apple_pathways | Americanisms, and the evolution of language

Americanisms, and the evolution of language

The planets have aligned once again to provide me with a topic for blogging:

faery_fall posted a video of Stephen Fry discussing language as part of her 15 Day Meme, and

fail_fandomanon had a discussion thread wherein a poster was complaining about the comments to an article on the BBC website about Americanisms creeping into British language. Surely these two occurrences are more than worthy of a mash-up here on this journal?

First, full confession: I used to be a total grammar pedant. I love language, and I love grammar! Mine is a brain easily seduced by the idea that there's a 'correct way' and an 'incorrect way' to do things. I love the idea that things can be done with "perfection", and I love to torture myself with the idea that perfection is obtainable. Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not obtainable: or even desirable! And yet, despite a couple years of linguistics courses, my grammar pedantry persisted for years.

I can remember the exact day I gave it up.

I went to visit a close friend of mine: we were going swimming at the pool in her parent's condo complex. Before heading off, we chose reading material from her collection to read poolside. I was excited to discover she owned a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, by Lynne Truss, a book I'd been eying up in stores for months. I delight in learning grammar and punctuation rules the way sports enthusiasts obsess over the minutiae of the game.

I could barely make my way more than a few pages in before I was absolutely disgusted with the tone of the book: the way the author describes the shrieking paroxyisms of pain she experiences at the sight of a misplaced apostrophe! The agony of inadequate commas! Incorrect capitalization! Oh, the horror! THE HORROR!

*eyeroll* Please! It didn't take me long to realize I didn't want to give people the same vibe I was getting from this author.

After that experience, I quit cold turkey: no more complaining about the "10 Items or Less" line at Trader Joe's. No more "it's 'whom', not 'who'!" No more "better than 'they', not better than 'them'"!

(I still do have my Do Not Cross lines: it's "should have" or "should've", not "should of"!!! I am taking that one to the grave...)

All of this is to say: I know where these angry commenters are coming from. Really, I do! But...well, just look:

(These are responses readers sent in in response to the article about Americanisms creeping into British culture. I cherry-picked the most hyperbolic responses. You can read all of them in the article listed at the end of this post.) (Bolding is mine.)

14. I caught myself saying "shopping cart" instead of shopping trolley today and was thoroughly disgusted with myself. I've never lived nor been to the US either. Graham Nicholson, Glasgow

22. Train station. My teeth are on edge every time I hear it. Who started it? Have they been punished? Chris Capewell, Queens Park, London

27. "Oftentimes" just makes me shiver with annoyance. Fortunately I've not noticed it over here yet. John, London (Then why are you mentioning it?)

29. I'm a Brit living in New York. The one that always gets me is the American need to use the word bi-weekly when fortnightly would suffice just fine. Ami Grewal, New York

50. "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" has to be the worst. Opposite meaning of what they're trying to say. Jonathan, Birmingham

(I had to mention that last one, as I've heard it before. It's actually a misunderstanding of the American phrase: "I could care less" is meant sarcastically.)

I have to confess that whenever the discussion of Americanisms comes up, I tend to find myself confused: America is a big country, and some vocabularly is not as wide-spread as one might imagine.

I remember listening to one of my favorite BBC radio programs, when one of the hosts started talking about a program on language that they'd recently listened to. He started talking about the phrase "tit-bits". "Did you know it's actually supposed to be 'tid-bits'?" he said. "'Tit-bits' is an Americanism!"

This was news to me! I've always said "tid-bits", and I'd never heard "tit bits" before I started listening to that program! It might be a genuine Americanism (as I said: it's a big country, and I'm not familiar with all its vocabulary) but I can't imagine that it is: mostly because the word 'tit' is much more common in the UK. I think it's considered a much ruder term in the US.

Which is to say: it's often confusing what terms and phrases are attributed to one country or another. Some 'Americanisms' actually originated in the UK, but fell out of use there before being re-imported via American media. Some Americanisms, reviled at their introduction, have simply merged with the language and become common use everywhere English is spoken: 'lengthy', 'reliable', 'talented', 'influential', and 'tremendous' all originated in the Colonies. (The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge was particularly disgusted with the word 'talented'. Read the article listed at the end of this entry for more!)

(Lest anyone think all the Brits are hyperbolically annoyed, here's my favorite reader quote from the article:

19. I enjoy Americanisms. I suspect even some Americans use them in a tongue-in-cheek manner? "That statement was the height of ridiculosity". Bob, Edinburgh

*touches nose* Bingo! Somebody get Bob a prize... And yes. I made up the word 'hyperbolically' to illustrate Bob's point!)

There are many Americanisms I wouldn't bother to defend. No, I take that back: I wouldn't bother to defend any of them! Because that's not how language works. Societies don't choose their vocabulary by committee: language evolves, with little influence from most individuals. (Oh, that I had the influence of Shakespeare and all of the many words he coined!)

The concluding point of the original article is that the author mourns the erosion of British culture as distinct from American culture. I can see why that would be worrying: the increasing globalization of the world means that a lot of change is happening very quickly, and I'm sure all sorts of culture and customs get lost in the shuffle. I just wonder if policing language is the tact to take? (I don't think so. Language evolves, and there's not much use in trying to stop it.)

I do think I might have lost the point in this long ramble of an article: I think mostly I want to spark discussion, as I love talking about language! So, here's a list of discussion questions, followed by a list of resources:

Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?
What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?
Pro or anti-pedant?
How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?
Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share?

Resources:

Stephen Fry! (The video

faery_fall posted.)

The BBC articles:
Viewpoint: Why do some Americanisms irritate people?
Americanisms: 50 of your most noted examples

Separated By a Common Language: I should have guessed that she would be discussing these articles! :P I was merely going to suggest this as an excellent blog dealing with the differences between American and British English. It's written by an American linguist living in the UK.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fascinating post! I remember we had a bit of a throwdown about language in the chat room recently, right? My single brain cell has since forgotten what the point was, fwiw. But I love the idea of language (and particularly the evolution of a common language separated by time and geography), so this is right in my interest wheelhouse. Thank you!

I should preface all my comments with two disclaimers. First, English is not really my first language, although I speak it as well as I speak any other language. Second, I know I'm guilty of some of the pet peeves I rant about below, so my apologies for the hypocrisy/inconsistency.

1. Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?

I don't know if this is an Americanism generally, but it's very common in the Midwest: Are you coming with? Obviously, the object is implicit and inherent, but it does sort of make me break out into a very mild rash when I hear it. (I suspect there's a historical reason for this usage. I think it comes from direct translation from German into English, i.e. Kommen Sie mit? becomes Are you coming with?)

