Thais and English: Stop the rote learning, be brave to speak, get better jobs and be happy!

[KiwiKiwi]

8 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

You right. I teacher and me think grammar are not important.?

 

Right...

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

"They way we alter greetings is not all about fashion, it is largely about changing our register to suit the occasion, there are times we want to sound more formal and others when we want to be informal, this is like English speakers using hello, hi and hey, it's not so much about fashion as choosing greetings that fit the person we are greeting and the situation"

 

I don't think so. We greet people (as you rightly infer) in order to establish commonality with them, belonging - which is exactly the role of fashion in society. I recall various modes of greeting fashionable in the late 1960s/early 1970's. All gone now, but it was all about fashion and belonging then and now. Same as the 'socisl medie trends - all about belonging (fashion).

 

"And do you actually find Thai people anything in particular?  I find them such a varied bunch, and so many are not in the slightest bit concerned by appearances, I am struggling to see where you are coming from."

 

Then our experience differs, according to my observation, the Thai is supremely concerned with appearances, and this drives the Thai into most of the behaviours that are observable. If his is not your experience then good luck, because it really is a most debilitating and demeaning trait. I imagine if you took a poll here, the majority experience would be that Thais are almost exclusivle concerned with face (appearances).

 

Still, you might be right I suppose, though I don't think you are. As to where I'm coming from, well, I was responding to another person's post as I recall.  It's no secret that I do not regard Thais highly, this is a professional judgement, which some folk find distasteful. I imagine I'm on a good few 'ignore' lists for that reason.Good job I don't care really...

 

 

 

Consider how we moved, in the UK, from the various stipulated forms of formal address into the all encompassing good day, that was not out of fashion but out of a purposeful attempt to end the class system.  This lead to people having greater freedoms of expression in their speech, sure there are fashion driven greetings, but there are also those just intended to sound extra friendly, those intended to sound a bit funny and those intended to sound very serious, there is more to being in control of your voices register than fashion. And with regard to your generalisations in Thai's, you appear to be mixing fashion with ego.

[KiwiKiwi]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Consider how we moved, in the UK, from the various stipulated forms of formal address into the all encompassing good day, that was not out of fashion but out of a purposeful attempt to end the class system.  This lead to people having greater freedoms of expression in their speech, sure there are fashion driven greetings, but there are also those just intended to sound extra friendly, those intended to sound a bit funny and those intended to sound very serious, there is more to being in control of your voices register than fashion. And with regard to your generalisations in Thai's, you appear to be mixing fashion with ego.

 

I think yoy're being a bit superficial. Changing the class system does sound right, but fashion/belonging/self-image is how it's done. Every time. You cannot set aside the means from the objective and human psychology is everywhere there are humans, which ought to alarm you given my correct generalisations of Thais.

 

Fashion is how ego is assuaged. They are separate things, but closely linked together.

 

By the way, the days are gone when you can dismiss a perfectly valid observation by claimign it's merely a generalisation. We all generalise, we all do it multiple times every day. It;s one of our strategies for survival.

 

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

I think yoy're being a bit superficial. Changing the class system does sound right, but fashion/belonging/self-image is how it's done. Every time. You cannot set aside the means from the objective and human psychology is everywhere there are humans, which ought to alarm you given my correct generalisations of Thais.

 

Fashion is how ego is assuaged. They are separate things, but closely linked together.

 

By the way, the days are gone when you can dismiss a perfectly valid observation by claimign it's merely a generalisation. We all generalise, we all do it multiple times every day. It;s one of our strategies for survival.

 

 

We also adjust how we sound for the benefit of the person we are speaking to, so that they don't feel intimidated, or just to make it easier for them to understand etc., this is not fashion by any stretch of the definition, it is also not done for the benefit of our egos, but out of societal need and expectation, try greeting a toddler the way you greet the judge in a court case, it won't get a good response from the child,  thing to do with fashion and everything to do with the specific needs of the listener.

[timkeen08]

17 hours ago, faraday said:

 

Bit embarrassed now are you?

 

Think you got your fingers burnt....

Learnt cannot be used as an adjective.  Otherwise it's mainly used in British english.

 

16 hours ago, Jonah Tenner said:

‘Learnt’ or ‘learned’?

These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Both are acceptable, but learned is often used in both British English and American English, while learnt is much more common in British English than in American English.

