[Grammar] Somewhat. something.

[philo2009]

I didn't think the point I was making was so difficult to get. I thought it quite apparent.
M.

No doubt. Sadly, however it was, and is, not.

Since BrE is, by definition, a sub-group of what you (and only you) call 'E', to deny that something true of E is not true of BrE is a contradiction in terms.

The only meaningful distinction to be drawn, by the lights of most, with BrE is AmE.

 

[Mannysteps]

No doubt. Sadly, however it was, and is, not.

Since BrE is, by definition, a sub-group of what you (and only you) call 'E', to deny that something true of E is not true of BrE is a contradiction in terms.

The only meaningful distinction to be drawn, by the lights of most, with BrE is AmE.

I didn't expect that my simplification, to make a point, would cause so much stir as I thought it logical to refer to E as the epicentre of AmE, BrE or whatever BlablaE one can name. Letting that aside, my comment was a response to a denial of a usage of "somewhat" based exclusively on BrE. Through the thread you might learn that I am right and that the usage is proven by some statistics Fivejedgon kindly provided, although they also show that it is much more recurrent in AmE than in BrE.

Now, to make it clear to you: a subscriber said that the usage is globally unacceptable, basing his or her conclusions strictly on BrE, to which I replied in short:

"Quite. As far as BrE goes. In E not quite so."

Strangely enough, you misinterpreted my comment so badly as to state:

"...to deny that something true of E is not true of BrE is a contradiction in terms"

When a lucid interpretation of my comment should be:

"...to claim that something not true of BrE is obligatorily also not true of E is just not compatible with the reality"

Hoping it sets your mind at rest,

M.

 

[Mannysteps]

No doubt. Sadly, however it was, and is, not.

Since BrE is, by definition, a sub-group of what you (and only you) call 'E', to deny that something true of E is not true of BrE is a contradiction in terms.

The only meaningful distinction to be drawn, by the lights of most, with BrE is AmE.

Quite, philo2009 I agree with you and respect your retracting from the above statement, by admitting:

"But no such denial was ever made!" (Quoting you from your last post.)

Thanks for clearing the issue.

Regards,

M.

 

[philo2009]

Quite, philo2009 I agree with you and respect your retracting from the above statement

A simple clarification (not a retraction!) aimed at correcting your misreading of my earlier post!

However, I am pleased that you now find things clearer.

 

[Raymott]

The only meaningful distinction to be drawn, by the lights of most, with BrE is AmE.

Surely not. That might be true if one were discussing only the Englishes of UK and US. But there are often discussions that go beyond this.

 

[philo2009]

Surely not. That might be true if one were discussing only the Englishes of UK and US. But there are often discussions that go beyond this.

I think most would agree that the two major varieties of (native) English in the world today are BrE and AmE, but that is, I would suggest, material for an entirely new thread!

 

[Raymott]

I think most would agree that the two major varieties of (native) English in the world today are BrE and AmE, but that is, I would suggest, material for an entirely new thread!

Yes, I'd agree with that. I wouldn't agree that the only meaningful distinction to be made with X is Y simply because X and Y were the two main elements in a set.
A new thread isn't necessary. If you can find no meaningful distinction between X and, say, Z, then you can't. But it's not true to say that therefore no meaningful distinctions can be made.
Consider the recent thread on "mightn't" for example, in which it was discovered that this word was typically used in neither BrE nor AmE, but was normal in a third (native) variety, and gaining use in AmE, influenced by that third (native) variety.