NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/9945

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 4.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!oxuniv!wilcox
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Standards
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:21:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>What standard?  Whose?  Where do we find it?  Who speaks it?  The Queen?
>>Surely not, because when she dies, what if the next monarch (if there is
>>a next monarch) speaks a little differently?
>
> Notice the words "little differently". There isn't likely to be a
> significant change in standards of speech. Whatever minor change
> occurs, can be accommodated. The new monarch will constitute the
> standard. If the British reject the monarch as a standard, then
> the BBC will be the standard.
>
There is far more difference between the English dialects spoken by Her Majesty
and Philip Schofield (who to all extents and purposes *is* the BBC for most
children) than between those spoken by Her Majesty and George Bush. The British
have *never* accepted the monarch as a standard: they have all had their own
ways of speaking.

> This argument is similar to : "There is nothing common between birds.
> Every bird looks different". Don't you realise that EVERY bird has
> standard characteristics? That is why we call it a bird! Similarly,
> the standard would be the common grounds between different BBC
> newsreaders. When the pronunciation of a word is suspect, the
> majority's opinion must be considered.
>
(Yawn!) The similarity between the way all BBC newsreaders speak is that they
all speak *English*. Of whatever dialect. Try comparing John Humphries with
Brian Redhead. Oh, I forgot. You can't hear them, can you.

> If the Queen were no longer to be considered as the standard, then
> the BBC would be. The flaw in your argument is that you are trying
> to narrow down the standard accent to a single district, city,
> suburb, and eventually, individual. Look at it this way : When
> countries are considered, the English spoken in England is the
> highest standard (now don't say "By whom in England?". I mean the
> common characteristics of the English accent.)

Who says that the BBC would be the standard? The British or Mandar? I'll give
you a clue. The answer starts with an M. Who says that the English spoken in
England is the highest standard? (It begins with an M). What are the common
characteristics of "the English accent"? Answer: there are none because there
is no such thing as an English accent. There are Yorkshire, Geordie, Bristol,
Brum, Cockney, Devonian, aristocratic, Lancashire, Berwick, Shropshire,
Oxfordshire and RP accents and dialects, but no English accent.

> I have met a lot of Britons on IRC. And, *most* of them agree that
> the Queen's English is the highest standard of English. Of course,
> this doesn't prove that the majority of British believe so; but,
> if it were found that the majority reject the Queen as a standard
> then the BBC should be considered as the standard.

Which proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Try asking them
whether the "Queen's English" means the English the Queen speaks. (Or even look
it up in a dictionary.) To a person they will tell you that it is not; rather
it is a common term for "received pronunciation." In precisely the same way
people in Oxford do not speak Oxford English; people in the BBC do not speak
BBC English. Go and do some more research.

BTW, I spent a long time just before you went into hiding replying to your long
article and discussing just these sorts of points. Would you be so good as to
comment on it, as you promised you would?
--

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
[e-mail]    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.