
A book claims that Americanisms will have absorbed the English language by 2120 - bdz
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170904-how-americanisms-are-killing-the-english-language
======
outsideoflife
When I worked for a multi-national silicon valley based company we got so sick
of the creeping Americanisms (to be fair their jargon was worse, they even had
a company glossary for it) that we started a game.

We had a tally chart on the wall for anyone who slipped into saying one of
them accidentally. I survived for weeks until I rang someone to 'touch base'!

They seemed to have a group policy (or something) that changed the the
dictionary in Office back to 'American English' each reboot. I just ignored
the coloured (!) underlines and typed the way I wanted as my own personal
battle.

I don't actual have a problem with the variant spellings of American English.
I have a problem with certain kinds of bad English that happen to seem more
prevalent amongst Americans!

1) Verbalisation: "I am hoping to medal in the next Olympics". This sounds to
me like they are planning to _meddle_ with it. What is wrong with, "I am
hoping to win a medal"?

2) Bi-monthly and bi-weekly. Twice a week or every two weeks? Twice a month or
every two months. When you want to hold a meeting every two weeks then perhaps
a fortnightly meeting would tell people when they need to be there?

3) Reaching out. To mean making contact. What is wrong with, I wrote to x, I
called Y etc.

4) Bootstrapping a business: I get down-voted for this, but this seems to
cover everything from, "I'm so rich I didn't need to take outside investment",
to "I did this as an add on to my existing business and supported it with our
existing funding" to "We started on a server I found in a skip and scaled it
up from there until I could quit my job". In most of the cases I have seen it
could be replaced with the phrase, "I started a business" without losing any
meaning whatsoever.

I should stop annoying you all and do some work

~~~
Swizec
My pet peeve is when Americans say “I itched myself” ... you scratched an
itch.

> 3) Reaching out. To mean making contact. What is wrong with, I wrote to x, I
> called Y etc.

As a young nonnative whipper snapper I think reaching out kinda makes sense in
the modern world. We’re connected to people in so many ways simultaneously
that the way in which we reached out is irrelevant and often forgotten. I
don’t always know if I called, wrote, emailed, texted, slacked, tweeted,
messengered or carrier pigeoned you. I just know I reached out.

And before you say most of those are a form of writing, I think they’re often
perceived as closer to talking (in person almost) than to writing.

~~~
posterboy
you know, scratching damages the skin, numbs it too, but might worsen the
itch, so its quite apt if introduced by double tongued nanny types.

------
skywhopper
I think I just hurt my eyes from rolling them so far back in my head. Cultures
in contact with each other share words. It goes both ways. A quarter or more
of the words in English are outright copied from French... oh, but that
happened a long time ago.

As an American, I've noticed certain words I associate with British English
creeping into our vocabulary as well. In my mind I associate it with Harry
Potter and Doctor Who, but I realize Anglophilia is no new thing--these are
just the bits of British pop culture that hit me in my early adulthood.

The fact is that British and American English will each remain distinctive,
even as they continue to share and evolve together as well. The Internet is
definitely making this evolution happen more quickly. But it still goes both
ways, and will continue to do so. Some of the changes you'll like and adopt
without thinking about, some you will find annoying or crude, some you will
hate with a completely irrational passion. It's part of life. Enjoy it!

~~~
coldtea
> _I think I just hurt my eyes from rolling them so far back in my head.
> Cultures in contact with each other share words. It goes both ways._

Not really, it goes mostly from the direction of the stronger nations to the
less strong in the relationship.

And cultures and languages do die out in such processes.

Now, some might find all this inconsequential, but for some of us those things
means something (and the fact that historically things change and die anyway
isn't more comforting than it is when its told about one's family dying).

What I'm more amazed is how people can lament some latest sequel to a movie
franchise "betraying" or losing the spirit of the original or losing its way
etc, but at the same time can't understand others that are concerned with
whole cultures doing the same.

~~~
posterboy
strawman! those aren't necessarily the same people. Edit: But even though, a
bit of cognitive dissonance is part of the learning process. I think you are
pointing out a true correlation. which is, often times its enough to be
popular or just shout the loudest to attract attention, and everything else
might follow.

~~~
coldtea
> _strawman! those aren 't necessarily the same people._

Well, isn't that a strawman too? Seeing that, I didn't say those are
"necessarily" the same people -- just that "some people" hold both opinions
simultaneously.

------
yodsanklai
As a foreign speaker, American English has become the reference. Almost all
English sources I use are American. (e.g. movies, tv series, youtube
channels...). I try not to use words specific to British English and I set my
spellchecker to U.S. English.

It sounds wrong to refer to British English as _the_ English language. There
are several English languages that coexist and cross-pollinate.

~~~
Spearchucker
That's interesting. I'm the other way 'round. Mostly because American English
has managed to confused the hell out of me. Pronouncing (or softening) "t"s
as/into "d"s means many Americans spell accordingly - Tao becomes Dao.

