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

[Ronald Chmara]

Sorry, trolls are fun, and I'm bored....

On Sep 23, 2005, at 1:56 AM, Jack & Naree wrote:
> If you search for "American-English" on google, you'll find a long 
> list (a
> very long list) of the differences.

Oh, hm, and what "language" did you search google in, prithetell? You 
know, they have different languages and all.

> Colour/Color is but a superficial one, but it is important because 
> it's a
> fundamental word and article entry.

Oh yes! Let(')s get into wars over this one!

> The issue is that to choose one spelling over the other goes against 
> the
> principle that both spellings are equally valid; or that each spelling 
> is
> regarded as the correct one (and the other as a foreign one) by 
> millions of
> people, in each case.

And this is why you are horribly, horridly, wrong. Your brain lacks 
(apparently) the simple understanding that *both* are the only right 
spelling, and thus, only both are proper, which is why there is no 
proper one.

> There are other issues with other words, phrases or terms.
>  e.g.: if I want to search for "tap", do I redirected to "faucet"?

"do I redirected" is a new one on me ("do I get directed", maybe?).... 
but yes, there are variants in english. Travel much?

> If you use the word "faucet" in the British Isles, few people will 
> know what
> you mean - even in context (they might think it's a technical term for 
> part
> of a tap).

So, uneducated people mean we must have a wikipedia for every grotto? 
Village?

> In such a case, it's a foreign word to millions of 
> "Commonwealth-English"
> speakers (though not necessarily all), and unintelligible - it has to 
> be
> translated.

I come from Arizona. We have a plant there. It's called a Saguaro 
(Pronounced sa-wah-ro). Yes, unusual terms will always have to be 
translated for people outside of their realm, be it a faucet, plant, or 
wind (such as Mariah).

> To illustrate how the English I speak (in England)

Which bears little semblance to the original language...

>  is a different language
> to American-English, I was in Bangkok a couple of years ago, and in an
> internet cafe - a man turned to me and said:
> "What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I 
> looked
> back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but speaking 
> different
> languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why.

Welcome to language.

Maybe a young man might ask you "what's going down", and you might be 
illiterate,  He might ask you "where be the shizznat?" and you might be 
illiterate.

You would *still* be the one illiterate in modern english, not he. You 
have not kept up on your studies, if you cannot translate the above.

>  It became apparent that we were from different countries, and some
> explaining was required - we had to learn each other's language. We 
> were not
> speaking the same language.

You refuse to learn how language changes without prompting, he adopts 
and learns. Simple enough.

> Americans might want to call their language "English", but the term is
> inappropriate, because it already exists for a language that is
> autochthonous to England, whence the name comes.

When the englanders and amis can speak english, the world will be much 
better. (riiight)

Tat's that you say? The do?
Uh, wi didyn't yu say sew?

People in england, just like people all over the world, have made 
english fit their tongues, their lands, their locale.

>  Another term has to be
> created for this offshoot of English,

Which, the brit version? Scots? Brooklyn? (etc. etc.)

>  and the term "American English" is
> used in the OED. So it's reasonable to say that Americans don't speak
> "English", they speak "American-English",

And UK folk don't speak english, so much as they speak a mess of 
socially derived variants of the language. Like amis do.

>  which is written often using words
> that look identical or similar, but that does not mean that the 
> meaning is
> the same.

Make a wikipedia where every sub-language can define every 
colloquialism, regional difference, subculture change?

> Having words which look the same does not mean they are the same.
> The word "color" is spelt

Wow, this is funny. No irony meter here, though... :-)

>  the same in a number of languages:
> American-English, Spanish, Asturianu, Catalan... but not in
> Commonwealth-English.
>  If it's good enough for Google and Gmail to have American-English and
> Commonwealth Englishes (which should probably be unified as
> Commonwealth-English),

You've been fighting for dominance over 800 years. Get over it, you 
lost. The "English" can't even figure out what england is, and the 
language fragments away, just as the lost empire does. (Note to amis: 
this is your fate, too).

But let(')s worry about a U in color/colo(u)r.

>  then it should be good enough for Wikipedia.
>  No offence to all of you who are not native speakers, but this debate 
> is
> better had between native speakers - as it would be for any language.

LOL. Outside speakers are less biased. Couldn't have that, could we?

>  I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English
> Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed:
>  English (Commonwealth)
> English (American)

I propose you fork off. The code is there. Go for it.

>  This is in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statement on English; 
> it
> also seems fair considering the existence of things like:
> Norwegian (Bokmal) & Norwegian (Nynorsk); Dutch, Limburgish and 
> Afrikaans;
> Simple English; Galician and Portuguese; and frankly some Slavic 
> dialects.http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

I think those are insane too, and many fed by racial hatred.

I wish they (the racists) would fork off as well.

-Bop