NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, this being a somewhat international forum, and mostly english speaking I feel like bringing something that irks me somewhat, I also find it very interesting(its a war in my mind I can't win!). Within each-region there are different pronunciations for many different words. Such as the word defense, Some say it as two words (Dee-fense) others (like me) say it in one word (Dev-fense). There are many words like this some Let me end this little rant with a question, should we standardize english? If so why, or why not?

If it means eliminating all of the annoying regional accents and dialects, I'd be for it. Defense is one word, not two. And, it's soda, not pop.

I love my own accent.
Girls like it too.

I love my own accent.
Girls like it too.

What is it? I think you're from Quebec but I'm not sure.

No, because for some reason, people who don't live in Britain would think that it should standardise their way... and that's just plain unacceptable :D

That and I like accents, dialects, and coloqualisms.

they cant, what would theyt do? smack a kid on the head if he said "yall" or "ain't"? they couldnt do it, noone would try or care.

they cant, what would theyt do? smack a kid on the head if he said "yall" or "ain't"? they couldnt do it, noone would try or care.

They could do it, all we do is send them to "Grammar camp"(only 1/3 will survive)....

there are many regional accents in britain let alone anywhere else in the world.

Regional english carries not only geographical information but also historical information in the regional words people use and place names. Loose all that just to standardise english? no thanks!!!

anyways, english, like other languages in daily use, is a living thing and languages change. If english was standardised it wouldn't be long before people were introducing variations :)

there is a school of thought which says that the english as spoken in New England is more like the english that was spoken in england hundreds of years ago but i don't know how true that is

there are many regional accents in britain let alone anywhere else in the world.

Regional english carries not only geographical information but also historical information in the regional words people use and place names. Loose all that just to standardise english? no thanks!!!

anyways, english, like other languages in daily use, is a living thing and languages change. If english was standardised it wouldn't be long before people were introducing variations :)

there is a school of thought which says that the english as spoken in New England is more like the english that was spoken in england hundreds of years ago but i don't know how true that is

actually it is true, the boston accent is like 90% similar to the old-english accent... pretty funny huh?

If it means eliminating all of the annoying regional accents and dialects, I'd be for it. Defense is one word, not two. And, it's soda, not pop.

word

and please, no more of this rounding-of-the-vowels horseshit...

most problematic:

O is "oh" (not "ehoo", as in California)
I is "eye" (not "ah", as down South or "awee" as in the northeast)
U is "yoo" (not "yeew", as in California and down South)

queens english is the way english is spoken, so shut it you foul mouthed yanks! ;)

(j/k, j/k)

Well im English and I speak in a way similar to the BBC newsreaders. My family has always spoken in this way and I naturally continue the trend. As we invented the language, everyone should bend to speaking Standard English, as it is known in Britain and do things our way for a change!

queens english is the way english is spoken, so shut it you foul mouthed yanks! ;)

(j/k, j/k)

Good on you!

actually it is true, the boston accent is like 90% similar to the old-english accent... pretty funny huh?

some of your folk music has strong links to old english folk too

what i'd like to know is...how they know how english was spoken hundreds of years ago...

What's with all of these references to a "southern" accent? Don't you realize that y'all are the ones with accents?

And, it's soda, not pop.It's a soft drink to me. Soda is a type of bread, and pop is something that happens when a balloon bursts or something :)

Making "English standardized" is an idea still-born.

But, the idea of creating a Standard English, with a regular spelling, would work. It'd be totally irrelevant how you pronounce "defense" in your regional accent, because there would be only one Standard English way to pronounce and spell it. This would not mean your accent would disappear, it would mean that you would have to learn to speak Standard English. In Germany, there are a myriad of different regional dialects, but everyone's using High German in spelling, even if it's almost a foreign language to some.

And regular spelling. Regular spelling would not mean that you would write as in Italian; it would mean you would rite rite, rite and rite the same. (That is, write right, rite and wright the same.) Why can't the English realize that they're using French spelling? Why doesn't that evoke any protest?

It's a soft drink to me. Soda is a type of bread, and pop is something that happens when a balloon bursts or something :)
I call it a soft drink too! But my northern neighbours call it pop.

