**Mod Note: this is a discussion split from the low content thread, beginning after this post**
I am quite certain Tunk is from Canada, and I believe he uses proper English English as I do, so it makes sense that he would never have heard that colloquial expression.
By the way, although I am from America, I have no fondness for the American variety of English; in fact, I despise Webster and the butchering he did to the language here.
Why, what'd he do?
Go a bit more south and find some real butchering - Belizean Kriol Dictionary - but no worry, the queen's english is still taught in school but few actualy speak it.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
He was a "spelling reformer" who changed things for no good reason. He even wanted to change "women" to "wimmen."
I am someone who still uses the spelling "connexion" as opposed to "connection," if that helps explain some of my frustration with Webster and his language vandalism. Here is an article about the proper spelling of sulphur that can help elucidate my point about Webster:
Americans will perhaps class this spelling as another example of the olde-worlde quaintness of British life, since they have for the better part of two centuries been used to sulfur rather than sulphur. In this, they are now joined by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in Britain, who sent advice last week to head teachers that 14-year-olds taking school tests in science should adopt what was described as “internationally standardised” versions of this and other words, like fetus. A number of British newspaper commentators and teachers expressed opinions on this change, with varying degrees of apoplexy, that were partly based on a jingoistic feeling that, well, we invented the damn language, why should we have to conform to the way other people want to spell it? The phrase “American cultural imperialism” was also used. The School Standards Minister, Estelle Morris, told the QCA to think again (they don’t have to and they’re not going to: they’re an independent agency). The Conservative opposition education secretary, Theresa May, said the ruling was ridiculous and would only confuse teachers and pupils. All this despite the fact that the QCA had emphasised that “British English spelling should not be penalised”. Nobody is suggesting British people change these spellings for all purposes, only when using them in scientific contexts. The Royal Society of Chemistry rushed out a press release the next day to support the QCA, pointing out that standardisation is especially important for ease of communication (like looking things up in databases, for example, where variant versions of common terms are a bugbear). The Society added that standard chemical nomenclature already specifies the f forms of words like sulfur following agreement by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in 1990. The difference in spelling, and the current controversy resulting from it, must be laid at the feet of the late Noah Webster, a humourless and deeply religious schoolmaster cum failed lawyer who, after 15 years’ work, published his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828. One cannot imagine an individual less well suited to the creation of a dictionary; he knew very little of other languages, his ideas about etymology were based more on religion and wishful thinking than historical fact (he thought all languages derived from ancient Chaldee), and he had this bee in his bonnet about simplifying the language by removing unnecessary letters from words. His most influential book was not the Dictionary, but the earlier American Spelling Book, which went through about three hundred editions during his lifetime and after. This was very conventional by the standards of his day. It was only later that he began to advocate spelling reform, especially in a piece that had the splendid title An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to the Pronunciation, published in 1789. His aim was to remove all extraneous letters from words and he put forward a whole range of suggestions to this end. His aim was also political: he wanted to make American orthography distinctive and through this to help weld the disparate 13 founding colonies into a nation. By 1806, though, when he published his first dictionary, he had backtracked on the more outlandish of his ideas, saying “it would be useless to attempt any change, even if practicable, in those anomalies which form whole classes of words, and in which, change would rather perplex than ease the learner” (still a strong argument against spelling reform). Because of his spelling revisions in the 1828 dictionary, Americans now write color, jewelry, theater and aluminum, as well as sulfur. Had it not been for the conservatism of his readers and publisher — and a “dictionary war” with a rival — that forced him to modify his views, Americans would also now have tuf (for tough), groop (for group) and tung (for tongue) among many others. The deciding factor in modern standardisation, of course, is the American influence on the language world-wide, and especially on the vocabulary of the technical world. This has been considerable, and is the basis for the recommendations of IUPAC and the QCA. The majority of English writers world-wide already spell the word sulfur; that it looks odd and suspicious to some British speakers is as much an indication of parochialism as patriotism. Interestingly, the IUPAC also said that aluminium should be so spelled — one for Britain, it might seem, except that what IUPAC was actually doing was bringing that spelling into line with the other 55 elements whose names end in -ium. The Royal Society of Chemistry tried to make the point that “in 18th and 19th century Britain it was commonplace for sulfur to be spelt with either an ‘f’ or ‘ph’ ”. In this, they take their case too far, since the Oxford English Dictionary entry shows that the word has had ph in the middle ever since spelling settled down about 1600. Except in the US after Noah Webster, of course, and now internationally. And that’s official.
