Talk:Comparison of American and British English/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

'To do' in British English

High, there. I'm sorry, I don't know anything about this phenomenon or what it might fall under, but it seems to me that the ellipsis/replacement of a verb after a modal works differently in British and American English. Like in British English, the response to 'Can I walk though the garden?' would be something like 'Yes, you can do', but in American English, you'd have something more like 'Yes, you can' or 'Yes, you can do so'. Does anyone know what I'm trying to get at, or am I just crazy? Rdr0 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In *both* forms of English (not just AmE), you can say something like

She didn't apologize, although she should have. This is unquestionably common-core international standard English.

However, in BrE, an alternat(iv)e construction with propredicate do is also used (I believe usage may vary from region to region and even from speaker to speaker):

%She didn't apologize, although she should have done. This is never heard in AmE.

The article makes no mention of this. I'd add it myself but I ain't got the time now. Jack^(Lumber) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal observation/opinion (sticking my neck out here) is that in BrE the normal constructions are "Yes, you can" and "... she should have done" or "she should have" (both of these latter sound equally normal). "Yes, you can do so" would also be standard (but a bit long-winded) - but NOT "Yes, you can do". In other words, it's hard to find any clear consistency, or a general "rule" that says (e.g.) BrE does/doesn't use the pro-predicate while AmE doesn't/does. But it does seem to be the case that a speaker of BrE is more likely to tack a do or a done on the end of such a sentence. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I purposely changed the example provided by Rdr0 because "Yes you can do" sounded terribly awkward to me. I (have) just checked the sources--Algeo, Hargraves, Peters, and Trudgill and Hannah (now that was a useful serial comma, wasn't it Snalw?;-) all mention this difference. Jack^(Lumber) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that it makes much difference, as the outcome is the same, but it is my belief that in a phrase such as "she should have done", it is not that the "done" is being added, but that the "so" is being left out of "she should have done so". Colloquial speech usually derives from laziness (or effort-avoidance, if you prefer), and adding a word would be an odd way of being lazy. Taking the next logical step and dropping the "done" saves even more effort, which is why the form "she should have" is increasingly standard practice. Just a thought. Grubstreet (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The form she should have done may indeed have originated as a clipped form of she should have done so; however, the common-core she should have is much older than the British-only she should have done, which is a relatively recent innovation. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The answer to the question, 'Can I walk through the garden,' would have to be, 'I don't know, can you?' The correct question, at least in British English, would be, 'May I walk through the garden,' to which the answer would be, 'yes, you may.' 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

please

ts called 'english english' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.241.232 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the Lucky Country for that obvious observation. The Atlantic colonies don't seem to see the connection between ENG-land and ENG-lish. Or perhaps they don't want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not 'English English', it's just English. England is the country where the language originated. The term 'English English' seems somewhat cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.122.252 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad English is spoken all over the world, and every single English speaker in North America, Australasia, South Africa, India, etc. claims to speak "English." That's why we need modifiers to distinguish the form of English used in England from those used elsewhere. English English = English as spoken in England; Scottish English = English as spoken in Scotland; American English = English as spoken in the U.S.; and so on. Yes, "English English" is a cumbersome phrase, but... do you have a better idea? Jack^(Lumber) 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A better idea would be to have english, as just english spoken in england, and then other countrys can have, american english etc, as most english speaking countrys speak the englands english etc, doesnt matter if it is still spoken all over the world it is still the english language and not british english. so thats the idea 81.77.48.253 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good argument. While I agree that the country from which the language originated is entitled to simply referring to their dialect as "English", it is worth noting that even English as it is spoken in England has evolved significantly since branching out to other regions such as the United States. This means that while the dialect of today's England is surely closest to that of the earliest speakers of the English language, it must be considered that practically all modern dialects have evolved and thus cannot claim to be the original. Oscillatingethmoid (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "the dialect of today's England is surely closest to that of the earliest speakers of the English language." I suggest you read this article. I'm not saying that the title is your stance on the issue, but here is a quote from the article that is relevant to what we're talking about: "On balance, it is hard to say which variety of English, American or British, is the more conservative and which the more innovative. A lot depends on how you look at the question." So it's at least a tie between American English and British English when it comes to which one is more conservative, i.e., which variety is closer to that of the earliest speakers of English. I would even say that American English is the more conservative. I see rhoticity, lack of the trap-bath split, and retention of a secondary stress on the penultimate syllable of words like secretary and dictionary as more important than everything else. However, it's still a matter of opinion. Thegryseone (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I also find the use of "American English" to be pretty misleading as America can refer to pretty much anywhere in the western hemisphere. However, if you thought "English English" seems cumbersome, try "United States of America English". Fortunately you could pretty easily say something like "U.S. English". Oscillatingethmoid (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's spurious reasoning. Are you suggesting we need 'Brazlian English', 'Peruvian English', ad nauseum? Whilst there are several countries in 'The Americas' which use English, it is not likely people would consider 'American English' to refer to these. For example, do you think of Jamacia, or Barbados when American is used? Of the larger countries in America only two speak English - American and Canadian differentiates these sufficiently for most people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.116.120 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But English is spoken differently in various parts of England – not just in the form of accents, but dialects with local vocabulary, and even localised syntax. You only need to hear a Bristolian asking "where's 'e to?" (meaning "where is it?") for an example of that. There are still people in England who use variant forms of "thee", "thou" and "thy" on a daily basis, for goodness sake! The only standard English this side of the Pond is what is often referred to as "BBC English", and people who speak that are almost as likely to be Scottish, Welsh or Irish as they are to be English, so calling that "English English" would be simply misleading. It is, after all, the British (not English) Broadcasting Corporation. And there's certainly no need for the term "Scottish English". That form of the language has long been known as "Scots". Grubstreet (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Small correction

The example "He majored in law at Harvard" is wrong for two reasons: First, Americans do not use the term "major" for the study of law because law is a graduate degree. The term "major" is used primarily (exclusively as far as I know) for undergraduate studies. (Just as a student in medical school would never say he is "majoring" in medicine). Secondly, Harvard College does not use the term "major" at all. They call a student's area of undergraduate study a "concentration."

Lgin (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The wrong example must have slipped in only recently--while the "regulars" were off guard. Thank you! Jack^(Lumber) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate / arguably incorrect assumptions in Times section

As a Brit I feel I have to point out some inaccuracies with the description of how we discuss times - I don't know who wrote it, but I'd hazard a guess it was an American.

LOL That's a pretty fair guess for almost anything at 'Wikipaedia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For example,

whereas Britons often use a point, 6.00, although it is becoming increasingly popular to use a colon.

Right from my initial teaching about time at primary school (15/16 years ago), I was always taught to use a colon when writing times. I rarely see times written with a single full stop between the hour and minute, and I'd venture that if anything, that usage has crept in from either the US or overseas. I know that passage has a citation needed remark next to it, but even so, it remains for the time being. Also,

Often, in the UK, 18:00 will be written as 1800h, or 06:00 as 0600h - representing the military speak "oh-six-hundred-hours", even if people would usually read it aloud as "six o'clock". This has become popular in text messaging since it is easier to type an "h" than a colon.

Erm, what? I wholeheartedly disagree - nobody suffixes an "h" onto times when they write them in the 24-hour style, because it's plainly obvious exactly what it is. In fact, outside of military usage I rarely hear 24-hour format times spoken with the word "hours" after the time itself - it's self-evident.

