Do you prefer to read and write in the manner of British or American English conventions? What about Oxford style, or other English language spelling variations?

>>24467625 (OP)
In general I prefer the American spelling because it's closer to my language (color instead of colour, generalize instead of generalise, etc). But there are exceptions, for example I prefer pyjamas over pajamas (which sounds retarded).

>>24467625 (OP)
I prefer reading British English spellings, especially for fantasy literature or historical fiction. American English spellings are typically a bit too innovative and simplified to really capture particularly old-time and fantasy feelings, in my opinion. Maybe it's the fantasy TV shows with all of the British actors that's influencing me.

>>24467625 (OP)
I am Indian. So I usually prefer the British syntax

>>24467625 (OP)
British because it's not retarded sounding.

>>24467625 (OP)
British because it preserves the language's orthography and phonetics. Take the letter Z, for example. People don't realise that in Latin this letter was largely reserved for foreign neologisms, which is why it's typically not inserted gratuitously into native vocabulary.

i'm australian so i learnt the british way

>>24467625 (OP)
I was taught British English, it's the norm in Argentina. So... British.

>>24468183
Is it so heavily leveraged in anericanisms because of the large german component of america?

>>24467625 (OP)
To read's neither here nor there, one takes what one is given. I basically prefer American style everything, but detest especially salad cream, baked beans on toast, sports hooligans, and the perpetually whining 'football' fans. But (to quote Tim Butler:) 'I'm American, ha ha ha,' --so there's that.

>>24467625 (OP)
I like English to be written in English. I hate when one of the Big Three publishers use burgertalk for books written before America even existed,

>>24468203

>>24467625 (OP)
British English will always be superior. If a novel is in American English I switch to my second language

>>24468229
>one takes what one
using 'one' in constructions, no matter how grammatically useful, always sounds affected on this website (esp. coming from an american). which leads me to what really gets my craw about this post: it’s plainly riddled with a kind of fussiness about language and posture and high-flown circuitous talk - the very traits that ordinary americans most dislike about 'europe'.

>>24467625 (OP)
>Read
Makes little difference
>Write
British

>>24468203
what a cucked country

>>24467625 (OP)
American. British spelling is gay.

>>24468476
the americans carried on using the language of their vanquished colonial oppressors as well

>>24467625 (OP)
Some are better in British (smelt vs smelled) but generally English. If the author is good enough it doesn't matter. Also there's no way you're telling me "maths" is better than "math"

>>24467625 (OP)
American, of course. At least where I live, they teach UK English in schools, but nobody learns English in school. You learn it from movies and video games. UK English is the fat, middle-aged, socialist high school teacher who wants you to read Catcher in the Rye. US English is literally everything else. It's the true, neutral English. UK English is some sort of impostor they try to foist on you as punishment for living in Europe.

>>24468527
>Catcher in the Rye
an american book

people learning english from tv and video games is a negative influence. the real threat to english isn’t british english becoming americanised, but rather that the english-speaking world is becoming more internationalised, homogenous. ‘neutral’ means a loss of culture.

When I read a British novel or book I am always surprised how many French borrows they use. It makes me think American English is more in line with the older Saxon form since we seem to use more of the old grammar, which seems to the Norman aristocrats to be dumb because it isn't French grammar haphazardly projected onto English.

>>24468527
Uk TV > amerislop
You'll learn more english from uk panel shows than us crime drama slop

>>24468560
You can already see it, the esl congregating and speaking their own "English"

>>24468582
It's almost as if France is only a few miles away from Britian.

>>24468582
I am always surprised by how much Spanish is in American English novels.

>>24468589
UK TV is better than US TV but there's no way you're telling me the UK has better films than the US.

>>24468560
>le degradation of language
People have been saying this since the start of language, it's really nothing new.

>>24468582
This is a cope

>>24468582
American English is more down to earth, so they use more Anglo-Saxon words, simpler but stronger words. British English tries to sound sophisticated and ends up sounding too Latinate and homosexual in the process.

>>24468582
french influence was almost entirely lexical - not grammatical. the structure of english remained germanic: word order, verb tenses, etc. american english may favour shorter words, but it doesn't preserve 'older grammar' in any meaningful way.

>>24468601
>really nothing new
did i imply it was? why don't you monoglot immigrants learn english before posting on lit, eh?