What is it? I think you're from Quebec but I'm not sure.
Yup. I have a funny accent in 2 languages (and more). :D

What's so shocking about English evolving?
We have the same problem with French: people in France won't accept traditional words we still use here (but they don't), as well as they won't accept vocabulary innovations that come from our different climate/lifestyles. So what's to do? Speak like they do in Paris, or stay ourselves?

I reckon y'all be plum crazy. :D j/k

some of your folk music has strong links to old english folk too

what i'd like to know is...how they know how english was spoken hundreds of years ago...

one difference (at least):

English: BO-ston

Bostonians: BAStin

English is a great language because it's vaired, although most people I know speak mostly US English anyway. Some don't even know what petrol is. Or even a prostitute. To me, it's just wierd. If someone had gas in their car, i'd stop telling them to eat too many beans...

word

and please, no more of this rounding-of-the-vowels horseshit...

most problematic:

O is "oh" (not "ehoo", as in California)
I is "eye" (not "ah", as down South or "awee" as in the northeast)
U is "yoo" (not "yeew", as in California and down South)

While we're being pedantic about things: those vowels aren't being rounded, they're being diphthongized... :p


On Topic: The standardization of language seems like a totally unnecessary destruction of regional cultures. Look what's happened in France: In the Constitution of the French Republic after the revolution, the Parisian dialect of French was made the only official language of the country meaning all laws, leaflets, notices, etc, had to be written in that language. Essentially this meant that speakers of Occitan, Provençal, Oïl, Alsation, Catalan, Breton, Basque, and many other minority dialects and languages (some of which are quite different to French) where basically punished for speaking their language by the government and their children forced in schools to speak French to the exclusion of all other languages. It's only in the past few decades that this has started to be reversed, but many of these once thriving languages have been relegated to a handful of elderly speakers in isolated rural areas with extinction seemingly inevitable. Although Modern English isn't nearly as diverse as French was 200 years ago, I'd hate to see the same thing happen to our language. I like that I can barely understand English as it's spoken by a Jamaican, or a Scot, or even a Texan ;) This diversity in language is part of diversity in culture and imo should be encouraged.

one difference (at least):

English: BO-ston

Bostonians: BAStin


I say BOS- TON

Lol, do I hear assimilation here? We all have our own way... this is really a no brainer and not much to say. Human rights really.

The only pronunciations I have a big problem with is the word persons. DOESN'T EXIST! It's people. Same with sheep. It's not sheeps.

While we're being pedantic about things: those vowels aren't being rounded, they're being diphthongized... :p


On Topic: the differences between dialects in English is one of the most interesting things about the language. Try and understand anyone speaking classic Scots English and you'll see what I mean. The standardization of language seems like a totally unneccary destruction of regional cultures. Look what's happened in France: In the Constitution of the French Republic after the revolution, the Parisian dialect of French was made the only official language of the country meaning all laws, leaflets, notices, etc, had to be written in that language. Essentially this meant that speakers of Occitan, Provençal, Oïl, Alsation, Catalan, Breton, Basque, and many other minority dialects and languages (some of which are quite different to French) where basically punished for speaking their language by the government and forced in schools to speak French to the exclusion of all other languages. It's only in the past few decades that this has started to be reversed, but many of these once thriving languages have essentially been relegated to a handful of speakers in isolated rural areas, withing extinction seemingly inevitable for many. Although Modern English isn't nearly as diverse as French was 200 years ago, I'd hate to see the same thing happen to our language. I like that I can barely English as it's spoken by a Jamaican, or a Scot, or even a Texan ;) Diversity in language is part of diversity in culture and imo should be encouraged.

wouldn't the diphthong of "I" be "ah-eeeeeee..." and "O" "oh-ooooooooooo"?

"a" -- "a-eeeeeeee"

hehe

Sure we should standardize english, would be a pain to teach all those people who speak 'murcan though.

"a" -- "a-eeeeeeee"

hehe

lol ... nice

It aint pop or soda. Its tonic.
I eat grinders. Not subs or hogies.
Those drinks you call shakes? Those are frappes damnit!

Signed, Old New Englander :headbang:

there is a school of thought which says that the english as spoken in New England is more like the english that was spoken in england hundreds of years ago but i don't know how true that is

A cursory visit around England would dispell that, we have a lot of accents here even though it is a fairly small landmass. I was told that the New England accents is most closely related to the East Anglia accent in England, since the vast majority of New England immigrant originally came from there. Though I don't speak with any authority on the matter.