Also, I want to run away when I hear people say "irregardless" and "supposably".

2. What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?

Split infinitives. I know most people don't even notice this, but when I see it in print, it makes me think the editors of the piece were just being lazy.

Oh, and I here's where I break with traditional punctuation: I hate the Oxford/Harvard/serial comma, and I don't care what CMoS has to say about it. ;)

3. Pro or anti-pedant?

I'm still something of a pedant, but I'm less pedantic than I used to be. I've come to realize, over time, that the point of written and verbal language is communication, and the occasional error of grammar or usage does not interfere with communication.

How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?

I don't think you can prevent it. Note how the French and the Germans are constantly having to create new usage rules to account for normal evolution of speech and usage in their language. It's just more work for everyone, and we should just let it happen as it always does--organically.

Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share?

One of my relatives routinely says "all the both of you", and I'm now so used to it, I don't even laugh anymore. Or at least not in a cruel and derisive way. :)

Edited 2011-07-30 04:23 (UTC)

My single brain cell has since forgotten what the point was, fwiw.

You were unhappy with the regional American vocabulary "crick" (for "creek"), and I was defending its use. :P Initially, at least!

You know what: I say "are you coming with?" all the time! But it's funny, because I remember how strange it sounded to me 10 years ago. (And yet, at some point I adopted its usage!) I think it originally comes from the East Coast?

You know what, I used the Oxford comma at one point in this post, and I was going to draw attention to it! Funny thing is, I remember being taught it was unnecessary at school. Yet, being a massive fan of punctuation in general, I adopted its use on my own! ;)

I like "all the both of you"! My goal for this next week will be to work it into a sentence. ;)

I HAVE MANY THOUGHTS ON THIS TOPIC

but it is late, so remind me to come back when i have some brain saved up (and LJ is working properly again)

When your brain and our dear, cranky LJ are feeling refreshed, I'd love to hear your thoughts! :D

I still think it will take me too long come up with anything coherent. It would be rather involved and go off in all sorts of tangents.

Though, to start with, I didn't run across this Americanism vs. Britishism until I found fandom (just after high school) though I do remember getting marked down on spelling tests in grade school for spelling certain things the "Canadian" way!

But anyway, ALL of my previous fandoms have been British TV shows. It's where I started, was introduced to all things fandom-y, my first fics (read and written) were all British and "Brit-picking" was a big deal. I was fine with that, too, if someone found and Americanism in one of my stories and pointed out to me that "that phrase has a slightly different meaning/connotation in the UK" or "this phrase is confusing/I've never heard that before/not sure a Brit would say it like that" and the like. I was happy to learn the "proper" way to write the characters, you know?

But I never really got the extreme annoyance I'd see from some Brits when they ran into Americanisms in their fandoms. Like "I had to stop reading b/c this ONE WORD/PHRASE threw me completely out of the story" seemed a bit over the top.

Never got it until I started reading in my very first American fandom and find all these crazy British words/phrases/idioms littered throughout, and I think 'OK, yeah, that's super annoying. Have you even WATCHED the show? Britishism aside even, Character X would never say that!'

Um... anyway. I mostly run into in fic. I will not correct the grammar of someone speaking with me. Incorrect or not, that's how they talk and who you speak and express yourself is part of your personality. Language, I believe, is very fluid. I mean think of how "text speak" has become it's own language. Words have phrases have filtered into everyday speech and aren't just on the internet anymore. People speak in LOLCAT! LOLCAT is its own language!

I do not see this as a bad thing. Do I think language should be preserved? Yes. But it's also going to change, and there's no denying that or stopping it.

Hmm... that was more than I was planning just now ;)

Spelling is a particularly tyrannical component of language: not surprisingly, as it's the easiest to control! (I've always had impeccable spelling, but then: the more time I spend conversing with native speakers of other English dialects, the more I find myself getting confused about which spelling is standard for the US!)

I'm in almost entirely British fandoms as well! It's a rather interesting culture, the whole idea of Brit-picking and America-picking. (Which...is such a boring term! I think we need to re-name the practice.) I have yet to see, though, any widespread call for Canada-picking or Australia-picking...New Zealand-picking? Do those practices go on in secret, or are they merely standing off to the side and rolling their eyes at the Yanks and the Brits, and wishing we'd get over ourselves?

For what it's worth, I try my best to use British vernacular when writing fic in British fandoms, but I do think I could stand to be more diligent about having my work Brit-picked before it's published.

I've never gotten used to text or chat speak! I'm a bit stodgy when it comes to my own personal dialect, and slang does not easily roll off my tongue. (I do occasionally bust it out for humorous purposes, though! I once had a student giggling for a solid 45 minutes by opening with the phrase, "What up, do?") But even though I don't use it, I don't pretend I don't understand it, and I've stopped giving a damn about whether or not people choose to use capitalization in their written communication online. As long as a person is putting thought into what they say, I won't fault them for how they say it.

lol good thing for me then as i am a lazy lazy typist ;)

tho i think i am the only person in the world who kinda refuses to use the word "nom"

i am actually very good at spelling (with a few tricky exceptions that ALWAYS trip me up) being dyslexic and all

i'd say my biggest pet peeve in written work (mostly fic) is MISUSED COMMAS! OMG THE COMMA DRAMA! love your commas, ppl

I tend to write at different levels of formality/informality depending on what I'm doing. I feel like email and LiveJournal call for capitalization, punctuation, and complete sentences... with the exception of flaily outbursts of joy or rage or whatever, which may involve caps-lock and strange punctuation/a complete lack of punctuation... but that's because when I get emotional I want my writing to come off how I would sound if I were speaking, which is to say... loud and fast and flaily. Instant messaging is extremely informal... when I first started I thought the lack of capitalization and inconsistent punctuation was very strange, but I picked up the habit. It's meant to replace an actual verbal conversation, so stuff gets dropped in favor of faster typing speed. I probably wouldn't capitalize in text messages either, except my phone does it automatically; I do frequently use abbreviations in texting, again because of speed and limits placed on the number of symbols per text.

Okay, I say "tid bits" often, but what the heck are "tit bits?" It sounds to me like the sad remains of a boob job.

Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?
From browsing the 50 Americanisms article, I do hate "normalcy" with a likely inappropriate verve.

What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?
My main punctuation pet peeves are errant apostrophes (where things are supposed to be plural, not possessive, and vice versa) and bizarre commas. There was someone on my F-list who constantly misplaced commas near conjunctions - I think they placed commas directly after the ands and buts, and it was very distracting at first. The only punctuation error that actually makes me angry is the placement of punctuation outside of quotation marks in dialogue, if the person responsible is out of 4th grade. In college, this annoyance graduated to people not knowing how to cite things properly.

