What's the difference between D20 Fantasy and D&D?

[Storm Raven]

What if instead of ERA, RBI, etc., "new baseball" used slightly different terms that were calculated differently, so that (for example) a high "new ERA" was now good (the max. ERA in "old baseball" was infinity; the "new ERA" in "Blurnsball" starts at infinity and goes up from there)? And what if the number of outs per inning was decreased, but the number of innings per game increased? Oh, yeah, the fielders keep changing positions. Would you still call it baseball or would it have become something else?

I think you would be interested to see the actual evolution of the rules of the game of baseball. Nine balls to walk, four strikes, catching the ball on the bounce for an out, and so on and so forth are some of the minor differences between earlier versions of baseball and the one we know now.

 

[BroccoliRage]

No such thing as British English, mate. That's an American fabulation.

There's Scottish English, Irish English, and Welsh English (all at least as different as American English) -- plus English, as in, the language spoken by English people.

Basically, we English people are right about the language by definition. They don't call it "United Statesese".

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, chap. It's just a modernization of 'Anglish'; How positive are you that you're an Angle? HMMMMMM?! You may be a Saxon, or a Norman. Or some lost Pict! I've seen your avatars, pal.

Besides, all the examples you cite above are mutually intelligible. In theory. And we still agree that at least it's not Australian.

Now there's something very interesting. The non American examples we've cited are spoken with (loosely) similiar cadences and accents (note that I did not say 'identical') Why is it that the standard American accent that Canadians and Americanians use differs so vastly in cadence, accent, and pronounciation?

Answer that, Pict!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong, chap. It's just a modernization of 'Anglish'; How positive are you that you're an Angle? HMMMMMM?! You may be a Saxon, or a Norman. Or some lost Pict! I've seen your avatars, pal.

I'm pretty positive I'm not an Angle, lol. I'm kind of the wrong colour.

Besides, all the examples you cite above are mutually intelligible. In theory. And we still agree that at least it's not Australian.

So you've not been to Glasgow, then.

 

[Storm Raven]

Basically, we English people are right about the language by definition. They don't call it "United Statesese".

There's 300 million of us. If somehow someone packed your entire United Kingdom into our nation, you'd be outvoted by California and probably a few other states. Your tiny divisions between "Scots", "Irish" and "British" residents would be lost among the smaller states. When non-English speakers learn the language, they usually learn it using U.S. idioms and speech patterns. The language is ours now, effectively by conquest.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I'm pretty positive I'm not an Angle, lol. I'm kind of the wrong colour.

Perhaps you're an honorary Angle. One can never be too careful. Who knows what you Angles plan in your bunker. Your EVIL bunker.

So you've not been to Glasgow, then.

Hello? "In theory"?

But you are correct, I have not been. I have met many folks from the area, however, who have decided to visit the States. When speaking to me, I insisted they slow down and mock an American accent. I could understand them, they got to make fun of me (as all Euros loves to do for some reason), it was all win win.

By the way, I was commenting only on the relative similiarity. Something tells me you and I would probably be able to understand each other with relative ease, and with diffculty could puzzle out the Glasgow folks. I was merely noticing the radical departure of pronunciation and cadence when one crosses the Atlantic over this way.

 

[BroccoliRage]

There's 300 million of us. If somehow someone packed your entire United Kingdom into our nation, you'd be outvoted by California and probably a few other states. Your tiny divisions between "Scots", "Irish" and "British" residents would be lost among the smaller states. When non-English speakers learn the language, they usually learn it using U.S. idioms and speech patterns. The language is ours now, effectively by conquest.

In Europe, however, the non-native speakers learn to speak in the manner the Brits do.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

There's 300 million of us. If somehow someone packed your entire United Kingdom into our nation, you'd be outvoted by California and probably a few other states.

*grins*

Cali's a big state, but not that big. Population of the UK is 60 million.

The language is ours now, effectively by conquest.

Last time you tried that, didn't we burn the White House?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

In general, "flat" American accents reflect the way people back in the days of colonisation spoke; I've heard that the best guess for how Shakespeare really spoke is close to the Appalachian twang, in fact.

I highly recommend Bill Bryson's very readable Made In America for an overview of the development of distinctly American English. His Mother Tongue is about the development of English in general.

As an Australian, I naturally feel that we have the best of both worlds, with a combination of British and American English in our dialect spiced up with some really interesting native turns of phrase. We're also better at doing other Anglophone accents than anyone else.

 

[Gentlegamer]

*grins*

Cali's a big state, but not that big. Population of the UK is 60 million.

California is like 55 million . . .

 

[Storm Raven]

Last time you tried that, didn't we burn the White House?

They didn't seem to be able to hold on to the territory. I seem to recall a jerry rigged army beat a collection of your best in New Orleans too.