Also depends on how far back you want to go, the above about New England accents coming from East Anglia accents is obviously from the early to mid colonial period. Though apparently the further back you go the more germanic the language and accent was. Though again, I speak with no authority.

It aint pop or soda. Its tonic.
I eat grinders. Not subs or hogies.
Those drinks you call shakes? Those are frappes damnit!

Signed, Old New Englander :headbang:


It's pop :)

My friend in Rhode Island says

Bawstin :p

word

and please, no more of this rounding-of-the-vowels horseshit...

most problematic:

O is "oh" (not "ehoo", as in California)
I is "eye" (not "ah", as down South or "awee" as in the northeast)
U is "yoo" (not "yeew", as in California and down South)

"Word" is a slang term.... It's not "word" it's "I agree", or "true".

You just made yourself look like an ass.

English is a great language because it's vaired, although most people I know speak mostly US English anyway. Some don't even know what petrol is. Or even a prostitute. To me, it's just wierd. If someone had gas in their car, i'd stop telling them to eat too many beans...


Remember, there technically isn't an US English. With so many accents (Boston, Yankee(CT, NY), Southern, Western, California...) in the US, there really isn't a US English. Just like there isn't technically one Chinese language, Spanish, French, German.... Every language has their own accents, word deffinitions, ect.

BTW, I voted "NO" because I believe that while grammar does make things easier, it would be very BORING if we standardize english. It just adds to the fun of confusing someone when you say "Soda" you mean "Soft Drink" and then other people could mistake you for saying a type of "Bread" (Kazcaper).

Making "English standardized" is an idea still-born.

But, the idea of creating a Standard English, with a regular spelling, would work. It'd be totally irrelevant how you pronounce "defense" in your regional accent, because there would be only one Standard English way to pronounce and spell it. This would not mean your accent would disappear, it would mean that you would have to learn to speak Standard English. In Germany, there are a myriad of different regional dialects, but everyone's using High German in spelling, even if it's almost a foreign language to some.

And regular spelling. Regular spelling would not mean that you would write as in Italian; it would mean you would rite rite, rite and rite the same. (That is, write right, rite and wright the same.) Why can't the English realize that they're using French spelling? Why doesn't that evoke any protest?

"write" is something you do on pen and paper.
"right" is correct, or a side.
"rite" is a ceremonial occurence
"wright" is one who constructs or repairs.

They are different words with different meanings. English does use some French and Latin spellings... That is normative (it is etymologically descended from those languages; in addition to brythic , scandinavian, and german languages of various ages (French twice, once during Old French, and again in modern). "Metre" "Theatre" etc. are french spellings (changed in American English to Meter, Theater, etc.). Some words are in direct descent as well "idiot" is a french word originally; as is marriage, table, rendeavous, measure, etc.

"write" is something you do on pen and paper.
"right" is correct, or a side.
"rite" is a ceremonial occurence
"wright" is one who constructs or repairs.

isn't English such a wonderfully simple language when they all sound exactly the same :rolleyes:

Besides I would lose all those classic time when I go to say, Texas and speak in a strong Yorkshire accent-classic!

[QUOTE]queens english is the way english is spoken, so shut it you foul mouthed yanks![QUOTE]
Excuse me? Since when have I been a "foul-mouthed yank" as you so eloquently put it? And what is all this about people from the Northeast saying "awee" instead of I? I don't pronounce it that way. People in my state get a lot of crap about how we talk just because of the Bostonians. I'm sick of all the shit about not parking a car in Harvard Yard.

Excuse me? Since when have I been a "foul-mouthed yank" as you so eloquently put it?
the (j/k) you edited out of the quote there denotes i'm joking. as far as i'm concerned people can speak however the hell they like as long as we all spell it roughly the same

isn't English such a wonderfully simple language when they all sound exactly the same :rolleyes:

Never said it was simple. But they do "sound" the same. Not necessary to change anyway, since they differ in spelling for written language; they are in the same in conversational; but that is ok. Since meaning is derived from context anyway when dealing with conversational language.

"Knight" and "night" also sound the same (presently; though in Middle English, they were pronounced differently). Same with "not" and "knot". English is a "mut" language; this is to be expected. It is descended from 4 seperate language "families". And uses words which descend from all of them.

