Americanisms in British English [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

pendell

2011-07-14, 08:50 AM

So the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/14130942) has a rant on Americanisms creeping into UK English, and has some specific complaints:

As an American, I don't get it.

* Faze, as in "it doesn't faze me"

Okay, he might have a point there. "Faze" isn't a word.

* Hospitalize, which really is a vile word

Um ... why? "To put someone in a hospital" = "to hospitalize". Why the nerd rage?

* Wrench for spanner

What's the problem? That is what the tool does. It's used for turning things -- for WRENCHING them. That's why it's called a WRENCH.

* Elevator for lift

I don't understand. The two words are synonyms for moving something from one level to another. "Elevator" sounds a bit more classy than "lift", but they are the same word. So again, why the rage?

* Rookies for newcomers, who seem to have flown here via the sports pages.

"Rookie" has been a synonym for "newcomer" in all fields in this country since at least the 1980s. I don't see what's so upsetting about it.

* Guy, less and less the centrepiece of the ancient British festival of 5 November - or, as it will soon be known, 11/5. Now someone of either gender.

Don't understand this one at all.

* And, starting to creep in, such horrors as ouster, the process of firing someone, and outage, meaning a power cut. I always read that as outrage. And it is just that.

We don't use "ouster" over hear that often. "terminated", "downsized" , "rightsized" or -- to be polite -- "ash-canned". Outage IS a new word but it is used in a number of contexts -- server outage, power outage, etc.

Speaking as an American, I don't really get this. To our Ukians: Do these words induce feelings of rage and a desire to commit grievous bodily harm ? If so, why? You don't hear ME complaining about the superfluous 'u' you people put in words like 'armour' and 'colour' -- since all the good fantasy writers are British, and a lot of Americans seem to copy them .So what? English is a tool for communicating. No reason to get fussy as it adapts to new circumstances.

Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Weezer

2011-07-14, 08:57 AM

Well Faze is certainly a word, according to the OED it was first used in 1830 and became accepted in 1890. It also derives from the old English word fesan, so it's not one of those entirely made up American words.

Ashen Lilies

2011-07-14, 08:58 AM

Well, I'm neither British nor American, so I can't really comment, but personally, I think getting all up in arms about new words entering common parlance, from whatever source, is kind of silly.
After all, English has a long and rich history of stealing from French, German, Spanish, Latin, Greek, and just about every other language in existence. So it figures that the next logical step would be to start stealing from itself. :smalltongue:
I for one, welcome this new age in the English Language's continuing bastardization evolution. :smallcool:

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-14, 08:59 AM

It's not so much the words themselves, so much as it betrays a large American influence on British culture, which a lot of people resent.

British English doesn't change American English in the same way, so that's a non-issue.

Also, 'Guy' comes from Guy Fawkes, one of the people involved in the Gunpowder Plot. An effigy of him is traditionally burned on the 5th of November each year in Britain. The use of Guy as a word for person is an Americanism, descended from the same source.

RMS Oceanic

2011-07-14, 09:03 AM

You might say it dishonours the coloured armour of our heritage. :smalltongue:

Feytalist

2011-07-14, 09:03 AM

You don't hear ME complaining about the superfluous 'u' you people put in words like 'armour' and 'colour' --

Because, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard, that's the way you ****ing spell it.

The point, I think, is that "American English" is adapting, and it's taking "British English" with it, against its wishes. I myself honestly don't care about most of the switches, although "guy" irritates me beyond words. Also "outage". Good lord. We still use spanner, I know of no one who says wrench. Also, take a wild guess what a shifting spanner is :smallbiggrin: See? It says what it does, heh.

Meh, it's just elitism. The Brits and their colonies still believe themselves to be the keepers of English. And that's because we sodding are. :smalltongue:

Eldan

2011-07-14, 09:04 AM

* Guy, less and less the centrepiece of the ancient British festival of 5 November - or, as it will soon be known, 11/5. Now someone of either gender.

Don't understand this one at all.

Remember, remember, the fifth of november... Guy Fawkes.

KuReshtin

2011-07-14, 09:05 AM

Must be a slow news day.

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-14, 09:05 AM

The point, I think, is that "American English" is adapting, and it's taking "British English" with it, against its wishes.

Thats a misconception though. A lot of 'Americanisms' are actually older words that fell out of use in Britain, where America retained them. It is often British English that has the newer words.

RMS Oceanic

2011-07-14, 09:06 AM

Describing the date in the form day-month-year just feels right.

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-14, 09:07 AM

Yeah, I agree with that. It goes from shortest unit to longest unit. It's a natural progression.

I haven't seen that creeping into British use, though. Only time It's ever used is when talking about 9/11 as far as I've seen.

Feytalist

2011-07-14, 09:08 AM

Thats a misconception though. A lot of 'Americanisms' are actually older words that fell out of use in Britain, where America retained them. It is often British English that has the newer words.

Hmm, I'm not a language major, so I wouldn't actually know. Do you have some examples? I'm actually interested in this kind of thing.

Liffguard

2011-07-14, 09:08 AM

Steward

2011-07-14, 09:09 AM

Lots of people have these language-based resentments. We usually pick an arbitrary era in the past -- say, the Edwardian Era -- and declare the way upper-class people spoke in one or two particular regions in that time period is The Correct Way of Speaking the Language and view any subsequent changes as the equivalent of vandalism.

The fact is that language is always evolving. We don't speak English the way Shakespeare did, and two hundred years from now people won't speak English in exactly the same way that we did. The idea that, in this era of instantaneous worldwide communication and international media, that we'll have an easier time ending cultural diffusion than our ancestors did is a little naive. If you want to preserve your language (or your food, or your art, or your music) in cryogenic stasis, you pretty much have to outlaw all foreign media and cut yourself off from the outside word. Even the French Academy, their central body that regulates their language, hasn't been able to eradicate either Anglicization or the influence of Canada, Belgium, and other francophone countries.

KuReshtin

2011-07-14, 09:14 AM

A lot of the different spellings between British English and American English originated with Webster, of Merriam-Webster fame.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0028-soopsoup.htm?&t=1310652827

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-14, 09:14 AM

Hmm, I'm not a language major, so I wouldn't actually know. Do you have some examples? I'm actually interested in this kind of thing.

Oddly, while I'm pretty sure what I said is at least partially true, I'm finding it hard to come up with examples. :smalltongue:

trash, instead of rubbish, is one, I think, as is 'fall' instead of 'autumn'

pendell

2011-07-14, 09:18 AM

Languages change and evolve. English is particularly known for adopting influences from other sources, even if those other sources are other versions of English. My only complaint is when words are shanghaied into meaning something not only different, but completely at odds to their original meaning without leaving another word to take their place. To use a cliche example, the word "literally" being co-opted to mean "figuratively" which is the opposite of what it's supposed to mean, without leaving another word to take its place.

Yes. I occasionally listen to an afternoon radio personality who uses the word "literally" every few paragraphs or so to emphasize his point. I am tempted to mail him a dictionary with the word "literally" underlined. It does not mean what you think it means.

I contend that language is sort of a darwinian jungle, where the strong words find acceptance and wide use while the weak words are eaten alive, found only in the rare preserves of the OED. Case in point :Anti-disestablishmentarianism. Or "susurrus". Rare words kept alive in preserves solely for their use in spelling bees :).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

RMS Oceanic

2011-07-14, 09:25 AM

While I do prefer most UK English terms to their American counterparts, I think Stephen Fry here gives us perspective of insisting on correctness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY)

Traab

2011-07-14, 09:30 AM

I say bloody hell all the time, ive even been known to call someone a wanker from time to time. I want you damn bastard brits to stop polluting my REAL english (american naturally) with your odd sayings.

Feytalist

2011-07-14, 09:31 AM

Oddly, while I'm pretty sure what I said is at least partially true, I'm finding it hard to come up with examples. :smalltongue:

Pfft, I roll Sense Motive for Bluff. :smalltongue:

Although the phenomenon is interesting.

My personal gripe is these obvious made-up words that seems to enter the general lexicon these days, especially amongst politicians, for some reason. Abominations like "frenemy". I also still don't know why muggle was ever allowed to enter the Oxford Dictionary.

I did read an interesting article some time ago that dealt with "unused" words that they wanted to take out of the dictionaries. Two words were mentioned that were kept alive only because of roleplayers like us: "amulet" and "periapt". Heh, we make a contribution :smallbiggrin:

Vladislav

2011-07-14, 09:42 AM

LaZodiac

2011-07-14, 09:50 AM

Muggle being entered into the dictionary is the same as "Doh!" being entered. Pop Culture has reached the point where some phrases become so popular it is absorbed into official language.

I will admit Frenemy is stupid, but I will also admit there have been instances were I have used it instead of spending an hour explaining why this one guy is this other guy's best friend but they try to kill each other. So it does help things.

Feytalist

2011-07-14, 10:00 AM

Paraphrasing Pratchett, "Any new word you hear before the age of 35 is an exciting and new addition to your vocabulary. Any new word you hear after that is an abomination that destroys your language."

Heh, what does it say of me that I'm 25 and already I hate most of this new language?

