"Americanisms" that Brits hate

I'm guessing that's about Dunkirk?

 

You're looking at history with a modern bias. For all intents and purposes, the areas that these lingua francas functioned in were the world to their inhabitants.

Well... actually, Norman (not French, although Norman was a langue d'oil) was used in Norman England, surprisingly enough. It lasted in the upper echelons of society until about the 1400s, but by that time an English identity had already come about.

 

Yes....but it was apropos to our discussion.

 

Sadistic Saviour,

Your post simply demonstrates the paranoia that has swept across the USA. You "people" used to be open-minded but now have reverted to Muslim bashing, hate-filled, zealots. Your's is sad and pathetic nation, on het knees to the Chinese juggernaut that is now controlling your once great nation. Shame on you.....shame !

 

China owns 8% of our debt -- I'd hardly call that being on our knees, despite what the fearmongers in the media may wish you to believe. Besides, they've pegged their currency to the dollar and need us for their exports. If anyone is reliant on the other, its certainly not the US that needs China.

 

So it's "not bad" to owe COMMUNIST CHINA over 1 TRILLION dollars? That's OKAY with you?

 

Isn't that exactly what you are doing?

You are assuming that the rise in English as the global lingua franca was due to people wishing to trade with Americans, but you have ignored the massive differences between a pre- and post-globalised world.

 

No. 47. How do you "set your teeth on edge with a vengeance"??? What edge??

 

I'm not ignoring anything; you merely, clearly, don't understand what a lingua franca is. Simply, a lingua franca emerges when one nation rises above all others in importance, and the inhabitants of the surrounding nations feel the need to all be able to speak the language of the one predominate country because of its preponderance.

This concept is steadfast throughout history; it doesn't change. The entirety of the modern world learning English to deal with Americans isn't any different in nature to the entirety of the then-known world learning Latin to deal with the Romans.

Also, people didn't learn English just to trade with Americans. They wanted to be able to stay up to date with our politics, consume our popular culture, and so on.

 

In fairness, I suspect the spreading of the 'British Empire' around the globe played a fairly major role in the spread of the English language as a means of 'common communication' around the globe, along with the UK's lead in industrialisation through the industrial revolution. For a couple of centuries, the UK was the place that most of the world was either under the rule of, periodically at war or uneasy peace with, or trying to trade with, and all of those things require some form of communication! From the beginnings of conquest and Empire, English was without a doubt one of the main languages spreading around the world (along with French and Spanish), and its spread probably continued for longer than the others. I don't think it can really be claimed that the US was the driving force behind the original spread of English around the world, although it's obviously been the major driving force for its continuing spread and use in more recent, post industrial revolution, times.

In reality, its a linguistic spread that started from the UK and continued as the major driving influence in its spread gradually became the USA. It was one continuous proces, driven by the influence of both countries at different times. The fact that English is so widely understood around the world isn't because of the UK or the USA, but because of both, and the influence that they have had at different times.

 

Rubbish, Leo - the only fact known about God is that He speaks 'Welsh'/Cymraeg.

 

Thats... not at all correct.

A lingua franca is merely a means which allows groups which typically speak different languages to communicate with one another. To do this they use a language common to both - the lingua franca.

Why would a non-globalised world need to communicate on such a scale? It wouldn't. Thus, there was no global lingua franca.

 

That's a fair assessment if you add that America's influence on the spread of English came voluntarily, while Britian' was due to Imperialistic edict imposed on subservient nations.

 

I already answered this. As I said, you're looking at history through a modern perspective. As has been stated, the areas that people were confined to before globalization were the world to those people. Within that world, it was necessary to be able to speak the language of the strongest state. There obviously couldn't have been a lingua franca that covered the whole world -- nobody argued that, and I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. But there were certainly lingua francas covering the known worlds of various peoples. This is indisputable, so I'm not sure why you're trying to say otherwise.

For example: Do you have any idea how many languages there were during the days of, say, the Roman empire? 1000s within the world known to the Romans. Yet, all the educated "barbarians" (as the Romans were fond of calling outsiders) spoke, read, and wrote Latin. Surely you're not telling me that this is coincidental. Surely you're not telling me that the barbarian elites all merely had simultaneous, though entirely unrelated, linguistic fascinations and that they all simply decided to learn the same language for kicks, entirely independent of Roman influence?

You seem to be under the impression that prior to the 1950s people inhabited mud huts, had impotent political systems based on tribal rites, and engaged in trade that rarely surpassed swapping a rutabaga for a nice nose-bone stud in sophistication. Extensive commerce was fully alive in the pre-globalized world, as were massive empires, complex political institutions with widespread reach, and, indeed, great civilizations and cultures that radiated across their known worlds. True, inhabitants of the Roman Republic and Han China could not have had contact with each other, but that is entirely irrelevant, because for all practical intents and purposes each did not exist to the other.

