Re: Cell
mates
Posted by James
Briggs on January 12, 2002 In Reply to: Cell
mates posted by Word Camel on January 11, 2002
: : : : : Elsewhere
on this forum, someone worries that US spoken english is becoming less rich in
vocabulary. Being from the UK and therefore prone to a "holier than thou" attitude
when it comes to the English language, my natural tendency is to agree and view
American english as evolving into a more simplified form - hence the loss of the
diphthongs "ae-" and "oe-" (as in anaesthesia/anesthesia or diarrhoea/diarrhea)
and the dropping of the silent "u" (as in colour/color and many others).
: :
: : : It is indeed a given with the evolution of language that things tend to
progress towards regularity as time moves on, with exceptions to generic standards
slowly falling into disuse. However, whereas US english seems to have adopted
a more simplified spelling structure, when it comes to verb declensions, it's
the UK that seems to have moved towards simplification more quickly.
: : :
: : I'll cite the two examples that come to mind.
: : : : : To get - I get,
I got, I have got (UK)
: : : : : I get, I got, I have gotten (US)
: : : :
: (And yet, "to beget" and "to forget" in UK English follow the above US route
in declension)
: : : : : To dive - I dive, I dived, I have dived (UK)
: :
: : : - I dive, I dove, I have ????? (US)
: : : : : (I can't think of another
example that follows the above US declension)
: : : : : It's interesting to
me that the US has preserved irregular (or "strong") verb structures longer than
the UK. It just goes to show how diversified a common language can become, given
only 200 or so years of separation.
: : : : In the U.S., "dived" is standard
for past and for past participle. "Dove" is colloquial. "Gotten" now appears without
a cautionary note (i.e., status label) in the American Heritage Dictionary. However,
at the small publisher's where I worked 30 years ago, the house style book said
of "gotten": "We do not recognize this word. Say 'got.'"
: : : : If we in the
U.S. exported as much academic writing as we export pop culture, the rest of the
world might have a higher opinion of our mastery of English.
: : : :
:
: : As far as 'colour' vs 'color';'tumour' vs 'tumor' etc are concerned that 'o'
version was often the way the words were spelt in Britan up to the turn of 18th
century. It then became fashionable to put in the 'u' on this side of the Atlantic,
a habit which was never taken up on the other side. In Britain we still retain
the old spelling in some instances, eg the distrist of London known as 'Honor
Oak', and the female name 'Honor'. By and large, and by an overwhelming amount,
the US spelling is more accurate, and based on the original Latin - 'Labor' and
not 'Labour'. Perversely, many of the derivative words in GB English retain their
old spelling - 'Laboratory' is a good example! A pet hate of mine is the use of
'Foetus' in GB English. This is wrong, and 'Fetus' is the correct way to spell
the word, based on its Latin origin. All our Medical Journals in the UK have long
used 'Fetus'. I've tried, off and on, for more than 20 years to get the 'Times'
to change - to no avail.
: : On reflection, you're absolutely right regarding
the rogue additional "u" when considering Latin word roots - the US format is
definitely closer to the original, and therefore arguably more "pure", if such
a thing matters at all. I wonder idly how "torpor" snuck (sneaked?) under the
UK radar and did not have a "u" thrust upon it.
: : As to your diphthong statement,
does it only apply to the oe- construct? I am pretty sure that ae- diphthongs
are pure Latin in origin and therefore more "purist", but am on very shaky ground
when it comes to oe-. You'll note I carefully chose "manoeuvre" as my example,
which was a deliberate avoidance of the issue :)
: : So if you're right about
"fetus", should an amoeba be an ameba? Or should just transatlantic amoebae be
amebas? Or amebae?
: : Since I'm now merely confusing myself, could somebody
please be kind enough to confirm the or
|