I will admit Frenemy is stupid, but I will also admit there have been instances were I have used it instead of spending an hour explaining why this one guy is this other guy's best friend but they try to kill each other. So it does help things.

Lies! Dreadful lies! :smalltongue: I will gladly resort to convoluted circumlocutions in order to avoid using words like that.

I blame bloggers. Heh.

Reinboom

2011-07-14, 10:03 AM

Paraphrasing Pratchett, "Any new word you hear before the age of 35 is an exciting and new addition to your vocabulary. Any new word you hear after that is an abomination that destroys your language."

This is a hilarious statement in the context of the following podcast by Stephen Fry:

While I do prefer most UK English terms to their American counterparts, I think Stephen Fry here gives us perspective of insisting on correctness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY)
(Thank you for linking that.)

Be warned however that is awesome. Like a hundred billion hot dogs awesome.

Mercenary Pen

2011-07-14, 10:23 AM

While I do prefer most UK English terms to their American counterparts, I think Stephen Fry here gives us perspective of insisting on correctness. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY)

There is a certain merit to his argument, but I think it could have had even greater impact if couched in the English of Shakespeare or Chaucer- just for the sake of amusement.

Tirian

2011-07-14, 10:47 AM

Be warned however that is awesome. Like a hundred billion hot dogs awesome.

Wait, when you say "billion", do you mean the traditional English meaning of a million million, or the American concept of a thousand million that the English yielded to? :smalltongue:

Thufir

2011-07-14, 11:14 AM

Okay, he might have a point there. "Faze" isn't a word.

Yes it is, and a perfectly good one.

Um ... why? "To put someone in a hospital" = "to hospitalize". Why the nerd rage?

The only problem I have with that is the well-documented American love affair with the letter Z, granting it preferment over the perfectly adequate S.

What's the problem? That is what the tool does. It's used for turning things -- for WRENCHING them. That's why it's called a WRENCH.

I don't understand. The two words are synonyms for moving something from one level to another. "Elevator" sounds a bit more classy than "lift", but they are the same word. So again, why the rage?

Now, this I can understand a bit more. The words are valid synonyms, but due to the proliferation of American pop-culture one will find the British using the American versions, where personally I would say this should be resisted, not because either is wrong (If I ever say so, I'm not being serious), but because the differences add charm to the language, to my mind, and I feel British English and American English should remain distinct for this reason.

"Rookie" has been a synonym for "newcomer" in all fields in this country since at least the 1980s. I don't see what's so upsetting about it.

What particularly seems odd about this rant (Which I haven't actually read in full, I've just looked at the quotes you've given here) is how late they are. A quick search on www.etymonline.com indicates that the word 'rookie' in fact dates back to 1892, and was originally found in Kipling's Barrack-Room Ballads. Making this a British word.

Don't understand this one at all.

I don't get their complaint. I suppose it's sad that some people wouldn't understand if one used the word 'guy' in one of its older senses (e.g. from The Mikado, "The lady from the provinces who dresses like a guy,") but the modern usage is perfectly acceptable. I don't know what they mean about it being someone of either gender. Guys are most definitely male, unless in a group - "you guys". And the latter instance is more an issue of sexism, male being seen as the linguistic default.

We don't use "ouster" over hear that often. "terminated", "downsized" , "rightsized" or -- to be polite -- "ash-canned". Outage IS a new word but it is used in a number of contexts -- server outage, power outage, etc.

Never heard the word 'ouster' used in that context. If I did, it would annoy me, because surely an 'ouster' would be someone who ousts. Making the ouster the one doing the firing (Or ousting), rather than the act of it. In that sense the word is perfectly reasonable and date back to the 16th century.

Outage is fine as well, perfectly sensical, and again they're rather late since it dates back to 1903 apparently.

So basically, no, I don't understand what they're getting so worked up about. There are aspects of language which I can get worked up about, but these are not among them.

That Stephen Fry podcast has prompted a great many thoughts on the subject, so I think I'm going to have to blog about that at some point.

Coidzor

2011-07-14, 11:23 AM

Pride, I believe. And there's nothing interesting enough going on to focus on, so might as well start nitpicking the language to maintain its "purity." :/

Archonic Energy

2011-07-14, 11:24 AM

i think the majority of UKers couldn't care less (http://www.youtube.com/user/davidmitchellsoapbox#p/u/28/om7O0MFkmpw)

:smalltongue:

KenderWizard

2011-07-14, 11:27 AM

Languages change and evolve. English is particularly known for adopting influences from other sources, even if those other sources are other versions of English. My only complaint is when words are shanghaied into meaning something not only different, but completely at odds to their original meaning without leaving another word to take their place. To use a cliche example, the word "literally" being co-opted to mean "figuratively" which is the opposite of what it's supposed to mean, without leaving another word to take its place.

I'm pretty sure that one's still just isolated idiots.

Oddly, while I'm pretty sure what I said is at least partially true, I'm finding it hard to come up with examples. :smalltongue:

trash, instead of rubbish, is one, I think, as is 'fall' instead of 'autumn'

I think you're right. There are examples in Bill Bryson's book about American words, the name of which I will shortly remember.

...

...

...

Made in America! That's what it's called! (I had to ask my boyfriend...)

Wait, when you say "billion", do you mean the traditional English meaning of a million million, or the American concept of a thousand million that the English yielded to? :smalltongue:

Ooh, I don't like that one! I grew up with million million, and dammit, it makes more sense! It's a bi-million! Billion! Come on, people!

Anyway, clearly the actual best form of English is Hiberno-English. It's just like British-English, only less fussy about Americanisation (or Americanization, I guess), and with a better range of swears.

Mando Knight

2011-07-14, 11:32 AM

I will admit Frenemy is stupid, but I will also admit there have been instances were I have used it instead of spending an hour explaining why this one guy is this other guy's best friend but they try to kill each other. So it does help things.

I used it casually last month with a childhood friend as a paraphrase of the sort of relationship she has with her little sister...

WalkingTarget

2011-07-14, 11:36 AM

Never heard the word 'ouster' used in that context.

The only context in which I've seen that usage is in journalism: first in headlines (which have a history of using idiomatic grammar and vocabulary) and eventually in spoken reporting, probably as a result of news readers literally being given the print story to read with little or no editing for the change of format. At least, that's my assumption. There are a lot of things about language use in news reporting (and political rhetoric) that annoy me, but mostly at a stylistic/preference level rather than one focused on "correctness".

I'll chime in on the side of people annoyed by the usage of "literally" as an emphasis marker rather than a meaningful word (but then again, using any empty word/phrase as an emphasis marker annoys me: see also "the fact of the matter is ...").

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-14, 11:54 AM

Thanks for those two you-tube clips - I must find some audio with Stephen Fry to listen to...

I guess that I'm in neither camp since I use international English, which is neither American nor British and just picks the best out of both. Possibly due to the fact that I was taught British English in school and watched American English television at home*.
But I think I might get a bit of a slack being a foreigner.

I do rage with the best of them at things like "could care less" though, and that's because I'm an ally of words and phrases making sense.
I'm also raging at the "youth of today" (I'm 23, i.e. they are not in university yet) being horribly polluted by English to the degree that they can't even properly write together words (in Swedish). It happens that I physically wince when I spot it.

*British humour and word-play was a bit over my head when I still had to concentrate to keep up with the talking.

Pentachoron

2011-07-14, 11:58 AM

The point, I think, is that "American English" is adapting, and it's taking "British English" with it, against its wishes.

I'd argue it's hardly against it's wishes when it's the Brits that are starting to use it.

Honestly I think the whole reaction is very akin to a reaction that you find in America (and presumably everywhere else) when older people dislike newer slang that teenagers are using. I don't give much regard to the whole thing. People can complain that language changes but that's a fight you're destined to lose.

Whiffet

2011-07-14, 11:59 AM

Hey, here's something else in the article.

A hike is now a wage or price rise not a walk in the country.

... wait, is it unusual to first think "walk in the country/woods/mountains/wherever" when I hear "hike" without context? That sentence implies the second usage is falling out of use, and it's apparently the Americans' fault. Hey, if British English really is forgetting a definition of a word, you can't blame us if we still are using it.

Please tell me Mr. Engel is just exaggerating when he says a hike is no longer a walk in the country.

SuperFerret

2011-07-14, 12:01 PM

"Guy" kind of works like the way word gender in Spanish (and probably some other languages I don't know).

"Guy" is masculine, and refers to a male person. "That guy over there." You never use "guy" to refer to a female person.

However, "guys" can refer to groups of all males, all females or a mixed group, depending on the context.

"Look at those guys over there." refers to a group of men over there.

"Come on guys." can refer to any group, but "hanging with the guys" tends to be either all male or mixed.

The Glyphstone

2011-07-14, 12:03 PM

I'm reminded of Warden Chandler from Changes (Dresden Files #12):

"The language is English. I am English. Therefore mine is the opinion which matters, colonial heathen."

ForzaFiori

2011-07-14, 12:06 PM

Before I start, I'd like to point out that While familiar with most forms of English, the only one I know well enough to talk about is American English, more specifically the South Eastern dialect.