Americans will perhaps class this spelling as another example of the olde-worlde quaintness of British life, since they have for the better part of two centuries been used to sulfur rather than sulphur. In this, they are now joined by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in Britain, who sent advice last week to head teachers that 14-year-olds taking school tests in science should adopt what was described as “internationally standardised” versions of this and other words, like fetus.
A number of British newspaper commentators and teachers expressed opinions on this change, with varying degrees of apoplexy, that were partly based on a jingoistic feeling that, well, we invented the damn language, why should we have to conform to the way other people want to spell it? The phrase “American cultural imperialism” was also used. The School Standards Minister, Estelle Morris, told the QCA to think again (they don’t have to and they’re not going to: they’re an independent agency). The Conservative opposition education secretary, Theresa May, said the ruling was ridiculous and would only confuse teachers and pupils. All this despite the fact that the QCA had emphasised that “British English spelling should not be penalised”.
Nobody is suggesting British people change these spellings for all purposes, only when using them in scientific contexts. The Royal Society of Chemistry rushed out a press release the next day to support the QCA, pointing out that standardisation is especially important for ease of communication (like looking things up in databases, for example, where variant versions of common terms are a bugbear). The Society added that standard chemical nomenclature already specifies the f forms of words like sulfur following agreement by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in 1990.
The difference in spelling, and the current controversy resulting from it, must be laid at the feet of the late Noah Webster, a humourless and deeply religious schoolmaster cum failed lawyer who, after 15 years’ work, published his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828. One cannot imagine an individual less well suited to the creation of a dictionary; he knew very little of other languages, his ideas about etymology were based more on religion and wishful thinking than historical fact (he thought all languages derived from ancient Chaldee), and he had this bee in his bonnet about simplifying the language by removing unnecessary letters from words.
His most influential book was not the Dictionary, but the earlier American Spelling Book, which went through about three hundred editions during his lifetime and after. This was very conventional by the standards of his day. It was only later that he began to advocate spelling reform, especially in a piece that had the splendid title An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to the Pronunciation, published in 1789.
His aim was to remove all extraneous letters from words and he put forward a whole range of suggestions to this end. His aim was also political: he wanted to make American orthography distinctive and through this to help weld the disparate 13 founding colonies into a nation. By 1806, though, when he published his first dictionary, he had backtracked on the more outlandish of his ideas, saying “it would be useless to attempt any change, even if practicable, in those anomalies which form whole classes of words, and in which, change would rather perplex than ease the learner” (still a strong argument against spelling reform).
Because of his spelling revisions in the 1828 dictionary, Americans now write color, jewelry, theater and aluminum, as well as sulfur. Had it not been for the conservatism of his readers and publisher — and a “dictionary war” with a rival — that forced him to modify his views, Americans would also now have tuf (for tough), groop (for group) and tung (for tongue) among many others.
The deciding factor in modern standardisation, of course, is the American influence on the language world-wide, and especially on the vocabulary of the technical world. This has been considerable, and is the basis for the recommendations of IUPAC and the QCA. The majority of English writers world-wide already spell the word sulfur; that it looks odd and suspicious to some British speakers is as much an indication of parochialism as patriotism.
Interestingly, the IUPAC also said that aluminium should be so spelled — one for Britain, it might seem, except that what IUPAC was actually doing was bringing that spelling into line with the other 55 elements whose names end in -ium.
The Royal Society of Chemistry tried to make the point that “in 18th and 19th century Britain it was commonplace for sulfur to be spelt with either an ‘f’ or ‘ph’ ”. In this, they take their case too far, since the Oxford English Dictionary entry shows that the word has had ph in the middle ever since spelling settled down about 1600. Except in the US after Noah Webster, of course, and now internationally. And that’s official.
Languages are not "butchered" - all language is constantly evolving.
Clayton -
Clayton - Is that true for those of us who are anglophiles and traditionalists? Why can we not go against the flow?
Also, my claim is that Webster butchered a perfectly fine and beautiful language intentionally; his effort to alter spelling was not part of an ongoing "evolution," but rather a purposeful endeavour to create an American variety of English. I would rather use my language in the fashion of those who invented it.
^Who claimed that, Malachi? Are you referring to Clayton's idea that we should merely adopt the "evolving" language, instead of purposefully choosing English English?
If I am understanding you properly, I would agree that the "evolution" of a language depends on conscious choices.
RothbardsDisciple:He was a "spelling reformer" who changed things for no good reason. He even wanted to change "women" to "wimmen." I am someone who still uses the spelling "connexion" as opposed to "connection," if that helps explain some of my frustration with Webster and his language vandalism.
