geo63:Could you write it in international English so that a foreigner like me would understand, because I don't know what you mean. What prejudice and who is not mature and why? By asking a simple question?

Prejudice. Uprzedzenie. You were implying that ceigered is stupid because of his nationality. That's immature. As for your "simple" question, it's pretty irrelevant.

Kraughne:Prejudice. Uprzedzenie. You were implying that ceigered is stupid because of his nationality. That's immature. As for your "simple" question, it's pretty irrelevant.

I know what prejudice is. I have never said that he was stupid - these were YOUR words, not mine. The question is VERY relevant (perhaps not for a native but for a foreigner). It took me three years to begin to understand spoken English. I understand American English, but not British or Australian - especially when they speak fast or untidy. So for me it is very important which version is ment as the international English. It is you who are not mature enough.

Let's make it clear: a foreigner (like me) must devote at least 2000 hours for English to become communicative. If he studies one hour a day, it will take him 6 years of intensive learning. You, the natives, do not see the problem - English is easy, just learn it - this is your answer. But how many hours you have spent to achive your fluency in the language? If you are using it 10 hour a day for 30 years this will give 100.000 hours of the language practice. How is it compared to my 2000 hours? As 1 to 50!!! So much less I know your language, and questions which are irrelevant to you, are very relevant to me. Is that clear now?

By the way - in Polish we are not using "uprzedzenie" but "uprzedzenia" in plural (not "mam uprzedzenie" but "mam uprzedzenia") - Polish can be tricky too.

geo63:. You, the natives, do not see the problem - English is easy, just learn it - this is your answer.

Geo63, can you please cut out the attacks on English native speakers. Don't let your frustration overwhelm you.

Anyhow, if we English native speakers really didn't see the problem, why on earth would we be here learning Esperanto?!

Any complaint that you might have about English is valid for any national language in the role of an international language. Let's not keep going over the same old arguments. Esperanto's a great idea, just that it hasn't caught on enough yet. Maybe it never will, who knows. Maybe people are deep down actually happier with the current order of things - ie. learning whatever national language happens to be playing the international role.

Geo63, your tired arguments about English not being suitable as an international language are very boring. Why bang on about that here? Just drop it.

In relation to your question, I was a little confused at first about what your question actually was! Now that you have clarified a bit further, seems you want someone to state whether international English is American, Australian, British, or Canadian, or whatever form of English. It's probably a mixture of them all, who knows, who cares?! Anyhow, the vastly spread form of 'international English' as spoken by non-natives is often something entirely different, and it varies from region to region - it almost has a life of its own! So, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Chainy:

geo63:. You, the natives, do not see the problem - English is easy, just learn it - this is your answer.

Geo63, can you please cut out the attacks on English native speakers. Don't let your frustration overwhelm you.

Look, I didn't attack anyone. Some one else attacked me implying what I meant when I did not mean that at all. But your right. My being here has no sense at all. Have a good day.

geo63:But your right. My being here has no sense at all. Have a good day.

I certainly didn't say that there's no sense to your being here!

Kraughne:Australians are stupid: assumption. Prejudice is hardly a suitable retort in a debate between adults: fact.

Whoah now, let's not have a rerun of the Tarnagook case. It could have just been intended as "THE Australian" (e.g. the Australian dude here just can't answer a simple question). Which would be an ad hominem attack instead . Eitherway, it was a sentence that could easily insult someone.

Back to serious land. Geo, international English is somewhere between American and British and Australian. The fact of the matter is that each country has its own beliefs that America or Britain has the "true English" (people with British or Commonwealth accents have been regarded as "bad speakers of English" according to some from some Japanese schools).

I think Australians would probably be in the best position to be in contact with international English since we get lots of American and British television, but it's hard for us to draw the line in the sand and know what's truly neutral.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that Charles Shaughnessy and people like him have very neutral accents - it's hard to tell where he comes from in Britain, there's nothing "out of the ordinary" for me when I listen to him. His accent though sounds VERY educated.

