Talk:British English/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about British English. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

General comments

Someone please check this! As an American I think of British English as any dialect in Britain (except Scots which may in fact be a separate language since it is mainly incomprehensible with English). Queen's English is what happens to one after public school has been inflicted on oneself. --rmhermen

A resident of Scotland speaking English may well use non-standard lexis and grammar and thus is speaking a British English dialect. So too a resident of Eire (Irish Republic). The page on British English British refers to it as "the different forms of English spoken in the United Kingdom." This is true but the UK is only a part of the British Isles, which includes the WHOLE of Ireland. So the entry should refer to The British isles, not the United Kingdom here. Oh yes, I also notice as I am about to submit this, that there is a warning not to submit "COPYRIGHTED" (sic) work.....oh dear!-- Freemorph

What on earth is wrong with "copyrighted"? -- Picapica 09:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The British Isles doesn't include any of Ireland. The UK consists of Great Britain (the British Isles) and northan Ireland.

That is an unresolved political issue - I too regard the whole of Ireland as rightfully part of the UK, and I'm not ethnically English either.

Scots English IS a distinct language from English, and always has been - it's just as old as English too.

macdaddy

That's not true. Scots didn't become a distinct concept until the 16th century, evolving mainly from Northumbrian Middle English Calgacus 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to get a purile here, but this the above really isn't so. Scots English is dialect like Geordie or indeed RP. I think your getting your politics mixed up with your linguistics.

The British Isles doesn't include any of Ireland - not so. See British Isles. Andy G 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some people do learn the Queen's English that way, but for most upper-class Britons, it's their native language, and they don't need to learn it at school, public or otherwise. As for the different dialects within Britain, I'm sure that you would find Geordie, Yorkshire or West Country just as difficult to understand as Scots. Most RP speakers certainly do. -- Derek Ross

And what is Received Pronunciation? (Shows up on the rhotic page) --rmhermen

The term Britons, at least for most British people is fairly obsolete. It is generally only used in conection with the word ancient. This is possibly reinforced by the Monty Python sketch which inludes, "Who are the Britons?" British people use the term British people.

The word Briton has strong historical connotations, and suggests Welsh person. Calgacus 19:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation is the accent of the Home Counties of England. It's also the BBC's preferred pronunciation. An RP speaker is normally thought of as someone who speaks the Queen's English with a Home Counties accent. -- Derek Ross

True. The name RP is outdated, and patronising. My received pronunciation is quite differnet to any "Geoffrey" from "Sassix". It should be renamed Posh English - 'cos I think even the term "Home counties" is elitest.

macdaddy

(Question for Brits: is the two-syllable form "learned" still used to mean "educated" in BrE??)

Yes it is, although not often.

Its most often heard in Parliament: When an MP addresses another in the house of commons, and the addressee is a barrister, the correct form of address is "My learned friend"

Oh, and we'll cheerfully use "fucking" as an adjective. "Bloody" is considerably milder, "this damn car" = "this bloody car"

Few people say "damn" - usually middle-class suburban old farts. more colloquial ones are: "sodding, bastard, shitting, cunting, and of course fucking and bloody." aaah the joy of swearing!

macdaddy

I have never seen the word "bank" spelt "banque" here in the UK; although all this changed when I went to France! Does anyone have another example of this kind of spelling we can replace this with?

No. There aren't any (he boldly asserts). I've moved "cheque" vs "check" into the miscellany.

I'll agree with both of the above points: I think 'learned' is usually writen 'learnèd', to put emphasis on the pronounciation, and I've never seen bank spelt banque either. I'm not sure about the fitted, forecasted, knitted, lighted, wedded bit, either. Lit, wed, forecast are British English too, but I'm not entirely sure about the context.

Archeology, encyclopedia and medieval are also highly acceptable variants in British English, almost preferred; upwards would be only preferred to upward. I'd personally also write 'skillful', not skilful; 'argument' not arguement, 'jail' not gaol.

NO WAY! NO BRITISH PEOPLE SPELL ARCHAEOLOGY, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OR MEDIAEVAL LIKE THAT UNLESS THEY'RE ILLITERATE! AND "ARGUEMENT" IS NOT A CORRECT SPELLING IN ANY DIALECT... HENCE, I DON'T THINK YOU GOT AN A IN YOUR ENGLISH GCSE! MACDADDY

The list should be split into cases where there are additional British English words and where the words aren't understood. Balls is perfectly unacceptable, whilst Dialling Code, fag, lorry, lounge, pissed, pudding, randy, ring someone and shag are all just alternatives... the american words are acceptable too. 'Concession' generally refers to a reduction for certain people (old people, kids... generally classed as 'concessions'), where as a discount is general. I think I'm right in saying 'tube' would just refer to the London Underground. -- almost but not quite: see The Tube. sjc

WHAT ARE YOU WHITTERING ON ABOUT?! MACDADDY

I think the most important thing to say is that American English and British English are growing together. With the world spanning media, within a few hundred years there will be no American English or British English - there will be only English. (Hell, by that time, there might only be one global language.)

BOLLOCKS! MACDADDY

-- I disagree strongly with your theory of convergence of language. English and American are becoming different languages by slow and sure degree. Also, if history teaches us anything, it is that languages are strongly culturally based entities, and that meaning will never ever be truly global. I (and most British people I know who are literate) would never write archaeology, encyclopaedia, or mediaeval in the fashion you indicate above. sjc

Whether you disagree or not, it's still true. Since the advent of the mass media British English has become more and more similar to American English in line with our culture which is doing the same. The whole western world is becoming Americanised. This may or may not be a good thing. But it's true. I myself would certainly spell the word above 'ae' but i would often use center and color (unless it was in an exam or something) and i freely interchange different spellings where appropriate.

And frankly, it is this kind of slackness in the use of language which debases it. Language is like currency: bad usage and spelling drives out good. If you are English you should use the orthodox spelling and not resort to the incorrect. In France the Academie des Belles Lettres would be down on this like a ton of bricks. sjc

YOU ARE A QUEER CHAP AREN'T YOU! MACDADDY

I recall reading a book by Mario Pei written in about 1950 which said that American English and British English had been converging for about a century, due to improved global communications. Presumably the rate of change of langauges is sufficiently small that even relatively small amounts of intercommunication are enough to prevent dialects drifting apart. --Zundark

The improved global communications hypothesis is an interesting one, but actually is underdetermined by the physical evidence. In 1978, Robert Burchfield, chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionaries made a speech in Chicago in which he thought that on the balance of all the evidence available that 'British' English and American English were moving so far apart and so inexorably that in 200 years they would be mutually unintelligible. This did not go down too well with the convergence theorists at the time. But in the last thirty years or so, that gap which Burchfield predicted between the implementations of the languages has actually widened by a great deal. Usage has changed significantly on both sides of the language. American English has considerably more Hispanic loan words now than thirty years ago; it has changed grammatically; it forms verbs from nouns more easily; it is altogether a more flexible language than 'British' English.

I think the confusuion here stems from the fact that the majority of the population of the UK do not speak 'British English' as it is defined here. We speak what could be considered American English with a English/Scottish/Irish accent. We form verbs from nouns, i.e. Text has been officially changed to a verb recently. And speak in a grammaticallt similar way. I think the American perception of the British is of people such as the Royal Family and 'well spoken' people such as Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley who do in fact speak 'British English' though these people form a small percentage of the population.

