![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cosmolinguistOne of the joys of relationships is that you can find yourself connected to someone who's quite different from you. Sometimes these differences mean you're introduced to new things you like. Other times, inevitably, you only find ways you clash with your partner. Some couples may disagree about politics or religion, for instance. One may eat at McDonald's while the other is a vegan.
In my case, the fundamental difference seems to involve language.
Andrew tells me I'm using the English language incorrectly, I spell things wrong.
I tell him that it's not wrong if it's an accepted practice with a history of hundreds of years. I tell him spelling is arbitrary anyway and wasn't codified until ... well, much later than it should've been, if you ask me.
He tells me that Noah Webster just decided to change all the spellings when he wrote his dictionary.
I say yes, he was trying to simplify the language, which has always been in flux anyway; many attempts have been made to simplify it.
He says that Webster just thought Americans should have a language different from the English.
Andrew tells me that American English is no better than textspeak, which could be considered another attempt at simplifying English.
I scowl at him.
It seems we've found That Of Which We Should Not Speak.
I say the point of language is communication, and he can understand me, so he should shut up. But when he compares this to the degenerate forms of English perpetrated by some these days, he appeals to my known weakness for language snobbery. I don't think this is fair, but even saying that will cause him to cackle evilly. Anyway, I think he's the one who's being snobby, thinking that nothing other than his ways can be proper.
I think variations of English are great; I like the language to have some personality. But by invoking textspeak, Andrew's trying to force me to draw a line between what's cool and interesting and what's heinous and inacceptable. He already has that line himself, of course, and his firmly leaves my spellings in the realm of the nasty and evil.
And I haven't even gotten to pronunciation yet!
I remember reading a review of a Foo Fighters album (why would I read that? I must've been really bored) called The Colour and the Shape. At the end, the underwhelmed reviewer said something like "if the band are going to put a 'u' in the title, they should give us something good to back it up." When an obnoxious person commented in my journal that since visiting the UK I'd lost my sense of humor,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
angel_thane told him that that may be, but I'd gained a sense of humour. That delighted me.
So what you think? Is there a difference between color and colour? Is humour different from humor? Am I a degenerate?
In my case, the fundamental difference seems to involve language.
Andrew tells me I'm using the English language incorrectly, I spell things wrong.
I tell him that it's not wrong if it's an accepted practice with a history of hundreds of years. I tell him spelling is arbitrary anyway and wasn't codified until ... well, much later than it should've been, if you ask me.
He tells me that Noah Webster just decided to change all the spellings when he wrote his dictionary.
I say yes, he was trying to simplify the language, which has always been in flux anyway; many attempts have been made to simplify it.
He says that Webster just thought Americans should have a language different from the English.
Andrew tells me that American English is no better than textspeak, which could be considered another attempt at simplifying English.
I scowl at him.
It seems we've found That Of Which We Should Not Speak.
I say the point of language is communication, and he can understand me, so he should shut up. But when he compares this to the degenerate forms of English perpetrated by some these days, he appeals to my known weakness for language snobbery. I don't think this is fair, but even saying that will cause him to cackle evilly. Anyway, I think he's the one who's being snobby, thinking that nothing other than his ways can be proper.
I think variations of English are great; I like the language to have some personality. But by invoking textspeak, Andrew's trying to force me to draw a line between what's cool and interesting and what's heinous and inacceptable. He already has that line himself, of course, and his firmly leaves my spellings in the realm of the nasty and evil.
And I haven't even gotten to pronunciation yet!
I remember reading a review of a Foo Fighters album (why would I read that? I must've been really bored) called The Colour and the Shape. At the end, the underwhelmed reviewer said something like "if the band are going to put a 'u' in the title, they should give us something good to back it up." When an obnoxious person commented in my journal that since visiting the UK I'd lost my sense of humor,
angel_thane told him that that may be, but I'd gained a sense of humour. That delighted me.So what you think? Is there a difference between color and colour? Is humour different from humor? Am I a degenerate?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 04:58 pm (UTC)Yes. "Colour" and "humour" have superfluous and unnecessary "u"s in them. So do "favourite," "moulding," and "neighbour."
(But for whatever inexplicable reason, I am inclined towards preferring "rumour" and "behaviour." I really don't know why.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:15 pm (UTC)I am inclined towards preferring "rumour" and "behaviour." I really don't know why.
