Talk:Comparison of American and British English: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:51, 27 April 2006

Latest revision as of 18:03, 10 June 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}

'''Archived discussions''':

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Languages|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject English Language|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 10

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(240d)

|archive = Talk:Comparison of American and British English/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{To do|3}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{English variant notice

| id = <!-- not sure what should go here -->

| small = <!-- {{{small|}}} -->

| image = English language.svg

| text = This {{SUBJECTSPACE formatted}} is about both '''[[British English|British]]''' and '''[[American English|American]]''' English and as such quotes both. The narrative sections that are not quoting British or American usage should avoid all forms that are not common to both [[List of dialects of the English language|varieties of English]] (''summarise'', ''summarize'', etc.). According to the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English|relevant style guide]], this should not be changed without broad consensus.

| variant= American and British English

| nocat=true

| form = <!-- {{{form|}}} -->

}}

{{old prod}}

{{annual readership}}

{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=240|index=/Archive index}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Middle school#Canada and the United States|Middle school]]</nowiki> The anchor (Canada and the United States) [[Special:Diff/535314640|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Canada and the United States","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":535314640,"parentid":535314281,"timestamp":"2013-01-28T09:04:09Z","removed_section_titles":["Canada and the United States"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

* <nowiki>[[Junior high school#Canada and the United States|Junior high school]]</nowiki> The anchor (Canada and the United States) [[Special:Diff/535314640|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Canada and the United States","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":535314640,"parentid":535314281,"timestamp":"2013-01-28T09:04:09Z","removed_section_titles":["Canada and the United States"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

}}

== "I couldn't care less" ==

*[[Talk:American and British English Differences (Archive 1)|Archive 1]], [[Talk:American and British English Differences/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

The article says 'Both BrE and AmE use the expression "I couldn't care less" to mean the speaker does not care at all.'

----

But, we very often hear Americans using "I could care less" when they really mean "I couldn't care less". The former, which is heard often (e.g. on US TV and films) is logically incorrect, and confusing to British ears, so possibly worth mentioning?<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:212.44.19.62|212.44.19.62]] ([[User talk:212.44.19.62|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/212.44.19.62|contribs]]) 17:51, 7 November 2011‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

==American English taught in other countries==

I wouldn't agree. I personally live in Kazakhstan. Although the claim in many English schools and other institutions is that they teach American english, it is more a mix. The pronouciation is often highly British, especially when it comes to the letter "t" always being pronounced as aspirated. The word "butter" for example, the "tt" is clearly "t" (aspirated) and in "Kitten" there is no sign of a glottal stop as in most American dialects. The final "t" of of "can't" and "went" is aspirated, etc. Final r's are highly British, etc. etc., the case is the same for many other sounds. As a teacher of English from Canada, I am aware of the difficulties of teaching true North American pronunciation, the orthography of English is to exceptional (!). It would be more correct to say American vocabulary and spelling are taught in those countries. Of course, whether conversational (true) English as such is acutally taught in institutions in foreign countries is a completely different question. I have yet to met a nonnative speaker who would say "I dohwannago". They say "I don't want to go" and aspirate all their t's, even if they've been learning english for 12 years. But that's probably for a different article. --[[User:ChadThomson|ChadThomson]] 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Confusion over section title ==

: As an Australian who [[Ikea|works (part-time) in a situation where I hear a lot of EFL speakers]], I would say they all have highly American accents to my ears. Rhotic, andf with the unrounded short O sound, for instance. Can make them quite difficult to hear. The majority of these are European though, so perhaps there's a difference there. — [[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] 10:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "holiday" as in the phrase "Holiday greetings" used as heading for section 2.3? I mean, don't Americans say "vacation" instead of "holiday"? --[[User:Fandelasketchup|Fandelasketchup]] ([[User talk:Fandelasketchup|talk]]) 11:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

:: Nonetheless, the English they are taught isn't really american. It has elements of various accents, and generally (blatantly) sounds very much like they are reading every letter. The english they are taught is often very forced and because it is often based on learning the alphabet as the first step, we have ESL speakers pronouncing the last syllable of "fortunate" like the word "eight", and the last sylable of image like "age". I haven't met a Korean who doesn't systematically make such mistakes, which points to the fact that even the American teachers fail to teach their students American english.--[[User:ChadThomson|ChadThomson]] 07:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

== Add section on pronunciation ==

::: No, I mean, until they give me their Bank of Sweden credit card, I honestly thought they were American. That kind of "highly American accents". (And in case of Americans who moved to Sweden, they're generally (a) too young (b) too enthusiastic about all the Swedishness and (c) have names which are too Swedish. Oh, and often they say something that makes it clear they're Swedish, too.—Of course, there's also those who when they walk away I'm still unsure.) It does of course vary, and maybe an American who hears them will say "that doesn't sound like a real American accent!", but many've clearly tried to learn American English.

It's easy to open this article on a mobile phone, see the various sections (grammar differences, spelling differences) and then wonder where's the "pronunciation differences" section. After this, you may read the notice on top that says:

::: My "sample set" will of course be different from yours—I only get the ones who've actually felt confident enough to visit and perhaps study in a foreign country. I still think it's fair to say that AmE is taught in other countries.

"For a comparison of typical American versus British pronunciation differences, see Comparison of General American and Received Pronunciation."

::: (I will agree that with many of the Asian customers who are clearly tourists (rather than the many many Asian customers who are immigrants; the Ikea I work at is just down the road from our local Vietnamese region) are more likely to try to pronounce words as read, but they still try for an American accent, and fail; they still have generally rhotic accents; they still have the o-that-sounds-like-an-a etc. etc.)

Since inadvertently skipping that notice is easier than it seems, I think a brief section with a high-level view of the pronunciation differences should be included (maybe some basics on rhoticity and the LOT vowel), and then a link added to the main article with more information. In that way, someone that reasonably expects a section on pronunciation differences would see it beside all the other sections. It's easier to miss it as a message on top. [[Special:Contributions/2A0C:5A81:4303:2100:28C5:6307:223B:77D|2A0C:5A81:4303:2100:28C5:6307:223B:77D]] ([[User talk:2A0C:5A81:4303:2100:28C5:6307:223B:77D|talk]]) 01:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

::: — [[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] 07:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

== Re: Bill ==

:::: RP (ie, UK) is still the language taught in most European countries. If you to your ear they sound American, it is probably because that is something they deliberately try to put on because they would prefer to speak with an American accent. I don't have the references to hand, but RP is still the taught standard, whereas AmE is the de facto standard. [[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 08:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC

::::: i think we should just remove that sentence. Why bother saying that. It's very difficult to objectively say you are teaching "American English", because there are several kinds of "American English" including the english people speak in a merica and the english they teach which is usually over enunciated, is far more bound to orthography than normal language, etc. etc. The same can be said for any english being taught in the world. English teachers often degrade to a very simplified, regualr form of english which is not true from a modern and accepted "descriptive linguistics" perspective.

::::: [[User:ChadThomson|ChadThomson]] 10:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The noun: Bill, in AmeE means a discussed, formulated, composed & drafted suggestion of/for a piece of legislation-I am '''not''' sure what the BritE equivalent is/would be.

:::::: I study English at a Swedish University, where a majority of the "immigrant teachers" are American. The Swedish English teachers are generally RP speakers, but several have American accents. It is true though, that most of the nine-year compulsory school teachers, as well as the upper secondary school teachers in Sweden did aim for an RP accent. Today it is rather the opposite: most of the students in my class (we are about 400) aim for an American accent, my estimate (of a quick-poll made at a lecture) is that about 75% are aiming for an American accent. I guess a major shift is ongoing. I argue that American accents will take RP's roll in the educational systems of countries where English is not the students' mother tongue. [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndare:NisseSthlm NisseSthlm] 20:36, 17 November 2005 (CEST)

Also, a bill is also an animal's beak (again, am'''not''' sure which one would be/is used in BritE!

I think I would agree with that...

There's also the document called: a bill of goods/bill of laden. Where is it used & is there a '''Bold'''different dialectal/regional to it?

Lastly, in the U.S., when in restaurant, one may ask for the bill or, for the check-whereas, in BritE, I am quite certain, <u>only</u> the noun: bill can be/is used in this context...

== Move this to American and Commonwealth English differences ==

Can I move this page to [[American and Commonwealth English differences]]? It seems like virtually everything in the article is equally applicable to other Commonwealth countries. [[User:Ben Arnold|Ben Arnold]] 9 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

[[User:AK63|AK63]] ([[User talk:AK63|talk]]) 00:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

:Definitely not 'everything' (the section on pronunciation is, for instance, quite concerning ... most Australians pronounce Ts americanly) and what is is definitely not 'equally' ('programme', though used by some people, is not the normally used normal spelling in AuE, for instance, mostly because it was introduced in the early 20th century). An article of [[Formal written English - regional differences|differences between the formal written Englishes]] might be interesting, but ah ... it already exists. (Personally I think it's all that's needed; these two articles should be merged, and what's inappropriate for Formal... should not be included. Why are the differences in pronunciation between RP (Standard British) and General (Standard) American any more encyclopaedic than the differences between RP and General (Standard) Australian?) [[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] 9 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

== Flap / |d| ==

::A couple of points need to be made. There is no such thing as Commonwealth English. The term British English is a laughing-stock in the UK. There is no variation whatsoever in educated English usage anywhere in the world apart from American English. American English is a variant of English, not the other way around. The language spoken in England does not require a prefix, it is English.

" Words like bitter and bidder are pronounced the same in North America, but not England, due to a phenomenon called flapping involving /t/ and /d/ between vowels." This does not have a source, and I would challenge it. My (Mid-West USA) flap is very close -- but not the same as -- my intervocalic d. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 18:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd just like to point out that this statement is incorrect. In fact many linguists argue that modern American English, accent wise is closer to English Speech in Shakespearean times, then British English today is. The Statement regarding British English belies the fact that English is NOT a static language and both British English and American English have undergone dynamic changes over the last 500 years. It's Xenophobic to presume that just because a language originated in a ___location it's the gold standard of that language.

::::I agree with the unsigned comment 2 above this one. American English wasn't even around 500 years ago. The language spoken in England is English, without a prefix. Do we call the Geramny's language German German? No, it is simply German, and Swiss, Austrian etc are all variants of that. American English is an offshoot of English, but "British English" *shudder* is not an offshoot of English. English is English. [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 15:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::No way, Boothman. Any serious, unbiased linguist would dismiss your assertion as plain wrong. The guy who wrote the paragraph just above yours nailed it down, so I won't rehash it. But the phrase "Commonwealth English" is never where. Canada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, but Canadian English is much closer to U.S. English than British. The German example is way out of line, as German is spoken in a very restricted area compared to English. As the other varieties of English spoken all around the world have not diverged as much as to be considered separate languages, we need prefixes to distinguish them---British, Canadian, American, the whole enchilada. The unsigned comment 3 above mine says, "''There is no variation whatsoever in educated English usage anywhere in the world apart from American English''." This is plain wrong too. Differences in usage (usage, not vocabulary) between American and British speakers are negligible, ''all'' languages have such differences within them. some so-called "American" constructions are a heritage of precolonial English that Britons just dropped; and AmE regards practically ''all'' "British" constructions as standard, and additionally enriches the language with peculiarly "American" constructions. Americans donated ''thousands'' of words and meanings to the English Language, many of which are used everyday by oblivious English speakers all around the world. ''Employee'', ''motel'', ''check-up'', ''baby-sitter'', ''fix'' or ''park'' a car. Just to name a few. But there are thousands of them.--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 10:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Furthermore, AmE sometimes is even more "English" than BrE! Compare ''general delivery'', ''eggplant'' with ''poste restante'', ''aubergine''. Plus, Britons coined many terms that were actually unneeded---nappy, lift, petrol, anticlockwise, etc., as diaper, elevator, gasoline, counterclockwise, etc. had already entered the language. In some cases (diaper), a very long time before.

:::: We don't need a prefix for the origin of English. It is simply English, no matter how it has developed. It doesn't matter that other off-shoots of the language developed or remained static with this word or that word. English in the UK (the language's country of origin) is simply called "English". Nor does it matter that English has adopted phrases and/or words that originated in Australia, the USA or Canada. Such is the nature of the development of languages. English is the de facto standard. All other variants (such as American-English) are sub-category off-shoots, albeit off-shoots that developed both separately and in tandem with English. The reality of the situation is that this article should in fact be renamed "American and English differences (language)" or something similar. I propose that "British English" and "Commonwealth English" may both be considered [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]]. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: The idea of it. "Commonwealth English" can indeed be regarded as original research, and I already explained why above, but the phrase "British English" has been around for 150 years or so. The English language as spoken in the UK is a de facto standard for the UK only. Each English-speaking country has its own standard. THAT'S WHY we need prefixes to distinguish the different dialects. Setanta, you might be surprised by the fact that the language we speak in the United States of America is referred to as just ''English''. American dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster or American Heritage, are not "Dictionaries of American English." They are "Dictionaries of the English Language." To put it another way, before colonization there was just English. Now, there are many Englishes. The fact that English as spoken in Britain is more "English," or more "standard," cannot be justified by geography. It's not even a fact, it's just plain wrong. Each variety of English is standard in its own country. And the fact that all English dialects are mutually intelligible makes for referring to them all just as ''English''. Period.--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 14:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC) And please, guys, don't talk of things you don't know, such as "the nature of the development of language."

:::: '''''"The English language as spoken in the UK is a de facto standard for the UK only. Each English-speaking country has its own standard."''''' .. developed from English. '''''"before colonization there was just English. Now, there are many Englishes."''''' ... which developed from English. '''''"The fact that English as spoken in Britain is more "English," or more "standard," cannot be justified by geography."''''' But it can be 'justified' by virtue of the fact that the language developed from the people of the UK. '''''"Each variety of English is standard in its own country."''''' .. all of which developed from English. '''''"And please, guys, don't talk of things you don't know, such as "the nature of the development of language.""''''' Don't be so bloody patronising. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 15:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: The point you made, JackLumber, underlines the argument. "AmE regards practically ''all'' "British" constructions as standard". It is not the case that English accepts American constructions. May then it be presumed that BrE is the template has AmE has grown from this? And there's no need to qualify "BrE", because "BrE" is indeed the original English? And by the way I hate the term British English, because the difference between English spoken in "Britain" can be as large as the differences between AmE and BrE. And I agree with Setanta, you are bloody patronising. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

::::::I don't think it's true that AmE regards all British constructs as true; try putting your commas outside your quotation marks on the AP English test and see what your score is. Nor is it terribly helpful to say "BrE is indeed the original English" when, of course, the issue is more complicated; there are parts of North America that have been English-speaking longer than parts of Britain. I would leave the article as it is, although I think it might be more useful to write an article about English regional differences instead. A point that is not often made here is that the idea of "national standards" is a bit of a misnomer in English, as it lacks a standard body to arbitrate the language; within each country there exist significant regional and stylistic differences (Compare, say, the Chicago Manual of Style rules on hyphenation with those of the AP Stylebook). As regionalisms often become adopted worldwide (think of "gross", as in disgusting; a California novelty word in 1982; a strange Americanism five years later; and pretty much universal a decade after that) we shouldn't get too worked up about this. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 18:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I always have thought that my language was English since I learned to speak. Now I am told that it is not really English. I might be patronizing, but you guys are self-contradictory. Each nation has its own standard, and you say, developed from English. Of course. British English too developed from what you call "English." There was no need for such a phrase as "British English" when English was spoken but in Britain. American English did NOT develop from British English. It developed from ''English''. Languages change, evolve, cannot be compartmentalized. Additionally, AmE was influenced by modern British English too, and it still is. Many British words really come in handy, such as ''early on''. (But the best Briticism ever is, obviously, ''miniskirt''.) Hovever, inasmuch as each English-speaking country claims, duh, to speak English, we need the prefixes to avoid clashes. Anyone of us speaks just English in its own nation. We speak British, American, etc. English when it comes to compare our dialect to that spoken by somebody else in another part of the world. The language spoken in Britain until 17th century was the original English. British English is not. British English is one of the many varieties of English currently in use, and it is, notably, the dialect spoken in the region where the language was born. But English as spoken in Britain ''now'' and the ''original English'', as somebody bombastically uttered, are not the same thing. Setanta, people in the UK are better than people in the USA, as to justify British English's being standard? That was either a jingoistic theory (I did not say xenophobic), or merely a restatement of the geographic argument, which linguists generally reject. I could as well say that American English is more "tolerant" because we are more receptive, open-minded, less snobbish than British people. But that's not what I personally think. Hey Brits, instead of spatting and getting mad at me, why don't you help me clean up the [[List of words mainly used in British English]]? I need you to write British definitions as posted on the talk page thereof. --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 21:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Prohibit, actually I was thinking mostly about spoken language. But yes, punctuation makes publishers wrangle even within the same country, you know.

::: I agree with most of what you say in the first half of your paragraph above JackLumber. Where I differe is the suggestion that "English spoken in Britain until the 17th century was the original English". That English is still used, but has developed. You may call what it has developed into "British English".. but only because differences have arisen in the development of it in other countries. German, for example, is the same: it developed from what is known as Old German, but it is not known as "German German".

::: You said: '''''"Setanta, people in the UK are better than people in the USA, as to justify British English's being standard?"'''''. But I can't see anywhere in the additions to this discussion where I came anywhere even close to suggesting this. Your alleged jingoism is merely in your own head I'm afraid.

::: When it comes down to it though, I think the article name is acceptable as it stands. I would perhaps suggest a different title though: "International differences in English" or some such.

::: And Jack - I'd be happy to help with the article [[List of words mainly used in British English]]. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

::::::::'Twas just an example. I speak English (no modifiers), and as I say find some of the jingoism rather silly, as if anyone today spoke "the original English" or if there were one strain of it that is ipso facto better than the others. Yes, there are differences and they are interesting to look at, which is the point of this article, but people shouldn't read too much into them; English everywhere is pretty similar, as far as these things go.

::::::::BTW, once I worked at an international TV broadcaster, and one of the American producers would often encounter unfamiliar words; he would inevitably say, ''That must be Briddish English''. (Nope, it's just that your vocabulary skills are astonishingly weak for a so-called journalist, I should have said.) The lesson I took (apart from the obvious one, that some real doofuses get to be in positions of power) was that people tend to assume differences where they don't necessarily exist. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

::: Prohibit, whether or not anyone today speaks "original English" wasn't the point. The point was that English, as spoken by the people of the UK, originally developed from there. In that sense therefore, the development of the language in its home country - and specifically in England itself I would go as far to say - is de facto English and has to be regarded as the standard. All other variants are off-shoots which developed both in tandem and separately, with their own influences. For example, with spelling differences between the USA and the UK whereby 'extraneous' letters are removed from words such as colour, honour, valour, programme, catalogue etc (color, honor, valor, program, catalog etc), which are all specific to the USA and the countries influenced by the USA's changes to their version of English.

::: I don't think it is necessarily jingoism to suggest this either. I know of some Americans who agree with my point of view, but are obviously quite clear that in their country it is correct to spell colour as c-o-l-o-r etc. I could easily suggest that it is jingoistic to claim that the USA has any right to call the language they use "English". That is not my personal opinion.. just an example. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Mal, I just said that your words "But [British English's being standard] can be 'justified' by virtue of the fact that the language developed '''from the people of the UK'''" could suggest ''either'' jingoism (and I wouldn't of ben surprised, given that your user page is tapestried with Union Jacks and British flags :) ''or'' a restatement of the "geography" argument. So I guess it's the latter. But, I also noticed you are in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One|F.1 Wikiproject]]---believe it or not, I'm a F.1 buff and I'm fixing to join you sooner or later. As far as this bicker, I suggest that the case be ''mooted''. (Look up ''moot'' [[List of words having different meanings in British and American English/rewrite|right here]]---yours truly authored that entry, along with many others.)--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: Jack, my userpage is "tapestried" with Union Jacks, and symbols of Ireland and Scotland as I am proud of my heritage. You are confusing jingoism with a healthy interest in heritage and some patriotism. That doesn't necessarily imply that I will always automatically be jingoistic. As far as the title of this article, I suggested two titles that might be considered very much compromises. Having thought about it again in the last couple of minutes and, considering the content of the article, I think that perhaps mentioning American and British in the title could be perceived as misleading: there are a number of variations throughout former British colonies and other regions of the world (and many differences even within the UK or USA - some of which could be considered distinctly separate dialects, such as Scots or Lallans for example). Perhaps a vote on the name, listing a number of different possibilities for the title, would be in order (assuming that's not already in progress). I look forward to seeing your additions to the F1 project, and I hope to be of more help in the next few days - the season is almost upon us! :) --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::"British English is de facto English and should be regarded as the standard because we started it - so there :-P" English started in England? Says who? By that logic, the origin of English (and home of the only true standard) would be somewhere in Northwest Germany. The English were simply the first ones pretentious enough to name the language after themselves (before your british heads explode, realize that I'm half-kidding.) Anyways, the way I see it, there are more of us (Americans) then there are of you (everyone else.) If you want to take a vote as to what sort of English should be the standard, I'm quite sure that we'd win. :-) Besides, how can something be considered a standard when it itself is not standarized? In England, regional differences are so extreme that people literally have trouble communicating from one town to the next. In the United States you can go 3000 miles form coast to coast and the accent is virtually unchanged. --[[User:Yorick8080|Bri]] 13:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: There are roughly five times as many US Americans as British people. Of all the English speaking regions in the world, the US lobby would certainly be a strong. I suspect an Indian lobby might be stronger mind you. However, it isn't about numbers. Nor is it about accents. English, as a language, has many roots - not just that of NW Germany. Anglo-Saxon, Latin, Celtic, French and a good many other languages have all had their influence on it. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::Aah, but there you bring up the geography argument, when in fact English AND England were named after the peoples that used it ([[Angles]]), not the place. And ''please'' do not mistake English for British and vice-versa. It's ignorant and incorrect. As far as I'm concerned, I realise (with an s) that American English speakers outnumber Commonwealth English speakers (not by much, mind), but numbers do not necessarily matter in language terms (look at [[Welsh]], an unneeded, awkward language spoken by about 1/4 of Welshers, but used on all road signs). -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 14:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::: You're just digging yourself a hole. More of the flawed "BE is best because it's British argument." By what logic? You can't just say it is because it is. Also, I didn't mistake English for British. I was simply using the same language that the limeys in this discussion are using. I hate to point it out to you, but English people ''are'' British (and that's all I said.) As far as American English speakers not outnumbering you-all by much, I direct you to this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:English_dialects1997.png ... as you can see, Commonwealth English speakers are a significant minority in the world. Sorry! --[[User:Yorick8080|Bri]] 15:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Who said anything about 'British English' being "best" Yorick? Here's an example of how one dialect evolved from the 'mother language' - the original, if you will: the word color. Where did it originate? As for your numbers argument, see my contribution above. By the way - I'm not a "limey". --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: What I was referring to was your statement that British English doesn't require a prefix, etc. and is de facto english. Total crap. And as far as what you said, American English didn't "evolve" from what you've refered to as the "mother language" (what the hell?) - in fact, it's quite clear by examining the accents of other former colonies (particularly Australia, with their accent falling somewhere between English and American) that most of the phonetic differences are a result of *you* changing, not us. As for citing "color" as an example of an American modification - that's more bullshit. These differences came from a time when spelling standards were still quite loose, and spelling reformers such as Noah Webster had as much authority to designate the accepted forms of words as any Brit counterpart might have had. Oh, and what you wrote about American spelling differences coming from having to teach non-native speakers how to write?? That is just pure ignorance on your part. Those differences came about because the widely accepted British forms were just redundant - that's all. Perhaps you could try doing 20 seconds of research before you make such flimsy assumptions. --[[User:Yorick8080|Bri]] 11:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Bri, I would suggest you try being a bit more [[WP:CIVIL|CIVIL]] in this '''discussion'''. This is not a "my daddy can beat up your daddy" debate - it is a discussion on how best the reach a solution for a dispute. But here's the fact of the matter, since you seem confused about the origin of English. English was spoken in England before English-speaking people ever reached North America. At a time when communication was particularly and comparatively slow across vast distances such as the Atlantic Ocean, when people in the colonies didn't have access to vast archives and reference materials, and at a time when literary standards were a lot lower than they are today. Accents have nothing to do with it. Your point about changes having come about "because the widely accepted British forms were redundant" only serves to highlight two of my points: 1. That American differences in the language stemmed from the 'mother tongue' and 2. Why alter redundancies in words unless you were wanting to simplify the use of the language? Simplfying the language would, in turn, make it easier for many non-English speakers to learn English, would it not? If you think my suggestion is "flimsy" (and your sentence implies that you have done "more than 20 seconds of research"), then perhaps you could have come up with some actual evidence that refutes my suggestion, instead of actually asserting my suggestion! Finally, I put it to you that your suggestions regarding American English puts you in a position whereby you appear to be suggesting that American English developed separately, and that its merely happy coincidence that it has so much in common with the English language in general! I don't personally consider the Australian accent particularly close to the American accents. I would note the similarities of the Australian accent with South Africa or New Zealand though. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Mal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_reform ... "Functional illiteracy has been reported as high as 20% in the UK compared with 10% in Germany and 8% in Sweden." ... looks like maybe ''you guys'' could use a little simplification just to make teaching to other Brits easier! ... and my old man could knock yours on his ass. ;-) --[[User:Yorick8080|Bri]] 22:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Well the first thing I noticed in that article you pointed me to was the notice saying: "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." lol However, it is Boothman you should be pointing that 'fact' out to, as I personally don't see that there is much difference, as I have stated previously, below. I have seen reports which suggest similar reported levels of illiteracy in the US. I'm not too concerned about it either way though. As for your old man knocking mine on his ass, unfortunately that wouldn't be too difficult, as he's no longer with us. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::: Yorick8080, I agree with the major points of your post, but I don't think that you can say that most of the phonetic differences are due to British changes. The Australian accent is particularly close to that found in South London and Kent, so much so that I have known people to mistake people from that part of the country as Australians. Similarly, most American accent is in some ways very different from most English accents, but have similarities with other accents - for example the Rhotic pronunciation is similar to that of Irish (Hibernian) English. A lot of traditional poems only rhyme in a Northern English or Lowland Scots accent, so obviously the "standard" British English and American English pronunciations have both changed. In short I think it would be very difficult to say which accents have changed most, as all have changed in different ways. -- [[User:Chris Q|Chris Q]] 12:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't actually believe that chart to be true as in doesn't account for the speakers of English in places like India, where they speak Commonwealth English. And don't even start me on the English being British thing, anyway, that's an irrelevant point. You know what, I can't win this argument; logic is on your side. BUT, I do still feel that the English used over here is superior to AmE, mainly because of our better education system. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 19:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::::That's funny. I can't speak about the comparative superiority of both dialects in all contexts, but as an American attorney, I've always found the written English used in English judicial opinions to be much harder to read than its American equivalent. Australian and New Zealand opinions are even worse.

::::One reason is the divergence in the word order, word choice, and punctuation rules. I also think it may have something to do with the much later development of the [[Plain English]] movement outside of the United States. Most educated Americans have had Strunk & White's motto of "BE CONCISE" drilled into them by high school English teachers, and most American lawyers are trained to get to the point within the first two or three sentences. We also have a tradition of writing tightly structured (some would probably say hyperstructured) legal briefs and judicial opinions.

::::I picked a few House of Lords opinion at random to read right now, and most of them were full of clauses simply expressing agreement or disagreement on minor points with the other judges on the panel, as opposed to clauses analyzing the concrete facts and law of the case. I then looked at some recent California opinions, which generally lead with a succinct summary of the issue in the case. For example, ''People v. McDonald'', a decision published today by the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, begins with a one-paragraph sentence: "This case presents the question of whether it is a crime under California state law to urinate in public." Although the case, like most legal cases, involved several complicated legal questions, they ultimately boiled down to that one issue, and the court got straight to the point.

::::Of course, I'll concede that when it comes to overall literacy, though, Boothman might have a point about the decrepit state of the U.S. public education system, particularly at the secondary level! --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: I don't know though Coolcaesar - had you lived here (in the UK) for any amount of time you might be, like myself, quite appalled at the state of the situation regarding the use of English language these days! Personally I blame the phenomena of 'txt-spk' over mobile (cell) phones and lack of interest basically. I don't necessarily believe that the British education system is any better in this day and age than the US one, despite the prior (in my opinion, well-deserved) reputation of the UK system - but they are certainly different.

::::: I don't know if I've mentioned this earlier in this discussion page, but I'd certainly like to know the etymology of US words such as color, catalog etc. My suspicion is that many words were changed to make it easier to teach the larger number of non-English speakers in the US - many words were spelled phonetically. Its not necessarily 'wrong', but it is different, and highlights the fact that the one (US English) was derived from the other (English). --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I can't write on the contrasts between British and American legal writings, but I can say that in general it seems that Americans tend to be more succinct than their British counterparts. In response to Boothman's claim that India should be counted into the Commonwealth English total, anyone who has been subjected to using Indian technical phone support knows that what they speak in India is ''anything but'' commonwealth English (counting people who speak English as a secondary language is just ridiculous anyways, because you drag virtually the entire planet into it.) I can understand my Ozzy, Limey and Canadian brethren just fine - these Indian folks I cannot. As far as BE being superior because of your education system - that's just laughable. If you think about that one for 2 seconds you'll realize that the English education system as a whole is shit compared to the US (and your newcasters being the only ones among you who speak with any degree of clarity doesn't say much for the compatibility of your dialect[s], either.) In all truth, I don't have any(much) desire to try and argue the superiority of one flavor (with no U) of english to the next. As someone pointed out, they're all pretty much the same. But to say that English as spoken today in England is the end-all, be-all of dialects, without producing any kind of logical argument or hard facts as to why - well, that's just very British of you. --[[User:Yorick8080|Bri]] 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Again - I don't think there is much difference in the education systems, contrary to you suggesting, Yorick, that the US system is superior, or Boothman suggesting that the UK system is better. Adult literacy rates are usually quoted in the US as being around 97% or 98%, whereas in the UK its often quoted at 98% or 99%... hardly a difference to write home about! --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Literacy rates do not signify a good education system, rather more the amount of immigration. And the UK system is better than the American system ONLY because we start school earlier, nothing else. Yours is the education system which sets π to 3! AND I'd also like to point out that succinctness (sp?) is a trait found in Northern England, ALSO, our newscasters' accents are only clear to your ears because you have no experience of other dialects. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: Boothman, I agree with everything else in your above comment, apart from the part about the education system (re: starting age). I believe that the pre-school classes that many parents send their kids to (kindergarten) tends to be more social in the UK, whereas there may be more structure and actual teaching instruction in US kindergarten. I also think that more US kids are sent to kindergarten as a comparitive percentage than in the UK. I would like asource on the Pi = 3 thing though! Oh, and I wouldn't agree that literacy rates can be directly correlated with immigration rates. I have no doubt that it is a factor, but I couldn't begin to speculate on the impact of it. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: '''whoa whoa whoa''' guys, why don't you all try to chill out and avoid 4-letter words... No reason to get excited---cutting to the chase, allow me to pontificate:

* There's no such thing as "the best" English. Englishes are just different, that's all.

* There's no such thing as "the original" English. English as spoken in North America stemmed from 17th century English, just as the English currently spoken in Britain.

* There's no such thing as "the best educational system." Culture, background, etc. in U.S. & UK are different, and so is education. Way back, American kids were taught 1) to not split infinitives, and 2) that ending sentences with prepositions was not something to be proud of. But people soon figured out that giving up such features was just mangling the language.

* Everybody speaks English in their own nation. We need prefixes just when it comes to compare different varieties of English.

* Everybody can use the English Language the way they see fit, as there's no English Language Authority watching over us. So we can be verbose, longwinded, matter-of-fact, stripped-down, concise, gabby, unintelligible, talkative.

* Both Limeys and Yanks have their faults as far as the language. As a partial ''mea culpa'', I'm not happy at all when I notice that some feller Americans have a tendency to regard all the words they don't know as Briticisms. That means being nescient. (What were you Brit saying about education? That I might reconsider :-)

* And most of all, there's no such thing as Commonwealth English. This phrase was coined by some fellow Wikipedian who had just fallen off of the wagon. ;-)

::::: Let's just enjoy the fact that we all speak a common tongue and can understand one another. And let's try to learn from one another every day. Y'all can't even figure how much I have learned by editing the [[List of words having different meanings in British and American English]] and related pages. It all adds up to embodying our cultural baggage. Thanks for droppin' in. --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well, said! Could I just add that reading through this debate highlights that there's really just one written English. Most of the time I couldn't spot any clues to what nationalities the writers were. That's because about 99.999 percent of written English follows the same rules around the world. (A huge benefit for us English speakers, by the way!) The few discrepancies of spelling are insignificant in the vast vocabulary of English.

::::::Spoken English, however, is entirely another matter and I think this article would sometimes benefit from greater clarity as to whether a listed word or structure is used in formal writing or is generally only used in speech (with a note as to whether it is colloquial, vulgar etc). [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Amen to that, JackLumber! -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: ... yup! Compare Adrian Robson's statement with the page [[Formal written English]]. Spoken English is a different matter, as there are conspicuous differences even within the same country. This is particularly true for Britain, but as far as my personal experience---California TV shows can be totally awesome, but sometimes when I watch them I could use subtitles :-) --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

:Having read this entire dispute, I have a few comments. First, someone said "In the United States you can go 3000 miles from coast to coast and the accent is virtually unchanged"...well, that is complete nonsense. I can go an hour away from here and detect a noticeable difference between my lowcountry SC accent and the piedmont or mountain accents nearby. Just because an outsider can't detect accent variations doesn't mean they aren't there.

:I really think that you cannot generalize about any branch of the English language and say that it stemmed from another. Taking American English as an example, we have had a melting pot of so many cultures in this country, for so long, that it's nearly impossible to sort out exactly who influenced the language the most. You just have to examine each word individually. Now, if you take regional differences into consideration, it is possible to generalize a little...For example, the accents and colloquialisms of Minnesota and Wisconsin are heavily influenced by the Scandinavians who settled there. And, where I live in the deep south, our accents and colloquialisms are heavily influenced by the African language. Take, for example, the slang word for turtle - "Cooter", which comes directly from the West African word for turtle, "Kuda". That is just one example among hundreds.

