Jump to content
RheaZen

Grammar, Spelling, and Fonts

Recommended Posts

i don't like it when i use british correct spellings of words and they are different to colonist american spellings meaning i get told off for spelling.

 

for example every time i want to colour my text i need to check to see that i have left the u out otherwise it doesn't work.

I'm not usually one to stick up for the US, but please, you don't have to refer to us as "colonists". We haven't been colonists since we won our independence from England. Besides, who are the British to decide what is "correct" and what is "incorrect" spelling?

 

On a side note, I happen to use "colour" and I am not British.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not British, but I think the use of the letter "u" in British language is interesting.

 

Maybe it's because I grew up with color, not colour. I find "colour" to be a much more fascinating spelling - only because of an extra U?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not British, but I think the use of the letter "u" in British language is interesting.

 

Maybe it's because I grew up with color, not colour. I find "colour" to be a much more fascinating spelling - only because of an extra U?

I forget which is which, but the distinction between "gray" and "grey" is also American vs. British. Interestingly enough, neither of those is wrong when it comes to spellcheck.

Share this post


Link to post

I forget which is which, but the distinction between "gray" and "grey" is also American vs. British. Interestingly enough, neither of those is wrong when it comes to spellcheck.

To the best of my (non-existent) knowledge, "gray" is American.

 

And thus, "grey" is British. smile.gif

 

Edit: Mrr?

Edited by EternalSpring

Share this post


Link to post

I use the British way of spelling most of the time.

 

Is "favourite" correctly spelled (in the British spelling)?

Share this post


Link to post

I use British spelling most of the time too, except for all the "ises" (I prefer izes)

 

Recently, they changed the ph in the element sulphur to f, making it sulfur. Now everytime I write sulfuric acid my heart breaks a little inside >.<

Edited by PonyTales

Share this post


Link to post
I use British spelling most of the time too, except for all the "ises" (I prefer izes)

 

Recently, they changed the ph in the element sulphur to f, making it sulfur. Now everytime I write sulfuric acid my heart breaks a little inside >.<

Why? 'Ph' works a lot better than 'f' there. It almost looks like it should be pronounced differently.

Share this post


Link to post
We haven't been colonists since we won our independence from England. Besides, who are the British to decide what is "correct" and what is "incorrect" spelling?

Because we invented the language?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not usually one to stick up for the US, but please, you don't have to refer to us as "colonists". We haven't been colonists since we won our independence from England. Besides, who are the British to decide what is "correct" and what is "incorrect" spelling?

 

On a side note, I happen to use "colour" and I am not British.

*chough* The language is called English we are from England. Does this really require additional clarification?

 

If you wish to be the ones to define the official boundaries of your language then you should call it 'American' and recognise it as a seperate language to 'English'.

 

Also (re: the original point) you will notice that the word 'colonist' had actualy been struck out. Meaning it was a joke. It's on a par with calling Australians 'convicts'. Meaning not at all serious.

Share this post


Link to post
*chough* The language is called English we are from England. Does this really require additional clarification?

 

If you wish to be the ones to define the official boundaries of your language then you should call it 'American' and recognise it as a seperate language to 'English'.

 

Also (re: the original point) you will notice that the word 'colonist' had actualy been struck out. Meaning it was a joke. It's on a par with calling Australians 'convicts'. Meaning not at all serious.

You're right, the language is probably called English because it's from England, but that's a terrible way to prove a point. That's like saying, "French fries are called just that because they're French." Just in this case, it happened to be correct.

 

And I always thought that we already made a distinction between American English and British English in school?

Share this post


Link to post

The ises and izes really mess me up in English. o.o I find that English isn't a language that is based on phonetics. I don't understand where they get half of their pronunciation of words. In French, once your learn the phonetics, you can read every word. Most of the time, you can also spell most words based only on the phonetics.

 

Tear and tear being one of them. o.0 One means to shred, one is water that falls from one's eye. They have different phonetics. They sound the same. Either and either... T____T From my perspective, by sound, English is a very complicated language. x3

Share this post


Link to post

You're right, the language is probably called English because it's from England, but that's a terrible way to prove a point. That's like saying, "French fries are called just that because they're French." Just in this case, it happened to be correct.

 

And I always thought that we already made a distinction between American English and British English in school?

