WI American English never went through the "spelling reform" that begun with Webster's orthographical changes in the 18th century? Over time this rationalization has come to encompass both "academic" changes, like Webster's rationalization of his own lexicon, and "organic" changes such as grammatical changes that have spontaneously developed over the course of American history. I'm thinking of the following changes in American English that have diverged for the most part from the other "World Englishes":
1) Rationalizations in American English spelling that better conform to spoken modern English: -or, -er, and -e in American English instead of -our, -re, and -oe/-ae in British/Commonwealth English. i.e. "color" versus "colour", "theater" versus "theatre", "fetus" versus "foetus", "encyclopedia" versus "encyclopaedia".
2) Grammatical rationalizations in American English, i.e. much less use of the subjunctive mood and the lack of distinction in pronoun use. For example, "shall" is nearly obsolete in American English, since very few speakers even know the distinction between "will" and "shall". The direct object "whom" has also been lost for the most part in the US, as "who" suffices for both the subject and object. Such distinctions might exist in very formal writing, i.e. theses and the like, but have all but disappeared in everyday speech and writing. American English (like Facebook, for example) sometimes uses the plural pronoun "their" as a generic "gender-neutral" pronoun alternative for "his" or "hers". While this is not acceptable for academic writing, the common pronoun "their" seems acceptable in speech and informal writing.
3) "Archaisms" (from an American standpoint): "Whilst", "shan't", "mustn't", and the like are also obsolete in American English but appear to be acceptable elsewhere. In fact I would say that the use of similar contractions/prepositions in American speaking and writing would appear affected at best. I'm not sure if what Americans consider archaic still readily appears in other English dialects, but occasionally I have come across similar words while reading British or Indian periodicals, for example.
Okay, some questions:
It's difficult to butterfly away language evolution. Webster's reforms might be easy to remove in an ATL, but language evolves spontaneously. But let's say that in 2008 the "world Englishes" remain less dissimilar then they are today.
1) What would remain the same/different linguistically at each POD of an "alternate Englishes" ATL?
2) What complicating factors would slow the divergence of American English and other Englishes? Perhaps the non-emergence or mis-application of key technologies (fax, internet, television etc.) would stall the rapid convergence of the world's English languages?
3) How would civil unrest/war/political restructuring in the North American continent change the landscape of American English? There are regional American dialects, as Southeastern vs. Northeastern Amer. English. A 19th century fracture of North America into smaller states would have some impact on American English evolution both within and outside the continent.
1) Rationalizations in American English spelling that better conform to spoken modern English: -or, -er, and -e in American English instead of -our, -re, and -oe/-ae in British/Commonwealth English. i.e. "color" versus "colour", "theater" versus "theatre", "fetus" versus "foetus", "encyclopedia" versus "encyclopaedia".
2) Grammatical rationalizations in American English, i.e. much less use of the subjunctive mood and the lack of distinction in pronoun use. For example, "shall" is nearly obsolete in American English, since very few speakers even know the distinction between "will" and "shall". The direct object "whom" has also been lost for the most part in the US, as "who" suffices for both the subject and object. Such distinctions might exist in very formal writing, i.e. theses and the like, but have all but disappeared in everyday speech and writing. American English (like Facebook, for example) sometimes uses the plural pronoun "their" as a generic "gender-neutral" pronoun alternative for "his" or "hers". While this is not acceptable for academic writing, the common pronoun "their" seems acceptable in speech and informal writing.
3) "Archaisms" (from an American standpoint): "Whilst", "shan't", "mustn't", and the like are also obsolete in American English but appear to be acceptable elsewhere. In fact I would say that the use of similar contractions/prepositions in American speaking and writing would appear affected at best. I'm not sure if what Americans consider archaic still readily appears in other English dialects, but occasionally I have come across similar words while reading British or Indian periodicals, for example.
Okay, some questions:
It's difficult to butterfly away language evolution. Webster's reforms might be easy to remove in an ATL, but language evolves spontaneously. But let's say that in 2008 the "world Englishes" remain less dissimilar then they are today.
1) What would remain the same/different linguistically at each POD of an "alternate Englishes" ATL?
2) What complicating factors would slow the divergence of American English and other Englishes? Perhaps the non-emergence or mis-application of key technologies (fax, internet, television etc.) would stall the rapid convergence of the world's English languages?
3) How would civil unrest/war/political restructuring in the North American continent change the landscape of American English? There are regional American dialects, as Southeastern vs. Northeastern Amer. English. A 19th century fracture of North America into smaller states would have some impact on American English evolution both within and outside the continent.