The only problem I have with that is the well-documented American love affair with the letter Z, granting it preferment over the perfectly adequate S.

using Z instead of S changes the sound of the word. "Lize" = "Lies", while "Lise" = "Lice". the Z is to show a slightly harsher tone to the sound, at least, that's the best way I can describe it. the difference being that an S is "unvoiced" while a z is "voiced", meaning that making a z sound typically requires the vibration of vocal cords, while the s can be made without using them.

Personally, I think that English should have long ago done what Spanish and Portuguese did and split. Go ahead and make American a language, and while were at it, South African, and ANZAC could probably split off too (don't know if there are enough differences between the English spoken in England, Scotland and Ireland to need splitting, or if Australian and New Zealand are different enough to split)

pendell

2011-07-14, 12:22 PM

I'm reminded of Warden Chandler from Changes (Dresden Files #12):

"The language is English. I am English. Therefore mine is the opinion which matters, colonial heathen."

And yet ironically those words which the word filter here can catch have remained remarkably consistent in spelling and usage for decades, if not centuries. It's nice to know that if I have to travel to South Africa and tell someone what to do with themselves, I will be perfectly understood even if we understand absolutely nothing else about the conversation . :smallbiggrin:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Erloas

2011-07-14, 12:27 PM

The only problem I have with that is the well-documented American love affair with the letter Z, granting it preferment over the perfectly adequate S.
But S is already such an overused letter. Z doesn't get any love, we've got the letter we may as well put it to use. And for that matter why is q its own letter when its never used by itself? Just make the U assumed if its always going to be there.

... wait, is it unusual to first think "walk in the country/woods/mountains/wherever" when I hear "hike" without context? That sentence implies the second usage is falling out of use, and it's apparently the Americans' fault. Hey, if British English really is forgetting a definition of a word, you can't blame us if we still are using it.
I don't think you can really use words without context though. I here hike used in both contexts regularly so I would say it hasn't changed much. From a news/media perspective though, hike as in the activity, rarely comes up, only when someone dies while doing it generally. However hike as in increase, is the sort of thing that comes up a lot in the media. I think its mostly a perspective bias, someone living in the city probably doesn't got on too many hikes, someone living in a more rural area probably goes on more hikes then noticeable changes in the price of things they buy.

Trog

2011-07-14, 12:31 PM

America has been called "The Great Melting Pot" where cultures mix and mingle.

Enter the internet.

Now anyone with access to it can hop online and be exposed to language differences that used to be separated by oceans.

So you say your nation's language is changing? Yeah... get used to it.

Welcome to the internet, people - The New Melting Pot.

ZombyWoof

2011-07-14, 12:48 PM

Never heard the word 'ouster' used in that context. If I did, it would annoy me, because surely an 'ouster' would be someone who ousts. Making the ouster the one doing the firing (Or ousting), rather than the act of it. In that sense the word is perfectly reasonable and date back to the 16th century.

Ouster strikes me as a purely british word, I've never heard of it before.

Tirian

2011-07-14, 01:47 PM

I'll chime in on the side of people annoyed by the usage of "literally" as an emphasis marker rather than a meaningful word (but then again, using any empty word/phrase as an emphasis marker annoys me: see also "the fact of the matter is ...").

“Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.” - Mark Twain

I would hardly care to put words in Steven Fry's mouth, but I think that pedantry over "literally" is somewhat less ignoble, because here it actually is a matter of clarity. If someone says that there were literally a thousand people at a meeting, do they mean that there were a thousand people there or only two hundred? I don't know, because the secondary definition of "literally" means, well, "not literally". Fry makes and illustrates the excellent point, though, that we should love the proper use of language at least as much as we hate its misuse.

Castaras

2011-07-14, 02:16 PM

I'll first of all begin by ranting about how annoying it is to not be able to quote nested quotes. :smalltongue: Most of the words there I would have said were informal english rather than american, but then again I'm not as "Ragh pure british english rage!" But there are a few I can comment on:

* Wrench for spanner
What's the problem? That is what the tool does. It's used for turning things -- for WRENCHING them. That's why it's called a WRENCH.

But it's not a wrench, it's a spanner. :smallconfused: It's like if you're speaking another language (yes, British English and American English may be the same language, but some differences are similar to the differences in words between different languages), a carpet isn't a carpet in France, because in france its un tapis. It's the same sort of distinction here. In America it may be a wrench, but the correct term in Britain is a spanner.

* Elevator for lift
I don't understand. The two words are synonyms for moving something from one level to another. "Elevator" sounds a bit more classy than "lift", but they are the same word. So again, why the rage?

See previous explanation.

* Rookies for newcomers, who seem to have flown here via the sports pages.
"Rookie" has been a synonym for "newcomer" in all fields in this country since at least the 1980s. I don't see what's so upsetting about it.

Annnnnd again. It's the same sort of nerd rage some Americans have about us putting "u" everywhere. And you get quite a bit of nerd rage from a lot of people. :smalltongue:

* And, starting to creep in, such horrors as ouster, the process of firing someone, and outage, meaning a power cut. I always read that as outrage. And it is just that.
We don't use "ouster" over hear that often. "terminated", "downsized" , "rightsized" or -- to be polite -- "ash-canned". Outage IS a new word but it is used in a number of contexts -- server outage, power outage, etc.
Never heard the word "ouster" ever. You can oust someone, which is sort of like pushing them out, or exposing them, or something like that. But Ouster is a word I haven't come across at all. Its just firing, or being "Laid off". Outage, its the same as the previous ones.

Speaking as an American, I don't really get this. To our Ukians: Do these words induce feelings of rage and a desire to commit grievous bodily harm ? If so, why? You don't hear ME complaining about the superfluous 'u' you people put in words like 'armour' and 'colour' -- since all the good fantasy writers are British, and a lot of Americans seem to copy them So what? English is a tool for communicating. No reason to get fussy as it adapts to new circumstances.

Y'see, your problem is that you're one of those people who sees American English and British English as one and the same language. Which is a good thing. And I suppose it's half true. In a sense, American English and British English is a tiny way towards splitting up into two languages. I personally don't get fussy about it, and I'm - wouldn't say guilty, because they're valid words and I hang around with americans more than is probably healthy :smallwink: but can't think of a better word to use here - of using quite a few americanish words. I say "Guys" all the time.

The ones that I didn't quote... I've heard the word faze. Don't use it, nor does it come up much in conversation. Seems to be a valid word to me, anyways. Hospitalise would be acceptable in my books, but it's just the same amount of effort to say "He's in hospital" as "He's been hospitalised". In fact, its more effort to say Hospitalise. :smalltongue:

Edit: And just to say, one of the phrases that he complains about "Three strikes and you're out." I think of Rounders. Nor have I heard a lot of the other phrases. The writer has no news, so is writing a load of exagurated (I can't spell) tosh.

averagejoe

2011-07-14, 02:20 PM

I'm reminded of Warden Chandler from Changes (Dresden Files #12):

"The language is English. I am English. Therefore mine is the opinion which matters, colonial heathen."

"I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American, it's the only language I understand."

- Keith Howard

Kislath

2011-07-14, 02:49 PM

Ouster is a noun. It refers not to the the ( verb ) act of firing, but to the firing itself:

The executroid's ouster from megacorp stunned investors this morning.

Yes, it's kinda stupid.

Eruantion

2011-07-14, 03:11 PM

But it's not a wrench, it's a spanner. :smallconfused: It's like if you're speaking another language (yes, British English and American English may be the same language, but some differences are similar to the differences in words between different languages), a carpet isn't a carpet in France, because in france its un tapis. It's the same sort of distinction here. In America it may be a wrench, but the correct term in Britain is a spanner.

Never heard the word "ouster" ever. You can oust someone, which is sort of like pushing them out, or exposing them, or something like that. But Ouster is a word I haven't come across at all. Its just firing, or being "Laid off". Outage, its the same as the previous ones.

This is the most sound reasoning I've heard on this subject. British and American English may both be English, but they've been left to evolve on their own on opposite sides of the Atlantic. It's just like Canadian French versus French or Mexican Spanish versus Spanish. They the same syntax and grammar, but some of the spelling and vocabulary have changed. It's pretty useless to say one is more correct than the other, because they're essentially different.

I live in America, I've only heard the word "ouster" a handful of times, and didn't know what it meant. It's not used enough to get worked up about.

The Glyphstone

2011-07-14, 03:17 PM

I just think someone misspelled 'oyster', and wonder what shellfish have to do with the situation.

ForzaFiori

2011-07-14, 03:20 PM

"I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American, it's the only language I understand."

- Keith Howard

This reminds me of a time in an English class, when we were about to start reading Macbeth. One of the kids was freaking out because he "didn't speak British", and from what I could tell, was completely serious about it.

Zherog

2011-07-14, 03:22 PM

The ones that I didn't quote... I've heard the word faze. Don't use it, nor does it come up much in conversation. Seems to be a valid word to me, anyways. Hospitalise would be acceptable in my books, but it's just the same amount of effort to say "He's in hospital" as "He's been hospitalised". In fact, its more effort to say Hospitalise. :smalltongue:

But... you use the word "hospitalize" in the phrase "he's been hospitalized." How is the latter easier?

