5 ms·

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 language

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 9y ago
> 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.