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/learnt-vs-learned

 

You left out that learnt cannot be used as an adjective.  Only learned can, from the same website.

 

Anyway, yet another easy way for me to identify Brits on TVF.  I always had my suspicion about the often use of the word learnt and it's origin.  Please, continue to use learnt as you wish.  Now I have learnt the truth behind this word.  Learnt is a word most Americans were never taught or heard before, or learnt.

 

I have heard learnt used in America before. I find that usually only the less educated, hip hop, rap, or mountain folk use learnt.  An example of myself hearing learnt being even more incorrectly used in America is, "I learnt him ta do dat".  I am not racist or prejudiced, just a string from my memory.

[overherebc]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

They way we alter greetings is not all about fashion, it is largely about changing our register to suit the occasion, there are times we want to sound more formal and others when we want to be informal, this is like English speakers using hello, hi and hey, it's not so much about fashion as choosing greetings that fit the person we are greeting and the situation.

 

And do you actually find Thai people anything in particular?  I find them such a varied bunch, and so many are not in the slightest bit concerned by appearances, I am struggling to see where you are coming from.

I've gone through posts following this post but thought I'd post here.

Ref' appearance and the way most Thai people think about it.

Try organising a fancy dress party with guests on a 50/50 basis.

I would bet, but I can't because it's illegal, that over 90% of the Thais will turn up not in fancy dress. 

Why? because someone might laugh and they will lose face.

[KiwiKiwi]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We also adjust how we sound for the benefit of the person we are speaking to, so that they don't feel intimidated, or just to make it easier for them to understand etc., this is not fashion by any stretch of the definition, it is also not done for the benefit of our egos, but out of societal need and expectation, try greeting a toddler the way you greet the judge in a court case, it won't get a good response from the child,  thing to do with fashion and everything to do with the specific needs of the listener.

 

 

Of course it's done for our ego. The manner of address creates a payload from 'belonging to' or 'not belonging to' a group, of which the addressee of your greeting is the member you wish to influence. If you influence him well so that he acknowledges that you belong to his 'group' (however that is defined), you get a payload (probably dopamine) as a consequence of a feeling of 'belonging'. It's neuroscience, it's all neuroscience. Fashion defines the form of address, usually based on what works or what a member 'of the group' would extend as a greeting. Of course it's fashion, it's all fashion. Same as the numbskulls on TV who roll their 'r's, in this case, the group is 'those Thais who roll their 'r's to show how 'switched on' they are. Rolling your 'r's makes you feel like you're a member of the 'switched-on' group. If you feel that, you feel a sense of belonging and that triggers the release of the neurotransmitter in the brain. Result = "I feel good about me".

 

It's all about influencing, and influencing is all about feelings of belonging and feelings of belonging are all about fashion. Surely you can see that?

[Dumbastheycome]

7 hours ago, NetJunkie said:

 

How do you learn vocabulary then?

ERm.....by using words ? How  does  any child  learn it's native  language?

 

[Dumbastheycome]

20 hours ago, payanak said:

 

Hopefully your wife has learned that "learnt" is not a word.

Not  even in past  tense? Past  participle?  British  English  accepts. It  would  be a  big can of words  to open to say  American  English was  singularly  correct ! lmao

Edited June 17, 2018 by Dumbastheycome
Territorial differentiation

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

 

Of course it's done for our ego. The manner of address creates a payload from 'belonging to' or 'not belonging to' a group, of which the addressee of your greeting is the member you wish to influence. If you influence him well so that he acknowledges that you belong to his 'group' (however that is defined), you get a payload (probably dopamine) as a consequence of a feeling of 'belonging'. It's neuroscience, it's all neuroscience. Fashion defines the form of address, usually based on what works or what a member 'of the group' would extend as a greeting. Of course it's fashion, it's all fashion. Same as the numbskulls on TV who roll their 'r's, in this case, the group is 'those Thais who roll their 'r's to show how 'switched on' they are. Rolling your 'r's makes you feel like you're a member of the 'switched-on' group. If you feel that, you feel a sense of belonging and that triggers the release of the neurotransmitter in the brain. Result = "I feel good about me".

 

It's all about influencing, and influencing is all about feelings of belonging and feelings of belonging are all about fashion. Surely you can see that?

 

The examples I gave were of efforts we make to make other people feel that they belong, we can actually be selfless.

