>>Uh... "Englishpersons", Travis? :}<<
:D
:D
Go without "to"
>>15th Century English dialects<<
That should be "16th century English dialects" above.
That should be "16th century English dialects" above.
Travis:
If you wish to learn English in its purest form (less altered) then you should learn English (British). I was not referring to any accents or dialects. The accents and dialects are of course different as they are in all countries, may it be Swedish, Norwegian and so on. And that Travis is a fact and not an opinion. However if I were to choose to learn another variation of the language such as the American one or the Australian one then I am entitled to do so. Let’s say that I claim that I prefer the American variant of the language instead of the Australian then that’s an OPINION. A personal preference if you like. Now it has nothing to do with setting a standard, though in Europe the schools teaches English (British), German (Germany), Spanish (Spain) and so on.
But that is mainly for rational and logical reasons; it is not an attempt to oppress others. And I am honestly sorry if you interpret me like that. But why start by learning a variation of any language when you can choose the one that has a richer vocabulary?. That goes for all languages as I see it. If I then decide to go with one accent or another I am free to do so, but I would have learned more, and that can not be a bad thing. Or is it?
Urial:
Bad example, besides this is not a forum that discuses religions so I leave that.
If you wish to learn English in its purest form (less altered) then you should learn English (British). I was not referring to any accents or dialects. The accents and dialects are of course different as they are in all countries, may it be Swedish, Norwegian and so on. And that Travis is a fact and not an opinion. However if I were to choose to learn another variation of the language such as the American one or the Australian one then I am entitled to do so. Let’s say that I claim that I prefer the American variant of the language instead of the Australian then that’s an OPINION. A personal preference if you like. Now it has nothing to do with setting a standard, though in Europe the schools teaches English (British), German (Germany), Spanish (Spain) and so on.
But that is mainly for rational and logical reasons; it is not an attempt to oppress others. And I am honestly sorry if you interpret me like that. But why start by learning a variation of any language when you can choose the one that has a richer vocabulary?. That goes for all languages as I see it. If I then decide to go with one accent or another I am free to do so, but I would have learned more, and that can not be a bad thing. Or is it?
Urial:
Bad example, besides this is not a forum that discuses religions so I leave that.
It's a perfectly good example, and you're sidestepping it because you don't have a good comeback.
<<But why start by learning a variation of any language when you can choose the one that has a richer vocabulary?. >>
Uh ... says who? Define "richer".
<<If you wish to learn English in its purest form (less altered) then you should learn English (British). >>
British English is NOT "less altered". It has evolved just as much as all of the other dialects of English.
<<But why start by learning a variation of any language when you can choose the one that has a richer vocabulary?. >>
Uh ... says who? Define "richer".
<<If you wish to learn English in its purest form (less altered) then you should learn English (British). >>
British English is NOT "less altered". It has evolved just as much as all of the other dialects of English.
Eric, obviously you haven't really read the post of mine that you are supposedly responding to here.
Urial:
<<Uh ... says who? Define "richer">>
More words,(check a English wordbook) more "meanings" and as a result, you gain the ability to communicate in a richer way. Not to forget, you get to learn a language that has not been altered for the sake of altering.
Travis:
Yes I read your post; you were talking about accents and dialects I believe. Did you read mine?, I was not talking neither about accents nor dialects. I was talking about the language.
<<Uh ... says who? Define "richer">>
More words,(check a English wordbook) more "meanings" and as a result, you gain the ability to communicate in a richer way. Not to forget, you get to learn a language that has not been altered for the sake of altering.
Travis:
Yes I read your post; you were talking about accents and dialects I believe. Did you read mine?, I was not talking neither about accents nor dialects. I was talking about the language.
>>If you wish to learn English in its purest form (less altered) then you should learn English (British). <<
British English is no purer than any other form of English; it has probably evolved or been "altered" the most. Compare 16th century British English with present day; it's more like American English.
>>I was not referring to any accents or dialects. The accents and dialects are of course different as they are in all countries, may it be Swedish, Norwegian and so on. And that Travis is a fact and not an opinion. <<
There is no one British accent or dialect; there are literally dozens of variants within the UK.
British English is no purer than any other form of English; it has probably evolved or been "altered" the most. Compare 16th century British English with present day; it's more like American English.
>>I was not referring to any accents or dialects. The accents and dialects are of course different as they are in all countries, may it be Swedish, Norwegian and so on. And that Travis is a fact and not an opinion. <<
There is no one British accent or dialect; there are literally dozens of variants within the UK.
"guest"
As I stated English is purer and richer then the American variant of the language. Of course English has evolved since the 16th century, but it has not been altered for the sake of altering. And again, I am not referring to any accents or dialects. Funny that you all keep coming back to that, I have not discussed those differences. So it is not a part of the discussion, so why do you feel the need to change the subject? Before you respond the next time, please read the post (s) in order to find out what the discussion is about….thank you.
As I stated English is purer and richer then the American variant of the language. Of course English has evolved since the 16th century, but it has not been altered for the sake of altering. And again, I am not referring to any accents or dialects. Funny that you all keep coming back to that, I have not discussed those differences. So it is not a part of the discussion, so why do you feel the need to change the subject? Before you respond the next time, please read the post (s) in order to find out what the discussion is about….thank you.
You're not making any sense, Eric.
To continue such a discussion is puerile as it is impossible to dissect and separate accent and dialect from any form of English, whether British or other. What is "British" is but one vague notion of an accent and dialect applied to a diverse region, as I implied earlier. There is no such thing as accentless language.
Before you consider writing anything more on this unnecessary subject, please re-read my post (and the intelligent posts of others) and realise that British English is not "purer" nor "richer", whatever that means. There is no way of defining those inane terms.
Move along please.
To continue such a discussion is puerile as it is impossible to dissect and separate accent and dialect from any form of English, whether British or other. What is "British" is but one vague notion of an accent and dialect applied to a diverse region, as I implied earlier. There is no such thing as accentless language.
Before you consider writing anything more on this unnecessary subject, please re-read my post (and the intelligent posts of others) and realise that British English is not "purer" nor "richer", whatever that means. There is no way of defining those inane terms.
Move along please.
I think Eric just wants to be difficult... arguement for the sake of arguement.
"guest"
I do make sense. But for you to understand, it requires that you read my post (s) as well (despite how unintelligent you might view them), and not only read the intelligent posts of others. And forgive me, but you can not possible have done so since you are still, still ranting about the accents and dialects. So maybe you were right about moving along.
andre in USA
I think for some reason that you know what I was after (tried to explain) and that my intention was not to offend any one. If so, I salute you and the way you “diffused” the topic. Honours were honour is due….:)
Take care gents
I do make sense. But for you to understand, it requires that you read my post (s) as well (despite how unintelligent you might view them), and not only read the intelligent posts of others. And forgive me, but you can not possible have done so since you are still, still ranting about the accents and dialects. So maybe you were right about moving along.
andre in USA
I think for some reason that you know what I was after (tried to explain) and that my intention was not to offend any one. If so, I salute you and the way you “diffused” the topic. Honours were honour is due….:)
Take care gents
<<I do make sense. But for you to understand, it requires that you read my post (s) as well>>
No, the only way your arguments make sense requires a person to agree with you and suspend all disbelief of the totally ridiculous things you are saying. You are the one who is not listening.
And I fully agree with Andre here: Eric is arguing for the sake of argument. May I add that his argument holds little water right now as he actually hasn't told us how he has come to this belief.
It's preposterous to try and say Americans do not speak a language, English in this case. It's even more preposterous to say the British English is the only correct form, when it is as much a variation of 16th century English as American.
Eric, here's your chance to outline why you think this. Give us some solid proof that British is less evolved than American from the 16th century, when the Pilgrims headed for America. Tell us exactly what you have read in this history book of yours that supports your argument.
No, the only way your arguments make sense requires a person to agree with you and suspend all disbelief of the totally ridiculous things you are saying. You are the one who is not listening.
And I fully agree with Andre here: Eric is arguing for the sake of argument. May I add that his argument holds little water right now as he actually hasn't told us how he has come to this belief.
It's preposterous to try and say Americans do not speak a language, English in this case. It's even more preposterous to say the British English is the only correct form, when it is as much a variation of 16th century English as American.
Eric, here's your chance to outline why you think this. Give us some solid proof that British is less evolved than American from the 16th century, when the Pilgrims headed for America. Tell us exactly what you have read in this history book of yours that supports your argument.
Wait -- give us solid proff that we don't have as many words or meanings as you do! "cause I didn't read anything in your posts that I had to look up in a dictionary. And what exactly is a "pure" language, pray tell?
English..."English" is the incorect version. It is too hard for us Americans to learn. How would you expect someone to remember "center" is spelt "centre". It is madness. Damn limeys!
interesting debate and interesting views, from all. I dont know if Eric is righ wing or whatever, but I agree with him since american english is not a language in its self, but a variation of the english (british) language. And wit that said, you are all mad...:))