home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!orchid!michaeln
- From: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au (Bunweasel)
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: English English versus *American* Engli
- Message-ID: <9619@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
- Date: 30 Jul 92 15:14:43 GMT
- References: <1992Jul29.203036.25275@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
- Reply-To: michaeln@cs.uq.oz.au
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland
- Lines: 22
-
- > Exactly the point which was trying to drive home....no single
- >individual has the authority to change the language. The spelling
- How about "every individual has.. ". More rhetorical punch. (-:
-
- >can be changed only if a majority of it's native speakers (I mean
- >the English, here) concur. You chaps seem to have wreaked a war on
- >the language, which is most shameful! Why deface such a beautiful
- >language?
-
- You deny the right of a whole nation (even your own!) to govern
- its language? (talk to a Fleming about preserving dialects)
-
- Look at it this way. What the Americans appear to have done is
- ruled off the English language at the point of independence and
- used it as the basis for their own language.
- If it doesn't drift that's nice and we can all talk. If it does
- drift then - there you go, it drifted. Many language developments
- follow the spoken language (comments?) which is governed by the
- sound of the language. If you think it's ugly, there might be a
- music there that you don't appreciate. Does that make more smileys?
-
- -m.
-