|
I fail to see how American English wouldn't be considered "proper" English", since it only really differerntiates from it's british counterparts in dialects and some minor grammatical changes. It's still the same language. And no less proper. If anything American accent is closer to the English the way it was spoken originally in the 17th century in England. So it's more british than british itself, which went through a number of changes later on which weren't followed by the colonies - just like french spoken in Quebec resembles ancient french spoken in villages around big cities. To be honest American english is slowly taking over the mantle of the official english from it's British counterparts - which can clearly be witnessed by such things as British english adopting American words and let it's own fade into obscurity (the word "truck" is a good example, where the british word "lorry" not being used as often, even in British english.)
This whole discussion about what is proper or even what deserves to be proper and what doesn't is skewed imo. We need both: we need formal languages to standardize it into a common form and make it mutually understandable, but at the same time we shouldn't put formal langauges on a piedestal, rating them higher than dialects and slang versions of it. Formal langauges are just a tool to be used, nothing more. A useful tool, of course, but still just a tool. Slang versions and numerous dialects on the other hand are a mark of time, history, cultural and political changes. They give a langauge it's real appeal and staying power.
|