[Kieran00001]

4 hours ago, timkeen08 said:

Learnt cannot be used as an adjective.  Otherwise it's mainly used in British english.

 

You left out that learnt cannot be used as an adjective.  Only learned can, from the same website.

 

Anyway, yet another easy way for me to identify Brits on TVF.  I always had my suspicion about the often use of the word learnt and it's origin.  Please, continue to use learnt as you wish.  Now I have learnt the truth behind this word.  Learnt is a word most Americans were never taught or heard before, or learnt.

 

I have heard learnt used in America before. I find that usually only the less educated, hip hop, rap, or mountain folk use learnt.  An example of myself hearing learnt being even more incorrectly used in America is, "I learnt him ta do dat".  I am not racist or prejudiced, just a string from my memory.

 

Quote

 “I..have not yet learnt his sentiments on it.”

The Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson

 

[DrTuner]

Of course we change the way we talk depending on circumstances. Lately I've been keen on appearing like a total <deleted>, so I'm imitating the horrible nasal Hi-So wannabe khaaaaaaaa from Thai TV totties. It seems to work as people now perceive me at the top tier of the sakdina. I base this on the fact that I was just brought a cold beer, without asking for it.

[KiwiKiwi]

3 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Of course we change the way we talk depending on circumstances. Lately I've been keen on appearing like a total <deleted>, so I'm imitating the horrible nasal Hi-So wannabe khaaaaaaaa from Thai TV totties. It seems to work as people now perceive me at the top tier of the sakdina. I base this on the fact that I was just brought a cold beer, without asking for it.

 

That awful whining annoys the hell out of you too?

 

A cold beer eh? think it might werk fer me too?

[KiwiKiwi]

16 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The examples I gave were of efforts we make to make other people feel that they belong, we can actually be selfless.

 

Hmm Bless you my son, I'm sure that selfless effort means you'll go straight to Heaven when one of the priceless clowns kills you in their car.

 

Oh. Worthless. Sorry.

 

I'll ask Father Fintan Stack to read a eulogy.

 

Anyway, drifted off-topic, so I must be orf...

Edited June 17, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Jonah Tenner]

4 hours ago, timkeen08 said:

You left out that learnt cannot be used as an adjective.  Only learned can, from the same website.

I learned Oxford English in school more than fifty years ago, starting when I was 12, I never got around to learning English grammar, because when I was 14 I was dumped into a class in a local English language school in Petaling Jaya - learn, swim or sink. 18 months of this and I was yanked out of that school, shipped to my home country, dumped in school with my old classmates, who had had another curriculum than me (girls for one, english grammar for another), failed at everything in school. Three months of this and I was moved to Colombo and told: You have to read on your own for one year...

[AntDee]

7 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

I have to agree that locals are image obsessed. And, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree. 

 

There are myriad examples of this. 

 

Skin whitening obsession. Makeup obsession. Giving and protecting FACE. Propensity for form over function. Among countries with highest number of duplicitous social media accounts. Lack of attention to detail in quality but overzealous use of bombastic design and language. Innumerable stories approximating "sorry for the damage to the image of tourism in Thailand". And, many, many others. 

 

There is a word in Thai สร้างภาพ (definition: http://www.thai-language.com/id/213691) that describes this foundational cultural principle of what can be described in English as "creating a picture or image". 

 

I would find it most unlikely that someone who has lived in Thailand for years has not noticed this. 

[KiwiKiwi]

7 minutes ago, AntDee said:

I have to agree that locals are image obsessed. And, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree. 

 

There are myriad examples of this. 

 

Skin whitening obsession. Makeup obsession. Giving and protecting FACE. Propensity for form over function. Among countries with highest number of duplicitous social media accounts. Lack of attention to detail in quality but overzealous use of bombastic design and language. Innumerable stories approximating "sorry for the damage to the image of tourism in Thailand". And, many, many others. 

 

There is a word in Thai สร้างภาพ (definition: http://www.thai-language.com/id/213691) that describes this foundational cultural principle of what can be described in English as "creating a picture or image". 

 

I would find it most unlikely that someone who has lived in Thailand for years has not noticed this. 

