Is the Queen's English more phonetically correct than American English?

[KidsHappen]

In the other thread we were discussing the difference in pronounciation of words (mainly vowels) in both the Queen's English and AMerican English and I found myself wondering which was more phonetically correct. Of course, I could research it but I figured that someone here probably already has the answer so I would ask here first. Does anyone know? If not, any idea why they are different?

[KidsHappen]

:bigear: Wow, no one? Certainly we have some word nerds here who would have some input on the matter.

[Melissa in Australia]

Of course the Queen's English is correct. I can understand her, which , I cannot necessarily do of all American English.:lol:

[silliness7]

I don't have any answers or cold, hard fact, just my own random observations. I think British English is less phonetic despite their proununciation of primer. :D

 

One of the words that I can never wrap my brain around is Gloucestershire. Did I spell that right? Isn't that pronounced GLOUS - ti - sher?

 

Which makes me think of Worcesteshire. Certainly didn't spell that right.

 

And what about advertisement? Don't they prounounce that

ad - VER - tiz - ment? with a short i? I mean clearly it is from the word advertise with a long i.

[Melissa in Australia]

.

 

And what about advertisement? Don't they prounounce that

ad - VER - tiz - ment? with a short i? I mean clearly it is from the word advertise with a long i.

:lol::lol::lol:.

That is so funny to me, We pronounce it ad - VER - tiz - ment here in Australia. My Canadian Dh is always trying to improve my pronunciation to say it with a long i. I mean who is my husband to criticize?? he can't even say the word Australia right, and to hear him try to say Kookaburra gives everyone hysterics.

[Rosie_0801]

Of course the Queen's English is correct. I can understand her, which , I cannot necessarily do of all American English.:lol:

 

:cheers2:

 

 

:smilielol5:

 

 

They're probably much of a muchness. Wrong in different places. :D

 

 

 

:tongue_smilie:

Rosie

[Lolly]

:lol::lol::lol:.

That is so funny to me, We pronounce it ad - VER - tiz - ment here in Australia. My Canadian Dh is always trying to improve my pronunciation to say it with a long i. I mean who is my husband to criticize?? he can't even say the word Australia right, and to hear him try to say Kookaburra gives everyone hysterics.

 

I hate to ask, but how DO you say kookaburra? :D

[Matryoshka]

One of the words that I can never wrap my brain around is Gloucestershire. Did I spell that right? Isn't that pronounced GLOUS - ti - sher?

 

I think it's GLOSS-ter-sher - because Gloucester here is pronounced GLOSS-ter. The Brits of course don't much pronounce the r, but then neither do a lot of people here in MA. :D

 

Here we also have Worcester (WOOS-ter - short OO like book) and Leicester (LESS-ter) - I think we've come fairly close to retaining the British pronunciations, except for some vowel shifting.

[Rosie_0801]

I hate to ask, but how DO you say kookaburra? :D

 

cook-uh--buh-ruh

 

How else would you say it? !!

 

:)

Rosie

[Lolly]

cook-uh--buh-ruh

 

How else would you say it? !!

 

:)

Rosie

 

cook like "I am going to cook some chicken."?:lol::lol::lol:

 

I have a feeling I say it like your dh. Kook like "He is a total kook/nut." The oo is like in zoo. :D

[AnitaMcC]

One of the words that I can never wrap my brain around is Gloucestershire. Did I spell that right? Isn't that pronounced GLOUS - ti - sher?

 

 

 

Off topic:

 

wow, I just found out that ancesters on my maternal grandmother side is from Gloucestershire, England... and a many greats-grandfather was beheaded there. Just a tid bit of interesting facts that I found out.

 

Now back to the original topic...

[Rosie_0801]

Oh no. Cook as in cooking dinner. Not kook as in "you are a nutcase."

 

Eek!

 

Rosie

[Ester Maria]

Actually, it's American English that's more conservative in many aspects when it comes to pronunciation (and not only!), not undergoing certain historical changes, etc.

 

Absolutely shocking, I know. :D

I grew up learning (British) ESL with this "inherited" mindset that Queen's English is English par excellence and American English is some sort of historical perversion of it, BUT, then in the US somebody showed me a couple of old dictionaries from previous centuries with pronunciations, elaborated on a thing or two and it happens that in many of its features, phonetical too, American English happens to be more conservative. And that many words which Britons consider "americanisms" actually belong to older layers of language, from Britain, but have fallen into disuse meanwhile in Britain itself - not in America, though.

 

Crazy, but supposedly it was a bit like that. Just like Ladino ("Jewish" Spanish) is a lot more conservative than today's Spanish, because after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain they kept the language in other areas and it did not go through some changes that "normal" Spanish went through - the result is that Ladino sounds archaic to somebody knowing Spanish (uses words which Cervantes used, etc.), but it's actually closer to "original Spanish", if we can generalize such a thing. Supposedly, from what they explained me some years ago, the situation with English resembles that one a bit - the form outside of its original context of genesis being more conservative than the one which continued to develop in that context.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Ester Maria

[silliness7]

I think it's GLOSS-ter-sher - because Gloucester here is pronounced GLOSS-ter. The Brits of course don't much pronounce the r, but then neither do a lot of people here in MA. :D

 

Here we also have Worcester (WOOS-ter - short OO like book) and Leicester (LESS-ter) - I think we've come fairly close to retaining the British pronunciations, except for some vowel shifting.

