| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
T-Bone
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 33
Location: Phnom Penh
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Of korse, in the US, 'color' is prononced 'coe-lorr' - or at leest, for the sake ov konsistensy, I asyoom that it must be. Aw perhaps they prononce 'colon' az 'cullan'?
|
Point well taken. There was a "simpul speling muvmint" in the early 20th century in America, but it never took off because it went to far-- people aren't willing to break with all that spelling tradition.
| Quote: |
I'm sure Hitler thought that annexing Poland was extremely 'logical'. The concept of 'logic' has suffered a similarly Orwellian fate to that of concepts such as 'freedom', 'liberty', etc. - ie the speaker or author is taking the postion that whatever it is that they happen to want to believe is, by definition, correct. Also by definition, anyone that disagrees with them is wrong.
|
That's a bit of a stretch. I don't think Noah Webster trying to make a distinctly American way of spelling and Hitler invading Poland are quite on the same par. Sounds like flamebait. Thanks for playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mathematics was originally a plural noun because it referred to the four sciences of the quadrivium , i.e. geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. The singular form mathematic would refer to each of these sciences individually.
The meaning had changed by the 18th century and the singular form had become obsolete. Both the SOED and Merriam Webster give the word as "noun plural but usually singular in construction" and "now treates as singular" which is their convoluted way of saying that it was originally a plural count noun but is now uncountable. (Why both these sources together with the Chicago Manual of Style and other worthy sources consider any linguistic theory developed after the death of Queen Victoria to be hopelessly tainted with modernity is another matter).
Incidentally 'math' is the American abbrevation of 'mathematics' and 'maths' is the British one. Cardinal Synn summed up my reaction to your last comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donfan
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 217
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sigmoid wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sorry mate - queue is an English word. |
Sorry, but queue is a French word.
|
I know it's originally a French word but what I was getting at is that it's the word used in England for "line". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donfan
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 217
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cardinal Synn wrote: |
| donfan wrote: |
| Stephen Jones wrote: |
| Quote: |
| f Maths is uncountable surely it would be Mathematic, not Mathematics? |
I fail to see the logic here.
Maths is uncountable. You don't talk about two maths and three maths. |
Then tell me why it is called mathematics and not mathematic. |
WTF?!!? |
you can't answer my question so you resort to that - very mature  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
High Plains Drifter
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 127
Location: Way Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, donfan. Why don't you call him a d*ckhead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aramas
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 874
Location: Slightly left of Centre
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's rather amusing to see someone claim that an English word is French - based on the description in an American dictionary. I'm sorry to break this to you, but English is almost entirely a blend of archaic French and German.
Why do some Americans persist in claiming that their 'distinctly American' revision of the language is correct and that the original version, as used by every other English-speaking country in the world, is not? Are they really that arrogant and deluded? The Yanks are utterly alone in their 'English for Dummies' approach to the language, and yet they insist on trying to inflict it on the rest of us. Sound familiar? I suppose we're lucky that it can't be enforced by military means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zewd
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 42
Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: why pick on england? |
|
|
I find it odd that a person's biggest beef with the English language comes from the way it is spoken in other countries. There are so many bizzare variations right here in this country to be offended by, if you really want to freak out about that kind of thing.
Think the Candadian "Didja eat yet?" is annoying? In some parts of the American south, it's further abbreviated to "Jeet yet?"
I call carbonated sugar water products such as Coke and Pepsi "soda." In northern Appalachia, the Midwest and a few other places, it's "pop." Sometimes "soda pop." In the south, it's all "coke." I have seen physical fights start over this.
If "y'all" annoys you, go to parts of Pennsylvania where instead its "yins" or "yuns." They also call chipmunks "grinnies", ice cream sprinkles "jimmies" and a few others.
Also try "vaccum cleaner" vs "sweeper", "shopping cart" vs "buggy", "bag" vs "sack", "knit cap" vs "beanie" vs "toboggan", or for that matter "toboggan" vs "sled." More fight starters.
