Why Americans Don't Learn English

[Busyman]

I forgot you need things spelled out for you and add "when you actually need it".

No, you need to make yourself clearer.

So you decide when we need help, obviousement.

Well, you sure handled yourselves well...fighting Argentina.

And no, I shouldn't have to make myself clearer. If I say if the the UK was attacked by another country, I shouldn't have to CaptainObviously say, "Well not any country and all countries."

Countries deal with problems that they handle on their own. Help is rendered when needed. If the Swiss attacked you, you would not need our help so the JPaul remark of, "Well then the US would not be on the Swiss like doo doo so you do not mean what you say" is not needed....unless stupidity is your stongest point.

[manker]

See, the problem is, Busy, that you decree that your prose is flawless, when it clearly isn't. Sometimes you just post absolute drivel and then say you meant something entirely different.

In this case, you were probably right with your original assertion. If any (really, any country) attacked the UK, then I believe that the US would do all it could to prevent hostilities. With it's huge economy, the US would be in a better position to impose embargos on certain countries than the UK would. That route would be explored first. A declaration of military solidarity would also be effective and cost nothing.

The situation wouldn't escalate to war without those two avenues being explored, thus the US would be helping the UK in any instance of threatened attacks. I'm sure that we would reciprocate if the situation is reversed.

Often, the best way of dealing with a small agressive person is not to beat the fuck out of him, but explain the folly and potential consequences of his ire.

The situation is different now to in the 80s, due in no small part to the Gulf wars. One of the only good things to come out of the two situations is the closer ties between our countries. If the UK was in a spot of bother and the US was in a better position to sort it, but the government refused; I don't think the US electorate would be best pleased.


Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated such that misunderstandings are avoided, the above is obvious to me but might put a new slant on it to someone else.

[Busyman]

See, the problem is, Busy, that you decree that your prose is flawless, when it clearly isn't. Sometimes you just post absolute drivel and then say you meant something entirely different.

In this case, you were probably right with your original assertion. If any (really, any country) attacked the UK, then I believe that the US would do all it could to prevent hostilities. With it's huge economy, the US would be in a better position to impose embargos on certain countries than the UK would. That route would be explored first. A declaration of military solidarity would also be effective and cost nothing.

The situation wouldn't escalate to war without those two avenues being explored, thus the US would be helping the UK in any instance of threatened attacks. I'm sure that we would reciprocate if the situation is reversed.

Often, the best way of dealing with a small agressive person is not to beat the fuck out of him, but explain the folly and potential consequences of his ire.

The situation is different now to in the 80s, due in no small part to the Gulf wars. One of the only good things to come out of the two situations is the closer ties between our countries. If the UK was in a spot of bother and the US was in a better position to sort it, but the government refused; I don't think the US electorate would be best pleased.


Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated such that misunderstandings are avoided, the above is obvious to me but might put a new slant on it to someone else.

Mmk. I do forget that those that seem intelligent..bookwise...are also like robots and will never "get it" without disclaimers.

I won't bother next time....with the disclaimer. I'll leave it to those that get it.

What may seem like drivel to you, isn't to someone else. I sometimes think that it's that 'tish sarcasm and then I'm thrown for a loop when I find that it's ignorance.

[manker]

I don't think you do get it.

You seem to be of the opinion that the US would only help if the UK was in trouble - if the UK was kicking arse, then you appear to think that the US would stand back and say 'well done, chaps' but little else.

I'm saying that the US would help before trouble arose in the guise of diplomatic solutions, a public declaration of military solidarity and, finally, military action - no matter which country it was.

[Biggles]

I thought the Americans did speak English - just that it is a 17th century version. An example of this would be Autumn. Autumn was common usage in England in the 14th century but by the 17th Fall was most commonly used. This in turn fell out of fashion and people returned to the older Autumn. The US simply stuck with Fall as that is what was commonplace at the time the colonies were founded.

It is a common mis-conception that US english has deviated from the mother tongue. However, it is, in fact, a version that has changed much less than original it sprang from. Empire and whatnot introduced a lot of expressions from India and Africa that are not used in the USA and the romantics of the 19th century resurrected a lot of older words such as Autumn. A fad that did not occur in the US.

[Busyman]

I don't think you do get it.

You seem to be of the opinion that the US would only help if the UK was in trouble - if the UK was kicking arse, then you appear to think that the US would stand back and say 'well done, chaps' but little else.

I'm saying that the US would help before trouble arose in the guise of diplomatic solutions, a public declaration of military solidarity and, finally, military action - no matter which country it was.

No I do get it.

You see I was talking about fighting, then and now. The US sticks it's nose everywhere so I left diplomacy as a given (actually out).

Nowadays with terrorism about, the US would jump in even without a plan (hinthint). I don't believe if the UK were fighting the Swiss, that we'd lend a substantial army to help. I mean their knives are helpful but hardly dangerous unless they have an army of Macgyvers.

[Busyman]

I thought the Americans did speak English - just that it is a 17th century version. An example of this would be Autumn. Autumn was common usage in England in the 14th century but by the 17th Fall was most commonly used. This in turn fell out of fashion and people returned to the older Autumn. The US simply stuck with Fall as that is what was commonplace at the time the colonies were founded.

It is a common mis-conception that US english has deviated from the mother tongue. However, it is, in fact, a version that has changed much less than original it sprang from. Empire and whatnot introduced a lot of expressions from India and Africa that are not used in the USA and the romantics of the 19th century resurrected a lot of older words such as Autumn. A fad that did not occur in the US.

I remember having this same argument with someone awhiles back. Even j2 came in to point out that they are different languages.

I then said, "He understands me. I understand him."

There are too little differences to equate them as an entirely different languages.

American English (as it's called) to English does not equate to Italian to English.

[Biggles]

The Swiss are not a good example. They have an unbelieveably large and well organised self defence force (err,, it runs like clockwork ) and impossible terrain. It was that more than their neutrality that persuaded Mr Hitler to give them a miss - invading Swizterland would have tied up half the Wehrmacht.

[Cheese]

See, the problem is, Busy, that you decree that your prose is flawless, when it clearly isn't. Sometimes you just post absolute drivel and then say you meant something entirely different.

Quoted for the truth.

[Busyman]

The Swiss are not a good example. They have an unbelieveably large and well organised self defence force (err,, it runs like clockwork ) and impossible terrain. It was that more than their neutrality that persuaded Mr Hitler to give them a miss - invading Swizterland would have tied up half the Wehrmacht.

My bad.