Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:British people' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'British people'

Re: correct or not ?

Hoa Thai — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:07:44 GMT

Tuongvan wrote:
Bill has been UK on/ US at the same grade for several years now .

Perhaps British people use on and American people use at . Or this sentence has other meaning ? I 'm very confused now.

Hi Van,

The dictionary is correct about the difference between AmE and BrE regarding the usage of the two prepositions. That means we all fail to satisfy both cultures. However, we can certainly satisfy one culture; consistency is what we should go after. Make your choice and stick with it for the rest of your life. I made my choice to use 'at' and I explained my reason to you. I also shared my thought about this selection of mine in another post, Post: 459031 .

Take care,
Hoa Thai

Re: "Yours sincerely" "Sincerely yours"

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:10:53 GMT

There's not a real difference between them. They're both American ways of ending commercial letters...British people would use "Yours faithfully"

Chiara

Re: accents

SillyMe — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:32:36 GMT

"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"

"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"

Is the difference between those two an accent matter, or a pronunciation matter?

Neither. The intonation is the key. You have used an intonation stress to emphasise those words in the sentences. It has nothing to do with an accent. A lot of languages have the same mechanism for this purpose. People rarely speak in a monotonic way. They need an intonation to emphasise their ideas.

If your friends have a hard time understanding you when you start speaking with a "stupid" accent, then you need to analyze if you're really learning the target accent or not. It's not the accent's fault. How can it be?

Ok, Iâll say it again: I am not learning an accent. I just made sure that everyone could understand me. All people have different abilities in languages. I donât want to make anyone feel inconvenient when they are listening to me. My goal is to speak as accessible as possible for EVERYONE. I see accents as the main obstacle on this way.

Now, accents are part of a culture... be it in a country or in regions of that country. It may seem useless to you, but learning the american accent has given me the ability of having great conversations with many many americans. What about british people? They have no problem understanding americans, so I'm sure they'll have no problem understanding me... and I have spoken with british people, too. No communication issues.

I have never spoken to people whose first language was English and I donât think that Iâll ever do. English is the second language for most people. Why should I make my speech inaccessible for them? If I know that their level will not allow them to understand even a half of my speech, why should I? Language is a great tool to convey your ideas, why should I make it more complex and inaccessible?

LOL! This one made me smile! They are not speaking fast, it's that you are listening too slowly.

I have never said that I was a slow listener. But most people used to complain to me that speech of native speakers was hard to understand. Well, their (not natives) language might be poor, but anyway I am trying to sound easy to for them and for everyone in general.

To be understood by Americans... well, chances are you need to learn American English to understand Americans

I donât think so. I have never spoken to an American. I watch only dubbed films and like them that way. I donât listen to contemporary music, I like classical music. So, I think American English isnât present in my life.

The same applies for americans: how can I tell them that they don't know how to speak their own language?

They actually do. They are natives and they know it better. But unfortunately a spoken language is totally different from a written one to some extent of course. An accent is one of the main things that make this difference bigger. Why should one learn it, if nobody uses a spoken language (of course you have American friends, your situation might be a bit different or you live there, I donât know)? Most foreigners communicate using a written language. Thatâs why I want to speak slowly and without any reduction in my words.

Re: accents

Cvilla — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:29:32 GMT

SillyMe wrote:

There is no need to improve an accent. Sometimes some work on pronunciation is required, but no more than that. Everyone should just make sure that he could be understood and that is enough. I've seen a lot of people who thought they were fluent in the language enough to imitate a native pronunciation. Needless to say everyone had hard time understanding them. What is that for?
Perhaps you have never met a foreigner who thought that he could speak with an Irish accent. You even cannot imagine the sequence of sounds generated by this person.
I don't know how but you misunderstood me. I was talking about my friends who would have hard time understanding me if I started speaking with a stupid accent.
To conclude I want to say that accents are evil, because they imply various patterns of speech. Why should one learn for instance American accent? To be understood better by Americans, but it means that all other people will have hard time understanding this person. It seems senseless to me. Proper pronunciation is important but only to a sensible degree of course. Overdoing is just as bad as underdoing. Just make sure that you can be understood and be happy with that.

From my own experience, I can say that it's a very rewarding challenge. At least in my case americans say that I have no accent, and they have no trouble understanding everything I say.

Now, accents are part of a culture... be it in a country or in regions of that country. It may seem useless to you, but learning the american accent has given me the ability of having great conversations with many many americans. What about british people? They have no problem understanding americans, so I'm sure they'll have no problem understanding me... and I have spoken with british people, too. No communication issues.

If your friends have a hard time understanding you when you start speaking with a "stupid" accent, then you need to analyze if you're really learning the target accent or not. It's not the accent's fault. How can it be?

