What do you think?
Rate this book
The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship Between American and British English
"An American linguist teaching in England explores the sibling rivalry between British and American English"--
368 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 10, 2018
235 people are currently reading
2927 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 217 reviews
December 31, 2018
This author is such a sneering hypocrite. She might have lived for 20 years in the UK (because of her husband) but she has no love for the British. She is talking about the words toilet, loo and lavatory (she has forgotten bog, WC, khazi - only old soldiers say this - and brick shit house which is not used in polite company!)
"What all these British words for poo places have in common is that they are euphemistic. They make reference to washing and water, but they don't mention naked bottoms and what comes out of them.
The British tendency to verbally tiptoe around these topics is so great...."
So the author thinks the Americanisms, "restroom", "bathroom", "little girls' room" and "washroom" are more direct? Restroom which is the most common sign in stores for the toilets, is hardly straightforward. Unless you like sitting on the pot doing the crossword surrounded by the miasma of strangers' defecating and pissing is your idea of a good rest, then it is a euphemism.
___________________________________________
It's amazing how much a simple phrase can give away. The author is contrasting the differing pronunciation of words in American and British English. She is using as her source The Daily Mail The subject is how Iraq is pronounced. She says the Mail incorrectly says that Americans say Eyerack. "Apparently they've never heard Barack Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton say Iraq. (Maybe eyerack-sayers George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are more the Daily Mail's style.)"
So what the author has given away from this is that she doesn't like Republicans (who stupidly mispronounce things) but does like Democrats and that the Mail is an unreliable, right-wing news source. So why the fuck is she using it then? There are endless web sites devoted to American v British English pronunciations she could have chosen. If this book was designed for entertainment, that would be acceptable, but in a book that contains much academic research and texts? No.
Americans might not know about the Daily Mail, aka The Daily Rag. Knowing what it is makes it an even worse source for a very long entry.
The Daily Mail serves two purposes. Firstly, all its stories are click bait, designed to provoke reaction. It s generally right-wing, but might change that stance if being liberal means that they will incite more anger. They are very cynical, first a story slanted this way, then one that. The result of this is the best comments section on the internet, very funny, full of spittingly-angry people who've fallen for the bait.
However even the comments section is fake as it is often 'moderated' ie. designed to reflect a particular view and inflame people further. It is also the main vehicle for spin for 'celebrities' and other self-promoters from film stars to WAGS. They have at least 10 Kardashian trash stories a week but that is eclipsed by Meghan Markle and how much all her new clothes are costing the British tax payer). All of this is of course designed to get people to view the ads. The more comments to read, to join in on, the more the ads get viewed and the more the Mail can charge for them. It is viewed by many as a scurrilous rag.
The author has lived in the UK for 20 years, she knows what the Daily Mail is about. Is she also into provoking reactions from Americans about how the British really hate Americans? . I can't work out the author's agenda and wonder if the rest of the book is trustworthy or should I just take it as entertainment? Is it even worth reading now?
On the island we speak three Englishes, all are interchangeable, Caribbean English which has different pronunciations and some different vocabulary , American English because we are so close to the US and get our media from there and British English because the text books are in that and all the 'top people' (self-defined) aim to speak that way. I think that's more or less the same throughout the English-speaking Caribbean.
"What all these British words for poo places have in common is that they are euphemistic. They make reference to washing and water, but they don't mention naked bottoms and what comes out of them.
The British tendency to verbally tiptoe around these topics is so great...."
So the author thinks the Americanisms, "restroom", "bathroom", "little girls' room" and "washroom" are more direct? Restroom which is the most common sign in stores for the toilets, is hardly straightforward. Unless you like sitting on the pot doing the crossword surrounded by the miasma of strangers' defecating and pissing is your idea of a good rest, then it is a euphemism.
___________________________________________
It's amazing how much a simple phrase can give away. The author is contrasting the differing pronunciation of words in American and British English. She is using as her source The Daily Mail The subject is how Iraq is pronounced. She says the Mail incorrectly says that Americans say Eyerack. "Apparently they've never heard Barack Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton say Iraq. (Maybe eyerack-sayers George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are more the Daily Mail's style.)"
So what the author has given away from this is that she doesn't like Republicans (who stupidly mispronounce things) but does like Democrats and that the Mail is an unreliable, right-wing news source. So why the fuck is she using it then? There are endless web sites devoted to American v British English pronunciations she could have chosen. If this book was designed for entertainment, that would be acceptable, but in a book that contains much academic research and texts? No.
Americans might not know about the Daily Mail, aka The Daily Rag. Knowing what it is makes it an even worse source for a very long entry.
The Daily Mail serves two purposes. Firstly, all its stories are click bait, designed to provoke reaction. It s generally right-wing, but might change that stance if being liberal means that they will incite more anger. They are very cynical, first a story slanted this way, then one that. The result of this is the best comments section on the internet, very funny, full of spittingly-angry people who've fallen for the bait.