Pro or anti-pedant?
I'm very pedantic when it comes to language in journalism and advertising and such, but anti-pedant for creative writing and daily speech.

How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?
I desperately don't want "of" to replace "have" via some linguistic Idiocracy-esque tragedy, but I am very pro-evolution for language. That's what makes it so exciting!

Titbits is an interesting one. A lot of people think the British version is titbits and Americans changed it to tidbits because of their pesky puritanicalism. But it's not true. Both titbit and tidbit are British and from the mid 17th century so it's either a case of the spoken being initially transcribed in two different ways, or they actually mean different things - tid means tender and tit means small - making a tidbit a morsel of something tender and a titbit being a small bit of anything.

I hate "normalcy" as well! I don't quite know where it came from.

Ever since I gave up on grammar pedantry, I have been trying my damnedest not to notice errant apostrophes, but without much success! As for comma usage: I'm not completely sure of my own mastery of the art, but I do think poor comma usage, more than any other grammar gripe, can mess with the flow of a piece of writing.

I desperately don't want "of" to replace "have" via some linguistic Idiocracy-esque tragedy

Yes! Go Team Have! ;)

Probably going to be way out of step here as a Brit who doesn't give a fig about Americanisms. To me there are only two kinds of language: the inventively used, and the not. When I think of the way Joss Whedon used Valley slang and idiom and messed with the laws of grammar in Buffy, it makes me positively linguistically giddy, and I feel the same way about terms like 'ridiculosity' - it's inventive, I can understand it, it's fun. IMHO pedants have forgotten what language is for. One does language and its wonderful, infinite possibiilities no favours by locking it in a glass case and only letting it out to be played with by people who know the difference between 'fewer' and 'less than'. Instead of having a ragegasm about every perceived infraction on their language, they should go and write a poem and use the thing they claim to have such passion for to enrich our collective soul.

Granted, there are plenty of phrases and words I wouldn't personally choose to use, but that list is not at all restricted to Americanism, and entirely based upon what's pleasing to me to say or write. And isn't the beauty of language that there's so much of it I have choice? If I don't want to say, 'that's BS,' I can say, 'dear sir, I believe you're talking absolute piffle,' or, 'man, your arse is parsley,' or, 'balderdash, what tripe.'

What amuses me about these people is they think they're somehow defending our heritage, that Shakespeare and Chaucer are somewhere looking down and applauding their vim. They're not; they'd be the first in line to whack them in the nads with a cod.

First, let me applaud you on your clever use of language throughout this comment! (And in general! It's no surprise you make your living as a wordsmith, because you can most definitely turn a phrase!)

I think my absolute favorite is the lady who prefers "fortnightly" over "bi-weekly" because the form "would suffice just fine!"

When I read that, I was all: *record scratch* What?!

Language is not about "sufficiency"! We don't invent words as we need them, and then hold onto them until they become obsolete. Why is the pre-existence of a word with a particular meaning just cause to spurn any new words with a same or similar meaning? "No no no, we don't need 'furious', 'irate', or 'incensed': we already have 'angry', thank you very much!"

They're not; they'd be the first in line to whack them in the nads with a cod.

Hear hear! (And fantastic use of imagery!)

Dude with anti-"train station" hard-on is a moron. Train station has been in the British vocabulary for about as long as fucking trains have.

Actually, so is oftentimes dude. Don't these people read?

Having more ways to say things is a good thing. No-one is stopping (general) you, personally, from saying things the way you want to say them. If you have to explain yourself all the time, you can either choose to keep explaining yourself or use the culturally appropriate word. LEARNING IS FREE. Your preference is no more valid than anyone else's preference.

Tell you what, though, the next time someone describes 'colour' as a misspelling is getting a visit. It is a perfectly acceptable spelling and was here first.

Grammar, on the other hand, I've decided can go to hell. As long as the sentence makes sense to a person with a high-school reading level, I'll call it fine (because I have read that many style guides which advocate completely incorrect grammar that I've given up and decided that there is no such thing. Like perfection itself, grammar is in the eye of the beholder.)

ETA: FUCKING SHAKESPEARE USED OFT'TIMES. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THAT MEANT, ANTI-OFTENTIMES DUDE? /stupidity rage

Edited 2011-07-30 08:53 (UTC)

As I said: I find it confusing what words and phrases are deemed Americanisms! I think more often than not, "Americanism" means "word or phrase I personally dislike and would like to see discontinued".

LEARNING IS FREE.

Awesome, and well-put! I would love to be able to reframe the argument this way: "What, are you opposed to learning?"

Spelling is a much thornier issue, as it's much more resistant to change than the spoken language. Just look at the word 'knight': a silent K? I don't think so! The 'K' is there because that word originally began with a 'K' sound! And yet I don't see language pedants insisting we bring it back.

And the word 'often': many language pedants will pronounce the 't' in the word because they somehow think it's 'more correct', and that the loss of the 't' sound is the result of lazy pronunciation. WRONG! The correct pronunciation of the word is and always has been "offen", sans the 't' sound.

As for the (let's face it: Americans) who go around correcting people's perfectly valid spelling choices: if I could apologize on behalf of the country, I would! (Sadly I don't hold that authority.) Instead, let me join you in shaking my fist at their dastardly deeds, and recommend that these idiots broaden their horizons a bit and read a damn book that they didn't buy in line at the grocery store! :P

The only one I really agree with of the above is bi-weekly, which probably is an American-originated term. But is also a lot more descriptive than fortnightly and therefore not actually evil. (Although makes me think twice a week rather than once every two weeks).

You know, you joke about being opposed to learning, but I am noticing an attitude of 'learning is something you only do in school' getting more and more prevalent and it scares me.

Spelling is beyond help, in a lot of ways, but I kind of like it. It's like that really ugly dog with the overbite and a missing leg and fleas that's still adorable.

Mind, I do often pronounce the 't' in often. Not because of any language-related prejudice that I'm aware of, just because that's the way I've always heard it in certain situations (kind of like 'ah' and 'ay' for 'a' - I can make no pronunciation rule for that, but I know it when I hear it). I think it might be because I encounter it as oft a lot. Which just makes me a poetry-reading classics dork who you are free to ignore.

What confuses me most is that apparently the addition of a 'u' or the substitution of an 's' for a 'z' makes a word unfathomable. I wonder how long until I can claim to be bilingual because I can read and write both British English and American English fluently?