The real worry, however, from my point of view is not that the languages will diverge but that they will become one homogenous grey mess... sjc

But what about the Internet? What about globalisation? The next thirty years are going to be very different from the last thirty. And even if they continue to diverge, so long as the whole world watches Hollywood movies they will still be mutually intelligible. -- Simon J Kissane

The Internet will ultimately accentuate divergence more than ever before, and the prime movers will fight tooth and nail to protect their own particular implementations since they recognise that language is a key feature of self and cultural definition. Certainly the future of English as the dominant language itself is not unconditionally guaranteed. It is by no means a rational language and it is not easy for novitiates to acquire. Grammar, and usage are only to a certain extent ever going to be determined by minor cultural epiphenomena such as 'movies'. sjc

I didn't want to get involved in this rather silly debate, but I can't imagine anything I disagree with more than the above statement. The more the "prime movers" you mention want to protect their uniqueness, the more it will become apparent that they are completely impotent to affect the real users of language--you and me and the kid in the drive-through at MacDonalds, who just want to watch TV, buy stuff, and do all the other ordinary business of life that will cause us to do whatever it takes to commuicate. Nobody in the real world cares--or should care--about authority or purity in language. Language is a tool of the common man, and it will bow to what what people actually need and use to get their work done. If a Brit needs to know what "que pasa" means to understand an American sitcom, he will. If Americans need to know what "knickers" are to understand a British one, they will. Both will make it into dictionaries on both sides, and whichever new coinages are most useful will spread to the point where we won't even remember where they came from, just as most Americans have not the faintest clue that "bread" as a slang for money came from Cockney rhyming slang. "Educated" users of the language should strive for clarity and precision, but they still have to use the language that their audience will understand; they just have to use it more carefully. But they don't get to define it--their audience does. --Lee Daniel Crocker

There is nothing silly concerning this debate about language whatsoever. As The Blessed William Burroughs once opined: 'Language is a virus'. These 'real' users of language you seem to advocate do not do whatever it takes to communicate: the preponderance of this putative polis are barely articulate, let alone literate (current estimates suggest that fewer than 5% of the US population read books). My native language (see Cornish language) was systematically suppressed over four hundred years and has been brought back from extinction by people who care about language, meaning and culture; if language was a matter of life and death for my forebears, then so it is for me. Let me state this one time unequivocably: languages do not converge, they diverge. The only way in which two disparate languages can possibly merge is by absorption which is not at all the same thing as convergence, and this can only be brought about by the sort of expedients mocked so effectively in George Orwell's 1984.

The arguments about lexical equivalents are entirely consistent with the sort of arguments levelled at Burchfield 30-odd years ago, and it seems that the convergent hypothesis has apparently got no further in the intervening timespan. Never have languages converged in the history of humanity: what makes you think they will now? The Internet? In twenty years, let alone two hundred years time, the Internet will not exist in its present form. sjc

--- Found a resource on Cockney slang, but it's copyrighted: http://www.byrne.dircon.co.uk/cockney/cockney3.htm. It's on my todo list to request permission to add the info to the Wikipedia. <>< tbc

--- On the subject of the terms 'Underground' and 'Tube' British people use these terms specifically to refer to The London Underground in London and would not normally refer to other underground transit systems as such. I am British and i wouldn't for example refer to the New York subway as the underground or the tube, i'd just call it the subway and i'd call the subway in Paris the Metro because that's what it's called. Am i making any sense? - JamieTheFoool

But what term would you use for an underground railway system in general, as opposed to a particular one? A subway? -- Simon J Kissane

Yes, a subway - JamieTheFoool

But your usage certainly isn't universal. A subway is a pedestrian passage under a road. I would refer to the New York underground as the New York underground, unless I was speaking to an American. --Zundark, 2001 Sep 14

Well, Australians like me call it what the Americans do -- we say subway, not underground. We also pedestrian passages under roads subways as well. So obviously that is an example of a case where Australian English is closer to American than British. -- Simon J Kissane

I disagree. Outside Sydney, underground railways don't really have a name in Australia (in Melbourne the underground railway is usually called "the loop", and the rest of the system is usually referred to as "the train"). Using "subway" as a canonical example of where Australian English is closer to American English is not a particularly good choice. -- Robert Merkel

Well, the cannonical example would have to be truck vs. lorry. But anyhow, I grew up in Melbourne, and I have always called it a subway. The Melbourne subway may be nicknamed the loop, but what it is is a subway. Just as that human over there is called John, but what John is is a human, not a John. -- Simon J Kissane

I would not be so sure. In the UK underground passages under road have always been called subways.

ALSO: The Tube = London Underground minus The Bank to Waterloo Line, Docklands Light Railway, etc. London Underground = All the lines now and historically controlled by London Underground Limited inclusive often of few primarily overground lines such as Docklands Light Railway. The Tube and London Underground, or even 'the underground', are not coterminous. sjc

I am British and have lived all my life in Britain and from this perspective (rather than an interpretation of the phrase from outside the country) I would agree with an earlier comment on this Talk page that British-English is not the same as Received Pronounciation (RP). I would use British-English (or more often English-English, somewhat argumentatively) to differentiate the usage of words from, say American-English (or, again, what I might, somewhat pointedly call American).

RP refers to the way that the language sounds when spoken. To my mind British English characterises things like spelling, e.g. tyre instead of tire or expressions, e.g. queue instead of wait in line and whole rafts of other differences and confusions in terms of meaning and usage, e.g. pants instead of pants.

I think the issue is complicated by the fact that the other 'dialects' mentioned in the article might include Scouse or Geordie or other regional uses of British English which are characterised by both particular word use and particular pronounciation. It should also perhaps be noted that Scotland and Wales actually have 'their own' languages. Although Gaelic may not be widely spoken, Welsh certainly is. The issue of the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland probably opens too many cans of worms to even mention....oops...I just did...

Anyway, I'm not sure what the best approach is here, but I do feel that the article as it stands is somewhat misleading or at least fudges the issue. -- Mazzy

It is difficult. I too am British and have lived in Britain all my life. I just don't like the term British English which seems to me to be a term used by people from other countries to denote a non-existent linguistic homogeneity within Britain. Scots, Geordie, Kent and West Country dialects are extremely different. That's why I'd rather title the article English in Britain. However like it or not overseas English speakers do think of an entity which they call British English so we need an article on it.

Yup, I think you're right. -- Mazzy

100% True. When they say "British English", they mean "English English" - it certainly isn't spoken like that in Scotland, Wales or Ireland!

As for RP, that's why I referred to it above as an accent rather than as a dialect. I normally use the terms Standard English or the Queen's English to describe the dialect, often spoken using the RP, which overseas English speakers think of as British English. It seems that you have a different slant on it.

As for fudging things, if you think that, try rewriting the offending parts and see what others think. -- Derek Ross

Okay, I'll maybe take a little time to gird my loins and check the lie of the land. It's a big subject, perhaps I'll wait and see how things settle and then plunge in some time with my tuppence. Having spent the past few years trying to learn American off native-speakers (mainly online) I think any suggestion (as earlier on this page) that the languages have converged to any linguistic identity is a gross simplification & over-optimistic/pessimistic (depending upon your viewpoint of that end-result). Just try catching up an American and see how long it takes the two of you to figure out who was ahead in the first place (the phrase opperates entirely differnt in British English and American English. -- Mazzy

Well I've leapt in and added a paragraph about London accents, since I get the impression some outsiders think h-dropping is standard British. Perhaps I should have specifically mentioned h-dropping. Also, I've added something under the written language saying that it's basically the same in all English-speaking countries. I think these two points are where convergence and divergence come in. The written language will remain uniform, possibly being preserved like Latin or Arabic over the centuries, and films will ensure there's a continual sharing of new words; but the actual pronunciation will diverge as fast as it ever has in any other language. I often literally can't understand children who used the newest London variety. I think London speech is undergoing very fast change. Gritchka

Just testing... do we have an article on Estuary English? -- Tarquin 20:01 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

"t" dropping is standard English only a minority say "worta", most people say "wor'uh", (wiv a gloal stop like!), and Americans say "waadr".

Is it correct to say that New Zealand English contains many words from Maori? There are many place and bird names from the Maori language used, but I've heard of very few everyday words from Maori being used in everyday English.