 

I'm not assuming anything, and none of what you said contradicts my point.

Is your point not that English became the global lingua franca because everyone around the globe wanted to speak to Americans?

I think its because everyone around the globe wanted to speak to eachother to a degree they never had before, and that English was already well placed to be the language of choice.

 

I don't disagree with that.

Quite. However, during that period French remained the language of diplomacy and culture. French, not English, was the official language of the Russian court. Wars were declared in French, peaces negotiated in French, and treaties forged in French.

It was a given in the Western world that France was the center of modern affairs, and thus its language was to be learned by all. As far as I'm aware, despite being the foremost global power, Britain never fought this notion, never promoted English over French.

I don't deny in any way the accomplishments, the power, or the (then) prestige of the British Empire. I'm simply saying that nobody felt the need to learn its language.

No, I completely agree. English was already an established, well-dispersed, global language. However, like Spanish, despite covering a large amount of land, English wasn't perceived as a politically important language.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. English was never a language much learned outside of the the Empire and the Commonwealth. Had the US not become the foremost Western power, I don't see any reason why this would have changed. Indeed, Soviet Russia would have been seen as the premier power in America's absence, and I have no doubt that it's language would have become the global lingua franca.

Further, if you look at the areas the Empire and Commonwealth covered, you'll notice that despite being large, they're rather unimportant on a geopolitical level and, with the exceptions of India and a few African states, are scantily populated. This type of distribution doesn't bode well for a language trying to makes its case as already influential on the world stage.

As an aside, I also have to wonder if English would have remained an official language in India if not for the US. It was retained so as to allow the functions of government theretofore conducted in English to be able to continue smoothly during and after the decolonization process; it's use was to cease after 15 years and Hindi was to become the national language. Now, what prompted the Indians to retain English past the 15 year marker? I honestly am unsure, but I can speculate that it had to do with the fact that the US (now the foremost global power in the post-war world and a nation which had pushed the process of the dissolution of the British Empire along) spoke English. Perhaps I am mistaken, though.

 

English was well placed because of... the dwindling might of the British Empire and its decolonization of India and Africa? Or, perhaps, because of the economic, political, and military might of the Australian and Canadian Commonwealths?

As I said in my last post, if you take the US out of the picture in the post-war era, everyone would have learned Russian. Even still, if you include the US but imagine that it spoke, say, Spanish, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the world would have learned Spanish (which could equally be argued was well-placed to become a global language).

Furthermore, the educated and the politically elite could already converse with each other in French. Roosevelt spoke some French, Patton spoke French, I would assume Churchill, Chamberlin, and Atlee did as well. All the well-bred people people could converse internationally in French. If people just wanted a language to all be able to talk in, it was already there. With the expansion of educational services in the West, anyone could have learned French as they could have learned English. This begs the question why the world opted for English instead of French, the language which was already in place. (And it is a question which I believe I've already clearly answered. )

 

What about "all of the above".

And don't sell yourself short, America counts too

 

Don't forget the biggest democracy in the world either, it's one of their official languages!

 

It amazes me that with all the problems we have in this world, that so many can get upset over such small stuff.

 

The Sun Never Sets On The British Empire.


I'm sure that's because of all the countries around the world that the British once controlled. Plus being a big world trader. I think English spread faster than other languages.

 

english is simply the language of big business and the fact that the English owned most of the world before 1914, was a big advantage as America began to americanize the globe after 1945. Another reason is that any nut can learn english within a few weeks, thats not the same for French, Russian or Chinese.

So english is an international language for Dumbies. Every foreign President can say "Obama we need your money, Please".

 

There was something I read quite awhile ago as to why British English and American English is different.

The writer of the paper mentioned that American English developed along different lines from Middle English because of America's isolation and distance from Britain. After the 1770s War of Independence this became even more evident.

Now for me, the jury is out on this theory. Australia and New Zealand were also very much isolated from Britain before the late 19th - early 20th century, but still maintained close ties and contact with the British Empire. Although Australian and NZ accents differ from English accents, our spellng and pronunciation is very similar.

Australia is very unique when it comes to language. We have some differences in vocabuary because many Aboriginal words have been adapted. But what's so unusual about Australia is there is no difference in accents between the states, regions etc. The west coast developed totally independently from the east coast, and yet the accents are the same. There maybe some slight differences in vocabulary but not so much in accents.

 

'Middle English' is normally used to cover the language between (roughly) Anglo-Saxon and Chaucer.

 

American english changed from British english, because most of the population was uneducated. Not only the slaves but ordinary imigrants like the Irish, italians, greeks, spanish, mexicans all came to america without knowing how to speak or write in english. So one could argue that american imigrants just raped the British language, and american engish is the result.