Then there's the impossibility of popular phrases (individual words such as
"movie" don't bother me much at all). "What are you hungry for?" simply cannot
be. It makes more sense to ask what one feels like eating. Same with "I'm
excited for..." Just doesn't make sense. We're excited ABOUT a thing, not FOR
a thing. The American propensity to fake it because PR annoys me no end, too.
Every time I hear "I'm thrilled to..." I do a little mouth-vomit. There's just
NO authenticity behind a statement that starts with those words.

Many more such nuances. Like "He disrespected me" instead of someone being
rude, curt or otherwise unfriendly to another (respect is earned).

There are going to be as many opinions about this stuff as there are people.

~~~
yodsanklai
I agree. Now that I think of this, I realize that there are lot of
americanisms I would never use. Things such as "I'm gonna" or "dude". I feel
it doesn't sound right when you have a heavy foreign accent. Maybe the best
thing to do for a non-native English speaker living in the "global world" is
to target an English free of local idioms, and a neutral north-american
accent.

------
Arun2009
From the perspective of a non-native speaker of the language, it seems to me
that the United States _is_ English's killer product. A great deal of the
credit for the English language's dominance must go to the US and the culture
and technology it exports relentlessly all over the world. Far from killing
the English language as the author complains, the US might just have made it
prevail over similar contenders like Spanish or Mandarin.

~~~
Spearchucker
Let's see how this turns out over the next decade or so. Both the US and the
UK have and are slowly withdrawing from the world stage, making English less
and less important. Without the UK in the EU, for example, why would English
need to remain the common language when German is the most spoken language in
Europe?

~~~
SirFatty
"Both the US and the UK have and are slowly withdrawing from the world
stage..."

What a crock...

~~~
Spearchucker
Leaving the EU isn't a withdrawal? Can you elaborate a little more eloquently?

------
rumcajz
An interesting phenomenon I've noticed is that a lot of people, and often
intelligent people, believe that language that have been evolving for
thousands of years should, somehow, just stop evolving today.

Interestingly, while one would expect it to be correlated with political
belief (conservatives would want language as it was in good old days,
progressives would embrace the change) my personal anecdotal evidence says it
isn't.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Richard Dawkins once tweeted his rule for accepting something new.

If it adds something new to the language, he accepts it. If we already have
existing words that do a better job, he rejects it.

This begrudgingly forced him to accept the use of ‘like’ the way teenage girls
use it because they don’t mean “this person said”, or “I said”. They mean some
more like “this person said something to the effect of”.

~~~
rumcajz
Interesting. One would expect Dawkins, being an evolutionary biologist and
father of the concept of meme, to just accept the change. But he probably
wasn't speaking of what should or should not be. Rather about what he's doing
himself.

------
ascorbic
This has been happening to the English language for the entirety of its
existence. The process may have accelerated, but it's the same process that's
led to the mishmash of Germanic, Latin and panoply of loanwords that we use
every day.

------
seanalltogether
I was about to point out how much American TV is broadcast daily in the UK and
how that shapes language and culture over here. But I think the complete lack
of British online social communities is going to be even more influential.
Everyone over here is on facebook, youtube, reddit, etc. Everyone is
installing games and apps on their phones with American English phrasing.
Aside from reading the bbc, telegraph etc or shopping/banking online, every
other bit of online content consumed over here is mostly American centered.

------
petecox
'marvellous' saw something of an ironic renaissance in Australia as a homage
to Richie Benaud.

The Spanish cognate 'maravilloso' survives.

~~~
phillc73
Because cricket is the number one game in town.

------
Santosh83
Just another special case of erosion of all kinds of diversity as we become
globally connected. Biological, linguistic, cultural etc.

If you want to do something about it, and you aren't an American, then
preserve what's unique to your place and people. Don't get swept up mindlessly
in the global consumerist culture. Merely lamenting is not going to save
vanishing diversity.

------
phillc73
> Engel says. “A nation that outsources the development of its own language –
> that language it developed over hundreds of years – is a nation that has
> lost the will to live”.

I believe something similar applies now to Australian English. Many of the
words and phrases, developed over 200 years of unique shared experience, and
also incorporated from a diverse range of linguistic immigration, are no
longer commonly in use. Or at least not commonly in use amongst the younger
urban population, which seems to drive much of the national cultural norms
today.

I think the language is poorer for this loss, but also understand it is
perhaps an inevitable consequence of constant exposure to the dominant Western
global cultural force.

------
dmitriid
How can you "kill" something that constantly evolves?

A hundred years ago modern-day "britishisms" would be viewed as "killing the
English language".

Also, what's "British English"? These two are British English:

\- received pronunciation with it's "proper English":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIemPxHSb6Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIemPxHSb6Q)

\- Glasgoans (??)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le_uNGdpa4c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le_uNGdpa4c)
with "bubblin' and greetin'" and other weird stuff

~~~
bencollier49
"Glaswegians"

------
olingern
No doubt we "Americans" have changed the language, for better or worse, but
this comment is more about journalism.

I expect more from the BBC than to let a former Bloomberg journalist make
generalizations without anything to back it up. "Awesome" occurring more often
than "marvelous" doesn't provide us with anything other than the fact that the
author appreciates the latter more than the former.

Seems appropriate that I should go write a piece for the BBC on how journalism
has declined and how Brits are contributing, and be sure to cite this article.

