Quote Originally Posted by Divine Wright View Post
This whole debate always feels a little bit “swansea town syndrome” to me. Snobbiness, nothing more. English from england is pretty archaic and unfamiliar to a lot of people nowadays (apart from people in england and its neighbouring countries). I teach english, and unless someone is particularly interested in england english, I’ll emphasise the american option as it will likely be of more use to them in terms of culture, commerce or tourism. In the same sense, when teaching “british” english I’llntry to pronounce words like “year” or “tour” as an english person would.....as opposed my natural pronounciation of these words.

That said, I think “dude” and “stoked” sounds a bit “naff”. “Naff” is an england english word that also sounds a bit daft to my ears as does the english expression “it is what it is” or “ to chunder” or “non-plussed” .... “a property with great potential” ... the correct expression is “ a feckin tidy house like” .
I don't get what's snobby about wondering why words and terms like more than or above, about or relating to and in the future or eventually are no longer considered good enough to serve the purpose they have done for centuries. Why are many adults so keen to refer to stuff like north of, speaks to and moving forward so keen to use those terms when they would never have come across them when they were growing up or do you, as an English teacher, feel these new terms are "more use" than the ones that it appears some want to replace?