American anglophilia in prose: "er" versus "uh"

[NB: This post was inspired by this article.]

I used to love British spelling when I was a kid-- "humour" versus "humor," "metre" versus "meter." I'm still a linguaphile, still in love with words and language in general, and I admit I'm occasionally a sucker for UK spellings versus US spellings-- as in "travelled" versus "traveled" (the latter participle, which is more common in the US, still somehow looks wrong to me). I also find myself, even today, attracted to (but generally not using) spellings like "faeces" and "foetal" and "Judaeo-Christian." But in the main, I've tended to avoid Britishisms as an adult because I figured out I wasn't British. I have American friends who still include Britishisms in their prose, perhaps out of a sense of cultural inferiority: the Brits do it better! Or if I interpret their behavior more charitably, maybe they're like me, simply fascinated on a linguistic level by alternative spellings that seem somehow more pleasing to the eye for reasons that have nothing to do with culture. I suspect, though, that most people don't fall under the latter category. They're attracted to Britishisms specifically because of their Britishness.

The problem with being a Yank who sprinkles British orthography in his writing is that most Americans who do this lack consistency. I have no problem with UK spelling; I hope it's not condescending to say that I consider it perfectly proper, perfectly legitimate English. My point, though, is that if an American is engaging in this practice because of a latent linguistic anglophilia, he may as well go whole hog and spell everything he writes in a consistently UK fashion. Having done that, he should go further and adopt a truly British tone and rhythm, availing himself of the treasure trove of idioms and colorful turns of phrase found on the isles. Even a simple locution like "Aren't we going, then?" sounds more British than the American "So we're not going?" Why not write (and speak!) that way? Be consistent!

And herein lies the problem for the Brit-wannabe: for an American to alter his prose to something consistently British would require a herculean effort. He would, for example, have to make himself aware that, in UK English, company names are generally treated as grammatically plural ("Microsoft are struggling"),* and that periods go outside quotation marks,** as when I finish this sentence "thus". (--as opposed to writing "thus." the way a red-blooded American should.) Those examples, and thousands of other little variations, are what distinguish UK English from US English.

The anglophile's lack of consistency can therefore be traced to laziness, which interferes with the anglophilia. I might have more respect for the American anglophile who goes balls-out and writes in a convincingly British manner (and I'd trust only Brits to be the judge of how convincing the language was), simply because such an effort would reveal the depth and sincerity of the anglophilia. But the burden is on the rest of the inconsistent populace to explain why they feel the need to adopt only parts of the UK style and not the whole thing. (I exclude Canadians in this discussion, because they've somehow succeeded in having it both ways-- speaking with American accents while writing "colour" and "metre.")

Which brings me to "er" versus "uh." Can you guess which of these locutions is more British, and which is more American? Hint: both spellings represent the same sound. Try saying "er" with an English accent, and you'll see right away that it sounds pretty much like the American "uh," because the British final "r" is generally not rhotic (though this will, of course, depend on where in the isles you are). But for an American to write "er" as if it were American prose is silly: pronounced the American way, "er" rhymes with "fur," and no one actually says "urr" in spoken American English.

Or do they? Do you challenge my claim? Fine. Don't just make an assertion or give me an anecdote-- this is for science! Send me sound files of surreptitious recordings as evidence, or point me to a YouTube clip where a rhotic "urr" can be plainly, unambiguously heard multiple times. Hell, if you hear a Brit actually say "urr," send me a sound file of that, too! And don't tell me the burden of proof is on me: I feel I'm stating the obvious.

I should note that I'm not a linguistic prescriptivist. It's obvious that languages evolve, because that's the nature of phenomena. Mistakes in a certain language community can multiply due to incestuous amplification, and what started out as a mistake can become "received" English, i.e., the generally accepted form or style. But this isn't to say that there's no such thing as distinctly UK English or distinctly US English; obviously, there is, or we'd be unable to identify our places of origin (and social class, etc.) as easily as we so often do.

On both sides of the Atlantic, English teachers try to instill a notion of proper English-- correct grammar, correct spelling, correct punctuation, etc.-- and there's nothing wrong with that. You have to have standards. If a kid ends up thinking that the word "car" can be spelled "qaarre" or "PPPLPXEP," the teacher hasn't exactly aided the cause of mutual comprehensibility. The American kid who inserts "humour" into his prose but still writes "meter" and "license," while not as vile a specimen as the "qaarre" kid, is nevertheless somewhat... confused. And probably a bit lazy in his commitment to whatever anglophilia he harbors in his heart. That laziness is what results in an aesthetically displeasing English-- displeasing because inconsistent.

My advice? Either be consistently US or UK in style, no matter where you're from, or learn and employ the received linguistic forms taught in your own country. Life's simpler that way.

Righto. Bob's your uncle, then.

---

*There is some controversy on this point (see here, for example), but the use of the plural is British. You can satisfy your curiosity by performing a Google search on the exact phrase "Microsoft are," or "Ford are," etc.

**This is proper and logical in UK English, but is a mistake in US English-- alas, one now made with alarming frequency by people who never bothered to learn proper American punctuation. I see a lot of this in American online prose. If the writer is a UK transplant, I can understand how there might be an identity crisis at the root of the inconsistency, but most of the writers who make this mistake are American-born. What's their excuse?


_