Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
I'd say that definitely isn't true anymore. American English has diverged from its roots, just in different ways from British. That's without getting into specific dialects, like Appalachian or Gulf, which have a plethora of varying influences.
Jolanda Swan wrote:
Remember: there is no 'correct' way to speak a language.
Nope, but there are wrong ones. I try not to be a pretentious stickler about language, but from time to time I do feel compelled to remind people adverbs exist.
Anywho, even if the original question has been pretty much answered, I dunno if we should take this derail too much further. I just had to open my mouth...
edited by Isaac Zienfried on 7/13/2017
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+2
link
|
dov
Posts: 2580
7/13/2017
|
Isaac Zienfried wrote:
Serious answer: Eh, yes and no. And this is halfway addressed to dov, as well. While our dialect certainly isn't the British dialect (or more accurately, dialects), the various dialects you find in England are hardly "original English," either. It's rather misguided to say one group has it "right" because they live in the geographical area that the language formed in or live in the nation that shares a name with the language... especially when that language doesn't have a central authority like certain other languages (though my Quebecois girlfriend would insist that doesn't matter, either).
That being said, yeah, uh, Failbetter's British, and so they use British dialect. Oh, I should add that I'm perfectly aware this conversation was composed mostly of joking, but I simply can't pass up a good opportunity for a rant about common misconceptions.
No worries - ranting about common misconceptions is a time-honoured and respectable practice. (or do you prefer "time-honored"? :-) )
Though since we're serious now: You're completely right that there is no "single official original" for English, and no "right dialect". However, in this particular case, shouldn't the British "Favour" be considered the originating form of the American "Favor"? After all, "Favour" was used in the UK, and came from there to America. The English dialect used in America at the time used this form. It was only sometimes later that the American dialect/spelling evolved and "Favour" became "Favor" (among other changes, obviously).
Note: I've never said that one is right and the other is wrong (and I'm neither from the US nor from the UK, and English is not my native language).
--
 Want a sip of Hesperidean Cider? Send me a request in-game. Here's an_ocelot's guide how.
(Most social actions are welcome. Please no requests to Loiter Suspiciously and no investigations of the Affluent Photographer)
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
dov wrote:
However, in this particular case, shouldn't the British "Favour" be considered the originating form of the American "Favor"? After all, "Favour" was used in the UK, and came from there to America. The English dialect used in America at the time used this form. It was only sometimes later that the American dialect/spelling evolved and "Favour" became "Favor" (among other changes, obviously).
I'm going to be honest: I'm really not knowledgeable enough about the origin of that word to say one way or the other. If "favour" is older, then yes, "favor" is an offshoot of it.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Plynkes
Posts: 631
7/13/2017
|
Isaac Zienfried wrote:
I'd say that definitely isn't true anymore.
Indeed, I agree, but what I was getting at is that the idea that British English is the "original" and therefore somehow more correct is a silly notion, not only because it's a daft idea in the first place, but as both versions have changed so much it is Cousin Jonathan that often-as-not has the older, and therefore (to folks who set any store in such things) more original or "pure" version.
Though not in the case of "favor", as it happens. I think we may have Mr. Webster and his attempts to make spelling more rational and less confusing to thank for that one.
--
"Then tell Wind and Fire where to stop, but don't tell me."
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
ITT: We discuss how to endear ourselves to devils... and then cross-Atlantic linguistics!
Only on these forums.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+5
link
|
A Dimness
Posts: 613
7/13/2017
|
Bah, Americanʃ and Britʃ are boþ miʃguided foolʃ! True ængliʃhmen use þe old alphabet!
edited by Infinity Simulacrum on 7/13/2017
--
A truth so strange it can only be lied into existence
|
|
|
+8
link
|
Jermaine Vendredi
Posts: 588
7/13/2017
|
I always thought that US English had preserved some older forms -- dove (for dived) for instance.
--
No plant battles, please.
https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/Jermion
|
|
|
0
link
|
Kaijyuu
Posts: 1047
7/13/2017
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYUuspQ6BY
(not my actual opinion, just wanted to link due to previous conversation)
--
Be of good cheer. Our contacts have assured us that your sins are forgiven.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
Jermaine Vendredi wrote:
I always thought that US English had preserved some older forms -- dove (for dived) for instance.
Wait, the British don't say "dove"? I hadn't known that. We actually use both "dove" and "dived" depending on which sounds better in a particular sentence, though it's usually "dove." The same thing with "leaped" and "leapt," "dreamed" and "dreamt," etc., though the first in those pairs is more common.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Plynkes
Posts: 631
7/13/2017
|
No, Brits don't say "dove" and we are unfamiliar enough with hearing it (it doesn't seem to come up that much in U.S. popular culture) that sometimes unless the context is obvious ("He dove into the pool") we have to think for a minute to understand exactly what was just said. 