I'm not sure how many, but my godfather was born in New Zealand, and he refers to whites (as opposed to any other race) pakeha, which is the Maori word for a Westerner or European. He uses that word as a matter of course - I've even heard it used when he's contrasting, for instance, whites and American blacks; he doesn't even have to be talking about Maori people. thefamouseccles 23:16 08 Oct 2003 (UTC)

New Zealand English does contain some references to Maori, but very few are used colloqiually. Most efforts to integrate Maori into everyday life are part of government awareness schemes and are generally ignored by European New Zealanders (pakeha). A few slang words ("ehoa" used where an english person might use "oi", originally meant "friend", "hamu" for a scrounge, "tutu" for someone who fiddles too much, "nono" for rear end etc) are often picked up in the course of young education, where some exposure to Maori is mandatory, but amongst the white population, these commonly become pejorative during late teens. Chargedphoton 209 (internet time)

Kiwi = Posh Australian! (fosh and chops etc...!) I would expect some parity with the US-Canadian relationship - especially as like Canada, NZ was largely peopled by Scots at first.

macdaddy

"Due to the combined effect of the wide reach of US media and American insularity, knowledge of American English in Britain is more common than the reverse." (my emphasis) - I think if I were American I might be a little offended by the unqualified assertion that I was insular; it certainly doesn't seem necessary to explain this particular asymmetry. --Shaydon 18:53 31 May 2003 (UTC)

as an American I find it a fair description, but certainly the important part of the sentence is the second part. Let's not lose that. Rmhermen 19:02 31 May 2003 (UTC)

It's still there I think. I'm a bit prone to ponderous phrasing - maybe it should be as it was with a link to a new article explaining American insularity. Maybe not... Shaydon 19:54 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I do notice, and get annoyed by people saying "fill out" instead of "fill in" - but actually, I think this comes from Australian influence more than US influence - at one point there were about 9 Australian Soap Operas on in the UK. The UK and Australia are arguably as culturally close as USA and Canada; loads of people migrating and holidaying in both, and a healthy interchange of TV (rather than the less healthy relationship with America).

macdaddy

Just a quick note - "Pidgin English" (or Tok Pisin) is not a dialect of English, but a creole language based upon it. The grammar is quite different, even though an English speaker can understand many of the words. Pidgin English doesn't distinguish singular and plural, does distinguish inclusive (yumi) and exclusive (mipela) first person plural pronouns (compare Fred i bin singautim yumi long pati Fred invited us (including you) to the party and Fred i bin singautim mipela long pati Fred invited us (but not you) to the party), and there is a transitive verb forming suffix -im which, for instance, can distinguish em i rit he is reading from em i ritim buk he is reading a book. Saying that Tok Pisin is a dialect of English is like saying that Afrikaans is a dialect of Dutch. thefamouseccles 23:29 08 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Pidgin English is actually a Pidgin language - i.e. a predecessor of creoles - but no pidgin is in fact a creole.

I believe it's called "Tok Pisin" in Papua New Guinea (or Ripablik belong Papua Niu Gini as they call it)

macdaddy This entry is offensive to British and English people. The term "British-English" is a derogatory term invented by Americans who wish to imply or even state overtly that their dialect is legitimately called "English", the correct name for American-English is not English, it is a dialect of English, but it is not English. To use the term British English - as exists on computers is to imply a. that English is a dialect of American English: denegrating this mythical language; and b. subserviency. It's tantamount to cultural theft - like the way American films are made to lay claim to parts of British history as if they were done by the Americans: the cheek! I actually want to go further - to insist that in all the code, the term "EN" refers only to the English of England - i.e. Standard English. The Americans can have "AM-EN".

Any native British person (like myself) will tell you that they do not speak "British-English" we speak English, and Americans do not speak English, they speak American-English. It's like Brazil turning to Portugal and saying "we speak Portuguese, and you speak Lusitanian-Portuguese"; it's derogatory, offensive; and blatently about power. Or the same with Quebec and France, Mexico and Spain, Afrikaaner South Africa and Holland. The truth is that there is no such thing as "British English" - there is not one English that applies to the whole of the British Isles. There are several layers of distinction, by nation (Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, England), and then by region. And it should be added that English dialects within Britain are far more divergant than those of America or anywhere else. (If you've ever seen a Geordie, an East Londoner, a Scouser, a Brummie, a Bristolian, a Tyke, a Dubliner, an Orcadian, an Ulsterman, and a Glasweigan having an argument, you'd swear down they were speaking different languages.) At no point is there ever the distinction of "British English".

I'm serious, I want the heading "British English" removed. It's not only false, it's offensive.

JACK, YORK, ENGLAND, GREAT BRITAIN,

PS: And as for the article below by Simon J Kissane, that's wrong too. a. Those who adopt Americanisms are predominantly middle-class university brats. b. In fact, the tide of the flow of words and grammar across the Atlantic has turned: Americans are adopting British-derived words and grammar: words like "whinge" for instance, and even the Hip-hop culture has decided to use "Alright" and start replacing their "d" sounding "t" with our famous glottal stop. PPS: In response to the points by Daniel Lee Crooker: We should care about the lack of national pride in supporting our own language, the way Channel 4 just shows wall-to-wall American TV, the way so-called new British movies distort the language by making British actors talk in an overtly American and UnBritish way. We have every bit as much ability to produce quality media and export our culture and language across the world aggressively - British people should have a little more pride instead of just wanting to be subsumed into either American or Globalised Euro-culture. Don't let you kids watch the plethora of cartoons which only have american accents on them, don't watch the tedious formulaic american garbage - boycott it. When we do make our own stuff it is often a superior product, and we need to send a clear message to the media warlords in our own country that we want it to predominate, instead of us becoming a faded Greece to America's imperial Rome.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A CLEAR CONCENSUS THAT THIS ARTICLE, AND IT'S TITLE ARE UNSATISFACTORY... (THERE IS ONLY ONE ENTRY IN SUPPORT OF THE TERM "BRITISH ENGLISH", AND PLENTY AGAINST... HOW CAN WE CHANGE THIS ARTICLE? MACDADDY ____________________________________________________________________

It should be made clear that while Cornwall is officially a county of England. It is also a Duchy, and an ethnically distinct Celtic nation, with its own language, which is autochthonous like Welsh. While the article contains the term "Cornwall" when refering to dialects of English within England, it should be made clear that Cornwall (& Devon) does not have the same status as somewhere like Kent or Shropshire. And a link should be provided for those interested to pursue. The term Corno-English might be appropriate, if we are going to advertise terms like "Hiberno-English".

Geography

Can anyone draw up a rough map of the distribution of the dialects? I think this could really help non-Brits to understand what the article is all about. Kokiri 18:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this would be very informative. --snoyes 18:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'm doing this right now!!! 8) (ricjl 15:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))
- Done. Any thoughts? SHould it not be thuimnailed... I dunno. (ricjl 16:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))

This article was very confused between the UK / Great Britain / the British Isles. I've changed it so that "British" uniformly means the British Isles. However, it may be that "British" should mean Great Britain. Hence a separate page for Hiberno-English. But I don't see why Irish English should be distinct while Scottish English should not. And there are Irish (ROI) contributuions to the British English articles.

British means UK. I'll give you a tenner (that's £10 =] 0 if you can find an irishman who would call themselves British! (ricjl 15:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC))

There's plenty up North, mate. The one's down south are more part of the English cultural world than the Scots anyway! Find me a Jock, a Taffy or a whatever Cornish people are who tells you they're English, and I'll give you a pony (Cockney monetary unit)!

Anyway, Scots English is actually a seperate language from Inglis (Scots for English)!

macdaddy

Canadian English

Also, come to that, why is Canadian English listed as a "Major English Dialect" when it is surely far less different from US-American English than Scottish English is from English English?

Confused : Andy G 20:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Canadian = posh American! (it's inbetween Am-En and English/Scottish English IMO.)

Macdaddy

Which of these is correct??

As several decades go by, American English and British English get more differences.
As several decades go by, American English and British English get fewer differences.

66.245.7.158 22:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The former, I feel; AE seems to be becoming yet more lax in its rules, yet more rapidly. But then, what BE is and what is understood by those who speak BE is increasingly diverging to the compliment of AE, perhaps.

James F. (talk) 23:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be properly researched. Unless any of us is a language graduate I don't think it's a good idea to make statements like this (also the grammer in the 'later' is way off!!!) (ricjl 11:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I'm no language graduate, but I will be (currently studying linguistics at uni), and ricjl is right, it's probably not a good idea to make a definitive statement one way or the other. While it is a well-known fact that geographically separated languages become increasingly divergent, and that this has occurred between British and American English in the past few centuries, the advent of mass communication has caused them to exchange features and become more similar in certain respects. It would be best to not definitively say that the languages are converging or diverging, as it seems the jury is still out on this one. Livajo 11:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neither. "...get more/fewer differences" is not any kind of English, while "As several decades go by" is unlikely English. I would suggest "The differences between AE and BE have increased/decreased in recent decades".

