Its time to claim back the true spelling in English

[Talentless]

After reading the post on Metric vs Imperial, since it appears we all have time on our hands with this covid-19 lockdown, lets have a good old debate with the USA and Canada in one corner and the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India and a other Commonwealth countries in the other.
Like the France with the French language, its time for the English to take back the English language

Rules..

Comedy, humour and good naturedness is a requirement of this thread
Any seriousness or mean comments are to be scrubbed by the moderators or the culprit put in the forum equivalent of the "Stocks" for the rest of us to throw tomatoes at. and that is To/mar/toes not to/ma/toes BTW

So the question is should the original custodians of the english language take back the correct spelling of words that as contained within the Oxford dictionary, and outlaw the incorrect spelling found in the colonies over the pond?

Tyre not tire, cheque not check, loose the 'zzz' for the 's' as in authorise, put the 'u' back where it belongs as in favour, ae as in archaeologists, and don't get me started on the missing u as in draughtiest!

Lets hear your observations.

[Silly Moustache]

I am British.
I was taught "the Queen's English".
I have been known to tell my non-American pals that Webster was actually a Royalist spy intent on confusing Americans by confounding their notions of spelling.

There was of course, the great vowel shift, and frankly there were far less "rules" of spelling when the American colonies lost dominion status in 1784, so that is probably when speech and spelling divided with most American English dialects retaining the Rhotic R which affected their contracted vowels) which is only retained in the west country and north west of England - mm, maybe in Scotland to? (the Scots accents (and there are many) are often unintelligible to soft southern Sassenachs like me).

American spelling whilst looking rather childish to the British eye is merely the language caught in a time continuum that has moved on in the British Isles.

So, in my opinion, it was the the isolation of the colonies in the late 18th C that "fixed" their spelling whereas the UK moved on and standardised.

[pieterh]

Of course, it depends on what your definition of true English is.

The so-called Queen’s English or at least it’s pronunciation (“Received Pronunciation”) is a relatively modern phenomenon based on the perceived superiority of London, the Home Counties and the ruling classes.

In reality, the northern dialects are closer to the English spoken by eg Shakespeare and even American English dialects are closer to Shakespeare. American English tends to pronounce the “r” in words like “colour” (New England dialects aside...) whereas British English often drops it. On the other hand British English pronounces the “h” in “herbs” and the “a” in “oregano” whereas these are dropped in American English.

None of these is wrong or right - it’s the richness of the English language and all variations should be celebrated.

Except for maybe “‘erbs”. Cos the word does have an “h” in it...[emoji23]

[Daniel Grenier]

Originally Posted by Talentless

....covid-19 lockdown, lets have a good old debate with ... and a other Commonwealth countries in the other.
Like the France with the French language, its time for the English to take back the English language.....

Ironic that just in the very first chapter of your proposition, one can find 4 (potentially 5) obvious such offences as you so bravely decry ;-)

All in good humour, of course. (Or is that humor???).

[TJE"]

My understanding of the strength of the English Language is that it is constantly evolving and accepting of new expressions and influence - ie it is just because it has not been preserved in aspic as 'the Queen's English' that it has become the premiere global language.

The French are welcome to 'claim back' their language - but I was not aware that anyone had taken it, apart from a small part of Canada.

[leeplaysblues]

Originally Posted by TJE"

My understanding of the strength of the English Language is that it is constantly evolving and accepting of new expressions and influence - ie it is just because it has not been preserved in aspic as 'the Queen's English' that it has become the premiere global language.

The French are welcome to 'claim back' their language - but I was not aware that anyone had taken it, apart from a small part of Canada.

Trust the Canadians.......

[cmac]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

... and frankly there were far less "rules" of spelling when ...

In the spirit of the thread, I'm sure you meant to write "far fewer rules" :-)

[cmac]

Originally Posted by pieterh

American English tends to pronounce the “r” in words like “colour” (New England dialects aside...) whereas British English often drops it.

That's just English English, and even then only some parts of England. In Scotland we tend to sound every 'r' that we can find.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by pieterh

Of course, it depends on what your definition of true English is.

The so-called Queen’s English or at least it’s pronunciation (“Received Pronunciation”) is a relatively modern phenomenon based on the perceived superiority of London, the Home Counties and the ruling classes.