"witch" descends from native brythic languages....

"measure" descends from French/Latin

"call" is Dutch

"noodle" is German

suffixes like -ful and -ly come from Norse influence.

I don't think English should be standardized - because it CAN'T be. I mean, there's already, like, 3 pages worth of people arguing about various accents and pronounciations and such. Who would decide which words made it into standard english and which words didn't?

There also isn't a practical way to make everyone use standard english. Obviously if everyone is supposed to use this standardized language, then school textbooks and such would have to be rewritten (which would cost A LOT of money). Also you can't make everyone use a standard english.. for obvious reasons.

You can't standardize English! Then I would lose all the fun of saying "soda" just so people say "you mean pop?"

they cant, what would theyt do? smack a kid on the head if he said "yall" or "ain't"? they couldnt do it, noone would try or care.
my parents used to tell me off if I spoke badly when I was younger, and I do speak propely now.

I say BOS- TON
ditto

It aint pop or soda. Its tonic.
I eat grinders. Not subs or hogies.

isn't tonic the thing you mix with gin, as in a gin a tonic? (or alternativly an old word for a drink which had medical properties)
what on earth are grinders and hogies? All I can guess you mean by sub is those long baguettes.

BTW, I voted "NO" because I believe that while grammar does make things easier, it would be very BORING if we standardize english. It just adds to the fun of confusing someone when you say "Soda" you mean "Soft Drink" and then other people could mistake you for saying a type of "Bread" (Kazcaper).
well most british people understand most US english so we wouldn't have so much trouble, I on the other hand can talk about aubergines and confuse any americans alot.

Standardise it? And have no more fun listening to drunk Dublin kids on the Night Link bus? English language at its incredible best...
Honestly, I'm originally from Germany, lived in Wales, Canada and now Ireland. So I've been through a number of accents and I loved them all. Don't take them away, what would Sean Connery sound like? Or... watshisname... Jeff Foxworthy? What would the Queen sound like without accent? How could you detect Australians?
The world would be a poor place without accents.

"Soda"/"Soda-Pop" or "Pop" are all proper terms. Unique to Boston it is also called "Tonic"; though only because "Tonic" itself is a form of "Soda"

"Tonic" or "Tonic Water" is a bicarbonate beverage (a soda) flavored with quinine (an alkaloid derived from tree bark) and sometimes a citrus juice (lime being the most common).

"Soda" is a chemical synonym of a bicarbonate agent (which is disolved into water under pressure, to form carbonated water [also called soda]/[Think of putting a glass of water under intense pressure; and then placing alkaselzter in it; the tablets will disolve; but the gas would not escape the liquid till pressure is removed]). When flavored, it travels under various names of soft-drink by region.

'ere, baeys, you can' go gettin' rid of regional accents 'cause otherwise I'd have ta try an' talk all posh 'n stuff like the Queen does up ****-ry! :D

Seriously though, the lack of regional dialects would be a massive loss not only to our regional identities and diversity, but also a link to our past.
Standardising written English though might have it's advantages!

I don't think English should be standardized - because it CAN'T be. I mean, there's already, like, 3 pages worth of people arguing about various accents and pronounciations and such. Who would decide which words made it into standard english and which words didn't?

There also isn't a practical way to make everyone use standard english. Obviously if everyone is supposed to use this standardized language, then school textbooks and such would have to be rewritten (which would cost A LOT of money). Also you can't make everyone use a standard english.. for obvious reasons.
William Claxton (I think) tried, and failed.

Uh, actually the Queen speaks in a very artificial manner that's further removed from our everyday language than American accents. And for the record, her bloody dynasty is German.

Personally, I think accents are great, but only because New World lasses tend to like mine. I do have one beef with you American types out there, though - STOP DROPPING YOUR BLOODY "U"S. It's "colour", "savour", "saviour".

queens english is the way english is spoken, so shut it you foul mouthed yanks! ;)

(j/k, j/k)

Really? Then why is it that when you limey's sing, you sound like us?

"write" is something you do on pen and paper.
"right" is correct, or a side.
"rite" is a ceremonial occurence
"wright" is one who constructs or repairs.

They are different words with different meanings.

