british accent question

[lau]

I have asked the question before and nobody answered, and I am really curious about it:

British people usually call their birthmothers "mum", and U.S. people call them "mom". In the USA people may also call them "mommy" and I assume people in UK would then call them "mummy"....huh that's odd, a mummy in USA means a preserved corpse usually from egyptian times. So do british people then still call their "mums" "mummy", knowing that, that means a preserved corpse?? Or is there a different word for a preserved corpse in the UK?

[thalbergmad]

Or is there a different word for a preserved corpse in the UK?

Yeh, we call it a Lau.

Thal

[opus10no2]

British people usually call their birthmothers "mum"

No, further north it is 'mam', and it has nothing to do with accents.

[pianistimo]

that sounds worse when elongated.  mammy?  perhaps they should stick with 'mum.'  where did the phrase 'mum's the word' come from?  mom's keep secrets best?

[lau]

No, further north it is 'mam', and it has nothing to do with accents.

that's why I said usually. how does it have nothing to do with accents? and nobody answered the question.

[opus10no2]

It's a different word, not a different accent.

[lau]

so your saying that the slight differences in english in USA to the UK is considered another language? if not, then what is it?

[Kassaa]

so your saying that the slight differences in english in USA to the UK is considered another language? if not, then what is it?

A dialect.

[opus10no2]

Correctly.

[elspeth]

so your saying that the slight differences in english in USA to the UK is considered another language? if not, then what is it?

American English and British English are often very different, both in terms of spellings and meanings of words... it can be quite confusing for either side and there is a camp that tries to make out that American English is somehow 'wrong' - it's not, of course, just a different dialect.

However, a friend of mine taught English in Germany for a while and was quite surprised to find the children were being taught American English - and even more surprised to find himself getting told off by his boss for explaining to the children that American and British English are different and if they tried using their newly-learned American English in Britain the differences would be noticed. What annoyed him in that situation wasn't that the school was teaching American rather than British English, but that the children weren't being told that they were being taught American English and that the two aren't the same.

[lau]

just answer the question.  What do people in britian call a preserved corpse also known as a mummy in USA?

[opus10no2]

'The English word mummy is derived from medieval Latin mumia, a borrowing of the Arabic word mūmiyyah (مومية), which means "bitumen". (Because of the blackened skin of unwrapped mummies, bitumen was once thought to be used extensively in ancient Egyptian embalming procedures. Asphalt and tar are forms of bitumen.) The Arabic word was itself borrowed from the Persian word mūmiya, meaning "bitumen"; this is related to another Persian word, mūm, which means "wax".'

British people call them mummies also.

[lau]

so then the british people don't use the extension of mum, which would be mummy? if they do, then they just live with it being also known as a preserved corpse?

[opus10no2]

They've lived with worse.

[ahinton]

American English and British English are often very different, both in terms of spellings and meanings of words... it can be quite confusing for either side and there is a camp that tries to make out that American English is somehow 'wrong' - it's not, of course, just a different dialect.

However, a friend of mine taught English in Germany for a while and was quite surprised to find the children were being taught American English - and even more surprised to find himself getting told off by his boss for explaining to the children that American and British English are different and if they tried using their newly-learned American English in Britain the differences would be noticed. What annoyed him in that situation wasn't that the school was teaching American rather than British English, but that the children weren't being told that they were being taught American English and that the two aren't the same.

Indeed - and, as has been said many times before, UK and US are nations divided by a common language (and, as I have personally said before in addition to this, one hs only to include Australia to make it three nations ditto - and, by the way, where's "ada" these days?)...

Best,

Alistair

[shortyshort]

American English and British English are often very different, both in terms of spellings and meanings of words... it can be quite confusing for either side and there is a camp that tries to make out that American English is somehow 'wrong' - it's not, of course, just a different dialect.

However, a friend of mine taught English in Germany for a while and was quite surprised to find the children were being taught American English - and even more surprised to find himself getting told off by his boss for explaining to the children that American and British English are different and if they tried using their newly-learned American English in Britain the differences would be noticed. What annoyed him in that situation wasn't that the school was teaching American rather than British English, but that the children weren't being told that they were being taught American English and that the two aren't the same.

My Aunt married a German and went to live there. When the kids started learning English at school, she realised that they were being taught American, and went to the school to complain. The English teacher, who was German, told my Aunt that she did not know what she was talking about, until she pointed out that she was English herself.

Also, my step-kids keep coming out with American stuff, as they are always watching those corny American kids TV programs. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. 

And if they ever play dollies, they always seem to have American accents. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 

[elspeth]

so then the british people don't use the extension of mum, which would be mummy? if they do, then they just live with it being also known as a preserved corpse?

It is used in both senses, although - certainly here up north - there is a perception that only posh southerners use 'mummy' to their mother... not sure how true that is! Although it fits better with the regional accents, 'mum' fits easier into the northern short vowel sounds while 'mummy' goes better with the longer vowels in the south. 'Mam' and 'Mammy' are also used, more in the north than the south.

[thalbergmad]

there is a perception that only posh southerners use 'mummy' to their mother

Posh southerners use "mater".

Thal

[pianolearner]

I have asked the question before and nobody answered, and I am really curious about it:

British people usually call their birthmothers "mum", and U.S. people call them "mom". In the USA people may also call them "mommy" and I assume people in UK would then call them "mummy"....huh that's odd, a mummy in USA means a preserved corpse usually from egyptian times. So do british people then still call their "mums" "mummy", knowing that, that means a preserved corpse?? Or is there a different word for a preserved corpse in the UK?

Try asking the Australians why a man is like a wombat..

[wishful thinker]

There is no such thing as a "British accent".  Each of the three nations that make up Britain (England Scotland and Wales) or four if you include the whole UK (i.e. add Northern Ireland) have distinctly different accents, which vary internally as well.

Unless you mean RP, which is what I speak 

Wombat - a hairy marsupial that eats roots, shoots and leaves 

[pianowelsh]

There are those unique individuals who refer to their maternal figure as 'mumsie' which is just ever so slightly worrying! Its usually 'mumsie darling' and yes I have know people do this without the slightest hint of affectation. For some it is the most normal thing in the world. The thing you quickly find as a foreigner in the UK is that there are so many regional variations that there is NO british accent.

[opus10no2]

Indeed, coming from the northernmost county of England, I'm quite sure many foreigners would mistake me for a Scot.

[ahinton]

Posh southerners use "mater".

Thal

Only occasionally, I think - and, even then, they usually pronounce it to rhyme with "crater", which rather gives away just how "posh" they aren't...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The thing you quickly find as a foreigner in the UK is that there are so many regional variations that there is NO british accent.

This is, of course, entirely true, although I think that the original reference to a "British accent" here was intended to represent the American view of English as spoken in the British isles in contrast to American English as spoken across America - which presumption seems to undermine the notion yet farther, since "American English" varies at least as much from one part of US to another as does "British English" from one part of Britain to another.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Indeed, coming from the northernmost county of England, I'm quite sure many foreigners would mistake me for a Scot.

I'm a foreigner and I'm quite sure I wouldn't! (but then I AM a Scot, so I suppose that that doesn't count...).

Scots pipes are for playin', whereas Northumbrian ones are only good for smokin'

(I'm only jokin'...)

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Try asking the Australians why a man is like a wombat..

Or, better still, try asking a specific Australian - "ada" - if ever she returns to this forum.

The above remark might be interpreted as being in the spirit of that old feminist chestnut about when God created man he was only practising - a rather cheap throwaway line whose sense (if any) is appropriately diluted by recognition that, if God exists and if He created all things, He would in any case have been practising ALL the time during that creative process, as He had self-evidently never done any of it before...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

why is it self-evident that he had never done any of it before?  is the creation so unplanned?  i think - had he never created anything before - he at least had a few alpha and omega states to think about the plans.  then, He just 'said the word.'  the plans were in His head.  the awesomeness of that first week must have been mindboggling.  as though the world were birthing.

was watching a pbs show last night on 'young earth' - all it showed were experiments on how the earth was, according to them, hit by many many asteroids.  but, what they produced was what looked like the moon.  not the earth.  then, they show a picture of earth.  it was entirely different looking than their experiments.  so much water, for one thing.  where did all this water come from.  they never mentioned it once.

