half-learned prejudices, I will join a linguistic message board and whine. When even my fellow-citizens criticise me, I will denegrate their education and experience.*

Yep. I think we have the measure of you, Eloy. I like Spain very much. In some ways, I admire Spain. But, macho, know your limits, eh? Spain is a pleasingly modern nation these days...often the first or second to trial progresive and interesting new initiatives and I prefer your Prime Minister's view of the world to that of mine. But please...Spain having a monopoly on linguistic good sense, colonial cultural governance and rectitude...do me a favour! At least *go* to Latin America with your opinions before you spout them here! I'd give you about 10 minutes before they called the ambulance in most Latin American capitals.


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

If we had an academy, would it tell us what word to use to descibe a
person who knows a lot less than he thinks he knows?  Would it make sure we spelled it correctly?  Would it enable all Aussies and Kiwis and Belizians to agree that idiocy is different from idiosyncrasy and foolish flippant foppery?


----------



## John-Paul

Eloy1988 said:


> Spain spread catholicism everywhere, which is something that civilized all America.



You're a joke man, Spain raped, pillaged, murdered, raped, pillaged, murdered and raped, pillaged and murdered. There were a handful of Jezuits whe didn't rape and murder, but that's about it. You know this is exactly the selfrighteous attitude that scares me. You can't put yourself on the moral high ground, that's called hubris, or ignorance at best. Languages change and develop, so should you, grow up!


----------



## ireney

Hey! We Greeks have _*civilised*_ Europe which has _*civilized*_ America. I am not sure exactly how but I am working on it. 
(see also Gus Portokalos from "My big fat Greek wedding" :
G





> us Portokalos: Kimono, kimono, kimono. Ha! Of course! Kimono is come from the Greek word himona, is mean winter. So, what do you wear in the wintertime to stay warm? A robe. You see: robe, kimono. There you go!


)

You  should all learn Greek once we decide of course which form of Greek is the "pure" one. We must have some petty dictator still around (sorry, our last ones butchered the Greek language on a regular basis. Where does this world goes I wonder if you cannot even trust a dictator to speak "purely"?).

Now will you excuse me while I find my Napoleon hat and hunt for my horsey. I'm sure Julius Caesar stole Bucephalus from me AGAIN!)


----------



## cuchuflete

Ejemplo del castellano/español purísimo de la época de Franco:



> Para los falsarios, para los contumaces propagadores que en el extranjero difunden con ignominia una supuesta decadencia de España en el orden de la cultura, esta realidad aplastante es la más rotunda condenación de su cínico proceder. De la España en ruinas que ellos dejaron, ha surgido otra España que camina apresuradamente por el prestigio de su Ciencia y por el impulso de su profunda transformación cultural, al más encumbrado culmen de grandeza y de gloria.


 Franciso Franco, 12 de octubre 1943


----------

