Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

You're making the mistake of thinking that Yank is the same language as
English. It isn't. It is a recent creole derived from a simplified
version of English spelling, grammar and pronunciation. It has a
limited vocabulary and is well designed for foreigners to learn quickly
and easily.

English is a language with a long history, complex grammar, a large
vocabulary and a subtle pronunciation. It is not spoken much in North
America.

At the moment, most English speakers understand most Yank. Just as most
Dutch speakers understand most Afrikaans. As the two languages evolve,
this is likely to become less and less the case.

In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

Let's be clear, he didn't say the *term* was erroneous, he said the
*use* was erroneous. Big difference.

It's an erroneous *use* in the parts of the world where the word in
question means something different.

Just as it would be an erroneous use, on a site conspicuously designed
for everyday use by Americans, to write "40 degrees" meaning "40 degrees
Celsius". The "it's commonplace in most of the world" argument wouldn't
wash, and rightly so.

[...]

And, in that particular case, when it's a long-established usage in the
word's region of origin. You won't find many Rugby or Aussie Rules
people calling "soccer" an Americanism.

But what interests me about these questions is a puzzle I've mentioned
before. I don't understand why we embrace some American expressions and
reject, or at least argue over, others, and I'm reluctant to believe
it's arbitrary. Some innovations will even be perceived at a gut level
as actual threats. A few ideas, set up as Aunt Sallies.

We have a tendency sometimes to believe a conspicuous neologism is an
Americanism, even when it isn't.

To a greater or lesser extent we happily accept, and even seek out,
items of American "slang" (not to argue about that word's meaning),
especially if they represent a new idea or show an old one in a
refreshing light, or if they act as marks of group identity. In this
process the meaning sometimes changes. Those who want to express
rejection of the adopting group's values may challenge the new usage,
whether or not they themselves also use "Americanisms".

Where the AmE expresses a useful new idea, or describes some new object
or process of American origin, the introduction will be accepted
without resistance.

Particular occupational groups will sometimes adopt American terms
relating to the occupation. Where the perception is that a term is used
just to reinforce group identity, or that, though no new idea is
expressed, unfamiliar terms (of whatever origin) are adopted in order
to give the impression of originality, these new usages will generally
be challenged by non-users.

Racism. I don't mean racism against Americans, but a sense that a
locution arises from an inadequate grasp of English among recent
immigrants or their children: "These people are foreigners. How dare
they fool around with our language?" The US advertises itself as a
nation of immigrants, after all; so it's not an unnatural thought.

This "racism" idea comes up when a usage isn't simply new, but appears
to break the productive rules, or to violently wrench a word away from
its familiar meaning. Like that of many others, my own reaction to a
famous innovation was "No real native English-speaker could possibly
use 'hopefully' to mean 'they hope': it's the Germans or somebody!"
That real native speakers did, and do, has, however unconvincingly, to
be treated as an unfortunate accident.

"The dictionary"?

There's only one?

Where is it kept, and how will people have access to it?

In many cases it's a waist of thyme, because the in regions where the
erroneous usage hasn't caught on, "the dictionary" often doesn't record it.

[google.public.support.general is not recognised by my server]

As we all stood and listened, UC sung the following words:

Ah, it's international because they say it is.  That must be why the
"World Series" involves teams from around the world, then.

Oh, just f.ck off.

Has it ever lived up to its inflated claims?

In Yank, 'International' means 'the whole of Yankland' - as in the
'international baseball championship'.

So, yes, in Yank terms, Webster is an 'international' dictionary.

However, in English terms, it is parochial and not international.

Video was just an example.

The report that I read about Google's servers suggested that they'd
started out with just such a system: stripped-down PCs with standard PC
motherboards.  As their requirements grew they developed their own
motherboards, with only the things they required on them.  The Google
boards don't have connectors for other boards; if a facility is required
that needs a daughterboard on a standard PC, it's incorporated onto the
motherboard.  The point is that Google require so many of the things
that the savings made by not having unused parts outweighs the cost of
the design.

That's true of the Google setup, as well.