I am mostly onside with my UK friends who insist we here in the colonies are tainting the language. As a Canadian, I am of course conflicted. We have our cousin to the south with their Zees and so on, and our Great Aunty across the pond with her "programmes" and such... Now... I will concede the Zee problem... but "programme"? "Colour"? Are we French... or are we English? You gotta give us those at least. I mean, heck, most of us on both sides of the pond don't even pronounce the R... so why cling to the U? Just sayin...

I enjoy the differences.  They're like dialects on steroids.  These differences give our common language character and nuance.  

And then you have billions of people, like me, trying to do our best to make ourselves understood and not butcher the English language. What's your opinion on that?

Speling dunt bovver me.

Ahm wif  Jaumes.

Now... I will concede the Zee problem... but "programme"? "Colour"? Are we French... or are we English?

The English officially became French in 1066 but we turned the invaders English after they spent too much time with us.  Therefore the true English language is actually to a good extent  Franglais.  In fact we insidiously anglicised our conquerors to such an extent they completely forgot we were a colony of theirs already and made several plans to 'invade' us again during the ensuing centuries.

Even now where the North East was more susceptible to Viking incursions a thousand years ago, rather than French influence you still can't understand a word that Geordie's speak even if you are 'English'.

Some of course would call this idea complete garbage, but I'd say to them, total rubbish.

To me language is something that develops over time rather than a rigid definition and of course its true purpose is to convey meaning, so I quite enjoy some of the American literal approach (i.e. sidewalk actually makes more sense than pavement) and also removes some of the unecessary adornment that has just been picked up due to it's heritage.  I'd much rather write color instead of colour simply because it's more efficient, but it ain't how I've been taught so it seems a bit odd.

We are definitely a recalcitrant bunch which is why there is such a wide range of localised dialects in such a small country, we obviously all like clinging to our own little ways.

Things I don't like are where the sense gets lost in translation, why do so many say they 'could care less' when in fact they 'couldn't care less'?  That's just plain incomprehensible to me.

SwedishPete


And then you have billions of people, like me, trying to do our best to make ourselves understood and not butcher the English language. What's your opinion on that?

Half the fun is butchering the language on purpose.  The effort is knowing the language well enough to know how to butcher it and still get your point across.  The very homonyms that drive English students crazy are fodder for puns and other humor.  Use them wisely, though-especially common words.  Using them incorrectly can be a sign of laziness.  Many people use their or there when they should say they're.  

SwedishPete


And then you have billions of people, like me, trying to do our best to make ourselves understood and not butcher the English language. What's your opinion on that?

See Bapu...or move to Newcastle (the English one) either way you'll be fine.

btw Welcome to the Coffee House.

I would thoroughly recommend a book called 'Made in America: an informal history of the English Language' by Bill Bryson. A lot of the words that us limeys think of as yank words (trash, fall (as in autumn), faucet, diaper,candy etc etc etc) originated in England and have been kept in the Amercan English language while UK English has developed and lost some of these words. Also, the puritan movement replaced the word 'Cock' or 'Cockerel' with the word Rooster and Toilet, Loo, Bog and the millions of crapper based words with 'Bathroom' (this one always baffles me as most american sh1thouses don't have a bath in them).
The book's a great read.