Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!mathnews2
From: mathnews2@watdcsu.UUCP (mathNOOS [editors])
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: anglish is a musing
Message-ID: <1241@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Apr-85 15:49:15 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1241
Posted: Sun Apr 14 15:49:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 02:03:44 EST
References: <303@ttidcc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mathnews2@watdcsu.UUCP (mathNOOS [editors])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 57
Summary: 

(This is for all the news systems that think they are Pacman)

You would nae believe just how true it be that some people learn their
English from largely aural sources.  I grew up in a rather remote area
of Eastern Ontario (Canada) settled by United Empire Loyalists (those
who were smart enough to stay British after the American Revolution
(very :-)) ).  I learned three versions of English in those days.

The first version was what was used around me home.  She tended to
have a great deal of British phrases still in her, with a smattering
of joual (slang Quebec (Canada) French, which differs from the french
in Ontario, which differs from the French in New Brunswick, which
differs from the French in Nova Scotia, which differs from the french
in Manitoba, which differs from the French in Prince Edward Island.
Some versions of French are actually so divergent that often people
who speak one version don't even recognise the other as French!) at
some points where it fit un peu better.

The second version of English that I learned was from the telly.  It
has proven useful in some ways, but it is far too *American* at times
for use in some areas of Canada, especially when you have certain
inflections like, you know, the stuff that is just totally, like, to
the max.

The third version was the school version, based on the great English
(British) and Canadian writers of our times (and we also did read John
Stienbeck's The Grapes of Wrath).  I must admit that I am not all that
familiar with that many American writers as a result.

I am proud of my knowledge of English, which is much stronger than
most with my background, but I know full well that if I were to go
home and use it, no one would understand me.  Someone had told me that
there were at least one hundred dialects of Chinese.  I heard as well
(subject to confirmation) that India has fifteen official languages.
The diversity adds colour to the environment.  If we all spoke as
though we were Oxford graduates, conversation would be exceedingly
dull (it might be a bit better if we were Cambridge graduates :-) ).
My many idiosyncracies in the way I talk make me a more interesting
speaker from what I have been told.  I can communicate fully in my
hometown tounge in any situation and be understood with only the need
for occasional clarification.

From what I have found, while English is a terrific thing, remember
that it is a mutt in the languages of the world, and the many new
things coming into the language every day give it its life and vigour.

				-- Scooter!

PS. The Oxford English Dictionary (being revised here at the
University of Waterloo) does not recognise the title chairperson.
Neither do I.
-- 
mathNEWS--the math student newspaper at the University of Waterloo

{allegra|clyde|linus|ihnp4|decvax}!watmath!watdcsu!mathnews2          UUCP
mathnews2%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet                                      CSNET
mathnews2@watdcsu                                                     NETNORTH