On 20/09/05, Jack & Naree jack.macdaddy@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.