However even the comments section is fake as it is often 'moderated' ie. designed to reflect a particular view and inflame people further. It is also the main vehicle for spin for 'celebrities' and other self-promoters from film stars to WAGS. They have at least 10 Kardashian trash stories a week but that is eclipsed by Meghan Markle and how much all her new clothes are costing the British tax payer). All of this is of course designed to get people to view the ads. The more comments to read, to join in on, the more the ads get viewed and the more the Mail can charge for them. It is viewed by many as a scurrilous rag.
The author has lived in the UK for 20 years, she knows what the Daily Mail is about. Is she also into provoking reactions from Americans about how the British really hate Americans? . I can't work out the author's agenda and wonder if the rest of the book is trustworthy or should I just take it as entertainment? Is it even worth reading now?
On the island we speak three Englishes, all are interchangeable, Caribbean English which has different pronunciations and some different vocabulary , American English because we are so close to the US and get our media from there and British English because the text books are in that and all the 'top people' (self-defined) aim to speak that way. I think that's more or less the same throughout the English-speaking Caribbean.
May 8, 2018
(This is a British review of the British edition)
A lot of ink and paper has gone into books and articles about the differences between British and American English. A lot of hot air has gone into complaining, at least on this side of the Atlantic, about the corruption of the language of Shakespeare and Milton by the depraved. Almost invariably the result has been ill-informed and inaccurate.
Not before time comes a book that treats the subject seriously, by a writer who knows what she's talking about because she's an American professor of linguistics at a British university and furthermore has assimilated herself into British life by marrying a British man and raising a British daughter. For the last twelve years, as "Lynneguist (how lucky some people are whose names and occupations so readily make an apposite pun!), she's run the Separated by a Common Language blog, which isn't, she stresses, part of her day job but has provided much material for this book, along with meticulous research using the tools of the day job. The only conclusion can be that It's Never That Simple.
Those hated Americanisms, for example, turn out to have been in use in England long before Europeans arrived in America. Or they never came from America in the first place – 'train station', which gets so many British people very agitated, was in regular use in Hull when I lived there in the 1970s but I never heard it in America; my late mom-in-law, born in 1910, called it the 'depot' (pronounced DEEpo). Some words and pronunciations that appear American are still found in parts of England away from London and the south-east, because they were the standards before London fashion moved on. Can I get a coffee? As English as the fashionable coffee houses of the eighteenth century!
Is British English in danger of becoming homogenised by the insidious influence of American popular culture? Not at all, it would appear. British people, especially those most avid consumers of popular culture our teenagers (a very useful Americanism by the way), continue to be prolific at generating neologisms that baffle and delight American media, while we don't appear to absorb an American word simply to displace an exactly equivalent British word. The baby's pushchair isn't becoming a stroller any time soon. Where we do take on an American word we don't take on its precise American meaning, we take it to fill a hole, or some nuance of meaning. We've accepted 'cookie', for example, but not to apply to our own ginger nuts and chocolate digestives; thsoe are still biscuits. We took it on to cover the sort of soft baked good, almost a flat cake, that gets sold in a bag. What's shown at the Glasgow Film Theatre is still a film, but 'movies' are shown over the road at Cineworld.
Lynne's conclusion: British English is in rude health (it's particularly good at being rude, it seems) and the armchair critics should do their homework and stop being so smug. I heartily concur.
A lot of ink and paper has gone into books and articles about the differences between British and American English. A lot of hot air has gone into complaining, at least on this side of the Atlantic, about the corruption of the language of Shakespeare and Milton by the depraved. Almost invariably the result has been ill-informed and inaccurate.
Not before time comes a book that treats the subject seriously, by a writer who knows what she's talking about because she's an American professor of linguistics at a British university and furthermore has assimilated herself into British life by marrying a British man and raising a British daughter. For the last twelve years, as "Lynneguist (how lucky some people are whose names and occupations so readily make an apposite pun!), she's run the Separated by a Common Language blog, which isn't, she stresses, part of her day job but has provided much material for this book, along with meticulous research using the tools of the day job. The only conclusion can be that It's Never That Simple.
Those hated Americanisms, for example, turn out to have been in use in England long before Europeans arrived in America. Or they never came from America in the first place – 'train station', which gets so many British people very agitated, was in regular use in Hull when I lived there in the 1970s but I never heard it in America; my late mom-in-law, born in 1910, called it the 'depot' (pronounced DEEpo). Some words and pronunciations that appear American are still found in parts of England away from London and the south-east, because they were the standards before London fashion moved on. Can I get a coffee? As English as the fashionable coffee houses of the eighteenth century!
Is British English in danger of becoming homogenised by the insidious influence of American popular culture? Not at all, it would appear. British people, especially those most avid consumers of popular culture our teenagers (a very useful Americanism by the way), continue to be prolific at generating neologisms that baffle and delight American media, while we don't appear to absorb an American word simply to displace an exactly equivalent British word. The baby's pushchair isn't becoming a stroller any time soon. Where we do take on an American word we don't take on its precise American meaning, we take it to fill a hole, or some nuance of meaning. We've accepted 'cookie', for example, but not to apply to our own ginger nuts and chocolate digestives; thsoe are still biscuits. We took it on to cover the sort of soft baked good, almost a flat cake, that gets sold in a bag. What's shown at the Glasgow Film Theatre is still a film, but 'movies' are shown over the road at Cineworld.