another odd thing is that they said the earth was first much smaller and then grew bigger with time.  HOW?  how would mass be possible to improve.  when all the other planets grow smaller with time by losing debris?  are they saying asteroids kept adding mass?  and yet - everytime and asteroid hit - it bounced off - leaving tons of debris floating away and around the impact.  i can't say that i follow their theories because all it seems to do is make the earth seem like it was meant for destruction and not creation.  and, yet - perhaps God started from the state of chaos - which would be just like some other planets (obviously pockmarked).  but, still - are they saying that water appearred (this much!  oceans!) from only asteroids?

we haven't yet discussed how ocean currents came to be.  so many elements that are 'bound' by time and space.  magnetically.  as though they were put there and given laws.  if the ocean had been stagnant - even for a short while - all the sealife that depended upon this motion would die - wouldn't it?  the currents keep the ocean seemingly 'alive.'  all this motion in time.  the constant warming and cooling.  helping the earth stay a certain temperature - as opposed to the sun's atmosphere.

back to accents.  i would like to hear yours and thal's sometime.  perhaps you can record somekind of vocal lines into a composition - like george crumb's 'ancient voices.'  although, you can call yours 'fairly young sounding voices.' 

[ahinton]

why is it self-evident that he had never done any of it before?  is the creation so unplanned?  i think - had he never created anything before - he at least had a few alpha and omega states to think about the plans.  then, He just 'said the word.'  the plans were in His head.  the awesomeness of that first week must have been mindboggling.  as though the world were birthing.

As you know, I do not accept in the way that you do that God created everything that we do and do not yet know within a period that we understand to be seven days in the first place but, assuming for a moment that this was indeed the case, my understanding of those that believe it as you do is that this was supposedly the origin of creation, ergo it was a "first time" effort; that is why "is it self-evident that he had never done any of it before". I didn't suggest that it was "unplanned" - merely that it hadn't been done before. Have you never planned to do anything that you've never previously done? - what about some of those recipes, for example? So you reckon that the world was "birthing", do you? - if so, does that not suggest that God was in labour during that time and, let's face it, labour is often a stressful experience, so all manner of things might have gone wrong as a direct or indirect consequence, for which it might arguably be unsympathetic, if not downright uncharitably churlish, to put exclusive blame on God in the circumstances.

was watching a pbs show last night on 'young earth' - all it showed were experiments on how the earth was, according to them, hit by many many asteroids.  but, what they produced was what looked like the moon.  not the earth.  then, they show a picture of earth.  it was entirely different looking than their experiments.  so much water, for one thing.  where did all this water come from.  they never mentioned it once.

another odd thing is that they said the earth was first much smaller and then grew bigger with time.  HOW?  how would mass be possible to improve.  when all the other planets grow smaller with time by losing debris?  are they saying asteroids kept adding mass?  and yet - everytime and asteroid hit - it bounced off - leaving tons of debris floating away and around the impact.  i can't say that i follow their theories because all it seems to do is make the earth seem like it was meant for destruction and not creation.  and, yet - perhaps God started from the state of chaos - which would be just like some other planets (obviously pockmarked).  but, still - are they saying that water appearred (this much!  oceans!) from only asteroids?

we haven't yet discussed how ocean currents came to be.  so many elements that are 'bound' by time and space.  magnetically.  as though they were put there and given laws.  if the ocean had been stagnant - even for a short while - all the sealife that depended upon this motion would die - wouldn't it?  the currents keep the ocean seemingly 'alive.'  all this motion in time.  the constant warming and cooling.  helping the earth stay a certain temperature - as opposed to the sun's atmosphere.

You seem to be quite obsessed with water in general (how many times have yours broken now, Susan?) and the sheer amounts of it on the surface of the earth at various different times, don't you? Did any of the stuff you watched make reference to the age of the earth, by chance?...

back to accents.  i would like to hear yours and thal's sometime.  perhaps you can record somekind of vocal lines into a composition - like george crumb's 'ancient voices.'  although, you can call yours 'fairly young sounding voices.' 

That's very kind of you to ascribe some degree of youth to our voices, Susan; bearing in mind that Thal is not a composer (or at least not a far as I know - and, apparently, even if he were, he would find himself in some state of confusion over whether to transcribe all his orchestral music for organ [the Sibelius thread q.v.]), you would surely be better off coming over here at some point and listening to them "in the flesh", so to speak.

Best,

Alistair