Talk:American English

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Editted Bad Example

Mardy Bum, in the dialect tha the Arctic Monkeys use, does not refer to a tramp at all, and in fact, the word bum is not used for tramp (I live here, and speak it.) In this case, it is simply a compound-phrase meaning a grumpy or sulky individual (a variation on the phrase uses a less family-friendly word for the posterior to get the same effect, albeit with less affection and more vehemence.) If you want a citation, I can vite you the lyrics of the song Stargrave 12:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that this article is in real need of an upgrade. There are no refeences, and while this reads as if it might be correct, it could be personal prejudice.--AvengingAngel 14:09, 28 May 2007 (EDT)


What is the point of these two removals? HelpJazz 20:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Cause they are about world dialects, not American English. By it's title, this isn't a page on English, but American English. (not that I did the deletions, but I agree with them). Besides, what was deleted was plagiarized, so it's probably good to remove anyhow... unless the writer of this page also wrote the IndoEnglish page that the lines are found from.--JeanJacques 17:59, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
If it's plagiarized, that's all I needed. An editor who joins the site to make exactly two edits, both of which involve removeal of text, it seems rather suspicious. HelpJazz 18:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Frankly, just reading around the "talk" pages, i'm pretty shocked at how common trolls are here. it's not an easy job, being an "sysop", i suspect. I know, i know, don't chit chat.  ;-)--JeanJacques 22:41, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not a sysop, and I could care less if you talk too much :) HelpJazz 23:41, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Lots of Cut & Paste from English sites

This article is just chock full of C&P, and most of the C&P are from a site about british English, which is why the last paragraph is there. It really isn't (or shouldn't be) an article about the dialects of English, since the title is specifically American English. IF i worked on it, it would likely need a major overhaul. is that ok?--JeanJacques 17:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I say do it. If it weren't okay, this shouldn't be a user-oriented site. --Limbo 20:19, 28 October 2008 (EDT)


American English differs in its grammar, phonology and vocabulary - I agree with phonology and vocabulary, but I'm not so sure about the grammar. Could anyone offer up any examples? I'm far from an expert; I'm curious about what might be different. --Hsmom 19:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Things like "I've seen that show" (acceptable in British English) and "I saw that show" (acceptable in American English). The use of verbal modifiers (mobile auxiliaries) is more pronounced in some areas in BE (like the recent past), which does not occur in American English. For all intents and purposes, American English can be considered a "bastardized" form of British English, but it is still valid. Much like Spanish, French, and Italian can all be considered "bastardizations" of Latin. Typically the desire to remove American English from having separate or distinct traits from British English are done out of blind traditionalism or ignorance. --Limbo 20:18, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
HSmom, "have done" is an interesting verb to watch. In American and British english, we would say "i have done it". necessarily requiring the DO. but in many dialects in england, you can say "I had done" without the DO.
Articles are "droped" from British english. or added to amrc. "I am going to hospital". I'm going to THE hospital. ('im brainstorming here.) -- wow, that's a lot i didn't know. --JeanJacques 22:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)


In what way is defense "more concise and economical" than defence? AngusF 14:51, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

That particular change does not appear to have been motivated by economy, but many other examples do ("colour" -> "color").--Andy Schlafly 00:03, 3 October 2009 (EDT)


All of the text about Roosevelt's spelling reforms were copied from other online sources; therefore, I have removed it on the grounds of copyright violation. SamH 00:51, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

Dr. Jensen's own work, copied here by him? Are you mistaking Richard Jensen's own published work? Please give your links. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:48, 15 May 2010 (EDT)