Joran

2011-07-14, 03:22 PM

Pish posh. The Brits should only become alarmed if you start calling chips, "fries" and crisps, "chips".

Although, the lift/elevator thing should be the first alarm.

P.S. Where do Brits fall on the pop/soda/Coke war?

Zherog

2011-07-14, 03:25 PM

Pish posh. The Brits should only become alarmed when you call chips, "fries" and crisps, "chips".

Although, the life/elevator thing should be the first alarm.

P.S. Where do Brits fall on the pop/soda/Coke war?

Also, when they start saying "mom" instead of "mum."

Raistlin1040

2011-07-14, 03:28 PM

I love language. My issues with language are not with Americanisms or Britishisms (Anglicisms? Englishisms?). I prefer the American variety, but I won't take issue with a lift here and there. Spanner, I didn't even know that was a wrench, so that's confusing. I don't like 'lorry' for truck, though. My main pet peeves are when people use expressions wrong. Could care less instead of couldn't care less, hold down the fort instead of hold the fort, etc. That said, perhaps it's due to my enjoyment of writers who don't care about grammar, but I have absolutely no problem with split infinitives (if the meaning supports it. There is a reason To Go Boldly, as there is a reason To Boldly Go) or ending a sentence with a preposition.

I do think the controvery over -re and -our endings is very silly, if only because a lot of British people who get elitist over it don't realize that that those endings come from French.

Castaras

2011-07-14, 03:29 PM

But... you use the word "hospitalize" in the phrase "he's been hospitalized." How is the latter easier?

Umm... I was comparing that "He's in Hospital" to "He's been hospitalised." The former being what we say, the latter what you say. Of course there's hospitalise in "He's been hospitalised." :smallconfused: Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Edit: And "He's in Hospital" is easier because its one syllable shorter. :smallwink:

@^ Pretty much, English of any sort is the love child of most other languages in existence. It does seem silly that people argue over it, but there are slight differences in British English and American English. Maybe one day there won't be, but then again "One day" the world might all speak exactly the same language.

Dogmantra

2011-07-14, 03:34 PM

P.S. Where do Brits fall on the pop/soda/Coke war?

We generally call it generically "fizzy drink", and then if it's cola often we'll call it "Coke" regardless of brand.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-07-14, 03:50 PM

Pfft, I roll Sense Motive for Bluff. :smalltongue:

Although the phenomenon is interesting.

My personal gripe is these obvious made-up words that seems to enter the general lexicon these days, especially amongst politicians, for some reason. Abominations like "frenemy". I also still don't know why muggle was ever allowed to enter the Oxford Dictionary.

I did read an interesting article some time ago that dealt with "unused" words that they wanted to take out of the dictionaries. Two words were mentioned that were kept alive only because of roleplayers like us: "amulet" and "periapt". Heh, we make a contribution :smallbiggrin:

1: Blame anybody who speaks English and has ever gone online for frenemy, and
2: Blame J.K. Rowling (and thus the Birtish :smalltongue:) for muggle, not Americans.

:smalltongue:

Mono Vertigo

2011-07-14, 04:09 PM

Huh... first language's French, here. All I know is that we were taught British English at school but gathered vocabulary from external sources, including, you bet, American ones.
So, I'm speaking/writing a bastardized version of English where, for some reason and depending of my mood, some words don't look right with -ize, and others do. And it is very difficult for us remembering what specific words are supposed to be English or American. We just weren't told which version of what we were studying. And even if we did remember, we can't just guess if the English-speaking person we're communicating with on Internet is American or English.

Therefore, it makes me sad to learn words like wrench and spanner, or lift and elevator are considered completely foreign words. I understand both versions just as well, automatically, and none of these are remotely related to their French versions. I'm willing to learn, but it's difficult. So many internal differences in a single language. So many ways to confuse a word's proper use/origin. The meaning of "I found a spanner in the elevator" is clear to everybody, and it is grammatically correct and all. Why the rage? :smallfrown:

Disclaimer: I however admit my grammar here is on the mediocre end of the spectrum. French is to blame here. Silly French, with its needlessly complex rules. :smallbiggrin:

WalkingTarget

2011-07-14, 04:11 PM

Edit: And "He's in Hospital" is easier because its one syllable shorter. :smallwink:

"In hospital" sounds funny (to this American), it needs an article which adds that extra syllable back into things ("in the hospital" or "in a hospital"). Additionally, to me "has been hospitalized" implies less of a choice to be there on the part of the patient. One might be "in the hospital" for some minor procedure that you scheduled ahead of time, but would be "hospitalized" after, say, a traffic accident.

That said, perhaps it's due to my enjoyment of writers who don't care about grammar, but I have absolutely no problem with split infinitives (if the meaning supports it. There is a reason To Go Boldly, as there is a reason To Boldly Go) or ending a sentence with a preposition.

My understanding of those "rules" was that they were holdovers from prescriptivist grammarians from the 19th century deciding how people ought to speak rather than paying attention to how they actually did. The "my way is better than yours so if you're not imitating me, you're doing it wrong" argument. Probably similar to the longstanding prestige of RP as opposed to the multitude of regional dialects.

Raistlin1040

2011-07-14, 04:12 PM

Umm... I was comparing that "He's in Hospital" to "He's been hospitalised." The former being what we say, the latter what you say. Of course there's hospitalise in "He's been hospitalised." :smallconfused: Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Edit: And "He's in Hospital" is easier because its one syllable shorter. :smallwink:

@^ Pretty much, English of any sort is the love child of most other languages in existence. It does seem silly that people argue over it, but there are slight differences in British English and American English. Maybe one day there won't be, but then again "One day" the world might all speak exactly the same language.I know. My point is that people who cry that American English isn't as "pure" as British English for not having those endings are being silly, because those endings were adopted by the English A) After America was its own country and B) From the French, meaning that the original spellings were often the American ones, and the "British" spellings were never actually British, hence my amusement over British rage.

hobbitkniver

2011-07-14, 04:24 PM

I don't think I've used any of these in my life nor met someone who used them commonly.

Edit: Except for elevator.

MCerberus

2011-07-14, 04:30 PM

Coming from an American, we get a lot of dialect confusion in the same country, so much so that there really isn't an 'American' English. But, in a broader term, the adaptability of the language seems to be what keeps it popular.

Hazzardevil

2011-07-14, 04:37 PM

[QUOTE=pendell;11414596]Speaking as an American, I don't really get this. To our Ukians: Do these words induce feelings of rage and a desire to commit grievous bodily harm ? If so, why? You don't hear ME complaining about the superfluous 'u' you people put in words like 'armour' and 'colour' -- since all the good fantasy writers are British, and a lot of Americans seem to copy them .So what? English is a tool for communicating. No reason to get fussy as it adapts to new circumstances. QUOTE]

I feel quite annoyed when someone says movie, because English has moved on from it. (Apart from the Americans,) and now they are changing it back.
I also find it irratating when people say shovel, Pail or Ass.
Because the correct spellings are Spade, Bucket and Arse.

Howler Dagger

2011-07-14, 04:37 PM

Zherog

2011-07-14, 04:54 PM

I feel quite annoyed when someone says movie, because English has moved on from it. (Apart from the Americans,) and now they are changing it back.

What else would it be called?

LaZodiac

2011-07-14, 05:11 PM

What else would it be called?

Film, one would assume.

factotum

2011-07-14, 05:17 PM

I think there are certain battles which are irretrievably lost--the definition of a billlion as a million million, for example; you know it's a lost cause when even the BBC News uses a thousand million! (Quite why this change was needed when a thousand million already has a perfectly good word for it, "milliard", is beyond me). There are some I even find kind of logical, like the hard C in the American pronunciation of "schedule".

However, there are others that I will fight to my dying breath--for instance, they're not *cookies*, they're *biscuits*! When I'm loading stuff into my car I put it in the boot, not the trunk, and if I need to look at the engine I open the bonnet, not the hood. The bit at the side of the road where I walk is a pavement, and the fast roads linking up major cities are motorways, not freeways... :smallsmile:

snoopy13a

2011-07-14, 05:25 PM

Whiffet

2011-07-14, 05:26 PM

I feel quite annoyed when someone says movie, because English has moved on from it. (Apart from the Americans,) and now they are changing it back.

There are so many complaints about language involving older words being somehow better than newer words that I actually find this statement refreshing.

snoopy13a

2011-07-14, 05:32 PM

I feel quite annoyed when someone says movie, because English has moved on from it. (Apart from the Americans,) and now they are changing it back.

Considering that the United States is the cultural leader in the film industry--India may have more gross reciepts but Bollywood isn't nearly as influential--wouldn't it be proper to defer to American usage regarding motion pictures?

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-14, 05:44 PM

one thing that semi-bothered me when i was in europe was "water closet" instead of "bathroom". It really depends on what english you were taught, as an american i feel that lorry instead of truck is weird, but i think we all just need to deal with it as globalization progresion. I think each language is like a pantry full of ingredients, and that english speakers stoll from the pantries to fill their own, the only difference is that we stole slightly different ingrediants

In fairness, no-one (that I have seen) calls it a 'Water Closet' it is just labeled 'W.C.' It tends to be referred as the 'toilet' or 'loo'. Unless it is a room with a bath in it. In which case the title of bathroom is rightfully its.

(I mean really. Why call it a bathroom if there isn't a bath in it? Do you bathe in the toilet? :smallamused:)

LaZodiac

2011-07-14, 05:47 PM

Eruantion

2011-07-14, 05:52 PM

In fairness, no-one (that I have seen) calls it a 'Water Closet' it is just labeled 'W.C.' It tends to be referred as the 'toilet' or 'loo'. Unless it is a room with a bath in it. In which case the title of bathroom is rightfully its.

(I mean really. Why call it a bathroom if there isn't a bath in it? Do you bathe in the toilet? :smallamused:)

Homeless people might.
I usually call it the restroom, but in Europe, as I understand it, the bathrooms and WCs were two different rooms, therefore justifying the distinction. In American homes the bathtub and toilet are in the same room, which is where the widespread use of bathroom comes from. But that's really just speculation.

Tirian

2011-07-14, 05:58 PM

"In hospital" sounds funny (to this American), it needs an article which adds that extra syllable back into things ("in the hospital" or "in a hospital").

And yet we Americans are very comfortable saying that someone is in jail or in college, so it's curious that "in hospital" would jar us the way that it does.

AtlanteanTroll

2011-07-14, 06:00 PM

And yet we Americans are very comfortable saying that someone is in jail or in college, so it's curious that "in hospital" would jar us the way that it does.

I say we add jailized and collegized to the dictionary.

WalkingTarget

2011-07-14, 06:08 PM

However, there are others that I will fight to my dying breath--for instance, they're not *cookies*, they're *biscuits*!

Meh, we started using "biscuit" for a different kind of baked good long ago. That sort of semantic drift doesn't surprise me.

When I'm loading stuff into my car I put it in the boot, not the trunk, and if I need to look at the engine I open the bonnet, not the hood.

Early, popular mass-produced cars here (notably the Model-A Ford (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/1931_Ford_Model_A_roadster_rear.JPG/800px-1931_Ford_Model_A_roadster_rear.JPG)) had a box resembling an actual trunk as the storage compartment. "Bonnet" and "hood" both refer to pieces of head covering, the choice there seems rather arbitrary.

The bit at the side of the road where I walk is a pavement,

We use that word for the bit at the side of the road where one walks as well. Free variation between the two is available (at least in my dialect). More generally, if I had to pin down a semantic difference the physical surface is pavement - it's used to create sidewalks.

and the fast roads linking up major cities are motorways, not freeways... :smallsmile:

The difference here is that we distinguish between freeways (which cost no money to use) and tollways (which do).

Frankly, I'm unlikely to use either term in my vicinity - usually just using "highway" because there are no tollways near me (or even "interstate", for the component roads of our Interstate Highway System). There are some regions here that I think probably use "freeway" more generally, though (even if there aren't tolls in the area).

I understand that "highway" probably has an entirely separate, historically significant connotation in the UK. It seems like the sort of thing that would.

Fiery Diamond

2011-07-14, 06:38 PM

I feel quite annoyed when someone says movie, because English has moved on from it. (Apart from the Americans,) and now they are changing it back.
I also find it irratating when people say shovel, Pail or Ass.
Because the correct spellings are Spade, Bucket and Arse.

I am American. I say shovel, bucket, and ... usually don't use the third one at all. By the by, "jackass" is also an insulting term shortened to "ass," so there's probably some conflation of the two possible meanings of "ass." Further, there really isn't much of a pronunciation different between the British "arse" and the American "ass," at least when compared to the difference there would be between British "arse" and American "arse," if we said it.

I think there are certain battles which are irretrievably lost--the definition of a billlion as a million million, for example; you know it's a lost cause when even the BBC News uses a thousand million! (Quite why this change was needed when a thousand million already has a perfectly good word for it, "milliard", is beyond me). There are some I even find kind of logical, like the hard C in the American pronunciation of "schedule".

However, there are others that I will fight to my dying breath--for instance, they're not *cookies*, they're *biscuits*! When I'm loading stuff into my car I put it in the boot, not the trunk, and if I need to look at the engine I open the bonnet, not the hood. The bit at the side of the road where I walk is a pavement, and the fast roads linking up major cities are motorways, not freeways... :smallsmile:

We use biscuit to refer to an entirely different kind of baked good; complaining about this is much the same as complaining about fries, chips, and crisps. Bonnet does make as much sense as hood, but trunk makes more sense than boot - because, at least in America, "trunk" can refer to a suitcase, which is how I always assumed a car trunk got its name. As someone else said, we have freeways (free), tollways (with tolls), and highways (general term, more common), and interstates. I have heard motorway, however.

"Guy" kind of works like the way word gender in Spanish (and probably some other languages I don't know).

"Guy" is masculine, and refers to a male person. "That guy over there." You never use "guy" to refer to a female person.

However, "guys" can refer to groups of all males, all females or a mixed group, depending on the context.

"Look at those guys over there." refers to a group of men over there.

"Come on guys." can refer to any group, but "hanging with the guys" tends to be either all male or mixed.

Actually, the BBC person is correct. Guy can, in certain areas, also be a synonym for "person," and does not necessarily indicate "male person." It's not the majority usage, but it is common. I actually use guy to mean "male person" or "person," depending on context. Guys can mean "group of males," like "guys' night out." Guys can also mean "group of females" or "mixed group."

Huh... first language's French, here. All I know is that we were taught British English at school but gathered vocabulary from external sources, including, you bet, American ones.
So, I'm speaking/writing a bastardized version of English where, for some reason and depending of my mood, some words don't look right with -ize, and others do. And it is very difficult for us remembering what specific words are supposed to be English or American. We just weren't told which version of what we were studying. And even if we did remember, we can't just guess if the English-speaking person we're communicating with on Internet is American or English.

Therefore, it makes me sad to learn words like wrench and spanner, or lift and elevator are considered completely foreign words. I understand both versions just as well, automatically, and none of these are remotely related to their French versions. I'm willing to learn, but it's difficult. So many internal differences in a single language. So many ways to confuse a word's proper use/origin. The meaning of "I found a spanner in the elevator" is clear to everybody, and it is grammatically correct and all. Why the rage? :smallfrown:

You could get so confused as to why you weren't understood, coming from your current perspective. Until a thread about English getting new words a little while ago on the media forums where someone linked to a rap about American English versus British English, I'd never heard the term spanner. Nobody in my family had either, and I'm reasonably sure that I could ask several hundred decently educated people who wouldn't have a clue what a spanner was.

So... you're actually, unfortunately, wrong. The meaning of "I found a spanner in the elevator" is not clear to everybody. Most Americans would go "Huh? You found a what?" I'd be able to figure out what you meant if you said "I found a wrench in the lift," but not "I found a spanner in the elevator," though I might think you were talking about the elevator shaft area rather than the actual elevator itself.

Ashen Lilies

2011-07-14, 07:28 PM

I'm curious then, what do Americans say when they find "a spanner in the works"? A "wrench in the works" doesn't sound quite right to me... :/

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-14, 07:30 PM

Homeless people might.
I usually call it the restroom, but in Europe, as I understand it, the bathrooms and WCs were two different rooms, therefore justifying the distinction. In American homes the bathtub and toilet are in the same room, which is where the widespread use of bathroom comes from. But that's really just speculation.

As a brit, generally in my experience a house has a bathroom, with a sink, bath, toilet etc. and a toilet, with just a toilet and sink. Smaller places will probably just have a bathroom.

TheLaughingMan

2011-07-14, 07:36 PM

I'm curious then, what do Americans say when they find "a spanner in the works"? A "wrench in the works" doesn't sound quite right to me... :/

"Put a wrench in [Pronoun's] plans" or something like that, I dunno. I'm American and I've always used "spanner in the works," and I didn't even know what a spanner was until this thread! :smallredface:

Asthix

2011-07-14, 07:37 PM

Thanks to this thread, I know that spanner is from the Queens' English, and not a word made up by steampunk enthusiasts. :smallsmile:

From the title, I was hoping this thread would be a forum to propose what the 'British English' version of American phrases would be. For instance, I was wondering if there is a British translation for the phrase, "What the dilly, Yo?"

What the dilly yo:
1)some one asking how the a situation ended or is coming along..

2)Meaning wtf, what the hell, etc. It came out in 1996.

person#1:Ima throw yo ball.
person#1:I just throw yo ball.
person#2:What the dilly yo.

Zevox

2011-07-14, 08:02 PM

I'm curious then, what do Americans say when they find "a spanner in the works"? A "wrench in the works" doesn't sound quite right to me... :/
For whatever reason the phrase over here is "a monkey wrench in the works" rather than just "wrench."

Speaking for myself, I'd never heard the term "spanner" used on its own before this thread - just as part of the name of a Star Wars tool, the hydrospanner, which I'd thought had simply been made up to sound sci-fi-ish. So "a spanner in the works" sounds just as odd to me as I guess a "monkey wrench in the works" probably does to you.

