[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] English orthographies

[Rowan Collins]

On 20/09/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>  The debate is "huge" in terms of it's implications, because up until now
> no-one appears to have challenged the idea that American-English has the
> right to be considered the standard form of English.

Just a quick reply to this, but in a phrase I think I've picked up
from the American media:
I call bullshit on this.

I have never, ever, heard anyone claim that US English "has the right
to be considered the standard form of English". I've heard, and
shared, the opinion that US English is a recognisable, valid, and
hugely influential form of English, but that is a very different
point.

I have also heard, from you, the equally bogus claim that what you
call "English English", but might more commonly be called "UK",
"Commonwealth", "Queen's", or "BBC" English has the right to be
considered the standard form. I have never heard a convincing argument
as to why it has that right.

> It's patently obvious
> it's a dialect, with it's own orthography and it's simply wrong for the
> headword in English to be written in a dialect of English in a dialectal
> orthography and presented as the standard form, when it's not.

As for this bit, I think I and others have already refuted this at
some length on the other thread, but:
1) there is no such thing as "the standard form"
2) US English is a dialect of English
3) UK English is another dialect of English
4) neither of those labels is all that accurate, since those 2
dialects most definitely do not cover all usage in those 2 countries

So, yes, it's simply wrong to present US English as "the standard
form"; but it's just as wrong to present any other dialect, including
your precious "Queen's English", as "the standard form", because *both
are equally valid*.


Here's a thought experiment for you, to avoid reading too much into
the term "English": picture an imaginary language, we'll call it
"Blibbish". Now, to simplify, let's pretend there is a single version
of Blibbish spoken in Fooland, and a single one in Bargia. They are
both Blibbish, both from the same historical roots, but due to the
unfortunate location of a large body of sea-water between Fooland and
Bargia, they have evolved somewhat separately over the last couple of
centuries. Older versions of Blibbish were only spoken in Fooland,
because Bargia hadn't been discovered yet, but those old versions are
all extinct now - replaced by the two "competing" versions. Now, come
up with a good reason why either version of Blibbish should be
considered "superior" or "more standard" than the other.

-- 
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]