• tegs_terry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m all for pedantry, but that’s just excuses; desperate nitpicking to justify being the only two countries to use the term.

    Edit: Thin epidermium. Hey, did you guys know rhotic 'r’s are the correct pronunciation?

    • eric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their explanation does nothing to justify the number of countries that use that pronunciation. It merely denotes the etymological history.

        • eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it’s clear you are simply applying the number in an attempt to discredit their logic, but the current number of countries has nothing to do with the fact that the British started spelling and pronouncing it differently, not the Americans.

          And it wouldn’t be a big deal if you were capable of acknowledging that languages evolve regionally and that the evolutions are valid. But you can’t do that because it would ruin your ability to shame other English-speaking countries for their own regional linguistic evolutions whenever they diverge from the UK.

          • tegs_terry
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not trying to discredit anything at all, in fact it was interesting, but it doesn’t hold water with me in this particular instance. Normally I ‘could care less’ how much paasta with toonafish and 'erbs they wanna eat at the huvvercraft ternament, but this is a scientific term the world has standardised and to eschew that is just obstinate.