>>24468598
Other than McCarthy which deals with Texas and Mexico and some bits in Steinbeck who deals with California, I don't really see it. Spanish fits in the context of those books.

>>24468589
americans always like the worst british stuff: panel shows, mitchell & webb, ricky gervais

>>24468507
So? American revolutionaries were ethnically English and they won the war against the Brits. That's the opposite of you.

>>24468617
True, always skipping on the family stuff like ghosts etc

>>24467625 (OP)
Scottish English

>>24468617
peep show is kino wtf are you talking about? ricky gervais sucks, i agree "muh reddit atheism xD"

>>24468621
the argies won one war against the english.
me: i'm actually british. the americans should really be speaking cree, because it's american (in italics).

>>24468635
>poorball
>war
embarrassing

>>24468633
Peep show is shite, Inbetweeners and Friday night dinner and basically every else is better and funnier

>>24468641
yanks ...

>>24468633
the earlier series were quite good but every american who watches it never seems to quite get it

>>24468642
>Inbetweeners
reddit moment

>>24468651
>reddit
imagine doing this insult twice in the space of 5 minutes
give your head a wobble

>>24467625 (OP)
Honestly don’t care. But I mostly read history books, and particularly books on British history. All I care about is that I’m getting good info and analysis. Obviously, I read the works of British historians more often. How they spell color means nothing to me.
t. American

>>24468632
Begbie filters the esl

>>24468642
Plebs was kinda mid, but it had its moments

>>24468632
Scottish novels that don't rely on the whole I'm le Scottish are few and far between.

>>24468649
I think you're overestimating what there is to get.

>>24468705
You've just proven his point

>>24468703
Well, without that, they might as well be funny speaking Englishmen.

>>24468661
It's not an insult. It's an apt description.

>>24468716
bit of a crutch at this point, wouldn’t you say

>>24468714
You just don't get it do you, the way a Scottish person acts is vastly different to an Englishman regardless of their pronunciation of english

>>24468722
Differences such as?

Remember when an American "translated" Wikipedia to Scots and it was just like glorified pirate speech? lmao

>It has been revealed by The Guardian that an American teenager has been found to have erroneously translated huge swathes of Scots Wikipedia, the Scots language version of the well-known website. Almost half of the entries on the site were made by the non-Scots speaking teenager who says he is “devasted” after being accused of “cultural vandalism”.

>The 19-year-old from North Carolina, who doesn’t speak a word of Scots, edited the site under the username ‘AmaryllisGardner’, believing he was “doing good”.

>He began editing and adding to the site at age 12 and over the last seven years has created or edited 49% of all articles on Scots Wikipedia according to one of the admins on the site. They suggested that as there was no one who “stepped up” to offer guidance on translation or article content, the resulting mistranslations and poor linguistic quality should have been expected.

>Many of the entries made by ‘AmaryllisGardner’ simply implanted the occasional Scot’s word within an English grammatical construction, inadvertently lending more weight to the argument that Scots is not a language in its own right.

>The flawed translations on the site highlight the importance of a solid grasp of a language, its grammatical rules and composition.

>Unfortunately, AmaryllisGardener’ s contributions were littered with errors which other users tried to correct, but as he was an Admin on the site, he was able to undo the corrections and revert to his original mistranslation.

>The extent of the mistranslations and errors have led some to call for the entire Scots Wikipedia to be deleted but Michael Dempster, director of the Scots Language Centre based in Perth, is considering possible options for the site, in conjunction with the Wikimedia Foundation, and believes it may be worth re-editing the American teenager’s contributions.

>Dempster, a native Scots language speaker, said “We know that this kid has put in an incredible amount of work, and he has created an editable infrastructure. It’s a great resource but it needs people who are literate in Scots to edit it now. It has the potential to be a great online focus for the language in the future.”

>He is now looking for a team of volunteers who can help with the immense task of re-editing and offers a free, online introductory course to Scots language learning in the hope that people who wish to help correct the translation errors can be better informed from now on.

(different article)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia

>>24467625 (OP)
English as a language is made for the expression of subtleties in tone and register. Contemporary American is a variation of English made for exclamation and gawking. Also, if you read educated Americans from the time of Emerson and earlier or perhaps even after, you’ll realise they write, sound, and sometimes even spell in the British manner.

Member when the American acted like a know it all.
So all the time?

Non-Americans fear the swift, just, and accurate judgment and knowledge of the American (the non-American thought it was the only thing he had left to feel smug about).

>>24467625 (OP)
I use the American spellings out of habit because I was raised and educated here, but for reading I don't really care one way or another. Both are slight variations on the same pants-on-head retarded orthography.

>>24468269
If it's from before the founding of the US it's probably from before English spelling was fully standardised, i.e. the spellings used in the original edition would have been neither fully the standard modern British ones nor the standard modern American ones.

>>24469537
it’d be trousers-on-head here

>>24469546
Wasn't the fellow who originated that phrase British? And he illustrated it with boxers IIRC.

>>24469561
never heard it before in my life

>>24469566
I just know the usual image I see associate with it is from Yahtzee, though I don't actually know if he originated it.

>not raytng eenglsh az you speek it

>>24468220
A single "S" is litearlly pronounced as "Z" in German.

>>24468621
>American revolutionaries were ethnically English and they won the war against the Brits
No, that was the French.

>>24469604
only at the beginning of a word, a single s at the end is a soft s (haus, etc)

>>24468768
>and knowledge of the American

>>24469537
>>24469546
>>24469561
>>24469566
>>24469573
British people mostly see pants as having a different meaning to that familiar to Americans, such as underwear, but I don't know about Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders. They probably have the British understanding, except for the more American-seeming Canadians.

>>24469546
There’s no fucking way that’s true

>>24467695
thomas panchon >.<

>>24467625 (OP)
I prefer a mixture, grey is grey not gray, but color is color rather than colour.

>>24470274
I think in any country, it is possible and even permissible (to what degree, I don't know) to slightly modify the prevailing orthodoxy, as long as the words themselves are not seen as outright misspelt, but as preferable borrowings from another county's system, such as an American preferring a few British words here and there, and generally spelling methods, over the domestic equivalents. Once a writer gets past a certain threshold, whatever that is, it may be time to think about adopting the other spelling system, if it is that much more preferable to that of one's native country. There are some Americans who write using British/Commonwealth spelling variants, but not very many, either.

American

>>24467625 (OP)
STRAYA CUNT

>>24467625 (OP)
American. Not just because I'm American but because I get a stiffy pissing off Limeys

>>24468759
Gee that's British people all the time. Talk about projection.

>>24468527
He rapes his sister, Phoebe.

>>24467625 (OP)
Canadians are divided over the two systems, and even use one or the other for certain words and spellings.

>>24470271
it was a joke

American vs. British debate is really an IQ curve meme thing.
Both the "I've learned English playing videogames and watching cartoons" troglodytes and the respectful and educated white men use the American, while phoney but clueless retards go for the British.
Pronunciation being an even bigger deal, in spelling specifically, American English uses the most etymologically correct and conservative conventions: oppositely to what the >>24468183 retard babbles, the -ize suffixes come from Greek (which had the Z letter there) and not from Latin, the same way as the -or suffixes come directly from Latin and not from French etc.

>>24470733
>oppositely to
must be ESL, right?

>>24470760
The thread is anyway for ESLs only, it's quite obvious that both Americans and the British just stick to their native standards and that's it.

>>24470779
then why are they acting like an authority on English while using ungrammatical prepositions and dangling participle phrases

>>24470791
If it were incorrect, I'd see a red line under that phrase. I didn't see anything so you can fuck off, brownoid.

>>24470795
in future, you could say ‘contrary to,’ and
>Pronunciation being an even bigger deal, in spelling specifically,
is not a complete sentence. It doesn’t connect clearly.

American brutes throw out Zs like they're nothing.
It's enough to make one nauseous.

As the only native speaker in this thread, British. It feels the most beautiful and refined, American feels clunky.
>waaah orthography is hard
Literally only an issue for ESL shitters and 5 year olds.

>>24468515
Brits will insist that "maths" is traditional as if they're grandparents aren't still seething that they say "maths" instead of "sums".

>>24467625 (OP)
UK spelling actually has a soul where the significance of the sounds of the words can be seen and isn't modernised garbage by hubristic dimwits.