You know what? I don't know what to think about "bi-weekly", as I can't recall a time I've needed a word that meant "every two weeks". In fact, if I did, I'd probably say just that: "every two weeks"! (Or "twice a month", which sounds much more natural to me.) But I will say that the term "fortnight" has completely fallen out of common usage in the US (though some of the materials I present to my students teach them the term, strangely enough) therefore any attempts to replace "bi-weekly" (a term which most could easily guess the meaning of) with "fortnightly" are likely to be met with a lot of confusion! (Oh, and I think your assumption that 'bi-weekly' should mean "twice a week" is technically correct: after all, 'biannual' means "twice a year".)

Yeah, it is hard for me to believe that people actually would be opposed to learning, but I suppose you're right! Do you think it's an offshoot of anti-intellectualism, a movement that is disappointingly pervasive?

I believe I wrote the "'t' in 'often'" rant in a fit of pique over all this language pedantry: of course not everyone who pronounces the 't' in often does so out of pretentiousness! It's become standard pronunciation for many English speakers. I only meant it as one more example of how attempts to be the "most correct" are often mis-guided and incorrect!

You should read that blog I linked to: Separated by a Common Language. I am tempted to start spelling words the way she does: "rationali(s/z)e" or "colo(u)r", or to note the original origin and country of chief usage for all of my idioms! :P In any case, her take on the BBC articles (and the resources she links to) is very entertaining and informative, and the comments to her blog are much more reasoned and rational than the comments to the BBC article. (Which I have been avoiding. The desire to defend my country against foreign language pedants while simultaneously distancing myself from all of the Ugly Americans who are commenting creates in me a level of cognitive dissonance that is highly uncomfortable!)

Edited 2011-07-30 20:05 (UTC)

I have read Eats, Shoots and Leaves in its entirety. A misplaced apostrophe leaves me fuming as well. Sorry etc.

And don't get all high 'n' mighty about could vs. couldn't care less. Face it. It's wrong. If it's sarcasm, it's the worst I've ever heard and it's not working. The rest of the English-speaking world thinks it's mad.

I refer you to this video...

I agree about the rest. There's little point trying to resist evolution of the language. However, I am on the pedantic side (though I will add this does not only apply to "American English" - standards of written and spoken English are slipping here as well).

I hope you can tell my somewhat aggressive opening to this comment was written in jest. I'm not in favour of burning people at the stake over their spelling and pronunciation, even though I do feel very strongly.

Stewart

Oh, and if an American misunderstands me due to my British vocabulary and proceeds to ask me to "speak English," there is hell to pay.

Stewart: don't make me disable anonymous commenting. Your aggressive opening quite nearly gave me a heart-attack! ;)

Anyway: I love David Mitchell. He's intelligent and witty, and I will watch just about any program he has anything to do with; I fangirl him like mad. (How's that for an example of verbing a noun? :P)

That doesn't stop him from being wrong. "Could care less", while it might be a poor example of sarcasm and fly over most people's heads, is indeed meant sarcastically!

I thought you had for a while... :O
I had tried to comment on your last two or three entries and it wasn't working at all, just giving me errors.

Would you be able to point me in the direction of your sources regarding could/couldn't issue? Let's just say it will take a lot to convince me and I have plenty of ammunition with which to counter the sarcasm or irony position. I don't want to argue though, I'm just really curious as to how someone with a literary bent like yourself comes to be on that particular side of the fence.

I have another question which may not be related to American English. Do you say (or have you heard others say and cringed) "somewhat of a _____," instead of "____ is somewhat _____" or "something of a ____"?

Also, sorry for not participating the the Q & A, I'm launching forth on a tangent.

Oh no--LJ has been under DDoS attack for the last week or so, and hence the inability to access livejournal! I haven't turned off anonymous commenting at any point.

As for my original source of the "could care less" having a sarcastic meaning? I have no idea what it is! But here are some resources: here and here.

The point is: both "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are idioms. Since when do we expect idioms to make logical sense?

Do you say (or have you heard others say and cringed) "somewhat of a _____," instead of "____ is somewhat _____" or "something of a ____"?

I'm not positive: perhaps if you gave more context as to when one might use the phrase? I can't say that "somewhat" is generally part of my vocabulary, though.

If you're wondering if the phrase is an Americanism: it very well could be! As I said, it's a big country, with more regional variation than Americans themselves often realize. Despite a particular sort of American English being most common in our media, there still are regional phrasings that sound more natural on the tongue. :D

Edited 2011-07-30 16:46 (UTC)

Idiom is the thing. 'Could care less' has become an idiom so while we can guess that as it was first used it was used sarcastically, there are probably now a lot of people saying it without really thinking about what it means, just using it as an idiomatic phrase, so without the sarcasm, which means it technically doesn't make any sense. I mean, what the hell, it doesn't matter because we all understand what it means (if we didn't how would we know what they 'ought' to be saying?) but I can see how it's also understandable to be irritated by it when people say it in the non-sarcastic, idiomatic way, the way that you can tell they'd look at you funny if you decided to point out what they'd actually said.

My pet hate on that front is that a surprising number of people say 'cheap at half the price' when they mean 'cheap at twice the price'; I'm sure 'cheap at half the price' was a originally a sarcastic version, but now people just say it, and don't seem to realise what they're saying. And look at me funny if I point it out.

'Could care less' has become an idiom so while we can guess that as it was first used it was used sarcastically, there are probably now a lot of people saying it without really thinking about what it means, just using it as an idiomatic phrase,

Ashamedly, this only occurred to me later! (After making my initial argument.) I just assumed that because I mean it sarcastically, so must everyone. I've since come across a lot of discussion from Americans who feel the same way, but also a lot of doubt as to the actual origins of the variation.

Although I can't say that I can see being any more irritated by that one than by any other idiom. Though I have discovered through trolling the internets that it is singled-out as a particularly hated phrase for many Brits, which goes a long way toward explaining the intensity of the reaction to it! John Cleese made a rant similar to David Mitchell's: (Shame on you, David, you hack! ;)

And I've never heard the expression "cheap at half the price" before: is it wrong that I'm tucking it away into my arsenal should this thorny "could/couldn't care less" debate crop up again? :P

Edited 2011-07-31 02:09 (UTC)

It feels like a guilty admission after all this but I don't mind it as a phrase; it doesn't push my buttons, not the way 'cheap at half the price' does. I mean, yes, I entirely understand the issue, but I could care less about it. *grins*

I'm not particularly invested in its use one way or the other, either! (My inner pedant, shocked and appalled that we might be doing something incorrectly, would have no trouble bullying the rest of me into submission and changing my personal use of the phrase!) (And discovering that this is, indeed, the way I actually talk when engaged in intellectual discussion, are you at all surprised to discover that people usually expect me to fall on the other side of this debate? :P)

*sigh* One of these days I'll learn not to throw myself whole-heartedly into every discussion as if it were my gospel truth!

