why don't the English use the word the before the word hospital?

LoneWolfSparty wrote:I mean I know the English are stupid and gay, but why do they say "I'm going to hospital"? Do they think its a country? Like "I'm going to Argentina". Or maybe a city? "I'm going to Stanley." (That's in the Falkland Islands.)

Stupid.

Snake Plissken wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:I mean I know the English are stupid and gay, but why do they say "I'm going to hospital"? Do they think its a country? Like "I'm going to Argentina". Or maybe a city? "I'm going to Stanley." (That's in the Falkland Islands.)

Stupid.

And what do they say when they want to go smoke?

MiamiSpartan wrote:Because the English can't even speak proper English (seriously, American English is more of the "true" English).

tGreenWay wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Because the English can't even speak proper English (seriously, American English is more of the "true" English).

This statement is nonsensical on its face. Care to defend it?

Turtleneck wrote:Did you go to university?

Turtleneck wrote:Did you go to university?

Cym Jim wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

This statement is nonsensical on its face. Care to defend it?

Please don't. The man "loves" an English soccer team management by a Scot and Dutchman, most popular in Scandinavia and Asia, owned by Americans, the most popular player of which was Welsh. And he's only bothered to go see them once.

Cym Jim wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

This statement is nonsensical on its face. Care to defend it?

Please don't. The man "loves" an English soccer team management by a Scot and Dutchman, most popular in Scandinavia and Asia, owned by Americans, the most popular player of which was Welsh. And he's only bothered to go see them once.

Turtleneck wrote:Did you go to university?

It's really not that difficult, is it. Stupid Bee.

Snake Plissken wrote:

LoneWolfSparty wrote:I mean I know the English are stupid and gay, but why do they say "I'm going to hospital"? Do they think its a country? Like "I'm going to Argentina". Or maybe a city? "I'm going to Stanley." (That's in the Falkland Islands.)

Stupid.

And what do they say when they want to go smoke?

tGreenWay wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Because the English can't even speak proper English (seriously, American English is more of the "true" English).

This statement is nonsensical on its face.  Care to defend it?

Cym Jim wrote:Please don't. The man "loves" an English soccer team management by a Scot and Dutchman, most popular in Scandinavia and Asia, owned by Americans, the most popular player of which was Welsh. And he's only bothered to go see them once.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

This statement is nonsensical on its face.  Care to defend it?

I'm glad you asked.  Details are below.

Cym Jim wrote:Please don't. The man "loves" an English soccer team management by a Scot and Dutchman, most popular in Scandinavia and Asia, owned by Americans, the most popular player of which was Welsh. And he's only bothered to go see them once.

Your Xenophobia continues to come through.  But I'm shocked (not really) that Jim has English-centric delusions about his accent, as well as his soccer.

Back around the time that we sent the Brits scurrying home with their tail between their legs, American and British English was virtually the same.  Most assume that the American accent is the one that changed, but it's not.  Around this time, British English, starting mostly in the upper class, started shifting to what is today known as "Received Pronunciation" (aka BBC English, Standard English, etc.).  The most noticeable, was a shift to a non-rhotic accent.  What that means is that they stopped pronouncing the "r" late in words.   Only in New York, New England, and certain areas of the South is non-rhotic English commonly spoken in the US (think Boston and New York accents), and those are very much non-standard American accents.  But it was more than just the non-rhotic accent that was adopted, there was also a shift in intonation and inflections that we now associate with the Standard English.

Now, despite what Jim is probably thinking as he's stewing and trying to come up with some smug response, I'm not talking from an American-centric veiwpoint here.  The University of Cambridge agrees with me.  Page 71 of the Cambridge History of the English Language:  "Received Pronunciation developed at the end of the eighteenth century, during the time of the American Revolution. At that time there was no pronunciation by which people in America could be distinguished from people in England."  It then goes into far more detail for several pages (the rhotic and non-rhotic separation starts being discussed on Page 75) if you're interested.

Cambridge History of the English Language

MiamiSpartan wrote:Your Xenophobia continues to come through.  But I'm shocked (not really) that Jim has English-centric delusions about his accent, as well as his soccer.

Back around the time that we sent the Brits scurrying home with their tail between their legs, American and British English was virtually the same.  Most assume that the American accent is the one that changed, but it's not.  Around this time, British English, starting mostly in the upper class, started shifting to what is today known as "Received Pronunciation" (aka BBC English, Standard English, etc.).  The most noticeable, was a shift to a non-rhotic accent.  What that means is that they stopped pronouncing the "r" late in words.   Only in New York, New England, and certain areas of the South is non-rhotic English commonly spoken in the US (think Boston and New York accents), and those are very much non-standard American accents.  But it was more than just the non-rhotic accent that was adopted, there was also a shift in intonation and inflections that we now associate with the Standard English.

Now, despite what Jim is probably thinking as he's stewing and trying to come up with some smug response, I'm not talking from an American-centric veiwpoint here.  The University of Cambridge agrees with me.  Page 71 of the Cambridge History of the English Language:  "Received Pronunciation developed at the end of the eighteenth century, during the time of the American Revolution. At that time there was no pronunciation by which people in America could be distinguished from people in England."  It then goes into far more detail for several pages (the rhotic and non-rhotic separation starts being discussed on Page 75) if you're interested.

Cambridge History of the English Language

LoneWolfSparty wrote:So, in essence, your come back is "I know your are but what am I!" Sick burn brah!

Cym Jim wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:Your Xenophobia continues to come through.  But I'm shocked (not really) that Jim has English-centric delusions about his accent, as well as his soccer.

Back around the time that we sent the Brits scurrying home with their tail between their legs, American and British English was virtually the same.  Most assume that the American accent is the one that changed, but it's not.  Around this time, British English, starting mostly in the upper class, started shifting to what is today known as "Received Pronunciation" (aka BBC English, Standard English, etc.).  The most noticeable, was a shift to a non-rhotic accent.  What that means is that they stopped pronouncing the "r" late in words.   Only in New York, New England, and certain areas of the South is non-rhotic English commonly spoken in the US (think Boston and New York accents), and those are very much non-standard American accents.  But it was more than just the non-rhotic accent that was adopted, there was also a shift in intonation and inflections that we now associate with the Standard English.

Now, despite what Jim is probably thinking as he's stewing and trying to come up with some smug response, I'm not talking from an American-centric veiwpoint here.  The University of Cambridge agrees with me.  Page 71 of the Cambridge History of the English Language:  "Received Pronunciation developed at the end of the eighteenth century, during the time of the American Revolution. At that time there was no pronunciation by which people in America could be distinguished from people in England."  It then goes into far more detail for several pages (the rhotic and non-rhotic separation starts being discussed on Page 75) if you're interested.

Cambridge History of the English Language

LoneWolfSparty wrote:

Cym Jim wrote:

Yep you lost that argument!