Umm...no, it's not. For one, French fries are *not* from France, but English *is* from England, so hardly comparable. We call it the English language because it is the language that has been developed and used over here for...oh, 1500yrs, give or take. That's more than six times older than the country that now attempts to justify the b*stardisation (and yes, that is a technical term) of said language.

 

The English language comes from England. It is *English.* There is a committee, just like in every country with a native language (the French being the best example) that regulates the language. So yes, the English do decide what is proper English and what is incorrect - and I'm afraid donut, color and standardize are all incorrect (although the OED does allow for using -ize, it's still not the English thing to do).

 

And please, if you're going to argue about the rights and wrongs of a language, make sure you're talking about the right people here. It's not 'British English,' it is simply 'English.' Britain also covers the Welsh and Scots, who have their own languages, and do not refer to it as the 'British English,' simply 'English.' It's like having the 'European German' - it's not 'European German,' simply 'German.'

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post
You're right, the language is probably called English because it's from England, but that's a terrible way to prove a point. That's like saying, "French fries are called just that because they're French." Just in this case, it happened to be correct.

 

And I always thought that we already made a distinction between American English and British English in school?

I'm actualy rather firmly of the belief that American and English are in the process of splitting to become two seperate languages with the same root. There's quite a lot of difference between the two now, and not just in spelling but in the actual use of the words.

 

I get annoyed by people in America claiming they have some greater 'right' to call their language English than those of us that actualy live in England do. Tagging on the word 'British' doesn't cut the mustard for *any* of us in England. England is our country, therefore English is our language. Not British English - English plain and simple. American English is the way it is spoken in the US.

 

It's like trying to say 'Mexican Spanish' and 'Spanish Spanish'. It sounds ridiculous.

 

Khallayne - English is one of the most difficult languages to learn as a foreign language for that reason, and it's because it developed from some very different root languages. The origins of the tear (to rip)/ tear (to cry) difference is the root language they came from - tear (to cry) is thought to have come from the old Norse, tear (to rip) from the old Saxon. There's Norman, Saxon, Norse, Latin and Celtic influences on the English language. Not to mention modern day loan words or phrases (like gateaux) taken from yet more languages.

Share this post


Link to post

I've never understood why English was made to be such a complicated language, though different roots makes sense. Never really thought about it; just complained about it. x3

 

I've also never understood why American English is called English. It should be called something different since English really is British English, but that will never happen. Cause America sucks. D:

Share this post


Link to post
Umm...no, it's not. For one, French fries are *not* from France, but English *is* from England, so hardly comparable. We call it the English language because it is the language that has been developed and used over here for...oh, 1500yrs, give or take. That's more than six times older than the country that now attempts to justify the b*stardisation (and yes, that is a technical term) of said language.

 

The English language comes from England. It is *English.* There is a committee, just like in every country with a native language (the French being the best example) that regulates the language. So yes, the English do decide what is proper English and what is incorrect - and I'm afraid donut, color and standardize are all incorrect (although the OED does allow for using -ize, it's still not the English thing to do).

 

And please, if you're going to argue about the rights and wrongs of a language, make sure you're talking about the right people here. It's not 'British English,' it is simply 'English.' Britain also covers the Welsh and Scots, who have their own languages, and do not refer to it as the 'British English,' simply 'English.' It's like having the 'European German' - it's not 'European German,' simply 'German.'

I'm not stupid, thank you very much. I know that French fries are not from France and English is from England. I was saying that her method of comparison was flawed. I ALREADY acknowledged that English is called English because it comes from England but I used the French fries comparison to better explain why her method of comparison could also be used for a false statement. I'm sorry if you couldn't understand my intent.

 

And I didn't SAY it was "British English", I wrote that I THOUGHT that people already made a distinction between the English used in England and the English used in America.

 

I use "grey", "colour", and "doughnut", but I don't find them more correct nor do I correct my classmates when they use "gray", "color", and "donut". I just think it's a matter of nationalism, but maybe I'm wrong in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Umm...no, it's not. For one, French fries are *not* from France, but English *is* from England, so hardly comparable. We call it the English language because it is the language that has been developed and used over here for...oh, 1500yrs, give or take. That's more than six times older than the country that now attempts to justify the b*stardisation (and yes, that is a technical term) of said language.

 

The English language comes from England. It is *English.* There is a committee, just like in every country with a native language (the French being the best example) that regulates the language. So yes, the English do decide what is proper English and what is incorrect - and I'm afraid donut, color and standardize are all incorrect (although the OED does allow for using -ize, it's still not the English thing to do).

