Is American English lazy English?

"In order to raise the level of English in the USA, the government deliberately simplified the system so more people could learn faster, and thus improve national communication as a whole. "

Now this idea is just wrong. How could the government affect the speach patterns of the majority of Americans, who at one time were directly from England? Modern British English has changed just as much as American English from the 'original' form in the 17th and 18th centuries when the American colonists left England.  It must also be reminded that while the US government uses English to function, the US does not have an official languange.    

  Hi folks. Well, I don't know if it's lazy but I find it exceedingly hard to make out american speech especially when the voice is muffled or peculiar. I put this down to the fact that americans very often mumble which is a pain in the neck for foreigners. 

Wow, what a lot of nonesense.

Is American English simply lazy English with disregard for the fundamentals of the language, or is it a valid simplification of an overly complex and irregular language?

Huh?  What are you talking about?

I was hoping nobody would ask, but since you did, I much prefer the attitude of the British. They have enough respect for the language to use correct spelling

How is modern British spelling more "correct"?  Who determines correct spelling anyway?  The differences in spelling between the US and the UK are mostly due to there being multiple forms that were considered "correct" at the time: such as "color" and "colour".

(The British have) clear enunciation

Oh they do, do they?  Are you referring to RP, which is spoken by about 4% of the population, or are you referring to Glaswegian?

(And the British have the) correct use of prepositions and general grammar (and Americans don't)

Huh?

It is not my intention to offend users of American English, users of the imperial system of measurement or anyone else who cares little for international standards.

By your logic, the imperial system should be the correct one.  After all, it was invented in Britain.  They simply "dumbed down" their system (as you like to say), and switched to the metric system.

I know literacy levels in most western countries are declining rapidly. Could this be a contributing factor?

What does literacy have to do with it?

they use American enunciation

There are several dialects of North American English.

(The "American enunciation", grammar, etc.) all these also have been standardized

Um, no.  There is no standardized pronunciation in North American English.

British is regarded as classical English?

"Classical English"?  Modern British dialects, particularily RP, have diverged more from the English that both RP and General American are derived from.  The non-rhoticity is one thing.

When one considers that the countries on the following list and a multitude of other nations have deep historical if not current connections with Britain and British English, I think it is quite likely that the use of Bitish English is far more widespread and popular than one might think at first glance.

Canada

Um.  Canada does not speak "British English".

Oh, by the way, British English is taught in Australian schools, and I think it would be fair to say that Australians take great pride in the preservation of 'proper' (the Queen's) English

Australians speak *Australian English* not British English.  They are not "taught" British English.  Their spelling system is closer to the British standard though.  As for Australians speaking the Queen's English, nothing could be father from the truth, in fact most non-Australians think that most forms of Australian English sound very much like Cockney.

Interesting that Australians take much pride in using British English - that actually would support the thesis that it'll hardly happen that the British English will be replaced by the American English, what do you think?

Um.  They don't use British English...  But they're of course not going to adopt an American accent.  That would be like thinking that people from Berlin would adopt a Swiss German accent.

As nationalities continually interact around the word, shouldn't there be ONE set standard for both measurement and English? Emagine if you gave a spelling test to students from different English speaking countries. Q. What would be the correct spelling for the word "COLOR/COLOUR" ? (for example) Who would pass the test and who would fail?

Um.  Both were used in the past as acceptable variants.

As nationalities continually interact around the word, shouldn't there be ONE set standard for both measurement and English?

No.  English is a pluricentric language.

American English now is mostly ebonics lol

Rubbish

In a nutshell American and British English are but two dialects of ENGLISH.

They are not two "dialects".  There's really no such thing as "American English" or "British English".  There are many dialects of English in North America, as well as many dialects in the Britain.

I don't think I would consider British English "Classic English". British English and American English were assumable one in the same 200 years ago.

Exactly.  But remeber, even at that time there was not just one form of English.  There were many dialects.