They're homophones. So what? Isn't spelling there to reflect the basic phonetic shape of a given morpheme, not to convey meaning in itself? An exercise for you: make up a context where rite would be confused with write, wright or right.

(Smart-ass-proofing: aside from a list of these words.)

They're homophones. So what? Isn't spelling there to reflect the basic phonetic shape of a given morpheme, not to convey meaning in itself? An exercise for you: make up a context where rite would be confused with write, wright or right.

(Smart-ass-proofing: aside from a list of these words.)

English is not a phonetic language... It's built off of 4 different language families, all with their seperate phonems, intermeshed (which is why phonetic pronunciation will not work for all words in the language).

No spelling conveys meaning in english (a decent from it's greek/roman ancestry) as well as can help devlope sounds (but english has no "base" phonetic structure.... it varies depending on word origin).

For example, Rendeavous originates in french, and uses french rules to pronounce still. Yet you use a different set of rules for "harbingers". In Traditional English the "H" used with vowels is still silent Henry = "EHN-RY" as opposed to "HEN-RY" hailing from latin roots where the "H" originated as a ' mark softening preceding vowels (a modification which later seperated representing "H" and "J", both of which are silent in most Latin descent languages, as they did not exist, but were added later, to Latin scripting; which is where our alphabet originates).

Otherwise; it's better to be a smart-ass; than a dumb-ass...

Lol, do I hear assimilation here? We all have our own way... this is really a no brainer and not much to say. Human rights really.

The only pronunciations I have a big problem with is the word persons. DOESN'T EXIST! It's people. Same with sheep. It's not sheeps.

nor does irregardless, though the mirror Webster's has seen fit to actually put it in its version of the dictionary

(it's a double-negative... you're saying "with total regard to" or "totally dependant on" ... and it's used when people really mean to use regardless).

English is not a phonetic language... It's built off of 4 different language families, all with their seperate phonems, intermeshed (which is why phonetic pronunciation will not work for all words in the language).

No spelling conveys meaning in english (a decent from it's greek/roman ancestry) as well as can help devlope sounds (but english has no "base" phonetic structure.... it varies depending on word origin).

For example, Rendeavous originates in french, and uses french rules to pronounce still. Yet you use a different set of rules for "harbingers". In Traditional English the "H" used with vowels is still silent Henry = "EHN-RY" as opposed to "HEN-RY" hailing from latin roots where the "H" originated as a ' mark softening preceding vowels (a modification which later seperated representing "H" and "J", both of which are silent in most Latin descent languages, as they did not exist, but were added later, to Latin scripting; which is where our alphabet originates).

Otherwise; it's better to be a smart-ass; than a dumb-ass...

correct

hence, the importance of spelling

plus... you just look dumb if you can't spell.

Lol, do I hear assimilation here? We all have our own way... this is really a no brainer and not much to say. Human rights really.

The only pronunciations I have a big problem with is the word persons. DOESN'T EXIST! It's people. Same with sheep. It's not sheeps.

You're wrong there. "Persons" does exist, as do "people"; but the two are not interchangeable.

"People" is a general noun, person is a personal noun. "Persons" is the proper pluralization where the "General Noun" version is used. But when the scope is broadened to a generality; it is approriate to apply "people".

For example, you do not say "12 people went to the store...." Specifying a number means you apply the plurality as personal as well "12 persons" But you would also not say "Several persons went to the store"; it would be appropriate (since it is general in this context; for it to be people).

As a general rule, when your speaking of a specific number of individuals, the proper plural is "persons". When your dealing with a broad, unnumbered group, the proper plural is "people".

Your thinking that this is "new" is wrong. In fact; your system of using "people" as the defacto plural for "person" is "new". You'll find the term "persons" everywhere (including the US Constitution).

You're wrong there. "Persons" does exist, as do "people"; but the two are not interchangeable.

"People" is a general noun, person is a personal noun. "Persons" is the proper pluralization where the "General Noun" version is used. But when the scope is broadened to a generality; it is approriate to apply "people".

For example, you do not say "12 people went to the store...." Specifying a number means you apply the plurality as personal as well "12 persons" But you would also not say "Several persons went to the store"; it would be appropriate (since it is general in this context; for it to be people).

As a general rule, when your speaking of a specific number of individuals, the proper plural is "persons". When your dealing with a broad, unnumbered group, the proper plural is "people".

