|
 |
British English | ||
Tags: Dialect | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Language Programs, Books & Tapes |  | |
| beano Diglot Senior Member United KingdomRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4444 days ago 1049 posts - 2152 votes  Speaks: English*, German Studies: Russian, Serbian, Hungarian | Message 17 of 29 30 June 2013 at 12:16pm | IP Logged | ||
|
A few verbs differ in the past tense.
Spit - spat Fit - fitted Dive - dived (I believe Americans sometimes say dove?) Sneak - sneaked (not snuck) Also, we walk towards something, not toward it. We write to a person, we don't write them. Occasionally the spoken stress is different. Words like holiday and defence sound peculiar to me when voiced by an American. You guys also say things like "he was the best actor I ever saw". British people would say he's the best actor I have ever seen. Americans also seem to avoid "shall" when issuing polite suggestions. Edited by beano on 30 June 2013 at 12:18pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| vogue Triglot Senior Member United States Joined 4076 days ago 109 posts - 181 votes Speaks: English*, Italian, Spanish Studies: Ukrainian | Message 18 of 29 30 June 2013 at 12:53pm | IP Logged | ||
As far as the toward vs toward, this must be somewhat dependent on what part of the states you're in. I generally use 'towards' and I'm from the US. Interestingly, this is also true of 'I spat' and 'I spit.' Though, I hear very few Americans say dived, fitted, and sneaked. I'm not sure I understand you're writing example: "I need to write mom" "I need to write to mom" both are used, if that's what you're saying. I'd use the second one more than the first though. Also, "he was the best actor I ever saw" doesn't sound write to me as an American. I tried to make it sound right in my head "he's the best actor I ever saw," but that doesn't work either. This maybe, again influenced by region, but more likely by level of education (I don't claim to know that for sure, but just a guess). "He is the best actor I've ever seen" and "He was the best actor I had ever seen" sound more correct. Also, Brits go to hospital not to the hospital. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| beano Diglot Senior Member United KingdomRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4444 days ago 1049 posts - 2152 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Russian, Serbian, Hungarian | Message 19 of 29 30 June 2013 at 2:31pm | IP Logged | ||
In the UK, we always write TO someone. In the States, it seems to be permissible to omit the "to" You have highlighted another obvious difference. The word "mom" is never used in Britain. It is always mum. Edited by beano on 30 June 2013 at 2:32pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| montmorency Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4650 days ago 2371 posts - 3676 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Danish, Welsh | Message 20 of 29 30 June 2013 at 4:07pm | IP Logged | ||
One thing I notice people doing a lot (here in Britain, but also on the internet generally) is writing or saying "that" when it refers to a person. I don't know whether it's a rule or not, but to my mind it should be "who" (or "whom" in some situations, and if one wants to sound (or doesn't mind sounding) more formal). It's one of those "battles" that "we" seem to be losing though. (Like "alibi", which has long lost its original (and useful) meaning). 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| montmorency Diglot Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4650 days ago 2371 posts - 3676 votes Speaks: English*, German Studies: Danish, Welsh | Message 21 of 29 30 June 2013 at 4:19pm | IP Logged | ||
Or more generally, USAmericans tend to use the simple past tense more, whereas in England we tend more to use the perfect tense. It's not always clear cut though. I would say e.g. "I went to the dentist this morning". But I might ask someone "Have you been to the dentist this morning?" I still might also ask "Did you go to the dentist this morning"?, and to me, that has a slightly different meaning, wheres I think Americans would prefer to say it regardless, in preference to the "have you been" construction. Another difference, and I think it's really an informal thing, although you see it written all the time on the web: Americans seem to avoid constructions like: "If I had gone to the dentist sooner, I would not have needed so much work doing". In favour of something like: "If I would have gone to the dentist sooner, I would not have needed so much work doing". However I have seen the "had" construction being used in older formal written American as well, so maybe it's a change over time, or more of an informal thing. It has been suggested to me that the American usage may have been influenced by German "würde"+infinitive as alternative to traditional subjunctive), but that is just surmise I think. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
 songlines Pro Member Canada flickr.com/photos/cp Joined 5031 days ago 729 posts - 1056 votes Speaks: English* Studies: French Personal Language Map | Message 22 of 29 30 June 2013 at 5:31pm | IP Logged | ||
|
Try Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions: Making Sense of Translatlantic English, by Orin
