Describing American English as “simplified” English is textbook bad linguistics. It’s a different dialect, not an inherently simpler or more complex one.
Describing American English as “simplified” English is textbook bad linguistics. It’s a different dialect, not an inherently simpler or more complex one.
It's an old meme: https://imgur.com/thats-bit-harsh-steam-XCEdD8W
In the UK, it's considered good form to be humorous when making an argument; I gather that in the US, you're supposed to sound like you're making a speech to prepare troops for war. I apologise if, in the course of describing how a product is unsuitable for use in my culture, I made that argument according to the norms of my culture.
I once saw this movie where several UK English words were compared to US English and US came of very “simplified”. Ie, pavement “Side walk” (because walk on the side). And several things like Lorry and Hauler all becoming “truck”. I guess it was very cherry picked (I can’t find it now sadly).
Ah well, I once read an argument for “EU English”. If it’s anything like my Dunglish (Dutch-English “What talk you about”) it would indeed be simplified.
Banter (Traditional)
Banter (Simplified)
Simplified English is a thing that exists, for clarity - see for example https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice
I don't know if the parent comment was trying to equate American English and Simple English - I can see it as a way to dismiss American English as a "lesser" language (which it isn't, as you say), but I wouldn't start by assuming that.
Could the 'Simplified Spelling Board'[1] of 1906 have anything to do with the naming?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Spelling_Board
Huh, that's an interesting tidbit.
> The Simplified Spelling Board was announced on March 11, 1906, with Andrew Carnegie funding the organization, to be headquartered in New York City.
Some big names here.
> The New York Times noted that Carnegie was convinced that "English might be made the world language of the future"
He wasn't wrong.
> and an influence leading to universal peace,
That's still to be seen.
> but that this role was obstructed by its "contradictory and difficult spelling".
Well now.
It's interesting to scroll through the list of proposed changes; 100+ years later, many of them seem to be the default/correct spelling, but just as many look wrong, even when following the same transformation rules. E.g.: "brasen" -> "brazen" vs. "surprise" -> "surprize".
Thanks for linking this!
Yea, it’s insane to try and an entire country’s writing dialect as simplified. I guess it would be the only way to show off his snobbery though.