"grammer"? / "best to not definitively say"? - surely (as we BE-speakers would say), this must be a "wind up" (in Estuary: you're 'avin' a laugh, aincha?) -- Picapica 09:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One wasn't going to comment on the correctitude or otherwise of the submitter's syntax, merely semantics :-)

James F. (talk) 13:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know: that was a bit of a sly dig, James -- but I couldn't resist it :-) -- Picapica 17:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

STILL, whoever wrote that question was not a native speaker, as neither makes proper sense; nor is it natural English.

Vocab from the British Isles is increasingly finding its way into the US lexicon. "Correctitude" is not a word - it sounds like a Bushism!

Oh, but it is :)

Map

I like the idea of a map, and congrats to ricjl for making one. I do think it's perhaps a little crowded though, perhaps a map with colour shading actually on the map rather than big labels would be better. Mintguy (T)

The map that's on the page at the moment isn't massively accurate. This should prolly be discussed at the image's Talk: page, where I've started the discussion. If Photoshop worked on my PC at home, I'd have a stab at a better version (especially as half of England appears to be without accent), but it don't, so I won't… ;o) — OwenBlacker 16:59, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

there is a part of Britain called the "East Midlands" where people don't really have a particular accent - it's more like a watered down mix of East Anglian, RP (or Posh English), and Esturine English.

Mank (Manchester) is also not quite the same as Lancastrian - the dialect north of Manchester. Cumbria has it's own weird gargly drone, and Ireland has more than just two accents. Northeast Wales' and IoM English is like Scouse. The English near the Forest of Dean (The West Country) sounds like American, and is quite distinct from Cornish English and Somerset English. Likewise North Yorkshire English (especially in York) is different from urban South and West Yorkshire English (Tyke) - I know - 'cos I commute between the two. East Yorkshire (Hull) also has it's own distinct twang. There's also a difference between Newcastle Geordie, and the Tees area accent - which is softer and more aspirated. Interesting to note that most dialects in Britain and Ireland are not only based around smallish concentrated areas - like a city, but there's also a rural-urban divide. Imagine taking the train from Liverpool to Darlington: you'll pass through 5 different distinct accents in just over 1 hour! Scouse (Irish Sea southern coast, very distinctive), Mank (Southern Lancshire, somewhere inbetween Scouse and Tyke), Tyke (Urban S&W Yorkshire, very distinctive: own vocabulary), and then Yorkie (Rural North Yorkshire, softer and more nasal than Tyke with some different vocab), Cleveland or Tees (very distinct from Yorkshire, soft aspirated).

macdaddy

Umm the area you seem to refer to is Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbysshire, Liecestershire and Cambridgeshire. Contrary to your inaacurate opinion, all thoses counties have distinct dialects:

For Lincolnshire try http://www.lincolnshirecam.co.uk/dialect.htm or try 'A Lincolnshire Dialect Dictionary" by JM Sims-Kimbrey, ISBN 0 902662 68 6'. Wragby Resource Centre even does courses in Lincolnshire Dialect.

Cant speak for the other counties, they are all foriegners...........

Lincolnshire Poacher

Page move

This has just been moved from British English to British English language; I think this is a mistake, as it's not a language, but a set of dialects/accents/&c..
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 11:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are no other definitions (that I know of) of "British English". If there were perhaps appending language onto the end may be appropriate but I seriously think this should be moved back. I've not seen any discussion of this and, though we are encouraged "to be bold" I think this is a bit too much of an opinionated change. I'm now looking to see if User:Gilgamesh changes the other (related) articles and the template. violet/riga (t) 11:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The entry "British English" should be changed to a stub saying "There is no such thing as British English, it is an erroneous, and derogatory term for English as spoken in England, please search for Standard English, the language of England, or Dialects of English in the British Isles.

Macdaddy

PS> They should also remove this on the grounds that it is not a referenced entry - just a copy and paste entry from a old book. How do you challenge authenticity of articles?! I've tried editing it, but it just returns it to normal!

Bonepicking

This hasn't been addressed elsewhere, other than where I had on a couple other sites. I despise the Commonwealth, and to a lesser degree American, corruption of the simple and basic verb "have" into a meaningless and nonsensical phrase "have got". Although it may look like and be used as a hybrid of two straight sayings, it doesn't work. I want to strangle the cretins Jamie Oliver and Steve Irwin for their abusive language. There is no excuse for that, and I demand the explanation. Of course, the former region instigated, or enabled, this by the longstanding corruption of the past participle from gotten to got, for no reason, but this is no excuse. I want an explanation for that too. CwE moreover has been taking in too much Latin, or Latish, whilst AE too much Spanish, or Hispanic. I've been trying to withdraw from these needless wordly insteppings and if I ever get my own website will rally for a sheerer (purer for ye Latish slaves) English. lysdexia 08:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"have got" is totally natural English in England. I (as a native English speaker from England) absolutely despise the nauseating unnatural overuse of the word "have" by American-English speakers. Having said that I agree with the strangling of Jamie Oliver - I nominate his bete noir Mark Lamarr to do it.

Macdaddy.

Where I come from, to say "I have a pen" is completely natural. To say, "I have got a pen" is not. Whereas saying "I've a pen" is not natural and saying "I've got a pen" is. 80.229.14.246

They should move it to "English English". See my article below, no.13. Or perhaps someone has a better suggestion. But let us English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Northern Irish pull together and sort this out.

International English

I just did a light copy edit of the article, and I deleted that British English is often regarded as International English. I'm not saying it isn't, but I've never heard of this before. It should probably be referenced. I also moved the map and reduced it in size slightly as it seemed to be having trouble loading at 300 px. Slim 04:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Examples of "International English" meaning approximately "British English"

I have returned the "International English" references on the basis of the following:

The new Microsoft Office 2003 integrations to Microsoft CRM will be available in both American and International English in August. [1]

Languages Supported: US English, International English, Basque, Simplified Chinese, ... [2]

Constant shifts between U.S. and International English spelling could do just that. [3] (Other examples on this page of this usage.)

Harry Potter was written in English, but in what is known as "British" or "International" English, as opposed to the American English spoken in the United States. [4]

My site is written in 'International English'. I'm reasonably happy with my keyword ranking (no 1 for one keyword, no 13 for a second).
Many of my keywords end in '..ise', '..ised', or '..isation'. An American user would be unlikely to find my site, because they would use the American English spellings of '..ize', '..ized', or '..ization' when searching in Google. [5]

(Choice of video messages in "International English", "American English", and "Spanish".) [6]

But if somebody contributes a British (rather, international) English variant, what's the problem with maintaining this also? [7]

I had originally downloaded the international english version, so i figured i should try the north american english version. [8]

For this reason, only Microsoft Office 97 Professional Edition for Windows is released as a separate "International English" version. All other differences between the U.S. English and the International English versions are behavioral differences that are based on the settings in the Regional Settings control panel for the system. [9] (Here Microsoft is moving away from earlier software which distinguished only between U.S. English and "International English" meaning essentially British English.)

The standard English of India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Commonwealth and some other countries where English is used follows the conventions of British English. It is often therefore called International English to distinguish it from American English. ... There are enough differences between American English and British or International English that many books, including Bibles, are produced in an "American" edition and a "British" or "International" edition. [10]

These are examples I found with some quick Googling. The last one might do as a general reference in the article, if one is actually needed. I would prefer something more authoritative, commenting on this usage rather than simply exhibiting it. But the use of International English to mean approximately British English, particularly in respect to spelling, is not uncommon, although confusing. See International English for discussion of two uses of this term.

Jallan 21:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jallan, thanks for sending these references. However, I don't find them authoratitive or relevant. The Microsoft references don't say that Interational English is regarded as British English. They simply say there is, on the one hand, American, and on the other hand International. No mention of British. The website about Harry Potter that is run by a fan is not a good source. And your comment that, e.g. Canadian English is based on British English is not correct. It has much more in common with American English. Some newspapers (the ones that follow Canadian Press) follow some, but not all, British English spellings. But all punctuation and syntax, most of the vocabulary, and much of the spelling is American.

Could you please find an authoritative source that says International English means British English if that claim is to stay in the article? Sorry to be a pain, but I haven't seen this claim before. Also, other Wikipedia articles can't be used as references. References do have to be external and reputable. Are there any reputable International English dictionaries that make the same claim? Slim 22:24, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, I removed the claim that International English is British English. If you want to reinsert it, could you please find a reputable, authoritative reference? Slim 00:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Language Change

Hello,

I am doing an A-Level product regarding the change in language of cookbooks. I am looking at Mrs. Beeton, Fanny Cradock and Jamie Oliver.