I started this thread in 2003, and I have to admit I now feel a little silly about it. Thanks to the input in this thread (and others) I realise my stupidity at having been so outspoken.

Good.

U.S. has a very diverse population. The pressure, naturally, is to simplify English so everyone, including the non-native speakers, can understand each other.

Rubbish.  How has it become simpler?  

They should learn to write properly, that is, English, proper English

Write properly?  What is this "correct spelling" anyway?

So you're quite likely to hear a rising 'Australian' intonation in plain statements, for example – which to some BrE ears makes every statement sound like a question.

That's also found in North American English.  It's associated with California English and Valley girls for the most part.  It has very little to do with Australian influence.

Englishuser wrote:

Hi Marvin A., You wrote: It's associated with California English and Valley girls for the most part. Valley girls? It would be nice to learn something more about the Valley girl dialect/accent of North American English. I hope you, Marvin, can help me out. Englishuser

It's basically an extremely phonologically progressive version of the California English dialect.  Ironically, it's often called "lazy English" (the same as the title of this thread, lol).  California is part of the greater Western dialect, but recently some new changes have cropped up that distinguish it from the rest of the West (although some other parts of the Southwest as well as Oregon are also experiencing some of the new changes).  These new changes are led by younger female speakers, particularly those identified as "Valley Girls".  Because of Hollywood, some trends in California English have been adopted by speakers in other regions as well.

-father-bother-cot-caught merged to [ O ] (GA "caught")
-marry-Mary-merry merger to [ E ]
-diphthongal vowels are closer to monophthongs
-"u" and "o" are pronounced in the front of the mouth and are unrounded (except before "l").  In fact they have vowels that are rare in most languages: [ ɯ ] and [ ʉ ] for /u/.
-"a" ash when followed by "n" is raised and diphthongized to [ e@ ] before "n" and "m".
--when followed by -ng, it is pronounced [  e  ]
--otherwise it is moving closer to GA [ a ].
-cat -> [ kat ]
-put -> putt
Advanced speakers: put -> pet
-pet -> pat
-think-theenk

So, you can see that it's actually fairly similar to my own dialect, except: I have a fairly back and rounded "u" and "o", except after "t" and "d".  I don't tense the [ I ] in one syllable words like "think", but I do in two syllable words.  They also don't have the bag-vague merger, nor do they even pronounce them close.  In fact, they actually lower it to [ a ], so when they say "bag", it sounds like "bog" to me.  Some also have some interesting mergers: for example some have the dull-dole merger.  I've heard that words like "palm" or "balm" also lack the "l", but that's found in many other English dialects (although not in my own).  I also don't have the put-> putt shift (but neither do the more phonologically conservative speakers there either.)

Adding "like" as a filler word is also a common feature.  This has affected many dialects here, and probably even overseas as well.

There are also lots of slang words and phrases that were spread by Valley Girls, such as "what-ever!" "as if!" (although it's mostly the tone of voice on these)

Other words include "airhead", "dude", "gnarly" (=good), "spaz", "scarf" (=to eat)

"Hella" is also originally from them.  It's now common in many other regions as well.  Even younger speakers here use it.  I've also heard older speakers from California use this word, which sounds odd, because it's restricted to younger speakers over here.

Here's a nifty "translator" from English -> Valley Girl: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/jbc/home/chef.html

Another unusual feature is the pharyngealization of "l" and rhotic "r" sounds, which is rare  in English.

The high rising terminals are spreading, and are also associated with this dialect.  Lots of people even over here use them--even older speakers nowadays.

What's interesting is that these changes are led by younger female speakers.  Older speakers and male speakers adopt these kind of changes later.

Englishuser wrote:

Why are the changes led by younger female speakers in particular?

The males adopt the changes in the hope of seeming more attractive to the younger females.

The older females adopt the changes in the hope of seeming more attractive to the males.

Gonads trump synapses, every time.  

MrP