Your thinking that this is "new" is wrong. In fact; your system of using "people" as the defacto plural for "person" is "new". You'll find the term "persons" everywhere (including the US Constitution).

you're = you are

Really? Then why is it that when you limey's sing, you sound like us?
cos the american accent is 100% cooler than the british one, duuuh :p

How can we ever come to an accord when we can't even agree on how the letters are pronounced?

Zed vs zee.

I love the variation in accents, dialects, pronunciations (not pronounciations!), etc. The English language is a beautiful thing.

T'ain't ryte fer ya's uppity fokes to go a'changin' ar way a'doin thangs.

Lettus talk tha way we wanna talk n' let us be.

Ah'm down ryte pissed off tha ya's fokes er a'thankin' tha yous can a'cum around n' try ta change us ta duh way ya's a'wants us.

G'way n' let us be, lihk Ah sayed a secund ago.

How could you detect Australians?

we would say 'Mate' every four words?. Anyway in England in like the mediaval times they did standardise it. since no one went out of their villages, they had different dialects. in some place eggs were welvyns or something. there was a documentary about it.

Really? Then why is it that when you limey's sing, you sound like us?
Ah, that's a common misnomer. It's not us that sound like you when we're singing, it's the other way around! ;)

It's a futile effort. Even if there was some way to do it, it would quickly change into new regional dialects. However, I'm all for standardized spelling. It'll probably happen naturally simply through improved communications and such (ie the internet).

It's not pop or soda or soda pop (where did that one originate?) or tonic -- It's "coke". Just "coke". Even if it's Pepsi, it's called "coke".

- from the Midwest.

my parents used to tell me off if I spoke badly when I was younger, and I do speak propely now.

Well good for you. You must come across as a very intelligent person. Too bad you can't spell. ;)

I am glad to see mostly everyone voted against this.... good indeed, but it would be fun to try inforce some sort of standard version of english lol.............

There is no knowledge among the anglophones what standardising language means, because this has never been done for English. The definition is this: There is one form of language, which is considered the government standard.

Currently, English has standard irregular spelling and a small set of rules for what can be considered proper pronunciation as taught in schools. Also, there is a "standard English", or BBC English.

Standardization of spelling would do this: it would take BBC pronunciation, and write it "phonetically". This would mean that for each morpheme there would be one spelling. A morpheme is a word or a part of a word with an independent meaning. "Mean" is a morpheme, "-ing" is a morpheme. The spelling would obey the current rules of regular spelling. So, the four words that are all pronounced "rait" would be spelled the same, like "rite". Old English worked in this way; they wrote "cwene", not as modern "queen" imitating Latin.

Standardization for pronunciation would mean that a nation would use one form of spoken language in official contexts. BBC does this, and used to be stricter about it.

Myths about standardization
1. Dialects would be destroyed. No, they aren't, in any country that doesn't attempt this. Only if the government wants this, it happens. Otherwise, people just learn to spell better, and move on.

2. Regular spelling is misspelling. Only if it breaks morpheme boundaries, it is. "Your an idiot" is a misspelling in a regular system, too, because it fuses morphemes "you" and "are". But, "nitelite" isn't. (It's really hard to understand that the people who have posted here defending the current system usually make some 2-3 mistakes per paragraph. If that isn't irony, what is?)

3. Confusing homophones. Give me a solid example. Homophones are there when you speak, so why it's suddenly a huge problem when written?

English has a strict word order, where the mere location of the word gives an idea what it is. In "a rite rites about a rite rite", the third word "rite" is recognized as a verb, so it must mean "scribe"; this means that the second word "rite" must refer to a person; and the second-last word "rite" precedes a noun, so it must be an adjective. Context is required only when distinguishing if the rite rites about a judicial rite, or a religious rite.

More reasons are. Go google.

True about standardization
1. It would lose the etymologies. Honestly, who cares? The corpus of literature is so large even now that the etymologies aren't going to be lost anymore, barring force majeure such as another Biblical flood.