Would any one be willing to give their opinions on this?

Do you think language has changed - if so why? Which author appeals to you and why?

Thank you very much.

Natalie Edwards nataliesarahedwards@yahoo.co.uk

Encylopaedia Britannica

Hi Gene, I reverted your edit saying that the Encyclopedia Britannica was an American publication retaining only a few Britishisms for flavor, because you didn't say what you meant and provided no reference. Also, you wrote in AE though the rest of the text is in BE. Could you provide a reference please? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 07:04, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

English not British

Ok, I find this article racially offensive.

Lets get this clear , for the benefit of the rest of the world, and then we can edit this article to remove all the offensive references.

The United Kingdom consists of fours countires - England, populated by a racial and national group called the English, Scotland, populated by Scots, Wales, populated by the Welsh, and Ireland, populated by the Irish.

Only the English speak English. We invented the language. Note that. Not the Americans, the English. The Scots, the Welsh and the Irish all officially speak Gelic, in there own variants, but they also speak out language, English.

The phrase 'British' is a political category that means nothing. There is no racial group that currently calls itself 'The British' and no country that is the homeland of the 'British'. Anyone can become British. All you have to do is successfully obtain a 'British' passport from a United Kingdom Embassy. On the other hand, you can only be English, or Scottish, or Irish, or Welsh by being born in that country.

SO, in the interests of not inflaming us, kindly do not call us, any of us, British.

We, the English, took our language to the undiscovered country now called the USA, and left it there, during which those persons developed a variant, American English. The implication by Microsoft that OUR language as spoken by us is a variant of American English is highly offensive, and quite frankly a damn arrogant cheek. We originated this language, and treating us like intruders into our own language is a bloody liberty.

Neither is International English the same as English English, thats just another bodged variant designed to make Europeans feel smug.

SO lets remove all the references to British and replace them with 'English' or 'Gaelic', eh ?

Lincolnshire Poacher (whos speaks Lincolnshire English)

Actually, the concept of Britain predates that of England, Scotland or Wales, at least in the sense of 'the Kingdoms of Britain' which were of pre-Roman, Celtic origin. While this is of course of little linguistic importance I feel it should be noted.

'British English' as a orthographical rather than a phonetic record most definitely does exist, moreover. The conventions which govern spelling in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the R.O.I. are for the most part identical. The term British English does I feel also have an appropriate application as a blanket term for the dialects of the British Isles; while it may be a little indelicate from an Irish perspective it certainly is used in such a way.

Your claim that English somehow belongs to England or that 'we invented the language' is of such massive narrow minded idiocy that I'm not even going to bother correcting you.

Map

I also notice that you seem to think Lincolnshire is part of Yorkshire, in the map on the top right of the article.

Can we please edit this and correct this further calumny against my homeland please? For a start, they were Roundheads and we were Royalists.............and weere not as mean as Yorkshiremen either...........

Lincolnshire Poacher

Scottish clarity

The article contains the statement "English spoken with a Scottish accent has a reputation for being especially easy to understand." Can this be true? I'd say that among people who speak English natively the opposite is true. Hardwick 18:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont think so, you go to Glasgow and talk to a few people, I bet you wont understand one word in ten. Listen to Billy Connolly in his early years, when he was going round folk clubs, theres still stuff I cant understand after listeneing to these tapes for 30 years........I suggest we remove this statement.Lincolnshire Poacher

I have removed the statement, as no one objected. Lincolnshire Poacher 08:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should never be called "British English".

This language "English", originally the language of the people of England, and ought not properly to be called "British English" by anyone with even the most basic grasp of the history of these Isles.

Like others on this page, I find this label both inaccurate and offensive.

It is inaccurate because English comes from England and not from Great Britain. It is inaccurate because it creates the altogether false impression that there is a homogenous type of English spoken throughout Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, which may be conveniently labelled as "British".

It is offensive because using this label shows a complete disreagrd for the fact that the original language of the Welsh people is Welsh, and the fact that the original language of the Scottish is Scottish Gaelic. It is offensive because English, to Scottish, Welsh and many Northern Irish people, is the language of those who conquered them and endeavoured to extinguish their respective native languages and cultures. It is offensive because there are strong independence movements Scotland and Wales, not to mention in Northern Ireland, and as a label it promotes a linguistic unity where in real life there is none. It is offensive because "British" is only used in these places where the adjectives "Scottish", "Welsh", "Northern Ireland" or "English" would be wrong, for example, a foreigner applies for a British visa because we only have one unified Embassy, but when did you last see the British football team play?

Since the popularity of Mr Gates' products necessitate such divisive labelling then I advocate that the content on our versions of this language be relocated to pages named "Welsh English", "Scottish English", "Irish English" and "English English", with a link to those pages from the former "British English" page. (I didn't employ a comma ',' after the last item in my list. That is not a grammatical error, it is a feature of English English). If those people who are in charge of these pages have any respect for Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English people then this misnomer must be abandoned.

Well, I having just re-read the article I note that it says "The broader use refers to the language of the entirety of the United Kingdom.". Nonsense! Absolute nonsense! English is the language of ENGLAND, there's a little clue in the name that gives it away ;)

The 'original' language of Scotland (original from what point?) would in fact predate gaelic by several thousand years, Scots gaelic being derived from the tribe which colonised Scotland from what we now consider to be Ireland, namely the Scotti. In more recent history Scotland has been linguistically divided into three, with English being spoken in the lowlands, Scots (which may or may not be considered a dialect of English; it certainly shares many syntactic links with English - see the poetry of R. Burns) being spoken in Lanarkshire and the Lothians up towards Perthshire, and Gaelic which was spoken in the highlands. Until the 1600s a language very closely related to Norse was spoken on Orkney and Shetland, and a dialect called 'Doric' continues to be spoken in the Aberdeenshire area which retains Norse features, as well as displaying Gaelic influences.

My point is this: if it is so difficult to establish an 'original' language for Scotland (which you so confidently postulate above), how can you then claim that even the term English English, Scottish English etc is appropriate for the description of the vast number of dialects which exist even within these national sub-groups? British English as a term is useful in that it provides a blanket term for the orthographical conventions used in Britain where English is being written down. 'English English', 'Scottish English' and 'Welsh English' are diminishingly different from each other in terms of orthography. Your assertion that British English 'promotes a linguistic unity where in real life there is none' is plainly ridiculous. While Welsh is spoken by 20% of people living in Wales, English is spoken by all of them; less than one percent of Scots speak Gaelic as a first language; Mandarin is spoken by more people living in Northern Ireland than Irish Gaelic. You are applying political opinions to a linguistic situation with misleading and comically incorrect results.

Gaelic is the original (in its proper sense) language of Scotland, although not the first or only one. That's just like England with English, where several languages were spoken in the area before the coming of English. But both languages are "original" because the speakers of each language (Gaelic & English) gave their name to each country Calgacus 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived:

Archive 1 (10 November 2001—24 April 2005): Talk from before the 1 June 2005 rewrite.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyA (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 September 2005‎ (UTC)

Accent

"British people say they speak English, they would never say that they speak British, and others speak English with accent." When we (British) say someone speaks with an accent, we are refering to pronunciation, not use of different words. We would just call this American English, or Canadian English.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.43.211 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2005‎ (UTC)

English English

the argument about the ellipsis of "accent" sounds ad-hoc and homegrown. The question isn't whether the English say that they speak "English". The question is whether the term "English English" is in actual use: the question is, does "English English" have any sort of academic credentials? In either case, we should merge the articles, it won't do to have two articles about the exact same topic. dab (ᛏ) 16:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno but I reckon it be better if we talk about the difrent dalect languages of england aswel such as scouse Black Country geordie theres dialects in england that are regarded so broad that they becaume whole new languages. I speak black country .