I'm not all that sure that "dove" is actually an older usage, though. I think it is a newer one coined to match older similar forms.
--
"Then tell Wind and Fire where to stop, but don't tell me."
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
Plynkes wrote:
I'm not all that sure that "dove" is actually an older usage, though. I think it is a newer one coined to match older similar forms.
I love when people argue for consistency in that regard. "I love a good life; I have no regrets." "He jove until I couldn't take anymore."
Then there's my favorite: "if the plural of foot is feet and goose is geese, then it should be meese instead of moose!"
Which leads to this rebuttal from me:
"Do you have a girlfriend or gal you like?"
If yes,
"So, does she have nice beeb?"
...Using moose as a specific example may just give away the fact I converse with several Canadians on a regular basis.
edited by Isaac Zienfried on 7/13/2017
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Plynkes
Posts: 631
7/13/2017
|
Interestingly, I never find myself saying "mice" when talking about those things for moving cursors about a screen, to me "mouses" just seems right for them.
Though were the OED to adopt "meeces" in honour of Mr. Jinks, I would go with that, instead.
--
"Then tell Wind and Fire where to stop, but don't tell me."
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Mr Sables
Posts: 597
7/13/2017
|
Plynkes wrote:
No, Brits don't say "dove" and we are unfamiliar enough with hearing it (it doesn't seem to come up that much in U.S. popular culture) that sometimes unless the context is obvious ("He dove into the pool") we have to think for a minute to understand exactly what was just said.
We use that all the time here :-S
Like, I think most people would recognise it right away . . . like as someone else said, with 'leaped/leapt' and 'dreamed/dreamt'.
Maybe it just depends on the region of Britain? But here you'd be looked at odd for saying "he dived into the pool", just like you'd probably be looked at a little odd for saying "he dove right into his work" . . . now I think about it, I think there may be a grammatical difference between the two usages, but it's too late for me and I don't remember enough from my Language course to say for certain.
Edit: At the risk of sounding patronising, which isn't my intent, you are reading it with the correct pronunciation, right? Not like "dove" as in the bird? :-S
edited by Robin Alexander on 7/13/2017
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Plynkes
Posts: 631
7/13/2017
|
I have never heard a British person say "dove" except to mock an American for being "wrong."
How peculiar. Perhaps it's a generational thing (I have noticed that American usage is creeping into our young peoples' language at an alarmingly fast rate these days). But without knowing if I'm much older than you or not I really couldn't say.
Edit: As you say, it could be regional too.
edited by Plynkes on 7/13/2017
--
"Then tell Wind and Fire where to stop, but don't tell me."
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
Huh. I know we're way off-topic, but I hope it's okay because this conversation is fascinating. I'm not particularly familiar with different British dialects.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Mr Sables
Posts: 597
7/13/2017
|
Plynkes wrote:
I have never heard a British person say "dove" except to mock an American for being "wrong."
How peculiar. Perhaps it's a generational thing (I have noticed that American usage is creeping into our young peoples' language at an alarmingly fast rate these days). But without knowing if I'm much older than you or not I really couldn't say.
28 here, if that helps?
In all fairness, I'd say like 75% of my media is American . . . movies, books, TV shows, music . . . the TV is very Americanised, unless you stick to the BBC, so it's possible I just picked it up from there? I've heard it said among friends, though, and it's common enough that I wouldn't think twice when hearing something like "he dove in to the river". I did a google and "dived" seems much more common in Britain for sure, so maybe it's just exposure to American media that's doing it . . . odd, but interesting; I honestly didn't realise "dove" is more American and "dived" more British until today, so least this opened me up to a new fact
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Plynkes
Posts: 631
7/13/2017
|
Oh dear, we really have wrecked this thread, haven't we?
I'm so very sorry, original poster!
--
"Then tell Wind and Fire where to stop, but don't tell me."
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/13/2017
|
Well, I believe the original question was answered rather satisfactorily, so I don't believe we're doing any harm. I hope not.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Jermaine Vendredi
Posts: 588
7/14/2017
|
Having "strong" verbs that change vowel depending on the tense is a Germanic language thing, so these forms go all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon. It's actually nice to see them re-emerge and replace the weak and boring "oh, just add an -ed, that'll do".
--
No plant battles, please.
https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/Jermion
|
|
|
+2
link
|