Go without "to"

>>"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. <<

No, you don't make sense. Your only retort is to ask others to reread your posts" ad infinitum. You can't emplify your use of "richer" and "purer", so why pretend to speak objectively if you have nothing.

Yes, intelligent is how the other's posts appear next to yours.

>>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. <<

I'd forgive you if you were having a conversation with yourself but bullshit out in the open only goes so far. ;)

your so right U... guess you catch my drift with that post..hmm as I expected. Took a while thoug and yes...bullshit out in the open only goes so far agree....:)

And now since I know "who" I am dealing with here...time for a long due post.

<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.>

It does not require anyone to agree. What is required as always is that one reads the post (s) all off them.

<It's preposterous to try and say Americans do not speak a language>

I have not claimed that you do not speak a language. What I said was that there is no such thing as "American English", because "American English" is not a language in its self, it’s a variation of the English (British) language. (As you answered you self regarding the pilgrims) I hope that that explanation was clear enough, should not possible leave any room for "misunderstandings".

<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.>

That should now have been sorted.

<Give us some solid proof that British are 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.>

By an English (British) dictionary and a wordbook. Read some history, your variation of the language is the only one that has removed words, changed words not to mention altered the way the words are spelled for the sake of altering the language. (The historical reason for that was that you as a nation decided that there was a need to distance your self from the British influence). Logical and not wrong in that sense, something that I have not claimed either.

<Wait -- give us solid proof that we don't have as many words or meanings as you do! "Because 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?>

Read above the quote.

>>because "American English" is not a language in its self, it’s a variation of the English (British) language. <<

British English is a variant of the English language too.

>>By an English (British) dictionary and a wordbook. Read some history, your variation of the language is the only one that has removed words, changed words not to mention altered the way the words are spelled for the sake of altering the language.<<

I don't speak either of the above dialects (British nor American) but words in British English have been removed, changed, manipulated and its spellings too have been altered. e.g. -ize vs -ise (both are accepted), latinised "ou" favoured spellings.

American English has added so many neologisms, not only English in general, but to other languages because of technology and other endeavours in this modern age. It's only normal that things change.

<<And now since I know "who" I am dealing with here...time for a long due post. >>

What is this supposed to mean?

<<By an English (British) dictionary and a wordbook. Read some history, your variation of the language is the only one that has removed words, changed words not to mention altered the way the words are spelled for the sake of altering the language. (The historical reason for that was that you as a nation decided that there was a need to distance your self from the British influence). Logical and not wrong in that sense, something that I have not claimed either.>>

Really? We are the only one to modify things? Let us take "gotten", the past participle of the verb "to get". "Gotten" is not used in BrE, it has fallen out of disuse. Americans use the older form, though at one time, Britain used it too.

What about the subjunctive? It too has fallen out for the most part in Britain.

BrE has evolved, just like AmE. This means that English in general has evolved and the colonization of America was not the only turning point. Australia and New Zealand are also other valid forms of the evolution of English. Anytime large groups of people have been split and form their own countries, this happens. Why is the British evolution the only valid one?

<<it has fallen out of disuse.>>

Typo: Fallen into disuse or Fallen out of use.

<<It's only normal that things change.>>

Agreed. Evolution is natural and occurs among all populations - America, Australia, Britain too.

<<English (British) language>>
If BrE really was the only English Language, you would not have to specify.

<British English is a variant of the English language too>

The British invented the language; therefore it is not a variant of the there own language. I dare to say that that is a fact.

< But words in British English have been removed, changed, manipulated and its spellings too have been altered. e.g. -ize vs -ise (both are accepted), latinised "ou" favoured spellings.>

Of course the English (British) has evolved, and it changes as do all languages. What I tried to explain was that the language has not been altered for the sake (I stress the word. sake) of altering it. As the American variant due to historical reasons, as previous mentioned. (English spoken in Canada, Australia, New Zeeland has not
Been altered in that way either. Main differences there are the accent,
not the words). Schools in these countries teaches the English language (British), as do the schools in Europe and Asia. They follow that system, for logical reasons,not for oppressive reasons. And again, why learn a
variant of the language? (reffering the the words, not any accent)

<If BrE really was the only English Language, you would not have to specify>

English (British) is the language. The others are different variations of that language, and NOT “there” own language.