Lynne's conclusion: British English is in rude health (it's particularly good at being rude, it seems) and the armchair critics should do their homework and stop being so smug. I heartily concur.
pass
October 13, 2021I don't think I can take any more complaining about how the British consider their English superior to American English. OK, fine, that's the title, I completely agree that people who whine about other dialects existing are awful, but I was hoping for linguistics rather than the author getting what feels like several decades of resentment off her chest. (And it's hardly one-way spite, is it? Especially with the analyses here of business and obituary language to indicate that Americans are go getting, independent and fact based while Brits are stuffy and subservient to power.)
I bailed at this sentence:
What. The 'from old' / 'to new' is identical. Is she arguing that citing the new price before the old one is putting the focus on new, and if so, why are we assuming the 'grammatical focus' is on the thing in the middle of the sentence and not the thing at its end? How is this affected by the fact that one example is of rising prices and the other falling? Do Brits and Americans always do this the same way round? Can we really use this to prove that the British are backward-looking and mired in the past while Americans look to the future? (No.)
Irritating.
I bailed at this sentence:
In American business pages, stocks fall to a new price from an old one, but rise from an old price to a new one in the UK papers. ... the American news focus is on now. Information about the past is put in the grammatical background.
What. The 'from old' / 'to new' is identical. Is she arguing that citing the new price before the old one is putting the focus on new, and if so, why are we assuming the 'grammatical focus' is on the thing in the middle of the sentence and not the thing at its end? How is this affected by the fact that one example is of rising prices and the other falling? Do Brits and Americans always do this the same way round? Can we really use this to prove that the British are backward-looking and mired in the past while Americans look to the future? (No.)
Irritating.
December 13, 2017
I am fascinated by the English language, its dialects and accents, so I was always going to love this book. The author is an American linguist who has lived in England for 20 years, so she knows what she's writing about. Many of my prejudices about Americanisms have been quashed - there are lots of words and phrases I thought were American in origin which actually originated in Britain, and vice versa. We British people tend to think of American English as prudish and illogical, but Murphy points out that British English can also be both these things. Meanwhile, some Americans are under the impression that we use all kinds of weird words like 'bumbleshoot' (no, I've never heard of it either - it was made up by an American and apparently means 'umbrella'). Above all, Murphy gives us a broad history of both kinds of English and when and why certain phrases and spellings developed over the past few centuries. The result is a language which has borrowed words from all kinds of other languages, and so often has no consistency in spelling or pronunciation. And it's interesting to see how many words and phrases have moved from Britain to America as well as from America to Britain. Having read this book, I'll never again complain when someone says 'Can I get?' instead of 'May I have?' (okay, I probably will... the 'get' part was explained but not the 'can'...). And business speak from either country is equally appalling. Ultimately, though, the diversity and ever-changing nature of English on both sides of the Atlantic is something to be celebrated, not bemoaned. And this is a easy-to-read, humorous guide which does just that.
One quibble - Murphy says that in Britain when we say 'bacon' we mean back bacon, otherwise we say 'streaky bacon'. In my experience, the word 'bacon' on its own can mean either streaky or back, we need to specify if we want to be clear which one it is, as they are equally popular here. And that's before you get into whether it's smoked or unsmoked...
One quibble - Murphy says that in Britain when we say 'bacon' we mean back bacon, otherwise we say 'streaky bacon'. In my experience, the word 'bacon' on its own can mean either streaky or back, we need to specify if we want to be clear which one it is, as they are equally popular here. And that's before you get into whether it's smoked or unsmoked...
February 18, 2018
I love the chatty sort of language book that is equal parts academic and colorful examples. John McWhorter is a favorite, and David Crystal. Lynne Murphy was already a favorite of mine because of her language blog, Separated By a Common Language, and now she's written a book, yay!
She tackles a wide range of differences between the Englishes of Britain and of America (and occasionally of Australia and Canada). Even if you think you are aware of the vocabulary differences, you may be surprised, as I was, to learn that there are many more differences than what we call an umbrella or a sidewalk.
Just taking food as a topic, Murphy describes how "soup" is technically the same thing on either side of the Atlantic, but that in general, the default of soup in America is a clear broth with things in it, such as chicken noodle soup, and in Britain, soup is very nearly always a pureed dish with a single consistency. The Brits have "cookies" now, in addition to their traditional "biscuits," but they still call Murphy's homemade snickerdoodles "little cakes."
And do not get Murphy started on some Brits' call to stop letting Americans ruin the English language. For practically every complaint these scolds have about Americanisms, Murphy shows that the Americanism started out in Britain. Touché!
