I don't think it's important anyway, this question of 'is it a language, is it a dialect?' For me it's all just part of the rich tapestry that is my language, or any other language which varies as it travels around the world.
If a student wants me to teach him English, I assume he expects to learn British English, so that is what I teach him. If he'd particularly wanted to learn Australian English, he'd have gone to an Aussie. I always recommend to learners that they focus on one type of English and stick to it, whilst being aware of the main alternative uses in other countries. The variant to learn is the one you feel will be most appropriate to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davilan
I just noticed that you are not a native English speaker-just wanted to note that from what you've written here I wouldn't know.
-- I do agree with you here. BC is most proficient!
Indeed, but still, to an English ear, noticeably not native-standard. But, again, I feel this is unimportant. Whilst we should try to learn a language as best we can, it seems futile to aim for 'native-speaker-standard'. It's not only unnecessary but also simply unachievable without a stay of very many years immersed in the 'target' country. We should be realistic and work towards a good standard of fluency and comprehension, whilst always being open to learning more. There is absolutely no shame in using a second language less well than a native speaker - in my experience, nobody will mock our shortcomings.
Just an opinion of course!;-)