Dear DE... Why defense and not defence?

[awesomesharp]

8 minutes ago, (PS4)Kamranos said:

When the major of English speakers spell it “defense” that becomes its proper spelling. US doesn’t spell it improperly, just other countries haven’t caught up yet. Come talk who is doing it wrong when the US doesn’t have double the population of Great Britain, Canada and France combined.

the americans have a method of limiting british population, it's called joint military maneuvers  😛

[(PSN)Dark-TailedFox]

On 2018-08-28 at 10:03 AM, (PS4)chubbslawson said:

Maybe they wish they were Americans 

Even I wouldn't wish this and I'm already one.

OT though, "defence" kinda bugs me on the spelling look of it.

[DeMonkey]

2 hours ago, (PS4)Kamranos said:

When the major of English speakers spell it “defense” that becomes its proper spelling. US doesn’t spell it improperly, just other countries haven’t caught up yet. Come talk about who is doing it wrong when the US doesn’t have double the population of Great Britain, Canada and France combined.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

I know this threads been full of jokes, and honestly I really like the thread overall because of it, but this doesn't come across as a joke.

Sceptical Monkey. 

[(PSN)Kamranos]

41 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

I know this threads been full of jokes, and honestly I really like the thread overall because of it, but this doesn't come across as a joke.

Sceptical Monkey. 

It is factual information presented in a joking way. I honestly don’t care how people spell things, I just love joking at the expense of those who think the British spelling is “correct” when we are all joking about a language that only exists because it has evolved over hundreds of years.

Yes the US presently has more than double to Great Britain, Canada and France populations combined.

I honestly don’t think I could even interact with people online if not for the automatic assumption that everyone uses a joking tone. 

[Noibat]

20 hours ago, Arktourus said:

I’m from Georgia (USA state), and we actually use quite a bit of some of those “British” terms interchangeably with the “American” terms.  For example, while I’ve heard “someplace” often, I’m quite sure we use “somewhere” more often than that.  Also, we say “taxi,” not “cab” generally, and I’ve heard “curtain,” “condom,” “graduate,” and “luggage” far more commonly than the alternatives.

Literally all of that is just common vocabulary in the south.  I'm  from Alabama,  living in Louisiana, been to Kentucky and Florida and Tennessee,  and all of that is standard.  

[(PSN)RhinoCharging00]

3 hours ago, (PS4)Kamranos said:

When the major of English speakers spell it “defense” that becomes its proper spelling. US doesn’t spell it improperly, just other countries haven’t caught up yet. Come talk about who is doing it wrong when the US doesn’t have double the population of Great Britain, Canada and France combined.

You seem confused, because you keep repeating this irrelevant fact about the U.S population.

What you are basically saying is that because America has more people it is in the right and it's inaccuracies and oddities should simply be accepted by everyone else.

This makes no sense.

English did not originate in the United States, it didn't spread the language initially, it had no part in its core principles or rules, and it should therefore abide by the parameters of its inherited language.

Imagine if Muslims in Pakistan decided they didn't like some Arabic words and so they just changed them. 

Or if Mexicans suddenly started messing with the spelling of words, the use of words, and the context they are used in, with no regard to the original rules.

It isn't how things work.

Newer words, yes, they are not so restricted. 

But older words, the way they are used, the structure of sentences, and things like punctuation, should follow established and accepted use, and not be swept aside on a whim because it is supposedly easier.

What next?

Spelling Knife as Nyf?

Break as Brayk?

Envelope as Enveeloap?

It might be more "phonetically appropriate", but it seems excessively simplistic...as if designed for children or the illiterate. 

You say you are "joking", but I don't believe that.

Edited August 30, 2018 by (PS4)RhinoCharging00

[(PSN)Kamranos]

1 hour ago, (PS4)RhinoCharging00 said:

You seem confused, because you keep repeating this irrelevant fact about the U.S population.

What you are basically saying is that because America has more people it is in the right and it's inaccuracies and oddities should simply be accepted by everyone else.

This makes no sense.

English did not originate in the United States, it didn't spread the language initially, it had no part in its core principles or rules, and it should therefore abide by the parameters of its inherited language.