She tackles a wide range of differences between the Englishes of Britain and of America (and occasionally of Australia and Canada). Even if you think you are aware of the vocabulary differences, you may be surprised, as I was, to learn that there are many more differences than what we call an umbrella or a sidewalk.
Just taking food as a topic, Murphy describes how "soup" is technically the same thing on either side of the Atlantic, but that in general, the default of soup in America is a clear broth with things in it, such as chicken noodle soup, and in Britain, soup is very nearly always a pureed dish with a single consistency. The Brits have "cookies" now, in addition to their traditional "biscuits," but they still call Murphy's homemade snickerdoodles "little cakes."
And do not get Murphy started on some Brits' call to stop letting Americans ruin the English language. For practically every complaint these scolds have about Americanisms, Murphy shows that the Americanism started out in Britain. Touché!
June 14, 2018
This books first half was hilarious. It got more serious in the second half but was still very easy to read as a non-fiction book. An absolute must for Americans in England or Brits in America. Or anyone with experience with both. It spoke to my heart and my own experience. (An American in London for three years going on my fourth)
June 22, 2018
It seems that the author is trying to maintain a balance between British English and American English throughout the whole book. But as a reader, I can still detect that the author is defending consciously or unconsciously American English, her native tongue, against the accusations made by linguistically superior British people.
It's a good book. I basically agree with the author's main point, American English and British English are both great 'nationlect', it's impossible and meaningless to argue which one is better. But hey, you may know about the English language but you misunderstand the English people to some extent. English people ridicule everything, American English is just one of the American things that English people enjoy ridiculing, they will always mock anything American as possible as they can.
It's a good book. I basically agree with the author's main point, American English and British English are both great 'nationlect', it's impossible and meaningless to argue which one is better. But hey, you may know about the English language but you misunderstand the English people to some extent. English people ridicule everything, American English is just one of the American things that English people enjoy ridiculing, they will always mock anything American as possible as they can.
December 27, 2018
Well, I unwrapped this book Christmas Eve and finished it this afternoon, so you know I'm back to my original rate of production.
This was great fun. Whenever I pick up a book about language, I'm braced for an onslaught of whining or random anecdotes (as in this book which I read over ten years ago and am honestly still mad about). But Murphy knows her stuff and has organized her work very well. She even complains about opinion writers who scoff at others' language on the basis of a bad understanding of linguistics.
There are repeated overarching themes (an American inferiority complex and a British sniff of elitism; the way words flow back and forth across the Atlantic and the place a word takes root isn't necessarily where it was born) but each chapter has its own angle. We learn about how, once American and British English diverged, they handled French loanwords differently. How the two countries' approach to class and accent play out as speakers attempt to modulate their language to make assertions about their status. Lots of false etymologies get called out on both sides. Even though I consume a lot of British media, Murphy brings up things I'd never noticed, like the exact British vs. American interpretations of "quite" and how the British view dictionaries and language classes as ways to enhance one's appreciation for literature rather than as a vehicle for correctness and self-improvement. Or how our two "nationlects" have different extents of meaning for "sandwich." There is an essential sandwich-y thing that we'd agree is a sandwich, but "American sandwiches are allowed to wander further from the prototype" to include various fillings on croissants and bagels and whatnot. (pg. 199)
If you are the kind of reader who is tempted by a book like this, it is a good one and you would enjoy it. It gets four stars rather than five from me because I know enough about linguistics that this isn't really perspective-changing--if you are new to thinking descriptively rather than prescriptively about languages changing over time, this would be even more rewarding.
This was great fun. Whenever I pick up a book about language, I'm braced for an onslaught of whining or random anecdotes (as in this book which I read over ten years ago and am honestly still mad about). But Murphy knows her stuff and has organized her work very well. She even complains about opinion writers who scoff at others' language on the basis of a bad understanding of linguistics.
There are repeated overarching themes (an American inferiority complex and a British sniff of elitism; the way words flow back and forth across the Atlantic and the place a word takes root isn't necessarily where it was born) but each chapter has its own angle. We learn about how, once American and British English diverged, they handled French loanwords differently. How the two countries' approach to class and accent play out as speakers attempt to modulate their language to make assertions about their status. Lots of false etymologies get called out on both sides. Even though I consume a lot of British media, Murphy brings up things I'd never noticed, like the exact British vs. American interpretations of "quite" and how the British view dictionaries and language classes as ways to enhance one's appreciation for literature rather than as a vehicle for correctness and self-improvement. Or how our two "nationlects" have different extents of meaning for "sandwich." There is an essential sandwich-y thing that we'd agree is a sandwich, but "American sandwiches are allowed to wander further from the prototype" to include various fillings on croissants and bagels and whatnot. (pg. 199)
If you are the kind of reader who is tempted by a book like this, it is a good one and you would enjoy it. It gets four stars rather than five from me because I know enough about linguistics that this isn't really perspective-changing--if you are new to thinking descriptively rather than prescriptively about languages changing over time, this would be even more rewarding.
August 19, 2018
By far my favourite book so far this year. This is the book I wish I could carry with me and show to people when they claim a certain word, phrase, or syntax is an Americanism. 8 times out of 10, I bet they would be wrong. Not that the sort of people who complain about Americanisms are open to new knowledge, but a girl can try. This book is comprehensive, covering a wide range of facts with common myths and historical events to really understand the difference between British and American English, and why those differences may exist. As with most proper linguists, she does this in a neutral way, carefully pointing out that these are just differences. No one way is right or wrong; it's just different, and Murphy discusses both the differences and the possible reasons for it. The book contains information on general trends and tendencies and specific examples of words and phrases. It is also entertaining and often funny whilst still being informative. If you have ever found yourself poking fun at British phrases or Americanisms, or if you have ever read one of those grumpy media articles claiming that the purity of the English language is being tainted and you actually believed it, then you need to read this book. Like all linguistics books, I wish I could get every grumpy grammarian in my life to read it, but I know that their love of the rules has no room for information about how language changes or why those rules are often entirely unfounded. This is a book for language lovers, curious native speakers of English, and those for whom English is a second language alike. I loved this book.
May 16, 2018
This was one of those books that felt like it came into my life at exactly the moment it was meant to. Yes, I am one of many Anglophiles that admits to having an inferiority complex about my Americanisms, or American English, as the author so fascinatingly delves into with this intelligent and engaging book. Highly recommended!
May 6, 2018
What a great book! It's about language now, but it's also a history of the English language as it has migrated from Great Britain to the United States and beyond. It's about how social class and mobility has impacted, and continues to impact, our ever-evolving language. It's also funny, highly readable and full of useful information (I feel like I said to myself "huh, I didn't know that" a few times per page.
As an American who loves to visit Britain but does so far less than he'd like, I can identify with the inferiority complex that many Americans feel when practicing the mother tongue in the land of its birth. I sometimes have felt like I'm walking on thin ice just ordering a meal or asking directions. (There's a whole section here about how Brits would be shocked by a customer ordering in a cafe or restaurant without using the word "please"--meaning I fell thru the ice several times during my most recent visit.) This book explains where the inferiority complex comes from, and debunks it, as it debunks the British myth that "Americans are ruining English". And does so with brio and humor.
I can't recommend this book highly enough. It's a great read and very informative.
As an American who loves to visit Britain but does so far less than he'd like, I can identify with the inferiority complex that many Americans feel when practicing the mother tongue in the land of its birth. I sometimes have felt like I'm walking on thin ice just ordering a meal or asking directions. (There's a whole section here about how Brits would be shocked by a customer ordering in a cafe or restaurant without using the word "please"--meaning I fell thru the ice several times during my most recent visit.) This book explains where the inferiority complex comes from, and debunks it, as it debunks the British myth that "Americans are ruining English". And does so with brio and humor.
I can't recommend this book highly enough. It's a great read and very informative.
August 27, 2018
What fun - I was surprised to discover how many words I thought were 'american' but were 'british' and how many I thought were 'british' were actually 'american'. She writes with a fun sense of humor making this a pleasure to read. And there are quizzes at the end!
She has a blog on this topic (which I discovered reading this book) so I am delighted that I can continue learning about such a fun topic.
She has a blog on this topic (which I discovered reading this book) so I am delighted that I can continue learning about such a fun topic.
January 28, 2019
What was the point of this book?? Oh right, to tell the Brits that their English is not being polluted by Americanisms. If there's more to this book than this, it's nowhere to be found in the first 50%.
Second star is because there were some interesting linguistic tidbits here and there.
Second star is because there were some interesting linguistic tidbits here and there.
September 28, 2018
I really enjoyed this book, and all the facts, linguistic break downs, and isms. I will be pulling some of these trivias from my hat for years to come. It's quirky, smart alecky and informative.
September 11, 2018
An utterly delightful, entertaining and thoughtful book. Murphy is a linguist, from America, but who has spent the past 20 years teaching in the UK (with 10 years in South Africa along the way). The book deal with differences between American and British English. What separates this book from others like it is 1/ its accuracy (others I've seen make many mistakes about what's either typically American or British) and 2/ its depth - she delves into history and sociology to explain not only what the differences are, but why they exist (and persist). If you're an American who has spent time in the UK or a Brit who has spent time in the U.S. you may find it particularly familiar and entertaining.
I suspect, however, that most of my British (specifically southeastern English) friends (mates) will find this book upsetting, because it spends a large part of the time examining and debunking a typical British claim about the English language: that in modern times American English is overly influencing and degrading British English, which is "true" English - the more historical English and/or more consistent. The book carefully and persistently points out that every part of that claim is untrue. American English doesn't influence British English any more than the reverse, and in fact both languages keep changing independently. British English is no more or less logical than American English. And possibly the most shocking evidence is that American English has a greater claim to being more faithful to historical English than British English. I don't think Brits will like reading that. But they should read this book anyway, because as a quotation in the book states (it's full of wonderful quotations): "The British... do not want to be happy; they want to be right." (Quentin Crisp)
What is true, and what I find fascinating, is that in recent times there has been a push in British English to reflexively move away from things that seem American, even when they're not, and that's partly why British English is less faithful to historical English. For example, the "-ize" (as in "authorize") was always the English spelling because the suffix itself is Greek and spelled that way in Greek (it’s "-ise" in French). It was the preferred spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary and the more popular spelling in the UK until the 1990s. It probably switched then (and it's a sudden switch) because it seemed American, even though it’s British. Most Brits don’t even realize how recent the popularity change in the spelling is. They prefer to be less American so they make themselves more French.
That appears to be true for a large category of things - British English abandoned English to be more Greek/Latin/French. They abandoned a host of English words they used to use for foods for French ones, like aubergine, mange-tout, haricot bean. They changed spellings from the originals like skeptic to sceptic, check to cheque, program to programme, catalog to catalogue. British spellings make new words look more Greek like faeces, paediatric, oestrogen, foetus (even though the original Latin is "fetus" not "foetus", and "sulfur" not "sulphur"). "Centre" and "colour" are French-influenced changes. Worlds like "mould" and "smoulder" were spelling changes made by the Normans - "mold" and "smolder" are more true to English pronunciation and history.
The book is full of fascinating tidbits (the American and original English spelling - the British "titbit" came later) like these. Highly recommended.
I suspect, however, that most of my British (specifically southeastern English) friends (mates) will find this book upsetting, because it spends a large part of the time examining and debunking a typical British claim about the English language: that in modern times American English is overly influencing and degrading British English, which is "true" English - the more historical English and/or more consistent. The book carefully and persistently points out that every part of that claim is untrue. American English doesn't influence British English any more than the reverse, and in fact both languages keep changing independently. British English is no more or less logical than American English. And possibly the most shocking evidence is that American English has a greater claim to being more faithful to historical English than British English. I don't think Brits will like reading that. But they should read this book anyway, because as a quotation in the book states (it's full of wonderful quotations): "The British... do not want to be happy; they want to be right." (Quentin Crisp)
What is true, and what I find fascinating, is that in recent times there has been a push in British English to reflexively move away from things that seem American, even when they're not, and that's partly why British English is less faithful to historical English. For example, the "-ize" (as in "authorize") was always the English spelling because the suffix itself is Greek and spelled that way in Greek (it’s "-ise" in French). It was the preferred spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary and the more popular spelling in the UK until the 1990s. It probably switched then (and it's a sudden switch) because it seemed American, even though it’s British. Most Brits don’t even realize how recent the popularity change in the spelling is. They prefer to be less American so they make themselves more French.
That appears to be true for a large category of things - British English abandoned English to be more Greek/Latin/French. They abandoned a host of English words they used to use for foods for French ones, like aubergine, mange-tout, haricot bean. They changed spellings from the originals like skeptic to sceptic, check to cheque, program to programme, catalog to catalogue. British spellings make new words look more Greek like faeces, paediatric, oestrogen, foetus (even though the original Latin is "fetus" not "foetus", and "sulfur" not "sulphur"). "Centre" and "colour" are French-influenced changes. Worlds like "mould" and "smoulder" were spelling changes made by the Normans - "mold" and "smolder" are more true to English pronunciation and history.
The book is full of fascinating tidbits (the American and original English spelling - the British "titbit" came later) like these. Highly recommended.
August 6, 2018
A great read! Top things I learned from The Prodigal Tongue & things the author (or someone) should address for a next book:
- Who knew this was such a big issue. The British complaining about imperialism? Wow the English do love irony.
-Yes! The monarchy is entertaining precisely because it's silly. Why could I never articulate that?!
- You know I had heard that Americans have an older accent but I had never actually put the image together in my mind: that every single Shakespeare movie has the wrong pronunciation.
-I was very surprised to learn that there are words that Americans pronounce "IZE" though they also don't write them that way. Americans, you may have to re-read that last sentence.
-Wait an estate is the projects?!
-Most courts that interpret dictionaries say something like: The contract uses this word. Every moron understands this word, it's the dictionary definition. Therefore this is the context of the Contract. But if English courts address the "context only" how does that work?
- Wait the English didn't invent diagramming sentences? But putting things in their proper place seems so... British. @lynneguist has busted another bias it seems.
-I can't even spell the American version of anesthetic. That word needs no superfluous vowels. Though superfluous does I suppose.
-Overall, probably does a better job assuaging American-Brit relations better than any politician ever could!
- Who knew this was such a big issue. The British complaining about imperialism? Wow the English do love irony.
-Yes! The monarchy is entertaining precisely because it's silly. Why could I never articulate that?!
- You know I had heard that Americans have an older accent but I had never actually put the image together in my mind: that every single Shakespeare movie has the wrong pronunciation.
-I was very surprised to learn that there are words that Americans pronounce "IZE" though they also don't write them that way. Americans, you may have to re-read that last sentence.