I would not be surprised if many Americans used "could care less" without even thinking about the literal meaning and whether or not it is sarcastic, but I think this point from the first link in

apple_pathways' comment above is very telling:

Stephen Pinker, in The Language Instinct, points out that the pattern of intonation in the two versions is very different.

There’s a close link between the stress pattern of I could care less and the kind that appears in certain sarcastic or self-deprecatory phrases that are associated with the Yiddish heritage and (especially) New York Jewish speech. Perhaps the best known is "I should be so lucky!", in which the real sense is often “I have no hope of being so lucky”, a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning. There’s no evidence to suggest that I could care less came directly from Yiddish, but the similarity is suggestive. There are other American expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of apparent sense, such as "Tell me about it!", which usually means “Don’t tell me about it, because I know all about it already”. These may come from similar sources.

It's definitely true that you use different intonation when you say, "I could care less," as compared to when you say, "I couldn't care less." It's the intonation in "I could care less" that makes me think, "Oh! Sarcasm."

I also think it's funny that so many Brits seem to be hung up on this idiom more than any of the myriad others that seem to be equally nonsensical.

...Regardless, this is not just a British vs. American argument. Just a week and a half ago I had a conversation with my mother, uncle, and aunt, all of us thoroughly American, and the topics of "I could care less" vs. "I couldn't care less" and the different understandings of the phrase "begs the question" came up spontaneously.

Edited 2011-08-01 02:38 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble posting long comments ::eyes other tab with 7k long fic I'm trying to get posted::, so I'm going to leave this here first:

I think you might have seen it before, but just in case you haven't.

That was adorable! I like it. :D

Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?

Um. The spelling of 'gray' with the 'ay'. I guess. I prefer the 'grey' spelling, because that seems closer to how I pronounce it (I don't pull out the inland north A for 'grey' the way I do for, say, 'bay'). But I don't know which spelling is actually older- it might have been one of those words that we preserved from an older version of English that died out in England but not in the US. Like a number of the Americanisms that people are complaining about in the BBC article.

Can I talk about my favorites instead? Curses. Regional variations in curses are fucking awesome. Hand to God, I had to explain to someone that some adults (with no children around) really do say 'Holy Buckets!' in Minnesota, not to mention 'Holy Balls' . . . and they aren't even talking about testicles. Suggest that they are, and you might get a nice 'oh jeez, no', out of it. It's amazing!

What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?

Probably blatant acts of comma misuse and abuse. Which, okay, I'm not perfect either. But sometimes you really do mean to use a semicolon, or don't really mean to pause.

Also, I'm totally okay with the subjunctive dying a fiery death.

Pro or anti-pedant?

Okay. So, language is meant for communication. As long as you can communicate your idea in a way that the meaning is clear, I'm for it. It's just . . . where is that line? I'm for vowels being in words, at least. Vowels are cool.

How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to
prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?

I'm a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist.

Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share?

I was going to link to David Foster Wallace's essay on dictionary feuds, but apparently Harper's is no longer letting people access it for free. :(

But I did find a link to this map! Now, if only they'd do a map of the variations in various types of cursing . . .

Edited 2011-07-30 13:31 (UTC)

Hand to God, I had to explain to someone that some adults (with no children around) really do say 'Holy Buckets!' in Minnesota

LOL. I know so many people who do this! I want to know where that expression came from. I suspect there was a Minnesota farmer (named Ole, of course) way back when, who had actual buckets with holes in them, and he swore so often that his expletives took on new meaning. ;)

As maps on usage go, this is one of my favorites (with apologies to non-US residents for exclusion):

Well, according to this, it originally meant a downpour. Which. . . almost makes sense? Maybe?

Also, it's pop. Dammit.

Edited 2011-07-30 15:53 (UTC)

Soda. Sooooooooooda. (Haha the dark gold shading of all Hawai‘i counties on that map? I can vouch for that as being tooootally accurate. XD;)

Duuuuuude I love maps. This is totally cool. I find the distribution pattern of "soda" to be the most interesting. Also, Alaska. Wtf is going on there?

Also, Alaska. Wtf is going on there?

You probably didn't expect an answer to this rhetorical question, but since you're speaking on the journal of a math and statistics nerd, you're getting one! :P

At the bottom of the map, it says: based on 120,464 respondents. Out of a current population of around 300,000,000, that's about .04% of people surveyed. (More than adequate for this type of survey, but still: room for error!)

120,464/50 states would equal roughly 2,409 respondents per state. Of course, you wouldn't ask the same number of respondents in each state, as the states have different-sized populations. Alaska, in 2000, had a population of roughly 627,000 or .21% of the country's population. If we take .21% of the respondents surveyed, that's about 252 people you would expect to have been surveyed in Alaska. (Of course: I don't know their selection method. It could have been more or less than this actual number!)

Given how large and how sparsely populated the state is, and figuring they surveyed just 252 people, I wouldn't be surprised if it were only a small handful of respondents representing some of the counties! And if the people they asked happened to be from somewhere else in the country, or from another country entirely, that could really skew the numbers.

(I'll stop boring you now. Note that all of this conjecture was done mostly to amuse myself!)

Edited 2011-08-01 03:20 (UTC)

Haha, yeahno, I would figure it would have to do with the size of Alaska relative to the number of people in it, the probably diverse cultural backgrounds of the residents, and statistical errors from having such a small population/sample size... but it sure looks funny! It's why maps are so fun; the visual representation of the statistics really pops, you can easily see sweeping trends and weird blips that break up the trends. And then you get to have fun trying to figure out where the blips come from. That's why I find Alaska so interesting, as well as the distribution of the yellow "soda" areas.

I'm curious about the "other" category. What are the others? I want to know! Knowing all the different possible names of sugary carbonated beverages is important!

I love that map! Oh wow, I am such a nerd when it comes to surveying and social statistics, and that is just awesome! I'm just bummed that it seems the download of the PDF is no longer available!

I do love regional variation in cursing! I can't say my region of Metro Detroit has any particular examples: at least I can think of any! (But then, I do believe we're less polite/prudish/whatever than the rest of the Midwest!) The only examples I have come from my Uncle Charlie, who used to be a priest: he's rather fond of "shizzydit".

But then, I do believe we're less polite/prudish/whatever than the rest of the Midwest!