 

Noticed indeed. Sang Paap is what Thais do - create an attractive image and pretend it is accurate. Many if not most of them are delusional, and many or most of them suffer from cognitive dissonance as a consequence. The incidence of mental illness and suicides in Thailand are not readily published by the government for the same reason, but are huge. The propaganda campaigns waged against them since birth require a low IQ in order to prevent it conflicting with reality and making the mental illness rate even worse.

 

It's remarkable really, what can be done to a population if you really set your mind to it.

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, AntDee said:

I have to agree that locals are image obsessed. And, I'm not sure how anyone could disagree. 

 

There are myriad examples of this. 

 

Skin whitening obsession. Makeup obsession. Giving and protecting FACE. Propensity for form over function. Among countries with highest number of duplicitous social media accounts. Lack of attention to detail in quality but overzealous use of bombastic design and language. Innumerable stories approximating "sorry for the damage to the image of tourism in Thailand". And, many, many others. 

 

There is a word in Thai สร้างภาพ (definition: http://www.thai-language.com/id/213691) that describes this foundational cultural principle of what can be described in English as "creating a picture or image". 

 

I would find it most unlikely that someone who has lived in Thailand for years has not noticed this. 

 

No one is denying that it exists in Thailand just that it is something unusual, something uniquely Thai, I really don't see much difference, perhaps less than in the UK for many of the things you note.

[KiwiKiwi]

The psychology of people is largely universal, with some cultural differences. What is interesting about Thais is the extent to which their development as people has been limited by the propaganda and educational restraints put upon them, plus the fear that has been instilled in them about their dependence on the righ hiso's for their well-being.

 

In my opinion, Thais in general suffer from arrested development and enmotionally, do not develop beyond what one would expect from a 12-or-13-year-old in the west. Their IQ and education has been kept very low for decades so that rich Thais can have a more-or-less constant flow of cheap and unskilled labour to look after their houses, sweep the streets etc etc. It's a form of slavery but applied deliberately by a monied elits. Almost every deficiency of thais noted on TV can be regarded as a consequence of exactly this, and thee 3 pillars are a confection designed solely to perpetuate the status quo. It's everywhere and it's nasty. It'll take generations to put right and it's a sobering thought that many countries of the world have used similar methods and principles to keep their people in line. Look at UK, USA, The Gulf States, Africa, South America. It's everywhere you look, but imho, Thailand is by far the worst offender, and will not be held blameless.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

The psychology of people is largely universal, with some cultural differences. What is interesting about Thais is the extent to which their development as people has been limited by the propaganda and educational restraints put upon them, plus the fear that has been instilled in them about their dependence on the righ hiso's for their well-being.

 

In my opinion, Thais in general suffer from arrested development and enmotionally, do not develop beyond what one would expect from a 12-or-13-year-old in the west. Their IQ and education has been kept very low for decades so that rich Thais can have a more-or-less constant flow of cheap and unskilled labour to look after their houses, sweep the streets etc etc. It's a form of slavery but applied deliberately by a monied elits. Almost every deficiency of thais noted on TV can be regarded as a consequence of exactly this, and thee 3 pillars are a confection designed solely to perpetuate the status quo. It's everywhere and it's nasty. It'll take generations to put right and it's a sobering thought that many countries of the world have used similar methods and principles to keep their people in line. Look at UK, USA, The Gulf States, Africa, South America. It's everywhere you look, but imho, Thailand is by far the worst offender, and will not be held blameless.

 

 

 

It goes beyond the hiso seeking cheap labour, it was orchestrated out of the inability to deal with the coming agricultural revolution that will require a changing economy, one that is being led by research and development and resulting in a shift in labour needs to suit a growing manufacturing industry, they have purposely held the education system back to avoid mass unemployment but in doing so have also held back r&d, by meddling they have created a vicious circle.

[KiwiKiwi]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It goes beyond the hiso seeking cheap labour, it was orchestrated out of the inability to deal with the coming agricultural revolution that will require a changing economy, one that is being led by research and development and resulting in a shift in labour needs to suit a growing manufacturing industry, they have purposely held the education system back to avoid mass unemployment but in doing so have also held back r&d, by meddling they have created a vicious circle.

In what many would call the typical Thai foul-up. They can't win for losing.

[timkeen08]

36 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Yes that is correct.   I do remember a lot of my American history and world history from High school.  That was written shortly after the British were kicked out of the USA.  It is during the time when the USA was still under the British language influence and before the British were defeated yet again in the war of 1812.  From 1812 until 1815, the British were again and this time forever kicked out of the USA.

 

There was a decission made in congress to let Britain and France fight over the Canadian border above the USA and with the rest of the countries in the world that they were also at war with.  I think Britain finally got the message about messing with the USA boundaries.  I think this was the begining of the end of the Great British Empire.

 

That is when the USA decides to upgrade the problems they found with the vastly different British accents that were mainly dependent on ones previous social standing in the British Empire.  It was just too confusing for US citizens from other countries to grasp since the language mainly spoken was just too inconsistent.  The USA began utilizing the help and influence of foreign language scholars and begain borrowing some of their words in an effort to improve the English mess spoken in the USA at that time.  The USA created the basis for the first internationally spoken language that is still in use across the world today.  It seems that some British have not learnt to catch on.

 

If you were teaching an English class in Thailand would learnt be on the official lesson plan given to you or would learned?

 

Sorry, in these modern times we do not use learnt or other such ancient words in America.  They are mainly stuck in past USA's history.  A few hundred years has gone by since that was written and really it is not a very good relivent example to justify a relationship to the American style English spoken today.  Something more modern from a well educated American (not from Britain) would have made your point which in my opinion is lost in the past.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, timkeen08 said:

Yes that is correct.   I do remember a lot of my American history and world history from High school.  That was written shortly after the British were kicked out of the USA.  It is during the time when the USA was still under the British language influence and before the British were defeated yet again in the war of 1812.  From 1812 until 1815, the British were again and this time forever kicked out of the USA.

 

There was a decission made in congress to let Britain and France fight over the Canadian border above the USA and with the rest of the countries in the world that they were also at war with.  I think Britain finally got the message about messing with the USA boundaries.  I think this was the begining of the end of the Great British Empire.

 

That is when the USA decides to upgrade the problems they found with the vastly different British accents that were mainly dependent on ones previous social standing in the British Empire.  It was just too confusing for US citizens from other countries to grasp since the language mainly spoken was just too inconsistent.  The USA began utilizing the help and influence of foreign language scholars and begain borrowing some of their words in an effort to improve the English mess spoken in the USA at that time.  The USA created the basis for the first internationally spoken language that is still in use across the world today.  It seems that some British have not learnt to catch on.

 

If you were teaching an English class in Thailand would learnt be on the official lesson plan given to you or would learned?

 

Sorry, in these modern times we do not use learnt or other such ancient words in America.  They are mainly stuck in past USA's history.  A few hundred years has gone by since that was written and really it is not a very good relivent example to justify a relationship to the American style English spoken today.  Something more modern from a well educated American (not from Britain) would have made your point which in my opinion is lost in the past.

 

Quote

The USA created the basis for the first internationally spoken language

I think we had already done that for English when we took it to Wales, and the concept was hardly something foreign to us back then, we had already seen Latin, Greek and Aramaic used as international languages.  What was it that the US did exactly?  A spelling reform?  You seem to neglect the fact that the British do not have to "catch on" to the language that they not only spread to the US but also to Africa, Asia and Oceania, where exactly did the US spread English to?

 

Quote

Sorry, in these modern times we do not use learnt or other such ancient words in America. 

It is not as old as learned, which you must use if you don't use learnt, so the age is not the issue.

[DrTuner]

21 minutes ago, timkeen08 said:

The USA created the basis for the first internationally spoken language that is still in use across the world today.

Yes they did. I and a bunch of others learned the language from US TV series (apart from what I learnt from reading the Silmarillion). Thank you for that, but it's offset by the horrible white Ferrari Crockett had in Miami Vice. Lifelong trauma.

[timkeen08]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I think we had already done that for English when we took it to Wales, and the concept was hardly something foreign to us back then, we had already seen Latin, Greek and Aramaic used as international languages.  What was it that the US did exactly?  A spelling reform?  You seem to neglect the fact that the British do not have to "catch on" to the language that they not only spread to the US but also to Africa, Asia and Oceania, where exactly did the US spread English to?

 

It is not as old as learned, which you must use if you don't use learnt, so the age is not the issue.

I dissagree totally.  But that is my choice as is your's.  Different view points.  The  countries that you talk about that use a British English accent are former British colonies.  The rest use an American based accent.  I hAve heard no British English accented Thais except on Thai television.  But I do remember a Thai video somewhere that had a British sounding caucasian narrator along with a very American English sounding Thai woman narrator.

