I am from the US but I do like what I thought of as the French spelling of colour and I will use that spelling when I am speaking with people from Europe. I've never seen honor spelled honour, so that seems strange to me. I do get kind of annoyed when I hear Brits complaining about the way we talk and or spell. I am a fan of the UK and love British television. After watching British Television and hearing the way the common people speak, they have no ground to stand on if they want to complain about the way we speak. I am appalled at the use of the phrase "funnily Enough" the only reason that funnily is an actual word is because it became so commonly used they added it to their dictionary. It's not actually a real word and it's nonsense it means the same thing as funny. It's just a way for the entitled to sound a little more pretentious, something entitled people seem to enjoy. Another British thing that annoys me is the way they pronounce aluminum. Aluminum was invented in the US and named in the US but the Brits decided that it needs to be pronounced al u mineum vx. a lume inum. I normally keep these opinions to myself and just let it go because we all have our own culture and our own way of speaking. We should accept each other for what we are because neither side is going to change for the other. Some Brits may think I'm crass and I may think they are stuck up snobs, that's life it wouldn't be language it would be something else.
*******************************
Hi, Ben ~
Interesting post!!! The odd thing about us Canadians is that (for the most part) we spell - or were taught to spell - like Britons. (But with significant exceptions - Canadians, like Americans, much more frequently use the "ize" version of verbs, rather than the "ise" - as in "legitimize" vs. "legitimise" ~ though the "ise" version is recognized here, too. I don't know why this is, but, it is.)
On the other hand, over time, the Canadian accent has drifted, so that many people in the U.K. (and certainly on the continent) can't tell us apart from Americans. But Americans certainly can! And tease us mercilessly, for it. One thing American friends are constantly commenting upon, is their perception that we pronounce "about", "a-boot". (And that's a pet peeve of mine!) The truth is, we simply have much SOFTER diphthongs, generally, which are uttered further forward in the oral cavity - while many Americans (depending on region, of course) form their diphthongs further back in the oral cavity, making them fall rather more harshly, upon the ear. (I tease American friends right back, and suggest to them that we don't say "a-boot" - they say, "a- bowwwrrrrt" ;-)
But, Ben, when it comes to matters relating to grammar, generally, it is always important to remember that grammar isn't like mathematics or physics: it doesn't pertain to some underlying truth about the universe; it's a matter of social convention, in living, breathing, human communities. Grammatical conventions can and DO change.
For the last 150 years or so, there has been a running battle, in grammatical circles, between "prescriptivists", and "descriptivists." The prescriptivists got their impetus (by and large) from the invention of the printing press, which greatly standardized spelling and grammar (whereas things had been quite chaotic, before - when Shakespeare wanted a new word, he just made it up!): and generally adhere to standards which took shape in the 18th century, and which ossified into a kind of virtual religious dogma, in the 19th. Including many conventions which descend from Latinate grammatical constructions - and this dates from a time when Latin was viewed as a superior language, and held up as the standard, in schools. (Obviously, that day is long past ;-)
The descriptivists are the liberals, in the quarrel. They are much more accepting of the fluidity of the English language, and wish others to accept it, also. And they, lately, seem to be winning the battle, both grammatically, and lexically. (They got Homer Simpson's famous, "D'Oh!" into the OED, in 2001 - - - a turn of events which caused many prescriptivists to turn, in their already-dug graves ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'oh!
In such matters, Ben, there is no truth,
per se: at least in English. (The French look upon such matters quite differently - they are prescriptivists to a MAN, and harbour a cadre of language-police, known as the
Institut de Langue Francaise ~ which regularly issues decretals about what words, spellings, and grammatical turns are permissible in French newspapers, and government publications. They are protecting the purity of the French language.)
English has never been like that, and never will be. It is a language constantly, and gloriously, in flux. I suppose I'm a bit of a prescriptivist, at least by training: because, like you, I had an
extremely strict, and astringent, junior-high-school English teacher (Mrs. C., whom I love): and while the other boys were out playing BASEBALL, I was indoors poring after worksheet upon worksheet, spotting the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors - and explaining why they were errors. (Her training made my high-school teachers afraid of me - - - especially after the second day of high-school, when I called one of them out for using a predicate adjective, incorrectly. . . he didn't even know what that
meant. And it amuses me to this day, that, notwithstanding all the years I spent in the Academy since - - - a lot of the work I do today, as a writer, centres around those old Grade Seven worksheets ;-)
When it comes to matters of present-day grammar, usage, and spelling - as in so many things - I suppose I'm in the moderate "middle". Hey, I'm a Canadian - what did you expect? I think it's quite helpful to have a standard for polite and official discourse, upon which we can rely. But, on the other hand, I don't think we ought to get hung UP about it, or sing threnodies for the death of the English language, if someone ventures into territory which is "non-standard" ~ either by a British, or an American, standard.
Ben, I would only caution one thing, in all of this. I think we ought to avoid judging others, in any way at all - because of the way they speak or write: whether the differences have to do with race, class, or regional dialect. It is true that "the common people", in the U.K., the U.S., and Canada, often employ non-standard forms of English which others think less than graceful, or perfect. What we must always bear in mind (I think) is that people never choose their background, and seldom choose their manner of education, either. I have known cowboys and construction-workers, auto-workers and coal miners, who couldn't tell you what a predicate adjective was, if a Luger were held to their heads, BUT. . . with whom I'd rather spend an hour in conversation, than many of the Oxford philosophers, or the Harvard political scientists, I've also had the pleasure to know. Human goodness, caring, humour, and insight - signally do not depend upon standard English construction, or pronunciation, either ;-)
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk
