The second link posted by sleipnir214 does shed some insight into your question GummowN. It is worth the read.
One cannot argue the impact that Noah Webster had on the English language. We could, however, discuss forever whether that impact was positive or negative.
Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886 As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
color is better than colour in at least one context: it comprises one less letter to write or type.
<literarly aside>
Jasper Fforde has written a series of novels which recount the exploits of his heroine, Thursday Next. [They are, by the way, great fun to read. No overriding redeeming social value, but great fun to read.]
Part of the concept of the novels is that it is possible to physically enter works of fiction. The third novel, The Well of Lost Plots, takes place in the Great Library, where all versions of published works of fiction reside. The legal enforcement arm of the government of the Book World of the Great Library is an organization called Jurisfiction.
In the lowest sub-basement of the Great Library is the Text Sea, from which all words are trawled to use for new books. In one part of Well, Text Grand Central relays to the members of Jurisfiction a report from Text Sea environmentalists that stocks of the letter U are dangerously depleted. One of the Jurisfiction agents recommends eliminating U from unnecessary places in words like "colour" and "honour" to save stocks of the letter. A further suggestion is that the change only take place in some areas, in order to allow a cover story of geographical spelling differences.
</aside>
But to be specific, we don't play around with the English language. We play around with the American language.
That's probably because French was the language of royalty and nobility throughout Europe. I believe the English learned to write French before someone decided English could be an acceptable and written language as well.
Why the hell do Americans love to play about with the English language?
I understand the concept of progress, but how is color better then colour etc
It's not about better or worse, it's about evolution of the language. It's a natural process, and Noah Webster was a mere instrument of this process. If not him, someone else would. Probably many of us studied in school about a role of a single person in historical process. Nothing would have happen if the society hadn't been ripe for that.
And after a language left a continent or even a country, it's not a property of that country any more. You cannot copyright a language, and for a good reason. A language develops within the conditions and society where it is used almost like a specie of living creatures. Bring a few families of mice into a different climate, and if they survive, in years they might evolve into a somewhat different kind. There is no more single English any more, there are British English, American English, Australian English, Canadian English, French French, Canadian French, etc. And all of them love to play with their languages. That's how languages develop.
strongm,
First, you took it out of context, and second, it just seems that way. Some changes didn't survive, but some were accepted. This is a natural process. Always in history there is someone who seems to make some unnatural choices, like revolutions, and wars, and language reforms. But in general, we can see the history going in upward spirals - isn't that a natural process with all those people as instruments?
On the other hand, you are entitled to your own opinion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.