>>24468601
>People have been saying this since the start of language, it's really nothing new.
You're the same type of moron to reply to the claim that anything that is getting worse with 'people have always been saying this'. SO FUCKING WHAT IF SOME RETARD 500 YEARS AGO SAID IT WAS GETTING WORSE, IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT THE SAME AS THE WORLDWIDE CATACLYSM OF TECHNOLOGICAL DOMINATION WE ARE ALL EXPERIENCE TODAY. Same type of retard that made that infographic about how music was always described as 'dying' by someone throughout history, as if that fact has any relevancy to the decline evinced from Beethoven to the 21st century. A total non-argument.

>>24470733
nice larp, cletus

>>24470733
>the -ize suffixes come from Greek (which had the Z letter there) and not from Latin, the same way as the -or suffixes come directly from Latin and not from French etc.
in other words it's fake and removes the language's naturally developed historical individuation (not descriptivism)

>>24470816
zeds*

>>24467625 (OP)
it genuinely doesn't matter, so long as you can understand it
whether you prefer the colour blue or the color green, you're set
if you're writing, pick one rather than being inconsistent like the above
ez pz

I use American and British spellings interchangeably because my vocabulary was learnt from books and I did not discriminate between British and American authors or editions of books, since I mainly bought used books from ebay or from library sales. I cannot even recall to which English dialect whisky or whiskey belongs, nor gray vs grey.

>>24471518
so you're an idiot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Illinois

>English is Illinois's official language. Illinois was one of the first states in the United States to pass an official language law, though its first official language was not English but "American". In 1923, Representative Washington J. McCormick of Montana had failed to pass a bill in the United States Congress declaring "American" to be the official language of the United States. Following the bill's failure, Senator Frank Ryan introduced a similar bill to the Illinois General Assembly.[1] The bill passed with the support of Irish and Jewish politicians in Chicago, who, by rejecting the term "English", wanted to show their opposition to British policies in Ireland and Palestine, respectively

>>24468107
based
keep up the good work, ranjinder

>>24471869
You can't describe a single real world scenario where british vs american spelling matters.

>>24470816
Spelling "civilisation" with a "Z" is the ultimate irony.

>>24470268
I know Canadian English is more similar to American usage in some ways, like terms for the parts of a car.

>>24470816
It's nauseating to... spell words with a Z that are pronounced with a Z?

>>24471029
Wouldn't sums be a subset of maths?
>>24471040
The point is, if people have been saying it forever, why should we believe you this time? What separates you from the boy who cried wolf?

>>24471359
It doesn't. Just open the fucking Wiki you clueless faggot: both variants for each different spelling were used simultaneously before the standardization, neither of them is prescriptive.
>>24471130
British English was just a temporary, liberal fashion from London. Now it has passed, and you're a clueless pseud if you still follow it.

It's really extremely frustrating when retards claim that British English is more noble, medieval, conservative, and refined or whatever while it was a purely urban nouveau riche's invention. Pretty much the Valley Girl English of the time, nowadays obsolete.

>>24472626
>The point is, if people have been saying it forever, why should we believe you this time? What separates you from the boy who cried wolf?
Because there's practically nothing in common between, nothing connecting, some random person who believed English was degrading 500 years ago and someone who believes it today. There's no consistent belief shared between them, no ideology. What makes people claim that modern English is degrading is completely different from what someone hypothetically claimed in that era, because not only was the language and the understanding of language different in that era, but also the degrading influences were also completely different. Use your brain. Study logic or something if you're still failing to understand why your argument is utterly retarded. All you have to do is earnestly look at the argument of whoever is claiming English is degrading today, and then look at the language itself, and decide whether it is a reasonable assumption. In some respects it is an obvious and undeniable truth as literary culture dies, in other respects it is more intangible and perhaps simple fearmongering, but you have to genuinely consider these possibilities, instead of making retarded comparisons that only midwits think have any relevancy. And it should be obvious that the idea of human nature as always evolving the same stupid claims with hyper specificity, is itself the product of brainless moderns being incapable of conceiving the past as different to the present, and enjoying the belief of their superiority to the present so much that they wish to also see themselves as superior to all of history. It is a baseless smugness for idiots.

>>24472757
If we’re talking strictly about spelling then you’re probably correct - although spelling is trivial anyway, and overconcern with it bespeaks a normie tier understanding. But American English is an abomination in terms of usage and grammar. Americans discard much of the latinate vocabulary, fashion incongruent neologisms, adopt all sorts of abominable yiddishisms that they don’t even realise are linguistically alien, and limit or outright misuse many of the more essential words like “become”, “have”, “keep”, “got”, “do”, “the”. British English has become quite decrepit too, but we aren’t even considering the lower class dialects in this which are the worst of it, and much of the damage to it has come from americanisms seeping in to daily use.

