WI American English never went through "spelling reform"?

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.
 
You mean Americans DON'T use 'whilst' or 'mustn't' how strange.

Mind you, its also seemed odd to me that the title of this website is 'alternatehistory' rather than 'alternativehistory'!? Any comments?
 
You mean Americans DON'T use 'whilst' or 'mustn't' how strange.

Mind you, its also seemed odd to me that the title of this website is 'alternatehistory' rather than 'alternativehistory'!? Any comments?
Alternative history is when you talk about how "Jews are actually black Egyptians!"

Alternate history is when history itself is different.

And, to be honest, I still read "whilst" with a short I as in bit, rather than with a long I as in bite. We just use "while". "Mustn't" is rare in print, but I don't think it's that uncommon in speech.
 
Alternative history is when you talk about how "Jews are actually black Egyptians!"

Alternate history is when history itself is different.
.

My Oxford dictionary says:-

Alternate (-nat) first one then, the other successively.

Alternate (-nert) place or occur etc. alterately.

Alternative one or two possibilities.
 
You mean Americans DON'T use 'whilst' or 'mustn't' how strange.

I rarely if ever hear it used by Americans. In 'spoken American' you'll hear "you shouldn't've [shudduntiv] done that" rather than "you mustn't do that". I think the tendency in American English is to "make do with less" -- i.e. slap contractions one on top another rather than coin new contractions. I think the British way is more 'elegant', but the American way is more analytical.
 
I rarely if ever hear it used by Americans. In 'spoken American' you'll hear "you shouldn't've [shudduntiv] done that" rather than "you mustn't do that". I think the tendency in American English is to "make do with less" -- i.e. slap contractions one on top another rather than coin new contractions. I think the British way is more 'elegant', but the American way is more analytical.

They're two different things altogether, at least where I live (Lancashire).

You would say "shouldn't've" after the deed has been done, and "mustn't" beforehand.

Very few people, certainly here in the north of England, say "shan't" or "shall". I feel very odd saying it or writing it, as it is not something that I would naturally do, instead saying "won't" and "will".

I would use "Shouldn't've" and "Mustn't" in everyday speech.

An interesting one is the American use of "Gotten" as in:

I've gotten a l'il dog (I've got a little dog)

In many parts of northern England, especially Cumbria, it is still common to hear:

I's gitten a l'al dog

In many ways southern English sounds as foreign to me as American English, with my pronunciation and use of words having more in common with Scots and English as spoken in Ireland.
 
They're two different things altogether, at least where I live (Lancashire).

You would say "shouldn't've" after the deed has been done, and "mustn't" beforehand.

Very few people, certainly here in the north of England, say "shan't" or "shall". I feel very odd saying it or writing it, as it is not something that I would naturally do, instead saying "won't" and "will".

I would use "Shouldn't've" and "Mustn't" in everyday speech.

An interesting one is the American use of "Gotten" as in:

I've gotten a l'il dog (I've got a little dog)

In many parts of northern England, especially Cumbria, it is still common to hear:

I's gitten a l'al dog

In many ways southern English sounds as foreign to me as American English, with my pronunciation and use of words having more in common with Scots and English as spoken in Ireland.

Hi Will,

Thanks, I stand corrected on this points. I guess a better American equivalent to "you mustn't do that" is "you shouldn't do that". As for the "shan't"/"shall" question, I must confess that my knowledge of English/Scottish/Irish English is limited to compulsive BBC listening, journal reading, and time living with English housemates. So my understanding of other Englishes often do not take into account the diversity within different national dialects. :-(

As for "I've gotten a l'il dog": That's not said in New England. We say "I've got a little dog". Maybe it's a Southern phrase; it sounds rather odd to me. But "oddity" is a matter of perspective, of course: plenty of people think that New Yorkese is strange, and I grew up surrounded by it.

It's very interesting how my English and Irish friends would compare each other's accents and 'place' each other geographically. I'm aware that there's dialectical variation in North America, but generally people here identify themselves geographically rather than by accent. I also think there's some unconscious pressure to homogenize American accent and dialect, which I think is counterproductive.
 
Last edited:
As for "I've gotten a l'il dog": That's not said in New England. We say "I've got a little dog". Maybe it's a Southern phrase; it sounds rather odd to me. But "oddity" is a matter of perspective, of course: plenty of people think that New Yorkese is strange, and I grew up surrounded by it.
"I've gotten" is the past perfect of "I got"; for instance "I've gotten a shot before."

"I've got" means "I have": "I've got a rooster and his name is Sam."

EDIT: Midwestern America, FYI.
 
Top