Now, if you are not a native English speaker (I assume you're not), I would like you to tell me the difference between these two sentences:

"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"
"You knew your brother did a bad thing, did you?"

Is the difference between those two an accent matter, or a pronunciation matter? What does each question mean?

Things like that can't be found in languages like Spanish. So that is a matter of mastering an accent up to an "acceptable" level.

Re: Difference between European English and US English.

nona the brit — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:11:25 GMT

I'd say we were separate from Europe until we joined the 'common market' in 1973, which involved some economic/trade connection. I was born before that...I remember it causing some kerfuffle at the time and it wasn't a popular decision. Even that wasn't a membership in the same way as EU membership.

Of course, before we were really a cohesive nation we were owned (or bits of us) by lots of other countries at times.

It's getting harder to define Europe with the expansion of the EU. There are countries that are now politically Europe but possibly pushing it a bit to say they are geographically Europe. Likewise, not all geographically European countries are members of the EU, so they don't form part of the modern political entity. Some of the territories of some members of the EU are not members of the EU (for example Greenland).

I don't really care whether people wish to feel part of Europe, politically, geographically, or any other way or not, it makes no difference to me. Am I not allowed the same right to my opinion without being called scared, imperialistic and *shudder* conservative? It's true that many British people feel the way I do, and not just the old codgers implied. It's also true that many people feel the way Bokeh feels, and not just the youngsters. I think a lot of us have a conflicted dual opinion on this - we are but at the same time we aren't quite!

That's why I left this thread before, and am leaving it again, not because I was asked my age. By the way, my usual answer to that is 'as old as my tongue but older than my teeth'

Re: Difference between European English and US English.

Bokeh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:14:07 GMT

Nona The Brit wrote:
slum prudery? Interesting turn of phrase.

It's from "My Fair Lady".

Nona The Brit wrote:
I think it is pretty true that a lot of British people don't consider us as part of Europe in quite the same way as other Europeans. Politically, yes.

I think the British people scared to embrace being Europeans are those who believe the imperialistic conservative nonsense that to be British is to be better.

Nona The Brit wrote:
But geographically, no.

Geographically, yes! The UK and Eire sit on the European continental shelf with a sea depth of less than 50 metres right the way around.

Nona The Brit wrote:
No other European countries have English as their native mother-tongue language.

That's true but it is also true that it's not the mother tongue of several million British subjects. (According to Wikipedia 70% of the UK population speak English monolingually.)

Nona The Brit wrote:
I think there are European countries which teach American English rather than the British version so how does that factor in?

Try doing a search on the web for British schools in Europe compared to American ones. Look at translation agencies and see how their FAQs specifically point out that they do British English. Also if you look at style guides for documents translated for the European Union you would see they state spellings and grammar should be British. Lastly it doesn't make sense that mainland Europe should learn US English in place of British English. Trade between the UK and its EU partners far exceeds any trade between the US and mainland Europe.

Re: Difference between European English and US English.

nona the brit — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:14:27 GMT

slum prudery? Interesting turn of phrase. I think it is pretty true that a lot of British people don't consider us as part of Europe in quite the same way as other Europeans. Politically, yes. But geographically, no. We are happy to talk about 'going to Europe'. I'm sure it seems peverse to outsiders but it's a common attitude in all sectors of our society.

No other European countries have English as their native mother-tongue language. It's true there are many speakers of British English - but you can also say that about the American version. Do you think we should stop calling it American English and start calling it something else?

Also, I think there are European countries which teach American English rather than the British version so how does that factor in?

Re: Difference between European English and US English.

Bokeh — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:03:21 GMT

Clive wrote:
many British people don't even think of themselves as part of Europe

That's just slum prudery. The fact is they are part of Europe geographically and after several referenda, all with positive outcomes, the UK is a key player in Europe, both politically and ecomomically.

Clive wrote:

Well, there's Ireland, of course, which is yet another 'island off the coast of Europe', and which is partly an English possession. Do you have any other countries in mind?

There are 457 million citizens in the European Union. Some 50% have reasonable communication in English, more than 30% have advanced English literacy skills (often greater than native speakers), and 89% of non-native English school children learn English as a second language. Overall there are more advanced English speakers in Europe than in the UK and Eire put together.

Re: Difference between European English and US English.

Clive — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:22:48 GMT

Hi,

I guess I must live a sheltered life, because I've never heard the expression European English before.

In my experience, many British people don't even think of themselves as part of Europe (ie the British Isles are just 'near Europe'.)

Best wishes, Clive

The difference between Ill and sick

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:54:19 GMT

In British English, ill means unwell. Ill is most common in predicative position.

She couldnât come because she was ill.

Before a noun, many British people prefer to use sick.

She spent years looking after her sick husband.

Be sick can mean âvomitâ.

I feel sick. Where is the bathroom?