The changing English language

[Leman]

There was an item on BBC Breakfast this morning about new words entering the English dictionary, and it made me think of some of the changes in language I have seen in my lifetime, particularly the last 20 years, such that people no longer speak in the way that they did 50 years ago, man. Apart from general interest I thought that our continental cousins (form whom we are stupidly about to disassociate ourselves) might find new idiom useful. Here are just a few I can think of - old then new:

railway station - train station
bunch (referring to connected fruit) - bunch (referring to a group of people)
well (start of sentence) - so (start of sentence)
chaps - guys (male and female)
exactly the same - the exact same
hi - hey
raised pitch of voice to signify a question - the same but at the end of any sentence you fancy (I find this particularly disconcerting)
a British accent (any of those associated with a location within Britain) - a British accent (as before plus some completely new ones that have appeared in the big cities which still sound foreign to me)

[FierceKitty]

I loathe that initial "so", where there's no damned result implied at any level.

[Leman]

As do I, but the bloody thing seems destined to stay, as does:

in the future - going forward ( ) - even Louise Minchin, a woman of fairly high linguistic standards, has started to use it.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Its the damned Yanks again....

[FierceKitty]

I'm afraid you're right this time.

[fsn]

I was listening to "No Such Thing as a Fish" and they opined that the Scouse accent is being moderated as the air quality in Liverpool improves. Apparently pollution made Scousers talk through their noses.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

I'm afraid you're right this time.

Situation normal then. 

[d_Guy]

So...what else is new?

[Norm]

raised pitch of voice to signify a question - the same but at the end of any sentence you fancy (I find this particularly disconcerting)

I believe this style of speech has come to be referred to as the 'Australian Question'.

There was recently some interesting radio commentary, in which they said that people who had 'started' to talk like that, were disadvantaged at interviews, because the panel generally did not speak like that and it made the candidate appear to be weak in character because it was perceived that they absorbed the mantle of a different speech pattern too readily, to fit in with peers. Probably, in other words it just annoyed the panel. Interestingly it is much less common that it was, it seems to have had its day and those that use it have found it just as easy to switch it off, as it was to switch it on!

Ta ra!

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

The Scouse accent has been noted as becoming more pronounced as the Liverpudlians have reacted negatively to the intrusion of the estuarine accent spreads from the saf!

Bedfordshire -
Enyfink = anything
Are = our

[Raider4]

raised pitch of voice to signify a question - the same but at the end of any sentence you fancy (I find this particularly disconcerting)

I'm convinced that this came from Australia, brought here by Neighbours.

Cheers, M.

[mollinary]

I'm convinced that this came from Australia, brought here by Neighbours.

Cheers, M.

Look at 'High Rising Terminal' on Wikipedia, most informative!

[FierceKitty]

I hope people will bear in mind the rather important difference between, on the one hand, nonsensical grammar, abused lexis, grocer's apostrophes (everywhere), and wargamer's apostrophes (nowhere except in possessive its, where they shouldn't be), which are highly reprehensible and for an abomination before the Lord, and on the other hand differing accents, which contribute half the fun to meeting foreigners (even if you despise them).

[Ithoriel]

Oh dear! Here we go again.

English is not some object preserved in aspic nor pickled in formaldehyde. It is a living, evolving thing.

Decrying changing usage is up there with the assertions that when one was younger policemen were older, politicians were honest, prices were reasonable and children respected their elders.

I will once again quote James Nicoll

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary"

[d_Guy]

Kitty, these are questions asked out of ignorance with NO malice intent. My grammatical knowledge is poor and punctuation usage even weaker. Some of this is due to simple sloth but some also to lack of comprehension (yes, I know, it’s simply a matter of voltage).
Even with these limitations I still, like you, find our shared language endlessly fascinating.

I don’t know what “abused lexis” means. Does it mean the improper addition of a word to a language or the misuse of a word within a language or something else entirely?

Could they also be Grocers’ and Wargamers’ apostrophes? I once learned one was to use the definite article, “the”,  when one was indicating a singular thing (but this is likely now archaic).

I read your phrase as “...and (there)for(e) an abomination...”? (This a question and not a got’cha.)

Of the several exhaustive guides to English which do you consider most authoritative?

Do you consider spelling variations to be within the scope of accents? (Asking for a friend.)

N.B. I edited this post twice to correct spelling and grammar.  :-)   O.K. - three times!