GOTTEN

If Americans want to develop their own dialect and spelling that's fine by me but don't mess  up English English!

I would expect variations from non UK posters but have zero tolerance for English people who can't be arsed to learn their own language properly. There seems to be a bit of a campaign starting to legitimise this - even on Radio 4!

Pev posted:

.....but don't mess  up English English!

Er, British English.

Otherwise 'like'.

Pev posted:

If Americans want to develop their own dialect and spelling that's fine by me but don't mess  up English English!

I would expect variations from non UK posters but have zero tolerance for English people who can't be arsed to learn their own language properly.

There is no such thing as "proper" English though.  English is and always has been a language which changes and develops over time; words are added or removed based on usage; not some arbitrary committee.  If you want a fixed, unchanging language and grammar Tories ... learn French!

As it happens though; gotten is in the Oxford English Dictionary...

Anyway ... I want a XPS2-DR bigly so there!

Except in "begotten" and "ill-gotten" it should stay rare!

bigly 

Of course I concur with "British" rather than "English"  English; I was responding in haste. I was thinking that our Celtic friends may be more concerned with protecting their own languages, but much of the best of English literature has come from other nations within these islands.

Although the grammar expert/nerd I live with gets very excited over 'gotten' claiming that in correct english (in UK) the past tense of 'get' is 'got',  & believes that is the way its normally applied in UK,  she concedes 'gotten' it can be found in use in English documents dated before the americas became colonised.  (trans colonized)  

It's the correct use of it's and its that gets me. Sad I know. There's even an error in Mike's post above! If an American writes 'gotten' it doesn't bother me at all. 

Christopher_M posted:

Pev posted:

.....but don't mess  up English English!

Er, British English.

Otherwise 'like'.

I'm English, I was born in England, brought up in England and educated in England: Ergo I speak English (as opposed to 'British English')

Americans speak American English.

Mike-B posted:

Although the grammar expert/nerd I live with gets very excited over 'gotten' claiming that in correct english (in UK) the past tense of 'get' is 'got',  & believes that is the way its normally applied in UK,  she concedes 'gotten' it can be found in use in English documents dated before the americas became colonised.  (trans colonized)  

Yes, in English (as opposed to American English), 'gotten' is archaic.

What gets (not get's) me more is the use of 'got' in place of 'have'.

The difference between 'got' and 'gotten' is the same as that in English (all types) between 'forgot' and 'forgotten'.

It is, indeed truer to English, as it was spoken before, and when, the pilgrim fathers left England. Just as they would have said 'Fall' rather than the more, er, jejune 'Autumn', nicked from French in the interim. 

The one that gets me is 'burglarised.' FFS. There is a perfectly good word in English for this, from the past tense of the verb that is the origin; burgled. To create a neologism that is uglier, longer, and just ghastlier is arch stupidity. 'Hospitalised' I can take, just about - there is no word in English for 'to be taken to hospital', but burglarised just doesn't make sense. 

Huge posted:

What gets (not get's) me more is the use of 'got' in place of 'have'.

Have you been talking to my live in grammar expert ????     ..........   best of luck getting a word in edgeways  

Hungryhalibut posted:

.............    There's even an error in Mike's post above! 

You're slipping HH,  there are two     it's & Americas

Hmm, a word in edgeways?

How about 'way'...  that's a word in edge'way's!  

"Examples of the words that “provoke such horror” were in use in Britain long before the Pilgrim Fathers sailed. In particular the US spelling on “honor”, which can be found 500 times in Shakespeare’s First Folio: 100 times more than the English “honour”

Center” is also used more the “centre”and “humor” more than “humour”, while the word “gotten” is also used by Shakespeare.

There's a programme tomorrow on BBC R4  for those interested. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qxd02

Purists be warned!

Tony2011 posted:

There's a program tomorrow on BBC R4  for those interested. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qxd02

Wouldn't that be a programme?

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

There's a program tomorrow on BBC R4  for those interested. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qxd02

Wouldn't that be a programme?

Clever clogs!

Tony2011 posted:

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

There's a program tomorrow on BBC R4  for those interested. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qxd02

Wouldn't that be a programme?

Clever clogs!

Usually I don't care ... it's only in threads like that ... and I usually end up tripping myself up too!

I believe many of our English spellings were standardised in Samual Johnson's dictionary of 1755, and indeed he introduced less regularity into the English language by introducing Latin and French spelling patterns. However it was Noah Webster, an American lexicographer who was keen to establish independence for Amercia through language and he published a revised set of spellings for American English in 1826 when he published in A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language which forged more difference between English and American English.

The modern successor to which defines an eclair as: "A cake, long in length and short in duration".

The one that really grates with me is 'would of', 'could of', 'should of', 'might of' etc.

Actually that's only one of many examples of poor use of the English language which really irritate me. 

Who would of thought it?

And the misuse of 'there', 'their' and 'they're'.

Grrr!

I share HH's concern at the regular misuse of it's/its.

But I have also noticed the increasing misuse of an extraneous "of" after prepositions. Take, for example, "outside of" or - still worse - "off of". You can argue all you like about the rules of grammar being descriptive rather than prescriptive; I'll even forgive a split infinitive when deployed in the right spirit; but the extra "of" is a step too far for me.

Clive B posted:

And the misuse of 'there', 'their' and 'they're'.

Grrr!

Not so bad if their there only mistakes they're.  

Don't get me started on split infinitives! I fear I might be going to have an angry weekend.

Clive B posted:

And the misuse of 'there', 'their' and 'they're'.

Grrr!

Useful advice seen on Facebook, if you see someone stressed by a misused apostrophe, pat then on the shoulder and whisper there, their, they're. (As someone who's been known to go into a pub carpark to remove a misplaced apostrophe from the chalk board outside the door, I still liked that one.)

I'm another person who struggles with the seeming people start to use of instead of have.

Clive B posted:

Don't get me started on split infinitives! I fear I might be going to have an angry weekend.

See Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (I am looking at a 1984 publication of, I think, the original edition) as to how the English-speaking world may be divided into five categories in respect of split infinitives. All incipient anger will vanish.