>>24472782
Can you clarify what constitutes degradation and why?

>>24472811
That's not what I was arguing about, and I wasn't the original anon you responded to. Besides, I've already provided the most obvious, and perhaps least significant, example with mentioning the death of literary culture, which usually has references to social media and declining attention spans. This is most obvious and least significant because it's only related to the masses, and not, at least not yet, the fundamental possibilities lost or preserved in a language.

>>24472819
I'd argue that writing is essentially an epiphenomenon, much as musical notation is not music.

I just like the look of "ou" instead of "o." For example, "favourite" looks better than "favorite." S also looks better than z. The z just sticks out too much.

>>24467625 (OP)
For me, it's King James Bible spellings.

The ironic thing is many American spellings come from the KJB, while many English spellings differ from it. Though the KJB uses 'ou' instead of 'o', like "neighbour".

>>24472799
>terms of usage and grammar
Oh yes that inherent Anglo-Saxon and Latin grammatic feature of referring to single bodies (e.g. team, government etc.) in plural. Very Nordic I deem.
>>24472856
Unironically the best argument in the thread lol.

>>24468349
What sticks in my craw (that's the idiom, faggot) are little pieces of shit like yourself who hop on /lit/ (inevitably pretending as if they've been here for the longest of times) and present laziness as a kind of 'American virtue'
Not only does it make the country look bad, but it dumbs down the board
>it's plainly riddled...
Oh, really. Care to explain? Because despite the excess verbiage, you said absolutely nothing

>>24472770
you made yourself so angry with your own made-up argument that you posted it twice in eight minutes. lol

>>24473010
>tu mani vords sar! spic les sar!
The British English, gentlemen...

>The British English, gentlemen..

>>24467625 (OP)
British English all the way. I want a book to read like an intelligent person wrote it.

>>24473025
And why did you post an Italian, retard? They speak Italian there.

>we say 'fall' instead of 'autumn', we wuz shakespeare an sheeeeit

>>24473064
It's mostly about the pronunciation. The General American accent is way closer to the Shakespeare's one than the Received Pronuncaition.

>>24473262
Not really. The main way it's more similar is being rhotic, but it's still changed in plenty of other ways.

>>24473270
It's also unrounded O and AW, more closed /ej/, more backed /ow/. A lot of things aftually.

>>24467625 (OP)
It is really a mixed bag, personally I like when writers freely pick and choose from both. I have personally adopted some British spelling variations despite being an American, and I find myself using British spellings or general word variations more when writing in the 3rd person, and American when writing in the 1st person. There is a certain precision to British English, and a certain practicality to American English, which make this an automatic process for me.

>>24472856
This.
Honour. Realise. Fibre. Traveller.
Honor. Realize. Fiber. Traveler.
You just see which one is noble and which one is lowly.

>Americans unironically believe that they sound like Shakespeare
>Americans unironically believe that this would be meaningful even if it were true
sad!

>>24468230
>They removed the heart radical from the hanzi for love
Wow I had no idea

>>24470268
Here in New Zealand, pants are trousers, and not underwear, like they are in the UK.
Also, we say footpath instead of pavement or sidewalk.

>>24473460
based

>>24473441
British slang makes them sound like clowns though.

>>24473531
bit rude

im ESL so i have a retarded schizo spelling style where my country mainly grew up with british media, but the mainstream popularization of american culture in general seeps into my country too so ill still write "colour" and "theatre" but still say apartment and sidewalk.
t. norwegian

>>24473606
I think most ESLs use a hybrid

>>24473460
>pavement
is clearly the best, though. Anglish autists can't be helped, they just hate elegance.

Footpaths don't footpath, and nor do sidewalks sidewalk. Pavements pave.

>>24473880
>elegance
:
>Pavements pave.
Ex nihilo? What of road crews, concrete, water, and concrete mixers? Teach me, anon. I want to believe!
I always thought sidewalks were so named because that more often than not they 'occur' by the side of some road or other. Of course I'm probably wrong

>>24467625 (OP)
It's called English. Simple as.