:As for the issue of the education systems, my experience is that both the US and the UK start school at about the same time. Most children attend preschool beginning at 3. There are many headstart programs and pre-kindergartens available now that are very focused on getting lower income and special needs kids ready for school. And, most American children attend kindergarten. Mine both learned to read in kindergarten, at age 5. The US education system has received a bad rap for a long time...sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. I have noticed that many schools in Northern Ireland, for example, do not offer the same extracurricular programs for children, such as sports and art, or at least not with the same regularity, as American schools. I also think that arguing over whose education system is better is not a very productive or meaningful debate. Both the US and the UK have a lot more to offer than many countries in the world, this is just splitting hairs really.

:My opinion about the differences in spelling...I think it's a combination of factors. As someone pointed out, it was only within the last 100 years that anyone gave a rip about spelling anyway. That's why, when people came over to Ellis Island from the mother country, one would write "O'Neill" while his brother would write "O'Neal" and so on. Apparently, Noah Webster was a big proponent of spelling reform. He wanted to simplify the language in order to make it easier for children to learn it, and to make it more user-friendly in general. Here is a link if you want to read about that. [http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm]

:For those of you who are trying to assert that the "British English" version is the best, or the most cultured, or the most intellectual, or whatever...well, that's just very British of you.

:Oh, and I believe Mal asked for an etymology on the word "color". It originally came from old French, "colur" which before that was from latin "colos", to cover. -- [[User:Claudia71|Claudia71]] 12 March 2006

::Oh shucks, I thought this horse was already beaten to death. Anyways, Noah probably wanted also to get rid of that old French spelling heritage---compare ''color'', ''colour'', and ''couleur''; ''centre'' and ''center''. And you forgot to mention that the Latin spelling of "color" was, duh, ''color''... Noah's changes took root because they basically were cool. Remember that way back some guy early one morning woke up and said, "Well folks, from now on, ''though'' and ''through'' are to be spelled ''tho'' and ''thru''." People said back, "What? You gotta be kidding." And those alternate spellings never made their way. Because they were not as cool and etymologically sound as "color," "center," etc. Just my $0.02... --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 18:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

::: I should point out, regarding Claudia71's statement, ''"For those of you who are trying to assert that the "British English" version is the best, or the most cultured, or the most intellectual, or whatever...well, that's just very British of you."'', that the same applies to those proponents here that "American English" is better etc etc - its very American of them.

::: Another thing to note is that people have here have suggested that "American English" is not an offshoot of English. Yet many of the same people have informed us as to how spellings etc have '''''been changed''''' from the original. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Mal, look who's talking. I thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel, but it was just another semi. (A truck, not a house :-); pronounced "semeye.") There were no hard-and-fast spelling rules when Noah settled on "color," "center," etc. You think that Americans invented "color" and "center," don't ya? Nope. "Poore soule the '''center''' of my sinfull earth" -- William Shakespeare. And who changed good ol' "-ize" into "-ise"? We just tried to de-Frenchify the language and you Frenchized it even more. What were you saying about "changes from the original?" And who invented new, etymologically questionable meanings to words like ''pavement'' or ''pants''? Brits. And who dropped the Rs? And who dropped periods/full stops from abbreviations, as in '''etc''' (it's the way you spelled it above)? And who turned "accommodations" into "accomodation," "gotten" into "got," yada yada yada? Well Mal, we have changed, y'all have changed, the times they are a-changin'. It's just the "natural development of the language," as we used to say. The language I speak is called "English," and (to capsule the whole schmeer, i.e. without factoring in the worldwide influence English has undergone) sure is an offshoot (let me say ''spinoff'', an American word ;-) of what used to be English, and so is the language ''you'' speak, called "English" as well. Hey Norn Iron-man, you breathin' yet? You wimpin' out, ain't ya? ;-) -- [[User:JackLumber|Jack the Jackal Lumber]] 13 March 2006

::: Jack, individual records of usage don't really concern me. There was, in fact, a hard-and-fast spelling rule, as laid out in dictionaries created up to around 150 years before Noah Webster's revisionist version. The fact is that English, as used in America, was brought over to that area of the world by English speaking people - from the region in which it had been first established. I don't know why you can't understand this or accept it: English developed in England, and spread from there. It had standard grammar and spelling rules, the latter of which were set out in dictionaries, as I said. As for my not using a fullstop in "etc", I am writing here on this discussion page rather more informally than I would when writing an article for Wiki for example. I don't know what the standard is now in that case, but I do think you are starting to nit-pick and this discussion has started to become pointless. I'm not "wimping out", Yank-man(!), but I do think that this discussion has lost sight of the topic at hand. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: It's not pronounced "semeye" it's pronounced "sem-i". And where are these "dropped Rs"? Ditto with the "dropped full stops". Noah's changes weren't cool, they were made for thick people who pronounce [[Iran]] as "Eye-ran" and Colin as "Coa-lɘn". -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 18:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

:::::: I might sound dumb, but I didn't quite figure out that "semeye" vs. "sem-i" thing. (I know that "semi" is a type of house in UK, and that it's pronunced "sem-ee.")I wish I could write IPA. Sigh. And pronouncing "Iran" as "I ran" is wrong to me. (In my own speech, ''Iran'' rhymes with ''con'', ''on'', ''dawn'', and ''don''---yes, I merge dawn & don, but I don't merge caught & cot; and the "i" is pronounced as in "sit.") But standard British pronunciation merges ''court'' and ''caught''---that's "R-droppping." As in Boston, MA, "pahk the cah in Hahvuhd Yahd." "The eye dear of it." And so on...--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Boothman, you're from Lancashire, are you an "R-keeper" indeed?

::: Just a note on the pronounciation of the words "court" and "caught" - its not "standard English pronounciation" to pronounce court with a dropped r. Pronounciation varies from area to area, and its not unusual to have different accents (and therefore pronounciations) in different areas of the same town throughout the British Isles. Some areas of the south of Britain retain the R, and many regions of northern England also. Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular retain the R in words. Also, some areas of London, for example, would tend to actually add an R in their pronounciation of the word caught. There is no standard in pronounciation, although there has been a history of adoption of a standard as such, on media broadcasts (particularly the BBC). This has changed a lot in the last few decades, though there is still an semi-conscious (pronounced sem-ee, or sem-eye depending on where you're from!) effort to use an accent which is effectively a merger, to avoid misinterpretation of spoken words. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes I am from Lancashire, but no I do not keep Rs. In fact, my "caughts" and "courts" are almost indistinguishable, although my father does pronounce them. The Rs are kept usually anywhere North of where I live, for example in [[Bolton]] and [[Accrington]], whereas places like [[Rochdale]] and [[Oldham]] tend to have less R-keepers.

::::Iran should almost rhyme with "re-ran", but with a slightly longer a and a shorter e. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation differences within Britain are really interesting. Also because British dictionaries (notably, the OED) give ''one and only one'' pronunciation for each word (what I referred to as "standard pronunciation," I guess it's called the "Received Standard"), perhaps implying that the others are less "educated," or less "correct." Conversely, American dictionaries (notably, Webster's 3rd) give a whole bunch of alternat(iv)es, oftentimes with a hard-to-read notation; for instance, "were" (past of "be," 2nd singular) is given ten (!) different pronunciations; "been" has, like, "(|)b'''i'''n, _b'''@'''n; b'''e'''n ''(in standard speech more often unstressed or with secondary stress than with primary stress); Brit usu and US sometimes'' (|)b'''ea'''n"; (where the letters in bold represent the "short i," the schwa, the "short e," and the "long i," respectively.) What were we saying about Brits being verbose and Americans being concise? Oh, you gotta check out the Merriam-Webster definition of "gyroscope"

''a wheel or disk mounted to spin rapidly about an axis and also free to rotate about one or both of two axes perpendicular to each other and to the axis of spin so that a rotation of one of the two mutually perpendicular axes results from application of torque to the other when the wheel is spinning and so that the entire apparatus offers considerable opposition depending on the angular momentum to any torque that would change the direction of the axis of spin''

Compare the OED:

''An instrument designed to illustrate the dynamics of rotating bodies, and consisting essentially of a solid rotating wheel mounted in a ring, and having its axis free to turn in any direction.'' (followed by explanatory note.)

As for our smalltalk, as far as I'm concerned, I'm totally comfortable with Mal's point (the converse may not be equally true ;-) and I wouldn't go any further, we have reached a moot (that is, irrelevant) point... I suggest that the whole (now bulky) discussion page be archived before someone else comes up like, "Well, I'm the man, you don't understand a thing." -- [[User:JackLumber|The Power That Be]] 14 March 2006 8:16 EST

At the risk of revisiting an issue that seems to have be amicably forgotten, I wish to challenge Mal and Boothman's assertion that BrE should be privileged as unmarked "English" over AmE or AusE or other dialects. Their argument seems to be that the primary branch of a language as it diverges into dialects is the one that is the native dialect of people in the region that was the cradle of the language. Thus, while northwestern Germany might be the cradle of Anglo-Saxon, English has since become a separate language from other Anglo-Saxon tonuges, and thus Frisian or Low German should not be the standard for English today. The problem with this argument, though, apart from it being rejected by linguists, is that it would have a number of absurd consequences. For example, Poruguese became a distinct language from the various Iberian forms of Vulgar Latin around the 9th century, in what is now Galicia and parts of Leon, both of which are parts of present-day Spain. At the time, almost all of present-day Portugal was controlled by the Moors. Not until the Reconquista drove the Moors from present-day Portugal several hundred years later did Portuguese become established in most of present-day Portugal. The cradle of Portuguese, therefore, is not even in Portugal, and the dialect of Portuguese spoken in Galicia today is considered exactly that, a dialect that diverges in a number of ways from "standard" Portuguese.

With the geography justification shown for the canard that it is, the claim that non-British dialects are offshoots can only by valid by presupposing that BrE is "the standard" for all time, i.e., by "begging the question" (in BrE usage), or by showing that it has remained static while other dialects have diverged. It's hardly necessary for me to show that both contemporary BrE and contemporary AmE have evolved considerably from their common 17th-century origin--others have done this exhaustively. --[[User:Atemperman|Atemperman]] 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

==Proposed New Sections==

You know what? The Philadelphia (er, California) lawyer kinda hit the nail on the head in the above posts. The article says squat about "Word order" or "Word choice." I mean, nobody ever wrote anything about differences in word order. As for "word choice," it's not just the chestnut petrol vs. gasoline thing. Many words are standard in both dialects, but the same word may not be equally idiomatic on both sides of the Pond. We gotta take some action. Thoughts?--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== misc pronun diffs ==

some are wrong for GA. my GA speech has, and Webster's New World prefers, the "british" variants of diverge and route, and chartreuse ending in /z/ not /s/. [[User:Benwing|Benwing]] 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

== Couple ==

''Couple'' has the same meaning in British and American English. If an American uses ''couple'' to mean more than two, she is being imprecise. -[[User:Acjelen|Acjelen]] 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== Will someone add this to the grammar section? ==

Transatlantic differences that don't appear to have been covered, which I need to know about, are:

'different than/from' and 'outside/inside (of)'.

In particular, does USEng prefer the BrEng version in formal writing?

Will someone who knows about this area please add to the section?

[[User:Tony1|Tony]] 04:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:I don’t think there is a BrE/AmE distinction for these forms. ''Different than/from'' is not a simple matter of preference in formal writing, but rather a question of context and idiom. For example, Bryan A. Garner’s ''Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style'' says:

::…Thus, writers should generally prefer ''different from''—e.g.: “He performed to everything from jazz to the bossa nova to Brahms and Scarlatti, establishing a style very ''different from'' that of Bill (Bojangles) Robinson, Fred Astaire and the Nicholas Brothers” (''Dayton Daily News'').

::Still, it is indisputable that ''different than'' is sometimes idiomatic, and even useful, since ''different from'' often cannot be substitued for it—e.g.: “This designer’s fashions are typically quite ''different'' for men ''than'' for women.”

::Also, ''different than'' may sometimes be useful to begin clauses if attempting to use ''different from'' would be so awkward as to require another construction—e.g.: “Life for Swann, who held out to sign a two-year $7 million contract in August, is a lot ''different than'' it was for him in Lynn” (Boston Herald).

:Similarly, 'outside/inside (of)' is not a simple preference, but rather a question of context. When ''inside'' or ''outside'' is used as a noun, then it’s absolutely mandatory: “The inside of the house was much cooler than outside.“ Similarly, sometimes ‘of’ is necessary with ‘outside’. The sentence “There were Golden Jubilee celebrations outside of London as well” has a very different meaning from “There were Golden Jubilee celebrations outside London as well”.

:Hope this answers your question. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 05:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

::Well, personally I'd say "He performed everything from Jazz to the Bossa Nova to Brahms and Scarlatti, establishing a style very ''different '''to''''' that of Bill (Bojangles) Robinson, Fred Astaire and the Nicholas Brothers". To me that reads and sounds much better. --[[User:Veratien|Veratien]] 13:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC) (a Brit)

:::[[User:Veratien|Veratien]] has a good point. As an American, ''different from'' and ''different than'' both sound basically correct (slight differences notwithstanding), but ''different to'' sounds completely wrong to my ears. --[[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] 19:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, admirably, thank you. I guess my query concerns uses of 'different than' and 'inside/outside of' that are ''not'' necessary in their contexts.

[[User:Tony1|Tony]] 04:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

== dipthongal ligatures in British English ==

The use of dipthongs and ligatures should be mentioned somewhere - e.g. l&aelig;vo- or laevo- pops up quite often in chemistry-related articles; in American English, it's spelled levo. Similarly, f&oelig;tus/foetus -> fetus.

I'm not sure where this would placed in the article, however; in general, the text seems more concerned with pronunciation rather than spelling. (Somewhat odd, considering the textual basis of Wikipedia, but I digress.)

[[User:Dogcow|moof]] 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

:Please note the separate article on spelling differences. -[[User:Acjelen|Acjelen]] 02:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

== Namibia uses US English? ==

I find this highly improbable, given that Namibia was under South African rule for so long. Granted [[South African English]] uses some Americanisms like 'freeway', but the spelling and vocabulary is 'Commonwealth'.

== Compound noun/noun phrase formed with a verb ==

The article has this point under ''Slight lexical differences'':

:''In compound nouns of the form &lt;verb&gt;&lt;noun&gt;, sometimes American English favours the bare infinitive where British English favours the gerund. Examples include: ''fry pan'' / ''frying pan''; ''jump rope'' / ''skipping rope''; ''racecar'' / ''racing car''; ''rowboat'' / ''rowing boat''; ''sailboat'' / ''sailing boat''; ''swimsuit'' / ''bathing suit''.'' ...

Most of the left-hand (ostensibly American) versions in that list seem correct to me as an American. However, I don't think I have ''ever'' heard the term ''fry pan''; instead it's always ''frying pan''. Also, to my knowledge ''swimsuit'' and ''bathing suit'' are interchangeable in American usage. [[User:Ddawson|Ddawson]] 01:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:There are a number of British-flavoured terms that are interchangable in America; however, many are not ''commonly interchanged'' terms.

Most Americans know what "Autumn" means, and may very occasionally even use it without regarding it as a Britishism; yet the overwhelming tendency is for them to use "The Fall" - I think I'm going to start a page on this if one doesn't exist. [[User:Promsan|Promsan]] 2K5/SEP.

::Yes, most Americans are aware of both "autumn" and "fall," but they see them more as synonyms both in common use in American English; "autumn" is not really seen as a Britishism. However, you are correct in asserting that "fall" is more commonly used than "autumn." Autumn is generally seen as more formal.

::Also, it's not necessarily "the fall." Although one can say, "I think rural New York is most beautiful in the fall," one could also say "Fall is the most beautiful season of the year," or "I will be attending UC Berkeley this fall." --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

====later====

Some months have gone by and this paragraph now reads:

:''In compound nouns of the form <verb><noun>, sometimes American English favours the bare infinitive where British English favours the gerund. Examples include: jump rope / skipping rope; racecar / racing car; rowboat / rowing boat; sailboat / sailing boat; file cabinet / filing cabinet. In each of these pairs, the former term is more common in America than the UK and the latter more common in the UK than America (although it is not necessarily the case that the former is more common than the latter within America or the latter more common than the former within the UK).''

The general point seems clear enough but I find it hard to understand what the last sentence is trying to convey.

To take an example derived from the text: "Sometimes American English favours the infinitive... an example is ''rowboat / rowing boat''. ''Rowboat'' is more common in America than the UK. (But even though American English "favours" ''rowboat'' over ''rowing boat'', it is not necessarily the case that ''rowboat'' is more common than ''rowing boat'' within America.)"

That seems to be what the text says at the moment. Or perhaps not. In any case, it's hard to understand what the last sentence is trying to add. Can someone clarify this? [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:Your interpretation is correct. The wording was designed to forestall the removal of examples because "Americans say frying pan more than fry pan", when the point is that "Americans say fry pan more than Brits say fry pan". I guess it would be simpler just to list examples that work both ways to prevent such quibbles: the slight loss in precision could be trumped by the gain in comprehensibility. Indeed "fry pan" is gone already. [[User:Joestynes|jnestorius]]^{([[User talk:Joestynes|talk]])} 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

::I remember the fry(ing) pan issue, although I was not a registered user then. That wording is misleading at best and bamboozling at worst. I guess it's pretty safe to say just that the first item is the American usual choice and the second is the British preferred option. Then come the exceptions---AmE has both frying pan & fry pan, but frying pan is commoner (many avoid the issue by saying just ''skillet''...); "looking glass," "hiding place," etc. are in both. I even have a counterexample: Brit. cheque account vs. Amer. checking account (Canadian spelling "chequing account" makes it even more noticeable.) Not to mention skimmed milk vs. skim milk (-ed, not -ing; but skim milk seems to be used in Olde Englande also.) "Barbed wire" is in both, but AmE has also "barb wire"---sometimes even spelled ''Bob wire'' (please don't laugh) to reflect a typical R-dropping pronunciation.... --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 20:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

== Misleading Classification ==

The classification implied in the title of this article is extremely misleading in relation to the content. There should be more emphasis on the fact that the classification is only vaguely coherent in relation to written English. As for most of the other points raised, English spoken in Southern Britain and Australia has much more in common with American English than it does with Scottish or Ulster English. [[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] 17:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

== When "American" Refers to Language . . . ==

This brings up a different issue than those mentioned in the discussion in Manual of Style archive ("U.S." or "American") in that it refers specifically to the name of the language spoken in the US, not the use of the language to name things other than itself.

Because the word "American" has multiple uses, referring to either the US exclusively or to what is pertinent to cultures/peoples in either the Americas (North, Central, and South) or North America, its use on pages dealing with language is not transparent because it cannot be immediately interpreted. There are distinctions between American (North American) English and British English. This is a different matter than the differences between US English and British English and Canadian English.

Canadian English (which is distinct on a number of counts from British English and has certain elements in common with US English) is, in a certain sense, "American English," and though the article explains its exclusion, a change of title would remove the need to make this distinction. Since "Canadian English" is a distinct article, one would think that the parallel for the country just south would bear that country's name, not a name that can also refer to the continent.

So, arguably, this article should be titled "US and British English Differences" (and any parallel changes in other articles made) in order to disambiguate the meaning of the word "American" with reference to the English language. This would allow the ability to distinguish without confusion or need for explanation between US English usage and usage that extends to multiple countries in the Americas, which would be useful given the realities of language use.

(n.b. I follow M-W 11th in using US rather than U.S. [i.e., the entry, not the style guide, which contradicts the entry], and am not meaning to raise that issue here.)

[[User:Emme|Emme]] 12:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

:I disagree with that proposed change. "American English" is how the vast majority of Americans (myself included) refer to their own language. Calling it "US English" instead would, as a matter of statistics, create far more confusion than it alleviates. American English speakers are technically a supermajority of native English speakers at the moment, see [[English language]]. Wikipedia is a reference work that simply documents what is going on in other sources, and is not a normative work in itself. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also there's the fact that non-American speakers refer to the US as America and the accompanying adjective as American, and have since time began (or at least, it's not a novelty caused by the huge US population nowadays). Also also, what about the English used in say the United States of Mexico? Why should America usurp 'US' to refer only to themselves? — [[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] 23:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*It seems a bit unfair to say that. The same reason "American" should be used is the same reason "United States" (abbr. US) could be used. All other uses of "United States" (that I know of) came after the formation of the "United States of America". Anyway, "American" just implies "from USA", and I see no need to change anything.&#160;— [[User:TheKMan|'''<font color="#0000FF">The</font><font color="#FF0000">KMan</font>''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|<font color="#000000">^<u>talk</u></font>]] 07:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

== Luck Out? ==

I've never heard this ever in my life in any dialect of English - and I don't live in a cave!

What possible justification can there be for the inclusion of obscure and unhelpful terms like this in the article - put it on one of the lists if you must, but not on the main article! [[User:Promsan|Promsan]] September 2005.

:Well, I'm American and I ''have'' heard the term, and the article has the meaning exactly right. I can't vouch for British usage, of course. [[User:Ddawson|Ddawson]] 04:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

::Well I'm British, and it means nothing to me. It's not British English, that's for sure. [[User:Promsan|It takes one to know one]] 11:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

::: I've definitely heard Americans use it to mean got lucky... and I've also heard it in use in New Zealand to mean the opposite. That of course, has no bearing on its presence or not in British English, but we'll need more than a jury of 1 to decide whether or not it is present...[[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 23:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

: I, an Aussie, have definitely heard it meaning unlucky. Never heard it to mean lucky... It's far from common, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was an old slangish term that spread to other parts of the Commonwealth then died out and is dying out elsewhere, too. —[[User:Cassowary|Felix the Cassowary]] <span class="usertalk">([[User talk:Cassowary|<span title="Ae hI: ja" class="IPA">ɑe hɪː jɐ</span>]])</span> 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

:: Perhaps that's the strongest argument for retaining it: the American usage I think goes against most non-US peoples' commonsense interpretation to the point that it needs to be glossed. I remember being extremely confused the first time I heard one of my (US) flatmates using it. She'd lucked out, and seemed happy about, and I was like WTF?[[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 02:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

: the argument for retaining it on a page of comporative british/american is only valid if the phrase is used in both places - I too have never heard its use in the UK (in the context given or any other), unless by someone trying to sound american or impersonating one. If it is current in aus or NZ is it still appropriate as an example here at all? considering how few examples are given it might be better to use a common one. [[User:DavidParfitt|DavidP]] 17:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's retained or not, its ___location in the article looks bizarre. The contents box reads:

9 Miscellaneous

:9.1 General trends

:9.2 Figures of speech

:9.3 Business

:9.4 Education

:9.5 Luck out

It needs to be relegated to a much lower position; I doubt that anyone can have intended it to be on a par with the topic headings Business, Education or General Trends! And actually, I would have thought it was sufficiently obscure and little used not to qualify for this article at all. [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 19:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with the structural change. However, I still think that the clear difference between US useage and any other english speaker's interpretation of it, warrants its inclusion. Wouldn't you expect that 'luck out' would be similar in meaning to 'out of luck'?[[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 21:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone use the term "to luck out" in the UK. The term would simply be meaningless here. <small>&mdash;''The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:86.130.165.210|86.130.165.210]] ([[User talk:86.130.165.210|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/86.130.165.210|contribs]]) 04:33, 9 February 2006 UTC.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned-->

:Same here - I will remove it. If anything it should say something like "non US English speakers might assume it means "out of luck" -- [[User:Chris Q|Chris Q]] 07:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

== Public school ==

[[Public school]] [[Public school (UK)]]

There is a hot debate taking place over at [[Talk:Public school (UK)]] and [[Talk:Public school]] regarding the differences between language and culture in Scotland and England, with the Scottish definition being in line with the US, Canadian, Australian and the rest-of-the-world. But a small number of English patriots seem to want to keep the various colonies in their place and have the English definition dominate the two articles.

Personally, I'm not even sure that there should be a separate article on English public schools, as they are simply a sub-topic of [[private schools]], but if there must be an article it should be called Public school (England) and not Public school (UK) (sic).

Anyway, we Scots would appreciate some input from our "co-definitionists"--[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 20:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC) in the USA!

== Built-in ==

I've removed this sentence from the article:

"* In American English, "built-in" describes a feature integrated or included in a larger whole. The British English equivalent adjective is "inbuilt" (without a hyphen)."

It's not obvious what this is referring to. The British talk about "built-in cupboards" in their kitchens. They don't call them "inbuilt cupboards". Maybe this sentence refers to some other usage that I haven't thought of but it needs clarification or expansion to make sense of what was intended. [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

:: OED supports a slightly different interpretation: in some NAm usage "built-in" can be a noun, so a house ad might simply say the house has "built-ins" (presumably implying fittings such as wardrobes etc.). There is no suggestion that ''inbuilt'' is sole UK useage, but that it exists as a variant not so commonly found in NAm.[[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 23:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== Scottish and Northern Ireland usage ==

It's not clear what the following sentence intends to convey. I'd suggest removing it unless someone can clarify what it means.

"The forms of English used in Scotland and Northern Ireland are British English only in relation to the written form of the language, as the spoken varieties of these dialects (despite the name) are in no way sub-dialects of British English, although some features of Commonwealth English are inevitably used." [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 08:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:It seems perfectly clear. Which bit do you not understand?--[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 09:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

::: I agree that it seems clear, but perhaps that's because I know what it's attempting to say. The sentence really is a bit on the long side. It also seems a little bit emotive in its wording (IMHO). In fact, I'd suggest that in many commonwealth countries written English conforms to a relatively homogeneous standard that do not relate to the local spoken dialect. In fact it's not even confined to English. Written (formal) German is used across Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, while spoken German is in the local dialect.

::: Perhaps it could be re-phrased similar to:

::: "Formal written English in Scotland and Northern Ireland generally conforms to British English standards. In contrast, spoken dialects in this area are not sub-dialects of British English, although they share some features." (NB- I haven't checked this re-phrasing in context)[[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 10:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think saying they're "not sub-dialects" is ambiguous. If you start from the (possibly false) assumption that there is a British dialect, then saying they're not sub-dialects could either mean that there's no difference between the speech of southern England and that of Edinburgh; or that they're so different that, for example, Northern Irish is completely incomprehensible to the Southern Irish. Clearly neither of these is true and I think the problem arises from saying that they're "not" sub-dialects. Instead, it might be clearer to say what they are.

It seems to me that an article like this should be aimed at explaining the subject to an intelligent reader who knows little or nothing about the subject. In the special case of articles about the English language, I think that implies an intelligent, possibly university age, non-native speaker. And I think that someone in this group might take the above sentence to mean that a southern English speaker would find a speaker from Edinburgh completely unintelligible. This is a long way from the truth and I doubt that it's what the writer originally intended.

Incidentally, I wholeheartedly support Limegreen's clarification of the distinction between written and spoken language. The article as a whole would benefit from distinguishing when the comments refer to spoken and when to written language [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 10:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:I see your point, however, it's worth noting that dialects occur on a continuum from the more mutually intelligible to the bloody difficult. While a southern english speaker would likely have little problem with a speaker from Edinburgh, the same can't be said for Glasgow or Liverpool. If you consider the development of English dialects tree-wise (which does have admitted problems), Scottish dialects probably split from English English more distantly than many commonwealth englishes (e.g., AusE, NZE, SAfE). Actually, kind of referring back to the previous point about most Commonwealth written Englishes being similar, it really seems that this article is mostly about differentiating written English, and perhaps American vernacular from accepted Commonwealth forms. [[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 21:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

==Some unclear points==

# ''On informal occasions, the British would use "have got", whereas Americans would say "have" or just "got". "Have got" is occasionally used by Americans to denote urgency, such as in "I have got to go to the bathroom." "Have" is the only form used in formal writing.'' Umm... no. As an American, the phrase "I've got", "he's got", etc. is very common in informal speech. "To have got" is very common to mean both "to need to"/"to be required to" as well as "to possess". I've rewritten this.

# ''In the United States, the word through can mean "up to and including" as in Monday through Friday. This causes little confusion in Britain though it is rarely used by British speakers, who might instead say Monday to Friday inclusive, or simply Monday to Friday. Some areas of the UK also use the term while in the same way, as in Monday while Friday. This is generally a feature of Northern England.'' What does this mean? What do British speakers think the word "through" means? Why does it cause any confusion at all? I'm deleting this section later if no one helps it.

:Since you ask, UK english uses the word ' through ' to mean passing from one place or condition to another.."through the eye of a needle" . It does not mean ' until '. ..mikeL

::I'm not aware of Australians having any problem understanding 'Monday through Friday'.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 09:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

# "Amidst" is not common in A.E., but it's not considered "pretentious" (same with "amongst").

# ''There is an apocryphal story that, because of (''while'' meaning ''until'' in Northern England), railway crossings with signs saying "do not cross the track while the lights are flashing" had to be changed after several fatalities occurred.'' is unencyclopediac and unnecessarily morbid (and removed).

# ''While the use of American expressions in English is often noted in Britain, movement in the opposite direction is less common. But recent examples exist, including the idiom "to go missing," which had been a distinctively British expression but is used increasingly in American English, at least in journalism, and the noun "queue" and verb "queue up," which seem to be making inroads in the U.S. as well. (The usual American equivalent of "to go missing" is "to disappear" and that of "queue (up)" is "line (up).")'' No, not really. All three are examples of things that word be understood by A.E. speakers, but almost never used (the ''slight'' exception is "queue" as a noun; maybe an American using it would avoid being given a funny look... but I doubt it).

:Surely americans usually ' stand in line ' rather than 'line (up) ' or 'queue'. ..mikeL

Thoughts? [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 00:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

:: and certainly I have never as an Americain used the phrase "on queue"; I would use "in line" or "standing in line". The verb queue up (or just queue) is a different meaning, for instance, a radio station may queue up a song (meaning get ready to play the next song in the list). --[[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not aware of Australian using "on queue" either to indicate standing in line for something. We would more likely use "in line", "in the queue" or "lining up".--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 09:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::: In the context of radio production, might this not be a different word, as in "cue the next song"? [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 08:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

::::To "queue the next song" means to sequentially arrange it as the next song to be played. To "cue the next song" means to give a signal to indicate that the song is to begin.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 09:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

: I assume the point with "through" is that the British don't use it, and find it quaint/unusual on hearing it (apparently the inverse situation to "queue").[[User:Limegreen|Limegreen]] 00:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

== long form time ==

I have just added a small but important detail to the long form date section.

it said that "25 December 2000" was occasional in UK & common in US

and that "December 25 2000" was occasional in US & common in UK

perhaps true - but nearly always written "25th" in the UK.

I hope I have managed to add it without disrupting the flow too much. see what you think.

It would have helped a lot if I could find out what the "st, nd, rd, th" suffix thingies were called. any ideas?

By the way - have any fellow brits noticed the relatively recent (last 5 years or so) adoption of 'get' as in "can I get a cup of coffee" to a shopkeeper. rather than "can I have a cup of coffee". It seems almost entirely limited to the under 25s and i assume an americanism. perhaps an addition to the section on adopted phrases.

[[User:DavidParfitt|DavidP]] 04:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

:"'25 December 2000' was occasional in UK & common in US

:and that 'December 25 2000' was occasional in US & common in UK" - Isn't the opposite true? "December 25th, 2000" is far more common :in the US than "25th December 2000". --[[User:68.80.78.11|68.80.78.11]] 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

::That's what I wrote originally, if someone's changed it around, they are wrong. To recap, both the US and UK tend to use the "December 25, 2000" form more often than the "25 December 2000" form, although both are correct, and some people (I mentioned Strunk and White) strongly prefer the latter for its sequential order and lack of punctuation. The latter form is somewhat more common in the UK than the US.

::BTW, many people (and perhaps even more so in Britain) might add the "th" and so on while writing letters, signing cheques, etc., but a newspaper (say) is very unlikely to use this form, not least because the additional letters are thought to be somewhat superfluous; furthermore the user above has omitted the comma in "December 25, 2000"; this form is far more common, and accepted, with a comma between day and year than without. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say that when the year is included, most Brits would write the day before the month. [[User:Gailtb|Gailtb]] 21:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

:Perhaps true, but in the absence of a study indicating this it would be reasonable to say simply that this is "common" usage. At the same time, we can easily demonstrate that most major British newspapers use "December 25, 2000" as their date form. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 06:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

:the guardian uses the form Saturday 26.11.05 on its cover pages, for page headers it uses Saturday November 26 2005 and 26/11/05 - remember that these are prescribed by typographic layout rather than good usage, heaven forbid if we all started talking headline speak. Shock Horror Probe. [[User:DavidParfitt|DavidP]] 14:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

== Letter writing ==

I am from Hong Kong and noticed that in the article some Americans use "Dear Sir:" at the start of the letter. From what I was taught in Hong Kong (and it was a bilingual education), the colon is considered very wrong and should not be used. It was emphisised because in Chinese letter writings it should always be using colons instead of comma and was a common mistake for Hong Kong students to mix up. I wonder if this is the same in the UK as well (I am currently studying in the UK, but I never have asked anyone regarding this matter as nobody uses colon anyway)?

:Terminating letter salutations with a colon is the common usage in American letters among all educated writers. As a student of history, I have seen letters in archives from over a century ago (and even older) that conform to this style.

:American English differs from British English in many ways because of (1) the Atlantic Ocean and (2) the American Revolution. After the Revolution, the two nations' languages, accents, laws, and cultures began to gradually evolve in different directions. The colon/comma issue is just one of them. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

:Indeed, British people do not use the colon; i was always taught to use a comma and ive never had them mixed up as ive never seen a colon used in that way over here. -- <span style="border:1px solid #ccc;background:#eee; padding:1px">[[User:Jeffthejiff|<span style="color:#333;font-weight:bold">jeffthejiff</span>]]</span> <span style="font-size:80%;color:#999">([[User_talk:Jeffthejiff|<span style="color:#999;">talk</span>]])</span> 11:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

:Also, please understand that there are differenences as well when one is writing a personal letter versus the times when one is writing a business or professional letter. A colon may be used now at the end of the Salutation; however, I have seen this rule change according to the region of this nation several times even in my short life-- a mere 33 years old. Our languages, both American and the Queen's English, are alive and thriving. What one person learned and accepted five years ago could easily and likely become outdated within a year. Things change and grow that quickly. Amazing, isn't it? --Nicholas Outland 18:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

==Personal Pronouns in British and American English==

What about the tendency in colloquial American English to use object pronouns as subjects, e.g. "Me and my girl went to the movies" instead of "My girl and I went to the movies." ?

Shouldn't that be mentioned in the grammar section ? I understand that British speakers also sometimes do the same (e.g. in expressions like "Me too!"), but the change seems to more advanced in the US where, in certain uneducated dialects (e.g. certain varieties of African-American English), evem "him" or "her" may be used as subjects.

:I don't think it is a difference. In the UK "Me and my girl went to the movies" ""My girl and me went to the movies" would be more common than "My girl and I went to the movies", except maybe by BBC newsreaders! -- [[User:Chris Q|Chris Q]] 08:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== Time ==

Is it worth mentioning that while both Americans and British say the time is "five fifteen", the British will more commonly say it's "a quarter past five", while Americans if they don't say "five fifteen" may sometimes say "a quarter after five"? [[User:Steinsky|Joe D]] [[User talk:Steinsky|(t)]] 22:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any variation in how English speakers of varying dialects would interpret an indication of time such as "half three". In Australia, this would normally be considered "3:30" (with an implied "past"). I know that in German, the equivalent "halb drei" would be interpreted as "2:30" (with an implied "nach" ["until"]).--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 09:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Durova's edits recently ==

Durova's edits just raised an interesting issue. In the United States, most postsecondary schools (with the exception of trade or vocational schools) have general education or breadth requirements so that students are forced to take a minimum number of courses outside of their major or concentration. Usually these are set up so that the student must take one course from several different areas; for example, the College of Letters and Science at the [[University of California, Berkeley]] has a seven-course breadth requirement[http://learning.berkeley.edu/breadth/]. Is there a similar arrangement in any other countries? If not, this fact should be noted in [[University]] and possibly in [[Education in the United States]]. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== "on/in Churchill Road" ==

:although this can depend on whether or not the street is closed at one end

I moved this to the end of the paragraph, and expanded it:

:On the other hand, in British usage one might describe a house as being "on" a very long, main road, especially one leading to a particular place, e.g. "on (the) London Road".

In my experience (I am English) "on" is only used of major roads, so I felt this needed further explaining. It also needed reordering to make sense. I also clarified "actually '''in''' the street" to "in the middle of the ''road''" as I felt the previous wording was US-biased and rather awkward. [[User:Hairy Dude|Hairy Dude]] 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

== Erroneous American, and British, verb morphology ==

Thrive-throve-thriven is definitely not standard American English. In fact, having never heard those conjugations in my life, I would have guessed they were Britishisms. Neither are the previously given examples of mixing of the preterite and past participle forms good ones. It may be true that Americans do such a thing, but not with those verbs. Spring-sprang-sprung and shrink-shrank-shrunk are the only common usages by people that aren't young children making mistakes or people speaking Ebonics. Shrunken is used exclusively as an adjective.

:No sirree. It's a regional thing. Just because those conjugations are not used in your region, or by most so-called educated speakers, or in common/official writing, or in belles lettres, doesn't mean they are not used at all. The article was actually clear. Do yourself a favor and go grab a dictionary. See you around.

::Just dropped in here to see what's up. At first I thought JackLumber (the writer of the above paragraph) was wrong. So I looked at my dictionary to look up the word thrive. It turns out that throve and thriven are valid forms of thrive, according to the Random House Webster's College Dictionary. I learn something new on Wikipedia every day! --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 07:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Wait-wait-wait- I was aware of both the regular and irregular forms of thrive, but I took the word of the guys who wrote down that section asserting that thrive-throve-thriven is strictly American and thrive-thrived-thrived is the only form used in BrE. But, surprise, it turns out that is not like this, any. The Oxford English Dictionary: quote thrive - Pa. tense throve; pa. pple. thriven. Also pa. tense and pple. thrived unquote. "The spirit of resistance throve the more." --- Charlotte Mary Yonge. I'm coming clean---I thought I sounded kinda Mr. Know-It-All, and I've got to admit that no one among us knows diddlysquat about this. Americans, Britons, whatever. Thanks be to the guy who aroused the question. And, Coolcasear, your not the only one who learns something new every day. In sum, the section needs rewritten (sic). So bad. --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Guys, you reading this yet? I got news. Further research shows that, in spite of Oxford's claims, the thrive scenario is exactly the same on either side of the pond---the regular forms are everywhere preferred and "throve-thriven" are obsolescent. Case closed, I'd guess.--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

==Asking for money==

Regarding the recent addition:

<blockquote>

+ Whereas a speaker of British English might say "Wotcher, mate. Mind loaning us a few quid till Sunday, love?", a speaker of American English would say "Yo ma homies! Gimme ten bucks until Sunday, K?".

</blockquote>

I think this falls into the so-funny-I-forgot-to-laugh category. Surprising that it was added by an admin, [[User:JIP]]; kudos to the anonymous user [[152.78.98.1]] for removing it after it was on the page for two days. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

== Counties names ==

I've just removed this section:

:In the names of counties of the British Isles, the word ''county'' comes before the name e.g. [[County Limerick]] (Ireland) or is simply absent, e.g. [[Glamorgan]] (Wales) or [[Kent]] (England), whereas in the U.S., it comes after the name, e.g. [[Washington County]].

Only for [[County Durham]] among the English counties does the word County come before the name. In Ireland it's everywhere but that's an Irish custom. In Great Britain, the widespread use of 'shire' as a suffix is the equivalent of 'County'. Shire is not used as a suffix on some counties (Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Middlesex, Essex, Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk, Northumberland) normally because there is some aspect of the way they were named which was different, eg. "Middlesex" = "Land of the Middle Saxons". [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 18:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:Well spotted. There's no need to call it County Nottinghamshire, that would mean County Nottingham's County. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 21:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Devon and Dorset used to be [[Devonshire]] and [[Dorsetshire]]. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== Intensifiers? ==

One difference between American and British English I have often encountered (working in a US-based company) is that when Americans say something is "quite interesting" a Brit would normally take that to be damning with faint praise, whereas the American actually means it is "very interesting".

Are there more examples of intensifiers or other types of modifiers with this sort of variation of meaning?

[[User:DrJohnBrooke|DrJohnBrooke]] 15:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure of your reasoning there - look at the programme [[QI]]. I think it depends on the tone of voice rather than phrase used. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

: I mostly agree with John Brooke. In British English, "quite" can have the sense of "very" or "somewhat", depending on tone of voice. In American English (correct me if I'm wrong), I think it exclusively has the meaning "very". [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::In fact, I see this is already at [[List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_British_and_American_English#Q]]. (I'd actually got confused and thought this was on that article's talk page). [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::And guess who edited that? Of course, [[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I agree with Stephen Turner, but not John Brooke. I don't think quite has any more connotation of damning than ny other intensifier does, including very (in the UK anyway). I think it's just a word on a par with "rather" or "fairly". -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 19:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

== Periods in initialisms? ==

I have a sense that periods between each letter of an unpronounceable initialism (e.g., U.S.A., U.K.) is more of an American practice than a British one (although today even in America it's somewhat uncommon). Ideas? &mdash;[[User:Casey J. Morris|Casey J. Morris]] 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:From my experience, most Americans do not use them. Additionally, since they look sort of weird with periods in them, I do not think many printed things I've seen use them, either. However, [[The New York Times]] uses them (N.C.A.A, G.O.P., N.F.L., G.M., H.I.V., ... but AIDS (since you pronounce it as a word, not as initials)). //[[User:MrD9|MrD9]] 00:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::So far we're of accord but my question is whether the Britons would consider this usage correct (if somewhat stodgy). &mdash;[[User:Casey J. Morris|Casey J. Morris]] 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:In Britain I'd say that periods (we call them full stops, by the way) are tending to disappear. U.S.A. and U.K. look a bit odd, or certainly old-fashioned. H.I.V. would be very odd indeed, and A.I.D.S. is inconceivable. Similarly, in abbreviations like Mr and Dr, the norm here is NOT to put a full stop after. Purists would say that a contraction (with the last letter of the full word still present) does not take a full stop, while an abbreviation (where the end of the word is chopped off) does &mdash; so Mr, Dr, St, but vol., p., etc. But I reckon that distinction is disappearing, and the trend here is very much towards omitting all such full stops (sorry, periods). I certainly generally write "etc" with no dot. [sorry - gone a bit off-topic, perhaps. Back to the original question: AIDS, USA, UK, Mr, Dr, St are certainly "correct". U.S.A. is correct but old-fashioned. etc is probably incorrect, but I predict it will be correct within a few years. ] [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 09:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::While St ('Saint') is correct, it generally includes a full stop/period, especially when using the unstressed pronunciation, 's^ənt' in combining form, e.g., "St. Patrick". 'Etc.' should always have a dot.

:I'd say that full stops between initialisms are usually left out, espcially in organisation names, hence [[UEFA]], [[FIFA]], [[HSBC]], [[Lloyds TSB]]. I still use Dr., Mr., Prof., because although the last letters are still present, purists could argue that Dr. should be D'r, Mr. M'r etc. And I try to use "etc." rather than "etc", but I'm unsure on "eg.", "e.g." and "eg" ditto "ie". I think the standard here is to leave out full stops in initialisms, especially the ones at the end of the name ([[Rochdale A.F.C.]] seems weird to me, I think it should be Rochdale A.F.C). -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 10:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::"eg" is always correctly written "e.g.", and the same goes for "i.e.". "Dr" is never "D'r". Periods can be included in initials, though it is more common now to exclude them. The worst thing that can be done is to use them inconsistently, i.e., "A.F.C." or "AFC" but never "A.F.C".--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Check out pages 7 & 8 of this [http://assets.cambridge.org/052162/181X/sample/052162181Xws.pdf excerpt] from Pam Peter's Cambridge English Usage Guide. (If you've got the time.) --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 12:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the link, Jack. Like punctuation in general, there are no standard rules for this, but in general common abbreviations can do without the periods, which otherwise help as a pronunciation guide; a similar usage occasionally seen in Britain is to write out as words those abbreviations that are to be read as them (Nato, Aids) and capitalizing those that are not (UNHCR). IMHO, US (I.M.H.O., U.S.) news stylebooks tend to err too heavily on the side of punctuation. [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 12:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

60.240.88.48 - Would you please tell me why you've added stops to "US" in my recent addition?

I notice that throughout the article usage seems to be "U.S." (with stops) but "UK" (without stops). Why? US = United States, UK = United Kingdom - why should one have stops and not the other? I agree that both forms (with & without stops) are acceptable, but I would have expected consistency with <u>both</u> abbreviations in the same format within a single article. It seems to me odd to use one form for one abbreviation and a different form for another very similar abbreviation in the same article. This seems to be borne out by Jack Lumber's citation from ''Pam Peter's Cambridge English Usage Guide'' above. [[User:Tdw|TrevorD]] 16:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:Also, American lawyers (that would include me) tend to err heavily on the side of punctuation, especially at the federal level. Although some states like New York use relatively few periods, most state courts and the federal judiciary follow Bluebook style, which generally prescribes a lot of periods. For example, the ''United States Reports'' is abbreviated as U.S. and the United States Code is U.S.C. I think American journalists like to use a lot of periods because that's the way us lawyers do it---and a lot of our journalists are either lawyer wannabes who couldn't get into law school, or former lawyers who burned out. And American lawyers, as a group, are quite conservative like the American population in general.

:Besides tradition, I suspect that the general American sentiment in favor of punctuation is also motivated by the desire to avoid ambiguity and maintain readability. Of course, there has been a trend to drop periods in acronyms of four letters and longer. For example, the letters for the University of California, Los Angeles were consistently spelled as U.C.L.A. in all early signage and documentation. But it is now universally known as UCLA. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::So presumably you would also tend to write ''U.K.'' (not ''UK'')? So why isn't the article consistent for the two abbreviations? I'm not specifically objecting to ''U.S.'', but to the inconsistency. -- [[User:Tdw|TrevorD]] 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Greetings ==

Hi, [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] - You have added "It is worth noting however, that Merry Christmas is far more common in Britain than the Happy version." '''Really?''' Do you have any evidence? I'd say exactly the opposite. [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::I could dig out all last year's Christmas cards if you like - but seriously, Merry Christmas is used much more often than Happy Christmas. Happy Christmas sounds weird to me, and I'm from the UK. Just trust me, I know. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Ummm, errrr... I also am '''from''' the UK, and '''in''' the UK, and I would still say the exact opposite! "Merry Christmas" sounds odd, forced and (funnily enough) American to me &mdash; I get a whiff of ''White Christmas'' and Frank Sinatra off it. I'm not trying to be difficult, just telling it how it is from my perspective. I don't dispute your impression, or what your friends (hardly an unbiased sample!) write on the Christmas cards they send - but I do think that a statement on behalf of the entire population of this country should be backed up by some evidence! (oh - and '''Happy''' St Patrick's Day!) [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 20:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I wonder if there's a class difference. Without wishing to guess the social class of Boothman and Snalwibma(!), Happy Christmas sounds more "higher" and Merry Christmas more "lower" class to me. (Of course, we still have a lot of phrases like that in British English even in these relatively classless days: "have a bath" vs "take a bath" etc.). [[User:Stephen Turner|Stephen Turner]] ([[User talk:Stephen Turner|Talk]]) 12:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::The Christmas cards are ones bought from shops which say "Merry Christmas" or "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year". "Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year" would sound odd wouldn't it? It's always been Merry Christmas wherever I've been, and in fact my father detests phrases such as Happy Christmas and Happy Xmas.

:::::Straw Poll via Google (UK pages only):

:::::Results 1 - 10 of about 488,000 for "happy christmas"

:::::Results 1 - 10 of about 1,430,000 for "merry christmas"

:::::My poll, although by no means accurate suggests Merry is far more common than Happy. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 13:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::The combined greeting is defintely MC and HNY - but I would still say HC if no NY was involved... Let's not take this too far, but I think there are probably all sorts of biases in that Google poll (such as, for a start, the influence of the combined phrase). Bottom line is, I think you have no justification for the statement that MC is "far more common" than HC. I would accept something like "also very commonly used". [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 19:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Alright then, we'll do it your way if we must. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

== an before H-? ==

The article says: ''Largely related to differences in pronunciation, there are differences surrounding whether to use "a" or "an" before words beginning in h-. For example, the British would say "an hallucination", whereas Americans would say "a hallucination". This follows the British rule that "an" should be used if the first syllable of an h- word is unstressed.'' As far as I am concerned, this is simply untrue. I'd say "an hotel" is in fact more AmEng than BrEng; and BrEng dictionaries (e.g. Collins) say that "an" before H is obsolete. Permission to delete this paragraph? [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

: As a British person I can say that the most common occurance of this rule seems to be before the word history. I personally do not use this rule, and therefore say "a" before all words beginning with H. I'm not sure that its so much an American difference in the language, rather than a personal preference. --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 07:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::More American than British? I have never ever said "an hotel" myself. American grammars too say that "an + voiced h" is obsolete. Actually I would have never figured such a thing, as I have never bumped into "an + h" while reading British writing. --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 14:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::: I think this is just a general trend for the silent "h" on borrowed French words to evolve into an anglicized version over time. I've been struck in the past by the fact that older Americans generally don't sound the "h" in "herb" - a pronunciation I've never heard from British/Australian speakers. Conversely, another example of this evolution that I rather regret is the pronunciation of the "h" in the word which is the letter's name - aitch; or increasingly in Britain since around 1990, "haitch". Previously, the standard would have been to say, "You spell it with an aitch," whereas increasingly people in Britain would say, "You spell it with a haitch."

:::I've often thought it would be interesting to begin a Wikipedia article to document changes in English vocabulary and pronunciation as they occur. For example, you might list "hassle" - probably invented in California around 1967; still current in 2006. [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Not just older Americans---most all Americans (including myself, OK I'm not that young anymore, but I'm still in my prime) don't voice the "h" in "herb," and therefore write "an herb." ''Hassle'' probably comes from ''harass'' + ''hustle''; first recorded as a noun (meaning "argument") in 1945. Take a gander at the [[List of words having different meanings in British and American English]] (a spin-off of this article), where I often try to slot in historical/usage notes whenever I find them useful; pay a visit to the talk page as well. --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll delete the paragraph in question, then. Incidentally, ''haitch'' is a regional thing. It's the standard pronunciation in [[Hiberno-English]], for instance, and I suspect also in some parts of Britain. Does the different Am/Brit pronunciation of ''herb'' get mentioned in any Wikipedia article, I wonder... [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:Affirmative. In [[American and British English pronunciation differences]].--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 12:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::''haitch'' may be "standard pronuciation" among people with a certain accent but it is just as wrong as far as "correct" English is concerned as those accents which drop aitches (e.g. "[[Heny Higgins|'enry 'iggins]]") is for some other accents. There's no friggin H at the begining of "aitch" and "haitch" does not appear in the dictionary. Some people of Afro-Caribbean ancestry pronounce the word ''ask'' as ''aks''. That's also wrong. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] 10:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Oxfordshire accent used to pronounce ''ask'' as ''aks'', too, (and perhaps still does.) [[Flora Thompson]] in her depiction of late nineteenth and early twentieth century life in rural Oxfordshire records this pronunciation. For example, in "Still Glides The Stream" she writes: "The man smiled good-naturedly. 'Ah! now you're axing me summat,' he said... 'He'd got a better and bigger place at t'other end o' th' village and had put some of his workfolks into th' old un.'"

From the spelling, it's clear that she's trying to represent the pronunciation of the accent and "axing" shows that the "s" and "k" of "ask were reversed. It would be interesting to know whether the accent was taken to the Caribbean from England or whether it evolved there separately. [[User:Adrian Robson|Adrian Robson]] 08:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::The correct spelling (and pronunciation) of the letter is indeed 'aitch'. If an H at the beginning of a word is not voiced, then 'an' is fine (hence 'an hour'), but otherwise, it should be prefaced with 'a'. 'An hotel' just sounds stupid; almost as bad as when people pronounce 'wheel' as 'hweel'.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 12:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::::The word ''hotel'' is of French origin and in French is pronounced "'otél". In English we defer to the French pronuciation when preceeding it with the indefinite article and it should be properly pronounced "an 'otél". This applies to most words beginning with H that are of French origin, but it does not apply to words that are not of French origin like "Horse". "an 'orse" and <s>"A horse"</s> ("an horse") are both wrong; "a horse" is correct. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] 12:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::It is incorrect to categorically say that English speakers properly pronounce 'hotel' as 'otel' regardless of the French pronunciation. The ''proper'' Australian pronunciation is 'hotel'. Not sure why you said that "A horse" is wrong, and then said that "a horse" is correct, unless you were making an unsolicted point about proper capitalisation.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Corrected my error regarding ''horse'', I mean to write "an horse". ''Historic'' is also of French origin and so one should say "an historic achievement" (an 'istoric achievement) rather than "a historic achievement". The rule about words of French origin is why Americans tend to say "'erb" (''herb''), but this has fallen out of usage elsewhere. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] 14:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::It is flawed reasoning to state that 'h' should be silent in 'horse' or 'historic' simply because it is silent in the original French words... unless you also pronounce 'chance' as 'shon(t)s', and 'biscuit' as 'bis-kwee'. In most dialects of English, it is simply lazy speech to say 'orse', and the pronunciation key in English dictionaries indicates that the 'h' is not silent; therefore 'a horse' is correct, and 'an horse' is not.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Who said that pronouncing "wheel" as "hweel" sounds stupid? That just ain't true. Once upon a time, all words beginning with ''wh'' were actually spelled ''hw'' because they were ''always'' pronounced as such. Then came about the ''whine-wine'' merger, but a not negligible number of U.S. customers (including me, sometimes...) still voice h's in that position—although this is obsolescing, as much as the distinction between ''for'' and ''four''. And the word "hotel" has become completely anglicized, as it's been around for kind of 230 years, so there's no need to drop the h. "Herb" is not really of French origin, but rather Anglo-French. Factoring in etymology every time you have to pronounce a word is pointlessly shooting yourself in the foot... --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Hwat hwas I thinking? Forsooth, ye shew me thine error. Me eateth mine words, sirree. Though 'hw' was correct in times past, it has become completely obsolete, and sounds effected in most modern English dialects.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Maybe "most" modern English speakers no longer distinguish between watt and what (etc), but many do. It is certainly NOT "completely obsolete". See below... [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 07:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Perhaps I could have qualified the sentence a bit better. In most English dialects, the usage is completely obsolete. In some English dialects, it is not obsolete.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 08:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::As a speaker of Somerset-Yorkshire-Scotto-Hiberno-English (maybe we should have a Wikipedia article on that one) I can assure you that there is no question of ''wine'' and ''whine'' sounding the same (or tasting the same)! Likewise ''poor'' and ''paw'', which sound much the same in that weird version of English known as [[Received Pronunciation]] (but let's not go there...) And (Jooler and Jeffro77) - you want to be careful about high-handedly dismissing haitch as "wrong". It's standard (and correct) Hiberno-English! And, furthermore, it is "in the dictionary". Check it out in Dolan's ''Dictionary of Hiberno-English'' (Gill & Macmillan, 1998). [[User:Snalwibma|Snalwibma]] 21:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::''poor'' vs. ''paw'' is the funnest. While the Received Standard merges "poor" and "paw," in many varieties of American English these two words are WAY far apart. In such dialects, ''poor'' has the vowel of ''foot'' (as for most speakers; the ''r'' is—needless to say—voiced) and ''paw'' rhymes with ''la'' (the musical tone in solmization). ''Ah''some, huh? --[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::And just FYI, for many Americans ''watt'' & ''what'' wouldn't be the same anyway, regardless of the "h"—many (if not most) U.S. utterances of the word "what" rhyme with "butt" rather than "watt"...--[[User:JackLumber|JackLumber]] 14:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Interestingly, the poor/paw merger is not found in many other accents than RP (or RS). Most other places either have "poo-r" and "por" (poor/paw) or "po-er" and "por" (poor/paw), and any of the poors could have voiced Rs. I imagine some places they both could sound like "po" and others both like "por". Add to this the word "pour" and it could get really complicated ;) -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 16:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== 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? [[User:Wooster|Wooster]] 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Incidentally, the punctuation marks are the wrong way round: the Brit would say "the &hellip; Tuesday", while the American would say "the &hellip; Tuesday," if you see what I mean.)

::Maybe they might think the museum was open ''after'' Tuesday. -- [[User:Boothman|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. --[[User:JackLumber|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.--[[User:Jeffro77|Jeffro77]] 22:01, 27 March 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.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I was just scratching around for any possible reason, and was only an idea. -- [[User:Boothman|Boothman]] 10:18, 28 March 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.[[User:Mbruno|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. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 04:20, 18 April 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. -- [[User:Boothman|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. &mdash;[[User:Casey J. Morris|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]]?". -- [[User:Boothman|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. --[[User:Coolcaesar|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. &mdash;[[User:Casey J. Morris|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. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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