Imagine if Muslims in Pakistan decided they didn't like some Arabic words and so they just changed them. 

Or if Mexicans suddenly started messing with the spelling of words, the use of words, and the context they are used in, with no regard to the original rules.

It isn't how things work.

Newer words, yes, they are not so restricted. 

But older words, the way they are used, the structure of sentences, and things like punctuation, should follow established and accepted use, and not be swept aside on a whim because it is supposedly easier.

What next?

Spelling Knife as Nyf?

Break as Brayk?

Envelope as Enveeloap?

It might be more "phonetically appropriate", but it seems excessively simplistic...as if designed for children or the illiterate. 

You say you are "joking", but I don't believe that.

It’s funny that you give the example about Mexico changing words...because they did. As did Canada with French. This is where Porto Rico Spanish, Spain Spanish and Mexican Spanish all got their own variants. They adapted the language to fit them. English is no different. British English is no more correct today than American English. Yes I bring up population because it does play a major role in the evolution of a language. More people means information needs to be conveyed faster. So we drop the unnecessary “u” in things like color and armor because it is just that...unnecessary. 

The joke is that people still argue over antiquated spelling. Spelling is as the majority writes it irregardless or its origin. That is pure and simple. My undergrad literature classes were pretty clear on how language evolved and changed based on who was using it and how the majority took to the new use/spelling. The sky is blue not because one culture said so, but because the majority agree on what blue is in the first place. Now do you see how that works?

Edited August 30, 2018 by (PS4)Kamranos

[Babellon]

I don't know, in De-fense of the language I think it's a matter of pronunciation and application, but my defence might be weak.

"Though defense is now the American spelling, it is not American in origin. The OED and Google Books reveal examples of the spelling from as long ago as the 1300s, many centuries before the United States existed. That spelling continued to appear a fraction of the time through the 19th century, when it was taken up by American writers. Today, to the chagrin of those who dislike American English, the spelling is gaining ground throughout the English-speaking world."

quote from page-http://grammarist.com/spelling/defence-defense/

[DeMonkey]

35 minutes ago, (PS4)Kamranos said:

The joke is that people still argue over antiquated spelling.

Like.. you?

The thread was happily full of memes and jokes until you took it to this serious place. I mean, you claim ''British is no more correct than American'', implying they're both correct/incorrect, whilst also presenting an actual argument that American is the correct version. That's contradictory to your overall point.

Furthermore, I don't buy a ''it's right because we say so and there's more of us'' argument, nor is saying the sky is blue even remotely comparable.

Take Wukong's Iron Staff, the majority have long since held the belief (and some still do to this day) that the Staff isn't viable at higher levels. We're talking a majority. Does that make them right?

Not even slightly. Millions of people can be wrong, having a greater number of people saying something doesn't make something more correct. 

Now really, I don't give a fiddle what spelling you want to use, I was happily enjoying the thread as a whole. Semi-racist French jokes make me happy, taking the piss out of America makes me happy, even seeing others take the piss out of England makes me happy. It's a good time for all.

This isn't funny though, because at the end of the day no one should give a rats hairy bottom what version of English you speak as long as we understand each other, and certainly no one needs to stroke their ego over theirs being ''more correct''.

[(PSN)Kamranos]

13 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Like.. you?

The thread was happily full of memes and jokes until you took it to this serious place. I mean, you claim ''British is no more correct than American'', implying they're both correct/incorrect, whilst also presenting an actual argument that American is the correct version. That's contradictory to your overall point.

Furthermore, I don't buy a ''it's right because we say so and there's more of us'' argument, nor is saying the sky is blue even remotely comparable.

Take Wukong's Iron Staff, the majority have long since held the belief (and some still do to this day) that the Staff isn't viable at higher levels. We're talking a majority. Does that make them right?

Not even slightly. Millions of people can be wrong, having a greater number of people saying something doesn't make something more correct. 

Now really, I don't give a fiddle what spelling you want to use, I was happily enjoying the thread as a whole. Semi-racist French jokes make me happy, taking the piss out of America makes me happy, even seeing others take the piss out of England makes me happy. It's a good time for all.

