garm? nt that Am? ricans usually call av? st, aw? rd that in? ngland usually m? ans und? rshirt); f? rtnight tw? w ?? ks, a us? ful t? rm c? mpl? t? ly l? st t? Am? rican? nglish; and a numb? r? f t? p? graphical t? rms that Am? ricans had n? n ?? d f? r-w? rds lik? c? ps? , D? ll, f? n, h? ath, m ?? r, spinn? y, and w? rld. Am? ricans,? n th? ? th? r hand, d? sp? rat? ly n ?? d? d t? rms t? d? signat? t? p? graphical f? atur? s diff? r? nt fr? m any kn? wn in th? ? ld W? rld. T? r? m? dy th? d? fici? ncy, th? y us? d n? w c? mp? unds? f? nglish w? rds lik? backw ?? ds and und? rbrush; th? y adapt? d? nglish w? rds t? n? w us? s, lik? cr ?? k, in British? nglish an inl? t? n th? s? a, which in Am? rican? nglish may m? an any small str? am; and th? y ad? pt? d f? r? ign w? rds lik? cany? n (Sp. can? n tub?), m? sa (Sp. tabl?), and prairi? (Fr. m? Ad? W) .was similar with th? naming? f fl? ra and fauna strang? t? th? c? l? nists. Wh? n th? y saw a bird that r? s? mbl? d th? ? nglish r? bin, th? y simply call? d it a r? bin, th? ugh it was n? t th? sam? bird at all. Wh? n th? y saw an animal that was t? tally unlik? anything that th? y had? v? r s ?? n b? f? r? , Th? y might call it by its Indian nam? , If th? y c? uld find? ut what that was-f? r? xampl? , Racc ?? n and w ?? dchuck.? als? with th? nam? s? f plants: catalpa a kind? f tr ?? and catawba a vari? ty? f grap? ar? ? f Musk? g? an? rigin. ? th? rwis? , Th? y r? li? d? n th? ir imaginati? n: sw ?? t p? tat? might hav? ? riginat? d just as w? ll in? ngland as in Am? rica? xc? pt f? r th? fact that this particular vari? ty? f p? tat? did n? t? xist in? ngland.
? n th? wh? l? , Th? Ugh, Am? rican? nglish is a c? ns? rvativ? d? sc? ndant? f th? s? v? nt ?? nth-c? ntury? nglish that als? spawn? d pr? s? nt-day British. ? xc? pt in v? cabulary, th? r? ar? pr? bably f? w significant charact? ristics? f N? w W? rld? nglish that ar? n? t trac? abl? t? th? British Isl? s, including British r? gi? nal dial? cts. H? W? v? r, a maj? rity? f th? ? nglish m? n and w? m? n wh? s? ttl? d in th? N? w W? rld w? r? n? t illit? rat? bumpkins, but ambiti? us and industri? us m? mb? rs? f th? upp? r-l? w? r and l? w? r-middl? class? s, with a sprinkling? f th? w? ll-? ducat? d-cl? rgym? n, lawy? rs- and? v? n a f? w y? ung? r s? ns? f th? arist? cracy. F? R that r? as? n, Am? rican? nglish r? s? mbl? s pr? s? nt standard British? nglish m? r? cl? s? ly than it d? ? s any? th? r British typ? ? f sp ?? ch [56, 240c.]. ? NAL DIFF? R? NC? S IN PR? NUNCIATI? N? R th? pr? nunciati? n? f individual w? rds, much th? sam? situati? n h? lds tru? as f? r w? rd ch? ic? s: th? diff? r? nc? s ar? r? lativ? ly inc? ns? qu? ntial and fr? qu? ntly shar? d. F? R instanc? , In? ith? r and n? ith? r an? v? rwh? lming maj? rity? f Am? ricans hav? [i] in th? str? ss? d syllabl? , Th? Ugh s? M?-larg? ly fr? m th? Atlantic c? Astal citi? s-hav? [a?], which is als? f? und? ls? wh? r? , D? Ubtl? ss b? caus? ? f its supp? s? d pr? stig?. Th? [i] pr? nunciati? n als? ? ccurs in standard British? nglish al? ngsid? its usual [a?]. M? rriam-W? bst? r s C? ll? giat? and th? Sh? Rt? r? xf? rd? ach giv? b? th pr? nunciati? ns with? ut nati? nal id? ntificati? ns, alth? ugh in r? v? rs? ? rd? r. ? nglish has a pr? nunciati? n? f? ach? f th? f? ll? wing w? rds diff? ring fr? m that usual in Am? rican? nglish: at? [? t], b ?? n [bin],? v? luti? n [iv? lu ?? n], fragil? [fr.? a? l], m? dicin? [m? ds? n], n? ph? w [n? vyu], pr? c? ss [pr? s? s], trait [tr? ], Val? t [v.l? t], z? nith [z? n? ? ]. But th? Sh? Rt? r? xf? rd r? c? rds th? f? ll? wing Am? rican pr? nunciati? ns with? ut a nati? nal lab? l: at? [? t], b ?? n [b? n],? v? luti? n [? v? lu ?? n], m? dicin? [m? d? s? n], n? ph? w [n? fyu], trait [tr? t], val? t [v.l? ]. Th? pr? nunciati? n [? t] f? r at? ? ccurs in Am? rican sp ?? ch but is n? nstandard. F? R n? ph? w, [n? vyu] is curr? nt? nly in? ast? rn N? w? ngland, Ch? sap? ak? Bay, and S? Uth Car? Lina. Th? pr? nunciati? n [pr? s? s] is us? d in high-t? n? d Am? rican sp ?? ch. ? pr? val? nt Am? rican pr? nunciati? ns? f th? f? ll? wing w? rds d? n? t? ccur in standard British? nglish: l? isur? [li? ? r], quinin? [kwa? na? n], squirr? l [skw? r? l] (als? stirrup and syrup with th? sam? str? ss? dv? w? l), t? mat? [t? m? t?], vas? [v? s]. But th? pr? val? nt British pr? nunciati? ns? f all? f th? m? xist, th? ugh ind ?? d n? t wid? ly, in Am? rican? nglish-that is, [l? ?? (r)], [kw? nin], [skw? r? l], [t? m? t?], [v? z]. ? British pr? Nunciati? N? F li? ut? nant as [l? ft? n? nt] w...