Americans have lots of fantasies about what goes on in Britain and other countries. We must be patient with them, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I discuss times with people in texts, you just say "see you at 6?" (although my sister insists on abbreviating to "cu @ 6 k?" which she knows really winds me up!) So again, I take issue with this assumption that most Brits describe times in the manner mentioned in the article.

However, I am by no means an authoritative source on BrE usage - just a real-world speaker ;) Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Christopher (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Native BrE speaker) I have never seen a full stop (sigh "period") used on a time in formal or typed text - only in handwriting have i rarely seen a single dot - but it is in the centre, and could be considered an abbreviation of a colon. Also i have never seen the "1800h" format out of a military context. Bus/train timetables use "1800" here. Machete97 (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that usages such as '8h24' or '17.45' are Continental imports to Britain; i've only seen them in formal contexts in GB, specifically transportation...Ectuohy (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any authority on this other than being English, but I always assumed that 'pm' and 'am' required a full stop, and 24-hour times took a colon, e.g. 6.15pm but 18:15. Marthiemoo (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Machete97 must have a very restricted set of reading sources if he or she has "never seen a full stop used on a time". Ditto the person who started this thread by saying "I rarely see times written with a single full stop". Looking at national news outlets for today's main story in the UK, I didn't find a solitary colon...

"Domino's in Antrim had received two separate delivery orders from the base at around 9.20pm." Times

"...gunmen lying in wait in a vehicle as a pizza delivery was being made at 9.40pm." Guardian

"...had received two separate delivery orders from the base at around 9.20pm..." Telegraph

"The shootings occurred at the Massereene Army base in Antrim, 16 miles north of Belfast, at 21.40 last night." Observer

"The area around the barracks was sealed off following the incident at 9.40pm..." Mail

"...received two separate delivery orders from Massereene Barracks at around 9.20pm." Star

The BBC gave "2140 GMT" (no punctuation); The Express said "before 10pm"; The Independent and The News of the World failed to give a time; The Mirror, The People and The Sport failed to carry the story (none of the casualties were celebrities or had bare breasts, I guess). So, every source that used punctuation opted for a point rather than a colon Grubstreet (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a BrEn speaker, the point seems correct to me that a colon is used formally, though perhaps (given the review of media above) only in the most formal accout of time, and that a full stop is used most often. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nearer/Closer

In the section where it talks about the differences between prepositions and adverbs, it has this statement: BrE sometimes uses to with near (we live near to the university), while AmE avoids the preposition in most usages dealing with literal, physical proximity (we live near the university), although the to reappears in AmE when near takes the comparative or superlative form, as in she lives nearer/nearest to the deranged axe murderer's house.

From what I've observed, someone would be pretty unlikely to say "nearer to" in American English; they'd be far more likely to say that in Britain. Americans would seem to use closer/closest to far most often, as nearer to, imo, is kind of an awkward way to say it, and from what I understand most Americans would agree. Yet it seems to me that in Britain it's much more often-used. Am I mistaken in this? If I'm not I think this should be made clear as well. bob rulz (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that section is completely unsourced. And no, you're not mistaken. In the British National Corpus, closer to outnumbers nearer to by 3.97:1; in the BYU Corpus of American English, the ratio is 35.85:1. Jack^(Lumber) 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What about things such as date? Americans say 9/11 (sorry couldnt think of a better example!) which means September 11 2001 whereas we use it slightly more rationally - dd/mm/yy which is where the higher it is the longer the time period is, like 11th September 2001 - said "The eleventh of September 2001" rather than "September the Eleventh"- that to me sounds just awful grammar wise... 18:43, 26 April 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.174.243 (talk)

An historic event

See this edit to Historical revisionism (negationism), and this website: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/a-an.html. A mention of this difference on this page would be useful. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We talked about that a year ago or so. Archive! Jack^(Lumber) 14:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(to Philip Baird Shearer) Kind of you to highlight my edit for this. I remain confused as to whether you thought I was changing it from British English to American or vice versa. Rushmore cadet (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Highways

I believe there are more exceptions than southern California to the 'no-article' rule in AmE. In New Orleans, for example, Interstate 10 is always "the I-10", and I think it applies to at least some other places as well. Technically "the I-10" has a ring of redundancy that "the 5" does not. Any thoughts from other places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.248.36 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an inconsistent hodgepodge in the US; some places/highways are in the habit of adding the "the", some are not. The I-10 may be The I-10 in New Orleans, but it's I-10 several states to the north!

In a similar vein, colleges/universities are wildly inconsistent. I went to UT (Univ of Texas), whereas my brother went to "The UW" (Univ of Washington). Go figure.

Which is also known as 'U-Wash'. These are 'colloquialisms' - correct? And whilst we're on the subject: the HTML spec was written by a Brit. Brits don't put double spaces after full stops. White space in HTML is always compressed to a single character in HTML. Americans keep putting double spaces after their full stops here and elsewhere; they're TOTALLY ignored by the HTML rendering engines; they just keep on putting them in. Give me a nickel for every redundant space character after a full stop and I'll buy Manhattan.

→I was raised in Britain and taught during typing classes to use two spaces after a full-stop. Not sure this is an American thing but likely a generational thing.142.221.110.4 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a reference but I believe that the period was too hard to read back in the typewriter and the dot matrix printer era so two space characters are used to distinguish a full stop. Now this is a non-issue and is no longer recommended but habit die hard. ~huggie

Not sure how this is dealt with in the UK, but I'd be careful about making any generalizations about "American usage" here.

64.48.78.13 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland belongs here

I don't want to start a war, but the article is not balanced. There is an argument to be made for describing North American English and European English. The article here mentions only Northern Ireland, but European English does not stop at the border, and while Hiberno-English is spoken in the Republic of Ireland it is not universally spoken and "standard" European/British English is, modulo accent and some vocabulary and grammar. (The same can be said about Canadian English and US English.) How can we improve this article to do a better job of description? One option would be to move it to North American and European English. (Australian, New Zealand, and South African English would I think be closer to European English.) Again, I am nt trying to start trouble here. I'm not in any way opposed to the word "British" and indeed I consider Ireland one of the British Isles (which some people gripe about). But there's no room for English as spoken in Ireland here it seems to me. -- Evertype·✆ 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. There is no such thing as 'European English'. There is 'English English'. You may also say there is 'Irish English' if you want. And if you did you'd be totally correct. You'd also join JK in asserting there is 'Scottish English' as well. And so forth. But 'European English'? Nope. Too far out on a wobbly limb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't look to see who started this article and where they're from, but suffice to say the British/American divide is largely an American perception; an imposed dialectic of oversimplification, by the same folks who think they're imitating Prince Charles by laying on the Cockney or, God help us, Sean Connery. Canadians are well aware of the distinctions between the different varieties of British Isles English, and of the different varieties of English-English in all their myriad wonder. To me, "European English" is English as it is spoken on the Continent, i.e. the particular blend of English-as-she-is-taught mixed with English-as-she-is-picked-up-off-the-tube; as an issue the penetration of English/British-style English on the Continent vs American English is an interesting comparison but unless already studied it's original research and not why I'm here. Speaking as a Canadian, I'd say that "North American and British English" isn't an adequate comparison and in terms of priorities American and Canadian English differences is more immediately relevant because of the overlapping usages and subtle not-similarities; there's an assumption by Americans that Canadians use British spelling, and by some Britons that British spelling shoudl apply in Canada. Australian and new Zealand and South African English, and English from the Raj and East Africa (as found in Canada) and Fiji and the like, is "of a different cut" and also not up close and personal with US English as Canadian English is. if anything there's a triple relationship - British-Canadian-American and on the fourth point, "cultivated Caribbean English, the kind from upper-crust Bermuda, Caymans, Bahamas etc. Comparison between Australin English and nearly anybody else would wind up being a whole book, also. Also would it not be a good thing if there were a comparison article for Scots English and Standard English.....not my field, just opining, and also shouold add that some of hte Canadian English articles read almost as comparison between what distinguishes us from American English; in other words the article's almost already written, if not as well organized and cited as this one is....Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear (I think). But I'd also like to point out that my East Midlands English differs markedly from West Midlands English, and neither is anything like South German English. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

British understanding of Americanisms

"such as semi (articulated lorry), stroller (pram/pushchair) or...are highly unlikely to be understood by most BrE speakers."

Just asked my British wife about:

• semi - she said without context she would think semi-detached house but in context she would know it was a truck.
• stroller - she said all British would understand this (in context).

What do the rest of British readers think? Is she just confused by having lived here in Australia for 6 years where we predominantly use semi and stroller? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.185.92 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Over all I would agree. There are some contexts where stroller could be confused, for example "I like to walk briskly but on the path by the lake I had to slow down because of all the strollers". In this case a British person might think that "stroller" meant someone walking slowly or strolling. In unambiguous cases most British people would understand e.g. "She had to carry the baby because she left the stroller at home". There are always some who don't understand, my wife is American living in the UK and she says that a lot of older people who have not been brought up on US tv shows don't understand phrases that she thought were commonly understood. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority of British people are aware of most Americanisms as we have access to a lot of American telly (and other media,) and we have therefore heard the words in context many times. I'm not sure if the same could be said the other way round, however. I was talking to an American last week who said that he was off to the 'WC' as he feared I may not understand 'bathroom.' While I would never call 'going to the toilet,' 'going to the bathroom,' I understand what it means, and moreover, would be less likely to refer to it as the 'WC!' Just a little anecdote which I thought was quite amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.6.229 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Was he not aware that we should properly say, 'going to the loo.' 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote styles for narrative

I restored the material to the punctuation section that removed by an anon in 233631735, and attempted to clarify a bit what was removed:

With narration of direct speech, both styles retain punctuation inside the quotation marks, with a full stop changing into a comma if followed by explanatory text, also known as a dialogue tag.
[...]

• • "Hello, world," I said. (Both styles)
    

The anon took that out and called it a fallacy, but I think they were confusing narration with more formal academic quoting of written material. If that anon was right, and the comma-placement convention for narration of speech (as opposed to quoting written material) does differ between English variants, I would appreciate a cite for that.

Ponder (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Different to"

This edit suggests that the article should be describing, rather than proscribing, usage of "different to" in British English. Neither Partridge ("different to is permissible") nor the Guardian Style Guide ("different from or to, not different than") have problems with this construction: another reason to sustain the edit, currently reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, The Guardian is hardly appropriate as an arbiter of correct English usage, given that its newspaper publication is often refered to as The Grauniad on account of its notorious abundance of mis-spellings. No reputable source will ever use different to. And this includes the BBC. --JohnArmagh (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian Style Guide is a perfectly valid source, but just to be on the safe side I've included Eric Partridge as well. I could have added the Oxford English Dictionary which allows that different to "is by many considered incorrect" but the construction "is used by writers of all ages". --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is considered correct by many does not by any means indicate it is correct. At one time everyone believed the Earth was flat - they were all wrong. The very fact that the OED uses the phrase "by many considered correct" infers that it considers that those 'many' are in fact quite wrong. Categorically the correct constructs are similar to and different from. One would never consider similar from to be correct, and nor should one consider different to to be correct. --JohnArmagh (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The 15:00 post reads "...is by many considered incorrect", not "...is by many considered correct". To be certain, I checked the OED entry once again. The argument from the 18:09 post applies, but is of course reversed! --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's no compelling reason to consider different to incorrect.

All three constructions [i.e. different from, than, and to] have a long history of use, dating back to C16 and C17 ... The etymological arguments used to support different from no longer seem so powerful. The fact that different embodies the Latin prefix dis- ("away from") does not require the use of from after it, any more than with averse ... There are natural English parallels for to in collocations such as compared to and similar to, and for than in comparatives such as better than or worse than. The verb differ itself combines with other prepositions/particles, for example differ with. —Peters, p. 153.

For some reason, the structures involving different can arouse strong feeling, many purists objecting to different to and different than. There seems to be little justification for such attitudes since all of these structures have been used since the seventeenth century, often in the writings of prestigious authors. Prejudice and purism, are, however, strong forces. —International English Usage By Loreto Todd, Ian F. Hancock, p. 158

It's not completely clear why from is more widely accepted than than and to, nor is it clear how than became American and to became British somewhere along the line. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The grammatical concept is that inferences separation are from, whilst inferences of closeness are to. One might say that the distance to the moon from the Earth is 243,000 miles, but one would (or should) never say, for instance, that the moon is 243,000 miles distant to the Earth. One would never say close from. Likewise different and simliar. --JohnArmagh (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(←) There is no doubt that "different from" is more logical than "different to". What is equally clear, however, is that both prepositions are used in British English, as "different than" is used in American English. This article describes what is, and should not attempt to prescribe what should be. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. When it comes to works of an authoratative, encyclopedic or official content the grammar used should adhere strictly to what should be. --JohnArmagh (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the grammar used in the article, not to the grammar described in the article. If so, I agree. Does the same apply to spelling in talk-page comments? ;-) SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Naturally you assume correctly. One can't realistically expect the same level of content in the talk pages as one would expect from the article - nor can one expect the same quality from vandalism/trollism/spamism as one would or should expect from the proper article content. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian style guide is definitely NOT a valid source on questions of correct British English - they've perpetuated the idea that words ending in -ize are Americanisms (the guide itself says something really patronizing like "you've got your American spell-check on"). Marthiemoo (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The entry in full:" -ise not -ize at end of word, eg maximise, synthesise (exception: capsize)." Seems to agree with Eric Partridge and the Oxford English Dictionary. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The OED has correct -ize endings, not -ise endings and my Guardian style guide (which admittedly is quite old) does make the spell-check comment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize. Marthiemoo (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a little off the point—"different from" or "different to"—but the OUP is softening on "-ize" and "-ise", even if the OED has yet to catch up: Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms?. Count me among their lazy spellers, if you like! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a widespread misapprehension here about the function of a publication's style guide. The guide exists primarily to standardise usage within the publication (and thus avoid the impression of amateurishness), not to prescribe or proscribe usage for other publications, let alone for the general public. For example, a style guide might be employed to ensure that a poker game is not described as "Texas Hold 'Em" on one page, "Texas Hold Em" (without the apostrophe) on the next, "Texas hold 'em" (only one capital) six pages later, and "Texas holdem" in yet another location. (I had exactly that problem to sort out when assembling a style guide for a TV production company that had used about eight variations on that tiny but vital phrase in its literature and on its web site).

So, while many style guides list definite (usually common) errors, such as "Middlesbrough (not Middlesborough)" and "just deserts (not desserts)", they are largely about "our way of doing things". Of necessity, that often involves choosing one of two (or more) common usages. That will, I think, always include making a decision on whether to spell most words -ise or -ize. Making that choice is not a statement that the rest of the world is wrong, merely that the option chosen is designated "the right one for this publication". (In the case of -ise and -ize, neither is right or wrong in a universal sense, and when people use phrases such as "correct -ize endings", they are merely insisting that their personal preference becomes a prescription for all).

No style guide is definitive for the English speaking/writing world, and I cannot think of one that pretends to be. The Guardian's style guide is no more or less valid than the style guide of any other respected publication. (The fact that the then error-strewn paper was dubbed 'Grauniad' the best part of 40 years ago may may still amuse some people, but it does not invalidate the style guide. The guide does not encourage slipshod proof-reading any more than any other publication's guide does).

There is no correct partner word for "different". There are only preferences. While I confess to removing "different than" from the text of any British publication that I have ever worked on, that is because every one of them has expressed such a preference in its style guide, and not because I think there is any logic involved. In fact, I have over recent years been drifting to the conclusion that "different than" is probably the most logical of the three constructions. Grubstreet (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"I Would've Done; I Might Do"

I just discovered something interesting that English people do in their speech. If you listen to this video at about 2:13, you'll hear the woman say, "But I do feel much more optimistic today, than I would've done two days ago." Here's another video that shows a similar construction at about 0:18. This time the woman says, "So, I wouldn't say this is my [haʊs]...well I might do if I was talkin' properly." I don't believe this occurs in American English. I just wanted to know what other people thought about this,what it's proper name is, and if these two things are even related. Thegryseone (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before; see post #3 "'to do' in British English." It's a postcolonial British innovation that didn't cross the pond. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I knew there had to be something about that either on the talk page or in the article. But I couldn't find anything in the article itself. Maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough. Thegryseone (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On the road

Moreover, if a particular place on the street is specified then the preposition used is whichever is idiomatic to the place, thus "at the end of Churchill Road."

I'm not sure if this is referring to BrE or AmE. If the former, as I suspect, then I believe it should be altered to "If a ... "" in both dialects.", as I would be likely to say such a thing as an AmE speaker. If the latter, never mind. 66.41.154.228 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oriented vs. Orientated

I've noticed in BrE a tendency to add an -ate to the end of orient. Actually, I've noticed it for some other verbs ending in 't' as well, but orientate sticks out most in mind. It seems to be in very common use by people from all social classes and appears to be accepted uncritically (I hear it on TV all the time and no-one bats an eyelid). I'm not aware of it being common in AmE (or CanE). Indeed, I think that it would be considered comical in N. America. Is this a recognized difference? Perhaps it's quite recent. 137.222.61.7 (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a difference between BrE and AmE here, or at least not one for the article. Both American and British dictionaries (a random sample of one of each) give orientate as a variation on orient. The classic such difference, of course, is transportation vs. transport, in which the longer version is distinctly American, not British. Consider also preventative vs. preventive. Here the American dictionary has entries for both, with the longer form as a variant; but the British dictionary has no entry for preventative, merely listing it as an alternative possibility under preventive. This seems to support my impression, counter to yours, that the longer forms with an additional –at– are more likely to be American than British. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you're no doubt correct for "transportation" and "preventative". I think I've only heard those longer forms in AmE as well. But that is a slightly different type of elongation. No-one speaking AmE would say "transportate" or "preventate". But I doubt they would in BrE either, so why "orientate"? And regardless of the American dictionary entry my experience is that this variation is only common in BrE, and the first hit of my Google search for "orientate" agrees with me. It seems that some elongations are word-specific, but that elongations in general are not the domain of one region or the other, and that specific elongations do differ between AmE and BrE. I can't suggest a pattern for the differences, I was just pointing one out.137.222.61.7 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want practical information on current U.S. usage, check out Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary. [1]. Orient(ed) is the older form; orientat(ed) is a mid-19th century back-formation that has never caught on in American English. Sometimes American English favors the longer variant (think of burglarize vs. burgle); long story short, there's no "elongation" pattern. Sometimes words are just formed in different ways--British: candidacy or candidature; American: candidacy only. We need a new subsection under "word derivation," don't ya think? I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many examples of this, the most similar being 'preventative' (BrE) and 'preventive' (AmE). Marthiemoo (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Orientate isn't in use in BrE, only Orientation. Same as Transportation. Hanii (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Balance and staying up to date

The article makes too many presumptions about homogeneity - of BrE, especially (AmE is more stable). Even written BrE I mean. Some generalizations indeed need to be made in order to present information, but it seems to me this article was written from too few and/or older sources. It's a little POV-y. Also, it's not always clear where the article is referring to writing and where to speech.

On the other hand, to the extent that BrE is becoming more homogenised, (predominantly, IIRC, via regularization of verbs and Globalization), it is coming to resemble AmE more and more. Already there is debate amongst linguists as to whether it is useful to talk of a separate BrE ("Standard" written BrE I think that means). I think the article needs to make this clear.

The static nature of even AmE is overplayed in the intro I think.

I added a handful of fact-tags and made some minor edits, but more needs doing. In places, even where there are sources, more may be needed (with rewrites/expansion) for balance. Especially newer sources.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with that, but the problem is that we seem to be lacking much in the way of documented discussion of this. Surely somebody has done some work on the types and forms of English and their development over time?! 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

More Inline Citations

...would make it clear which sources are being used, and help prevent unnecessary edits. I strongly suggest adding relevant tag to the top, and adding "Inline citations: cite material likely to be challenged" to the To-do. I'd do myself, but not sure how to do all things Wikipedia yet.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The usual way is to pick a template from this list and apply it. Would you replace the existing, now rather stale, template at the top of the article? Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

morefootnotes done.

I didn't remove the other because I think there are a couple of issues myself. Mainly to do with generalization and BrE lexicon. Adding inline citations will sort out part of that.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization of vocabulary section

I've set it out below. You can see it as part of the Table of Contents at the top of the page, of course. I suggest limiting the examples for the benefit of the general reader, and splitting a fuller analysis off into separate "see also" articles. I think, "The influence of commercial and institutional infrastructure on lexical (vocabulary) differences between AmE and BrE", for example, is notable in itself.

Thoughts?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the word lists to be merged/packed off to Wiktionary. I suggest:

1. Rewrite "Differences between AmE and BrE (vocab)", to deal with the differences in meaning according to clearly defined linguistic categories, i.e in terms of polysemy, homonyms, homographs, etc etc. I'm quite happy to do that.
2. Merge and redirect the old word lists to the (vocab) article or to this article, as appropriate.
3. Brief non-technical explanations with a few examples in the revamped lexis section of this article.
4. Link to the (vocab) article from the lexis section of this article.
5. Merge other sourced examples to the (vocab) article.
6. Merge general content about "regional variation" and collecting the data in the (vocab) article into this article.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reorganized the subsections now. Still needs much tidying and some connecting text, but it's a start. Next thing I'm going to do is to sort out the wordlists. (see 1 - Rewrite "Differences...(vocab)" article.)

Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lexis (vocabulary)

• Proposed reorganization*

---

intro text

General trends

text

Overview of lexical differences

intro text

Words and phrases which have their origins in BrE

text

Words and phrases which have their origins in AmE

text

Divergence

Words and phrases with different meanings

text

This doesn't work; it's a little more complicated than that. See for example the book International English by Trudgill & Hannah, the chapter about "English and North American English." I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It covers the content that's already there, I think? If you have new material ready, I can split this bit up into more subheadings.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said back in June 2007, "real words with different meanings are relatively few; most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation (e.g. smart, clever, mad)." I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That should cover it. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

|

^V

Other ambiguity (Complex cases)

real words with different meanings are relatively few; most of the time, you have either 1) words with one or more shared meanings and one or more meanings unique to one variety (e.g. bathroom and toilet) or 2) words whose meanings are actually common to both BrE and AmE, but which show differences in frequency, connotation, or denotation (e.g. smart, clever, mad). text

(Or you could use the technical terms for each as subheadings, but I think it's more user friendly this way - though it might be an idea to mention and link to them in the text)

Word Frequency

text

Social and cultural differences

• Explain what diffs are and why. Select examples as part of explanation and Split long lists of examples to separate pages.

Institutional and Commercial Infrastructure

• Split to a "see also"

Education, Transport/Transportation

Units amounts and measurements

• split examples to a "see also"

Numbers, Monetary amounts, Time-telling

Entertainment

text

Greetings

text

Ideosyncratic differences

Levels of buildings, Figures of speech

Idioms (phrases)

text,table

---

Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing a WP:RS

In what way is a book by Dr Paul Brians, from the English Faculty at Washington State, not a reliable source? I'm minded to reverse this deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In the same way the captain of an aeroplane isn't a reliable source for an article about the schematics of a jet engine on a Boeing 747.

Think about a jet engine: It could be built different ways, but of course it can't be built any old way. There are rules (laws of physics etc) that dictate certain features it must have in order to work. This must be connected to that, the blades must be aligned like so, the whole thing can't be over (or under) a certain size, there has to be sufficient cooling or it would catch fire etc.

There isn't only one design of jet engine that would work, but there are limitations, the "rules" of succesful jet engine design.

It's the same with language. There are lots of ways to build language, but there are certain rules a language requires or it won't work. This is called Universal Grammar. All languages share this Universal Grammar, the same set of underlying rules.

A very simple rule (but not the most simple) of Universal Grammar: You can't have a language without some way of distinguishing verbs from nouns, either by using word order or by using inflection (similar sounds attached to the "root" of a word). Or a combination of both. English uses word order and inflection. -ed as a suffix is an example of verb inflection in English. Denoting the past tense, of course.

The rules of Universal Grammar get more complex, and no-one knows all of them yet. That is, there are "sensible guesses" (hypotheses) but not all of them have been confirmed. However, Linguists have a pretty good understanding of them.

Speakers of a language know the rules of their own language instinctively. No-one has to think about grammar when speaking spontaneously. We just think about what to say and how best to say it. We don't think of wrong sentences. We might tell someone in conversation (BrE examples):

"John told Jane to get the car keys and she told him no way get them yourself" "Jane was told by John to get the keys to the car but she said no way get them yourself" or "John respectfully enquired of Jane as to whether she might be so kind as to retrieve the blasted car keys and she politely declined"

but we're unlikely to come up with "it Jane keys car told your no self him John she way get and."

Now, that last one is "incorrect", which is why it is not intelligible. Of the other three, there isn't any more logic or less logic. It's the same logic. One isn't more or less "right" in a scientific sense. Or even a social sense (it depends on the occasion). Nor is the complexity of the very "formal" sentence anything a eight year old couldn't easily manage without thinking about it.

It's only writing that gets difficult, because we don't have tone of voice and hand gestures, and we don't want to be - hold on a sec - (sorry about that. Phone) ...they I mean we don't want to be interrupting and correcting ourselves and picking up sentences in the middle.

False starts and the like aren't expected in writing, especially in a formal setting. And we have to decide how to turn pauses into... commas and semi-colons and em dashes and all those other weird marks and mysterious symbols. And we have to reflect tone of voice with funny little devices that - well, the whole thing just isn't natural!

Strunk and White's guide is an excellent resource, even after all those years, for helping us to write intelligible sentences. Dr Brian's book may well be an excellent guide to writing academic essays and letters to the electric company. The "rules" of written grammar are somewhat arbitrary, however. A lot of the time, they are essentially the same thing as "rules of ettiquette" handbooks. I didn't read Strunk and White until I was in my late twenties, but I was handing in perfectly respectable academic essays long before that. In fact I don't remember any of their rules. I do know that their rules can be cut down a little bit and still be the same rules. That is, it is possible to simplify them without leaving anything out.

To be fair to Dr Brians, I doubt he intends his guidelines and observations concerning formal writing to be applied to the description of spoken grammar. Although I do wonder why he's bothering with a phrase which isn't formal in either form. Who cares about the stylistics of highly informal English?

I also doubt Dr Brians would consider a Phd in Linguistics as a sufficient qualification in itself for a tenured post in the English Literature Department.

So, to return to your example:

There is perfect logic to it - and some complex social behaviour involved in the evolution of it. In everyday use, the internal grammar isn't very likely to be relevant anyhow. It is probably stored in the brain as a phrase. Besides, is "I couldn't care less" intrinsically sensible? Are you sure? Why not "I don't care?". Why tell someone you are unable to care less? Or are you in fact telling them something different than you are unable to care less? Why is that important for them to know? How do they get from those words to their conclusion? These questions are not anywhere near as trivial as they seem.

So, there's more going on there than logic.

All flavours of 'Standard English' evidence many idiosyncracies and apparent inconsistencies which might seem counter-intuitive, especially if the analysis consists of (incorrectly) always trying to break units of meaning down into individual words.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Dr Brians satisfies the criteria at WP:V; this policy shouldn't be overruled based on the view of a single editor. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Noam Chomsky, but thanks for the compliment. Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, short version. Linguistics is The Study of Language. It is the academic authority on language production. Other relevant fields include Cognitive Science. The Theory of Generative Grammar is the paradigm. That is what I outlined to you in my previous post.

Forgive me for finding Linguistics interesting. I thought you might too. You should read some of this stuff: it's good wholesome knowledge. Sort of stuff you might find in an encyclopedia.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Although long-winded, I enjoyed reading Ddawkins73 post above, and found it a not-ignorable argument as to why Dr. Brians should not be considered a reliable source for the claim that the old version of the article makes. Atemperman (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Off of

Couldn't see a mention of this - but didn't want to add it if it was already there. In the US they say 'off of' a lot, while in GB it's very rare (usually taken from US television/films). Worth adding? Malick78 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the context? I'm not sure "off of" is rare, in some parts of the UK at least. As in "I saw that bloke off of the telly in Sainsbury's. You know, the one in that gardening programme." - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of evidence to back up Malick78's point; for example, Merriam-Webster, Pam Peters, and Algeo. These sources basically say that, in AmE, off of is quite common in speech and can be found in most kinds of writing; in BrE, it is less common, chiefly dialectal, and not usually found in writing. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but my personal experience agrees with Malick78's point as well. We do say "off of" a lot in AmE. It sounds quite normal to us. Thegryseone (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

However, off by itself can also be heard in American English, as in, "that guy off the TV." Thegryseone (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with JackLumber on this one. Usage in BrEn would be colloquial and in a narrow range of contexts. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The main usage appears to be US="off of", and UK="off" Bluap (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Plurals

Can there be something added to the section on pluralizing, regarding how American English tends to construct things like "types of employees" where British English would use "types of employee"? Marthiemoo (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The former is just poor grammar, whichever form of English you're using. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that grammar doesn't really matter. It was created for no good reason. Thegryseone (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Car terminology

The article Car terminology was proposed for deletion, I have proposed a merge to American and British English differences instead. —Snigbrook 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Seriously?--Unionhawk ^Talk 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Well, that really sounds absurd if taken out of context; the problem with Car terminology is that that article is just a sketchy overview of US/UK differences in car terminology, hence the proposal. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the proposition, for it sounds logical to me. Best wishes for the article, --Airplaneman (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think car terminology has anything to do with language but hey what do I know. [ SkwalkerX2Link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerX2 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerX2 (talk • contribs)

The problem with the Car terminology article is that has indeed little value on it's own and it's general style and the way it presents information, if you can call it that, is horrid. And whoever gave it that title clearly wasn't thinking straight. I suppose that a subsection for the large number of differences in the terms used in BE and AE might have some merit here, but I doubt that that article can form a good basis for such an endeavour. It has no sources, is badly formatted, unstructured and it seems generally untrustworthy. I will put the article up for deletion once again, in my opinion it holds no information worth the effort of salvaging. Vadigor (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Date Suffix

I have always found it perplexing that Americans do not use date suffixes (e.g. 2nd 3rd 4th) Rather you might see a cinema advert that just says "January 4" which, in British English is meaningless (but we all know what it means) Does anyone know the reason why ? or is it just convenience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.95.115 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The form 'January 4' (possibly now overtaken by '4 January' to harmonise with our standard 4/1/2009 date order) has been commonplace in British newspapers and magazines throughout my quarter-century as a sub-editor and editor. Perhaps you have just not noticed. Newspapers were traditionally cramped for space, and anything that saved even a few characters (potentially making room to include an extra fact in the story) had a strong chance of being adopted. From 'on the fourth of January' to the eventual 'on 4 January' is a 50 per cent reduction the characters required to convey exactly the same information. (From 'on the twenty-seventh of May' to 'on 27 May' is a 70 per cent saving.) The form '3rd/4th/21st' remains common in non-journalistic text (especially letter-writing) in Britain, so is perhaps still being taught as correct. Grubstreet (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Americans do use date suffixes, it's just considered to be extremely formal and unnecessarily verbose. For example, some official documents like diplomas and government proclamations might say something like "at Stanford, California, on the twenty-first day of May, in the year two thousand and two." But in regular everyday prose, people would write something like "He graduated from Stanford University on May 21, 2002," and in informal notes, something like "Graduated 5/21/2002." --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

British written English does now often omit the ordinal suffixes – for example, the style guide for a large public organisation I worked for recommended omitting them, along with full stops for abbreviations and various other flourishes. However, including the suffixes is also very common, and I think a large proportion of British people would use them in handwritten English or when speaking. The "the" and "of" are less often included in writing, though they would usually be said if the date was read out: in writing it could be "23 March", "23rd March", "March 23" or "March 23rd", but "the twenty-third of March" or "March the twenty-third" would be read out. Saying "March twenty-third" would sound distinctly American. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think car terminology has anything to do with language but hey what do I know. Try to merge it go for it man [or woman] SkwalkerX2Link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkywalkerX2 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Run-on sentences/comma splices

I've been reading a bunch of British novels lately and I'm noticing a heck of a lot of comma-splice run-on sentences. Every handbook I've ever consulted says that run-on sentences are incorrect, but every handbook I've ever consulted deals primarily with American English. Are run-ons officially acceptable in British English? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Algebraist 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but then we stopped teaching grammar here in about 1975. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Have, have got, got

I know that these three phrases are used to express possession but I'm confused with their tenses.
If I say it now - it means:
I have a car. - I have it now.
I had a car. - I had it before now.
I've had a car. - I've had a car somewhen, and I may have it even now, but it's not important, just the fact I've owed a car.

I have got a car. - I have it now.
I had got a car. - ??? Is it used to express possession (If it is, could someone give me a context it's used in, please?), or just the past perfect of get?

I got a car. - I have it now but what if I want to say I had a car. How to express it with got? What are its past simple and past participle forms if they exist in past tenses? --Ferike333 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing the article American and British English differences. General language-related questions should be posted at WP:RD/L. Algebraist 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite

With quite, I don't think it has a different meaning in American English and British English. I think the main difference is that it is used much more often in British English (especially English English). The same goes for rather. Another example I can think of is that massive is preferred over big or huge in English English. How can we address words like these that are simply used more often on one side of the Atlantic? It's not that they aren't used at all in America, it's just that they are used more frequently in the UK than in America. Thegryseone (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather is twice as frequent in BrE as in AmE (as a whole), and quite is three times as frequent in BrE as in AmE. As a rule of thumb, qualifiers, degree adverbs, downtoners etc. are more common in BrE than in AmE. However, quite usually doesn't have neutral or negative connotations in AmE, as it does in BrE in such phrases as "quite good."

Trudgill and Hannah (pp. 85-87) divide vocabulary differences into 4 main categories (although there is some overlap).

1. Same word, different meaning (e.g. pants, pavement)

2. Same word, additional meaning in one variety (e.g. school, which doesn't include higher ed in BrE)

3. Same word, difference in style, connotation, frequency of use. (e.g. formal versus informal, positive versus negative, common versus uncommon). Autumn is such a word.

4. Same concept or item, different word (petrol/gasoline).

The article Differences between American and British English (vocabulary) should ideally deal with all of that. One of these days, I'm going to integrate my thing into that article and see what happens. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That can be dangerous, but you're more experienced and established here than most of us. Why "The Sucker"? Thegryseone (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, probably because I started writing it when we were discussing the different AmE/BrE meanings of the word sucker and since I couldn't come up with a meaningful title I used "the sucker" in the AmE meaning of "a generalized term of reference." I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And about quite. I see what you're saying now about the connotations of the word. I was just trying to say that people need to keep in mind that Americans don't use the word that much in the first place, with the exception of Frasier and Niles Crane. IMO, it has a pretentious quality in AmE, along with rather. Both of them also seem useless to me in AmE, e.g., if something is rather interesting or quite interesting, then it also interesting. Thegryseone (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why qualifiers are more common in BrE than in AmE.

Some British uses of rather are cultural rather than strictly semantic ... the American translation of The food was rather cold is The food was cold.

British English has a largely uncorrected habit of using the submodifier very without any good reason

[Example from the Guardian:] [H]is drift ... won him a real standing ovation from a very tough audience.

(Hargraves, page 48.) To an American, that very sounds unnecessary, and what is a false standing ovation anyway? I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly I would interpret The food was quite cold as meaning that it was absolutely cold , but The food was quite hot as meaning the food was lukewarm (I'm British). I think this might generalise for negatives (quite good = mediocre, but quite terrible = really terrible) -- Q Chris (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I got this conversation going about Quite. The usual cognate for the secondary BrE meaning is 'somewhat' rather than 'rather'. As for the differences between 'Quite hot' and 'Quite cold' the meaning of somewhat rather than very relies on intonation. A stress on quite and then a tonal drop on the second word would always imply 'somewhat'--Moloch09 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which, a man called John, massive

These things very well may be in this article, but it is so huge that I can't find them. There is this thing that people in the UK do with which. I really am having a difficult time thinking of a good example right now, but I know it when I hear it. Here's the example I have for now: A friend which helped me move. I'm not even sure if this is what I'm thinking of, but I know that British English speakers use the word which differently (than Americans) in certain circumstances. I think Americans tend to prefer that over which. As I said before, I can't really describe what I'm thinking of, but there are certain situations where British English (yes, I mean the entire UK) speakers use which and it sounds weird to Americans.

Another thing I've noticed is that British English speakers will use called instead of named. Here is an example: I met a man called John. This also sounds very foreign to Americans. This might be in the article. Let me know if it is. Thegryseone (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is used more frequently in BrE than in AmE--in restrictrive clauses, as in gold is a metal which is highly valuable, or to abandon the policies and attitudes which have barred Labour from power. As a matter of fact, Fowler himself prescribed that instead of which in such clauses, which is what Americans (and many Brits) usually do.

Perhaps you were talking about which used in reference to persons? That would sound pretty archaic to me. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my example probably sucked. If I hear an instance of what I'm referring to on BBC or something, maybe I'll modify my example. Thegryseone (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, yes, I forgot, called for named is a well-known Briticism. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we go: A pronunciation which is different, a word which is different." Americans tend to say that is or that's instead of which is. Thegryseone (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much like the examples you gave, so maybe it isn't as special as I thought. Thegryseone (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Both of the examples given above should use "that", not which. "That" is a defining clause, whereas "which" is a describing one, e.g. "the dog that had the bone" is telling you which dog it was; "the dog, which had the bone" is telling you something about a dog which isn't a constituent part of it being any dog in particular. There isn't a style difference between AmE and BrE usage, it's just that a lot of people don't know the difference. Marthiemoo (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

21 vs twenty-one

I was taught to write numbers such as 1 as the word (one), whereas numbers such as 21 cannot be written as a word (twenty-one). I was wondering if this is common elsewhere. 24.4.252.230 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC). An example of this practice is "Two women were shopping at the supermarket and noticed that 32 pounds of apples cost $1-lb)".

This is simply a case of house style I'm afraid, with no standard across either language. Many magazines/newpapers (including the one I work for - UK but with predominantly US readership) write one to nine as words, and then 10 and up in figures. The other common way to do it is one to nineteen in words, and 20+ in figures. However, this really varies - I've seen some newspapers write numbers up to ninety-nine in words, with 100+ as figures. The magazine I work for also varies this rule depending on whether the thing being described is an actual number, or something big where a word makes more sense - for example, "over 2,500 employees", but "a million people" or "a hundred companies". Marthiemoo (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a house style thing, or received usage. There is a common theme of using a written form of a number where only one word or hyphenated word would be necessary (forty-three), but using numerals where more than one word would be required (so 143). 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition of "of"

Something which isn't currently mentioned in the article is the extra inclusion of "of" in AmE, e.g.: "Outside America" (BrE) vs "Outside of America" (AmE)

Marthiemoo (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Both "outside America" and "outside of America" can be heard in the United States, and they can probably both be heard in the UK as well. Thegryseone (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My example would have been "off of", which I think is much more nonstandard in the UK than the US. —Blotwell 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Go here. Thegryseone (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See also [4], [2]. According to several sources, outside of is probably gaining ground in BrE. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Education

Can someone who knows about the different education systems in the UK edit this section so it's accurate? For example, there are a number of counties which have Junior School, Middle School and Upper School (all in the State system), and it should be made clear that the section refers only to State education. Marthiemoo (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out in a recent edit this article is about differences in language: "American and British English differences". Should this section be here at all? According to WP:TOPIC, the answer would be "no". --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that it has been put here, edited by a few people and discussed, means that people want to know about this - it is a source of confusion, for example when watching films and for people planning to move 'across the pond'. I'm sure I once came across an article that was specifically about the education systems in various countries. If I (or anyone else) can find that, we could move some of the material there and link it as a {{main}} article for this section.

In the meantime, I hope that the table I have now produced is clearer than before. For example, it is now clear that say, 'Year 6' is not the same as '6th grade', as might be thought. Re Marthiemoo's question, I was trained as a Middle School teacher in Sussex, then taught in the Primary/Secondary world so I know what you mean. Trying to add this variation to the table might make it incomprehensible, but I'll think about it and do something if I can. Even for what we have at the moment, though, although I know all the UK stuff at least is accurate, we are woefully short on verifiability and citations. Can anyone help look some up? --Nigelj (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Marthiemoo, see Middle school#United Kingdom: the question seems to be of historical interest only now, since the National Curriculum concreted the 2-tier structure in place. --Nigelj (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some {{main}} links added. There's no other comparison area that I can find, though. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

British secondary education

The article refers to Year 7 as "First form", etc. However, there is also a way of numbering the forms, mainly used by private schools now, which goes like this:

F2 - Prep 1
Year 1 - Prep 2
Year 2 - Prep 3
Year 3 - First form
Year 4 - Lower Second
Year 5 - Upper Second
Year 6 - Lower Third
Year 7 - Upper Third
Year 8 - Lower Fourth
Year 9 - Upper Fourth
Year 10 - Lower Fifth
Year 11 - Upper Fifth
Year 12 - Lower Sixth
Year 13 - Upper Sixth

Thus Years 12 and 13 are together the Sixth Form, etc. These names can also be written as "Lower 2", "Upper 2" etc.

See, for example: http://www.godstowe.org/Parents/Resources/Upper_Third/

I have not heard of a system in which Year 7 is "First form", but this system was once very common in British schools and is still in use.

I think it should also be pointed out in the article that although e.g. Years 3-6 are the Junior phase, the actual years aren't called e.g. Junior Year 4. They are just called Year 4.

However I am reluctant to change the article without seeing what others think.

Crana (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

At my school (an English Grammar) we had Year 7 = 1st Year, Year 8 = 2nd ... Year 12 = Lower 6th and Year 13 = Upper 6th. This school did not have an attached Primary school, and both forms were interchangeable. 139.149.31.230 (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the Upper/Lower terminology given by Crana was only used in a few independent schools, the system in the article was almost ubiquitous in both state and private sectors prior to the introduction of the National Curriculum, and the terms are still used colloquially by a significant number of Brits over the age of 35 or so. I've worked in education for over fifteen years, in all of which the "official" year names have been in use, and I still occasionally refer to Year 11 as "fifth form" etc. Basically, the terminology used in the article is still relatively commonplace. Similarly, the majority of locations in England and Wales use the Primary/Secondary distinction as given, with Middle schools being a rarity and not really worth mentioning in a language article.--150.204.131.30 (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments, 150.204.131.30. Now, if only we could find a reliable source to back up your and my (and most other people's) experience, we'd be done here. --Nigelj (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the table be labelled English Education as it is defiantly not based on Scottish education and therefore should not be referred to as British. Then again it will look wrong whatever you do.78.105.184.134 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the Scots and English education systems are very different. Hanii (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

In looking over the history of this article, all the way back to 2001, there is no indication that British spelling is preferred, as per WP:ENGVAR, except when illustrating an actual spelling difference.

Since the article mentions American before British in it's title, American spelling should prevail unless an actual British spelling is being discussed. Radiopathy •talk• 17:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

American spelling is preferred not because the title starts with American, but because the article has used American spelling for a long time and there is no consensus to change it.--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I said that in my first paragraph. This came about after I had reverted two instances of American spellings being changed to British spellings. I only came here to reinforce that American English prevails at this article. Radiopathy •talk• 20:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We have a rule that seems to work so lets stick to it. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are kidding, right? There's no reason for this article to use American spelling; it's not true that American spelling "has been used for a long time," either. WP:ENGVAR is a guideline, and therefore "will have occasional exceptions"; and if this article is not that kind of exception, I don't know what is. As a matter of fact, this article has been deliberately using a mixture of British and American conventions for half a decade. In *this* article, choosing either variety over the other sounds unfair to say the very least. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. American English prevails at this article nonetheless. Radiopathy •talk• 03:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much OT, but I suppose if we do mix Br and Am usage, we may end up with a new common form after a while. We can call it 'English' perhaps. 90.193.97.18 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What people prefer

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but I couldn't find a better place to put it, so here it is.

Anyway, I have noticed that there is often debate as to whether standard English or American English is more "correct". I have also noticed that normal English people object more to American spellings than American people do to proper English spellings. Therefore, since Americans don't seem to mind English spellings as much as we mind American spellings, if everyone used English spellings, more people would be happy! Am I right?

Yes it's not your fault and this is not the issue. The fault - the mistake - was in creating the vanity domain 'en' instead of 'us' and 'uk' from the beginning. As things go on there will merely be more and more friction, more and more debilitating debate. The designers should have demonstrated more perspicacity and less cultural myopia and chauvinism.

Oh yeah, also - people from both England and America agree that English spellings are prettier and more aesthetically pleasing, for example "Colour" is more colourful than (ugh) "color"!90.205.80.229 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's stupid. How could the spelling colour possibly be intrinsically better than the spelling color? All you have to do is sit down and think about this and you'll come up with the correct answer. Clearly you haven't spent too much time thinking about it. Thegryseone (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument is hard to distinguish from trolling. —SlamDiego_←T 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense. It's an aesthetic. As such it's an opinion. But it's not trolling. What you are writing however is tantamount to policing. As if you're afraid 90.205.80.229 is going to sway people in a direction you don't like.

I can think of a good reason for that...... -- Q Chris (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Both!--Roguexviii (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge and contentious topic. Again I will state the trouble is attempting to dismiss the fact these are all in reality separate (disparate) languages with various things in common rather than a single language with a few exceptions on either side of the ocean. My personal muse tells me to think like Hemingway: when proofreading always chose the minimal alternative. Rationality plays a big part here and sorry to say for those in the US: 'good' UK English ('English English') is often far more rational. Yet whatever: until such time as there are URLs such as 'uk' instead of the 'imperialistic' 'en' we'll have to work to make Wiki as efficient as possible. Many countries have language academies to 'preserve' their linguistic heritage but we all should realise dictionaries do not define things - they report on how things are used. This language continually evolves. And it will continue to do so here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I love England too, but the only true statements in the above are the first one and the last two and a half.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that the underlying feeling of a substantial proportion of the English is that because BrE was around for hundreds of years before America was founded as a nation, BrE is the original "correct" version of the language and any differences from AmE are due to the new nation changing things (with the implicit feeling that these changes are inherently worse). Thus a lot of people would feel that "colour", for example, is the correct original spelling and AmE at some point randomly dropped the "u". It's a sentiment we should be embarassed about, frankly (especially as a lot of those words, including "color", were spelled like that in much of England at the time of the pilgrims setting off etc., and the "u" was probably added by us later). Marthiemoo (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, BrE is not the "correct" version of the language. You are wrong and everything you say is hackneyed. Please read this and learn something. Thegryseone (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a Greek, I believe I have a more objective view on the matter. To me there is no correct English language and American English is not a deviation from the correct English. Simply put, there was the version of English that both mainland British and the colonists in America spoke and they both evolved differently. Do I need to point out that the current form of British English is vastly different to the 18th century one?

Anyway, I think an easy and cost-effective way to resolve this issue is to have some sort of meta-tags that will show one out of two words depending on the user's preferences. Example: [BrE:"specialisation"|AmE:"specialization"]

Easy to use, no need to rewrite whole page, everyone is happy:) --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, hello. Neither version is more "correct", since the language itself is constantly evolving. English as spoken in the 18th century is much different to/from 21st century English in both countries. I will say, though, that there was a conscious effort in the early 19th century in America to "repair" some of the "damage" that had been done to the language over the years. "Color" is the original Modern English spelling; it, and most other words ending in -or, was changed to "colour" after the Norman Invasion. Likewise for "catalogue", dialogue", et cetera.

While we're on the subject, "while" and "among" are the original Modern English spellings; over the years in Britain, "while" became "whiles" and then "whilst"; these were likewise reverted - haha - in America.

Some Americans prefer British spellings in the "Jolly good! Pip pip. Cheerio." sense rather than out of an appreciation for their aesthetics. Some also intentionally use the British spellings with the implication being that they're being true to their "roots". They are called "Anglophiles"; these are the people who order scones (which they pronounce with a long "o") to impress others when they go to Starbucks. The fact is, a good number of Americans don't have a drop of British blood in them, but British English - and perceived culture - seems more elegant or "higher class" to them.

There is no need for separate Wikipedias; WP:ENGVAR is the policy to cite whenever British spellings pop up in an article on an American subject or vice versa. This makes better sense and seems less parochial than an "ours/theirs" situation or accusations that an international English Wikipedia is playing, uh, favorites. Radiopathy •talk• 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was changed after the Norman invasion of 1066? The conquest which occurred 484 years before Modern English? Alloverme (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the majority of the articles are neither about Britain nor USA (What version do Canadians use btw?), this is not an actual solution. Take this article for example: Division_of_labour. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As a teacher of English as a second language, I can assure you that all British speaking teachers I have met prohibit their students from using any American spellings, vocabulary, syntax, or grammar ("It has gotten colder") that differs from British Standard English or received pronunciation. Most American teachers are not opposed to Britishisms, even when they know that the American spelling color is from the Latin ['color' (acc. colorem) "color, hue," from Old L. colos, orig. "a covering" (akin to celare "to hide, conceal"), from PIE base *kel- "to cover, conceal"]. I object to the notion that the more tolerant side (Americans) should yield to the less tolerant side by allowing Britishisms to take over. Next, we would have to accept "I forgot me hat," or the northern dialect use of plural verbs with singular subjects ("He were here").Wikievil666 (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lower/Middle/Upper school

American and British English differences#School should also show the Lower school, Middle school and Upper school sections for British English, as such schools still exist in Britain.--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pound/Pounds

Not sure that I agree with the following:

In spoken BrE, the plural of the word pound is considered to be pound, as opposed to pounds, which is reserved for multiple coins (there were three pounds on the table refers to three one-pound coins). For example, three pound forty and twenty pound a week are both legitimate British English however, the same speaker would most likely say three dollars forty, twenty dollars a week in similar contexts. Some other currencies do not change in the plural; yen, rand and euro being examples. The BBC World Service has adopted the plural use of euro and (euro) cent in its Europe Today programmes.

from theperm: American speakers would never say three dollars forty, they may say three dollars AND forty cents or three forty(dropping dollar altogether, three bucks and forty cents. It doesn't help Americans use pounds as a unit of measurement and British use it as a currency; Each with their respective grammar rules.

As a British English speaker, I'd always use Three pounds forty and Twenty pounds a week. I think when pound is an adjective, it might be singular (seven million pound development) but not otherwise (The development cost seven million pounds).

Anyone else agree? The Stumo (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not a native, but even the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives me this example: "What would you do if you won a million pounds?" I'm pretty sure they don't mean a million coins ;-) --Duncan MacCall (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true that "pound" is commonly used as a plural, but it isn't correct and is always viewed as being dialect (particularly East and South London). Marthiemoo (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - and I am myself originally from South London. But do you have any evidence for this - it'd make a useful cite at least. I still have a hard time imagining someone not using the plural. The Stumo (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the opinion that it's "incorrect" to use pound as a plural. It seems to me to be sort of a Cockney thing to do. Here's an example of a Londoner who says things like three thousand pound, etc. Thegryseone (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tidied up this bit of the article. It's no more than an increasingly rare colloquialism in some parts of the UK, as far as I know. --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Pound" is also frequently used as a plural elsewhere in the UK (it's very common in Liverpool, where I work), but tends to be a socioeconomic indicator.--150.204.131.30 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)