                                                                                    paul

Non-British Characteristics of English in this Article

The entire second paragraph seems to describe the English language as a whole and has no specific relevance to British English (other than the fact that English was spoken in the British Isles before it was elsewhere). It seems to me the paragraph should be reduced to a statement that authorities in the UK, as in the rest of the Anglosphere, record usage rather than prescribe it; currently the article suggests that other English-speaking countries have equivalent bodies to the Académie française. All of the information about a lack of institutional governance on the language, its propensity toward borrowing, idiom, neologism, etc. apply to the language as a whole, not British English in particular, and so have no place in this article. The authoritative dictionaries of the UK are probably worth noting, but the context in which they are mentioned here needs to be mostly removed. If you disagree please let me know; I will wait a few days before altering the article. 216.186.102.42 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2006‎ (UTC). Ventifact I'll reproduce the paragraph in question here for convenience:

As with many other aspects of British culture, the English language as spoken in the United Kingdom and Ireland is governed by convention rather than formal code: there is no equivalent body to the Académie française, and the authoritative dictionaries (e.g. Oxford English Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Chambers Dictionary, Collins Dictionary) record usage rather than prescribe it. As a result there is significant variation in grammar, usage, spelling, and vocabulary within English as used in the UK, and lively, idiomatic uses of the language are commonplace. In addition, vocabulary and usage change with time; words are freely borrowed from other languages and other strains of English, and neologisms are frequent.

Redirect

I disagree with this page just being a redirect to English English. This implies that Britain=England. If the term is controversial then lets explain it - is it a political, linguistic term or what? We can NPOV this - it's not atm. 81.187.43.179 07:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, so I have restarted the British English article—mostly as a disambiguation page, but also to try to explain why the term is found offensive by many. JeremyA 01:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be wrong to simply redirect, but with the article as is, there should be a clear link in the first paragraph (or as a disambiguation preamble) to the English English article which covers the same basic subject in much greater depth... Otherwise there is a risk that this article will just become full of lower quality repeat information. 69.140.65.251 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary

I have reverted the edit by Vedek Dukat which added a reference to Webster's Dictionary into the sentence about "authoritative dictionaries". This is an article on British English: Webster's Dictionary is American and is not authorative on British usage. This is borne out by the section about Webster in the American English article, which indicates that Webster's contribution was to show the differences between the two dialects. TrevorD 11:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in reading the full sentence I see what you mean. I apologize - I'd not read the beginning bit and was referring to the fact that Webster wanted to standardize things, but read in context (and fully awake) it sounds very out of place. --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TrevorD 10:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

British lexicographers

88.106.159.73, you've deleted the suggestion that linguists and lexicographers use the term "British English" with the comment: "British lexicographers do not tend to use this term. Purely POV.". This leaves unanswered the questions:

What terms do British lexicographers use to distinguish between "British English" and "American English"?
What about non-British & non-American lexicographers? Do they use "British English"?

TrevorD 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment. [11] [12] [13] and I could go on and on. If I, a linguist, were to write a book about differences in English as spoken in New England, North, South, Midland, and Western U.S., the title would be Dialects of American English. If I were to write a book about differences in English as spoken in Northern England, Southern England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, what do you think the title of such a book would be? I'd say, The Dialects of Standard English? The Dialects of English?. 88.106.159.73, the only POV thing here is your patent insularity. --JackLumber 22:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack - I was supporting you - agreeing with you! Someone else changed the article and commented "British lexicographers do not tend to use this term. Purely POV.". I questioned it! I wanted to put it back, but asked for another viewpoint first! -- TrevorD 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

3 times did this user revert it. Cheers (!) for your support. JackLumber 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory?

"Although British English is often used to denote the English spelling and lexicon used outside the US, this usage is not completely accurate, as almost all British spelling rules and the vast majority of British vocabulary are actually shared among the whole English-speaking world outside the US (except Canada as far as lexicon is concerned)"

Is it just me, or is this contradictory? It seems to be saying:

Although British English is used to describe English outside the US, this is not accurate, since most English outside the US is British English.

Is the point that it's rather odd to call in British English if it's not really specific to Britain? Then this should be much more explicit. garik 22:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, is the English of Australia, or India etc really commonly referred to as British? This seems a bit dubious to me. I've removed it anyway - if anyone has rather more confidence in (or evidence for) the claim, and a way of making it less ambiguous, please reinstate it. garik 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to other dialects

I think the links to Australia, New Zealand, etc. should point to the pages for the respective versions of English (Australian English, New Zealand English) rather than to the pages for the countries. This is also true for the article on Standard English. Opinions? Jpg 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

William Caxton

Where it says in the article that london english and the the english of the east midlands rose to be the form used for officail purposes, i do not feel this is a strong enough reason to ignore how william caxton, printing in the 15th century, standerdised english into a london/kentish form, as that is what he spoke, and what he considerd to be the best. Also, since french was the official language of the court for over 300 years after 1066, and many documents were written in latin, you cannot say the 9th centruy usage would have such a big impact on the language. if you consider how different chaucers language is to ours, this language, two centuries before the french invasion, would be very very, different language to ours. Where as to me, the article implies that the anglo-saxon language of the 9th century would be rather similar to modern english, where with much less latin influence i do not think this would be the case

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.74 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2006‎ (UTC)

Does "British English" include English spoken in Ireland?

Perhaps this has been discussed a million times before, but is everyone happy that so-called "British English" includes the variety of English spoken in the island of Ireland, as the article says it does? This surprised me, and Googling around I find plenty of instances of people who seem to think that "Irish English", or "Hiberno-English", or whatever you want to call it, is not a part of British English. (However, I'm unclear where that leaves English as spoken in Northern Ireland.) Please note: I am not trying to start a political debate about what things should be called. All I am questioning is whether the article's definition of "British English" corresponds to generally accepted usage. If there is no generally accepted definition - and some use "British English" to include "Irish English" and others don't - then the article should reflect this. Matt 20:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

This seems to crop up a lot nowadays. I suppose that if you stretch a point to its limit you can have 'Irish English' in the same way as you can have 'Yorkshire English', 'London English', 'Stanley Unwin English' and 'Officer Crabtree English'...

That isn't really what I meant. The examples you give are, I would say, very obviously part of "British English". On the other hand it's nowhere near so obvious (to me anyway) whether "Irish English" is part of "British English". Matt 12:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC).

...Opinions vary, and (especially in places like Northern Ireland) the word 'English' itself arouses different feelings in different people, with some people seeking (for political reasons) to emotionally distance themselves from 'England the country' rather the language. I know it's very unlikely, but the problem could maybe be solved by calling the language something else. Perhaps this would even be more accurate, as the modern language is of course something of a 'soup' made up from bits of other people's languages. The soup just happened to be put together in England. If the Romans / Saxons / Normans / Vikings etc. had turned left instead of right it would simply have happened somewhere else, and the British would be speaking a language called 'Aquitainian' or something. ChrisRed 08:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what you are getting at. I think it is still a matter of opinion where the boundary lies between a strong dialect and a separate language. All I know is that when I have heard Irish people speak, they do so in a nice accent - not a separate language. I can usually understand them perfectly. (For the record I speak fairly standard working-class English with a Lancashire/Manchester dialect). If you give anybody from the British Isles a piece of paper with English text on it, everybody will understand it, but will read it out aloud in his own accent. Compare this with the so-called 'Scots Language', where people have transcribed 'Burns-Speak' phonetically and tried to call it a separate language, as though there is still anybody alive in Scotland who finds it easier to read 'Scots' than normal English :-).ChrisRed 08:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all very well, but none of it actually addresses the point I raised. Namely, in its generally accepted meaning, does the term "British English" include the variety of English spoken in the island of Ireland? Matt 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

I think the answer is, in a way, very simple. In an absolute sense, and in comparison with what is used in Britain, no, the English of Ireland is different. It is Hiberno-English. Or, rather, a batch of varieties of English which between them make up what we can for convenience call Hiberno-English or Irish English - just as "British English" is made up of a whole collection of different ways of writing and saying things (which are not all even mutually intelligible, at least not so easily!). But in comparison with American English we speak and write something much more like British English in Ireland, and I think that - in particular when it comes to the written standard of English - yes, Irish English = British English. But it's not a matter of hard-and-fast rules and boundaries, but of context. In the sense used in the series of Wikipedia articles on BrEng and AmEng, the main contrast is between Am and Br, and in that context IrEng belongs more on the BrEng side. Maybe not so simple, after all! There might be a case for a version of English called British-and-Irish English, or European English, or "the kind of English we speak on this side of the Atlantic" - but, please, not as the basis for a Wikipedia article! Snalwibma 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So for the next question, is Ulster Scots language British English? :) In ye olde days of OS 9 my computer tactfully referred to the non US variety as International English, but now it seems to have Irish, Canadian, Australian etc.....dave souza, talk 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone help me.....

