Englosphere
Baz
the Anglosphere, can be roughly divided by dialect, accent and culture
into American (e.g. USA, Canada) and British (e.g. UK, Ireland, NZ,
RSA, Australia, West Indies and the Indian subcontinent to some
extent) groups. As far as I know, these subdivisions of the
Anglosphere do not have widely used names but I think they deserve
some recognition. What about the 'Englosphere' for the British part?
With an English accent it sounds quite different from 'Anglosphere'
although I could see some confusion arising in the Midwest. Maybe
Pommyrania or Limiestan? I don't know what to call the other part. Is
'Yankeedome' too pejorative?
My other beef with Anglosphere (and anglophile) is that it is
associated in the minds of some of its proponents with nostalgia for
imperialism and monarchy of the Andrew Roberts variety. Some lists
describing the Anglosphere omit Ireland, India and the West Indies
which is a bit of a giveaway.
Don Phillipson
news:fc17a207-2bf0-435a...@w17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> The countries speaking English as a first language, known by some as
> the Anglosphere, can be roughly divided by dialect, accent and culture
> into American (e.g. USA, Canada) and British (e.g. UK, Ireland, NZ,
> RSA, Australia, West Indies and the Indian subcontinent to some
> extent) groups. As far as I know, these subdivisions of the
> Anglosphere do not have widely used names but I think they deserve
> some recognition. What about the 'Englosphere' for the British part?
> With an English accent it sounds quite different from 'Anglosphere'
> although I could see some confusion arising in the Midwest. Maybe
> Pommyrania or Limiestan? I don't know what to call the other part. Is
> 'Yankeedome' too pejorative?
This looks like a solution in quest of its problem. The component
concerning dialect and accent may be defective: the accents of
Texas and Maine and those of Cornwall and Wales are so different
that no outside observer would see any reason to group either pair
together as "American" or "British." But who wants to?
> My other beef with Anglosphere (and anglophile) is that it is
> associated in the minds of some of its proponents with nostalgia for
> imperialism and monarchy of the Andrew Roberts variety. Some lists
> describing the Anglosphere omit Ireland, India and the West Indies
> which is a bit of a giveaway.
Or we could continue in this vein to say the popularity of Nicholas
Cage or Lady Gaga in Egypt or Moscow proves there is a global
conspiracy of "linguistic imperialism" to conquer the world: some
academics do so, citing the Internet and the stock market as
further proofs: but this too looks like a solution in search of
its problem. (French dominated in this way in the 18th century and
German in the late 19th: but neither actually took over the world.
We concede there may be so many more ESL users that conditions
today are different.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
This is a complicated matter which I have never studied.
There are at least three aspects: the language used, culture and
ancestry.
Ireland has Irish (Gaelic) as its "first official language" and English
as "a second official language". (Quoted from the constitution.) So
while English is the language most spoken in that country the citizens
might accept that they are part of the English-speaking world but would
might object to being part of something called an Anglosphere.
India has English as an official language. It is used in government and
higher education. Some Indians might accept their country as being part
of the English-speaking world with reservations.
English is the language of the people of the English-speaking West
Indies. The would presumably accept a place in the English-speaking
world.
One thing that distinguishes Ireland, India and the West Indies from
Britain, Australia and NZ is that the majority populations are not of
"Anglo" ancestry.
The problem with the word "Anglosphere" is that it is imprecise. There
are many meanings and uses of the prefix "Anglo-". It carries baggage.
"Anglosphere" can too easily be interpreted to mean "England's sphere of
influence". The area might have been historically but it is not so
today.
"Anglo-" is a prefix defined by the OED as:
1. Forming compounds relating to England (or more broadly to
Britain: cf. etymological note at England n.), or to the English (or
British).
a. Forming nouns and adjectives in which England is regarded
principally as a geographical location or as a place of birth or
residence (as Anglo-Jewish adj., Anglo-Norman adj. and n., etc.),
or in which England (or Britain) is regarded as a (governing)
nation (as Anglo-Indian adj. 1, etc.).
b. Combined with adjectives (and occas. nouns) relating to the
names of countries, nations, etc., in the sense 'between England
(Britain) or the English (British) and --', 'jointly English
(British) and --' (esp. with reference to political or diplomatic
relations between countries), as Anglo-American adj. 1a,
Anglo-Boer adj., Anglo-Turkish adj., etc.
c. Forming nouns and adjectives denoting people of English (or
British) race or ethnic origin who are temporarily or permanently
living elsewhere, and also people of mixed English (or British) and
other descent; as Anglo-Indian adj. 2, 1, Anglo-Irish adj. 2,
etc. Sometimes also in extended use with reference to the
English-speaking members of a community.
d. With combining forms and related words, forming nouns,
adjectives, etc., to which Anglo- is in objective relation, as
Anglomania n., Anglophile n., Anglophobia n., etc.
2. Forming compounds relating to English as a language, chiefly in
the sense ‘English and --' or '(constituting) a mixture or
combination of English with --'. Also in extended use.†
Anglo-Latian adj. Obs. rare Latinized, characterized by Latinisms.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
> The countries speaking English as a first language, known by some as
> the Anglosphere, can be roughly divided by dialect, accent and culture
> into American (e.g. USA, Canada) and British (e.g. UK, Ireland, NZ,
> RSA, Australia, West Indies and the Indian subcontinent to some
> extent) groups. As far as I know, these subdivisions of the
> Anglosphere do not have widely used names
More widely than "Leftpondia" and "Otherpondia"?
> but I think they deserve
> some recognition. What about the 'Englosphere' for the British part?
> With an English accent it sounds quite different from 'Anglosphere'
> although I could see some confusion arising in the Midwest.
...
Not the Midwest, as far as I can recall from when I lived there.
Maybe among those U. S. southerners and blacks who pronounce "thing"
as if it were "thang".
--
Jerry Friedman
Baz
> "Baz" <swayla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fc17a207-2bf0-435a...@w17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> This looks like a solution in quest of its problem. The component
> concerning dialect and accent may be defective: the accents of
> Texas and Maine and those of Cornwall and Wales are so different
> that no outside observer would see any reason to group either pair
> together as "American" or "British." But who wants to?
They are exceptions. Overall, as you know, North American English is
strongly rhotic and English English non-rhotic, the West Country
excepted. It's the easiest way to distinguish North Americans from the
others. Oddly enough, the area of strong 'R' English in England
continues to decline, despite increasing American influence.
>
> > My other beef with Anglosphere (and anglophile) is that it is
> > associated in the minds of some of its proponents with nostalgia for
> > imperialism and monarchy of the Andrew Roberts variety. Some lists
> > describing the Anglosphere omit Ireland, India and the West Indies
> > which is a bit of a giveaway.
>
> Or we could continue in this vein to say the popularity of Nicholas
> Cage or Lady Gaga in Egypt or Moscow proves there is a global
> conspiracy of "linguistic imperialism" to conquer the world: some
> academics do so, citing the Internet and the stock market as
> further proofs: but this too looks like a solution in search of
> its problem.
I wouldn't say that. I would say a love of contemporary English
popular culture, including sport (e.g. football, rugby, cricket),
music and food (e.g. strong curry dishes), and the Empire/monarchy
sometimes co-exist but often don't - yet both would be considered to
be manifestations of anglophilia. Most people who speak approvingly of
the Anglosphere tend to be political anglophiles first rather than
cultural anglophiles.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 4:33 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>> "Baz" <swayla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc17a207-2bf0-435a...@w17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> This looks like a solution in quest of its problem. The component
>> concerning dialect and accent may be defective: the accents of
>> Texas and Maine and those of Cornwall and Wales are so different
>> that no outside observer would see any reason to group either pair
>> together as "American" or "British." But who wants to?
>
>They are exceptions. Overall, as you know, North American English is
>strongly rhotic and English English non-rhotic, the West Country
>excepted. It's the easiest way to distinguish North Americans from the
>others. Oddly enough, the area of strong 'R' English in England
>continues to decline, despite increasing American influence.
When did they move Lancashire to the West Country, then?
Robert Bannister
If you go east, you'll find yourself in Yorkshire and vice versa. This
is, allegedly, how my Yorkshire great grandfather came to marry a
Lancashire lass. Gone West, as they say.
--
Rob Bannister