Zevox

Lappy9000

2011-07-14, 08:14 PM

Linkavitch

2011-07-14, 08:26 PM

Heliomance

2011-07-14, 08:41 PM

P.S. Where do Brits fall on the pop/soda/Coke war?

Pop doesn't exist, soda is used only when referring to cream soda, a specific carbonated beverage, or to ice cream sodas, and Coke is sometimes used for any cola. Cola is used at least as frequently, though. Any other carbonated beverage is either referred to by type or brand (lemonade, ginger beer, Dr Pepper, Sprite, etc) or simply called a fizzy drink, or fizz.

I feel quite annoyed when someone says movie, because English has moved on from it. (Apart from the Americans,) and now they are changing it back.
I also find it irratating when people say shovel, Pail or Ass.
Because the correct spellings are Spade, Bucket and Arse.

Shovel is entirely acceptable. It is a different tool to a spade. A spade is used for digging, a shovel is used for moving, eg, loose earth into a wheelbarrow, or coal into a coal cellar or such. It has a larger head, angled to the shaft so you can carry the head flat with the shaft at a comfortable 30-ish degree angle to horizontal.

Ass is also acceptable, but only when referring or comparing to donkeys.

I have a question for the Brits in the Playground: Do your teens and young adults go around speaking in American Accents and act like it's hilarious? Cuz I know my circle of friends and I do it (but with British accents) all the time.

Nope, not to my knowledge.

The neologism that I see creeping into my vocabulary at the moment, which I despise, is "whatevs" instead of "whatever". I'm trying to avoid it, but sometimes it just slips out.

Eruantion

2011-07-14, 08:44 PM

I say we add jailized and collegized to the dictionary.

Imprisoned :smallwink: nothing for collegized, but that's not somewhere you're "put" like the other two.

Lappy9000

2011-07-14, 08:47 PM

Pop doesn't exist, soda is used only when referring to cream soda, a specific carbonated beverage, or to ice cream sodas, and Coke is sometimes used for any cola. Cola is used at least as frequently, though. Any other carbonated beverage is either referred to by type or brand (lemonade, ginger beer, Dr Pepper, Sprite, etc) or simply called a fizzy drink, or fizz.My family in Missouri use Pop when talking about fizzy soft drinks, but you get strange looks when you use the word in the American south. I also believe Pop is generally used in the northern states.

The neologism that I see creeping into my vocabulary at the moment, which I despise, is "whatevs" instead of "whatever". I'm trying to avoid it, but sometimes it just slips out.My friends and I do that quite a bit, usually to the point where we're pretty much just flat out making up words. Usually lazy stuff like 'totes' and 'mos defs'

Fiery Diamond

2011-07-14, 08:54 PM

I'm curious then, what do Americans say when they find "a spanner in the works"? A "wrench in the works" doesn't sound quite right to me... :/

"A wrench in the works" is exactly how I've heard the phrase all my life. Also "(to) put a wrench in [somebody's] plans."

Pop/Soda/Coke varies throughout the US. Pop is mostly just northern US, Soda... varies, Soda pop is used in a number of places, and Coke to refer to any soft drink (the "official" term) is very prevalent in the south. (I live in Virginia but went to college in Michigan and have relatives in New York and Georgia.)

Zevox

2011-07-14, 08:54 PM

My family in Missouri use Pop when talking about fizzy soft drinks, but you get strange looks when you use the word in the American south. I also believe Pop is generally used in the northern states.
If the other northern states are like Michigan, then yes, pop is the term used there.

Zevox

snoopy13a

2011-07-14, 08:57 PM

ForzaFiori

2011-07-14, 08:58 PM

Once again, this is based only on the southern american I've learned growing up. Other parts of the US use words in completely different manners.

A spade (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11604661-gardening-garden-spade.php) is a shovel made for one hand, typically used in gardening, and occasionally referred to as a "gardening spade". On the other hand, a Shovel (http://www.renthire.com/RHI/Shovel-Hire-Melbourne_3925.action) is typically moved for moving loose dirt, typically has a wide V shaped blade, and a small flat ledge on the bottom of the blade that serves both to keep material on the blade, and as a place to step upon it to drive it into the ground.

In the same fashion, Pails are typically small buckets, such as what a child would play with at the beach, and is actually rather uncommon to hear.

Ass however, is the only thing used here. Hell, most people here probably think Arse is a foreign word.

Neither freeway or motorway is used here. We tend to have highways, and interstates, not to mention the various ways to just say road (road, avenue, way, drive, etc)

Heliomance

2011-07-14, 08:58 PM

And also a thoroughly outdated one. I haven't heard anyone say fanny since primary school.

Once again, this is based only on the southern american I've learned growing up. Other parts of the US use words in completely different manners.

A spade (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11604661-gardening-garden-spade.php) is a shovel made for one hand, typically used in gardening, and occasionally referred to as a "gardening spade".
That's a trowel.

On the other hand, a Shovel (http://www.renthire.com/RHI/Shovel-Hire-Melbourne_3925.action) is typically moved for moving loose dirt, typically has a wide V shaped blade, and a small flat ledge on the bottom of the blade that serves both to keep material on the blade, and as a place to step upon it to drive it into the ground.
That looks more like a spade to me, albeit an oddly shaped one. I'd probably call it a spade, but it's not what springs to mind when I hear the word.

In British English, this (http://www.idevelop.ie/igarden/images/spade.jpg) is a spade, and this (http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Different-Shovel.jpg) is a shovel.

Whiffet

2011-07-14, 09:03 PM

My family in Missouri use Pop when talking about fizzy soft drinks, but you get strange looks when you use the word in the American south. I also believe Pop is generally used in the northern states.

Missouri, you say? Hello! We're in the same state. Yeah, we use pop here. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it varies within a state.

snoopy13a

2011-07-14, 09:09 PM

Soda is northeast and west-coast. Pop is midwest. Coke is south. And it can differ within a state. For example, Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester) call it pop while the rest of the state calls it soda. I believe Pennslyvania is similiar with Pittsburgh and Erie calling it pop and the Philly area calling it soda.

The takeaway is that Western NY and Western PA are in the midwest. :smalltongue:

Tirian

2011-07-14, 09:25 PM

Imprisoned :smallwink: nothing for collegized, but that's not somewhere you're "put" like the other two.

A person who is in college has been matriculated.

Whiffet

2011-07-14, 09:33 PM

The takeaway is that Western NY and Western PA are in the midwest. :smalltongue:

I'd argue with that, but whatever. I'll just make sure to never venture east when I'm visiting relatives, since I'll clearly be even more uncomfortable if I do. :smallwink:

Trazoi

2011-07-14, 09:43 PM

In British English, this (http://www.idevelop.ie/igarden/images/spade.jpg) is a spade, and this (http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Different-Shovel.jpg) is a shovel.
That's what I'd call them too. The difference is a spade is for digging and will be designed to cut into the earth. A shovel is for moving stuff (like snow, coal, sand, loose dirt, whatever).

For me, one of the weirder aspects of British/Australian English and American English is the difference between a "trapezoid" and a "trapezium". It's designed to make intercontinential mathematics confusing.

Tirian

2011-07-14, 09:56 PM

The takeaway is that Western NY and Western PA are in the midwest. :smalltongue:

As a Rochesterian, I've always thought that the boundary of the midwest is on the Ohio/Indiana state line, but my NYC friends assure me that the midwest actually starts five miles outside Albany and once you leave the suburbs of Philly, and their perspective isn't entirely without merit.

Fiery Diamond

2011-07-14, 10:03 PM

That's what I'd call them too. The difference is a spade is for digging and will be designed to cut into the earth. A shovel is for moving stuff (like snow, coal, sand, loose dirt, whatever).

For me, one of the weirder aspects of British/Australian English and American English is the difference between a "trapezoid" and a "trapezium". It's designed to make intercontinential mathematics confusing.

What the heck is a trapezium?

*note: I've been through high school geometry, trig, and some multi-variable calculus and differential equations. I've never heard the term trapezium.

Dienekes

2011-07-14, 10:06 PM

In the US a trapezium is an irregular quadrilateral, so it has no parallel sides. I don't know what it is outside of the Us.

Trazoi

2011-07-14, 10:07 PM

What the heck is a trapezium?
A trapezium is a quadrilateral with one pair of sides parallel.
A trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no sides parallel.
...in British English!

In Americanadia, it's the other way round. Really confusing.

Zherog

2011-07-14, 10:26 PM

I believe Pennslyvania is similiar with Pittsburgh and Erie calling it pop and the Philly area calling it soda.

Correct. I'm from Philly, my wife is from the Erie area. We say soda, they say pop (although she's been converted - does that count as learning a foreign language).

Ashen Lilies

2011-07-14, 11:40 PM

A trapezium is a quadrilateral with one pair of sides parallel.
A trapezoid is a quadrilateral with no sides parallel.
...in British English!

In Americanadia, it's the other way round. Really confusing.

Huh. I use trapezium and trapezoid interchangeably for the first shape. The second is merely an 'irregular quadrilateral'.
...
English! It (doesn't) work, bitches!

Coidzor

2011-07-15, 12:20 AM

^: No, a trapezium (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Trapezium_%28bone%29)is a bone in the U.S. :smalltongue:

In British English, this (http://www.idevelop.ie/igarden/images/spade.jpg) is a spade, and this (http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Different-Shovel.jpg) is a shovel.

What do you call a device that has a pointed blade then? A spaded shovel?

factotum

2011-07-15, 01:42 AM

Pop doesn't exist

I'd have to disagree with m'learned colleague there--I certainly heard fizzy drinks referred to as "pop" when I was growing up. 'Course, that was more than 20 years ago now and the term may have fallen out of use since, or else it's a regional thing in the UK as it is in the States...

Coidzor, a device with a pointed blade would still be for digging and so would presumably still be a spade of some kind.

Coidzor

2011-07-15, 01:53 AM

Coidzor, a device with a pointed blade would still be for digging and so would presumably still be a spade of some kind.

Always strange to see spades that don't have a pointed blade though, since the suit of playing cards is named for them and all. Feels just... wrong...

From what I can tell from the technical standpoint, spades and shovels have basically evolved towards one another for the most part, except in niche areas like coal shovels, so the terms are practically interchangeable for any kind of earth digging and moving hand tool.

Trazoi

2011-07-15, 02:06 AM

Always strange to see spades that don't have a pointed blade though, since the suit of playing cards is named for them and all. Feels just... wrong...
The card suit used to be swords (Italian: spade, plural of spada). Gotta be pointy symbols if they were originally swords! :smallwink:

Liriel

2011-07-15, 02:50 AM

Someone earlier mentioned that American English is what the British used to speak in colonial times....

I'm just gonna leave this link here because it is late. I'll probably poke back later.

http://www.grammarphobia.com/books_specious.html

Avilan the Grey

2011-07-15, 03:47 AM

Hey, here's something else in the article.

... wait, is it unusual to first think "walk in the country/woods/mountains/wherever" when I hear "hike" without context? That sentence implies the second usage is falling out of use, and it's apparently the Americans' fault. Hey, if British English really is forgetting a definition of a word, you can't blame us if we still are using it.

Please tell me Mr. Engel is just exaggerating when he says a hike is no longer a walk in the country.

Yes, I agree with this. I might be Swedish living in Sweden, but I am married to an American and speak with Americans 6 days a week.

"Hike" is definitely "Walk in the wilderness" first, and "Rising something" second.

Coidzor

2011-07-15, 04:37 AM

The card suit used to be swords (Italian: spade, plural of spada). Gotta be pointy symbols if they were originally swords! :smallwink:

And the spade is named for the spada as well, from what I've been able to gather, so... Should still be pointy, dangnabbit!

Also, actually using a spade or spaded shovel that is not pointy for digging is extra annoying even if it has a bend or joint in the blade. :smallyuk:

KuReshtin

2011-07-15, 04:41 AM

What do you call a device that has a pointed blade then? A spaded shovel?

The shape of the blade is not what defines it as a spade or a shovel. it's the use it's designed for that defines it.

A spade is used for digging into compact soil and the ground whereas a shovel is designed for moving loose soil and sand and snow and stuff.

A lot of the times, the blade of a shovel doesn't have the stability to be used to dig into packed earth, whereas the blade of a spade is usually more robust and heavier in general.

Avilan the Grey

2011-07-15, 05:31 AM

One thing I write differently if I know the majority of people are non-Americans: Aluminium / Aluminum.

Things I notice I go back and forth with: U:s in Colour, Armour etc.

Things I have always used American English for, even when it gave me remarks in English class: Truck, Gas station, Elevator.

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-15, 05:40 AM

Americans drive on parkways and park on driveways :smalltongue:

Some other differences:

British American
Jumper Sweater (pull-over)
Bracers Suspenders
Torch Flashlight
Trainers Sneakers

There are also some odd differences. For example, the nickname for Frances (rhymes with Danny) is a childish and generally inoffensive slang term for a body part in America but is a crude and offensive slang term for a different body part in Britain

Braces, actually.

I have a question for the Brits in the Playground: Do your teens and young adults go around speaking in American Accents and act like it's hilarious? Cuz I know my circle of friends and I do it (but with British accents) all the time.

Not really. Occasionally an over the top American accent may be used for a joke I guess. No more than we'd make fun of other European countries though.

Also, I don't get the Aluminum thing. Do you call Titanium 'Titaninum'? :smalltongue:

Feytalist

2011-07-15, 06:03 AM

A minor point: a monkey wrench is a shifting spanner. A wrench is just a spanner. The ones that don't move, or "monkeyshift".

While I'm not either British or American, I was taught a very strict British English, and we use the British terms here. With regards to the billion/thousand million issue, that is simply the result of two different counting systems, the "long" and "short" counting systems. Someone mentioned "milliard" as being equal to a thousand million in the long system, and my language uses it as well, "miljoen". It saves on confusion.

Another interesting concept is one of English words being subsumed in foreign languages. In my language (Afrikaans), it's called Anglosisms (well, translated, naturally). It's quite a big issue over here, and it irritates me for one immensely.

Mercenary Pen

2011-07-15, 06:12 AM

A minor point: a monkey wrench is a shifting spanner. A wrench is just a spanner. The ones that don't move, or "monkeyshift".

The term I've usually heard used for the shifting ones is "adjustable spanner".

Mina Kobold

2011-07-15, 06:39 AM

Speaking as a mainland European here, I much prefer British English but do not at all mind any other dialects. A Brit can speak Australian Englsih for all I care. :smallsmile:

I don't get the z thing, though. I pronounce both the exact same way and adding more z's just makes it even more of a sticky widget to learn. :smallconfused:

I do dislike the Americanisms of the Delicious Pastry language*. I love Englsih and see no problem with using loanwords like "cool" or "computer" but replacing common words just sounds like they forgot what language they were speaking. Especially if they can't be consistent about it.

May just be me, though. ^_^'

*Danish. :smalltongue:

hamishspence

2011-07-15, 06:42 AM

Also, I don't get the Aluminum thing. Do you call Titanium 'Titaninum'? :smalltongue:

I think it's a holdover from when it was first discovered- there was some debate over whether it should have an "um" ending like, say, platinum, or an "ium" ending.

factotum

2011-07-15, 06:53 AM

The term I've usually heard used for the shifting ones is "adjustable spanner".

I've heard them referred to as a monkey wrench, but apparently that's a very old-fashioned usage for a slightly different tool--probably explains why it was what my parents called them!

Avilan the Grey

2011-07-15, 08:10 AM

Also, I don't get the Aluminum thing. Do you call Titanium 'Titaninum'? :smalltongue:

Heh... Actually, Americans should call Titanium Titanum, if doing the "Aluminum thing".

Dacia Brabant

2011-07-15, 08:42 AM

The only thing I don't get about British English is why the use of soft c's in words like defence, when the Latin roots of those words are clearly s's (defensus). :smallconfused:

WalkingTarget

2011-07-15, 09:14 AM

In British English, this (http://www.idevelop.ie/igarden/images/spade.jpg) is a spade, and this (http://www.dimensionsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Different-Shovel.jpg) is a shovel.

Grew up on a farm - plenty of digging to be done. The connotation here was that "spade" implied the pointy end to aid in the digging. We were less likely to call a device like the thing in your picture a "spade" as it was less useful for that purpose (we had two pointy spades and one flat-bladed one, the unlucky brother got the flat one when we had a job to do because it didn't work as well).

The "used for digging" utility requirement was there to qualify as a "spade", it's just that the front end of the flat-bladed ones don't work as well for that purpose.

As a result - "spade" (in my own personal language at least, probably in my brothers' as well at the very least) is a subset of shovel, not a different device altogether. Your "shovels" are more likely to have a qualifier ("snow-shovel" "coal-shovel" "grain-shovel" etc) depending on their design purpose.

Soda is northeast and west-coast. Pop is midwest. Coke is south. And it can differ within a state. For example, Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester) call it pop while the rest of the state calls it soda. I believe Pennslyvania is similiar with Pittsburgh and Erie calling it pop and the Philly area calling it soda.

The takeaway is that Western NY and Western PA are in the midwest. :smalltongue:

Central Illinois - usage varies. A lot of people call it "pop", I tend to almost exclusively call it "soda". "Soda-pop" is rare but not unheard of. "Coke" is only the name brand. Some people, notably my grandparents and their peers, use "sodi" for some odd reason.

hamishspence

2011-07-15, 10:14 AM

Heh... Actually, Americans should call Titanium Titanum, if doing the "Aluminum thing".

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

it went through several spellings- and aluminum came before aluminium.

Erloas

2011-07-15, 10:44 AM

Zherog

2011-07-15, 10:55 AM

I don't know many Americans that say pail, I think its a bit more common on the eastern half of the country though. For as long as I've known they are buckets.

I'm on the east coast (Philadelphia area) and it'd just about exclusively a bucket here. Before this thread, I can't tell you the last time I saw the word "pail" to be honest.

WalkingTarget

2011-07-15, 10:59 AM

I don't know many Americans that say pail, I think its a bit more common on the eastern half of the country though. For as long as I've known they are buckets.

