rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sheldon

I don't know what I'd do without that facility. I can usually manage to edit without announcing it but I suspect there is either a time limit or a logging-off barrier.

(Even then, I referred to it as an inverted comma instead of an apostrophe!)

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Simon Rosbottom


Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 287
Location: London, UK
Reply with quote
Sheldon, you got there first.

Really, I wanted our overseas cousins to "home in" on my implication that Websters isn't a proper "English" dictionary. Still, there's time yet. Wink

I must admit, whilst "hone" is technically correct, I prefer "ream" when it comes to the precision enlarging of holes.

Regards

_________________
Simon
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
OK gentlemen now I'm duly "homed in" now....now let me just figure out why schedule goes from "sked-ule" to "shed-ule" from here to "over there"...some English dialectism, eh? Wink

And Sheldon et al..."How was "No Country For Old Men?"
Nice action film, eh??? At first I was somewhat lost but Coen and Coen kind of grow on you. Well, we don't usually get a "conventional" film from those guys anyway.
Keith Smith


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 540
Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Reply with quote
Rich

So stick that in your Funk & Wagnell's (to coin a phrase)! Smile

KIS
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Rich

Wrong way round, surely? Do you not mean from here (that is, in England, where the English language is spoken) to over there (that is, offshore, where a variant of the correct pronunciation has somehow emerged). Nothing at all unnatural about that, as variety is the spice of life, and the British have taken their language all over the world, so it has occurred just about everywhere else too, but just so long as it is understood which way round it developed. Very Happy Very Happy

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter...

Yes, I agree with that and here's an interesting bit on our "languages".

Differences in thought produce different languages. Arguably words like assembly, court and senate most likely had different meanings in countries. Post 1776 we've gone a little different way from the mother country's ways of doing things in language. Speaking of F&W and Webster, it was the latter who greatly influenced America's grammar, spelling and language. It looks as if he weaned us off British constructions, i.e. dropping the u in colour, humour etc, no final "k" as in musick, physick, logick (hey that looks funny!), center for centre. And he had us say
"necessary" and "secretary" instead of "necessry" and "secretry". So most probably I think Mr. Webster had a hand in that "schedule" business too.. Wink... Now just think if he landed and lived there in merry olde England, eh?
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Rich, I thought "No Country..." was a terrific movie, and I'm glad it won Best Picture at the Oscars. Check out "Juno" too, if you haven't seen it.
View user's profileSend private message
Simon Rosbottom


Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 287
Location: London, UK
Reply with quote
I was glad when NCFOM was over. What a depressing, bloodthirsty film -with no music. However, I must say that Bardem was excellent - he oozed menace.

I thought that "Das Lieben Der Anderen - The Lives of Others" was an excellent film.

Regards

_________________
Simon
View user's profileSend private message
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Simon, I don't disagree about "The Lives of Others". But NCFOM did have a score, by Carter Burwell!
View user's profileSend private message
Simon Rosbottom


Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 287
Location: London, UK
Reply with quote
Another great feature of the English language - the double negative!

There was some music here and there but not, by any stretch of the proper meaning, what I would call a score.

I imagine whether you liked it or not is down to the toss of a coin? Wink

Regards

_________________
Simon
View user's profileSend private message
Keith Smith


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 540
Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Reply with quote
Rich

I'm sure that Webster had a significant influence but you should note that in most of the official correspondence in the AZ war the word 'honour' was in fact spelled 'honor' (see for example WO 32/7767, 7770, 7771, 7772, etc.). Similarly, the spelling 'labor' was used by Major C.F. Clery in a letter to Crealock (National Army Museum 6807-386-8-45).

KIS
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
Very good Keith..so perhaps Peter's point can be adjusted somewhat then that America's language constructions did indeed affect the way English was used in the mother country? I don't have access to the prestigious OED but it would be interesting to see how those words appeared in the dictionary throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
and btw I'm looking forward to get the 'Studies'...will be speaking with Celia at Brecon....unfortunately people are bailing on the dollar and its affecting me book-buying life!... Wink
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
Possibly off the track ("trac"?), but as this all seems to wandering a bit far afield anyway, I will now pontificate on the evolution of the English language. The States lay claim to the least highly evolved English found in the back country of the Appalachian Mountains. I'd have to look up chapter and verse, but the pronunciation and spelling atrophied so long ago that even Will Shakespeare (who couldn't even seem to spell his own name the same twice in a row) would recognize more of it than "our" language. Parenthetically, if one were interested in listening to authentic and sincere English folk music (and Scottish, Irish etc.), one would have to likewise visit the Land of Hillbillies. If one were looking for the most highly evolved English, a trip to the Inner City (Ghetto or whatever you might call it) of New York or LA would be in order. Through application without constraints, which is what a language is all about, the speakers have eliminated pretty much all voice and case, much of the tenses, and conjugation of verbs has been simplified to the extreme. The resultant dialect is English in its most advanced form. Now if that view doesn't raise a hackle or two... After all is said and done (cliche warning), a language in a hands off culture should and does mutate towards total simplicity.
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sawubona

I'm sure you're right. The language of communites exposed to cosmopolitan influences will change much faster than those in isolated societies. It would be fascinating to wonder how far "the language which divides two nations" would have diverged by now, had there been virtually no contact between GB and the US since, say, 1776, or at least as little contact as there had been before the days of radio, talking films, TV and widespread modern travel.

When it comes to dialect, which I suppose encompasses accent, vocabulary and local slang, distance and time sometimes appears to have less effect within this country than one would imagine. Obviously, modern travel, communications and migration have progressively diluted many regional differences in spoken English throughout Britain, but surprising differences remain. For example, Liverpool is only 200 miles or so from Kent, but last year I failed to understand a single word spoken to me by a young lady in Liverpool on the phone. She repeated each sentence as often as I (politely I hope!) asked her too, but it was no good and in the end I don't know who was more embarrassed! She was as English as I am and was simply speaking in her normal, native tongue. I need a crash course in Scouse!

A little further north, say 250/300 miles from here I suppose (no distance at all in American terms), natives of the city of Newcastle (known as "Geordies") also retain many of the characteristics of their local dialect (not just accent, but vocab and slang). How much would I understand of a typical Geordie talking to me at normal speed in his normal lingo? Not much! And remember, this is not the result of outside influences such as immigration, but the survival of original factors. Further north, in Glasgow, Scotland, similar problems abound. Yet further north, in the Highlands, the differences disappear entirely, as they speak the clearest and most perfect English in a Scottish accent, always absolutely beautiful on the ear - and yet are the furthest from England. Strange, isn't it?

Rich

You'll know exactly what I mean, as I'm sure you've seen Gerrard, Carragher or Sir Alex interviewed. Can you pick up anything of what they say? More than once, when Carragher speaks to the mike for a few minutes, after straining like mad I've found myself turning to someone with me, asking "Did you pick up a single word of that interview?" Nope! And these are Englishmen born just 200 miles or so from me in this day and age. It sounds like a completely different language. I'm certain the interviewer is as often in the dark as I am! Fascinating. Probably Newcastle, Liverpool and Glasgow are our cities which have retained their individual characteristics of speech the most. The equivalent might be a Philadelphian being incapable of understanding a single word of a native of, say, Washington. Or someone in a New England state being unable to make himself understood to someone in the adjoining small state. Rural dialects are seldom difficult to understand over here, however.

With regard to the difference in spelling, it would not be easy to compare in the earlier centuries you mention, as over here there was simply no uniformity in spelling. "Color" one moment, "colour" the next. Same writer, same day, same document. Ditto for placenames and surnames. Not until the first half of the 19th century did a standard uniformity (or a "correct" and "incorrect" spelling) of any word or name even begin to develop. So Shakespeare had no need whatosoever to spell his name the same way each time he wrote it.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Film memorabilia
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 3 of 4  

  
  
 Reply to topic