-
[quote=Matra et Alpine;897608]f6 ... the LITRE is an accepted SI term and as such it is ONLY spelt one way ... LITRE.
Now, you know I'm the first to point out the Frenchification of the English language took the UK there ... but you can't argue SI :)[/quote]
I really don't want to get into this, and this response is somewhat in jest ;), but by your argument any language that doesn't spell liter "litre" is spelling it wrong. For instance, are Spainiards wrong in referring to the volume displaced by one kg of water as "un litro"? I think not. Besides, aren't the SI whosits all in French? (Yes, I know it's "litre" in French) :)
All my previous chauvinistic comments aside, I will admit that America has spawned one of the worst accents in the English language, the heavy Midwestern one. I wanted to kill myself after about 20 minutes of Fargo (the movie, that is).:p
-
[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;897718]They do speak funny, is all :D[/quote]
says the aussie...
-
SI is INTERNATIONAL agreed standard. Just because it's based in Paris doesn't make it "French" or wrong :) Guess for some tho' it will be in the same bucket as "freedom fries" :) ( so keeping the humour level high for the thread -- and expecting a further debate ont he spelling of humour :) )
It is the agreed way to specify and share the units.
Yes ... to SI standards litro is wrong, but clearly is SPanish and ok for Spanish use, but in international use it should be litre.
-
I don't quite understand it really.
I understand it's a simplified version of the facts but is it not true the French assisted the US in gaining independance by funding the war against the english (to their own detriment?)
And that the language (Websters specifically) was dumbed down to assist in educating the new world folk?
And I'll have you know I speak proper english, like.
-
[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;897726]I don't quite understand it really.
I understand it's a simplified version of the facts but is it not true the French assisted the US in gaining independance by funding the war against the english (to their own detriment?)
[/quote]
they provided funding, weapons, and some troops. and whine not really to their detriment economically or any other way, it did spark their own revolution, so probably a bad call in the long run for them.
[quote]
And that the language (Websters specifically) was dumbed down to assist in educating the new world folk?
And I'll have you know I speak proper english, like.[/quote]
it actually started as an anti-British movement to create a standard american english. up to that point there hadn't been a world standard, and webster wanted to create a version that captured the american accent, and was differentiated from the british english.
-
...Which in turn had become french british english.
Still, There was an American accent at the time? or was it simply a conglomeration of the multitude of accents from immigrants?
It works I suppose - english is a constantly evolving and thieving language, but there are some standards, surely.
-
English at the times of occupation of the lands of the American continent was pretty much as used in America now. Britain became obsessed with all things French and decided to fix spelling to appear superior == French.
So as said a few posts back. It's the Brits who screwed the spelling and the Americans held on to the old spelling and generally England was sending people who couldn't read/write to the colonies so none of the changes crossed the pond :)
-
I read somewhere that the somewhat isolated (hence well-preserved linguistically) dwellers of the Appalachians have an accent closer to English commonfolk during the 18th century. I have no idea where I read that though, so it is probably false.
As to IB4R:
dat iz rong. i speek gooder englishh
-
[quote=nota;897691]Talk smack yo, eh?
I recently heard this appaling 'conversate' expression used twice, by a professional communicator no less, in one of the US TV news programs shown here. So I [i]correctly[/i] assume that it must be in popular use to some extent.[/quote]
Nota:
You are absolutely correct. We do have a large amount of educated illiterates in our nation. Thats why we are at the bottom of the totempole when compared to the edcucational achievements of other nations.
What you see on Dr Phil, while not representative of the general behavior of people in our nation, however, it does expose certain idiosyncracies and proneness of many in our nation.:D
-
[quote=f6fhellcat13;897731]I read somewhere that the somewhat isolated (hence well-preserved linguistically) dwellers of the Appalachians have an accent closer to English commonfolk during the 18th century. I have no idea where I read that though, so it is probably false.
[/quote]
I'm guessing that's probably only said by someone who reads a lot of books on anthropology without visiting places. The people in the appalachians who aren't too drunk from moonshine to talk do not sound at all brittish. Mostly what I hear is a southernish sounding accent as they ask if I want lard with my toast. WHich really does taste better than it sounds, if you haven't tried it. Then again the kerosene (for flavor) in the moonshine probably permanently messes with your tastebuds so who knows.
-
[quote=G35COUPE;897404]First of all, what has horsepower/Litre got to do with anything??[/quote]
its to do with you . you making a big deal out of the 350 Hp figure for the 3.7 litre Nisan V6
less than 100 Hp per litre is not impressive & easy to achieve
only New Zealanders speak proper english , moreso than the english :P . you foreigners from australia & america mess it up with ya accents!
-
[quote=wwgkd;897792]The people in the appalachians who aren't too drunk from moonshine to talk do not sound at all brittish. Mostly what I hear is a southernish sounding accent as they ask if I want lard with my toast[/quote]
Soudns about right for ye olde Englishe :)
Comparing it to current British accents and dialects that you hear won't help.
Spoken English of 400 years ago was a LOT different than todays.
The other issue is that the accents of "original" colonies is mainly made up for those who were criminals and from low social standing families. eg clearing of the Scottish Highlands !!
-
[quote=Matra et Alpine;897894]Soudns about right for ye olde Englishe :)
Comparing it to current British accents and dialects that you hear won't help.
Spoken English of 400 years ago was a LOT different than todays.
The other issue is that the accents of "original" colonies is mainly made up for those who were criminals and from low social standing families. eg clearing of the Scottish Highlands !![/quote]
Is this why my untrained and ignorant ears hear a tinge of Cockney in Australian accents?
Surely the southern colonies here had slightly more aristocratic upstanding folk, though? There seems to be a disconnect, because higher-class British accents today seem to be very over-enunciated (perhaps with the slur of alcohol making them slightly less sharp), whereas the southern drawl is nowhere near as crisp. I'm not talking hicks here either, I'm talking about the upper social echelons down souf'. Interesting stuff. The crazy number of accents on a tiny little island in the north Atlantic never ceases to amaze me. :p
-
^^^^ that's because we hate anyone who lives more than 50 miles away from where we live :)
THe English snobs do over-enunciate as they all try to speak "Received Pronunciation English" to sound important. Thankfully some of that nonsense is being dropped as the BBC are broadcasting more regional accents !
-
The Irish need to do the same thing.
I'm tired of hearing the exact same accent in Hollywood flicks regardless whether the character is from Cork, Dublin, or Belfast.
This regional-accent affirmative action stuff sounds interesting, surely a better way to go about preserving languages than setting off a carbomb in Mallorca. :(
