Quote:
Originally Posted by Ea
Don't you have a 'body' or 'authority' in USA to evaluate new words or changes to exiting, i.e. someone who decides the 'official' spellings and language conventions? I mean, there must be some base line, and someone must draw it, and it would make sense if it was a state authority.
|
There are no official spellings or language conventions in English. It's all based on common usage. Some people try to apply rules to English, but they have no authority to do so, and any rules should only be taken as guidelines. For example, the rule "Don't split infinitives" is useful, but not always right.
E.g. "To boldly go ..." is the only reasonable way to say this. Moving the 'boldly' to not split the infinitive 'to go" just doesn't work, requiring an awkward pause in the phrase -- "To go, boldly, ..."
The idea that a language needs an official watchdog seems common, but it is an odd notion to native English speakers.
Of course, that doesn't stop us (the British) complaining about their (the Americans') mangling of the language. Even when they're historically correct, e.g "burglarize". The back derivation of "burgle" from burglar is much nicer.
But no, there's no-one we can appeal to to assert that the Americans have got it wrong again.
There is a good source on the internet if you're confused about which of two terms is best to use - Dialecticon.
http://www.chaucery.com/fun/dialecti...e2=burglarized
Where you'll see that burgled is the word to use in the UK and Australia, and while it's not uncommon in the US and Canada, there burglarized is in the majority.