No, it’s clear you are simply applying the number in an attempt to discredit their logic, but the current number of countries has nothing to do with the fact that the British started spelling and pronouncing it differently, not the Americans.
And it wouldn’t be a big deal if you were capable of acknowledging that languages evolve regionally and that the evolutions are valid. But you can’t do that because it would ruin your ability to shame other English-speaking countries for their own regional linguistic evolutions whenever they diverge from the UK.
I’m not trying to discredit anything at all, in fact it was interesting, but it doesn’t hold water with me in this particular instance. Normally I ‘could care less’ how much paasta with toonafish and 'erbs they wanna eat at the huvvercraft ternament, but this is a scientific term the world has standardised and to eschew that is just obstinate.
Their explanation does nothing to justify the number of countries that use that pronunciation. It merely denotes the etymological history.
Ostensibly, granted.
No, it’s clear you are simply applying the number in an attempt to discredit their logic, but the current number of countries has nothing to do with the fact that the British started spelling and pronouncing it differently, not the Americans.
And it wouldn’t be a big deal if you were capable of acknowledging that languages evolve regionally and that the evolutions are valid. But you can’t do that because it would ruin your ability to shame other English-speaking countries for their own regional linguistic evolutions whenever they diverge from the UK.
I’m not trying to discredit anything at all, in fact it was interesting, but it doesn’t hold water with me in this particular instance. Normally I ‘could care less’ how much paasta with toonafish and 'erbs they wanna eat at the huvvercraft ternament, but this is a scientific term the world has standardised and to eschew that is just obstinate.