I am someone who still uses the spelling "connexion" as opposed to "connection," if that helps explain some of my frustration with Webster and his language vandalism.
No good reason? Looks like he wanted to make it more phonetically accurate.
Be honest. If you had been raised with the words as they are now, and someone wanted to change them to what you actually want currently, you'd be bitching just the same.
John James, you are probably right; as I said, I am a traditionalist. But that would be a pretty ugly "tradition" if what we had now was the old way of spelling. Ugly words like pajamas instead of the proper pyjamas, and plow instead of plough? Proper English, with spellings such as mediæval, simply looks very much nicer. American English is merely the layman's "simplification" of the language.
PS- I was raised with American English but decided I found it distasteful and etymologically improper.
Looks like he wanted to make it more phonetically accurate.
Perhaps that was his aim, but I would fundamentally disagree with such change. Another part of his desire to alter the language was based upon religion and American cultural imperialism. Did you read that article I attached?
Clayton - Is that true for those of us who are anglophiles and traditionalists? Why can we not go against the flow? Also, my claim is that Webster butchered a perfectly fine and beautiful language intentionally; his effort to alter spelling was not part of an ongoing "evolution," but rather a purposeful endeavour to create an American variety of English. I would rather use my language in the fashion of those who invented it.
Well, this is a deep subject and we can quickly go far afield. I'll just sum it up by saying that I have yet to find anything in the lectures of linguist and evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker with which I disagree.
Individuals are, of course, free to use language however they like. Also, I do believe that aiming to an elevated use of the language is indeed a form of social decorum such as dressing well, posture, body language, small talk, and other kinds of things you might have learned at a "finishing school" when such things were around. But I do not believe there is any sense a "correct" usage of language nor that changes and shifts in language represent any kind of corruption or bastardization of the language.
It is true that the State has taken an interest in influencing the language. Like religion, language may, arguably, have a culturally homogenizing effect. I suspect there may be forces of "language imperialism" and the politicization of language (e.g. "if you want to live here, learn to speak American") is a hint that this is, indeed, the case.
the "evolution" of a language depends on conscious choices.
To borrow and alter a famous phrase: Language is the result of human action but not of human design.
RothbardsDisciple:John James, you are probably right; as I said, I am a traditionalist.
Put another way, you believe in, and are inclined to do, and will (obviously) fight for things for no other reason than "that's the way we did it yesterday."
But that would be a pretty ugly "tradition" if what we had now was the old way of spelling. Ugly words like pajamas instead of the proper pyjamas, and plow instead of plough? Proper English, with spellings such as mediæval, simply looks very much nicer. American English is merely the layman's "simplification" of the language.
I don't mean this to be at all insulting, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. And I don't mean that like "dumb" as in you're so obviously wrong that you're not intelligent, I mean "dumb" as in it's one of the most ridiculous things I can think of to be worrying about even half this much. I mean "dumb" as in you're this worked up, and getting this indignant to a point of sounding elitist snob (which is dumb in itself), but what's more, you're reacting this way and getting this emotionally affected for no better reason than the fact that you happen to think a "y" instead of an "a" "looks nicer"...where the "a" makes it "ugly". The whole thing is just dumb.
And I don't mean that like "dumb" as in you're so obviously wrong that you're not intelligent, I mean "dumb" as in it's one of the most ridiculous things I can think of to be worrying even half this much about. I mean "dumb" as in you're this worked up and getting this indignant to a point of sounding elitist snob (which is dumb in itself), but what's more, you're reacting this way and getting this emotionally affected for no better reason than the fact that you happen to think a "y" instead of an "a" "looks nicer"...where the "a" makes it "ugly".
1). I have not spent too much time worrying about this, but I rather naturally adopted Tolkien's style, who is my favourite author of fiction. I also intend to write an epic at some point, so perhaps you can see how this would be a normal course of action for someone with the interests of myself?
2). I was neither "worked up" nor "emotional" about this, as far as I know. I was merely sharing my old-fashioned and non-conformist perspective on language.
3). I will admit to being pompous and "elitist" in this instance. I see nothing wrong with that choice.
4). You are also correct that this has to do with my personal aesthetics, and others are free to choose their own.
-"I have no fondness for the American variety of English; in fact, I despise Webster and the butchering he did to the language here." -"I am someone who still uses the spelling "connexion" as opposed to "connection," if that helps explain some of my frustration with Webster and his language vandalism. "
-"I am someone who still uses the spelling "connexion" as opposed to "connection," if that helps explain some of my frustration with Webster and his language vandalism. "
This does not sound like the language and actions of someone who is not worked up. This obviously matters to you a great deal.