 

And please, if you're going to argue about the rights and wrongs of a language, make sure you're talking about the right people here. It's not 'British English,' it is simply 'English.' Britain also covers the Welsh and Scots, who have their own languages, and do not refer to it as the 'British English,' simply 'English.' It's like having the 'European German' - it's not 'European German,' simply 'German.'

If you read what they said, you would see that they never made the claim that French Fries were made in France, more that the descriptive word (French Fries and English Language) would make people assume that said object was made/invented/whatever in that country, which is not always necessarily true.

 

Technically English is a combination of b*stardized French (which I hear makes the English pissed when it's brought up) mixed with the "barbaric" tongues that existed before the Norman Invasion. The language eventually blossomed into it's own distinct language with the sophisticated rules in place for grammar and spelling...

 

I really don't know why American English isn't officially deemed a separate language (a sister language, perhaps?). The differences between the two are like the differences between Latin and Spanish (or even Spanish and Portuguese), you can see how deeply related they are, but they're distinct enough to be deemed separate languages. Plus, how can new languages come into existence if the linguistic prescription of a language is forever lagging horribly behind descriptive linguistics and completely refusing to acknowledge the new language (or sub-language, however you want to see it) as being anything but a b*stardization. If that were to happen hundreds of years ago, English would be known as "French Slang" rather than it's own language.

 

I think it should be the duty of the two groups (both prescriptive and descriptive linguists) to come together and decide what line needs to be crossed to reach that point. After all, scientists have to decide whether two evolutionarily related animals are one species or two (based on what they can gather and on what guidelines determine a species), and languages evolve just like animals, so why shouldn't languages be treated as such? If a language's usage becomes so warped in a region from what the rules say should be done, why shouldn't it be deemed a separate language (within reason) and allow the descriptive linguists to write the prescriptive rules for the newborn language. Languages allow more expression, and it seems strange that throughout history so many languages have been born (and died), but recently, there has been a stagnation, possibly due to England colonizing the world and the Americanization from the past century forcing the English language (in whatever form) to be standardized as a "World language". I think it's the dedication to prescription that causes the majority of the cessation of new language formation, but of course I acknowledge that without the rules of grammar and spelling, a language would be a shapeless blob. However, the way a language is ultimately used is always going to vary slightly (or greatly) from prescription anyways, and the social disconnect can be staggering.

 

I dunno, I feel as if I side a bit more with the descriptive side of the issue than the rigid and out-of-date rules set by the linguistic prescription of English...

 

Following with that, the definitions of words (while traditional) don't reflect how the words are used socially in most situations. I'm sure I don't even need to say anything but "the r word" for people to understand the meaning. If you followed how the word is traditionally (and "correctly") used, then you wouldn't get the meaning and intent behind the person's words. When it gets to the point where the use of the language causes someone sticking to the prescription of the language to completely be confused as to what someone says (and vice versa for the language being used "correctly" to people who use the "current" version of it), I think there's a bit of a problem.

 

Plus, oftentimes, it seems as if many of the rules (and meanings of words) are arguing semantics (just like with Kestra's example of "British English" (though, that's also possibly cultural disconnect, as Americans see Britain, Wales, and Scotland as distinct entities...)).

 

(I dare one of you to make a drinking game out of how many times I used the word prescription... ugh... I need to find a better way to get that point across without spamming that word)

 

EDIT:

 

I get annoyed by people in America claiming they have some greater 'right' to call their language English than those of us that actualy live in England do. Tagging on the word 'British' doesn't cut the mustard for *any* of us in England. England is our country, therefore English is our language. Not British English - English plain and simple. American English is the way it is spoken in the US.

 

And I get annoyed when the American form of English is decried as not being a legitimate form of a language and is "wrong" simply because Americans didn't "set the rules first". If that's the case though, then English isn't a legitimate language because the French set the rules for their language before it was b*stardized into English, and the chain goes on back until you get to the root of the languages. The problem is, just calling the English (nation) use of the language "English" opens up the can of worms of "Well, do you mean the language as a whole, or do you mean the way that English (nation) people use it?", which to us Americans means that there needs to be a distinction between English (the overall language) and English (the language of the people of England). Since people in America usually either don't learn the distinction between Britain and England, or overlook the distinction as a matter of semantics, you get us calling the English (nation) form of English "British English".

