|
PeejayAdams wrote: I actually find the Dudley accent about the hardest to decipher in Britain
For me, that's Yorkshire. Every time I've been there, they can understand me fine but I have to hold out a handful of change to pay for anything... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Geordie? [puts hand up]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a Brummie too but thankfully I somehow managed to avoid picking up too much of the dialect [though it seems to come out after a few jars!].
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm similar in that my Brumminess is in inverse proportion to my sobriety.
I also find that when I'm elsewhere, my accent tends to fade quite rapidly. When I used to work away from home, I remember a hotel receptionist saying "It's ever so odd, you come down every Monday sounding all Brummie and by Friday you sound proper!"
|
|
|
|
|
My brother and I, having grown up in various bits of the country don't have regional accents. However, my brother has spent his entire married life in cannock and his kids are pure yam-yam.
My dad was born and raised in Derbyshire but has spent most of his adult life elsewhere. He doesn't have much of an accent now, but as soon as he crosses the border back home it becomes thick again.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I hate to say it, but I do think that the language is gradually drifting towards the American version
Odd that you fear that, US english is just an older form of English that split off (and stayed fossilised as off shoots tend to) in the 17th century.
By the way, Enquire and Ensure were invented in the UK around 1840 ish. If you read Trolope for example you will see him use them the old, and American, way.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Odd that you fear that, US english is just an older form of English that split off (and stayed fossilised as off shoots tend to) in the 17th century.
To a large extent, yes, it was a natural branching though I suspect that Webster created a few more differences than would have occurred naturally.
I have nothing whatsoever against American English and I'm a huge fan of American literature. I'd also be the first to point out that American English gets many things right that British English gets wrong. I think that much of the reason that I don't want to see the two merge back into one is that I enjoy the differences.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think there really is that much difference? Beyond the colloquialisms (rubber for durex, fanny for bum, spunk for spirit, always makes me cringe, those last two) and the interesting affect French has had on it (butte, the pronounciation of bouy, and the really odd habit Americans have of using 'that' to join sentences that just doesnt work in English (but does with 'que' in French)) they are identical IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Do you think there really is that much difference?
A fair old bit, I think.
"Villa are my favourite football team" vs. "Villa is my favorite soccer team" - that's a difference of spelling, terminology and grammar in half a dozen words (and I'd have to concede that the Americans are right to use "is" where we use "are" so win on grammar at least!)
Most of it goes unnoticed but the one that always sticks out like a sore thumb when I read an American book is lighted in place of lit as in "he lighted a cigarette." That always sounds plain wrong to me.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm American and that still sounds wrong!
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: "Villa are my favourite football team" vs. "Villa is my favorite soccer team" - that's a difference of spelling, terminology and grammar in half a dozen words (and I'd have to concede that the Americans are right to use "is" where we use "are" so win on grammar at least!)
Yeah, I think we have that one right... If you're referring to just the city/state, it's singular. The team names themselves are usually plural. For instance, "The Mets were my favorite team", or "New York was my fav--" Err, ok, there are two New York teams, so can't just call them "New York"...
PeejayAdams wrote: I read an American book is lighted in place of lit as in "he lighted a cigarette." That always sounds plain wrong to me.
Um, that sounds like plain old bad writing to me. We use "lit", not "lighted". I mean I guess "lighted" is valid, but yeah, it sounds stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: Um, that sounds like plain old bad writing to me. We use "lit", not "lighted". I mean I guess "lighted" is valid, but yeah, it sounds stupid.
It's used frequently by Ed McBain and I'm sure that I've come across it in a fair few novels by other American writers - wasn't there a Hemmingway story about a "well-lighted room" or something similar? Is it something that used to be common but has fallen out of use?
|
|
|
|
|
Could be... I sure don't use it in my novels... At least I don't think I did... If I did, I blame grammar check.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: "he lighted a cigarette."
Yes, the strong to weak verb change thats taken place in English.Its just old English the Americans use, so like weaved and wove, dived and dove, perhaps we should just accept lighted and lit side by side each other? 
Another old word is the use of 'gotten', whereas in the UK it only exists as a fossil in a phrase (phrases tend to keep their original words) as in 'ill gotten gains'.
When I left the UK many years ago and learnt French and to some extent Dutch, and hence the origin of much of English, I stopped being so pedantic about its usage, and am far more accepting of its foibles and oddities, and even its miss-usage. It realy is such a bastardised language that I dont see why we shouldn't continue to do so!
--edit--
Correction, its weak to strong change thats happened in general.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: "Villa are my favourite football team" vs. "Villa is my favorite soccer team"
That's a common referent difference, where both are grammatically correct, i.e:
- (That team) is my favourite
- (Those eleven players) are my favourite
The same works with other collective nouns, like "the government", which can be referred to as 650 individuals ("the government are voting on a bill") or as an institution ("The government is voting in a summit").
At the same time, though, "Villa are my favourite football team" and "Villa is my favorite soccer team" are both just so incredibly wrong, because Villa's cr@p.
And how about we use a proper word, for the other issue: "He enlightened my cigarette"? I'm sure the mayor of Springfield would approve.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: At the same time, though, "Villa are my favourite football team" and "Villa is my favorite soccer team" are both just so incredibly wrong, because Villa's cr@p.
Oi! We're not cr@p, we've just been slightly out of form for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Oi! We're not cr@p, we've just been slightly out of form for a few years.
OK, OK, I'll at least admit that your pitch is superb.
Mind you, the amount of dung that's spread on it every weekend, that's not surprising.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a football fan, so I can't pass comment, other than to say I was brought up the other side of Aston Park to the Villa ground, and well remember hearing the roar of the crowd every other Saturday - loudest of course when Villa scored a goal.
And I can still see Aston Church from where I live now.
|
|
|
|
|
OMG this has been a great thread.
As an American with some friends all over the world, I was commenting on someones English and how Americans LOVE the accent... And the person I was with was somewhat offended that the person speaking was a horrible example (I forgot the regional reference they made), but they felt their "proper" way of speaking sounded so much better (er, proper).
And your proper reference brought that back.
My wife is European, and she listens to someone speak and she just "knows" (She never confuses Australian, English/Britian, English/Elsewhere) unless they are just not fluent.
I sit back and think "Not American English... Right? Right?" LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Like the English use knives and forks at the same time, but at the time of the split, that technique hadn't come into fashion.
[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Isnt that odd? Just why do Americans do that. Transferring the fork to the right hand to eat after having used it in the left to help cut up the food. Very bizarre!
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I hate to say it, but I do think that the language is gradually drifting towards the American version.
Never, never, Never, NEVER, NEVER will I use "gotten".
We dropped that out of English because it sounds and looks silly, and God knows we English don't stand for sounding and looking silly!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
We are the Americans. You WILL be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
|
|
|
|
|
Pre 1840 ish 'ensure' and 'enquire' didnt exist. They still dont in US English, which of course split off before the Brits decided to add them to differentiate subtle meaning. And dont be too surprised if some Brits today get them confused.
Enquire is to 'ask'. Inquire is to 'look into' something. Hence a govt inquiry for example, looking into some issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Which is why I said I think it is correct, albeit by chance.
You enquire in the screen and the service inquires in database.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