In this random youtube video I found of him, him and the person interviewing him have very "standard" accents to an Australian's ears. One british, one American. Australian English is almost in between them in some ways, except for our long vowels can be pronounced in much more different ways.

Of course, in the end, it depends. I assume this is the same in all languages, but some English speakers tend to switch between more regional accents and more neutral accents depending on whom we are talking to (in casual conversation I'll be speaking in my own unique way, but formerly or to foreigners I'll either subconsciously or deliberately make sure I pronounce words as clearly as I can without running them into the same "sound".

Geo63:on the plane
on the train
on the bus
on the car <-- why is it wrong???

Because we see trains, busses, planes etc as if they are moving-floors, because we walk into them like that, but for cars, you have to climb into them, and the insides of the car almost hug around you.

ceigered:

Kraughne:Australians are stupid: assumption. Prejudice is hardly a suitable retort in a debate between adults: fact.

Whoah now, let's not have a rerun of the Tarnagook case. It could have just been intended as "THE Australian" (e.g. the Australian dude here just can't answer a simple question). Which would be an ad hominem attack instead . Eitherway, it was a sentence that could easily insult someone.

And as such it was intended (I meant - Australian should know the answer, why does he not answer?). It is very easy to say something different in a foreign language to that you intended to say. I remember some Arab students when they said in Polish (to be polite):

"panie puszczają się przodem"

they meant:

"ladies go first in front"

what they really said was:

"ladies are f..ked from front."

But we, Poles, know that our language is very difficult for foreigners and never make any issue of such sayings (with this sentence perhaps I again insulted this American woman, I don't know, I am too confused at English). Any way I mean no insult here, even if I said it in a wrong way.

ceigered:

Geo63:on the plane
on the train
on the bus
on the car <-- why is it wrong???

Because we see trains, busses, planes etc as if they are moving-floors, because we walk into them like that, but for cars, you have to climb into them, and the insides of the car almost hug around you.

Yes, but a foreigner will be confused. For instance, in Polish there is no such diference here:

on the plane = do samolotu
on the train = do pociągu
on the bus = do autobusu
in the car = do samochodu

but

on the ship = na statek, and not do statku (unless it is some kind of a spaceship) - so Polish has also its peculiarities. In fact, Polish "do" is English "in". Weired enough. It just shows what a foreigner must cope with. I have to finish - there is a thunderstorm round here (a real one with lightings) and I am afraid of my computer. Bye.

Cheers geo63 for that explanation, and that was a funny example of a misunderstanding in Polish! No doubt I do the same in the languages I (attempt to) speak (in an Indonesian test I wrote "stick you tongue out" as "tongue is going out" (lidah ke luar), and my friend, who ingeniously wrote something akin to the EO "eksteririgi" (keluarkan lidah), may have accidentally said "take out/secrete your tongue" if this dictionary I'm reading is correct )

As for vehicles, what does EO say? En, ĉe, je? I know Indonesian has things pretty regular with "naik" (which stems from the idea of "climbing up"), but that only adds to the confusion of which term would be most international! I've been using "en" up until now simply because it seems like the easiest way of thinking about it in this world of today where most vehicles have rooves...

geo63:there is a thunderstorm round here (a real one with lightings) and I am afraid of my computer. Bye.

Afraid of or afraid for? Ever since I was younger and decided to muck around with my computer's power supply, I've been both (dangerous yet fragile machines).

On the subject of English's "international accent", upon thinking more about it, I'd say the international accent is whatever you'd call the "mean/middle point" of the most popular English media today (not music though, since music is always a wildcard as far as accents and pronunciation go).

Take for example the shows the Simpsons (although this is normally dubbed now in non-English countries due to it being a cartoon), Friends, then some british things like Top Gear. Then factor in what English-language childrens shows there are like Sesame Street. Then hollywood classics like the Bond Films. I think that is probably the best example of a "neutral" English accent since they're the ones English speakers are exposed to.

The only problem is that this changes each generation, so what I watched or was exposed to as a Generation Y/Z'er won't necessarily be the same for the next generation (heck, it feels like the next generation go the short end of the stick in some ways!)