<Your only retort is to ask others to reread your posts" ad infinitum>

You seriously wonder why? I have to repeat myself all the time since no one READS the posts or they simply choose to misunderstand and twist things around for there own amusement. I guess that any reply to this post will prove whether I am right or wrong in that assumption.

I hope you will have a good discussion, I am now moving on.
U...one down and one to go ;)

>>The British invented the language; therefore it is not a variant of the there own language. I dare to say that that is a fact.<<

British ancestry may have invented it but not the British of today. There are dozens of British variants of the language today. So you'd be referring to a variant or variants, inadvertently.

>>Of course the English (British) has evolved, and it changes as do all languages. What I tried to explain was that the language has not been altered for the sake (I stress the word. sake) of altering it.<<

If you put it that way then anyone could easily argue that British English has been altered for the sake of altering it, since language is man-made after all.

>>Schools in these countries teaches the English language (British), as do the schools in Europe and Asia. They follow that system, for logical reasons,not for oppressive reasons. And again, why learn a
variant of the language? (reffering the the words, not any accent)
<<

To communicate primarily with people of the dialect you're trying assimilate with .

>>English (British) is the language. The others are different variations of that language, and NOT “there” own language<<

No, English is the language. British English could mean Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cockney, etc.

>>You seriously wonder why? I have to repeat myself all the time since no one READS the posts or they simply choose to misunderstand and twist things around for there own amusement. I guess that any reply to this post will prove whether I am right or wrong in that assumption. <<

You should be looking within yourself for that answer. Repeating yourself serves no purpose if the content is flawed and unchanging.

>>No, English is the language. British English could mean Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cockney, etc.<<

And each have unique vocabularies and usages for 'richer' or for 'purer'.

<British ancestry may have invented it but not the British of today. There are dozens of British variants of the language today. So you'd be referring to a variant or variants, inadvertently.>

You are referring to the different dialects that exist within the English (British) language. So there fore there is no different variant of the language (in the sense that I stated before)within there own language.

<If you put it that way then anyone could easily argue that British English has been altered for the sake of altering it, since language is man-made after all.>

Then once again you did not read my post, or maybe you have to learn more English to understand what I am writing. Were here to learn are we not?

<To communicate primarily with people of the dialect you're trying assimilate with>

So you would not be able to communicate in English? How the heck do the Europeans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians communicate when they base there studies on English (British) (once again the words, vocabulary, not the accent)?

Lets see if you understand now or if you will repeat your self in your state of “mantra”

I end it with..."“Legere et non intelligere neglegere est” .

Take care

>>You are referring to the different dialects that exist within the English (British) language. So there fore there is no different variant of the language (in the sense that I stated before)within there own language. <<

The point is, English is English, not British English. British English is the subset.

>>Then once again you did not read my post, or maybe you have to learn more English to understand what I am writing. Were here to learn are we not? <<

Well read my posts for once in your life, so you don't have to reply the same way, tediously, each time you don't have a legitimate response.

>>So you would not be able to communicate in English? How the heck do the Europeans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians communicate when they base there studies on English (British) (once again the words, vocabulary, not the accent)? <<

What makes you think those English speakers don't understand one another?

>>Lets see if you understand now or if you will repeat your self in your state of “mantra”
Eric Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:06 am GMT
I end it with..."“Legere et non intelligere neglegere est” .
Take care<<

I thought you wanted to learn and communicate in English. You are guilty of your own "To read and not to be understood is to be negligent".

Yes, I hope it's the end for you and take it with you.

>>So you would not be able to communicate in English? How the heck do the Europeans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians communicate when they base there studies on English (British) (once again the words, vocabulary, not the accent)? <<

What makes you think those English speakers don't understand one another?

Then you could argue American English is based on British English. But no, their studies aren't based purely on British English. Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians don't strictly learn from British sources. Anyway, there are differences in lexicon between all those groups.

I hope he has moved on. But he's a bit funny in the head, isn't he? Ranting about how we are not reading his posts when we are quoting his "beliefs" and "comments".

I think he thinks you and I are the same person Guest.