There are better things to be emotional about. Like, for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
High Plains Drifter
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 127
Location: Way Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why do some Americans persist in claiming that their 'distinctly American' revision of the language is correct and that the original version, as used by every other English-speaking country in the world, is not? |
Aramas,
I cannot recall ever hearing any American make such a claim. Can you give us some examples? It's the Brits who act as if they invented the language and belittle and ridicule speakers from other countries, including--brace yourself--Australia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aramas
Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 874
Location: Slightly left of Centre
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| High Plains Drifter wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why do some Americans persist in claiming that their 'distinctly American' revision of the language is correct and that the original version, as used by every other English-speaking country in the world, is not? |
Aramas,
I cannot recall ever hearing any American make such a claim. Can you give us some examples? It's the Brits who act as if they invented the language and belittle and ridicule speakers from other countries, including--brace yourself--Australia. |
You must be joking. Do you really want me to waste time quoting all of the parts of this thread in which Yanks claim that their version is right and everyone else's is wrong? Have you even read through this thread?
The 'Brits' did invent the language. Are you on crack? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
High Plains Drifter
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 127
Location: Way Out There
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The 'Brits' did invent the language. Are you on crack? |
Oh, did they now? I was being sarcastic, by the way. Perhaps that literary device is not understood down under, or maybe you're as thick as a brick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zewd
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 42
Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| British English, American English, Australian English, etc. have all evolved since the point of their branching off. Does anyone here honestly believe that British English is the same today as it was during the colonization of America? I hardly think so. Modern American English did not come from modern British English, they both came from a form of British English that I highly doubt to be spoken anywhere these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cardinal Synn
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 586
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| donfan wrote: |
| Cardinal Synn wrote: |
| donfan wrote: |
| Stephen Jones wrote: |
| Quote: |
| f Maths is uncountable surely it would be Mathematic, not Mathematics? |
I fail to see the logic here.
Maths is uncountable. You don't talk about two maths and three maths. |
Then tell me why it is called mathematics and not mathematic. |
WTF?!!? |
you can't answer my question so you resort to that - very mature |
You ask a question worthy of a two year old and suggest I'm immature?
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donfan
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 217
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cardinal Synn wrote: |
| donfan wrote: |
| Cardinal Synn wrote: |
| donfan wrote: |
| Stephen Jones wrote: |
| Quote: |
| f Maths is uncountable surely it would be Mathematic, not Mathematics? |
I fail to see the logic here.
Maths is uncountable. You don't talk about two maths and three maths. |
Then tell me why it is called mathematics and not mathematic. |
WTF?!!? |
you can't answer my question so you resort to that - very mature |
You ask a question worthy of a two year old and suggest I'm immature?
I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. |
It was a very logical question. If I want to abbreviate bicycles, I change it to bikes, not bike. If I want to abbreviate automobiles I abbreviate it to autos, not auto. It is logical then that if I want to abbreviate mathematics I abbreviate it to maths, not math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It was a very logical question. If I want to abbreviate bicycles, I change it to bikes, not bike. If I want to abbreviate automobiles I abbreviate it to autos, not auto. It is logical then that if I want to abbreviate mathematics I abbreviate it to maths, not math. |
This question may have a certain flawed logic about it, but I fail to see how it ties in with your previous question.
I've explained to you that mathematics was originally plural but then became uncountable, wiht a change in meaning. This also happens with Latin plurals such as data.
We don't shorten bicycles to bikes. Bike is the abbreviation of bicycle and bikes in the plural of bike.
It is perfectly logical to abbreviate mathematics to math as the Americans do. You're simply taking the first four letters. The British decide to keep the last letter as well. 'Nuff said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-Bone
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 33
Location: Phnom Penh
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: the Queen's English |
|
|
| Quote: |
High Plains Drifter wrote:
Quote:
Why do some Americans persist in claiming that their 'distinctly American' revision of the language is correct and that the original version, as used by every other English-speaking country in the world, is not?
Aramas,
I cannot recall ever hearing any American make such a claim. Can you give us some examples? It's the Brits who act as if they invented the language and belittle and ridicule speakers from other countries, including--brace yourself--Australia.
You must be joking. Do you really want me to waste time quoting all of the parts of this thread in which Yanks claim that their version is right and everyone else's is wrong? Have you even read through this thread?
|
The only time anyone used the phrase "distinctly American" was when I was trying to explain that the reason Noah Webster dropped the "u" from color, labor etc. in his dictionary was to create a "distinctly American" branch of English.
No where in this thread did I or any other American say American vernacular or spelling was right and everyone else is wrong. Personally, I was just saying what Webster was up to-- he, and many others at the time wanted to form a distinct identity from mother Britain, and one of the ways they did that was by dropping the "u" from certain words. That's just where he was coming from.
Relax, bro. No one's saying American English is the end-all, be-all! There's all these different ways of speaking the English, and they are all unique and special. Just like every one of you. Now go play nice.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
