The Americans speak English with an American accent. The Canadians here in Vernon speak with a different accent to Americans and ourselves.
Australians and those from South Africa speak English with accents completely different to each other and to the rest of us.
How did all of this happen, especially since (say) 300 years ago we all spoke a bit like JRM ? (or did we ?)
Did we all? I would assume that the regional accents we know in the U.K. would already have been existent, although again I’d assume they have also evolved.
People 50 miles away from one another in the UK can have wildly different accents.
That was Brythonic, not English (or even ‘British’).
Gosh. That takes me back. Wordperfect used to run on MS DOS if I remember correctly. Reliable, too
Gosh. That takes me back. Wordperfect used to run on MS DOS if I remember correctly. Reliable, too.
How about Lotus 123 for your spreadsheets ?
If I check my posts, my only comment regarding “English” was to say that it was of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon origin.
And Common Brittonic also can carry the name “British”.
Eoink, Dozey,
Yes, I know. I was brought up in a small town called Chester-le-Street (now also famous for its cricket ground).
You could differentiate village accents all over Co. Durham.
But I have never been able to detect accents of Scottish/Northern England/Yorkshire/Welsh etc within American/Canadian/Australian/South African speakers. It seems to me that they developed separately, but in parallel with UK accents (ie differently), starting from a number of common origins, in other words, we all now speak with accents that would be alien to our common ancestors.
Ah, understood your point now Don.
When I learned to touch-type I was taught to use two spaces after a full stop - and still do that. For me it does improve reading - it is far easier to spot the end of sentences. I don’t, I must admit, feel religious about it, but am curious to understand why so many who use one space seem to be very insistent that that is the only acceptable option.
The change from double to single space, like the removal of a few spaces at the beginning of paragraphs, was introduced by some Americans as a way of increasing the output of typists by reducing the number of keystrokes required, AIUI
When I was at Liverpool University reading Life Sciences, I remember in one lecture when a student complained that their grammar had been criticised by the lecturer, saying that he was a scientist not an English or Arts student, the lecturer responded that, as a scientist, he could do the most amazing work but that it would be useless if he could not communicate that work effectively to others.
I think that is very true. Grammar (and spelling and punctuation) are there to help others to understand clearly and easily what it is that you wish to communicate.
I frequently, nowadays, find myself having to read something several times in order that I can divine the meaning of what has been written. Grammar and punctuation rules have not evolved simply as a way of distinguishing the educated from the uneducated, or one class from another. They are there to aid communication.
I recall my team leader when I was in local government saying that he would correct my grammar but not my style - wise words. But this was before I learnt I was dyslexic, which did not occur until I was in my 30’s when I had made the move from local government to the private sector where report writing was my bread and butter. There my managing director took me aside and queried why my reports lacked structure. I thought it was because of the way local government had trained me, but in fact it was linked to my dyslexia. So I started a rigorous application of structure to my writing … then some twenty five years later I was preparing my thesis, when one of my supervisors sat me down to talk argument structure. This was a whole new lesson with the focus on simplified sentence construction to help the thrust of an argument.
This is an example of how poor English education can be overcome, but I wish had had Gower when I started rather than coming across it in midlife.
Grammar: the difference between knowing your sh1t and knowing you’re sh1t!
Not exactly ‘use of English’, but still an example of how bizarre the English language can be:
There is an old woman from Slough
Who has a most terrible cough
But even though
She’s feeling quite rough
We do hope that she can pull through.
Excellent. Another chance for people to show off.
Anyway, my employer has made various attempts at dictating a corporate brand. We even have our own, icy ridiculed, corporate colour and font. By and large this sort of stuff always fails as it’s driven by a personality rather than a culture and so it has proven.
On a personal level I was please to see @GeoffC comment re: single spacing and I’d like to think the likes of RNIB will be after JRM pronto given the blatant breach of accepted accessibility standards and those dictated elsewhere in government. Double spacing, like anything which isn’t left justified, is much harder for anyone with a range of sight impairments. Ditto capital letters. Much harder to read than good old sentence case. Actually, all of these apply to people without sight-impairments, which goes to show the mindlessness of such diktats.
Very pleased to say that some architects, who usually think they have the monopoly of knowledge on accessibility issues but who are generally clueless (See the infamous “secured by design” folly for evidence on that one) are beginning to see the error of their ways. I work on a long-standing accessibility group for TfGM in GM and the penny is beginning to drop that any drawing with capital letters is going to be criticised or sent back.
As regards alleged “proper” use of language I can only refer people once again to
It’s by no means perfect but it’s explanation of what a nonsense it is to try and suggest that grammar has a set of static rules which are essential to communication and precision is second to none.
Of course it is not static. The problems I see include:
the pace of change is so fast it can be hard to keep up
The changes often don’t aid in comprehension but often obfuscate meaning
Many changes arise from ignorance rather than any attempt to improve communication
My outlook is that there is no point in trying to keep up, for the reasons you give. Just be clear. Just because some people like to use new words and idioms is no reason for me to use them. If that means I appear to be someone who was born in the 1950’s that is no insult.
There is nothing wrong with being born in the 1950s, what I do have issues with are the people who cannot accept that language is a living being which evolves and adapts.
The only constant in life is change, from imperial we move to metric, yet certain politicians can’t accept this and try to enforce their own out-dated ideas on our young people .
Hi mcjt1 interesting chart. Do you a source for it that I could read please?
I have a problem with that definition, there are many criteria for life, and many scholarly articles trying to establish a minimal set.
The ability to change alone doesn’t define life, and there are other things that are common to all definitions, including the use of energy and self regulation. Languages fail these last two tests (and several others), and therefore although they are ever changing and constantly being adapted (by their users, not by themselves!) they aren’t living entities!
Even in the metaphorical sense, the analogy is quite weak and rather glib.
If you want another (metaphorical) test: languages can die, but they don’t pay taxes!