2. No Spelling Bees. No systematized public embarrassment for kids anymore.

3. Unable to distinguish stupid people by simple superficial clues in spelling. This is a real loss.

We could standardise the language, but I think many of you would struggle to learn Australian. :D

Estoy de acuerdo! Todos debemos hablar el idioma de Ingles exactamente como lo hablo yo. Y si alguno de ustedes sale reprobado en esta materia, los voy a mandar a una isla que no existe en ningun mapa. Alli, permaneceran el resto de sus vidas con los canibales. Y todo por no aprender el idioma correctamenta como les he ensenado. Adios y buen viaje!

Really? Then why is it that when you limey's sing, you sound like us?Actually, it's called a mid-Atlantic accent. Most bands and groups do it. It's generic between Britain and America, so if the British sound like you when they sing, it could be argued that you also sound like the British ;) Seriously, listen to a band from either side of the pond and you'll realise their accents are roughly the same - but neither British nor American.

Kin'ell la, you ain't gonna tell me tha' all bands from over 'ere sounds th' seppos. You gonna tell me that The Smiths, Oasis, The Beatles, The Stones Roses, Pulp, The Zutons, The Farm, Jimmy Nail (snigger) didn't sing in any form of accent ?

they cant, what would theyt do? smack a kid on the head if he said "yall" or "ain't"? they couldnt do it, noone would try or care.

Hey now. Y'all should be a part of the English language. I believe that other languages have words for ya’ll. I know German does with its various forms of “Ihr”. So why can’t English? Because the Brits say we can’t? Pff y'all haven’t mattered for seventy years. :D j/k

And, it's soda, not pop.
No, it's sody-pop. :p

P.S.
It's not pop or soda or soda pop (where did that one originate?) or tonic -- It's "coke". Just "coke". Even if it's Pepsi, it's called "coke".

- from the Midwest.
I'm from South Dakota, and we call it pop, though some people there say soda, too.

Hey, do you use the word "dinner" to mean "lunch" or "supper?" I grew up with dinner meaning the same as supper, but I later found out that some equate dinner with lunch.

This is interesting; I wonder what else is different. :)

Well...I think there are something that should be changed.

Although, I think the Internet does a little work to fix some discrepencies.

For instance, I used to say "I'm fixing to go do something" all the time (south...), and I can still get away with that off line (although I hate to), but online, people have no idea what I mean...

If it means eliminating all of the annoying regional accents and dialects, I'd be for it. Defense is one word, not two. And, it's soda, not pop.

Defence is one word, and spelt, defence :P

Oh, and its not soda or pop, its called a soft drink :P

For instance, I used to say "I'm fixing to go do something" all the time (south...), and I can still get away with that off line (although I hate to), but online, people have no idea what I mean...
I'd know what you mean, and I'm not from the south! (I watch movies, though... :p)

We could standardise the language, but I think many of you would struggle to learn Australian. :D

Don't about dem wowsers mate; I'm sitting back, enjoying a this arvo with a cool one in my hand the remote in the other :p

What's with all of these references to a "southern" accent? Don't you realize that y'all are the ones with accents?

Urge... To kill... Rising...

*face turns dark red*

Urge... To scream... Rising...

*face turns purple*

*dies*

Okay, this is an example of how I talk. I'll try to get the pronunciations as accurate as possible...


"Hey, wanna go dahwn to tha store 'n get some pizza? 'n after that, we'll go ta tha movies or something."

"Let's go ta tha puhl 'n swim for a while. It'll be fun."

"I thauht abawht getting some new shoes, but the ones I have 're fine for now."


Sometimes, "th" blends will have a hard "d" sound. So, I could say "This isn't what I wanted" one minute, and say "Dthis is horrible. Who made dthis shit?" It's very far from a "Southern" accent. And for that, I'm happy.

No way, eliminating the accents will kill a langauge.
And its to diffilcult outside the english speaking regions. I`m from the netherlands, and we talk dutch, so we use an other pronunciation.

Well, this being a somewhat international forum, and mostly english speaking I feel like bringing something that irks me somewhat, I also find it very interesting(its a war in my mind I can't win!). Within each-region there are different pronunciations for many different words. Such as the word defense, Some say it as two words (Dee-fense) others (like me) say it in one word (Dev-fense). There are many words like this some Let me end this little rant with a question, should we standardize english? If so why, or why not?

