Americanisms

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 916 comments
  • 53,239 views

Do you like Americanisms?

  • Yes, they are better than British spelling

    Votes: 53 15.9%
  • No, proper English should be used

    Votes: 118 35.4%
  • I don't care at all

    Votes: 95 28.5%
  • I prefer a mixture

    Votes: 67 20.1%

  • Total voters
    333
I think it is, as mentioned, that in the UK we grow up hearing and imitating Hollywood phrases which sets the tone. I don’t know what it is about the English accent that makes it harder to imitate - see Charley Hunnum, he sounds more like a yank in Sons of Anarchy than a cockney in Green Street, despite being British.
 

Ugh, this entire video is an insult to the English language.

Clip #1: "On the Pole", no the required. Also, absolutely no context over what's so historic about Sarah Fisher on pole. "Wanna get to the Turn 1". no the required...

Clip #2: "Hunter-Reay takes a spin". What? Also it isn't a straightaway, it's a straight.
"Ryan Hunter-Reay who had just set a time for quick" What the hell does any of that mean??? "A 1:23.8 was his number".

Clip #3: Did they not learn at school that proper nouns need to be capitalised? "Has the pole", again no need to say "the".

Clip #4: Nothing offensively bad here.

Clip #5: "2 hundred 12". There should be an "and" between 2 and hundred.
 

Ugh, this entire video is an insult to the English language.

Clip #1: "On the Pole", no the required. Also, absolutely no context over what's so historic about Sarah Fisher on pole. "Wanna get to the Turn 1". no the required...

Clip #2: "Hunter-Reay takes a spin". What? Also it isn't a straightaway, it's a straight.
"Ryan Hunter-Reay who had just set a time for quick" What the hell does any of that mean??? "A 1:23.8 was his number".

Clip #3: Did they not learn at school that proper nouns need to be capitalised? "Has the pole", again no need to say "the".

Clip #4: Nothing offensively bad here.

Clip #5: "2 hundred 12". There should be an "and" between 2 and hundred.

I'll pray for your sanity if you ever talk to a redneck.
Judging by your signature though, I think you might understand them. ;)
 
I absolutely abhor the American tendency to drop the preposition when they're talking about communication.

You don't "write me", you "write TO me" - unless you're literally writing the word "me".

I suspect it comes from the practice of omitting the object from the concept of "I'll write you a letter"; drop the object and it becomes "I'll write you" - but the recipient becomes the (indirect) object when that happens, so it should become "I'll write to you".

Always crops up in Americna TV shows, and makes me want to tear my own ears off every time.
 
I absolutely abhor the American tendency to drop the preposition when they're talking about communication.

You don't "write me", you "write TO me" - unless you're literally writing the word "me".

This occurs frequently in second-language speakers where there is no preposition in the native language:

Slovak: Píšem tebe (I write you), Dávam ti darček (I give you gift)
German: Ich schreibe dir (I write you), Ich gebe dir ein Geschenk (I give you a gift)

The inflected forms of you, "tebe/ti" and "dir", as opposed to the nominative, normal "ty" and "du" make it implicit that it means to you.

But of course this is for second-language speakers so... yeah, this includes Americans. 😉
 
Last edited:
Americna TV shows
Gnad shed His grace no knee.

Seriously, I think many people tend to drop words to simplify informal conversation and sound friendlier. Besides, TV shows omit lots of formality because there's time compression in order to get more ads squeezed inside.
 
Last edited:
Weird. "Write me" sounds strange to me because I don't often hear or read it. I would have thought it an informal British use akin to "phone me." But...and I ask this despite using it...is the preposition necessary in that context? Why? Taking the time to think about it, it seems superfluous.
 
I would have thought it an informal British use akin to "phone me." But...and I ask this despite using it...is the preposition necessary in that context? Why? Taking the time to think about it, it seems superfluous.
It's an intransitive verb - one which doesn't take a direct object (or implies one within itself; in that context, "phone" means "to make a phone call to").

"Write" can also be intransitive; "write to me" is the transitive, "the dumbass can hardly write" is the intransitive.
 
Math & Mathematics

A famously divisive Americanism.

For no particular reason, I was trying to think of other related "collective sciences" and came up with a few:

Economics
Politics
Physics
Statistics

They can't all be shortened like mathematics can but the word statistics can. If you're referring to statistics in shorthand, it has to be stats. You surely would not talk about someone's 'stat', would you? For example:

Entries: 356
Wins: 105
Podiums: 202
Points: 4862.5
Pole Positions: 104
Fastest Laps: 67

Those are Lewis Hamilton's stats, aren't they? Not his stat.

Conclusion:
Maths and stats corresponding is +1 for this side of the Atlantic.

You're welcome to disagree. Just posting how it appears to me.
 
Math & Mathematics

A famously divisive Americanism.

If one says "maths" over here, people will immediately decrease your intelligence quotient by 20 points or assume a stroke/tongue injury.
 
Last edited:
I call it maths because it’s what I grew up with, and when I teach it, we use multiple branches of mathematics combined, not a single math.
 
Never mind my post if these have been mentioned already, but I find standard American English to be more comprehensible than the British counterpart for the most part when it comes to tracing a linkage between pronunciation and spelling (not that English is itself a particularly good language at that). “Lieutenant” has been mentioned already, in spite of there being no “f” in the word, but the word “coeliac” in BrE feels like just as much an offender to me; I know the word is derived from a Latin word etymologically, but Latin pronounces the “o”, and the prevalence of “co-“ prefixed English words that are pronounced /ko/ makes it very easy for a first-timer to say it with a “ko-” instead of the correct /s/.

American English seems to be better at making words “look” more natural too. Everytime I see the word “licence” my brain either automatically converts it into “license” or is left slightly perplexed; I mean, there is “incense” already, so why not change it too?

There are some expressions that the British do better, though, like the use of prepositions. I can never understand how it can be “from … through …” when it stops at the item that it’s “through”, and I feel “through” can be better used for the 2nd out of 3 items, as in “from … through … to …”, if one wants to really exaggerate a thing’s omnipresence, but then nobody says it that way. There’s also the use of prepositions in adverbials describing time. It just feels more consistent to say “I am working on this Sunday” than to say “I am working this Sunday”, but that’s a petty grievance.

And then there’s the usual “aluminum” vs “aluminium”. When the hell is “americum” coming, America? :P
 
Last edited:
I forgot to add:

For a country so insistent on math and not maths, they sure are wrong and laughed at around the world for the use of the word "Legos" instead of Lego.
 
I forgot to add:

For a country so insistent on math and not maths, they sure are wrong and laughed at around the world for the use of the word "Legos" instead of Lego.
Lego has been confirmed by the manufacturer to be the singular and plural. Lego is Lego. There are no Legos.
 
Back