>>24473460
I like footpath, anon. It has a certain historical intimacy that the hauteur (or aristocratic removal) of the generalized 'pavement' completely lacks. ..Also, there's something silly about the dispossessed in their dole lines sniffing out one another in the lingua franca of a vanished empire

>>24473270
>The oldest continuously-inhabited 'English' town in the New World is in Bermuda, not the US
>The Thirteen Colonies were less than 50% 'English' at the time of the American Revolution
>By the time accent/dialect differences began to be commented on, in the mid-18th century, Old World writers would generally comment on Americans' language being 'free of idiom' (i.e. slang) as it had levelled-off and became quite uniform across its major towns
>Ben Franklin produced a phonetic alphabet that shows how different Revolutionary-period American accents were from modern ones
>America has received tens-of-millions of immigrants from Europe, Asia and Africa who we are expected to believe had no impact on the language whatsoever, in intonation, in vocabulary, or in any other aspect

And yet despite all of it they still believe that they wuz Shakespeare an sheeeeit

>>24468115
>British because it's not retarded sounding.
I came here to say this

>>24473844
I'd say that non-native speakers of pluricentric languages in general often tend to end up with a mishmash of different standards. Goodness knows my Spanish vocabulary is all over the place.

>>24474046
To my understanding, the closest living accent to Elizabethan English is North Country in the UK, or Appalachian in the US.

>>24474539
>North Country
*West Country

Shakespeare was from Western England (unlike most of the original settlers of America, who hailed from East Anglia, London and the South-Eastern counties).

I should say that I'm not someone who thinks American English is somehow less worthy than British English, or that they have any less reason to speak the language or embrace it as part of their culture and heritage. I'm also not as opposed to the idea of 'Americanisms' as I'm aware that many words and phrases that're now considered part of the general language - insofar as such a thing exists - originated in the American colonies or post-Revolutionary US and spread back to England/Britain. I just think the American obsession with the false notion that they speak a purer or older form of the language is laughable

>>24474585
Yes, I misspoke.

>>24473978
>what are formal, material, and efficient causation?

>>24474772
What would a disquisition on causation through the centuries from Aristotle forward contribute to this dialogue? I dunno!
Might I at least begin at Occam as it seems you've opted to omit Final Causation from this otherwise classic range?

>>24474869
eat my shorts

>>24474869
to quote my favourite americanism: eat my shorts

>>24474919
For me, it's 'dagnabbit'

>>24474919
You're favOrite Scrooge is American too. Admit it, anoun..

>>24475256
*Your

>>24475151
TADBURNIT's a good one

>>24472427
You can't describe a single real world scenario where spelling matters.

>>24475269
It's all about SOVL

>>24467625 (OP)
i pick uk

>>24476545
based and commonsensepilled

>>24467625 (OP)
My primary discontent with the English spellings is the frequent misuses of "y",
(1) which has originally been defined as a vowel found in Greek loanwords in Latin language, but has been used for several representations of sounds inclusive of a consonant in English language,
(2) and often omits the etymological atmosphere of the words.

For those two reasons, I hope some scholars alter the spellings involving "y" broadly in following ways, of course without affecting how they are pronounced.

1. y at Ends of Words

> words of French-Latin origin
> y -> ie

> words of Anglo and other Germanic origin
> y -> ig, (i)j (based on historical transitions)

ex.
discoverie, communitie, crie(cry), deploie
hardlig(hardly), luckig(lucky), flig(fly), saig(say)
bij(by), mij(my), thej(they), spraj(spray)

2. y at Beginnings of Words

> words of Anglo and other Germanic origin
> y -> ge, j (based on historical transitions)

ex.
geard(yard), gesterdaig(yesterday), gellow(yellow)
jouth(youth), jear(year), New Jork(New York)

3. y in Middle of Words

> words of Greek origin
> y -> y (as is, since it's the only case of "y"'s appropriate succession.)

ex. hydrogen, system, psychologie(psychology), analyze

That's the summarie of mij thoughts.
Wishing jou a nice daig!

>>24478676
It's impossible to read this without a quaint Chaucerian accent.

>>24478676
>(based on historical transitions)
the irony is palpable

I bet you can't click on this

inkwery.netlify.app

>>24470268
Canadians are just like Americans but pretend not to be by waving a leaf flag around. When I’ve visited Canada, it felt like a different US state that decided to use kilometers per hour for some reason. There were also just so many Indians but I bet they’d feel the same about the Mexicans if they visit us.