
Moderator: JackFrost
Stancel wrote:The truth finally revealed!
Travis B wrote:Tis true, but it's just that it was the British grammarians who started the whole mess. And yes, unfortunately, their American counterparts still continue such to this day, even though the grammarians' influence is not what it used to be
reflexsilver86 wrote:LOL I'm taking Intro to Linguistics this upcoming semester and when I was browsing through my new linguistics book yesterday (I find it fun to read... yes that's a sign I'm a language nut, finding a linguistics book fun) and read what they wrote about dialects and "Language Purists" it's easy to see how all linguists pretty much agree on the same points when it comes to language purists. To really say one way of speaking is better than the other is honestly ridiculous, and to consider that from the beginning of time it's been said that the new generation is "ruining" the language (this goes back to Ancient Greece where they complained they were tarnishing the language of Homer).
reflexsilver86 wrote:The only reason certain forms of any language are considered more correct than the other are because of who speaks what dialect. Dialects all carry certain stigmas. If Bush spoke in a Connecticut accent instead of that Texan one, for example, it may be presumed he's more intelligent than people think he is with his Texan accent (by the way, I'm still incredibly confused as to how he's the only one in that whole family who has a Texan accent, since his brother Jeb, who's the governor of my state, doesn't have it, and his other siblings and parents don't either. Maybe someone can explain this without it becoming a political thing, because I'm not interested in that. Some people suggest it's all a put-on, but if he can honestly put that accent on, then he's a heck of a lot smarter than everyone thinks, because I couldn't talk like that all day)
reflexsilver86 wrote:Anyway, also in that section was a mention of a study done in the 1950s by a British linguist (I forget the name and I'm too lazy to look at the book) who classified British English speakers into two categories. Rich speakers were called the "U" group, and the non-rich were categorized as the "non-U" group. The distinguishing characteristics of the U and non-U groups are that the U group never used non-U terminology. However what made the non-U group unique was that they actually TRIED to sound like the U group, which formed quite a bit of their linguistic identity, with such phrases like "They've a lovely home" and using choices like "wealthy" instead of "rich," while the rich people just plainly said "rich" I thought that was really interesting. Maybe that explains the current phenomenon of people continuously using "I" in the wrong place, because they want to sound more educated and in the process are forming their own linguistic identity. Though it still drives me mad.
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
Lets face it there is only one true English and that’s the English of England.
All the other English variations are quite simply colonial dialects. If you want to learn English why not learn the English way? Why not learn English spellings?
If later you decide you want to sound like an American. You simply have to practice
speaking with a large potato in your mouth (that usually does the trick)!
reflexsilver86 wrote:Anyway, also in that section was a mention of a study done in the 1950s by a British linguist (I forget the name and I'm too lazy to look at the book) who classified British English speakers into two categories. Rich speakers were called the "U" group, and the non-rich were categorized as the "non-U" group.
shri420 wrote:I’m frequently asked by foreign students how their English sounds. Being the polite person that I am, I reply: “you sound English”.
shri420 wrote:Received Pronunciation is still the chief prestige accent of the England and first choice for all British broadcasters. Unfortunately not everyone in England shares this particular accent. However, it is an accent that English parents aspire for their children to emulate.
shri420 wrote:The main advantage of learning the English of England (using RP) is that it is the accent that all English speakers understand; it has been said that: “everyone can recognise the speech of their former colonial masters”. Wherever they are in the world (even Americans).
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
shri420 wrote:The main advantage of learning the English of England (using RP) is that it is the accent that all English speakers understand; it has been said that: “everyone can recognise the speech of their former colonial masters”. Wherever they are in the world (even Americans).
The main advantage of learning the English of England (using RP) is that it is the accent that all English speakers understand; it has been said that: “everyone can recognise the speech of their former colonial masters”. Wherever they are in the world (even Americans).
What a stupid question! If you were born and raised elsewhere, how do you think you’ll sound? Allow me to inform you: Americans sound American, Australians sound Australian etcetera etcetera (it doesn’t take a genius to work that one out does it).
JackFrost wrote:shri420 wrote:The main advantage of learning the English of England (using RP) is that it is the accent that all English speakers understand; it has been said that: “everyone can recognise the speech of their former colonial masters”. Wherever they are in the world (even Americans).
I don't think the Irish or Scots or Welsh or French Canadians would be happy to hear that. Even the Americans as well.
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
greg-fr wrote:Travis B. : this reminds me of a discussion we had on another forum.![]()
Francophones use the adjective anglo-saxon(s)(ne)(nes) as a synonym for English-speaking, natively, even if you're from Mexican or Asian descent. The noun Anglo-saxon(s)(ne)(nes) (used for people exclusively) refer to any native English-speaker, whatever their origins, skin-colours etc. So both anglo-saxon(s)(ne)(nes) and Anglo-saxon(s)(ne)(nes) convey a linguistic meaning, not an ethnic one.
(I know you already know that, but...)
secretGeek on CodingHorror wrote:Type inference is not a gateway drug to more dynamically typed languages.
Rather "var" is a gateway drug toward "real" type inferencing, of which var is but a tiny cigarette to the greater crack mountain!
reflexsilver86 wrote: Received Pronunciation is indeed very nice to listen to.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest