Talk:Comparison of American and British English/Archive 6

Can someone explain this line?

In the UK, from is used with single dates and times more often than in the United States. Where British speakers and writers may say "the new museum will be open from Tuesday," Americans always say "the new museum will be open starting Tuesday", and would probably be confused by the British saying.

I'm intrigued to know for what an American might confuse the statement "the new museum will be open from Tuesday". Put another way, how else could you parse it? Wooster 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Incidentally, the punctuation marks are the wrong way round: the Brit would say "the … Tuesday", while the American would say "the … Tuesday," if you see what I mean.)

Maybe they might think the museum was open after Tuesday. -- Boothman 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That phrase can't faze me any. Sure it's not idiomatic to me, but its meaning is clear enough. Maybe it's just because I'm quite the know-it-all and I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. --JackLumber 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that any educated speaker of English would have such a fundamental problem with the word 'from' even if it was not part of their usual idiom. Also, the comma belongs inside the quotation marks regardless of what kind of English you speak. The comma belongs inside if quoting someone, and outside if the quotes are being used to offset a "special term", unless the comma forms part of the term.--Jeffro77 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got the comma problem half right. The true error is that it is within the quotation marks one time, and outside it a second time-- and in the same sentence! DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. The generally accepted 'rule' in England is to only include the comma within the double quotation marks if it is part of that which is being quoted. --Veratien 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement In the UK, from is used with single dates and times more often than in the United States is true enough. I would just drop the bit about Americans being confused by the UK phrasing; as Jeffro77 says, while from doesn't sound natural to them (speaking as one, myself), it isn't exactly nonsense, either. The possible misinterpretation suggested by Boothman sounds like pure speculation, since Americans wouldn't be using from interchangeably with after if they meant 'after'. Positioning of quotation marks is a separate topic that has already been addressed, I believe.—mjb 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just scratching around for any possible reason, and was only an idea. -- Boothman 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with Mjb. Americans are used to hearing "from" always paired with "to", "through" or "until". To hear "from Tuesday" implies that you will be hearing or reading an "until" date. While the British useage is jarring (and sounds actually "wrong" to Americans, who would rather say either, "The new museum opens on Tuesday", or "The new museum will be open as of Tuesday"), there isn't a problem of misinterpretation of "from" with some other word. --213.46.139.101 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

it doesnt sound wrong--it sounds British. If used to an American reader about an American museum, it would sound strange. it would not sound strange--even to an American-- in a London newspaper. DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility between American and British/Commonwealth English

There are often heated discussions, for example on the Brazilian Portuguese and Quebec French talk pages, concerning mutual intelligibility between European and American varieties of major world languages. I am curious to know how native speakers of American and British/Commonwealth English feel about this issue. I was told once that U.S. speakers occasionally have trouble understanding Scottish/Irish accents or even the working-class speech from England itself. However, not being a native speaker of English myself, I don't know how accurate those opinions are. I would appreciate if you could share your POV on that topic.Mbruno 01:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It generally depends upon the level of education of the speakers. But yes, most Americans do have some trouble with certain Scottish/Irish accents as well as the working-class speech in England. There is a wildly funny scene in a movie from about 5 or 6 years ago (I don't remember the name) where Brad Pitt is playing an Irish gypsy whose speech is totally incomprehensible to ordinary English people. Of course, the possibility of misunderstanding is much less when the speakers in a given conversation are both highly educated, but it is quite high for encounters between Americans and Scots/Irish when both speakers have never traveled before and are completely unfamiliar with English dialects in other parts of the world. --Coolcaesar 04:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It also has to do with the intent of the speaker, whether he wants to be understood ouside his circle. Moast people who use an argot to their friends, know how to make themselves intelligble if they need to.DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's often the case that the BrE speaker can understand the AmE speaker, but the AmE speaker doesn't understand the BrE speaker. I think that's because of two things; one the bigger influence AmE has becausee of Hollywood etc, and also the level (and type) of education the AmE speaker has. Americans, in my experience, are barely taught about any other country than the US itself, so this could have an impact. I would agree that it would be harder for an American to understand a person from the Shetlands or Truro, for example, than someone from the BBC. Oh, and the film you speak on Coolcaesar is Snatch I believe. -- Boothman 11:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone's just a little condescending. I don't think the fact that it is atypical for an American to be coached in different dialects of English indicates a lack of learning about the world abroad. And after all, American English has more speakers than any other variety. —Casey J. Morris 00:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just repeating what an American told me about their education system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a feeling amongst some aspects of American society that the US is the be all and end all. This is represented in the education system by the neglect of lessons like Geography (outside of the US) and Foreign Language. This is not meant as an attack at the system, I'm just saying that it's different. It happens to a lesser degree in the UK also. For example I was talking to an American who asked me where I was from. "Manchester", I said, half-lying, "Oh," he said, "is that near London?". -- Boothman 11:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

You're probably right about the geography issue. In a geography survey conducted by the National Geographic Society in 2000, a fairly large percentage of Americans (I believe it was reported to be between 1/5th and 1/4th) thought that New Mexico was part of Mexico. I vaguely recall there is an entrepreneur who sells fake "New Mexico passports" for practical jokers who want to make fun of such ignorant people. Foreign languages are quite important, though, since foreign language study is necessary in many states to graduate from high school and is required for a bachelor's degree by most quality colleges and universities. Most educated Americans do know quite a bit about the country where their foreign language of choice came from.

I think the widespread ignorance about the Commonwealth and the UK simply comes from the fact that they are not covered very much. Certainly, UK history is covered in European History in high school; it goes from William the Conqueror to Magna Carta to the English Civil War, but in-depth coverage usually ends at the rise of heavy industry in the second Industrial Revolution. After that the UK is covered only where it directly intersects with American history---primarily, the two World Wars. It wasn't until I took Modern European History in college that I learned all about more recent issues like the Statutes of Westminster (which started the transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth) and the foundation of European institutions like the EEC and the EU.

Of course, 30% of the American population fails to complete high school on the first try, according to a recent issue of TIME magazine, so there are a lot of Americans who have never even completed serious studies of a foreign language. --Coolcaesar 14:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the survey smacks of urban legend. As for your thing about U.K. history: this is far from uniform across states or even districts (one of the funny things about American education). And as far as foreign language, meeting a high school foreign language requirement hardly indicates competency in that language or any of its history. —Casey J. Morris 19:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To make what I just posted clearer: Most American colleges have some kind of breadth requirement that forces all candidates for the bachelor's degree to take a history course. The problem is that the breadth requirement can usually be satisfied by taking almost any history course. So for most educated Americans who specialize in majors outside history, their knowledge of history may be limited to the superficial coverage they got in high school, plus in-depth coverage of one particular history specialty, which could be the history of practically any one country in the world or a specialty independent of geography, like the history of science. --Coolcaesar 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What percentage (roughly) of Americans go to college, IYO? -- Boothman 16:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I (an American) was recently in the UK; I could understand everybody except for 2 Brits in their 50s or 60s with strong Yorkshire accents. This was however better than several other Americans in my group who I had to translate for; usually word for word but with the american placement of vowels. I think I watch a lot more "Doctor Who" and C-SPANs "Prime Minster's Questions" than the ones I had to translate for. Jon 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Most Brits have trouble understanding strong Scottish and Yorkshire accents. :p --Veratien 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean most Southerners? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Given the UK's population skew, is there much of a difference? :-) If I remember properly, the centre of the country (population-wise) is somewhere south of Stoke-on-Trent and gradually creeping down the M6! Matthew 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, there is a massive difference. Half the people live North of Stoke and half below. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

I believe the connotation that all Americans speak a substandard form of English, is due to the vast differences of many parts of the country. While some view the Southern Drawl as "charming", others see it merely as a lazy or unlearned tongue. Also the influence of Hollywood to the world is biased. Not all from the urban "hood", "ghetto", or "slums" speak in broken English and slang. The level or education has a lot to do with it, as does the place of birth of ones parents. Remember, most "Americans" are not natives to the country, with any form of English being a second language. This may account for the constant changes in American English, bent to fit the new influx of immigrants who bring their own slang with them and intermingle it with their everyday speech.

[Raerah [167.207.128.101] 23:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Monetary Amounts

"A user of American English will often hand-write the mixed monetary amount $3.24 in the form $324¢ or $324⁄100 (using that solidus construction or with a horizontal division line)."

Americans would normally hand-write a dollar amount as $3.24. The only time the $3 24/100 or 3 dollars and 24/cents format would ever be used is when writing a check. You may want to revise the above paragraph to reflect this. In addition, I have never seen the $324¢ format used anywhere in the United States.

Dan Rhea

Can someone who is familiar with current American usage (and Wiki/HTML formatting) make the necessary changes, and add the necessary provisos? --Nigelj 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Koweja 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

German influence on American English

After many years of living in Germany, I realised that the american use of numbers (one-hundred-ten) mirrors exactly the German way of speaking. There are other examples too. e.g. "Ice Rink" Does the word Rink derive from the English "Ring" spoken with a (german/yiddish) accent? My question is, is it thought to be the case that English spoken by newly arrived non-english speaking immigrants from Europe influenced spoken American English?|IsarSteve 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Rink comes from the Middle English word renk (which means "racecouse") which is from Old French "renc", of Germanic origin. "ring" comes from the Old English word "hring" which is from the Proto-Germanic word *hrengaz, if I remember correctly. Both of them ultimately derive from the Indo-European word sker-. So, yes, both "ring" and "rink" words are related, but Indo-European was spoken over 6000 years ago, and it has nothing to do with the final consonant devoicing rule of Modern High German. It is true that German influenced some North American dialects of English such as the North Central accent spoken in the U.P. of Michigan, and some areas of Wisconsin, and Minnesota, as well as eastern North Dakota, and part of Saskatchewan. Some of these dialects have final consonant devoicing, from German influence. Greetingz 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fitted?

Is 'fitted' as the past tense of 'fit' (as opposed to the adjective) really considered standard anywhere? As a "Commonwealth" English speaker myself, I still cringe when I hear it used, much the same as I would if I were to hear "hitted".

Fitted kitchen? -- Boothman 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an adjectival use also common in American (fitted sheets, clothes, etc.). In the British National Corpus, "fit" has 8075 hits[1] most in the present tense, or as a noun or adjective; while "fitted" has 3543 hits[2], some as adjective but most not. (The part-of-speech subquerys in the SARA interface game me spurious-looking breakdowns.) I suspect intransitive senses of "fit" use "fitted" less often than transitive senses, but "fitted" in BrE is definitely more common than "fitted" in AmE, and probably more common than "fit" in BrE. Personally, I often notice a jarring AmE "fit" where I would expect "fitted". jnestorius^(talk) 10:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As an American, I've never heard anyone say, "He fitted," when referring to someone who has just had (or thrown) a fit. Maybe it's common slang similar to "she freaked", or maybe it's commonly used among healthcare workers to refer to a recent serious event. This seems like a very odd example, and not at all widespread. Meanwhile, the example of "fitted sheets" is erroneous, as it refers not to the past tense of the verb "to fit", but to an adjective describing something which has been tailored, or subject to a fitting (noun). E.g.: a fitted bodice (goes with a pleated skirt). I cringe as well when I hear British speakers saying "fitted-out with", when Americans might say "outfitted with" or far better, "equipped with"; but I have no idea at all what a "fitted kitchen" is.

Even in the "fitted kitchen" is almost unnecessary now as almost all kitchens are fitted. It describes a kitchen where all the worktops, tables, etc are the same style, with built in appliances. Back in the 60s this was considered really upmarket, and a lot of people would have a collection of freestanding cupboards, benches a separate cooker and if you were lucky a fridge and a washing machine. The term Fitted kitchen meant a modern, superior kitchen, and for some reason a lot of advertisers still use it. As far as I can gather in the USA, a fitted kitchen was the standard by the 50s (though I don't know if the phrase was ever used), so very few people even remember the alternative and feel the need to point out the difference. -- Chris Q 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Or to point up the difference ;-) No, the phrase fitted kitchen has never been in use in the U.S. AFAIK... and fitted is an adjective in this sense. JackLumber, 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Hi everybody, I'm fixing to rewrite the intro because 1) it's bulky and somewhat incendiary 2) much of that info actually belongs on American English and British English etc. 3) much of that info is already there (as the distinction between "wee" and "small"). --JackLumber 13:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack, Don't know if you've already started the rewrite - but after your several recent remarks about it needing rewriting, I started on it yesterday! So far, I've only done the very first bit, so if you've done more, I'll stop. If you haven't started, i'll show you what I've done and we can go from there. TrevorD 16:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Trevor, as some days have gone by you've probably already made a lot of progress on this. So I may be a little late in making this suggestion. A lot of these articles on English usage give no information on whether the differences in usage would arise in writing or only in speech. English speakers often know the answer to this question from their own experience so contributors often don't bother to clarify this. But it seems to me that an article in Wikipedia should be aimed at intelligent readers who are not familiar with the subject. Most articles apply this rule but the ones on English language often assume that the reader is already fully competent in English. I'd suggest that if the aim is to explain the topic (rather than score points over other contributors) it should at least take into account the needs of a competent, though not necessarily fully fluent, non-native speaker - a university student, for example.

People like this need to know whether a term is used in formal writing or only in speech; and if only in speech, whether it is colloquial, vulgar, etc. So I'd suggest that in the introduction you should impose a structure that obliges those that come after you to make this kind of distinction clear when they add new expressions to the article. The differences in spoken language are such that most English speakers would be able to make a guess about where another speaker comes from (or at least rule out vast areas where they probably don't come from) after hearing just three or four words spoken. By contrast, the differences in written English are far fewer, even in relatively informal writing on Wikpedia discussion pages! For example, many writers say where they come from on discussion pages because they know that their use of language may not immediately reveal this. This highlights that most of the differences in dialect apply to spoken language. I think it would be very helpful for those who turn to an article like this for guidance on English language usage to know whether a particular word or phrase is used in written English or only in spoken English. The introduction can guide later contributors to remember to add this small detail. Adrian Robson 08:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Adrian, I actually finished my first draft of the rewritten intro yesterday! Now you've raised it, I agree wholeheartedly with the points you make, but my initial thoughts are that they apply primarily to the 3 lists of words rather than to the main article, so I don't think it really impinges on what I've done so far. In fact, when the main intro has been finished and if people are happy with what I've done, I had in mind to tidy up and standardise the intros for the lists as well - e.g. at present some lists use an asterisk to mean 'vulgar', while other lists use it to mean something else. At that point I would certainly incorporate your suggestions. Thanks for your input. -- TrevorD 10:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Feels like you guys can read my mind. One of the reasons for the changes I have made to these articles is exactly the needs of learners of English. As Trevor correctly pointed up, this applies in chief to the lists of words. An example---the list of American words used to have "gasoline: petrol" and "teeter-totter: seesaw." But a learner must know that "petrol" is only British and that "seesaw" is standard in both Englishes. Learners should be taught what is or sounds British, what is or sounds American, and what is both; and---as Adrian wrote---what is fit for written English and what is not. And I always try to make this clear---for example, I wrote that "off of" is common in American _speech_ although objected to; and that "out the door/window" are standard in AmE, but British _writing_ prefers "out of..." etc. I recently wrote somewhere that immediately can be a conjunction in BrE (meaning "as soon as"); a fellow editor noticed that it's informal usage, and an appropriate tag was immediately (ha!) added. Even dictionaries can be misleading in this respect---the M-W definition of femme reads just ...1: WOMAN 1a... but the two terms are obviously not interchangeable. [to Trevor: And I've been thinking all along of the asterisk issue too; I think it's best used to denote currency---e.g. no asterisk for gasoline (outnumbered 34.6 : 1 by petrol in the BNC) but asterisk for power plant (6.4 : 1 with power station).] --JackLumber 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, "As Trevor correctly pointed up ..." sounds strange to me - I would say "pointed out". -- TrevorD 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just checked M-W: point transitive verb ... : to direct someone's attention to ... -- usually used with out or up <point out a mistake> <points up the difference> ... out is more usual to me too; I'll check my references and I'll tell you later today whether point up is an Americanism or not (I don't know the origin of every word by heart :-) --JackLumber 13:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would definitely say "point out" whether "mistake" or "difference", and I'm fairly sure that would be standard British. -- TrevorD 17:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it is an Americanism. First appeared, oddly enough, in a dictionary---the majestic Webster's 2nd (1934), at that time the greatest dictionary available anywhere in the world (dord aside, of course). --JackLumber 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Presence or absence of syntactic elements

Jack, a few comments on your recent changes:

• "Meet" - I agree in general with what you say about British usage. I think the only extra point is that we are probably more likely to use the construction "have a meeting with" rather than just "meet" if there is ambiguity or just "meet" doesn't seem natural. Certainly, personally I think of "meet with" as an Americanism!

Indeed, I could find just a few examples of transitive meet meaning "have a meeting with." OTOH, the 2 meanings of meet with have about equal frequency in the British National Corpus.

• "benefits"- I don't think I've ever heard of "to claim for benefits". It would be "to make a claim for benefit(s)" or "to claim benefit(s)".

In fact, intransitive claim seems to be slowing down. Googling "to claim for benefits," "claiming for benefits," etc. nonetheless shows some results. And CALD allows this construction, without regional labels.

• "in hospital" etc. - Again, I agree with what you say. If we were to say that a patient is "in the hospital" or a student "at the university", the listener may have the unspoken question "which hospital / university?", because the "the" would imply a specific one, whereas "in hospital" or "at university" implies a general state rather than a specific location.

Hope this is of some help. TrevorD 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In America we can say "he was brought to the hospital" even if there are many in the neighborhood... and we didn't drop the article in "at the university" because we don't use the phrase as much as the British---we talk about college rather than university (and college takes no the in both systems, in spite of the different meanings of the word.)--JackLumber 19:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite so, I don't think, JackLumber. In the UK we might say, "He's at the college", meaning either the one we were just speaking of, or perhaps the one in this town. Saying, "He's at college" describes a state or a time of his life.

Yes, absolutely, just like a nurse would be in the hospital in Britain also. (Unless she's hospitalized, of course...) As in AmE, "in college" describes the state of the student, just like "in prison" for a con---and this was what I was talking about. Jack

Is this not the same in the US? We do have colleges here, but they're a different type of establishment to Universities. Colleges here can also be parts of Universities, although in that case usage is not usually as in my examples. Where that happens everybody in the University is attached to one or other of its colleges, so we might say, "He's in this college" or, "He's from Darwin College". --Nigelj 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this is explained at College. (not: at the College...) But I have the impression that Brits use the preposition at before words like college or school more often than in (as in "when I was in college I used to date a lot of girls"); in AmE, in would be more usual. If this is true, well, there's a "Different prepositions" section... Jack

To claim for benefits? I used to work in the government benefits field. We always said "to file a claim for benefits" or to "claim benefits." For example: "The plaintiff filed a claim for benefits on..." or "The plaintiff claimed benefits under the Social Security Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1396a..." Which regions in particular are using the idiom "to claim for benefits?" We're definitely not using that on the West Coast (or anywhere in American federal administrative law, as far as I know). --Coolcaesar 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, Cool... Cool down! We obviously were a-talkin' about Olde Englande. My recent edit to the article suggests precisely that the verb claim is *never* (not just in law) used intransitively in AmE. (obviously, when claim is a noun you do need a preposition.) Jack

In UK usage, I would say that if "claim" is a noun it's followed by a preposition, but if it's a verb it's not (usually) followed by a preposition. In the cited CALD item, the only (optional) intransitive use of "claim" was "to claim (for) your travelling expenses". I think this is different from "benefit": "benefit" is what you (hope to) receive, whereas "travelling expenses" have been paid out by you and what's you're actually claiming (implied) is "a repayment" or "a refund" of the expenses.

"I claim the benefit of the doubt." (that certainly could NOT have a "for" in it in BrE! TrevorD 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Benefits or not, this proves that intransitive claim exists, at least to some extent, in BrE; maybe the verbal illustration I chose was not the best possible---we can just change it. --JackLumber 11:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Btw, I would more likely say a "reimbursement" of the expenses. Is this another difference?

No. "reimbursement" is probably more common even in the UK. (I was rushed & tired & not thinking straight! TrevorD 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Different prepositions

Q. from Jack: ... is "oestrus" the usual British spelling?
Chambers Dictionary has:

estrogen, estrus, etc N American spellings of oestrogen, oestrus, etc.

oestrus, also oestrum n a gadfly or bot; a vehement stimulus or frenzy; (in the following meanings and words, also, esp US, estrus) heat or sexual impulse ... oestrous adj.

So, I guess the answer is 'yes'! TrevorD 23:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hours time/Minutes time

As an American who watches plenty of BBC news, I am puzzled by the (to my ears) redundant use of the word "time" by British presenters. "The changes are scheduled to take place in two months time". Americans would just say, "...in two months.". What other form of measurement could a month be than one of time? The same practice is used in BBC English for minutes and hours: "Coming up, in two hours time." It would certainly be silly to say, "You'll come to a fork in the road after about three miles space". Perhaps the distinction of "minutes time" is necessary since we also measure degrees of latitude and longitude using minutes and seconds. But is this useage as extended to months and years just a lazy habit gone unnoticed?--213.46.139.101 11:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a Brit, I've certainly not noticed it! I agree it's redundant, and both forms (with or without "time") sound natural to me. Now I'm forced to think about it, I don't even know which I would say naturally, but I think that personally I would omit the "time", especially when writing rather than speaking. -- TrevorD 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To my (British) ear, the word '...time' in this sense means '...from now'. Without it there can sometimes be a risk of ambiguity. In the first example, "The changes are scheduled to take place in two months" could mean that they are scheduled to take place within a two-month time span, at some point in the future. On the other hand, "The changes are scheduled to take place in two months' time" clearly means that two months from now they will take place. It's not time as opposed to space, but time as opposed to duration. Note the apostrophe I added above: this is because I would also say, "The changes are scheduled to take place in a month's time" or "... in one month's time". --Nigelj 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. It arises because of the ambigous English usage of "in" in these contexts. French, by contrast, is more specific and translates "in an hour" as either "en une heure" or "dans une heure" depending on whether the meaning is that the task will last an hour or that the event will take place after the passage of one hour (regardless of whether its duration is a minute, a second or whatever).

British usage is sometimes amibiguous but sometimes it makes the distinction clear by adding the word "time". "In three weeks' time" can only mean (in British usage) that the event will happen three weeks hence.

This is not a recent development. Dickens, for example, uses it frequently. He writes in Nicholas Nickleby (1839)

"... and this too in the presence of a little chit of a miller's daughter of eighteen, who was going to be married in three weeks' time to a man who had gone ..."

But even in the 19th century this didn't seem to be the meaning understood in America. Mark Twain, (or his co-author Charles Dudley) writes in The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day (1873)

"Our travelers stopped in Chicago long enough to see that they could make their fortunes there in two weeks' time, but it did not seem worth while..."

It seems clear that he means it would only take two weeks to make their fortune, not that their fortune would be made at a point in time two weeks hence.

This American use still seems to be current in the 21st century. In the endnotes to Barnes and Noble Classics 2004 edition of Little Women (ISBN 1593081081) , the editor Camille Cauti (presumably American) writes "Alcott wrote this sequel very quickly (in two months' time)..." This might be taken ambigously but I would think almost certainly means, in the context, that it took two months to complete the book.

It would be interesting to find some evidence of when the meanings diverged. Adrian Robson 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As another British ear, I don't wholly agree with Nigelj above. I agree that "the word '...time' in this sense means '...from now'". But often the meaning is perfectly clear without the "time", e.g. the expression quoted above "Coming up, in two hours time." must mean "from now", so "time" is superfluous. But, more importantly, (and ignoring loose speaking) I would say that "in two months" must mean "in two-months' time" (and I agree with Nigel on the necessity of the apostrophe!). If the intention is "within a two-month time span", then it should be "within two months" not "in two months":

• "in two months" - it is scheduled to happen after the lapse of two months from now, and the duration of the event is unspecified.
• "within two months" - it is scheduled to happen within a period of two months from now (maybe in 1 week's time; maybe in 6 weeks' time), but the duration of the event is still unspecified.
• "over two months" - it is scheduled to have a duration of two months, but the start time is unspecified.

TrevorD 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

similarly US usage ..this hour.. always grates on my British ears. Why isn´t ..now.. or in a short time.. or even ..at the moment.. used? IsarSteve 09:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention at this point in time rather than now. --Ancheta Wis 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Drink driving

Slightly off topic as regards language, but Nigelj's comparison of the UK legal term "drunk in charge" v. the US terms "driving while intoxicated" (D.W.I.) or "driving under the influence" of alcohol (D.U.I.), prompt me to point out that in the UK you don't actually have to be driving to be comitting an offence, merely being in charge of the vehicle (e.g. with the vehicle keys and apparently intending to drive) as I understand it. The US terms imply you actually have to be caught driving the vehicle. Is this correct? -- TrevorD 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just having the keys/intending to drive isn't a crime. --Zagsa 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. If you're so drunk you can barely walk, but you're stumbling towards your car with keys in hand, you can be arrested only for public intoxication, not driving under the influence. But the second you turn the key in the ignition, you're a driver and you're in BIG BIG trouble. --Coolcaesar 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In Pennsylvania at least, being in your car while drunk and with keys in your possession is a DUI, even if the car is off. Some people have been arrested for DUI while sleeping in their cars. --67.165.6.76 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Prepositions

I came across the following today in a trivia question:

"Which six U.S. state capitals are located on rivers named for other states?"

"named for" grates with my British ears: I would say "named after"; "named for" sounds to me as if it means "named for the benefit of someone". Any thoughts from anyone else before I add this to the article?
P.S. The answer was: "Austin, Texas, on the Colorado River; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and St. Paul, Minnesota, on the Mississippi River; Trenton, New Jersey, on the Delaware River; and Bismarck, North Dakota, and Pierre, South Dakota, on the Missouri River."
TrevorD 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's just another difference I was about to add! Named for & named after are both standard in the U.S. For in this sense is rare in British usage---outnumbered 1:10 by after in the BNC, and is often probably used "as an Americanism." --JackLumber 19:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Done -- TrevorD 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography

If you are stuck in a rut, or can't think of other differences to add to the article, or just ain't got nothing better to do, I suggest youse guys check out great H. L. Mencken's The American Language at bartleby.com. This classic explores the differences between American and British English... as of 1921. OK, it's a tad dated, and you'll find out how many of the differences he notes have now disappeared. But one thing we can do is spot all the differences that still remain and categorize them according to our system (words mainly used here or there, or with different meanings, grammar, etc.). Check out especially chapters four (American and English Today) and five (International Exchanges). The link. Happy reading! --JackLumber 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Point it out/point it up

I've never heard someone use the phrase, "he pointed up the mistake." Where in the US is this used?Tenfour 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It ain't no regional thing, but a usage that arose---I believe---in the 1920's or so; maybe not very common but considered standard, see a couple posts above. --JackLumber 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what post you're referring to...if this used to be an American phrase, it seems to have completely fallen out of use now. Tenfour 18:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

-ward(s)

Trovatore has changed one section from:

"Directional suffix -ward(s): British forwards, towards, rightwards, etc.; American forward, toward, rightward. The forms with -s are only used as adverbs or prepositions in American English, ..."

to

"Directional suffix -ward(s): British forwards, towards, rightwards, etc.; American forward, toward, rightward. The forms with -s are used as adverbs or prepositions only in American English, ..."

with the comment:

"I think this is what was meant? Before it seemed to say Americans never say "towards", which is false"

To me it now seems to say that only Americans use towards, etc. - and the British don't, which contradicts the first sentence!
I read the original form as meaning that Americans use the -s forms only as adverbs and prepositions - and not as anything else. And that is not inconsistent with Trovatore's assertion that Americans DO say towards.
What was originally meant and can we make it unambiguous? -- TrevorD 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

jnestorius has just rephrased the section, but it still needs to be rewritten. In AmE rightwards sounds very strange, while towards is used, although conspicuously outnumbered by toward. Furthermore, the forms with -s are used as adverbs or prepositions, but rarely as adjectives is incorrect. Toward (or towards), regardless of the spelling, is usually a preposition, never an adverb, and very rarely an adjective. Forward(s) is never an adverb and rightward(s) is never a preposition. I'll be back later on. --JackLumber 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

jnestorius---thanks for your rephrasing. At least the paragraph can be _read_ now. --JackLumber 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. There are so many points on this page that, in handling any one, there is a constant tension between, on the one hand, overwhelming the reader with finnicky detail, and, on the other, attempting to summarise with a broad statement which is ambiguous or misleading. jnestorius^(talk) 13:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Time

The new bit that's just been added, something along the lines of "Americans say quarter of the hour, whereas British say quarter to..." This seems a bit dodgy to me, a quarter of the hour? Can anyone offer proof either way? -- Boothman _Talk 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

Yup, the example is poorly phrased, but I guess it means that Americans say "quarter of 2" and Britons "quarter to 2." Yet this is not entirely correct---many regional variations come into play; in America you can hear, depending on the region, "quarter of 2," "quarter to 2," and "quarter till 2." (And I do believe there are variations in Britain also.) But we should try to avoid phrases like "cause confusion"---it's up to the single speaker to decide whether s/he is confused or not (remember "Monday through Friday" or "open from Tuesday"?) --JackLumber 12:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think both "quarter to" and "quarter of" are in current use in American English. It may be a regional variation. I think I first heard "quarter of" after moving from the Midwest to the East Coast as a child (about 40 years ago). I remember thinking it was strange

-- Bob (141.156.125.226 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Here in the Southwest United States, the phrases "quarter to", "quarter of" and "quarter till" are very common. As with most things, the Average American or Brit can figure it out if they listen to the full context.

As a sidenote, I have a mother from the West Indies where British Style English is always spoken, I hear a strange mix of Amer English and Brit English from her everyday... ever heard "Do you feel so?", for "Are you in the same mood or frame of mind?" Just Curious.

-- Raerah ((didn't sign in)167.207.128.101 23:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

More Prepositions

Quote from JackLumber on Talk:American English:

"... how much bullshit pours off of that talk page"

To me, as a Brit, off of always sounds like extremely bad usage (that's not to say some Brits don't use it!). Is it standard US usage or just informal usage? I think it probably merits mention somewhere. -- TrevorD 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote Trevor, but it's already mentioned on the list of American words... --JackLumber 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC) This is Merriam-Webster's stance, that is, that of American lexicographers (not grammarians!) Off of was first recorded in England in 1567.

I would contest the fact that is is more common in American than British - cockney and "Estuary English" regularly features this particular odious idiom. -- Boothman _Talk. 12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is more common in American than British---with respect to _standard_ usage. But things like "borrow money off of someone" are everywhere substandard. --JackLumber, 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of The/the within proper nouns

There is some discussion on an article, where it has been decided that local dialect (in this case UK English) takes precedence over standard Wiki policy, that the capitalisation of "The" in the name the subject is not grammatically correct. This argument is proposed by a US grammatician, but is resisted by the UK based editors who believe that it is an example of US/UK language differences. An example of this point of contention would be the phrase, "It was reported by The Independant that former members of The Who were...", where it is suggested it should be grammatically, "It was reported by the Independant that former members of the Who were..." (nb. neither of the subjects mentioned above are part of the article.)

Is this a difference between US/UK grammer (and therefore worthy of inclusion within this/your article?) or a bunch of limeys unable to speak/write their own language?LessHeard vanU 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (one of the limeys)

Personally, I can't comment on US/UK grammer differences, but (as a Brit), I would say that if the word "The" is part of the proper name of the subject - as it is with both the cited examples - then it should be capitalised, otherwise not. (It's not clear to me from your explanation whether the UK or US editors are opposing capitalisation.) -- TrevorD 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The UK editors are for capitalising the "The", the US grammatician editor is against. As it is a grammatician that is opposing the capitalisation it was considered that this talk page might be an appropriate venue for discussing it - as it may be a language/culture difference.LessHeard vanU 09:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be: "It was reported by the Daily Mail" as "the" is not part of the name, so should it be "It was reported by the The Independent ..." :-) (Note it's The Independent.) Are there other articles in WP referring to the subjects in question? The articles on The Who and The Independent (largely) always capitalise the "The". -- TrevorD 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not a grammatician, but I would say that the WP articles that already use the capitalised form indicate appropriate usage. User:JackLumber is an American who contributes a lot to these pages and has apparently a lot of professional knowledge - but whether as a grammatician I couldn't comment. He's probably already seen this - but you could try his talk page. (Jack, hope you don't mind me mentioning you. Trevor) -- TrevorD 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wi Trevor, capitalised "The" suggests that the thing has the as part of the name (The Kooks, The Cribs, interestingly The Vines (australian) has a mixture of both "The" and "the".

As an aside, I hate to be pedantic, LessHeard vanU, but you spelt "grammar" wrong. -- Boothman _Talk. 12:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC).

(grin) It is small wonder that I need refer matters of grammar to others, then.LessHeard vanU 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A bug in my ear, Trevor... never mind! I already laid out my standpoint before about my (not?) being a grammarian---by the way, an interesting but misplaced (and hence unnoticed and too hastily archived) thread, seeTalk:American_and_British_English_differences/Archive_3. I basically agree with Trevor & Boothman; I would therefore write The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Who, but the Rotary Club. Obviously, if the article is part of the name thou shalt not duplicate it. --JackLumber, 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC) And LessHeard, thanks for the heads-up.

Thank you to all concerned. After reference to these comments the matter was agreed amicably between the parties.LessHeard vanU 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"A bug in my ear"

What does "A bug in my ear" mean? -- TrevorD 23:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Must be an American thing, we should add it to the list ;) –– Boothman ^{/ˈbuːð.mən/} _/tɔːk/ 09:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

To put a bug in one's ear = to give a suggestion, especially a warning, to give a hint, as to cause interest. I would not be surprised if this was an American-only idiom---in the U.S., the word bug has always been an all-purpose one (to smash a bug, lightning bug, ladybug, bug off, firebug, movie bug, to bug a room, it don't bug me---and if it don't bug me it's OK...) --JackLumber, 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We have "a word in your ear", but that might be different - it means "May I have a private word with you?".

Of the ones you list, I think we have: bug(ger) off, to bug a room (plant a listening device), it don't bug me (doesn't bother me). -- TrevorD 23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list... there's also, for instance, bug out (can mean anything from "protrude (one's eyes)" to "skedaddle" to "freak out")---probably Americans changed the British bugger to bug just because bug was something they were familiar with. The only sense of bug that cannot be thought of as an Americanism is "germ causing disease." JackLumber, 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I know it wasn't meant to be exhaustive! I just thought I'd enlighten you! I was also indirectly asking whther you have "a word in your ear" or whether I should add it to the UK idioms? I'll leave you to add "a bug in one's ear" to the US idioms. -- TrevorD 13:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheating

I recently became aware that Americans will readily call someone a "cheater", when Brits tend to regard the word as infantile (although readily comprehensible), preferring "cheat".

Are there other, similar usages?

It's interesting, as English normally tolerates verbs becoming adjectival nouns in this way - "I teach children" makes the speaker a "teacher".

I'd speculate that it's to avoid confusion with cheetah, only that's so preposterous it can't possibly be correct... can it!??!?

-- Dweller 13:03, 22 May 2006 (GMT+1)

I feel there is a mixture, like someone who paints is a painter, but someone who tutors is a tutor. Someone who teases is a tease, yet someone who writes is a writer. I don't know whether it's an American/British thing, I always thought it depended on the word itself and it's etymology. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/. 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC).

An expert opinion

I think a lot of this stuff is very good, but on the whole it doesn't really reflect current usage of English spoken in Britain. As an English person, I can't really comment on how accurate the information is from a US point of view, but I'd definately suggest an expert who is a lot more familiar with British English should make the page better reflect the current situation of the language. A good example would "to read" in the sense of studying. I for one consider this usage archiac and would never hear it except in an American film where they're trying to mimic British English.

Or Oxford/Cambridge University (and some other Academia) alumni. It was always fairly exclusive use in the UK, but one which was well known since many of the "ruling classes" attended these institutions.LessHeard vanU 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Is this entire article sourced from The Cambridge Guide to English Usage or is it just very poorly referenced? --Coroebus 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely, but in large part. JackLumber, 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like 'source' as a verb. Notreallydavid 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And in (American) English, one can verb any noun. "He penned the letter and keyboarded a denial." --Ancheta Wis 11:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Prepositions

From article

• The British say at the weekend and at weekends; Americans say on the weekend and on weekends.
  
  I don't think this is strictly true - I say all four of these phrases, and none of them sound particularly American or British. Does anyone have a reasonable source for this? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Each and every handbook states this. To me, at the weekend sounds British. Maybe the American usage has gotten a foothold in Britain. To the BBC folks, on the weekend still sounds American. JackLumber, 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Could be a regional thing, don't forget. On weekends sounds as natural to me as the alternative. I'll ask around some old-ish people to see if it is an Americanism that's cross over. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

Point it out/point it up in British English

I have never heard of, and would not understand "point it up" to mean "point it out". I suspect that the documents JackLumber found were either some industry jargon or unusual dialect usage. I have therefore reinstated it, as I think many British people would be confused by this usage. -- Chris Q 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Industry jargon, I guess. You have no idea of the bulkiness of my archive. Well... I suspect that many Americans too would be buffaloed... anyways, since M-W says "point... usually used with out or up" the statement can stay put, as in BrE point is reportedly "usually used with out" (not: "with out or up"). JackLumber,

must say I have never heard of 'point it up' in the uk - unless in the context of positioning something. glad it stays. DavidP

I've never heard "point it up" in the US, and before I read the section in the article about "point it up" vs. "point it out," I never would have understood it. I see that Jack earlier said that this phrase is not a regional term, but it must be. I've lived in four different states (Kansas, Iowa, Colorado, and Oregon, if you want to know), and I have never heard it. Jack, where have you heard this phrase? Maybe the section on "point it up" should mention that this is rare or regional usage in America. Philbert2.71828 03:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here comes one of those buffaloed Americans :-)... It all started when *I myself* once used this phrase on this very page---and I sincerely thought that it wasn't worth mentioning; I even tried to erase the paragraph, having found some currency of "point up" in British English. I think this phrase has to do with formal or written English [3] [4] [5], rather than regional spoken usage or vernacular vocabulary. Anyway, the MW definition (a descriptive dictionary) clearly states that "point up" is current. This being said, I'm not so sure about this phrase being confined to the U.S., although it sure is American in origin—everbody here, Limeys or Yanks, seems to be equally confused by it. JackLumber. 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow... Thanks for "pointing up" those references. It seems that the phrase is good enough for the NY Times, but I agree that we don't need this phrase listed in the article. It's clear enough to understand in context, and like you said, it's equally "buffaloing" to everyone. Philbert2.71828 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Titles and headlines

Text says "Another difference is with acronyms. Typically, American English capitalises all the letters (NATO, AIDS), whereas British English prefers to use the initial capital only (Nato, Aids)." --- Nah, surely not. This Brit, at any rate, would use the all-caps versions: NATO, AIDS. And I don't think the uc/lc versions are common here. Snalwibma 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nato looks like Latin to me. Dweller 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the sentence that is just plain wrong. British would use all caps too, except where acronyms have become words (radar, laser, etc.) which I assume would also be the case in the USA -- Chris Q 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is. We (Americans) tend to capitalize all acronyms, so the only way an acronym stops being capitalized is when people don't know that's it's an acronym (laser, radar, etc.), which usually happens after it becomes so commom that people use the acronym almost exclusively instead of the full word/phrase (PIN, ATM, etc. are this way now and will most likely stop being capitalized sooner or later). I'm guessing it is the same way everywhere. Koweja 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure you are right, at least as regards school textbooks and the like. There seems to be a developing UK style to use as few capitals as possible, and little typograpic distinction. I have examples, but i don't know the prevalence, so I want to check first. DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Americans may have a ¢ or c after the 24, ..."

"Americans may have a ¢ or c after the 24, but in British English the p is only used when the amount is in pence, so £3.24 is correct, as is 324p, but £3.24p is considered incorrect."

Are you saying that Americans would say "$3.24¢" or 324¢? I'm pretty sure that is incorrect in American English as well. Even if it isn't technically incorrect it happens so rarely that it isn't worth mentioning.

You could be right. I was just assuming that the article as it stood was correct in terms of US usage, so I just changed the UK usage. I hope an American will let me know or change it themselves -- Chris Q 13:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see that someone has done! Incidentally, if I had seen a cheque for $3²⁴ I would have thought it would probably be enough to buy a county! -- Chris Q 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I had changed it. Few people are fluent in both American and British English, so it's hard to know what is different. Especially since both countries have so many regional variations. Incidentally, if I had seen a cheque for $3²⁴ I would have thought it would probably be enough to buy a county! - When we write checks like this we normally write it as either a fraction over a hundred or as $3²⁴ for clarity. Koweja 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a little off-topic, but isn't £3‒24 (on a cheque) too easy to change to £3424? I always write checks in the form $3·²⁴ with a fairly large, dark decimal dot. --dreish~talk 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You would actually write something like £3 --------- 24, with one very long dash. You also have to write the amount in words on UK cheques, so I don't think it would be really easy to change . -- Chris Q 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, dreish. I had a longer dash in there when I first added the example, but thought it looked a bit strange and so I shortened it before saving, if my memeory serves me right. I think the longer dash is more realistic, even if it does look a bit odd in print, so I've changed it back to an mdash, then unicodified that. --Nigelj 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Perfect in British and American English

I have a question for the native speakers of American and British/Commonwealth English on this discussion group: would you say Did you hear the news ? Mary had twins ! , or Have you heard the news ? Mary's had twins !  ? Similarly, would you say I can't play because I broke my leg or I can't because I've broken my leg.  ? 200.177.27.21 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am British, and I would probably use "Did you hear the news..." and "because I've broken my leg". In this case the first form implies to me some deliberate action. "I've broken my computer", through some accident but "I broke my computer" deliberately because I got sick of it crashing. I have no idea if this is typical UK usage as I have never been formally taught this. -- Chris Q 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm American and both "Have you heard..." and "Did you hear..." sound correct to me; I would use either of them. If I were to break my leg...I would definitely say "I broke my leg." "I've broken my leg" doesn't sound strange to me, but I'd never use it. NuncAutNunquam ^Talk 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both "have you heard" and "did you hear" would be natural to an American in this context. I do think, however, that British speakers and American speakers differentiate between these two tenses somewhat differently. With the "I've broken my computer"/"I broke my computer" example, my personal usage would be to use "I've broken" in a context where the event is in the very recent past and its consequences are continuing into the present, while using "I broke" when the event is more completely in the past. Thus, "I've broken my computer and now I can't finish the assignment" but "I broke my computer and couldn't finish the assignment." I believe it is the case, based on listening and reading, that British English uses "have done" and "did" more interchangeably than American English does. Or am I just imagining it?

--Bob99 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Bob

I couldn't say for sure what's standard, but I'd say "Have you heard the news?" and "I've broken my leg" (I'm British, by the way), since both seem to suggest to me an event in the past whose effects are still continuing. "Did you hear the news?" and "I broke my computer" sound to me like they're describing events in the past which no longer affect the present day, like stories from a personal history. This difference never occurred to me until just now! Terraxos 17:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Perhaps a mention could be made of the British use of the word "Cheers." When I started working with British clients one of the major differences I discovered in telephone etiquette is that the majority of Brits will say "Cheers" before ending a phone conversation. The word, somewhat rarely used in the US, is quite common in the UK.

See List of words having different meanings in British and American English, where such lexical differences are dealt with. But yes, as an American I find cheers really ubiquitous in British speech. JackLumber. 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I've always found the British usage weird. To Americans, "cheers" is a toast used often at parties and in bars. It's also the name of a popular TV show from the 1980s, Cheers. --Coolcaesar 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a really interesting feature. Greetingz 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just the people I've been associating with lately, but I've been hearing it more often (in America). It still seems a little bit like an affectation, but decreasingly so. --dreish~talk 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"If I were you"/"If I was you": BE vs AE?

I remember that our English teacher in school told us that the expression "If I were you" is BE while "If I was you" is AE. However I found no mention of this claim here -- neither in the article nor in the talk archive. Can anyone comment on this assertion? --Wutzofant 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the last few remnants of the subjunctive. I don't know what that phrase is in British English, but I do know that the subjunctive is starting dying out in British English, whereas North American generally still preserves it-- so it's actually the other way around: in North American English, it is: "If I *were* you." Other uses of the subjunctive are: "Long live..." as opposed to "long lives..."

"If I were you" is normally recognised as the correctform in BrE, as far as I know; use of the other form is normally regarded as incorrect, similar to "I was sat"/"I was sitting". Setokaiba^✌_≝ 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You're both wrong in a sense... Wutzofant, your teacher (as, alas, many others) was plumb WRONG. Setokaiba, the "type" of subjunctive that is still in everyday use in North America is the _mandative_ subjunctive (the City Attorney recommends that the matter not be tabled)---and it's making its way back in Britain btw, according to corpus data; so this difference is bound to disappear in a few years. As for If I were you vs. if I was you, the traditional rule requires that if I were you be used ;-) but if I was you has been common in both speech and writing on both sides of the Atlantic for decades, perhaps centuries, so why bother? Wutzofant---remember that an "if" clause can stand the subjunctive IF & ONLY IF what you're talking about is something false/unreal/hypotetical (if I were you---but I can't be you), otherwise you _must_ use the indicative mood. JackLumber. 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"If I was you" may heard in American English. The usage is considered substandard, but it may be heard in ordinary situations where the context permits informal speech -- especially when the sentence structure has the dependent clause following the independent clause rather than the other way around. Even sophisticated speakers might use "if I was you" for a humorous or folksy effect. "Were I you" may also be heard, especially when the sentence structure is inverted so that the dependent clause precedes the independent clause, but this has a stilted sound and would not be used in good writing. Generally, it is stylistically better in American English to avoid the subjunctive as much as possible. The example, "the City Attorney recommends that the matter not be tabled" sounds legalistic and "the City Attorney recommends against tabling the matter" or "the City Attorney recommends not tabling the matter" would sound more natural to the American ear. Apart from the specific example of the phrase "if I were you," the subjunctive is likely to be considered too fussy in American English. Thus, "if that was my car" would be preferable to "if that were my car," notwithstanding the technical correctness of the latter. Careful American English writers often rewrite their sentences to avoid the need (temptation?) to use the subjunctive.

-- Bob (141.156.125.226 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Greetings Section

The greetings section states that British people say "Happy Christmas" instead if "Merry Christmas". I've never heard anyone say, "Happy Christmas" before, the norm being to say "Merry Chrsitmas If I don't see you". Can any Brits back me up?--Big Moira 01:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read this page, which contains a discussion on the matter and the eventual action taken. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Make or take a decision

Should it be mentioned that BrE users 'take' a decision, while Americans 'make' a decision? And that decisions are 'taken' in BrE, while they're 'made' in AmE? I wonder why that would be...

That doesn't even make sense, decisions are 'made' in both BrE and AmE. How can you take a decision? You can't! -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

It turns out that this is not well-documented on the web, although AskOxford provided 1 result using the phrase in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary. [6] The online OED is much harder to dissect on this issue, and only accidentally provides this: [7] in the decision article. Whichever way one argues, take is far less common than make, although more common in BrE than elsewhere.

Never ever heard it, and the AskOxford page seems in a different context, ie choosing a decision instead of carrying it out. Also, please sign your comments with -- ~~~~ so we know who's talking. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

Pretty common in my experience (esp. in the past tense), but I've got no data. --Coroebus 17:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Boothman needs to check with the BBC on this, where decisions are 'taken' almost exclusively. Just Google "BBC Decision taken" and see.

terrorism

Apart from normally referring to 9th November, dates are not usually abbreviated in this manner ["nine-eleven"] in speech in the UK. Londoners would generally refer to the "the seventh of July bombings" and not 7/7.

The first sentence here seems to imply that dates are abbreviated in this manner in speech in the US, which as far as I'm aware is not the case. And would Londoners refer to the "seventh of July bombings"? As far as I know the 2001 hijackings are unique in that people refer to them by date at all. —Blotwell 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- the paragraph implies that 9/11 is a common abbreviation, although this form is mainly just used to designate 11 Sep 2001, except in writing. I think we should cut the middle two sentences from this paragraph and just emphasize the fact that the the month-date order is rarely used in the UK, except when referring to 9/11. Philbert^2.71828 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather, 9/11 is unique to that particular incident on both sides of the pond, however, we Londoners do refer to the attacks on 7th July, 2005, by the phrase "the seventh of July bombings". Most other major events are referred to by the place in which they occurred, eg, the Omagh Bombing, the Admiral Duncan Nail Bombing, Hatfild Rail Crash, etc. --Veratien 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. and US, U.K. and UK

I just noticed that the article generally uses the terms U.S. and UK, although both US and U.K. appear at least once. Is there any reason for this? I would think we would want to use US and UK, unless someone thinks US looks too much like the word us. If nothing else, we should be consistent and change the occurrences of US and U.K. if the other forms are preferred. Philbert^2.71828 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would go with US and UK, or if you want to be explicit, go with USA and UK. Koweja 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Manual of Style, and it says to use U.S. but has no recommendation for UK vs. U.K., so I changed every instance of US to U.S. and U.K. to UK. That still seems a bit inconsistent but it required changing only a few abbreviations in the article, and we're following the style guide now. Philbert^2.71828 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The UK style in this and all such abbreviations is without the periods. I've been consistently using UK and US in this discussion for brevity--it does not slow down reading. Just let an article be uniform. DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Come with" and "sleeping with" -- not Dutch-specific?

From the article:

In most areas of the United States, the word with is also used as an adverb: "I'll come with" instead of "I'll come along". However, in some British Dialects, 'come with' is used as an abbreviation of 'come with me', as in "I'm going to the office - come with" instead of "I'm going to the office - come with me". This particular usage is also used by speakers in Minnesota and parts of the adjoining states: "Want to come with?" It is similar to South African English, where the expression comes from Afrikaans, and is also used by Dutch speakers when speaking in English.

In college (university), a fellow student of my acquaintance who was a native speaker of German, had a tendency to ask when speaking of a couple, "Are they sleeping with?" Meaning, of course, "Are they sleeping together?" So I do not think this is specific to Dutch- or Afrikaans-native speakers. --FOo 06:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly it's common to all languages of that ilk (German, Dutch, Friesian etc), something probably to do with direct translation from the native language to English (ich komme mit > I come with). I'd like to point out that "come with" is used as a short form of "come with you" in some BrE dialects, as in "You going to the shop? I'll come with." This part of the article needs a bit of a cleanup and clarification. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

I would like to mention that in German, the infinitive of the verb "mitkommen" which means "to come along." However, German grammar dictates that the verb is conjugated as "Ich komme mit" and not as "Ich mitkomme" (tons of German verbs are like this). I imagine Dutch and perhaps other Germanic languages have similar rules regarding verb conjugations.

Actuarial exams

Just a point, in the United States, it is also common for actuarial students to say that they "sit for" a professional actuarial exam. e.g. I am sitting for the Society of Actuaries Exam M this May. I find that actuarial students are more likely to say "sit for" an exam when speaking in a lecture or talking to a professor, advisor, or employer (also I commonly see this on actuarial message boards). I think this may be due to the Society's choice of using "sit for" an exam in their literature, so perhaps students use said phrase in order to sound more acceptable to authorities in the field. However, when a student is speaking to another student, the phrase normally reverts to "take" an exam.

Question

"BrE: "The Clash are a well-known band." AmE: "The Clash is a well-known band." Both: "The Beatles are a well-known band.""

Sorry but I don't see why in both languages you would say The Beatles are a well-known band and you couldn't say The Beatles is a well-known band in American English.

"BrE: "Pittsburgh are the champions." AmE: "Pittsburgh is the champion." Both: "The Steelers are the champions"."

I don't think I've ever heard people say Pittsburgh is the champion (and I'm not making fun of Pittsburg, I just haven't heard this being used at all). Also, shouldn't the period in that sentence be inside the quotation mark?

Yonatanh 13:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's because "The Beatles" is a plural word, so the plural verb is used. --67.165.6.76 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

two thousand one

> The year 2000 and beyond are read as "two thousand", "two thousand and one" and the like by both British and American speakers...

In Los Angeles, CA, USA, I mostly say and hear "two thousand one", "two thousand two", etc.

and in NY. the use of and" is formal.

What is with the inconsistent punctuation style? We should either have the commas inside or outside the quotes, consistently.

It has to do with how most literate Americans, like myself, are trained from a young age to put commas and periods inside quotation marks because it looks more attractive from a typographical perspective. In many fields, putting commas and periods outside the quotation marks is considered to look sloppy and may result in a lowered grade (sometimes the difference between a B and an A) in the academic context. At some American law schools, including the one I went to, consistently putting commas and periods outside the quotation marks is considered to be a sign of incompetence. In combination with a couple of other signs, such as the occasional misspelling or run-on sentence, it will garner an F grade. Yes, our law schools are that strict.--Coolcaesar 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

law, US or UK, has aways had strict usage patterns, and is not a reliable guide for general use.

In England, we're usually taught to only include the punctuation within the quotation marks if it is part of the original quotation. The quoted example above is correct, and your Law Schools may wish to reconsider their position. See: Quotation Marks --Veratien 04:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We are certainly taught that the meaning is irrelevant and the use is fixed, a rule which I usually ignore if it's a question mark. DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could some American English specialist(s) confirm whether the earlier point ("two thousand one" rather than "two thousand and one") is generally valid across the US. It's certainly not normal in the UK where the latter form is pretty universal. If so, we can change the text in the article. Actually a citation or two would be good or this is starting to feel like 'original research' here. --Nigelj 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly an American English specialist, but I can say that the article is correct in saying that some American schools teach students to drop the "and" except when reading a decimal point, so that 102.56 is one hundred two and fifty-six hundredths. That's how I was taught (in Iowa, although I imagine it's the same elsewhere), although in practice I never hear anyone convert the decimal to a fraction so it's one hundred two point five six, which is how I read numbers. However, I tend to hear people insert an and before the tens or units place more often than not. This may be because I was taught to say it the other way, so inserting an and sounds wrong to my ear and I might notice it more readily. I've lived in several states and this usage seems to be the same everywhere I've been. For a citation, maybe someone can dig up an elementary school math textbook and see if it says how to read numbers. I'll check the library in a day or two and see what I can find. Philbert^2.71828 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the 'and' except in a formal or ceremonial context; I have never heard it except when someone is readin a document aloud. Has anyone US examples to the contrary ?

That's what I was always taught, to only use "and" when referring to a decimal point. --SodiumBenzoate 04:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation (commas in quotes)

I've not entirely convinced that British use has moved as far towards "logical" punctuation as this article suggests.

As a quick test I just grabbed two paperbacks I've read within the last week. The first is "One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night" by Christopher Brookmyre (Abacus "printed and bound in Great Britain"- 2000). The second is "The Portable Door" by Tom Holt (Orbit "Printed and bound in Great Britain" - 2006).

Both of these are fairly unequivacably (though very different) British authors.

Flicking through the first finds 'I thought you said this place was disused,' Dawson grumbled. 'There's shit everywhere.'

In the second I just as rapidly found He ought to have shrunk by six inches or so, but he didn't. 'True,' he admitted.

The commas seem pretty conclusive - it's much harder to work out what a full stop inside a quote is doing, but a comma when the person involved has finsished speaking must be to link it with description of who is speaking, not part of what they said.

80.229.143.175 09:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of tenses

I'm unable to understand the parentheticals in the sentence: "In American usage, [meanings with already, just, yet] can be expressed with the present perfect (to express a fact) or the simple past (to imply an expectation)." Can someone clarify them (if they are both meaningful and correct) or remove or replace them (if not)? —Blotwell 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Very clever. :p --Veratien 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Practise/Practice

As I can't find a reference to this in the article, I'll raise my point here:

I have often noticed, in American texts, the word "practice" (with the -ce ending) used as a VERB: for example, "you must practice the technique until it is perfect".

In British English, we make a clear distinction between "practise" (-se, verb) and "practice" (-ce, noun). This draws a logical parallel with words like "advise" (verb) and "advice" (noun). In this case, the difference is much clearer, because advice and advise are pronounced differently. However, because practise and practice are pronounced exactly the same, the different is not so clear.

What I am wondering is, in American English, IS it the case that "practice" is actually used as the verb? Is this a difference between British and American usage? Or do Americans also make the difference, as between advice and advise, and all usage of "practice" as a verb is just a common mistake?

I ask, because every time I see "practice" as a verb it looks strange to me, and I wonder whether I should correct it. If it's legitimate American English, and the article in question relates to the USA and/or the major contributor's style is American, then it's a legitimate spelling and I shall leave it alone. However, if it is indeed a mistake, then I should go ahead and correct it. In any British article, this would be corrected. But... can someone please enlighten me? Is this a legitimate difference across the Atlantic, or is it just a case of Americans making mistakes? Thanks. EuroSong ^talk 10:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Practice is indeed used as a verb in AmE. The s/c difference is nonexistent in AmE. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). MrTroy 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! Then it is not a mistake. Funny though: because AmE does distinguish between "advice" and "advise", and to be totally the opposite: uses "defense" as a verb! I wonder how this came about. Was Noah Webster just being deliberately contrary? Hehe. EuroSong ^talk 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: In American English, it is common for a lawyer to start a private practice (noun meaning "business"), to practice law (verb), and to practice reciting his oral arguments before going to court (noun meaning "rehearse/repeat"). --Coolcaesar 17:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got that. Although you made a mistake: in the last example you gave, it's still a verb (meaning rehearse/repeat), not a noun as you said. EuroSong ^talk 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You made a similar mistake yourself, saying "defense" is a verb in North America, while it's a noun. The verb would be "to defend". MrTroy 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Defense is indeed a verb in Englishes of any ilk, first recorded use being c1400. It is obsolete, however, with such forms as "defensing" sounding rather bizarre to modern speakers! [8] Setokaiba^✌_≝ 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)\

*_NO MISTER_*, the germane article is American and British English spelling differences, which is a spinoff of this very article and categorized under "American and British English differences." Btw, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) is mostly useless and slightly ridiculous. What's the point of having a page teaching people how to spell fiord or fjord in articles about South Africa when 90% of editors cluelessly use their own native spelling anyway?!? JackLumber. 13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, talking about a bad temper. I didn't mean in any way that MoS(spelling) is superior to American and British English spelling differences. I merely pointed to MoS(spelling) because it backs up my point about practice being a verb in AmE. Am I not allowed to link pages which are "useless and slightly ridiculous" in your opinion? I didn't see an "only link to JackLumber-approved articles" rule in the MoS... MrTroy 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There oughta be one. JackLumber. 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Offensive

Those damn fuckin Americans we gave them our language and they have the nerve to change the english accent. The same with those Australians too. USA think there so great with their gay little chants. Well how about this you damn fuckin yanks! "USA, ARE SO GAY! USA, R SO GAY!" Bastards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArsenalYoda (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Errr.... -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 14:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

You might wish to note that Boothman did not write the rude comment above; he was just responding to it, and obviously does not support the nonsense. Calling for him to be "removed from Wiki" is rather poor form. -- Coneslayer 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe next time I post I should write WARNING, BOOTHMAN IS ABOUT TO POST before it, just so idiots like 216.. can see it clearly. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

My mistake. I'm sorry Boothman. Assuming I was right about the user, what is "proper form?" I read the policies regarding disputes, and they didn't seem very useful in this situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.251.50.73 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 22nd August, 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

operate (on) a patient. in school / at school / teach school. Was ordered closed. Used not to, don't let's, verbal auxiliaries. TODO: subsection on phrasal verbs (e.g. rain out / rain off) + existing material. JackLumber. 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of bespoke as BrE version of Custom made

Bespoke is (almost) universally a tailoring term; in tailoring there is a world of difference between bespoke and custom made. Custom made involves making the suit from scratch, exactly to the customer's measurements. Bespoke is the same, but has three main differences that I know of: 1) the roll of cloth which the customer picks is held for that customer (thus, it is spoken for, or to use the older term, 'bespoke'). 2) the canvas interlining of the coat is loose, and not fused to the outer cloth. 3) there are hundreds of threads stitched across the canvas interlining to make it hold its shape in bespoke tailoring, this is not done in custom made. All this makes bespoke last longer and look better.

Anyway, all i'm trying to say is that bespoke isn't the same as custom made, and we should think of a different example.

In the software industry, we talk about 'bespoke software'; that is, tailor-made software suited to fit the needs of the client. It is created and customised according to what the client wants. I believe the term also applies to some engineering and scientific projects, but I'd have to check up on that. --Veratien 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds to me to be very much a niche use of 'bespoke' and it's used in plenty of non-tailoring circumstances. In everyday parlance, I don't think there is a difference between 'bespoke' and 'custom made'; if there is, it has never been apparent to me! Matthew 08:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I commonly hear people (in Britain) using "bespoke" as the opposite of "off the shelf". Most frequently this is in a business setting, but not exclusively. I've heard it applied to fitted kitchens, websites, caravans etc. However, I also commonly hear custom-made and I think people use the terms pretty much interchangably, even if there's probably a difference in meaning. Similarly, I hear the terms "envy" and "jealousy" being used interchangably, when they are completely different in meaning. --Dweller 10:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a cafe near my flat in London that advertises "bespoke sandwiches". I've never been in there, but at the very least, this example suggests that the name has extended beyond tailoring and has the general meaning of "dictated by the customer".Lfh 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, "bespeaking" is a kind of telepathy found in Ursula K. Le Guin's Ekumen universe. -- Evertype·✆ 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Names for fingers

I've noticed a number of usages in this encyclopedia (e.g. in the Penny football article) of the word "pinky". In British English we'd call it the "little finger". In American English is this a word that would be used in formal language? Is it appropriate for encyclopedic tone? And then there's the question of whether this article should log this difference (and any others in finger nomenclature!)? --Dweller 09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One would call it a "pinky" but I suppose in formal speech it would be called a "little finger". Personally I think the original Old English name is the best: earfinger. -- Evertype·✆ 09:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

New England

I'm originally from New England but have lived in many other parts of the U.S. I think that New England has maintained some British spellings. I often find myself writing 'travelled' instead of 'traveled' and doing other similar things.

even in MS Word

Even in MSWord it's not obligatory. All you need to do is to go to Autoformat, then to Autoformat as you type, and turn off the box for "Ordinals", and then do the same for the tab "Autoformat". It's an attempt to match print. In more sophisticated work, the Expert version of many Adobe fonts has all the superscript charaters. But I remember doing with typewriters: Most good typewriters let you move the roller up or down by half a line. (but then of course the characters looked too large, which is part of the reason why it was rarely done.)DGG 19:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Lanes 1, 2 and 3?

From the article:

UK traffic officials, firefighters, and police officers refer to Lanes 1, 2 and 3, referring to the 'slow', 'middle' and 'fast' lanes respectively. In the U.S. the meanings are exactly reversed with Lane 1 referring to the fast lane and so on.

Is this right? It just seems to me that labelling with the fast lane as 1 would be inconvenient, as the lane numbers would change when the number of lanes change. Driving in the slow lane where there are three lanes you would be lane 3, and if the road narrowed to two lanes you would find yourself in lane 2 without physically changing lane. -- Chris Q 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this could be a badly worded way of saying that in the UK the lanes are counted from the side nearest the verge and in the US they're counted from the side nearest the central reservation. But that's just a guess! Matthew 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

At least in the US, lanes come and go more often on the right (slow) side than the left side. (Think of all the acceleration/deceleration lanes at entrance and exit ramps; also, "truck lanes" on steep hills usually come from splitting the right (slow) lane, and then having the trucks merge back left at the top of the grade.) Thus starting from the fast side keeps the numbering from changing all the time. -- Coneslayer 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they would just call entry and exit roads slip roads and not change the number for these short stretches. -- Chris Q 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also wrong to call the lanes "fast", "middle" and "slow" - as this implies that variation amongst lanes is dependant upon speed, not upon overtaking. According to the highway code these are just referred to as "left", "middle" and "right" lanes, all lanes, except for the left lane are deemed to be overtaking lanes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.29.111 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Use of articles with numbered highways

I believe usage of articles before the name of a highway is consistent with highway naming in the U.S. As I understand it, usages like "I-495" and "Route 66" lack articles because the unabbreviated form would have no article ("I traveled up Interstate [Highway] 495", "I get my kicks on Route 66"). Roads with non-numerical proper names get an article throughout America: "the Boston Post Road," "the New Jersey Turnpike," but "I-95." Southern Californian highways (referred to by Southern Californians as "freeways") all have proper names, which are used interchangeably with their numbers: "the San Diego Freeway" or "the 405 Freeway" is shortened to "the 405," "the Santa Monica Freeway" becomes "the 10 Freeway" or simply "the 10."

I can verify the usage in Southern California and New England, but have not lived in other parts of the country; can anyone verify that this is the case? If so, I suggest changing the paragraph on roads to read:

"In BrE numbered highways usually take the definite article (for example "the M25", "the A14") while in America roads usually do not ("I-495", "Route 66"), unless they have proper names ("the Boston Post Road," "the San Diego Freeway,"). Southern Californians use freeway numbers interchangeably with their proper names ("the San Diego Freeway" is also "the 405 Freeway" or simply "the 405.")"Articulatron 02:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of sentence in "Verb Morphology"

Replaced the first sentence of the second paragraph (Nonetheless, as with the -tre words, the t endings are often found in older American texts.) with Nonetheless, as with other usages considered nowadays to be typically British, the t endings are often found in older American texts.I think that '-tre words' in the old version was referring to words like centre vs. center but I found that very confusing when I first read it. Tocharianne 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes used to indicate the author's disbelief

I want to know what the BrE and AmE approaches are for using quotes (single or double ?) to indicate a questionable term.

For example,

In her latest 'acting' role, Jennifer Arnold looked somewhat uncomfortable in front of the camera.

What is the convention for this? This is obviously the author expressing their opinion by questioning the term 'actor'. But does this count as a quote, or is it something else altogether? If it's something else, what is it called?

--Callum85 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

AmEng usage is double quotes in all situations, except for quotes within quotes, where single quote marks are used. So: the Chicago Manual of Style says "Quoted words, phrases, and sentences run into the text are enclosed in double quotation marks." [It really does - section 10.26 in the 14th edition]

BrEng usage is generally the opposite: single quote marks are standard, and double are used for quotes within quotes.

Neither style makes any distinction between quoted speech and other words placed in quotes to set them apart and mark them as "special" (like that) for whatever reason. I am not aware of any word for a word within quotes. I'm sure someone will enlighten me if there is such...

EXCEPT THAT:

(a) some authors try to maintain a distinction between speech and other types of quote-marked material. But IMHO such a distinction is almost always doomed to failure because of boundary-drawing difficulties, and is likely to be hard for a reader to follow, and I would always advise against - as would, for example, Butcher's Copy-Editing (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

(b) in some fields (e.g. linguistics and philosophy) it is apparently the convention to use single quotes for certain things (individual words, letters) even in the American double-quote environment. This is what the Chicago Manual says, anyway (again, section 10.26).

Does this help? Hope so... Snalwibma 20:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes argues that when indicating sarcasm etc., you should use the same form of quote mark as you would for a direct quotation. Quotation marks#Irony makes no style note as to which is preferred (but does suggest that it varies as a function of region, publisher, and that sometimes even the author might take precedence). Personally, to clearly distinguish the irony I always use the other type to indicate the difference in useage. I have yet to battle with an editor over this.--Limegreen 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Callum85 is merely questioning the form of the quotation marks; I think that he/she is also questioning whether any type of quotation marks should be used, and there seems to be some confusion as to whether the quoted word is actually a quote per se. My take on this is that they are indeed a sort of implied quotation, where the quotation marks are a substitute for the words "so-called":

In her latest [so-called] 'acting' role, Jennifer Arnold looked somewhat uncomfortable in front of the camera.

Did anyone else have this impression? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.46.139.101 (talk • contribs) .

I am not going to be the one who says that we'll never get to the bottom of this because "Americans don't do irony"[9][10], but we do seem to be a bit confused here :-) --Nigelj 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of tenses

I just added this note in the main article: "US usage sometimes substitutes the conditional for the pluperfect ("If I would have cooked the pie we could have had it for lunch")."

Is this usage generally approved by careful users of English in the US, or is it considered inattentive? Comments very welcome. Notreallydavid 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem inattentive to me. And not just because I've lived in Ireland for 17 years. ;-) My core dialect is Eastern Pennsylvanian. -- Evertype·✆ 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the subjunctive mood is more common in American English, yet the examples "They suggested that he apply" and "They suggested that he should apply" are both subjunctive. The only difference between the two is a shade of meaning. "They suggested that he apply" means that they thought it was a good idea, whereas "They suggested that he should apply" means that they thought it neccesary that he apply. Though some may regard the addition of should as redundant, that construct is no less common in America. Similarly "If I had cooked the pie" and "If I would have cooked the pie" are both common subjunctive forms in America with only a slight differenc in meaning. "If I had cooked the pie" means 'if the pie had been cooked', whereas "If I would have cooked the pie" means 'if I had wished to cook the pie.' However the usage of "would" is seen as immature or uneducated if wish had nothing to with the completion of the action. For example, in the construction "If I would have remembered to buy ingredients, I could have baked a pie", most Americans would prefer "had remembered." Additionally subjunctives with "would" imply that the action should have happened were it not for an individual's wish often with a sense of accusation. For example, the construct "If you would have cooked the pie, I could have been eating it now" places the blame for the incompletion of the action on the listener.--Jr mints 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Weekends

In the "Different prepositions" section, "closed weekends" is given as an example of a phrase used in both dialects. I would disagree with this; in BrE, it would always be "closed at weekends", as per the start of the paragraph. Is it OK just to delete this example? Tevildo 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and delete it - "closed weekends" would appear on a notice in Britain, but not (IMHO) as an utterance. In fact, "closed at the weekend" (definite article, singular) sounds more natural to me. Snalwibma 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these examples are progressively more UK-en, but I don't think I've ever seen any of them in use: "Open Mon-Fri" seems more familiar to me as a normal UK idiom. --Nigelj 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Street"

In my experience American urbanites quoting an address often drop the word "street" if it is redundant, e.g. (to take two examples from films) referring to Spring Street as "Spring" (from After Hours) and Bleecker Street as "Bleecker" (from Spider-Man). This is never done in BrE. Can anyone confirm this is common? Lfh 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is done, if it can be assumed that the other person knows that it should have street on the end - say when you're talking to somebody who lives in the neighborhood. It is said/written in full otherwise. That said, it is also equally as common for people to say the full name of the street regardless of the situation, so it doesn't really merit inclusion here. Koweja 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of American tourists doing the same with taxi drivers in London and being disastrously taken at their word. It may be an urban myth. I can't imagine anyone who asked for "Oxford" instead of "Oxford Street" not actually clarifying the situation over the couple of hours of motorway driving. But I suppose it's possible. --Dweller 13:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard stories like that before too, but it sounds like a joke about tourists that got repeated so often that people started to believe it. Koweja 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My wife had a letter sent to her from the USA with the "street" omitted. The address matched a "street" a "lane" a "road", a "way", a "drive" and "avenue" and a "crescent". Fortunately the postman knew that there was an American lady living at one of the matching addresses so she received the letter. Evidently in Houston and many other US cities the name part is unique. In Leeds and many other UK cities subdivisions will be known by the name, eg "The harolds" and will different roads will be differentiated by "way", "road", etc. See this map -- Chris Q 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is even clearer on this map -- Chris Q 14:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job the guy wasn't going to Sydney Street. I doubt any London taxi drivers would take you to Oxford but I suppose it might genuinely happen with Edgware/Edgware Road. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Another point that probably needs to be mentioned somewhere - the AmE convention of referring to junctions by giving only the names of the streets, possibly with an "and" (Haight-Ashbury, Lexington-125, Wicker and Main, etc.). The BrE convention is always to spell everything out in full - "The corner of Lisson Grove and Rossmore Road". Tevildo 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fork out/over/up

A question. In BrE, "Fork out" can be used intransitively, but not "fork over" or "fork up" (cough up, yes). Is this the case with AmE? Tevildo 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Drink Driving

In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand drink driving is against the law, while in the U.S. and Canada, the term is drunk driving. The legal term in the U.S. is "driving while intoxicated" (D.W.I.) or "driving under the influence" of alcohol (D.U.I.). The equivalent legal phrase in the UK is to be found "drunk in charge" of a motor vehicle (DIC).

Actually its "Driving while under the influence of alcohol" OR "Attempting to Drive with excess alcohol" in the uk "drunk in charge" is a different offence of being in the possession of a motor vehicle while drunk. you can also be drunk in charge of other things but I will leave that to the lawyers to figure out --Davelane 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Truck vs Lorry

From the "Historical background section" we come across this sentence:

This can result either in some variations becoming extinct (as, for instance, truck has been gradually replacing lorry in much of the world) or in the acceptance of wide variations as "perfectly good English" everywhere. Often at the core of the dialect though, the idiosyncrasies remain.

This is at best badly thought out, at worst it is wrong. In BE the word "lorry" is more likely to be used than "truck". Just because we treat "truck" as a weak synonym for "lorry" doesn't mean it is being replaced. Can we have a citation for this or a better example?

Some wrong stuff

I feel a lot of the British English is wrong. "whilst" is not at all common in Southern Britain, wherever that is. England? Wales? Kent? There are other examples where I would disagree, and I am sure many other people would. The "whilst" example comes into my head now, I can't think of many other examples off hand. "Shan't" isn't used very much either in Britain. And some of the British-->American phrases I feel is incorrect. Sometimes British people may say exactly the same as Americans, and vice versa, to be politically correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HalfEnglish (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

It really upsets me how much television and internet is killing off British English. The younger the person, the more Americanisms they use and the more their accent sounds like the ones they hear on TV. I'm sure lots of stuff on this page that was correct at one point will soon have to be removed because in fact it is just as common in Britain now. I think the note about 'whilst' is fine though. It is used in formal language in Britain where it wouldn't be in America.

I will not get involved in discussions of whether changes in language use and idiom are a good thing or not - but I feel I should point out that (IMHO) "whilst" and "shan't" are perfectly standard and common British (English) English. Snalwibma 13:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Both "shan't" and "whilst" are common in Northern England and Midlands England English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.29.111 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

"at" verses "on"

• AmE: "What phone number can I call you at"?
• BrE: "What phone number can I call you on"?

Is this a valid difference? --IE 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. In America we always say "at" for phone numbers because we analogize them to physical addresses. The same goes for Internet Protocol addresses and domain names, but not ports, though. So when I use my Web browser to access the Web page at www.microsoft.com, my Web browser contacts the Web server located on port 80 at IP address 207.46.199.30.--Coolcaesar 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Momentarily

Why do Americans use the word "momentarily" when they mean "soon". In BrE, doesn't it mean "briefly"? DFH 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't. "Soon" means in the near future, so it could be several hours or even days from now depending on the context. "Momentarily" means in the immediate future - in other words, the next thing that is going to happen. Koweja 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BrE: "for a moment". AmE: "in a moment". jnestorius^(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

American Vs. America

I learned English in the US, but I'm from Chile. Sometimes I feel quite offended when Yankees proclaim themselves "Americans." I am not sure the point I am trying to make, however, when I hear the word American, for me it means Native Americans (Mayas, Incas, Mapuches). I don't know if there is another word rather than American for Yankees...Yankees sounds informal. If not, I'm going to have to "suck it up" and use "Americans" to describe Yankees in my papers.

There is already a heavily disputed article on that very issue: Use of the word American. --Coolcaesar 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• American transcends all registers, no other adjective or noun does so. U.S. is occasionally used as an adjective, but mostly in informal writing. Some other informal ones exist, and you can always say Citizen of the United States or some such device. Use of the word American is not very informative, since it focuses on oddities rather than standards. American is the usual adjective for people from the Unites States, and English speakers are likely to get confused if you use American to mean Of or pertaining to the Americas. Some anglophones from the New World will also get uppity if you refer to them as Americans, because it may be perceived as Culturally Imperialist. If someone insisted on calling me an American, I doubt I could have a civilised dialogue with him, such a terrible insult to my culture and country would be pretty intolerable. WilyD 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

British Monetary Amounts

Perhaps mentioning the British words, "fiver" and "tenner", meaning £5 and £10 respectively, would be useful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.144.58.74 (talk • contribs).

And, pre-decimalisation we used to have the names 'tanner', 'bob' etc for coins. Americans still use 'quarter', 'dime' etc, I believe, for some of theirs. I'm not sure that anyone really cares, though. --Nigelj 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"No fear!"

The article says that users of BrE would say "No fear" which is synonymous to the AmE, "No way". I'm British and I've never heard "no fear" until I read this article. I don't think it is accurate.

It certainly used to be used in this way, though I last remember it being used a lot in the 70s -- Chris Q 07:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)