Re: Re: "Nu-CU-lar Man"

[John Hughes <john@pureneasy.fsnet.co.uk>]

Scott, re

> > If you find time please read Bill Bryson's  book "Mother Tongue" 
> > which is quite an amusing and intelligent book on the subject.
>
>   Thanks for the recommendation.  And I recommend to you H.L. 
>   Mencken's "The American Language."

Thanks reciprocated!!

> >> & many imposed "rules" are only attempts to make the masses speak 
> >> in manner conforming to something called "Standard English," which 
> >> in reality does not exist.
> >
> >  I'm afraid it does, in its pure form. Mencken's book recounts 
> >  dozens of attempts by both English & American intellectuals who 
> >  tried to aggresively impose what they believed to be the correct 
> >  rules of their respective languages.  

While you're right that grammarians and purists will only be happy with
a language that fits all known rules and never varies, the fact is is
that in the UK there really isn't a standard english.

What we have is a fairly widespread "good" English, where the basic
rules are kept and some breaches - eg split infinitives - are tolerated,
and in some circles - mainly in University English Departments, and some
literary circles something akin to what I think you mean by standard
English is desired, if not always spoken.

> > My point is that language, English & American English, is too varied 
> > for there to exist one dialect which can be called "standard."  

Oh, you're absolutely right. it would be an absurd conceit to imagine
any different! 

> > Even more absurd is the thought that one should strive to emulate 
> > that dialect in order to attain some sort of perceived perfection in 
> > speaking & writing.

I'd add a rider that there's nothing wrong in learning and using basic
rules of grammar, so that - if nothing else - people can read clearly
and write intelligibly. 

Would you be happy with a system where for example each "dialect" had
its own written form that meant other Americans totally misunderstood
New Yorkers while Canadians had no understanding of Liverpudlians?
Currently, all nations who use English can read and understand it with
its framework of basic rules.

> > English is such a difficult language - but one capable of great 
> > beauty -that it needs grammatical rules to maintain itself.
>
>   But these "rules" continue to die, modify themselves, or see new 
>   ones created generation after generation.  

But whether or not they die, get created, or modify, they are still
rules:-) 

> > At any rate, when the Englishman can learn to think of American as a 
> > language, and not merely as a ludicrously unsuccessful attempt to 
> > speak as he himself speaks....then there will come a great 
> > improvement in Anglo-American relations.

If you lived in Britain in the mid to late '60's you'd be amazed by the
number of complaints about "mid-Atlantic English" especially among
entertainers! 

> > No one in the UK is forced to speak "standard English" anymore; in 
> > fact, grammatically correct English is more and more difficult to 
> > find being spoken, as what is known here as "Estuary English", which 
> > is a peculiar combination of the London and Essex county accent, 
> > combined with glottal stop failures, slang and abbreviations endemic 
> > in Australian soap operas is more and more the accent and language 
> > commonly used.
>
>   Are the people who speak with this accent acknowledged by the Queen 
>   as purveyors of the current "Standard?"

Frankly, the Queen has bugger all relevance to modern society.
Interestingly, the Queen's English (personally, not the concept) is
grammatically correct (beautifully so) but appallingly spoken; archaic
pronunciations, and heavily affected by "upperclass" conventions, as
indeed are all her families' and the "upper classes" in general.

> Perhaps some sort of proclamation in the post?  And God forbid, what 
> would happen to one of these purveyors if he or she broke a "rule?"

Nothing at all. Not even in her presence!!

> >> The "learned" English have long complained about the "crudeness" of
> >> American English.  
> >
> >  Quite right. When you bastardise a beautiful language the way you 
> >  do - 
>
>    Bastardise?  Sir, we Americans *colorized* your language -  much 
>    for the better, of that there can be no doubt.  

Oh yeah, you added colour alright - when you can spell it correctly:-)

> > One of your own, an English journalist named Frank Dilnot, speaking 
> > about the many colorful & descriptive additions American English was 
> > supplying to the language wrote in The New America in 1919:

Personally, while I hate the appalling management psychobabble that
emanated from America, and the sometimes circumlocutious descriptive
phrases, we've borrowed, adapted and absorbed plenty of Americanisms
over the decades. If you want someone to criticise for ossifying their
language, have a go at the French. I do!!

> > Ummm, have a look at Mother Tongue to see just how much of "English
> > English" you have retained and adopted....... sauce for the 
> > goose....
>
>   And don't you shy away from Mencken's "The American Language" for
>   *our* side of the story.

Bill Bryson, the author of Mother Tongue, is American too..... but I'll
be down the library tomorrow!

> > but really, when you invented Valley English did you really make a 
> > significant contribution to the language?
>
>   One could ask the same of your Cockney!

Hey, cockney was around long before we invented America!!

Cheers,

John