 

Also, keep in mind, not everyone in other countries are going to be as knowledgeable about nomenclature in your country as you are, so there has to be a certain measure of forgiveness when details are wrong because of how other people learn about such things.

 

-K-

Edited by Kamak

Share this post


Link to post
Khallayne - English is one of the most difficult languages to learn as a foreign language for that reason, and it's because it developed from some very different root languages. The origins of the tear (to rip)/ tear (to cry) difference is the root language they came from - tear (to cry) is thought to have come from the old Norse, tear (to rip) from the old Saxon. There's Norman, Saxon, Norse, Latin and Celtic influences on the English language. Not to mention modern day loan words or phrases (like gateaux) taken from yet more languages.

I am very well aware of that. I've done my research, but it doesn't make the phonetics any more less complicated. However, scottish Gaelic tops it in my personal opinion...

 

With the discussion of American English and English, I wonder where Canada fits in that.

Share this post


Link to post

Because we invented the language?

HAHAHAHA SCORE!!!!

 

ooh i seem to have started a debate on here oops

Edited by shric debar

Share this post


Link to post

I find an easy way to remember the difference between British and American spellings of "neighborhood" and "colour" is:

"Our colour is not the same as your color" I know that both the words "our" and "your" have the letter U in them, but in "your" the U isn't nearly as obvious when you hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
And I get annoyed when the American form of English is decried as not being a legitimate form of a language and is "wrong" simply because Americans didn't "set the rules first". If that's the case though, then English isn't a legitimate language because the French set the rules for their language before it was b*stardized into English, and the chain goes on back until you get to the root of the languages. The problem is, just calling the English (nation) use of the language "English" opens up the can of worms of "Well, do you mean the language as a whole, or do you mean the way that English (nation) people use it?", which to us Americans means that there needs to be a distinction between English (the overall language) and English (the language of the people of England). Since people in America usually either don't learn the distinction between Britain and England, or overlook the distinction as a matter of semantics, you get us calling the English (nation) form of English "British English".

 

Also, keep in mind, not everyone in other countries are going to be as knowledgeable about nomenclature in your country as you are, so there has to be a certain measure of forgiveness when details are wrong because of how other people learn about such things.

 

-K-

Oh I've said that I think American should be recognised as a seperate language by this point. I'm not saying it's *not* a legitimate form of a language, I'm just saying that by this point it's no longer really 'English' and has become it's own seperate entity. Does that make sense? I'm arguing the point that when a language is sufficiently different from the way it's spoken in it's mother country (in this case the mother country of English being England) then it's become a seperate language. Mexican Spanish is heading the same way too. I used to know a Spaniard who said he hated it when Americans tried to speak to him in Spanish - because they'd invariably learnt it from a Mexican and the combination of the two (both strong) accents made it impossible for him to follow them. He'd usualy just ask them to speak English, because he could understand it better than he could their Spanish.

 

Brahma - last time I checked I was female, so I don't know who this 'she' to whom you refer is. The method of comparison (that a language is in it's most correct from in the country for which it is named) is a correct one. Spanish comes from Spain, Italian comes from Italy.... English comes from England. It's a very simple concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Brahma - last time I checked I was female, so I don't know who this 'she' to whom you refer is. The method of comparison (that a language is in it's most correct from in the country for which it is named) is a correct one. Spanish comes from Spain, Italian comes from Italy.... English comes from England. It's a very simple concept.

Honest mistake. Most forum members are female so I guess I forgot to check this time around. Well, I'm assuming that you meant "I wasn't female", unless you really meant "I was female" - then I'm really confused.

 

As for the method of comparison, I expanded it to more than languages, so my fault for interpreting in a larger range.

Share this post


Link to post
Honest mistake. Most forum members are female so I guess I forgot to check this time around. Well, I'm assuming that you meant "I wasn't female", unless you really meant "I was female" - then I'm really confused.

 

As for the method of comparison, I expanded it to more than languages, so my fault for interpreting in a larger range.

Eh, yeah. Typo. Brain not of the female persuasion.

 

I'm not really a big picture person, I tend to think and talk in specifics. So it's probably best not to try and read a deeper meaning into anything I say wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Thinking back, I alternate between British English and American English.

 

Sometimes I'll use "doughnut," while other times I'll use "donut."

 

Same goes for a lot of other words. :|

 

...Does British English have slang? Of course, right?

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.