This isn't funny though, because at the end of the day no one should give a rats hairy bottom what version of English you speak as long as we understand each other, and certainly no one needs to stroke their ego over theirs being ''more correct''.

This was good for a laugh. 

[(PSN)supernova_girlie]

On 2018-08-29 at 12:47 PM, MagPrime said:

Species 8472 is far more likely. 

I thought Paris or the Borg killed off this species by damaging their dimension. Regardless, they would be much more damaging to humanity than the Klingons.

[TheVeiledScion]

17 hours ago, (PS4)RhinoCharging00 said:

English did not originate in the United States, it didn't spread the language initially, it had no part in its core principles or rules, and it should therefore abide by the parameters of its inherited language.

{snip}

But older words, the way they are used, the structure of sentences, and things like punctuation, should follow established and accepted use, and not be swept aside on a whim because it is supposedly easier.

Bruh, if that’s actually how things work there wouldn’t BE an English language.  All languages spoken today are derived from earlier, “older” languages (and most of those weren’t originally in written form).  Do you know how we got the languages we have? Changes in pronunciation and sentence structure and meaning. I’ve never understood why people get so bent out of shape about .  Languages change. All the time.  They aren’t static.  And ultimately, you can’t control them when they take root in a different geographical environment with different history and culture.

[(PSN)RhinoCharging00]

7 hours ago, Arktourus said:

Bruh, if that’s actually how things work there wouldn’t BE an English language.  All languages spoken today are derived from earlier, “older” languages (and most of those weren’t originally in written form).  Do you know how we got the languages we have? Changes in pronunciation and sentence structure and meaning. I’ve never understood why people get so bent out of shape about .  Languages change. All the time.  They aren’t static.  And ultimately, you can’t control them when they take root in a different geographical environment with different history and culture.

This is largely untrue.

Yes, of course, language evolves...I said that.

Someone from England 800 years ago may find it very hard (if not impossible) to understand modern English, both in written form and spoken; it was far less recognisably English than it is was, say, 400 years after that.

By the 1600s you could probably understand a lot more.

By 1800 it was becoming very close to what we have today, bar the names of modern objects like computer, or televsion etc...

So there has most definitely been a set, organised, understood structure that the English language abides by to this day.

New words are always being entered, this is such an obvious point it doesn't need explaining.

But the rest, the actual structure, the parameters, remain steadfast. 

For instance;

1850: The horse and cart moved slowly

or 

1950: The supersonic jet moved at mach 3

________________________________

Key words, that form the backbone, the foundation, such as "the" and "moved" have remained constant and provide that framework.

The differences are in the new words like Supersonic and Mach (as opposed to words like Horse and Cart), which were introduced when needed to explain new ideas or objects...that, or they were roughly translated from other languages or given Latin names. 

 

Aside from the labels, language remains pretty unchanged.

Plus, to suggest that languages taking root in other places should be able to change fundamental rules on a whim is ridiculous. 

Fine, change it, but don't expect it to have any continuity; and without some rigidity you have nonsense. 

This is why I disagree with you.

Edited August 31, 2018 by (PS4)RhinoCharging00

[(PSN)RhinoCharging00]

23 hours ago, (PS4)Kamranos said:

It’s funny that you give the example about Mexico changing words...because they did. As did Canada with French. This is where Porto Rico Spanish, Spain Spanish and Mexican Spanish all got their own variants. They adapted the language to fit them. English is no different. British English is no more correct today than American English. Yes I bring up population because it does play a major role in the evolution of a language. More people means information needs to be conveyed faster. So we drop the unnecessary “u” in things like color and armor because it is just that...unnecessary. 

The joke is that people still argue over antiquated spelling. Spelling is as the majority writes it irregardless or its origin. That is pure and simple. My undergrad literature classes were pretty clear on how language evolved and changed based on who was using it and how the majority took to the new use/spelling. The sky is blue not because one culture said so, but because the majority agree on what blue is in the first place. Now do you see how that works?

No, you miss the point completely.