The American Language

[KiltedKnight]

Who was it that once said when speaking about America and the Uk, I think it might have been General George S. Patton; "We are two nations separated by a common language".

Chris.

[Paul Henry]

think you will find it was George Bernard Shaw, although Oscar Wilde said something simliar a few years earlier.

[macwilkin]

Who was it that once said when speaking about America and the Uk, I think it might have been General George S. Patton; "We are two nations separated by a common language".

Chris.

I think Patton (George C. Scott) attributed it to GBS in a speech in the movie. Besides GBS, I've also seen it attributed to Sir Winston Churchill, whose mother, btw, was an American, Jennie Jerome. If I remember correctly, the mining town of Jerome, Arizona, is named for her cousin.

But, I also found a reference to Alistair Cooke as well! So everyone is right! :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Todd

[James]

Though on the face of it America and Britain share a language, we do not share the underlying cultural comprehension which enables that language to be an effective and foolproof means of communication.

The effect is that at a simple level, Americans and Britons can communicate, however as soon as complexities enter into the communication there is a very real risk of misunderstanding.

Too the nuances of comunication can all too easily be lost, and so the recipient thinks that one thing is being said, when it is not.

I experienced this the hard way when working for an American firm here in the UK some years ago: when both Americans and Britons would leave a meeting thinking they had a clear understanding as to the next move. Only to discover later, and possibly at some cost, that there had not been a meeting of minds. In simple terms, this was because though we shared words, we did not share the culture that gave meaning to those words.

Too whilst I cannot comment upon American English, British English carries a host of unstated meanings based on cultural and social groups within the British Isles, and this is problem is enhanced by changes that have and are taking place.

To try and illustrate this in the context of this board: as most are aware it is only recently that the kilt became Scottish rather than highland dress, and certainly in my youth the kilt would not be worn unless for some special occasion south of the highland line [I'm ignoring how some parents possibly English might dress their children]. By the same token though there were no written rules, a person was expected to wear their own tartan, or if no direct claim a district tartan or one such as The Caledonian.

At this point to distinct threads of attitude can be identified: the many who like myself who because of the above find it impossible to wear any tartan than their own, or a district one, or maybe as I have the new Highland Granite; and certainly I could not wear a regimental tartan to which I was not entitled. Then there are those who say that anyone can wear any tartan, claiming that there are no rules, and the world has moved on.

Whilst there are others who came to wearing the tartan through say dancing, who probably were glad of any kilt they could obtain, and did not of necessity place much concern upon the provenance of the tartan they were wearing.

How does this effect the language?

In that not wanting to be rude about an individuals choice of tartan, a form of words will be used that indicate acceptance, albeit with reservations that will be recognised by others who look to the highland origin of the clan tartans. Or an inflexion can be placed upon words that whilst saying one thing, means exactly the opposite: so that as I've heard, an individual thought they were hearing words of approval about their attire, everyone but them was being told that they appeared ridiculous.

A form of words here might be, 'You do look smart', only if one is perceptive to the inflexion used can one tell if it is an insult or a compliment.

Please accept that whilst for obvious reasons I must not cite examples, I've seen it happening on this board: and in fairness must say that it can only be a case of 'reader beware'. Just as a mannered response to a query, does not of necessity mean acceptance of what was requested.

To further illustrate cultural dfferences, there was a recent thread about the wearing of military decorations as adornment on sporrans-as kilt pins etc: something I kept very quiet about, for I appreciated the difference. For it covered four separate areas: decorations, medals, unit insignia and trade badges: the last two of which might be used: but certainly not decorations and or medals; at least not to British eyes.

James

[An t-Ileach]

Spot on, James.

[KiltedBishop]

Speaking as an American who just spent the last 12 months in the UK I can say in many cases it could be said it is a different language. For the first couple of months I had a vauge idea what the hell anyone was saying, but it's the slang that makes it confusing. We got into the habit of while in meetings when someone would use a word we didn't know a friend would "translate" for us and everyone would continue without skipping a beat.
the words might be the same but the meanings are different. Fag being the most well known example. I remember going to the grocery store and seeing in the freeze section "Pork Faggots". "knocking up" is another one. Two very different meanings...and to my american friends, never EVER comment on a woman's fanny in the UK. Not the same thing. Of course that is the fun of travel. Even parts of the US can be like that.
I always like to tell the Brits they gave us English, but we Americans fixed it for them.
I mean come on do you really need all those extra letters in everything? hahaha

Cheers!

[bangkok kilt]

I'll be honest, I can understand British English better than I can understand English from certain regions within the US.

I'd say they are different dialects at most. A few grammatical differences, phrases, and spellings don't make it a different language.

[Nick]

There is also the little matter of the written Standard. The way we say something and the way we write something are different, but written English is much more level than spoken English. I can understand things people in the UK write (be it on-line or in books), and I can understand Englishmen when they speak. Slang, etc, are going to be present in any spoken language, so that's true of both communicating parties.

Cheers,
Nick

[Blu (Ontario)]

... I always like to tell the Brits they gave us English, but we Americans fixed it for them.
I mean come on do you really need all those extra letters in everything? hahaha

I think so.

Ever see this gem...

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the
European Parliament has commissioned a feasability study in ways of
improving efficiency in communications betwen Government
departments.

European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is
unnecessary difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through
and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of
changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of
course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by
participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using
's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all
sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be
replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only
would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but
typewriters kould be made with one less letter.

There would be growing enthousiasm when in the sekond year, it was
anounsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'.
This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty per sent shorter in
print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reatsh the stage where more komplikated tshanges are
possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always been a deterent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag
is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and
writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four
years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps
sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w'
kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly
after zis, ze unesesary 'o kould be dropd from words kontaining
'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations
of leters.

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trublsm
difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze
drems of Mr. Orvel vud finali hav kum tru.


Cheers,

blu

[highlander_Daz]

Id say the difference isnt the language its the use of it, I went to Uni in England (before tuition fees !!) and they are not so different in the use of the language, some words are different and the prounounciation is different, but the difference between british English and American is sarcasm, all the Americans I have met dont seem to get sarcasm , which is used alot this side of the pond. Its been describes as the lowest form of wit, but its got its place.