Right, its bloody annoying when I look at pages regarding British things (such as Bands/teams) and the first line is always "Def Leppard is an English Rock band.." Now, this is totally wrong, in Britain it would be "Def Leppard are an English rock band" I'm aware Americans say things like "Bon Jovi is a great band" whereas here it would be "Bon Jovi are a great band".. it just really gripes me to see things like "Arsenal is a great team!" etc, British media etc always would say "Arsenal are.."

Whats the official "term" for these differences? Is it British Pluralisms? Seems to me an article about a British band/team should use the British examples! "Def Leppard is..." just sounds so wrong to a native English speaker! TheMongoose 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Def Leppard is an English rock band, because there is only one band. The band is English but its members are English. Bon Jovi is a great band, but Def Leppard and Bon Jovi are two great bands, because they are two bands. Cliff Richard is from England (well...India, actually) but the Proclaimers are from Scotland. Quite what we do when we are down to our last Bee-Gee I don't know. See...clear as mud :-) ChrisRed 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, ChrisRed, up to a point. [I am interested to know, though - are you using BrEng or AmEng?] To expand/clarify (I hope!) what you say - I think it would be fair to comment that in AmEng it's more fixed - use the singular verb with a band, team, etc, regardless of the form of the name - but in BrEng it's more a matter of using whichever form sounds best. The Beatles are ... Led Zeppelin is ... But (sticking my neck out) "Def Leppard are ..." is certainly OK in BrEng, especially if the sentence is somehow drawing attention to the separateness of the different members of the band, treating it/them as a collection of people rather than as a single unit. And many people would use "are" anyway, and they are NOT WRONG to do so! Whether that means that all articles on British bands and teams should have their is'es changed to are's is another question, however. Now - is it "The Who is ..." or "The Who are ..."? Snalwibma 10:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just having a bit of fun. Fowler says that it's OK to use both for collectives, and I hate pedantry anyway. "The Who are..." and "Led Zeppelin are..." sounds fine. I'd just count the legs, and if there are more than two then it's 'are' (except with Rolf Harris). I know; it's just shocking what us Brits do to the American language. ChrisRed 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I know! Imagine not knowing the difference between "that" and "which"... Tut tut etc. Snalwibma 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: This is discussed at English collective nouns.

Atlant 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

British English? By definition all English is British. English is the language of Great Britain. Surely the only seperate article should be on the degenerative and primitive forms spoken elsewhere, such as the United States and other rebel colonies.

How rude. Can the language as spoken in the British Isles be called 'standard'? I hail from darkest Lancashire, and now live in the South of England. Many people down here wish I came with subtitles :-) ChrisRed 14:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the rudest things I have ever heard. English has changed significantly in many areas, and saying that the language belongs exclusively to Great Britain couldn't be any more wrong. British English isn't any more or less correct than any other form of it. I don't understand how American English could be called primitive either, as it has had the same amount of time to develop as British English.

Calling the United States a "rebel colony" also seems unnecessarily hostile. Voretus the Benevolent 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, however, not inaccurate.

Also, the concept of 'British English' is nonsense. The whole of the UK and Irish Republic could easily fit inside a circle less than 1000 miles in diameter, and yet I could take you to places within that circle where the local accent deviates far more from so-called 'standard' English than any accent that you will find outside the circle. An American accent is just that...an accent. As 'English central', the British can tell which part of the 'Anglosphere' somebody comes from within a few seconds, be it Australia, South Africa, or North America (USA and Canadian accents overlap too much for most of us to tell the difference). I have never come across a (caucasian) American who I cannot understand perfectly. But; I could take an American to places in - say - Glasgow, Tyneside or Devonshire where I guarantee that he will not understand one single word of what is spoken, and will need me to 'translate' it from English to English. The main differences that the British notice is with occasional mangled words (especially the American habit of switching ...-ity and ...-ness endings), odd pronunciations (i.e. 'Nucular' for 'Nuclear') and different spellings (i.e. "Really?" in America is spelt "No shit!") ChrisRed 08:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of pronunciation, regional differences are common, and acceptable, as are words more commonly spoken in certain areas - eg. "wee" from scotland. Spelling however is either right or wrong, and in this case American is wrong. The only real differences in British/American spelling is the American simplification of words because their small brains cannot cope with the difference between written and spoken English. Anyway has no-one thought to look "English" = language from "England" not "United States of America. 130.246.132.26 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your reasoning in regards to spelling being either right or wrong? Most people would disagree with you.

Many people look at "English" as the language from "England", as it indeed is. That doesn't mean it must stay in England. It has changed in certain areas of the world (the United States), but not enough to justify calling it a different language.

I don't understand your logic in calling pronunciation differences acceptable while calling spelling differences unacceptable.

It has not been shown in any way that people from the United States have smaller brains than English people. I'm wondering where you got that supposition from. Cheers. Voretus the Benevolent 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Benevolent...Do Not Feed The Troll ChrisRed 19:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, go on, let's! It was a good one. --JamesTheNumberless 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tees speak

The article Tees speak deals with a specific dialect of British English. Should that article be merged into this one, or should some information from Tees speak be added here? --Eastmain 04:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a very bad idea to merge anything from Tees speak, or any other article covering a specific dialect or variety of British English, into this article. If we allow this general article to be diverted into all sorts of dialects it would grow into a bloated monster and become quite unmanageable and meaningless. Just my humble opinion... Snalwibma 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unclear statement

The opening of this article does not read very clearly to me:

British English (BrE) is a broad term used to distinguish the forms of the English language used in the United Kingdom from forms used elsewhere. It encompasses all the varieties of English used within the UK, including those found in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Some may also use the term more widely, to include other forms such as Hiberno-English (spoken in Ireland).

The vast majority of people in Britain speak English, either as their first or as a second language. Although the term "British English" is rarely used within Britain itself (just as Americans seldom use the term "American English"), it is used as a means of distinguishing the forms of English prevalent in Britain from those spoken elsewhere in the world.

Look at the last sentence: "Although the term "British English" is rarely used within Britain itself (just as Americans seldom use the term "American English"), it is used as a means of distinguishing the forms of English prevalent in Britain from those spoken elsewhere in the world." The fact that British English is a term used to distinguish etc... has already been established, so obviously something new is intended here, presumably that the term is also used with that meaning in Britain itself.

There are two problems with this. First we can assume that the term is used with that meaning in Britain itself from the first sentence; telling us again separately just creates doubt in the reader's mind about why it's being repeated. Second, the intended contrast with the statement that the term is "rarely used" in Britain is not clear. The term "British English" is equally used whenever it is necessary to make the distinction, whether in Britain or elsewhere, and in that sense it is no more "rarely used" in Britain than anywhere else. My guess is that the article is actually trying to make the point that British English speakers do not go around in their daily lives thinking that they're speaking "British English", any more than American English speakers are constantly conscious that they are speaking "American English". I think that this could be expressed more clearly in the article. Matt 20:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps a valid point, Matt. I do tend to write in a slightly 'informal' tone, and accept this limitation when people come along later with more incisive minds and detect my ambiguities, (I am an amateur - not a formal academic). The part of your comment after 'My guess is.." is closest to my intended meaning. In other words; a Brit would only use the term 'British English' if he were differentiating between his version of English and somebody else's. If you can think up a clearer way of saying this, please feel free. It's nice to be able to use the same written language across the globe though, isn't it?. I wonder if there is a section somewhere that deals more deeply with the fact that not all versions of global spoken English are completely mutually-intelligible, whereas (I think) all forms of written English are. ChrisRed 07:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For convenience I reproduce the current (amended - not by me) version:

British English (BrE) is a broad term used to distinguish the forms of the English language used in the United Kingdom from forms used elsewhere. It encompasses all the varieties of English used within the UK, including those found in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Some may also use the term more widely, to include other forms such as Hiberno-English (spoken in Ireland).

The vast majority of people in Britain speak English, either as their first or as a second language. Although the term "British English" is rarely used, especially within Britain itself (just as Americans seldom use the term "American English"), it has currency as a means of distinguishing the forms of English prevalent in Britain from those spoken elsewhere in the world.