 

Ha! I knew I wasn't quite getting that word. :001_smile: Glouces = gloss and Leices = less

That is so crazy; it's like French crazy. I suppose that is a possibility.

[Ibbygirl]

Actually, it's American English that's more conservative in many aspects when it comes to pronunciation (and not only!), not undergoing through certain historical changes, etc.

 

Absolutely shocking, I know. :D

I grew up learning (British) ESL with this "inherited" mindset that Queen's English is English par excellence and American English is some sort of historical perversion of it, BUT, then in the US somebody showed me a couple of old dictionaries from previous centuries with pronunciations, elaborated on a thing or two and it happens that in many of its features, phonetical too, American English happens to be more conservative. And that many words which Britons consider "americanisms" actually belong to older layers of language, from Britain, but have fallen into disuse meanwhile in Britain itself - not in America, though.

 

Crazy, but supposedly it was a bit like that. Just like Ladino ("Jewish" Spanish) is a lot more conservative than today's Spanish, because after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain they kept the language in other areas and it did not go through some changes that "normal" Spanish went through - the result is that Ladino sounds archaic to somebody knowing Spanish (uses words which Cervantes used, etc.), but it's actually closer to "original Spanish", if we can generalize such a thing. Supposedly, from what they explained me some years ago, the situation with English resembles that one a bit - the form outside of its original context of genesis being more conservative than the one which continued to develop in that context.

 

Oh yes, I totally believe that. I was once talking to a Danish friend of mine about this very thing. She was born, raised and lives in Denmark but she came to the US once and went to California where there was a Danish community. She said that the Danish that they spoke there was so old fashioned it was like being the people had come out of a time capsule or something. I think it is probably similar with many of the communities in the US that came from the Old World and persisted. I'm sure in many ways it's like going back in time.

[Cinder]

And what about advertisement? Don't they prounounce that

ad - VER - tiz - ment? with a short i? I mean clearly it is from the word advertise with a long i.

 

I was born and raised in Hawaii and this is how I pronounce it. I'm not sure where I picked that up because my mom pronounces it the "American" way.

 

That is so crazy; it's like French crazy.

 

I love this. We often claim words with "strange" pronunciations are French.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Cinder

[abbeyej]

Not at all.

[Slartibartfast]

I think it's GLOSS-ter-sher - because Gloucester here is pronounced GLOSS-ter. The Brits of course don't much pronounce the r, but then neither do a lot of people here in MA. :D

 

Here we also have Worcester (WOOS-ter - short OO like book) and Leicester (LESS-ter) - I think we've come fairly close to retaining the British pronunciations, except for some vowel shifting.

 

This is why I (from Oklahoma) have issues. We tend to add vowels rather than have a lot of silent letters.

 

There are an awful lot of silent letters there...:lol:

 

I have noticed on some programs that I cannot understand Welsh people at all once they are speaking excitedly to one another. It is like a completely different language.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

and Leicester (LESS-ter) - I think we've come fairly close to retaining the British pronunciations, except for some vowel shifting.

 

And we have a Leicester (LESS-ter) here in the NC mountains. Most transplants assume we're talking like hillbillies. They're always surprised when they find out it's the British pronunciation. :D

Edited March 15, 2011 by Oak Knoll Mom

[Laura in CA]

Actually, it's American English that's more conservative in many aspects when it comes to pronunciation (and not only!), not undergoing certain historical changes, etc.

 

Absolutely shocking, I know. :D

I grew up learning (British) ESL with this "inherited" mindset that Queen's English is English par excellence and American English is some sort of historical perversion of it, BUT, then in the US somebody showed me a couple of old dictionaries from previous centuries with pronunciations, elaborated on a thing or two and it happens that in many of its features, phonetical too, American English happens to be more conservative. And that many words which Britons consider "americanisms" actually belong to older layers of language, from Britain, but have fallen into disuse meanwhile in Britain itself - not in America, though.

 

The only example that springs to mind right now is that in the U.S. we say "have gotten" (i.e., we use the "old" past participle, as in German) and the Brits say "have got," which is apparently a more recent evolution of the language that we haven't gotten yet :001_smile:

[Just Robyn]

The only example that springs to mind right now is that in the U.S. we say "have gotten" (i.e., we use the "old" past participle, as in German) and the Brits say "have got," which is apparently a more recent evolution of the language that we haven't gotten yet :001_smile:

 

That depends on if you're talking about prescriptive or descriptive American English. In casual speech the past participle is on it's way out. I think I hear the simple past form of words in place of the past participle form more often than not. People here do say "have got" as well as "have went" and so on.

[Stacy in NJ]

Oxfordshire

 

Shire = "sure"

 

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=oxfordshire&submit=Submit

 

 

Not at all.

