Because I'm essentially a bourgois. I can still understand Birmingham dialect, but I do not speak it.
I still don't understand what you meant when you said you didn't speak the same language than Porthos, since himself and yourserf speak standard english, and since the only variation of the english "dialects" concerns some minor pronouciation nuances... That's not what I would call a "different language" at all !.
When I say 'language', I essentially mean speech variety, which is what 'language' is, as far as I'm concerned. No, Standard British English and Standard American English are not 'the same'. And there many more differences between English dialects than simply 'some minor pronunciation nuances'.
Don't be confusing Benjamin Essentially, if you understand English, you can understand American. It's not as if we're talking about a difference like that which exists between, say, Chinese and Finnish; no matter whether or not the accent is different between English and American, the language itself is the same.
Pauline wrote:
Shouga wrote:
Ah, well I have a special keyboard like that but I don't use it (and I never used the special keys on it anyway). However, you can probably configure these settings if you look in your '(All) Programs' menu for the keyboard driver that your computer runs (this determines the browser/e-mail client that your keyboard runs when you press these 'special' keys). If you can't find it (not sure whether these drivers are integrated or separate...) then you might be able to find and change the settings under Control Panel, under the icon Keyboard. These things may *not* be configurable though, it really depends on the laptop you have.
I've configured them !!!
It's not completely well configured as it tells something about protocol ... but those keys now are directly going to the correct internet / email
Weird thing: i saw, that when I've not visited this forum, then returned, my name was there for logged on, but I was not!!!
Good I don't know how to help you with protocol without seeing the full message, but as long as the keys work, it shouldn't matter.
Hm, I think a lot of people are getting this problem... like I said on the other thread, it's probably to do with people who forgot to log out at some point, or are logged into two or more sessions at a time. Or maybe just old cookies, I dunno.
No, Standard British English and Standard American English are not 'the same'
Why is that possible I can understand both then ? A "different language" would mean that you would be unable to communicate with Americans... I doubt about this ! Even me I can without having learned American English !
No, Standard British English and Standard American English are not 'the same'
Why is that possible I can understand both then ? A "different language" would mean that you would be unable to communicate with Americans... I doubt about this ! Even me I can without having learned American English !
the same = identical
Standard British English and Standard American English are definitely not 'identical' to each-other. I can list many differences between them. My everyday speech is definitely not 'the same' as Josh's. However, this does not prevent (almost) full mutual intelligibility.
Standard British English and Standard American English are definitely not 'identical' to each-other.
I'm sure the English you speak and the one speak your mother is not identical either -difference of generations, different expression, words, etc.
Would you say that you don't speak the same language than your mother ?
American and British languages are both part of the same language called "English". Like all languages it has its differences, it doesn't mean these forms are not part of the same language !
I'm sure the English you speak and the one speak your mother is not identical either -difference of generations, different expression, words, etc.
Would you say that you don't speak the same language than your mother ?
American and British languages are both part of the same language called "English". Like all languages it has its differences, it doesn't mean these forms are not part of the same language !
The problem is that you are wanting to group 'languages' into neat little boxes called 'English', 'French', 'German', 'Spanish' etc. — which is very much a political construct, even if that is how most people see it. I tend to see 'language' as something much more fluid than that. Essentially, I would say that each person has their own 'language' in a way — how well they can understand another person depends on how similar their language is to the language of the other person, and what they have learnt.
For example, there is not really a clear distinction between 'German', 'Low Saxon' and 'Dutch' etc. in the spoken form — it's a kind of continuum, although mass education has changed this to some extent, unfortunately.
I went to Germany last year to stay with German people — when I arrived there, I spoke almost no German, and had had almost no exposure to it. Yet on the evening I arrived, I found that I was able to more or less understand the basics of what my host family were saying to me in German. I don't know how I managed that, but I did. My point is that it is very difficult (and arguably inappropriate) to draw clear distinctions between spoken languages.
I went to Germany last year to stay with German people — when I arrived there, I spoke almost no German, and had had almost no exposure to it. Yet on the evening I arrived, I found that I was able to more or less understand the basics of what my host family were saying to me in German.
Yeah, but you are also the guy who read Dutch websites as a child with no education in Dutch! You seem to have an unusal gift for intuïtive understanding! Or you might have been a resident of Aachen in an earlier life! _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
I went to Germany last year to stay with German people — when I arrived there, I spoke almost no German, and had had almost no exposure to it. Yet on the evening I arrived, I found that I was able to more or less understand the basics of what my host family were saying to me in German.
Yeah, but you are also the guy who read Dutch websites as a child with no education in Dutch! You seem to have an unusal gift for intuïtive understanding! Or you might have been a resident of Aachen in an earlier life!
Most of the time when Benjamin says something to me in Dutch/Afrikaan/simple German, I can usually understand what is being said (in fact, I think I quite surprised Benjamin before when I could understand everything he said to me in Afrikaan without any prior knowledge of the language). Perhaps all English people can do what myself and Benjamin can?