Hee, there's even a map to prove it! Though interesting curses don't have to be polite- there are many different ways to manipulate the word 'fuck' :D

Shizzydit! Omg, that's fabulous. ...If you like regional variation in cursing, you'd probably love Hawai‘i; "gunfunnit" is a personal favorite.

LJ keeps eating my comments, goddamn!

I should note I learnt English on the internet, so I was never very good at telling regional varieties apart, or keeping silent letters silent.

Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?
Pronouncing herbs as erbs makes me cringe and laugh, even though the h has historically always been silent, yes yes. It just sounds so silly :P

What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?
American spelling is so illogical when it comes to quotation marks! Otherwise I am told I abuse commas and have no room to talk. Gratuitous apostrophes are annoying though. And quotation marks as non-ironic emphasis. Even my mum does it!

Pro or anti-pedant?
Both. I mean, writing will always have to be largely prescriptive, if we want to understand each other. I like knowing the exact meaning and correct use of words and grammar, too. Precise language can be so beautiful! But then I misconstruct relative clauses on a daily basis, so.

How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?
Go evolution! More choice for everyone.
I've noticed that with different groups of friends I speak differently. In my amnesty international group antiquated swearing was all the rage, with Clara and my other New Zealand friends, we say (German) "gut" all the time. Since New Zealand I use eh and sweet as.
Out of protest against the ridiculous overuse of English everywhere, some of my friends now pronounce the supermarket "basic" as if it was a slavic word. It's fun and I stole it.
What I'm trying to say is: I don't think it's a matter of avoiding and halting or "standing out of the way". You're always changing language as well.

Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share?
Probably, but I've run out of things I want to say I think.

I should note I learnt English on the internet, so I was never very good at telling regional varieties apart, or keeping silent letters silent.

Turns out: so is everyone else! As I keep reading about these two articles, I'm discovering that the original author (and the 50 people who sent in their unfavorite Americanisms) have about a 20% success rate in identifying the correct origin of these phrases they find annoying. Not a very strong record, is it?

I'm afraid I don't help the quotation mark confusion at all--I can never decide if I'd rather use "quotation marks" (American-style) or 'inverted commas' (British-style). I'm incredibly inconsistent in my usage!

But using quotation marks for non-ironic emphasis? That's a bit confusing, yeah!

I like knowing the exact meaning and correct use of words and grammar, too. Precise language can be so beautiful!

Yes! It can. :D I'll never stop learning new words: the more subtlety and nuance in your vocabulary, the more subtlety and nuance in your thoughts! And while I might take the time to mourn the loss of the distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested", at least I can comfort myself with the idea that the natural progression of language will provide me with plenty of new words and phrases with which to express myself. (And yes: I am the sort of person who would say "with which to express myself" in regular conversation. Hence the confusion when people discover that I'm pro-descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar!)

I don't think it's a matter of avoiding and halting or "standing out of the way". You're always changing language as well.

One of my favorite linguistic terms I've learned is "idiolect": that is, the vocabulary and features that distinguish an individual's use of language. I tend to be an extremely idiosyncratic speaker, and it delights me when my students start picking up the way I talk!

I really liked Eats, Shoots and Leaves, and though I can see why you stopped, it could be worth persisting with. I started reading it because I feel the same little spurt of rage when I see those errant apostrophes. The trick, which I think is one of the points of the book, is working out what to do with that rage.

I like using language as a communication tool. The conventions of grammar are useful, and allow precision; there has to be a rule system before you can mess with it. And while there will always be innovators and areas of innovation, and innovation is good, there has to be resistance to innovation too or you're just left with no system any more. It's true that it's irritating when people show their resistance by whining, and even more when it's ill-informed whining, blaming it all on Americanisms or lolspeak or whatever, but the thing that spurs the whining is the same thing that spurs me to, e.g., backspace there and make sure I put full stops in that e.g., and then add an extra clause to the sentence because I'm pretty certain I can't write e.g. and then add another full stop on the end to show I'm finishing the sentence too, but I don't know what else to do. Detached from the whininess, the whines are possibly even useful, when some future linguist comes to do analysis of what's said where and when by way of seeing what people are complaining about.

I think Lynn Truss ends up celebrating the urge to correct punctuation as a useful tool in keeping language understandable, but also makes it clear along the way that language does change, will continue to change, and there are so many variations in convention that we're all just approximating anyway. There's a whole section about comma wars, various newspaper style guides and usage guides clashing over them and the personalities behind those clashes, which I really enjoyed.

I'm always going to notice when language is used in a way that's not in a convention I recognise. (I recognise more conventions than average but still not all of them; I'm sure someone somewhere has slapped their forehead over my 'whom' blind spot.) You're always going to notice a lot of convention fails too, I'd guess, and you can let them slide or get in a froth. You're prepared to admit 'should of' as a frother, but even then it's not like you're always going to point it out - it's not always tactful. Then again you could proofread some formal work and you'd pick out something much less obvious than that, wouldn't you? Not get angry but say 'this isn't right'. Deciding to let it slide as much as possible is good for the blood pressure, but the thing that urges frothing is still a useful thing, and it's understandable that people give in and froth now and then. It'd be nice if they always did it from an informed position but I'd rather people cared and frothed misguidedly than just gave up on caring.

With that in mind, forgive me for congratulating you on having discovered the word 'hyperbolically'. *grins*

I can't say that I disagree with any of the points you've made. I...would only expand and clarify!

I would never argue against rules for language use, mostly because it would be pointless: language wouldn't function without them. In short, we couldn't communicate without rules. It's an impossibility. What's considered part of the rule system and what's considered "messing with it"? That's a much thornier issue.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of "keeping language understandable". Why would language evolve in a way people couldn't understand? Even those who like to complain about incorrect apostrophes and misplaced commas are unlikely to have their understanding impeded by them. I'm not saying that incorrect use doesn't or can't make understanding difficult: I'm just saying that if that were the case, that sort of usage is likely to be weeded out on its own.

Written communication has always been much more tightly controlled than speech, likely because written communication can be more tightly controlled. Considering all of the incredible variation that exists between different forms of English, the actual spelling differences are relatively few and far between.

That said, people write in an incredible variety of situations, and have an amazing ability to adapt from one context to another. I have a friend who's an attorney who sends me text messages in the most dense and incomprehensible netspeak, often with numerous typos and misspellings. Are we to assume that because she'd text me a dense block of netspeak that doesn't contain a single 'proper' English word that this is how she writes at work? Of course not! Her skill at legal writing is one of the qualities that landed her her recent job.

