Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.british
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!gw1.att.com!nntpa!mac-118.lz.att.com!user
From: rte@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards)
Subject: Re: Argh! (Was Wit, Wisdom...)
Message-ID: <rte-0808951340050001@mac-118.lz.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac-118.lz.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
References: <DCBn8y.Ft2@madge1.madge.co.uk> <Xcj5myPiEkHH071yn@clark.net> <3vjp0p$202@remus.reed.edu> <3vk89a$6lu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <807704708snz@psyche.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 18:40:05 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <807704708snz@psyche.demon.co.uk>, peter@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:

> In article <3vk89a$6lu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
>            scriptu@cats.ucsc.edu "Daniel D Scripture" writes:
> 
> > 
> > I and all my ancestors were speakers of English, ever since there has
> > been anything to call English.  I am therefore an excellent informant
> > for English.  I say, and on occasion, write "off of," depending on
> > social circumstances having to do with contextual requirements for
> > differing levels of formality.  THEREFORE, "off of" is perfectly good
> > English.  End of story, end of thread, I hope.
> > 
> Not a chance. Your misuse of the language is not corrected by having english
> ancestors. Quite what branch of logic you are attempting to appeal to
> in arguing this is not clear to me.
> 
> -- 
> Peter H. M. Brooks

Misuse is not an appropriate subject for sci.lang, which is clearly spelled
out in the FAQ, we invite you to read it.

The point of noting his ancestors is to inform the
denizens of soc.culture.british that the fact that American usage or spelling
is different from British usage does not make it by definition wrong.  It's
just different.  Some folks in that group seem a bit weak on that point.
Some of the differences result from drift on this side of the Atlantic,
some from
drift on your side.  Defining your drift as "correct" is not science, it's
politics.  We did not learn your language imperfectly, we inherited it from
our ancestors, of whom we are proud, as we expect you should be of yours.

From time to time some British person launches a broadside against American
English, such as the recent beauty from David Stanley, I quote below.

>Please, please, please, please tell me that this paragraph is meant to 
>be ironic: "excellent informant for English", "contextual 
>requirements...????" What is it about Americans that causes them to 
>hate the language so much? Is it the language's name, shall we find 
>some alternative that doesn't mention a country, what about gibberish??
>
>Dave

Frankly, I can't imagine what motivates a person to post such ...stuff.
I wonder, was some female relative raped by an American soldier on leave?
In any case such seething hatred seems out of place in sci.lang, or anywhere
else, for that matter.  Perhaps Mr. Stanley was referring to the academic
vocabulary in the above passage.  If so, he did not make himself clear.
He then should be assured that not all Americans use academic language.

If I misunderstood Mr. Scripture's intent in referring to our ancestors,
I apologize.  It's what I would have meant.  Also I found Mr. Scripture's
postings very entertaining.  I found his anger quite understandable in the
context of Mr. Brooks reference to _proles_, a word that implies to me,
as it did to Mr. Scripture, an unquestioning acceptance of the English class
system.  The class system is the close relative and the direct cause of racism
in America.

-- 
R.T.Edwards rte@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