I don't think that we should have a standard English because its nice having different ways to say things, it makes life more interesting.
By the way I say dur-fense, because where I come from you tend to say a lot of the vowels with a kind of 'u' or 'oo' sound. So its 'moosic' not music, compoo-er not computer, also to say a note you say 'newt' as in the animal.

Why not pronounciation? A word was pronounced, pronounce that word, pronouncing a word, right?

Also, it's not pop, soda, Pepsi, coke nor soft drink..... it's a carbonated beverage.

English is an INTERNATIONAL language. Therefore you will never be able to "standardise" it. I like the regional accents, spelling and meanings. They add more cultural material and heritage into the language.

English is an INTERNATIONAL language. Therefore you will never be able to "standardise" it. I like the regional accents, spelling and meanings. They add more cultural material and heritage into the language.
exactly. besides, making fun of other peoples accents/dialects is so much fun :D

exactly. besides, making fun of other peoples accents/dialects is so much fun :D
Exactly. Chinglish is the best English in the world. :D

While I don't laugh out loud, getting to snigger at all the other accents is good enough. :D

What's with all of these references to a "southern" accent? Don't you realize that y'all are the ones with accents?

Two girls from Austin, Texas, actually did try to argue this point with me quite seriously once. They said that Texans actually had no accent, and spoke words plainly as they were written. Everyone else had accents. Lovely girls, but they hadn't seen much of the world.

Why not pronounciation? A word was pronounced, pronounce that word, pronouncing a word, right?

Also, it's not pop, soda, Pepsi, coke nor soft drink..... it's a carbonated beverage.

No, damnit... It's a soft drink (or softy as I've started calling them for some peculiarly unknown reason).

Coca-Cola is 'Coke', Pepsi is 'Pepsi'.

Well, at least it is to me...

Two girls from Austin, Texas, actually did try to argue this point with me quite seriously once. They said that Texans actually had no accent, and spoke words plainly as they were written. Everyone else had accents. Lovely girls, but they hadn't seen much of the world.

Meh, I think the funniest thing is when Americans don't understand Australians or New Zealanders - haven't been exposed to the world much (explains the 92% of Americans who don't have passports).

I think the worst two things I can't stand from Americans are this;

Aluminium - its Alaminum, not aloooooooominum
Herbs - its herbs, not erbs; French say erbs for a bloody reason, they can't say h's to save themselves because there isn't a damn word in the French language where the h is pronounced.

I currently live in Phoenix, AZ.

Born in the Midwest.

Raised in Los Angeles, CA.

I have lost any regional accents I might have picked up along the way due to where I have lived.

But really, the great normalizer of accent is television/radio and movies (or CINEMA, for you brits :)). Broadcasters and actors are taught to speak a certain way, to pronounce words a certain way.

Unless they are British, in which case they are taught to speak with an elegant and faint Oxford accent. Hell, you've all seen Pierce Brosnan as 007, who am I telling this to?!

Most US citizens are woefully inept at their own native tongue and aggressively against learning other languages.

But I can say one thing about USers: We don't use the word "Cheers" unless we are talking about the early '90s sitcom!

Cheers! LOL.

Well, this being a somewhat international forum, and mostly english speaking I feel like bringing something that irks me somewhat, I also find it very interesting(its a war in my mind I can't win!). Within each-region there are different pronunciations for many different words. Such as the word defense, Some say it as two words (Dee-fense) others (like me) say it in one word (Dev-fense). There are many words like this some Let me end this little rant with a question, should we standardize english? If so why, or why not?

Hmm....I quite like all the difference. Although, we should get rid of annoying accents lol like brummie!

I love my own accent.
Girls like it too.
Le Francais Quebecois? Very sexy.

Two girls from Austin, Texas, actually did try to argue this point with me quite seriously once. They said that Texans actually had no accent, and spoke words plainly as they were written. Everyone else had accents. Lovely girls, but they hadn't seen much of the world.

Heh. I'll have to say that they were full of it, because you don't pronounce "house" "hay-ows". And it's "good", as in "guhd", not "gewd".

Aluminium - its Alaminum, not aloooooooominum
Herbs - its herbs, not erbs; French say erbs for a bloody reason, they can't say h's to save themselves because there isn't a damn word in the French language where the h is pronounced.
Actually, it is "a-loo-minum." At least it is according to the Webster Dictionary online.

And both of us are right about "herb;" we Americans don't have to say the "h." :p