Hargraves, published by Oxford University Press, 2003. (There doesn't seem to be a more recent edition.) The author is a lexicographer who's worked on the Oxford, Cambridge, and Longman dictionaries. The table of contents page from Amazon will give you some idea of the subjects Hargraves covers; but the book deals with far more than just substituting one word or spelling variant for another. Certainly, those are covered - especially in the first two chapters of the book - but those "mechanical differences - differences that apply in nearly all contexts and ...can be reduced in many cases to simple substitutions of letters, words, or phrases" are relatively easy to find outlined elswhere (online or in print format) and are what many people think of when they compare UK and US English. But Hargraves also covers the cultural, political, legal, administrative/bureaucratic, etc. differences between the two countries. For example: - Procedural differences in things like bankruptcy cases (e.g. the Chapter #s of the relevant statutes in U.S. law, and the various options starting from "softest" ["administration order"] to most severe ["compulsory liquidation/bankruptcy order"], in UK law). legal/ institutional/structural differences: e.g, - Legal /administrative bodies which may or may not exist in the other country: "employment tribunals in the UK are empowered to adjudicate disputes in cases involving dismissals... Such matters in the US are normally handled by private litigation and the courts.." - Comparisons of the organization/administration of the respective health care systems. - Excellent chapter on the US and UK educational systems: which level/type of school students might attend at each age; nomenclature used for marks/grades given for coursework or exams; exams, whether compulsory, or for college/university admissions; differences in the systems of higher education. Functional equivalencies : in the case of employment disputes, Hargraves also notes that major differences between management and unions are mediated by the NLRB in the US, and the ACAS in the UK. (He explains the acronyms). - Excellent chapter on government and the law, outlining the systems of government, how bills are passed in each country, taxes (e.g. VAT vs sales tax), selective list of government ministries, departments, agencies, organizations - their names, functions and acronyms. Trademarked products which may not be familiar to readers in both countries, e.g. food products. Where there is no comparable product, a description of the item is given. Armed Forces: handy tables outlining equivalent ranks in the US and UK army, navy and air forces. Officer training schools, some of which are known by the names of their locations (Annapolis, Sandhurst, West Point). Different terminology used for veterans/ex-servicement, and organizations which support them. Differing preferences in nomenclature used for major wars (US: "World War II" vs UK "Second World War"; both are used, but "each dialect uses the other's first choice as its second choice".) Cultural references . A chapter on "The Stuff of Life" includes cultural references, esp from TV and radio, e.g. "Blue Peter (UK): long-running children's programe that attempts to educate and inform in a cheerful way; similar to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood in the US". (Keep in mind the book's publication date, though: more recent cultural references will of course not be included.) As you can perhaps guess, I found Hargraves book absolutely fascinating. It's also well-organized and immensely readable, and would also be of interest to editors and copyeditors. Of course, a translator of a non-fiction work is not going to be able to willy-nilly substitute one term for another (any action carried out by the AFL-CIO will still have been done by that body, not the TUC, though both are umbrella organizations for unions), but I think Mighty Fine Words... will be invaluable in giving people a better understanding of, and context for, what they're translating. And if you're translating fiction, then - depending on the style/preferences of your author/editors/publishers, and to what degree they wish to retain the setting of the original work, you may well find Hargraves an essential aid in "Americanizing" the text, or at least in making it more comprehensible to a US readership. A caveat: I'm not a translator; nor am I living in either the UK or US, at that! But if anyone has an interest in linguistic variants, or UK/US cross-cultural differences, you may enjoy dipping into this book. As a reference librarian, I've found it to be an excellent resource, and a tremendously enjoyable one. (-One of the sections on food, for example, has this preface: "As antidotes to human suffering, cakes occupy a cherished place in the lexicons of all English speakers", after which follows a list of cakes possibly unfamiliar to the non-native of one country or the other. ) Edited to add the link to Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/mfwase Edited by songlines on 01 July 2013 at 2:26am 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||
| tommus Senior Member CanadaRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5688 days ago 979 posts - 1688 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Dutch, French, Esperanto, German, Spanish | Message 23 of 29 30 June 2013 at 5:32pm | IP Logged | ||
|
The British, especially on sports broadcasts, use collective nouns as plurals. Manchester United are playing well today. The team are leaving the field. Brazil are ahead in the match. The public are protesting. Such usage in sports is becoming more and more common in Canada and the US also.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| espejismo Diglot Senior Member Russian Federation Joined 4873 days ago 498 posts - 905 votes Speaks: Russian*, English Studies: Spanish, Greek, Azerbaijani | Message 24 of 29 01 July 2013 at 12:43am | IP Logged | ||
|
Another one is "he is in hospital" (UK) and "he is in the hospital" (US). I believe they made fun of this on
Family Guy... 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