You'd write differently if you were texting, or chatting on the internet, or writing an email to your boss, or writing a novel, or writing a technical manual, or writing a poem, or writing for a newspaper. The conventions are different for all, and engaging in one (no matter how 'non-standard') doesn't preclude anyone from conversing fluently in the others.

Should children be taught 'proper' grammar? Sure! I think people should be exposed to all sorts of different language conventions. My problem comes from the idea that there is a 'proper' way to speak, and that it's appropriate for all contexts. (Or that because it's appropriate for more formal contexts, that means it's somehow more correct than language use which is deemed appropriate in other situations.)

People learn to use language the way they need to use it. It is quite possible to not need to know the correct use of the apostrophe, or the rules for comma usage, or the meaning of the word 'hyperbolically'. It's quite possible to communicate effectively and successfully in one's daily life without that knowledge. And the idea that letting these people 'get away' with their 'incorrect use' is somehow damaging the rest of us? Well, I don't see the base for it. To borrow a phrase: piffle, I say! (I'm not saying this is the POV you're advocating, but it is most definitely the one I'm arguing against!)

Basically: is it wrong to notice when language isn't used in a convention you're familar with, or even to be annoyed by it? No, I wouldn't say that. I brought up my annoyance with the use of "should of" to illustrate the idea that I find it a natural and relatable position, not to define some arbitrary standard that makes it OK for me to have my pet peeves but deny them to others. But I don't put any more weight behind my annoyance than that of a personal pet peeve.

It'd be nice if they always did it from an informed position but I'd rather people cared and frothed misguidedly than just gave up on caring.

I agree with you that the "urge to froth" can be a useful thing! Clearly not as useful as one might hope, though, considering the author of the original article couldn't be arsed (a Briticism I'm happy to adopt...) to do his research and discover that 4 of the 5 words he cited at the beginning of the article (and that I innocently reproduced here!) as old American imports are in fact good old homegrown vocabulary!

I like caring about language! I like listening to other people who care about language. I would never disparage anyone for caring about language. I just wish the conversation would move away from "correct" vs "incorrect", or "proper" vs "improper" and rather toward a larger discussion that recognizes it's not quite so simple as that, and acknowledges that the 'improper' forms might serve just as well as their more proper counterparts.

Edited 2011-07-31 04:09 (UTC)

Do you have an unfavorite Americanism? - As an American, my first impulse was to skip this question, but I changed my mind. Just to be obnoxious, I'm going to weigh in as an Islander expressing my ire concerning a... Mainlandism? Mainlanderism? (Just what is the adjective form of "the Mainland"?) Namely, flip-flops. I am inclined, out of a sense of place and pride and cultural identity, to insist on slippers/slippahs/rubber slippers/rubbah slippahs, but that's mostly just me having fun. I don't actually care; on the Mainland, "slipper" means something else, it makes sense for Mainlanders to have a separate word for the thong sandal. The Mainland can feel free to call the item whatever it wishes (I will just laugh at it for sounding silly). ...Where I get peeved is when a Mainlander will insist at great length that a flip-flop not only should not, but cannot be called a slipper, and that we in Hawai‘i are stupid for doing so. Ffffffffffffffff— [INCOHERENT RAGE GOES HERE] 1) Linguistically, the word "slipper" implies something that you slip on to your foot; therefore, it makes perfect sense to call the thong sandal a slipper. 2) WE INVENTED THE DAMN THING, WE CAN CALL IT WHATEVER WE WANT, the fact that you thought they were kind of neat and started wearing them too and made up a silly new name for them DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE HAD THEM FIRST AND GODDAMMIT THEY ARE CALLED SLIPPERS, OKAY. 3) STOP TRYING TO INVALIDATE MY CULTURAL IDENTITY, DICKHEAD. Yes, it is actually that big of a deal, it's a god-damn cultural icon over here, the slipper is as important to us as our food and our music and our mythology, it's not just a shoe to us, okay?

aslkdhglksdfldfs I have had this argument with people far too many times, IT IS SO ANNOYING.

What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves? - Misuse of apostrophes is probably the most cringe-worthy. I'm all for new words and changing the use of words and the evolution of meanings, and even some changes in the use of punctuation can be arguable, but there is just no excuse for sticking an apostrophe into a plural word where it doesn't belong. It's just– you're just doing it wrong. Also, I'm with you on "should of" all the way. What, that just doesn't even make sense, it's born of people spelling things based on pronunciation without stopping to think of what words actually mean.

Pro or anti-pedant? - Oh boy, ask me to choose a side in practically any argument, and I will immediately be inclined to say NEITHER AND/OR BOTH. (I think that covers all the bases, doesn't it?) I am a knee-jerk fence-sitter, and this is not an exception. Black and white, what are they? Shades of gray, people. Shades of gray.

How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way? - I think this question more-or-less goes along with the previous one, but on the whole I'd have to say I agree with Stephen Fry (I find he is very sensible about most things ^_^). I believe in the evolution of language, and I think it is ridiculous and pointless to fight it. I mean, seriously, good luck trying to stop it. And it shouldn't be stopped; everything changes, and we need languages to keep up, to remain relevant. We do need rules and structure to a certain extent; I'm all in favor of enforcing grammar and punctuation and spelling in formal writing, but we need to recognize that informal writing and speech has a place in our discourse that is no less valid.

Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share? - Ummm, dunno, not that I can think of at the mo', just sort of a comment in-line with some of my thoughts on the topic. It's just that I've been thinking about it all day and I just can't seem to muster any similar feelings of annoyance towards Britishisms. Is it because some part of my recognizes Great Britain as the progenitor of the language and therefore, on some level, correct? Is it just that I do not feel threatened by any perceived cultural invasion, so I needn't feel prickly about it? Regardless, I find the differences between our dialects to be amusing and fun. I watch a lot of British television, and I've picked up a lot of Britishisms from that medium and others, some of which I use frequently in my own speech because I like how they sound. For instance, I find I rather prefer "telly" to "TV"... because it sounds cute, I dunno. Although generally I find that I use the terms to differentiate between American shows and British shows, for my own amusement, I guess. Doctor Who, Top Gear, Sherlock, and Luther are British telly, and Supernatural, White Collar, Bones, and Hawaii Five-0 are American TV.

...I've spent far more of today than I should have going through all of the links and comments and thinking about this. Language is always fun to talk about. I'm thinking I may steal your links and repost them on my journal; I've a number of foreign friends, Brits and Aussies and otherwise, and I'd be curious to know their thoughts on the BBC articles. Would you mind if I linked to here as well, in case they're interested in this fun and fascinating discussion?