I don't know either, though I know what you mean.
I don't think this is the sort of thing I should try to think about so late at night. (Never mind that I'm considering staying up the rest of the night to see how the Yankees/Sox game turns out ... I have to know!)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-21 12:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-21 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 11:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 04:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:00 pm (UTC)If I'm going to pimp out my community, at least I could have a cuter icon!!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:07 pm (UTC)Besides, again, there's no grammar here. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:02 pm (UTC)-Andrew Jackson
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:25 pm (UTC)I cana already hear the "Yeah, but he's a stupid American" argument from Andrew, but I don't care. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:05 pm (UTC)"English is defined by how people use the language! If people start spelling 'gauge' 'gage', then it's acceptable!"
"English is defined by how it has historically been spelled! Any new spellings are incorrect and bad!"
Seems that Andrew has wedged himself somewhere in the middle - he accepts the American way of spelling things and disregards other spellings as being wholly incorrect. So... wait, no. He's actually strongly in the historic camp; he's just got one fucked-up definition of 'historic'.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:13 pm (UTC)(For what it's worth, 'humour', 'endeavour', 'archaeologist', 'characterisations'.)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:36 pm (UTC)Why not simply go back to the spellings and pronunciations of 14th century England?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:53 pm (UTC)Sounds good to me! I took a class on Chaucer and loved it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 08:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:39 pm (UTC)Can you tell this irritates me greatly? I try not to tell the English that their way of spelling is meandering and inferior, but they really ask for it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 05:51 pm (UTC)I know enough about the history of the language to know that any appeal to rules, history, or any kind of unimpeachable authority is probably mistaken. English has never been controlled by anyone, so it just sucks up new things from the rest of the world and doesn't bother with making them internally consistent.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 08:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 08:49 pm (UTC)yes, yes, and yes.
look, there's only one way to settle this... British and United Statesian spellings are different. Canada is in between the two, thus whichever is used in Canada, is correct.
So:
Tire, curb, humour, dialogue.
Settled.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 08:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 08:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 09:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 09:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-20 10:12 pm (UTC)You're both wrong. The proper pronunciation is whichever I found most clever on the most recent occasion I considered the word.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-21 02:19 am (UTC)1) That's what the French want for French, and it's dying. Language needs to change to live.
2) He's going to have to start spelling it "aluminum," since that was the ORIGINAL BRITISH FORM of the word.
THE END.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-21 02:37 am (UTC)I use English spellings because that's how I was educated, but on a strictly logical basis I think the American spellings are superior here.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 08:20 am (UTC)I tried this on Andrew yesterday. Thanks for the ammunition.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-21 08:50 am (UTC)(father-jack)
THAT would be an OECUMENICAL matter!
(/father-jack)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-21 10:02 am (UTC)as far as i'm concerned you're right for america, we're right for britain and sarah should use the british form if needed to by college just as i would use the american if needed to if i was studying there. though i have made it perfectly clear to her that when we have kids, they're going to learn the britishisms as long as they live in this country
halloween is going to be an interesting one though, as i *do* insist that the fry and laurie way (http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits2/fal0108.htm) is the only way to deal with this hideous festival
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 08:24 am (UTC)You've got the language thing sorted, then, but it sounds like Halloween is going to be the thing of which you two cannot speak. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 08:25 am (UTC)plus. she wants a bagpiper for the wedding. that's NEVER going to happen i can tell you know...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 12:01 pm (UTC)I don't mind bagpipe music nearly as much as most people seem to, but I also don't understand why people want them at their wedding.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 11:52 am (UTC)As to the debate... I prefer the British spelling because it feels smoother somehow, than the American spelling. Like comparing burritos to tacos (Do these words mean the same things in other countries? Burritos being the soft unleavened bread you wrap your mexican filling in, tacos being the corn chip type things you pour the filling into). I'm not really a fan of really crunchy food... I much prefer soft stuff you can sink your teeth into.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-22 12:05 pm (UTC)But not as good, really, as the comparison between dialects and Mexican food. :-) I like the idea of language you can sink your teeth into. You've also made me really want some burritos now, as I love Mexican food but haven't had it since I got here as it's rare in Britain.