The fact is Benjamin, we speak the same language, and I can go to just about anywhere in the English speaking world and communicate effortlessly. You can't start disecting the language of different regions and labeling them a thin line between language and "dialect" simply because in casual conversation, the less educated ones of society use a lot of unique local slang. Yeah, we have a different accent but we are both speaking "English". _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Benjamin, if you think your language so different with Josh's one, I would be interested to see what it looks like. For exemple you could translate Josh's preceding answer in 'your English". As it we could compare and see how different the two languages are - and if we can understand both of them...
The fact is Benjamin, we speak the same language, and I can go to just about anywhere in the English speaking world and communicate effortlessly. You can't start disecting the language of different regions and labeling them a thin line between language and "dialect" simply because in casual conversation, the less educated ones of society use a lot of unique local slang. Yeah, we have a different accent but we are both speaking "English".
They would probably understand you, yes. But I very much doubt that you would 'effortlessly' understand everything you heard in a pub in, say, Northumbria or the Black Country (because it's quite hard for me, and I live in England). You've heard the recordings; you said that you only understood about 50% of it.
I am not arguing that my first language is very different from that of Josh. What I am arguing is that there are differences between how Josh and I speak in every day life. I am also arguing that there can be significant differences in regional dialect within the British Isles — which I have demonstrated by posting recordings on both this thread and others.
They would probably understand you, yes. But I very much doubt that you would 'effortlessly' understand everything you heard in a pub in, say, Northumbria or the Black Country (because it's quite hard for me, and I live in England). You've heard the recordings; you said that you only understood about 50% of it.
This may be the case, but it is largely due to the fact that they have a different accent, which might make it more difficult to understand, as I am not used to words pronounced in their fashion. The remaining difficulty in communication boils down to their use of colloquial words, which they would not use in a more professional setting among educated persons.
Quote:
I am not arguing that my first language is very different from that of Josh. What I am arguing is that there are differences between how Josh and I speak in every day life. I am also arguing that there can be significant differences in regional dialect within the British Isles — which I have demonstrated by posting recordings on both this thread and others.
Earlier you were attempting to argue that the differences between American English and various British dialects were so profound that they were even as different, if not more different than the languages of Scandanavia, thus meriting the status of seperate *languages*. Or you at least called their status as mere dialects or regional varities of the same langauge into question. But I'm saying you and I, could meet in a cafe, and discuss just about anything over a cup of coffee, and we could easily converse and understand everything we say. I could do the same with most working-class British people as well. Their accent might not be as clear and immediately intelligible (such as some Northumbrians I have encountered), but our vocabulary is virtually identical. At most, I have to ask them to simply repeat themselves on occasion. This does not constitute a weaker relationship between British English and American English than that shared by entirely seperate languages in Scandanavia. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
So tell me... what is it about Scandinavian languages which means that you can recognise them as 'separate languages', which you feel does not apply to regional dialects of the British Isles? Fredrik said on another thread that he can communicate more or less naturally with Swedish and Danish people — it doesn't seem all that different from a situation where you would be talking with Northumbrians, whereby you can more or less understand them, but with some difficulty. In both cases, the main differences are a different accent, some grammatical differences, a few different words...
Scots is now recognised as a 'separate language'' by the government, although it was just seen as 'bad English' up until very recently. However, there is not a clear line between where Scottish English ends and Scots begins — it's a kind of continuum. Likewise, I understand that people from Denmark used to think of Norwegian as simply 'bad Danish' in the 19th century.
I'm not really interested in how people deliberately modify their speech in situations perceived to be more 'formal', or when they need to ensure that they are understood by people who do not speak their dialect — even I do that, and I supposedly speak RP. Rather, I'm interested in how people actually speak on a daily basis amongst their own communities.
I also don't really like the term "dialect" so much unless there are significant variations between the regions in areas other than mere accent and a handful of slang terms. Being that the vernacular of some regions in England use unorthodox grammar, they may merit the title of "dialect", but in the U.S., a country which is 3,000 miles wide, there is little to no variation in grammar, lexicon, or syntax in all 50 states. The only fundamental difference between my speech and someone from Maine, clear on the opposite end of the country, is the accent.
There are a few words which I use as a Californian youth, which might not be considered typical in other parts of the country, but due to California's influence in the media, most of these words are already known and understood by people from other regions, especially the young people.
Some words or expressions native to California or the west coast in general which I use on a regular basis, but only among other teenagers:
"hella" (a lot of, much, many)
"dude" (a guy, male, man,)
"chick" (a female, usually a girl or a young woman)
"all kinds" (a lot of, much, many)
Now these words represent slang terms only normally used by young people.
The only difference between "Standard British English" and "Standard American English" mainly consists of a few very minor spelling differences, such as "center" vs. "centre", a different accent, and a few slang terms, largely curse words, which are different, like "shag" and such.
And in singing, these differences all but disappear, as the difference in the accent is even reduced. For the most part, a person cannot tell the difference between a British singer and an American singer. They usually sound virtually the same. I can listen to say, the "Lost Prophets", a *Welsh* group, and they sound exactly like any American band would.
The point Fab and I are trying to make, is that there really isn't much of a difference between American English and British English.
