PhQnix
Tuesday 27th April 2010 12:56pm [Edited]
7,015 posts
Quote: Aaron @ April 27 2010, 1:42 PM BST
Hm. This ew/urgh is replacing a word (well, not a word, but a spelling/sound). Were the old Latin, French, etc, terms replacing words or brand new? I suspect that at most they were replacing and shortening convoluted terms/phrases?
You don't really know. Any words they have replaced will have, of course, died out before record.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 27 2010, 1:39 PM BST
Ugg.
I guess so. Apparently they were once Ugh boots.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 27 2010, 1:39 PM BST
The problem is there's a real possibility that the replacing of British words and spellings with Americanisms will result in homogenisation, rather than enrichment. Of course language evolves, but we're at risk of losing more words and phrases than we'll gain.
I don't really see that as being the case though. Dialects still exist at a local level and they are not being wiped out by Americanisations. Language is such a complex and ever-changing thing - it can't possibly be homogenised in the way people think it is at risk of.
If you walk along a street in London you're bound to come across so many different dialects and words that you could not possibly think there is such a risk. There is a complete difference in the way that people from East London and West London talk, there's a massive difference in the way I talk in comparison with the way some people my age on my road talk. At the end of the day by worrying about Americanisation you're just passing a judgement on an entire culture by saying that you'll take words from some places but not others.