First and foremost:
I'm thinking I may steal your links and repost them on my journal; I've a number of foreign friends, Brits and Aussies and otherwise, and I'd be curious to know their thoughts on the BBC articles. Would you mind if I linked to here as well, in case they're interested in this fun and fascinating discussion?

Steal away! The links are by no means mine. (Although I'm thinking I should go back and add direct links to the posts on Separated By a Common Language that talk about the BBC articles...for posterity or whatnot. :P)

And feel free to link back to this entry: just be sure to instruct anyone you send over here to ignore any of the comments where I seem to be acting pig-headed and/or bitchy! ;)

Ok, now on to the rest:

I had no idea that Hawaiians called 'flip-flops' slippers, and I am delighted to learn that fact! I'm sorry so many people see the need to argue with you about it. Really, I don't understand the impulse to tell people their culturally-agreed-upon vocabulary is wrong. I can totally see where you are coming from: just watch me, further up in the comments, trying to defend the American phrase "I could care less", a phrase I'm not even particularly attached to!

I also remember when I started attending the University of Michigan, which has a large national as well as international body of students. Now, you see that map of the US

roh_wyn posted above titled "Generic Names for Soft Drinks By (US) County"?

Yeah: a lot of words for one fizzy beverage! Well, plenty of my fellow students (especially from the east coast) had apparently never heard of 'pop' (Michigan's preferred term) before. I can't tell you how many obnoxious "It's not pop, it's SODA!" spiels I had to listen to that first year. The worst part was always the twinkle in their eye and the air of "sophisticated city dweller bringing culture to the locals" that always went with it. RUDE! :P

I am a knee-jerk fence-sitter

Ha! I knew you reminded me of someone. ;) My best friend always takes this position! As for me, though I'm more than capable of seeing both sides of an issue, it's always important to me to pick one. (Probably further evidence that I'm just argumentative by nature!)

but we need to recognize that informal writing and speech has a place in our discourse that is no less valid.

This, to me, is key! Yes, there are Very Strict Rules for what is and is not correct (despite how often those Very Strict Rules contradict themselves and each other), but those rules are only useful and meaningful in certain proscribed contexts. Just because we've come to associate those contexts with prestige, doesn't invalidate all those other contexts in which a different, more informal set of grammar rules applies.

I love the word "telly", and am pretty sure I've used it in situations that made me seem like a pretentious anglophile! (Whatever: those people are jus jellus!) Also: I cannot stop using the word "rubbish", as in "I'm rubbish at chess". It just so neatly fills a hole in my vocabulary! "I'm terrible at chess" sounds too harsh and self-hating; "I'm bad at chess" lacks nuance and is boring. "Rubbish" just works so perfectly.

Another word I've adopted into my linguistic repertoire? "Fancy", as in: "I quite fancy him!" Again: great giant hole in the American vocabulary! We have no equivalent word that takes it's place. "I like him" is too vague; "I have a crush on him" can be too strong a phrase for someone you merely find attractive.

I love to talk about language: and the more, the merrier! :D

Regarding slippers/flip-flops and pop/soda... I think people just really like to argue, and they will argue about absolutely anything no matter how stupid it is. I've had the soda/pop/coke argument many times, although usually I would like to think with a sense of fun (see my comments below the map). But I think sometimes people stray across the fun line and enter into the territory of Being A Dick.

Re: fence-sitting, I just always have trouble when people want to polarize an issue that doesn't actually fit into a binary framework. Like the "nature vs. nurture" argument. Seriously, what? IT'S OBVIOUSLY BOTH.

Oh, yes, "rubbish" is a good one, and "fancy" as well. I also like "proper" and "fit"... as in, "That man is properly fit. *drool*"

Words and Stephen Fry, it's a post about two of my favorites! I love words. I love them. I love making up new ones (especially when it comes to creative swearing, you're a shit-sucking cockblossom, etc etc :) ), I love learning about words I've never heard before, I love finding out different words in different cultures for the same thing. Until I started getting into British fandoms did I really appreciate it; it fascinated me that a trunk of a car could also be called a boot or a sweater a jumper. Some words, like "lollygag", are just fun to say. Or sentences with a lot of alliteration, like the line from "Werewolves of London" that goes "little old lady got mutilated late last night," I love that. It just rolls off the tongue so nicely. :) I probably sound really pretentious sometimes because I love using British English if I think they sound interesting. Like "proper," I like that, like "She's a proper slapper." And skip sounds so much nicer than dumpster. I should put on job applications that I'm fluent in American and British English!

Do you have an unfavorite Americanism?
Out of the list from the BBC article, I'm not fond of "fanny pack." I just don't like the way it sounds.

What about your grammar and/or punctuation pet peeves?
This is more word choice than grammar, but people using "bemused" when they mean "amused" bug me. I see this ALL THE TIME in fic..."The Doctor smiled at Amy, bemused." IT MEANS HE WAS CONFUSED OR PREOCCUPIED, NOT AMUSED. Misplaced apostrophes, or "your" instead of "you're." Or "irregardless." Also I hear a lot of people where I live who pronounce "having" like "haffing." I don't know if that's a Midwest thing or just the people in my part of northern Illinois mispronounce it.

Pro or anti-pedant?
Anti, for the most part. I'm a bit of one myself so I can't be completely against it (see all of my pet peeves!). But pendantic often comes off like "asshole," especially to the people being corrected, so I try to contain myself when I want correct my friends' Facebook updates for spelling.

How do you feel about the natural evolution of language? Should we try to prevent it from happening in certain instances, or stand out of its way?
I took an anthropology class over the summer and some of the students were moaning about LOL and OMG being added to Oxford Dictionary. I didn't understand the fuss, myself - language is always changing and evolving and words that are popular today might be out of use by next year.

Any favorite language anecdotes or facts to share?
The Haiwaiian alphabet only has twelve letters. No word in the English language rhymes with "month" (but there are two words that rhyme with orange!). Screeched is the longest one syllable word. The most used letters of the English alphabet are E, T, A, I, O, and N. A male kangaroo is called a boomer, and a female is a flyer. J was the last letter to be added to the English alphabet. The medical term for writer’s cramp is graphospasm. Butterflies used to be called Flutterby. The dot over the letter i is called a tittle. "Callipygean" means having a nice ass, and the sensation caused by tickling is called gargalesthesia.

...did I mention I really like words? :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Americanisms, and the evolution of language

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

OMG, my reply to you was over the LJ character limit...

no subject

Oh goodness my comment ran over the limit. ^_^;;

Re: Oh goodness my comment ran over the limit. ^_^;;

no subject

TL;DR = YAY WORDS!