American black people often speak an uneducated, improper form of English sometimes called "ebonics". Now it's still 100% English, but they tend to speak in a certain way so that they pronounce things a bit differently, and they use improper grammar, along with a limited vocabulary, and make use of unique slang. But we can understand them just fine. They only speak English, but like uneducated persons, which is essentially what the guys in the pubs of Northumbria are doing. When they go to school, they learn proper English, what you would call "Standard English", but at home or in a casual setting, they will revert back to their "ghetto" talk, and use improper grammar such as "us books". _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
American black people often speak an uneducated, improper form of English
There is nothing 'improper' about it. It is simply how they were brought up to speak. It seems as though you look down on dialects and sociolects which you see as non-standard — are you a linguistic prescriptivist?
There is nothing 'improper' about saying 'us books' if you live in West Yorkshire either — again, that is simply how they were brought up to speak. Ideally, I see no reason why they should be encouraged to change any aspect of their native language.
Porthos wrote:
The only difference between "Standard British English" and "Standard American English" mainly consists of a few very minor spelling differences, such as "center" vs. "centre", a different accent, and a few slang terms, largely curse words, which are different, like "shag" and such.
Yes, but the point I'm making is that most people people here don't really speak so-called 'Standard British English' at home or with their friends and family.
There is nothing 'improper' about it. It is simply how they were brought up to speak. It seems as though you look down on dialects and sociolects which you see as non-standard — are you a linguistic prescriptivist?
No, here it is considered impromper. If someone uses impromper grammar, they will be corrected in school. If they try to speak like that on an interview, they will not be hired. If they try to speak like that in a court of law, they will not be respected. Here, there is only one way to speak English, and that is the "proper", standard way, that which is taught in schools. Anything else is simply considered improper or an uneducated form of English. Of course, people might choose to talk like that among friends or family at home, but to speak in "ebonics" or "hill billy" lingo is not acceptable in a professional setting, nor is percieved to simply be an alternative, yet equally correct way of speaking English. It is just seen as inferior, and improper, and indiciative of ignorance or a lack of education. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
No, here it is considered impromper. If someone uses impromper grammar, they will be corrected in school. If they try to speak like that on an interview, they will not be hired. If they try to speak like that in a court of law, they will not be respected.
...
It is just seen as inferior, and improper, and indiciative of ignorance or a lack of education.
Yes, by ignorant people who do not understand anything about linguistics. (I'm not saying that that's necessarily their fault). If one is to study linguistics, the first thing one needs to learn is that there are no 'incorrect' ways of speaking one's native language.
Incidentally, my dad used to teach English at a school in West Yorkshire in the 1970s. As I've mentioned, in that region, the first person plural possessive adjective is 'us', instead of the more common 'our'. At that time, there was a large debate about whether the people of West Yorkshire should be allowed/encouraged to have their own culture (which includes their regional dialect), or whether teachers should 'correct' their language to make it more 'Standard English' like, because saying 'us books' et al may be a hindrance during their working lives. My view is that it is attitudes towards certain regional dialects which have to be changed, rather than the dialects themselves.
So the prime minister of Great Britain can meet with the leaders of the world on international television and speak like this?:
I ain't got no time for they problems all up in dat phat middle east. They gots problems that we can't do nothing about. You know what I be saying?
If a person studying English tried to speak like that, he would be corrected, or recieve a poor grade on his paper for using double negatives, the wrong words etc., and other improper grammar. But why should they recieve a bad score or need to be corrected in the first place, if it is not "improper"? The fact is,[/b]it is improper. There has to be some realistic conventions within a language, some form of a standardized way of communication so that everyone can understand each other. That is the whole purpose of grammar. If people don't follow the established criteria for proper grammar within a language, then they are speaking "improperly". _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I'm sorry for all the bold words in the latter half of the previous post. It wasn't intentional, so please just disregard it. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:13 am Post subject:
Porthos wrote:
I also don't really like the term "dialect" so much unless there are significant variations between the regions in areas other than mere accent and a handful of slang terms. Being that the vernacular of some regions in England use unorthodox grammar, they may merit the title of "dialect", but in the U.S., a country which is 3,000 miles wide, there is little to no variation in grammar, lexicon, or syntax in all 50 states. The only fundamental difference between my speech and someone from Maine, clear on the opposite end of the country, is the accent.
[]
American black people often speak an uneducated, improper form of English sometimes called "ebonics". Now it's still 100% English, but they tend to speak in a certain way so that they pronounce things a bit differently, and they use improper grammar, along with a limited vocabulary, and make use of unique slang. But we can understand them just fine. They only speak English, but like uneducated persons, which is essentially what the guys in the pubs of Northumbria are doing. When they go to school, they learn proper English, what you would call "Standard English", but at home or in a casual setting, they will revert back to their "ghetto" talk, and use improper grammar such as "us books".
From what you wrote, I can't tell whether you see a difference between a "dialect" (your definition thereof) and an "improper" form of a language.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Essentially, if you understand English, you can understand American. It's not as if we're talking about a difference like that which exists between, say, Chinese and Finnish; no matter whether or not the accent is different between English and American, the language itself is the same.
You seem to have an unusal gift for intuïtive understanding! Or you might have been a resident of Aachen in an earlier life!
