Oddly enough, the differences in the spoken language on either side of
the pond are smaller than the regional differences between the North
and South of England - I've never had any trouble understanding what
an American speaker had to say,
---
As far as the spoken language goes, that may be true.
However, when it comes to written English, there have been many
occasions when you responded inappropriately to written American
English and/or seemed to have entirely missed the point.
---
while I have found people speaking
Scouse - the dialect of Newcastle-on-Tyne - rather difficult to
follow. All languages have regional differences but as long as the
speakers find one another mutually comprehensible it's still one
language
---
No, it isn't.
I speak Spanish almost as well as I speak English and yet, when I
speak Spanish with someone who speaks English well but whose first
language is Spanish and we both understand each other, we both
become aware of our cultural differences and their reflections in
our _separate_ languages.
That's not to say that we haven't found common ground, just that it
belies your claim that "as long as the speakers find one another
mutually comprehensible it's still one language."
---
- though the linguist's rule of thumb, that a language is a
dialect with an army and a navy is nicely illustrated by the
distinction between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language
Norway became independent of Sweden in 1905
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905
Paradoxically, while Dutch is officially a single language spoken both
in the Netherlands and the Fleming provinces of Belgium, in Belgian
progams shown on Dutch TV, the Flemish Dutch is usually under-titled
to help the Dutch understand the Fleming pronunciations.
Australian English does have its own dictionary, the Macquarie
dictionary of Australian English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_Dictionary
It doesn't go in for spelling reform, though it does differe from the
OED in listing "realise" as the more common spelling of the word
"realize".
---
"differe"???
Bill, here we are arguing about spelling and you allow yourself to
be knocked off with 'differe'?
Truly, I'm embarrassed for you even though I've been wont to your
foibles for quite some time.
I'm sure you eschew spell-checkers as being beneath you, yet by
refusing them their due you make the most telling blunders.
---
It is scarcely a simplication to end up with half the world using
"colour" and the other half "color".
---
It's a "simplication" for us, since we no longer have to include the
useless 'u', and as long as you understand what we're talking about
and it makes us happy to use it, why are you bitching about it?
---
Spelling is a mechanism for representing the spoken language as text -
it has no perceptible effect on the subtleties of the spoken language.
People have looked for such effects and they don't seem to exist.
---
Really?
The point being that you can invent a hypothetical time-saving to
justify Noah Webster's meddling?
---
Meddling???
Oh, you must mean simplifying what you consider to be sacrosanct.
---
Americans don't - in fact - type better or faster than English
speakers who use the OED spellings. Copy-typing is an obsolete skill
and everybody else types at a rate that is determined by the speed at
which they can think up the text, where a letter here or there doesn't
make any difference at all.
---
I see... It takes a proficient typist who can touch-type just as
long to type a five-letter word as it does to type a six-letter
word?
That's amazing, Bill!
You just taught me a new way to add: 5 + 1 = 5.
Thank you!
---
I'm not aware that Noah Webster coined any new words, and I wouldn't
care if he did - all languages coin new words all the time, and lose
old ones. Dictionaries try to keep up, but not even the complete
Oxford expects to incorporate every new word as it is coined. Many of
the new words don't last and there is little point in incorporating
them in a dictionary.
You introduced the subject of new words
---
Nope, I introduced the fact that Webster's content is different from
the OED's and that if you were interested in learning the nuances of
American English you would do well to buy a copy of it. [Webster's]
Matter of fact, it was you who introduced the subject of new words
with your calumny of Webster and Americans in general:
"You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that
well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American"
than the correct spellings. Your ancestors bought the story and you
have been spelling like yokels ever since."
---
And where does that mention new words?
---
'Skunk' and 'squash' come to mind, as do 'color' and 'center' which
were new text because of their spelling, not because of their
pronunciation.
---
If Noah Webster had confined
himself creating a dictionary which included words and word usages
peculiar to the U.S.A. nobody would have had anything to object to. I
was objecting to his amateurish and half-baked efforts at spelling
reform.
---
As far as I know, his dictionary _was_ designed to be peculiar to
the US, and he correctly simplified the spelling of some words which
were pronounced differently from the way in which they were
originally spelled.
Your assburn seems to be based on the fact that some American
"yokel" came along and trimmed some of the useless fat from your
language in order to make it easier for us to use, and was
successful at it.
Sour grapes, Sloman.[/QUOTE]
Since there are six sets of pronounciation rules for written English,
all that Webster was doing was switching from one set of rules to
another - his dictionary still contains examples of words spelled/
pronounced according to all six sets of rules, so his corrections were
partial and arbitrary.
[/QUOTE]
It is useful to have deprecated and archaic words in a dictionary -
precisely because they are no long in common use, people find it
necessary to consult a dictionary when they run into them in old
texts.[/QUOTE]
---
So then you admit that his dictionaries are worthwhile even though
Webster's spelling repairs aren't to your liking?
---
Arbitrary and half-baked spelling reform is the last thing you want in
your dictionary - precisely because it makes it more difficult to deal
with old or foreign text.
---
Hardly arbitrary, since he went after, and changed the spelling of,
words like 'colour' where the 'u' was silent and words like 'centre'
where the 'e' and 'r' were pronounced in reverse of their appearance
on the page.
And hardly half-baked, since we're about 180 years downstream from
the publication of his "American Dictionary of the English Language"
and 'color' and 'center' are still in there.
Also, since the etymology of a word is usually included as part of
its entry in a dictionary, I fail to see why you consider new words
with links to their precursors to be a problem.
---
That doesn't make him a charlatan. A charlatan intends to deceive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
---
You stated that Webster couldn't spell all that well and that he
covered his mistakes by claiming that his errors were more
"American" than the "correct" spelling.
That, to my ears, sounds like you were claiming that he was being
deceptive, with a little slur thrown in there implying that his
attempt at deception was deliberate, and that you, Your Majesty,
caught him at it with his hand in the cookie jar.
According to your cite nothing could be farther from the truth,
which makes my claim that you were trying to make him look like a
charlatan true.
In addition, your attempt at fabricating facts in order to try to
disgrace Webster is truly shameful.
---
My claim was that Noah Webster became a spelling reformer by
immortalising his own spelling mistakes, and opted to persist with
them when he realised that they were mistakes,
---
Like your claim matters?
Noah Webster changed the archaic spelling when it became apparent
that the pronunciation no longer matched the old spelling and, as a
result, gave us the more modern American English.
You, it seems, would prefer to wallow in antiquity.