It depends on what you mean by a "great deal." It is relatively important and integral to my academic writing, but I do not generally bring the issue up. If you compare this to my Libertarianism, for example, it would rank relatively low on my value scale. If I was faced with the option of adopting American English to achieve an Anarcho-Capitalist society, I would do so in a heartbeat. I think I simply tend to be dramatic about things I care even somewhat about; this probably has more to do with my personality than the subject at hand. If you asked me about Peter Jackson and his butchering of the greatest books of all time, you would get a similarly harsh reaction.
And I hope I was not sounding too negative. My usage of English English has more to do with the positive aspects I associate with it (Tolkien, England, archaic writings, etc.) than the negative influence of Webster, American cultural imperialism, improper etymology, etc.
I think JJ was reading too much into the American connotations of the words that you used, instead of focusing on their definitions.
Btw, RothbardsDisciple, what dictionary do you use; OED?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Yes, I pirated it for free. It was indeed quite difficult to find the complete dictionary in software form. I wish I could purchase the whole collection in harcover, but it is far too expensive ($1232): http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-English-Dictionary-vol-print/dp/0199573158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323064354&sr=8-1
But my version works very well. By the way, this reminds me that I should have mentioned I disagree even with the form of English current in the U.K. I prefer Oxford Spelling like Tolkien, which is more etymologically correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling
That basically only means that I use realize instead of realise and so forth.
Daniel Muffinburg:I think JJ was reading too much into the American connotations of the words that you used, instead of focusing on their definitions.
I'd be curious to hear what words you think I misinterpreted. "Despise" perhaps? Butchering? How about "frustration"? Vandalism? Or was I perhaps more influenced by the fact that he actually misspells words on purpose in some sort of barren petulant protest?
Are you actually going to try and refute what he himself essentially just confirmed?
Or was I perhaps more influenced by the fact that he actually misspells words on purpose in some sort of barren petulant protest?
I misspell words? I am the one who uses proper etymology here, so that seems rather unfair. And I have been spelling them like that for years! And it is not a protest, but simply the way I like to spell words. Did this statement evade you?
My usage of English English has more to do with the positive aspects I associate with it (Tolkien, England, archaic writings, etc.) than the negative influence of Webster, American cultural imperialism, improper etymology, etc.
John James: Daniel Muffinburg:I think JJ was reading too much into the American connotations of the words that you used, instead of focusing on their definitions. I'd be curious to hear what words you think I misinterpreted.
I'd be curious to hear what words you think I misinterpreted.
Elite. In America, that word has a very negative connotation. It is often used in an insult to another by someone who feels inferior (I'm not saying that you feel inferior). Elite is also often used by someone to belittle another by describing himself as elite. However, I think RD meant that he considers himself to be amongst the best in the usage of the English language.
In other words, I think that you meant something by "elite" while RD meant something else, at least with regards to connotation.
RothbardsDisciple:I have been spelling them like that for years!
...and that is supposed to make them less wrong because...?
Daniel Muffinburg:Elite. In America, that word has a very negative connotation. It is often used in an insult to another by someone who feels inferior (I'm not saying that you feel inferior). Elite is also often used by someone to belittle another by describing himself as elite. However, I think RD meant that he considers himself to be amongst the best in the usage of the English language. In other words, I think that you meant something by "elite" while RD meant something else, at least with regards to connotation.
That had nothing to do with my assessment of him being quite invested in this topic...which he initially claimed wasn't the case, and then essentially admitted it was. (And keeps providing evidence for with every subsequent post.)
John James, this is a subjective personal preference, and I like English culture (I already said I am an anglophile)* as well as traditionalism. What is the issue?
*I should note that I have believed much more egregious things due to this. I used to believe that the American Revolution was wrong, and that England was right, primarily due to this article: http://www.redcoat.me.uk/. I could see the issue with that, as the American Revolution was a Libertarian one, but why take issue with my spelling?
Buut do you agree with me that you meant something by "elite" while RD meant something else, at least with regards to connotation?
Muffinburg, you do guess correctly on that issue of semantics. My intended meaning was more like "pompous," which I admit to, than implying any sort of inferiority on John's part. I do, after all, believe in traditional bourgeois culture, which is pretty elitist.
Simply because there is an elite group of people does not, as Daniel stated, belittle others.
I actually don't know why we call them "the Elite", it's not like they deserve it... It implies that they have class.
I think I'll just start calling them Scum. It also floats to the top.