QUIRK. Well, A1, that's what Noah Webster3 thought of the future of English. Nowgranted, in terms of the speed4 at which languages change, there's notbeen a lot of timeyet for this to happen. All the same, it does seem to me that these words of Webster' saren't even beginning to show signs of proving true, are they? After all, he wrote themaround 1800, and here we are a hundred and sixty-odd years later, chatting away quitehappily.
MARCKWARDT. Of course, Randolph; it's only fair to say, though, that by 1828 1(Webster had revised his thinking on this point, when he said that in all essentials5 our twonations spoke the same language, and he added very significantly, I am sure you'll agree,that it was highly desirable to perpetuate that sameness.
QUIRK. Yes indeed, and this has remained, of course, the aim of all responsiblecitizens in our two countries ever since. Yet we have found—— 1 have found at any rate6- 1that teachers in many parts of the world are really worried about these two varieties ofEnglish of ours and about which one they should be teaching. Have you met this?
MARCKWARDT. Oh yes, and it's something I disapprove of. It's almost as if peoplewere taking seriously that old joke in My Fair Lady7 about Americans not having spokenEnglish for years.
QUIRK. Yes, but if you say you' re speaking English why do some of your countrymendeny this and talk about "the American language"? That was the title of H.L. Mencken' swell-known book, after all.
MARCKWARDT. Well, I don't think they deny it really. Remember that Menckengave his book the title The American Language in 1919. This was just after the First World 2War, a time when Americans were learning, probably for the first time on this massivescale, that there was variation between the English spoken in Britain and in the UnitedStates.