~~~
mattnewport
Perhaps it's not obvious to non native British English speakers but the
American use of "awesome" to mean something rather different to its
traditional British English meaning is very clear and obvious example of
'undesirable' Americanisation of English. Any native speaker of British
English would recognize the phenomenon from their own experience but the
author provided some actual numbers to back up the reality of this particular
linguistic evolution.

It's a change I've personally lamented due to the loss of the word awesome to
use for its original meaning without a good replacement.

~~~
olingern
I think what he fails to understand, and many British for that matter, is that
the language is not "owned" by anyone. Australians have probably augmented
English more than us Americans, but I don't hear or see much complaining about
their use of the language. The article comes off as whiny and unsubstantiated.

It's a tough time to be an American, and most people realize that. Exploiting
that with bad journalism is just throwing gas onto a trash fire IMO.

edit: More importantly, if Brits want to preserve the language as they see it
in their country, they should consider going the French route [1].

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise)

~~~
mattnewport
I think you're projecting your own concerns onto the author. Certainly
language is not owned by anyone (which is why the French approach is stupid)
and languages always evolve (as the author acknowledges early in the article).
The article is not trying to change American English, it's aimed at a British
audience and drawing attention to something that the author fears the British
are losing by adopting American English without thinking about the
consequences.

I grew up in England but live in Canada and speak quite Americanized English
as a result. I've got nothing against Americans or them speaking American
English and I don't think the author has either. I do agree with him however
that as Brits (and as Canadians in my case) we are losing something valuable
by adopting American English unthinkingly and it's worth paying a bit more
attention to individually when we use language as a result.

~~~
olingern
> I think you're projecting your own concerns onto the author

It's entirely possible.

> which is why the French approach is stupid

I think there's _some_ merit to what they do, but it is a bit much.

> I do agree with him however that as Brits (and as Canadians in my case) we
> are losing something valuable by adopting American English unthinkingly and
> it's worth paying a bit more attention to individually when we use language
> as a result.

I would agree, but would say the author / BBC could have had more tact and not
used the headline, "How Americanisms Are Killing the English Language." If a
Japanese news outlet ran an article, "How the British have 'watered' tea down
for more than 100 years" \-- not too many Brits would be excited about reading
it.

------
globcal
British English is no longer appropriate because it was never properly
promulgated in its colonies. Around the world from South Africa to Belize and
even in Canada varietal bastardizations of the language have been allowed to
emerge creating more English that is not British. Both Spanish and English are
languages that have become decentralized and there will never be a global
standard in favor of the country where the barefoot barbarians claim to
dominate it so completely.

------
duiker101
I am not sure what is the author trying to convey with the article. I mean...
isn't it a feature of languages that they evolve and change with society? I
think pretty much every language today is not exactly the same that it was a
couple of generations ago so why would we expect it to be what it is now in
the future? Or is the complaint just that are the Americas bringing the most
changes?

------
montrose
Though there are lots of conspicuous imports in e.g. product names, those are
just on the surface. It's harder for "supposed to be" to replace "meant to be"
than for "ATM" to replace "cash point."

------
axiom92
This article's giving me the heebie-jeebies.

------
d--b
It's sad to see such bullshit conservatism from someone who has written for
bbc and the guardian. This is the kind of arguments that Brexit backers use.
"Let's protect the English language! Let's kick all the foreigners out!"

~~~
coldtea
Yeah, because caring for language and culture is fascism. Yay change towards
any direction!

~~~
d--b
It's not. Fascism is something else entirely.

~~~
coldtea
Missed the (non there) /s

------
Fej
Misleading title, author equates "English" to "British English".

~~~
Walf
International English.

Supposably, Americans could care less that other English-speaking countries
are closer to en-GB than en-US, despite the relentless onslaught of
inconsiderate software defaults.

~~~
bigal67
_supposedly_ ;) Sorry... being slightly facetious :)

~~~
petepete
I think supposably is a valid word and makes sense in this context.

The meaning overlaps a lot with supposedly, which is much more-commonly used,
so it sounds a bit odd.

~~~
Walf
I hope that you, too are being sarcastic. The meaning doesn't overlap, it's
the same word, mispronounced.

~~~
petepete
No.

[https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supposably](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supposably)

~~~
bigal67
Supposably is a real word, but the meaning is different.

It is a synonym for "conceivable", whereas supposedly means: "according to
what is accepted or believed to be true"

see: [http://www.dictionary.com/e/supposedly-vs-
supposably/](http://www.dictionary.com/e/supposedly-vs-supposably/)

------
IIAOPSW
No one has done as much damage to English as the English. Maybe its time to
let someone else carry the torch for a while. We can't do any worse.