In reality, the northern dialects are closer to the English spoken by eg Shakespeare and even American English dialects are closer to Shakespeare. American English tends to pronounce the “r” in words like “colour” (New England dialects aside...) whereas British English often drops it. On the other hand British English pronounces the “h” in “herbs” and the “a” in “oregano” whereas these are dropped in American English.

None of these is wrong or right - it’s the richness of the English language and all variations should be celebrated.

Except for maybe “‘erbs”. Cos the word does have an “h” in it...[emoji23]

Hej Pieter,
I agree with most of what you say, however, if I may clarify:

The Queen's English, is NOT to be confused with the way that HRH speaks, or spoke when first broadcast to the people. (Her accent has adjusted somewhat over the nearly seventy years of her rule (gawd bless 'er!)
As I was tauht to understand it the "queen's English2 refers to the l;anguage spoken in the United Kingdom, and governs the definitions and spellings as written (and frequently updated) in the Oxford English Dictionary.
It is the language of her domain, so "her" language (which like so many things that belongs to "the Crown" she doesn't actually own!

It does not refer to her accent or how anyone else here speaks - that's just accents.

The English language, be it a large miss-mash of Indo-European, Germanic, Norse, Latin, Greek, and Indian (and probably many more that I've omitted.

Mrs Bradshaw my junior school teacher told us that the English language changes about every two hundred years, so Shakespeare probably could not have understood Chaucer and vice versa.

However, I grew up a little west of London in the '50s--70s and now the English spoken by the locals there of the teens/twenties speak in an accent that is entirely unintelligible to me!

[AmericanEagle]

In addition to spelling, we can look at word differences as well.

American English vs UK English

wrench = spanner
gas/gasoline = petrol
cigarette = fag
apartment = flat
trunk of a car = boot
hood of a car = bonnet

etc.

[Gitfiddlemann]

Its time to claim back the true spelling in English

My first observation:
That is the wrong spelling of "its" in your title. It should be It's.

It's amazing how often those two things get abused. And it's so easy to remember them correctly:

ITS is possessive. As in: "My guitar is nice. Its main attribute is great tone".

IT'S is a contraction of IT ans IS. As in: IT IS time to claim back the true spelling in English.

I agree!!!

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Talentless

After reading the post on Metric vs Imperial, since it appears we all have time on our hands with this covid-19 lockdown, lets have a good old debate with the USA and Canada in one corner and the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India and a other Commonwealth countries in the other.
Like the France with the French language, its time for the English to take back the English language

Rules..

Comedy, humour and good naturedness is a requirement of this thread
Any seriousness or mean comments are to be scrubbed by the moderators or the culprit put in the forum equivalent of the "Stocks" for the rest of us to throw tomatoes at. and that is To/mar/toes not to/ma/toes BTW

So the question is should the original custodians of the english language take back the correct spelling of words that as contained within the Oxford dictionary, and outlaw the incorrect spelling found in the colonies over the pond?

Tyre not tire, cheque not check, loose the 'zzz' for the 's' as in authorise, put the 'u' back where it belongs as in favour, ae as in archaeologists, and don't get me started on the missing u as in draughtiest!

Lets hear your observations.

No .................................................

Stasis is death, and counter to the fundamental law of the universe.

Or As The Jefferson Airplane put it many years ago:

"Life is change how it differs from the rocks.
I've seen their ways too often for my liking.
New worlds to gain. My life is to survive.
And be alive for you. "

[Jim Owen]

The true number of rs in the universe is constant. Any time a Bostonian pawks his car, a North Carolinian warshes his

[leeplaysblues]

Originally Posted by AndreF

My first observation:
That is the wrong spelling of "its" in your title. It should be It's.

It's amazing how often those two things get abused. And it's so easy to remember them correctly:

ITS is possessive. As in: "My guitar is nice. Its main attribute is great tone".

IT'S is a contraction of IT ans IS. As in: IT IS time to claim back the true spelling in English.

I agree!!!

Auto spellcheck strikes again.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by cmac

In the spirit of the thread, I'm sure you meant to write "far fewer rules" :-)

Haha! Touché mon brave! You have me there Sirrah!