- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Matt Soniak, the author of that article on Mental Floss (a source renowned for reliability) is definitely not biased in any way. Obviously.
This is sarcasm if you having figured it out yet (American IQ is a lot lower on average - if you need me to explain what any of the words mean, just drop me a message).
Do you realize that the spelling is the same in all regions of England, and that you are just misspelling it several times? He was initially correcting you on the fact that you said "ya" instead of "you" - perhaps you are just incapable of writing yet another word correctly?
"Sir Humphry made a bit of a mess of naming this new element, at first spelling it alumium (this was in 1807) then changing it to aluminum, and finally settling on aluminium in 1812. His classically educated scientific colleagues preferred aluminium right from the start, because it had more of a classical ring, and chimed harmoniously with many other elements whose names ended in –ium, like potassium, sodium, and magnesium, all of which had been named by Davy."
I think you'll find that it isn't that we add an extra "i", but that Americans tend to be lazy enough to miss out the 'i':
"The spelling in –um continued in occasional use in Britain for a while, though that in –ium soon predominated. In the USA, the position was more complicated. Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 has only aluminum, though the standard spelling among US chemists throughout most of the nineteenth century was aluminium; it was the preferred version in The Century Dictionary of 1889 and is the only spelling given in the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913. Searches in an archive of American newspapers show a most interesting shift. Up to the 1890s, both spellings appear in rough parity, though with the –ium version slightly the more common, but after about 1895 that reverses quite substantially, with the decade starting in 1900 having the –um spelling about twice as common as the alternative; in the following decade the –ium spelling crashes to a few hundred compared to half a million examples of –um."
I don't even know where to begin. People like you should be lined up and shot.
"The only two types of English accents I can differentiate are what I consider the typically British 'posh' accent, and the less refined Australian accent"
Well the clue for this one is in the name: "Australian" - Australia is a country on the other side of the world from England, and whilst they are a part of the commonwealth, they are a distinctly different country; saying that you can distinguish between the English accent and the Australian accent is no different from saying that you can differentiate between the American accent and Chinese.
The only American accents I can distinguish are those from "TEXAS!" and those from "'MERICA!"
This debate is complete bullshit. Obviously English people have the most English accent. The bizarre theory that the modern accent has evolved the most is a load of rubbish: if our language and spelling has changed less (become less of an abomination) then why wouldn't our accent?
There are variations of accents and dialects across all of Britain. To an English person American accents sound pretty much all the same, but no American person would be able to make the mistake the difference between the accent of the English 'bourgeoisie' and a Liverpudlian accent