-Wait an estate is the projects?!
-Most courts that interpret dictionaries say something like: The contract uses this word. Every moron understands this word, it's the dictionary definition. Therefore this is the context of the Contract. But if English courts address the "context only" how does that work?
- Wait the English didn't invent diagramming sentences? But putting things in their proper place seems so... British. @lynneguist has busted another bias it seems.
-I can't even spell the American version of anesthetic. That word needs no superfluous vowels. Though superfluous does I suppose.
-Overall, probably does a better job assuaging American-Brit relations better than any politician ever could!
May 15, 2018
Every once in a while I'll come across a British person who feels the need to correct "Americanisms" for lack of a better term. Grammar, word choice, spelling, etc. I won't lie, this makes me roll my eyes, especially when it's on a social media platform that was invented and headquartered in the US and bases most of their employees in the US. But that is neither here nor there.
I was intrigued by the concept of this book and English, either the US version or British version. The things that seep into the other's (or is it mostly one way?). How this shapes our attitudes and how it is often reflected into our pop culture and media, etc.
Honestly? I found this book to be very tedious. Grammar, idioms, etc. and similar topics typically don't interest me that much but this book was a tough go. I found it overly talky at times, perhaps bordering on academic and dry. This is probably a book that would very much appeal to a few particular audiences, but I guess I'm not one of them.
Library borrow was best for me.
I was intrigued by the concept of this book and English, either the US version or British version. The things that seep into the other's (or is it mostly one way?). How this shapes our attitudes and how it is often reflected into our pop culture and media, etc.
Honestly? I found this book to be very tedious. Grammar, idioms, etc. and similar topics typically don't interest me that much but this book was a tough go. I found it overly talky at times, perhaps bordering on academic and dry. This is probably a book that would very much appeal to a few particular audiences, but I guess I'm not one of them.
Library borrow was best for me.
October 27, 2018
I used to read Lynne Murphy's blog once upon a time and always enjoyed it. I thought her expansion into a full length book was also great. Parts of it are just fun from the linguistic perspective. If you like the English language, there's plenty to love. But in addition to that, this book is a heartfelt encouragement to love your English without the need to be snobbish or reactionary or prescriptive about it. English isn't going to be ruined because it mixes with other dialects (or nationlects), gets new words, loses old words, or generally changes, and, as Murphy wisely notes as the end, there are so many more real things in the world to worry about.
May 6, 2019
I found the tone of this book very annoying. The author spends most of the book basically ranting—in a way that's both condescending and whiny—about how most of the hated Americanisms actually started in the UK. Apparently it's supposed to be funny, but it just didn't sit well with me. The structure of the book was a little strange, too; it could have been organized better. And as someone who edits for many different Englishes, I wanted clear-cut guidance on how to spell/punctuate for different parts of the English-speaking world, but that's not what this book sets out to do (that's on me, not a fault of the author).
I did learn some interesting things here and there, but overall this book was not what I was hoping it would be.
I did learn some interesting things here and there, but overall this book was not what I was hoping it would be.
September 24, 2018
An eye-opening, very entertaining look at our assumptions about English and the different ways we express ourselves in the US and the UK. I've never had so much fun being chastised for my incorrect beliefs, such as thinking that "poppycock" and "bumbershoot" are quintessential British words, or that it's incorrect to pair a singular noun with a plural verb. This book will challenge your perceived wisdom about what is proper and what is not, and will make you appreciate our shared language from a new perspective.
June 25, 2018
Very well written, modern, and current, this book destroyed a lot of my prejudices in regards to differences between the so-called American and British English.
July 9, 2022
As an American expat teaching linguistics in the UK, the author has a decidedly centrist approach to philological differences between the two nationalects (as she calls them). Yes, they will continue to cross-pollinate. Yes, no one can stop it.
BUT I DONT CARE.
I will strive to maintain my dignity as I insist on the use of fortnight! And maths! And avoid using unnecessary prepositions and quite as an intensifier! And…and…noun-ed verbs and verb-ed nouns! And…and…write with feather quills!
Lol I kid. But really it’s worth the read if you’ve ever experienced communication breakdown of any kind.
BUT I DONT CARE.
I will strive to maintain my dignity as I insist on the use of fortnight! And maths! And avoid using unnecessary prepositions and quite as an intensifier! And…and…noun-ed verbs and verb-ed nouns! And…and…write with feather quills!
Lol I kid. But really it’s worth the read if you’ve ever experienced communication breakdown of any kind.
May 20, 2018
Lynne Murphy is a US-trained linguist, who now lives in England. She's been writing a blog (separated by a common language) about the two forms of English for many years, and has here written a book about the same subject. Unlike the blog, which typically highlights differences and works out the history behind them, the main focus of the book is on the perceived differences and the larger trends. There is a perception in the UK that the language is being ruined by 'Americanisms', but she points out that many of them are either British in origin or equally common (or uncommon) on both sides of the Atlantic.
In general the strength of their feelings is inversely correlated with the pundits knowledge on the topic.
Murphy is very well informed, and takes a mostly disinterested view, occasionally sprinkled with personal anecdotes, but in general backed up by serious research.
While there are definite differences between the two variants of English, most generalizations fail at some level. (US English is neither 'closer too the original', nor is it taking over the world.)
In general the strength of their feelings is inversely correlated with the pundits knowledge on the topic.
Murphy is very well informed, and takes a mostly disinterested view, occasionally sprinkled with personal anecdotes, but in general backed up by serious research.
While there are definite differences between the two variants of English, most generalizations fail at some level. (US English is neither 'closer too the original', nor is it taking over the world.)
November 6, 2018
I'd heard Murphy being interviewed on Helen Zaltzman's "The Allusionist" podcast, discussing British and American use of "please" and "thank you." This book was mentioned, so I thought I'd enjoy it. I did!
In addition to grammar and spelling differences, Murphy highlights borrowing back and forth across the Atlantic with a focus on what speakers of British English and American English think about their own and the others' versions of the Mother Tongue. Murphy, an American living and working in England, sees many instances of things that bug British English speakers about American English and is able to point out that many of these traits are either direct imports from England that have been forgotten there, or are in now way "incorrect."
Murphy definitely falls into the "descriptive" camp and doesn't have much use for prescriptivists. She delights in highlighting the differences without being too judgmental about them.
If you love language and have wondered about the many little differences between American and British English, you'll like this.
In addition to grammar and spelling differences, Murphy highlights borrowing back and forth across the Atlantic with a focus on what speakers of British English and American English think about their own and the others' versions of the Mother Tongue. Murphy, an American living and working in England, sees many instances of things that bug British English speakers about American English and is able to point out that many of these traits are either direct imports from England that have been forgotten there, or are in now way "incorrect."
Murphy definitely falls into the "descriptive" camp and doesn't have much use for prescriptivists. She delights in highlighting the differences without being too judgmental about them.
If you love language and have wondered about the many little differences between American and British English, you'll like this.
November 26, 2019
I was ultimately somewhat disappointed in this book.
The topic and the linguistic expertise of the author made it sound like it might be really interesting.
While the author is undoubtedly very knowledgeable and gives lots examples I didn't enjoy the style or the writing that much.
(1) TONE: The author seemed overly defensive and peeved that British people were criticizing American English.
(2) STYLE: I would have preferred a greater balance of synthesis and analysis. Some chapters just seemed like example after example after example. I wanted more easy to understand information tying everything together and explaining the differences between British and American English.
To be clear, there is quite a lot of information here, it just wasn't presented in a way that I found to be that enjoyable.
The topic and the linguistic expertise of the author made it sound like it might be really interesting.
While the author is undoubtedly very knowledgeable and gives lots examples I didn't enjoy the style or the writing that much.
(1) TONE: The author seemed overly defensive and peeved that British people were criticizing American English.
(2) STYLE: I would have preferred a greater balance of synthesis and analysis. Some chapters just seemed like example after example after example. I wanted more easy to understand information tying everything together and explaining the differences between British and American English.
To be clear, there is quite a lot of information here, it just wasn't presented in a way that I found to be that enjoyable.
December 21, 2018
Loved the content, detested the reader. If I had read the print, probably a four- or even five-star book, but I cannot imagine why anyone would ever choose this reader. She has a weird accent, but drops it sometimes, so it seems fake. Why in the world did they pick a reader, for a book about British vs. American English, who pronounces it "uhMurica"? She did a horrible job in the sections where spelling variations were given, spelling the words out but running the letters together so quickly I couldn't follow, or spelling out multiple words without a break or indication, mashing separate words together. There's more I could say, but you get the idea.
I did finish it because the content was interesting. Do yourself a favor and stick to the print.
I did finish it because the content was interesting. Do yourself a favor and stick to the print.
May 26, 2018
A very interesting book about differences between American and British English. Some parts I already knew (for example that fall is from old English and was originally part of British English) but there was quite a lot I learned. I didn’t know that in American English is ‘quite’ is interchangeable with ‘very’. I would have given this book 5 stars if it was not for the fact there are certain parts where she says things that supposedly British people say (but that I as a British person have never heard anyone say in England) instead of what Americans say.
July 21, 2018
There's a bunch of really fascinating explorations of how and why British and American English have changed in the same or different ways, but I could have used less of the author's chip on her shoulder about a) people who are not linguists doing language analysis wrong and b) people who automatically assume American English is inferior.
July 25, 2018
This book was really interesting, but it read like a stream of consciousness to me. Also, it also felt the entire time like while she was attempting to defend both American and British English, the author was just talking about the ways in which Brits are wrong about American English and essentially that it's better than British.
February 15, 2019
Interesting information, poorly organized. It felt like this author wrote this as a long rant against British "anti-Americanism-ism," as she terms it. I wish the cover and title would have been more clear about this, but then I guess it wouldn't have sold in Britain and there would have gone half her profits.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 217 reviews