Why Americans can't spell!
>>By the way, not to quibble, but it's "learner".<<
To me, however, it's "lerner", a "simplifyed" form. I sometimes drop one letter from one word.
>>If anything, the big thing that one must remember here is that US spelling is not necessarily innovative and UK spelling is not necessarily conservative, contrary to the preconceived notions that many seem to have about the whole subject.<<
However, US spelling is "MORE innovative" than UK spelling. So, I want to see spelling unification first, and I wish I could see simplifyed variants more often. Some peeple would use them. And finally, spelling "re-unification"!
Am I just crying for the moon?
<<Am I just crying for the moon? >>
Pretty much. Most of us kind of like our spelling the way it is, perverse people that we are -- learning its intricacies and inexplicabilities was a rite of passage in our childhoods, and damn it, we didn't work that hard to make it easy on the rest of you now!
A rite of passage in your childhood! You had no choice!
>>However, US spelling is "MORE innovative" than UK spelling. So, I want to see spelling unification first, and I wish I could see simplifyed variants more often. Some peeple would use them. And finally, spelling "re-unification"!<<
The matter is that the only places where one can really say that US spellings are innovative *at all* have been the removal of -"gh" in some places like "draught" and the elimination of some spellings such as "gaol". Beyond such, though, most cases of such are either it having just standardized upon different spelling variants than the UK, or it having *seemed* to innovated from the perspective of people in the UK.
I appreciate the difference between Language and Orthography.
My rather tongue in cheek approach to the whole proposed spelling reforms was just my way of a jocund protest. Any simpflication of the idiosyncracies of British English, be it in spelling or grammar, should be resisted at all costs...we will resolutely fight off any such attacks on the beaches, on the cliff tops, in the fields and meadows and in the High Streets, on the football pitches and in the Tescos car parks and at every single entrance to Macdonalds and Starbucks.....we will never surrender to change just to make the learning of our Language easier for the linguistic invaders......everyone is more than welcome to learn English (as WRITTEN here ...in Little Britain) as long as all it's inconsistencies and irregularities are respected and left as found.
As for spoken English that IS a different kettle of fish (I could have said ball game there, but that may just be an Americanism! LOL).....I am all for variety there. But just no spelling reforms in this country. As I have said, what happens elsewhere in the English speaking world with spelling reforms is no concern of ours except for the matter of the prevention of infiltration into the British system. That should be no problem really as there has been no desire for the adoption of "color" "honor" "defense" "traveling" etc etc in BE.
>>As I have said, what happens elsewhere in the English speaking world with spelling reforms is no concern of ours except for the matter of the prevention of infiltration into the British system. <<
Am I to understand that you wouldn't care if BrE and AmE were to be split more and more?
It really, really wouldn't bother me one bit, to be perfectly candid, and neither would it matter to 99% of the people on both sides of the pond, I reckon. Both have a right to exist in whatever which way things develop.
>>>>As I have said, what happens elsewhere in the English speaking world with spelling reforms is no concern of ours except for the matter of the prevention of infiltration into the British system. <<
Am I to understand that you wouldn't care if BrE and AmE were to be split more and more?<<
Just so you know, spelling is nothing compared to phonology, morphology, syntax, and usage here, the differentiation of which is not going to slow as much as one may try to wish, from a non-native's perspective, for such not to be so.
>>My rather tongue in cheek approach to the whole proposed spelling reforms was just my way of a jocund protest. Any simpflication of the idiosyncracies of British English, be it in spelling or grammar, should be resisted at all costs...we will resolutely fight off any such attacks on the beaches, on the cliff tops, in the fields and meadows and in the High Streets, on the football pitches and in the Tescos car parks and at every single entrance to Macdonalds and Starbucks.....we will never surrender to change just to make the learning of our Language easier for the linguistic invaders......everyone is more than welcome to learn English (as WRITTEN here ...in Little Britain) as long as all it's inconsistencies and irregularities are respected and left as found.<<
Umm... and just who is not using the subjunctive in everyday speech? ;)
To Damian in Edinburgh,
I believe you know that the best form of defence is attack; but taking the fight back to the beaches of Normandy won't do much good, for this has to be a battle against principalities and powers which very few in the modern world do well against.
If you like the idea of English as a universal language, then I'm afraid your battle is lost. If you don't, then keep up the good fight.
Both BrE and AmE have lots of lerners in this world. But they are not universal.
Stan:
Just where do "the beaches of Normandy" come ito all this??? The beaches I referred to where OUR beaches....British not French...on the shores of which are the first line of LINGUISTIC defence against unwarranted changes to the written English Language effected elsewhere and which would attempt to storm our shores.....like those bloody grey squirrels a century and a half ago!!!! We don't give a flying toss about "principalities and powers" but we do care about our precious English Language as it is in it's original home base right now! Amazingly, I include Scotland in that last bit......things have now moved on apace! :-)
Travis: Subjunctive? I'd watch it, if I were you.......! (Idle threat) hee hee.....
Hey, Damian -- you return our squirrels to us, and we'll send back your horrible starlings!
Why would any English-speaker give a rat's ass about "keeping it all together"? Language is a tool, nothing more, and each group of people modify it to fit their own needs and circumstances, not to meet some arbitrary standard! Nor do we care what impact this might have on non-English-speakers who want to learn -- it's through no effort on our part that it';s a widespread second language. That's their business, not ours.
Touche, Uriel! Touche! OK....a fair swop.......apparently all our starlings are declining in numbers.....maybe they're all flying west a few thousand miles........if you don't want them then stop giving them green cards and send them back! I know squirrels can't fly and I'm not sure they're much good at swimming either so we're probably stuck with the scavenging, destructive, "native harmless red-squirrel" murdering little b*!!%**rs. One grey squirrel got into a neighbours' kitchen through an open door, went on the rampage and caused over £500 worth of damage. Bloody yanks! :-)
A joke! Just a joke!!!!
Now I really have done it good and proper....... :-(