[timkeen08]

4 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Yes they did. I and a bunch of others learned the language from US TV series (apart from what I learnt from reading the Silmarillion). Thank you for that, but it's offset by the horrible white Ferrari Crockett had in Miami Vice. Lifelong trauma.

I could only take a couple of times watching Miami Vice before I quit dialing in.  Thanks,  I forgot to mention to Kieran00001 the American cultural influences on spoken English worldwide.  What about American music?  Even the great British bands were made more popular here.  I could hardly or rarely hear anything other than American English in their songs, but they talked British.  Example:  Led Zeppelin.

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, timkeen08 said:

I dissagree totally.  But that is my choice as is your's.  Different view points.  The  countries that you talk about that use a British English accent are former British colonies.  The rest use an American based accent.  I hAve heard no British English accented Thais except on Thai television.  But I do remember a Thai video somewhere that had a British sounding caucasian narrator along with a very American English sounding Thai woman narrator.

 

Ok, so you are not talking about the spread of English generally as an international language but specifically the spread of the American pronunciation as a standard?  Not sure what you disagree on though, you didn't make that clear.  I stated some facts, there were lingua franca's before English, and it was the British Empire which spread English around the world, the accent is one specific that has seen American accents take the lead in the 20th century in terms of worldwide popularity, which only makes sense as it is the easiest to expose yourself to as a second language learner through movies etc.

[Kieran00001]

43 minutes ago, timkeen08 said:

Yes that is correct.   I do remember a lot of my American history and world history from High school.  That was written shortly after the British were kicked out of the USA.  It is during the time when the USA was still under the British language influence and before the British were defeated yet again in the war of 1812.  From 1812 until 1815, the British were again and this time forever kicked out of the USA.

 

There was a decission made in congress to let Britain and France fight over the Canadian border above the USA and with the rest of the countries in the world that they were also at war with.  I think Britain finally got the message about messing with the USA boundaries.  I think this was the begining of the end of the Great British Empire.

 

That is when the USA decides to upgrade the problems they found with the vastly different British accents that were mainly dependent on ones previous social standing in the British Empire.  It was just too confusing for US citizens from other countries to grasp since the language mainly spoken was just too inconsistent.  The USA began utilizing the help and influence of foreign language scholars and begain borrowing some of their words in an effort to improve the English mess spoken in the USA at that time.  The USA created the basis for the first internationally spoken language that is still in use across the world today.  It seems that some British have not learnt to catch on.

 

If you were teaching an English class in Thailand would learnt be on the official lesson plan given to you or would learned?

 

Sorry, in these modern times we do not use learnt or other such ancient words in America.  They are mainly stuck in past USA's history.  A few hundred years has gone by since that was written and really it is not a very good relivent example to justify a relationship to the American style English spoken today.  Something more modern from a well educated American (not from Britain) would have made your point which in my opinion is lost in the past.

Quote

The USA created the basis for the first internationally spoken language that is still in use across the world today.  It seems that some British have not learnt to catch on.

Sorry, in these modern times we do not use learnt or other such ancient words in America.

 

When Americans pronounce as 'learnt' but spell as 'learned,' do you see a touch or irony in what you claim as is it not the Americans in this case who are adding to the disparity between pronunciations and spellings which makes English a difficult language for many to learn and prevents it becoming a more widely accepted international language?

[timkeen08]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Ok, so you are not talking about the spread of English generally as an international language but specifically the spread of the American pronunciation as a standard?  Not sure what you disagree on though, you didn't make that clear.  I stated some facts, there were lingua franca's before English, and it was the British Empire which spread English around the world, the accent is one specific that has seen American accents take the lead in the 20th century in terms of worldwide popularity, which only makes sense as it is the easiest to expose yourself to as a second language learner through movies etc.

So, American English is the easiest to expose yourself to as a second language learner?  That was the whole bases of my discussion before you threw in a 200 year old document to try and sway away from the point I was trying to make.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, timkeen08 said:

So, American English is the easiest to expose yourself to as a second language learner?  That was the whole bases of my discussion before you threw in a 200 year old document to try and sway away from the point I was trying to make.

 

I was actually just providing some laughs considering what you said about that particular spelling and who you claimed used it in the US.