I am still not terribly keen on the second paragraph, essentially for the reasons given earlier. Firstly, the term "British English" is not really "rarely used" - either in Britain or elsewhere. In fact, it is quite commonly used amongst those people, British or otherwise, who take an interest in such matters. Secondly, the final clause reads as if the term is being redefined with particular reference to British usage, but in fact the meaning is the same everywhere and has already been explained in the first paragraph. If I have understood the intention of the second paragraph correctly, I suggest replacing it with the something like the following:

The vast majority of people in Britain speak English, either as their first or as a second language. In everyday circumstances most British people consider that they speak "English", rather than specifically "British English", and the term "British English" is used only when a distinction with other forms of English is necessary.

Matt 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments I have changed the paragraph to an amended version of my suggestion above. If you don't like it then please read the above discussion before changing it again. Matt 01:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Merge Proposal Sep 2007

As a merge tag has been added and there's no discussion, should the tag be removed? Personally merging just Eng.Eng into Br.Eng, but not the other neighbouring versions of English makes as much as sense as merging England into Britain. Bevo74 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed. I saw little point on commenting simply because the proposal is clearly missing the point about the huge differences between the two articles, and the need for there to be different articles as they are on totally different topics. The two articles should not be merged at all, and as you say there has been no discussion until now s surely the tags can be removed. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Each to his own

Is the paragraph about British people "considering" their version of the English language to be "just English" (as opposed to British English) really necessary? The sentence seems to imply that they are wrong and that there is some other definitive version. It seems pretty trivial that all people who speak the English language would just use the term English. It is, after all, the same language. Shinigami27 11:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One English Language and different usages?

Strange. In general no-one in England says "English English" or "British English" as a rule, just "English". As a child, rightly or wrongly, I learnt that there is one language called "English" in the native tongue but many different "usages". Thus there is American usage, Australian usage, Irish usage, but only one language: "English". At least, this is how the Oxford English Dictionary defined it! "British English" and its derivatives are regarded as an Americanism. Now, native English speakers tend to adopt Americanisms when speaking to people who are familiar with this usage, simply because doing so is expedient as native English speakers are generally familiar with most American, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Indian, South African, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian usages through the media of tv, film, music, the internet, direct contact or through relatives in these countries. Thus you will hear English natives use the term "British English" or "American English" for this reason, or simply because they do not know better and that, in fact, this is simply American usage of English to describe the usage spoken in Britain.

"British English" used by non-English nationals can be construed as slightly offensive by some English people depending on their mood and inclination perhaps because it comes across as something of a slight, since it implies "loss of ownership" of their own tongue, something that native speakers from England might find somewhat preposterous because by definition it is the language of the English nation. I think a lot of English feel the English language "belongs" to them. It's ours! Not in an over-the-top "Rah! Rah! England!" way, but in a reserved matter-of-fact way. If you know what I mean? Insofar as, anything else is absurd. In pub talk I have often heard people comment along the lines of: "No one says 'French French or Spanish Spanish in English because that is ridiculous, almost equally so is 'British English' or 'English English' though 'we know what you mean!'". This is probably because the phrase "English English" sounds tautological and is probably a genuine pleonasm, especially in the context of discussing different English usages. Nonetheless, "we know what you mean" but it sounds contrived, gramatically odd in fact.

Interestingly English spoken as a second language is usually the most difficult "usage" for native English speakers to comprehend because of pronunciation, intonation, inflection, and mixed registers and use of native language grammar. However,once a decent fluency is acheived, foreign accents sound positively exotic and are very pleasant on the ear! IMHO, anyone who take the time and effort to learn a foreign language (and way of thinking, openess to new cultures, views and history) deserves a pat on the back. No doubt my attempts to speak other languages is just as tricky for native speakers to understand despite my best attempts to get it right. So I sympathise totally with all sencond/third language speakers of English! I suppose this is so for all native speakers listening to second or third language speakers :-)

Spelling-wise, I learnt the major reason for different American spelling of the same words was due to the publication of the American Heritage Dictionary which introduced simplified spelling based on pronunciation to help improve literacy in post Civil War America. Fair enough. It does cause gip in spelling tests when the teacher goes off on one about American spellings though! Good for a laugh, innit?!

At the end of the day, we English shouldn't take ourselves so seriously or be too sensitive about the use of the term "English English", there is no harm meant, after all.

Just some observations as an English person. Hope this is helpful!

P.S.: I've added the same comments to the English English discussion.

23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)DomUK

I have just tried making it clearer that the British do not consider they speak "British English". In the international circles I'm in, I'm finding many English professionals referring to the English in the USA as simply "American" rather than even mentioning English. After all, if "English" isn't the language spoken by the English, what is it? --Douglas (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"In pub talk I have often heard people comment along the lines of: "No one says 'French French or Spanish Spanish in English because that is ridiculous, almost equally so is 'British English' or 'English English' though 'we know what you mean!'". This is probably because the phrase "English English" sounds tautological and is probably a genuine pleonasm, especially in the context of discussing different English usages. Nonetheless, "we know what you mean" but it sounds contrived, gramatically odd in fact."[sic]

I agree that the language is all English, but denoting the different dialectal categories as American-English, or British-English is neither incorrect nor redundant (as funny as it might sound to some). Both of these can be further subdivided to into actual dialects (American Southern, Appalachian, Boston Urban, etc...). Wikipedia has a great article on the dialectal evolution in American-English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English

And not to contradict pub talk, but we do label Castellain Spanish as different from other dialects (particularly to distinguish Iberian Spanish from South American Spanish). And my Quebecois colleagues lead me to understand that Parisians are traditionally proprietary about their version of French compared to Creole (Louisiana/American) or Quebecois (Quebec/Canadian) French.

British English as a standard accross Europe

I think it should be noted that only British English is taught accross Europe (even though the subject is simply called "English". So much so that to spell something the US-american (or any other way for that matter) in an exam would be marked as erroneous. --Camaeron 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At least in Germany, this is certainly not the case. Both British and American spellings and pronunciation are taught, and both spellings are acceptable as long as they're not "mixed" in any text. 87.175.7.85 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Perhaps the most remarkable finding in the Voices study is that the English language is as diverse as ever, despite our increased mobility and constant exposure to other accents and dialects through TV and radio."

...

However, modern communications and mass media have reduced these differences significantly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.27.78 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Noun-verb agreement in "Dialects"

Why is "Johnson's team are" with its incorrect noun-verb agreement "appropriate in British English"? It was recently corrected, but reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In the UK teams, bands etc are treated as plurals, eg Manchester United are the champions of Europe, Coldplay are a British band. The singular is occasionally used but sounds strange to most people here. It seems the person I reverted needlessly changed other pages to fit US English conventions Bevo74 (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for for some reliable sources, rather than an assertion, by way of a reply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote added. The usage depends on context and isn't definitive one way or the other. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of the ways teams are treated as plurals. [14] Additional there is no to change something that is not wrong just to suit the US 192.28.2.6 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

From the point of view of an Irishman, 'Hiberno English' is a sub-set of British English. There are no more differences between English in the south of England and that in Scotland than there are between that in southern England and that in Ireland. The 'British' would refer to the British Isles - there is a commonality in written and spoken English throughout the isles that shows disctinction with that in the US. Attempting to imply 'Hiberno English' as something distinct and outside the sphere of the language spoken within the rest of the isles seems to me like a case of petty and dishonest Irish nationalism - the inclusion of such in the very first paragraph seems a little PoV to me! Cauleyflower (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusing wording

This probably seems a very picky comment, but I don't understand the intention of the following prominent sentence:

There is confusion whether the term refers to English as spoken in the British Isles or to English as spoken in Great Britain, though in the case of Ireland, there are further distinctions peculiar to Hiberno-English.

When I hit the word "though" I expect it to be followed by a statement that mitigates the confusion, or makes it less important or relevant. In fact, what follows seems to be doing the exact opposite. If there are "further distinctions peculiar to Hiberno-English" then doesn't that make it more important to distinguish between "English as spoken in the British Isles" and "English as spoken in Great Britain"? I don't get it. 81.156.127.15 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Helpfully, the citation for the statement includes a quote. Bringing the text closer to the quote, and removing the part not cited, might help.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Brought OED quotes from the footnote into the text: see if that makes any improvement.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks a lot better to me now... 86.134.72.109 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC).