Talk:American English

Although caretaker of the NAL, I do not feel competent to comment very much on this proposal. Might others do so please? Zahir 09:39, 30 October 2006 (PST)

==

If The past participle gotten from to get is replaced by got is meant to reproduce *here* American English, i'd expect it to say that it's replaced with 'got' only when used as a present tense synonym for 'have'.

"i have a car" = "i've got a car" =/= (not equal to) "he's gotten sick every day this week"

There should also be something about the North American Uvular R Sprachbund in the article.

 Steg, a.k.a. Boroparkpyro 07:46, 31 October 2006 (PST)

"There should also be something about the North American Uvular R Sprachbund in the article."

What is that? --Quentin 08:58, 31 October 2006 (PST)

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conculture/message/26937

You can also search the ConCulture archives for "uvular sprachbund", might find something else.

Steg, a.k.a. Boroparkpyro 15:45, 6 November 2006 (PST)

contributions

I was really hoping for more ideas; bring them on! --Quentin 13:04, 6 November 2006 (PST)

I think that the differences really oughtn't be all that great, especially as far as grammar and orthography are concerned. The main reasons there's such a difference *here* is that there was a cultural sundering after Independence. We ceased being English and became in stead American. *There*, things pretty much continued as before, and that includes the same close ties of common culture and heritage. The people of the various British provinces can claim with great pride that they are every bit as English (or Scots or Kemrese) as they are American.

The main differences should probably be in the realms of vocabulary and accent, rather than grammar and spelling. America is certainly a melting pot *there* as it is *here* and I'm sure that Americanisms abound from Native languages as well as Castilian, Seferadi, French and etc.

I really dislike the idea that America has dropped thou/thee for you. Given the history of Englishes *there*, I think it not so likely. The process of favouring you *here* was a long and drawn out affair stretching back into ME times -- *there*, the environment was just slightly different and favoured thou/thee in stead.

The third singular is already -(e)s, with the well known exceptions. For that matter, -(e)s is the generalised non-past ending.

If they want to drop thorn for -th, I won't argue too much there. Why -ique though? We had that discussion for England English, and it didn't make sense there either. Perhaps for French loans, but I can't honestly see a change of spelling of decent English words like "thique" or "flique" or similar.

Gallicisms are fine -- after all, there are three French speaking countries in close proximity. I think that -y = -é is very unlikely (I'm guessing here that what is meant is words of French extraction like "oh, that's a veré lovely dress"). Unless it's being posited that American English is a direct descendant of Norman English, I don't know about this one. That's a little too much of a stretch -- how much of an effect on the NAL is really being posited here for them to switch to a more French spelling?

Meanings of words is another fine place to discover differences. There may also be a place for the retention of archaic forms in American English where England has innovated. Pronunciation variants are almost certain to crop up. More fertile ground for regional differences.

Elemtilas 19:35, 22 November 2006 (PST)