[Paige]

The only example that springs to mind right now is that in the U.S. we say "have gotten" (i.e., we use the "old" past participle, as in German) and the Brits say "have got," which is apparently a more recent evolution of the language that we haven't gotten yet :001_smile:

 

Wouldn't "have gotten" and "have got" be used in different contexts? I think I would say that I have got a lot to do, but have gotten a lot completed already. Well, actually I would say that I have already completed a lot, but I can imagine that I would use have got and have gotten differently.

[Slartibartfast]

And we have a Leicester here in the NC mountains. Most transplants assume we're talking like hillbillies. They're always surprised when they find out it's the British pronunciation. :D

 

There is a Miami, Oklahoma that is pronounced "MY-AH-MUH" and people laugh about that, but it is the correct NA pronunciation. It isn't our fault Miami, Florida is pronounced wrong. :lol:

[Ellie]

No, of course not. I think that some people are just being, well, snobbish. I mean, have you *listened* to English accents that are *not* posh? Goodness!

[nmoira]

And what about advertisement? Don't they prounounce that

ad - VER - tiz - ment? with a short i? I mean clearly it is from the word advertise with a long i.

I'm Canadian and my father was English. I say ad - VER - tis - muhnt. I don't think I've ever heard it with a /z/ sound.

[keptwoman]

Actually, it's American English that's more conservative in many aspects when it comes to pronunciation (and not only!), not undergoing certain historical changes, etc.

 

Absolutely shocking, I know. :D

I grew up learning (British) ESL with this "inherited" mindset that Queen's English is English par excellence and American English is some sort of historical perversion of it, BUT, then in the US somebody showed me a couple of old dictionaries from previous centuries with pronunciations, elaborated on a thing or two and it happens that in many of its features, phonetical too, American English happens to be more conservative. And that many words which Britons consider "americanisms" actually belong to older layers of language, from Britain, but have fallen into disuse meanwhile in Britain itself - not in America, though.

 

Crazy, but supposedly it was a bit like that. Just like Ladino ("Jewish" Spanish) is a lot more conservative than today's Spanish, because after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain they kept the language in other areas and it did not go through some changes that "normal" Spanish went through - the result is that Ladino sounds archaic to somebody knowing Spanish (uses words which Cervantes used, etc.), but it's actually closer to "original Spanish", if we can generalize such a thing. Supposedly, from what they explained me some years ago, the situation with English resembles that one a bit - the form outside of its original context of genesis being more conservative than the one which continued to develop in that context.

Bill Bryson's book The Mother Tounge is an interesting read on this subject. It also explains how American English is generally more archaic than British English.

 

Wouldn't "have gotten" and "have got" be used in different contexts? I think I would say that I have got a lot to do, but have gotten a lot completed already. Well, actually I would say that I have already completed a lot, but I can imagine that I would use have got and have gotten differently.

I would use "have got" in both your examples.

[Laura in CA]

Wouldn't "have gotten" and "have got" be used in different contexts? I think I would say that I have got a lot to do, but have gotten a lot completed already. Well, actually I would say that I have already completed a lot, but I can imagine that I would use have got and have gotten differently.

 

It gets confusing, because "have got" can basically mean "have" -- like in your first example, "I have got a lot to do" is present tense and means the same as "I have a lot to do." The second example is in the past and uses the past participle "gotten," whereas Brits would say "I have got." [i'm no expert, but I watch a lot of BBC :D]

 

I would use "have got" in both your examples.

 

That's what I've observed, from traveling in England and watching a lot of BBC ... and I'd also read, long ago, about this gotten/got distinction -- American English being closer than British (and Commonwealth :) ) English to English's Germanic (Saxon) roots. Like a lot of things, perhaps the distinction is becoming blurred? I've also heard that, because of TV, some announcers on British TV are starting to use the American pronunciation of "harassment" :001_huh:

Edited March 15, 2011 by Laura in CA

[Ibbygirl]

There is a Miami, Oklahoma that is pronounced "MY-AH-MUH" and people laugh about that, but it is the correct NA pronunciation. It isn't our fault Miami, Florida is pronounced wrong. :lol:

 

In Miami, Florida you are just as likely to hear it pronounced mee-AH-mee. :D

[EmmaNZ]

No, of course not. I think that some people are just being, well, snobbish. I mean, have you *listened* to English accents that are *not* posh? Goodness!

 

Love this!!

 

British here, and yep very snobbish when it comes to the 'proper' way to pronounce things!;)

 

Having said that, now that I have taught my children phonics I have to say that I think American English follows more of the 'rules' than the English that I speak - but don't tell anybody.:D

[Laura Corin]

 

One of the words that I can never wrap my brain around is Gloucestershire. Did I spell that right? Isn't that pronounced GLOUS - ti - sher?

 

Which makes me think of Worcesteshire. Certainly didn't spell that right.

 

 

WOOSS-tuh-shuh.

 

I make no claims for British English being phonically correct. It is correct however, just as American, Canadian, South African, Australian, New Zealand..... Englishes are correct.

 

Laura