"Pail" has always implied to me a specific type of bucket - metal with a wire handle. That's just my take on it, though. We never used the term in normal speech, it just came up when reading stories or somesuch and that's the type of bucket that it got associated with for me.

To me [spanner] doesn't really make sense because you aren't trying to span anything with it. The sort of tools that do something kind of like spanning are nothing like a spanner/wrench.

I took it to mean that the part of the tool that interfaces with the object being worked on has a specific width (in the case of non-adjustable/shifting varieties) - e.g. a 3/4 inch wrench has a span of 3/4 inches between the prongs (or whatever the name for the shape at the end of the tool is called). I have no basis for that etymology, though, that's just how I made sense of the term.

Hazzardevil

2011-07-15, 11:39 AM

I don't know many Americans that say pail, I think its a bit more common on the eastern half of the country though. For as long as I've known they are buckets. As mentioned many times a spade here tends to be used as a specific type of shovel. And I think a lot of the ass thing comes from jackass which is another name for mule, which are known for being stubborn and contrary.

I've never heard anyone say Pail but I have an Aunt in America who says taht Americans say Pail, that word caused my cousin to fail many spelling tests when he was younger.

^: No, a trapezium (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Trapezium_%28bone%29)is a bone in the U.S. :smalltongue:

What do you call a device that has a pointed blade then? A spaded shovel?

It's just another spade to me.

I have a question for the Brits in the Playground: Do your teens and young adults go around speaking in American Accents and act like it's hilarious? Cuz I know my circle of friends and I do it (but with British accents) all the time.

No, we do it to the Germans mostly.

Considering that the United States is the cultural leader in the film industry--India may have more gross reciepts but Bollywood isn't nearly as influential--wouldn't it be proper to defer to American usage regarding motion pictures?

Screw the Americans! We have James Bond Films!

How I love arguments on Giantitp.

Thufir

2011-07-15, 12:01 PM

From the title, I was hoping this thread would be a forum to propose what the 'British English' version of American phrases would be. For instance, I was wondering if there is a British translation for the phrase, "What the dilly, Yo?"

What the dilly yo:
1)some one asking how the a situation ended or is coming along..

2)Meaning wtf, what the hell, etc. It came out in 1996.

person#1:Ima throw yo ball.
person#1:I just throw yo ball.
person#2:What the dilly yo.

I believe we have the same phrase, only we pronounce/spell it correctly: "What the dilly-o?"

I have a question for the Brits in the Playground: Do your teens and young adults go around speaking in American Accents and act like it's hilarious? Cuz I know my circle of friends and I do it (but with British accents) all the time.

Nope. French or German accents, possibly, sometimes even exaggeratedly posh British accents but not American. American accents just aren't funny I'm afraid.

I'd have to disagree with m'learned colleague there--I certainly heard fizzy drinks referred to as "pop" when I was growing up. 'Course, that was more than 20 years ago now and the term may have fallen out of use since, or else it's a regional thing in the UK as it is in the States...

I'm pretty sure I've heard people refer to such drinks as 'fizzy pop', despite the fact there's no pop that isn't fizzy. But generally we'd just refer to something more specific, and pop is a genre of music mostly.

KenderWizard

2011-07-15, 12:12 PM

I have a question for the Brits in the Playground: Do your teens and young adults go around speaking in American Accents and act like it's hilarious? Cuz I know my circle of friends and I do it (but with British accents) all the time.

We do Valley Girl accents for spoiled-idiot-American-tourist. "Like, oh my GAWD, do you guys speak 'gay-lick'? That is like SOOO COOL!"

We speak Irish, not Gaelic. The Irish word for Irish is Gaeilge [g(h)ayl-gah].

A person who is in college has been matriculated.

I would say they have matriculated. It is they themselves doing the action. An outside body doesn't matriculate them. Also, matriculate is a funny word.

Speaking as a mainland European here, I much prefer British English but do not at all mind any other dialects. A Brit can speak Australian Englsih for all I care. :smallsmile:

I don't get the z thing, though. I pronounce both the exact same way and adding more z's just makes it even more of a sticky widget to learn. :smallconfused:

I do dislike the Americanisms of the Delicious Pastry language*. I love Englsih and see no problem with using loanwords like "cool" or "computer" but replacing common words just sounds like they forgot what language they were speaking. Especially if they can't be consistent about it.

May just be me, though. ^_^'

*Danish. :smalltongue:

Yeah, Irish has the same problem. We used to have a perfectly good word for computer but in some new dictionaries it's been replaced by "computór". The Irish word for jeep is "jíp" in some dictionaries. Irish doesn't HAVE the letter "j"! Seemingly, when in doubt, they just use the English word misspelled and stick a fada on at least one of the vowels, and hope or the best.

Tirian

2011-07-15, 12:38 PM

I would say they have matriculated. It is they themselves doing the action. An outside body doesn't matriculate them. Also, matriculate is a funny word.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The concept of matriculation in general is being approved for placement on a list, so I'm going to stick with it being more properly an action that the college or university is taking. But I'm not going to fight over it.

Also, it is a totally funny word, which is why we should say it all the time. Matriculate, matriculate, matriculate!!

Joran

2011-07-15, 01:40 PM

I'm on the east coast (Philadelphia area) and it'd just about exclusively a bucket here. Before this thread, I can't tell you the last time I saw the word "pail" to be honest.

Same here in the Washington, D.C. area; we only use bucket. I've heard pail only used in terms of construction workers and their "lunch pails".

I didn't know a spade was a type of shovel until this thread. A spade is a symbol in a deck of cards. Hilariously, I have heard the colloquialism: "call a spade a spade".

kpenguin

2011-07-15, 01:52 PM

Selfly, I am nettled by the Latin tongue dirtiness in the English tung and forseek to do with Anglish when I can.

Prime32

2011-07-15, 03:18 PM

Yeah, Irish has the same problem. We used to have a perfectly good word for computer but in some new dictionaries it's been replaced by "computór". The Irish word for jeep is "jíp" in some dictionaries. Irish doesn't HAVE the letter "j"! Seemingly, when in doubt, they just use the English word misspelled and stick a fada on at least one of the vowels, and hope or the best.The dictionary once gave the Irish word for zoo as "sú"; now it's "zú" (Irish likewise does not have a letter z). Car used to be "gluastáin", now it's "carr". I once saw a street sign "Church Street (Sráid Church)". In fairness it was probably named after a guy called Church. :smalltongue:

But people only speak Irish to show off anyway. :smallamused:

Erloas

2011-07-15, 03:49 PM

"Pail" has always implied to me a specific type of bucket - metal with a wire handle. That's just my take on it, though. We never used the term in normal speech, it just came up when reading stories or somesuch and that's the type of bucket that it got associated with for me.That was kind of what I thought too. It never seemed like a working sort of bucket, more like the kind a kid would have in a sandbox. Or as someone else mentions a lunch pail, also not used much, which were also thin tin. The reason I thought it might be used more on the east half of the US is because my Grandma is the only one that I can think of that used the term, and while she lives in Idaho now, she grew up in Minnesota so I thought it was more of a Minnesota thing.

I took it to mean that the part of the tool that interfaces with the object being worked on has a specific width (in the case of non-adjustable/shifting varieties) - e.g. a 3/4 inch wrench has a span of 3/4 inches between the prongs (or whatever the name for the shape at the end of the tool is called). I have no basis for that etymology, though, that's just how I made sense of the term.I got that part, it was the part that kind of made sense. Usually though spanning is used in the opposite context, to cross an opening, such as a bridge spanning a river, or mountains spanning the horizon, or something "spanning the centuries." Where as with a wrench you have a gap, something specifically *not* there for a given distance.

Mina Kobold

2011-07-15, 03:56 PM

Yeah, Irish has the same problem. We used to have a perfectly good word for computer but in some new dictionaries it's been replaced by "computór". The Irish word for jeep is "jíp" in some dictionaries. Irish doesn't HAVE the letter "j"! Seemingly, when in doubt, they just use the English word misspelled and stick a fada on at least one of the vowels, and hope or the best.

To be fair, there has never been an equivalent to the original meaning for computer in Danish and the original name they gave them hasn't been used since the seventies.

Your dictionaries sound like they are in a terrible state, it's quite sad if they can't even keep the letters of the language straight. :smallfrown:

Hazzardevil

2011-07-15, 04:44 PM

That was kind of what I thought too. It never seemed like a working sort of bucket, more like the kind a kid would have in a sandboxpit. Or as someone else mentions a lunch pail, also not used much, which were also thin tin. The reason I thought it might be used more on the east half of the US is because my Grandma is the only one that I can think of that used the term, and while she lives in Idaho now, she grew up in Minnesota so I thought it was more of a Minnesota thing.

I got that part, it was the part that kind of made sense. Usually though spanning is used in the opposite context, to cross an opening, such as a bridge spanning a river, or mountains spanning the horizon, or something "spanning the centuries." Where as with a wrench you have a gap, something specifically *not* there for a given distance.

I fixed one of your american spellings for you.
I am happy to let te Americans use their alternative words but I have a hatred of the word movie.

Eldan

2011-07-15, 07:35 PM

Nope. French or German accents, possibly, sometimes even exaggeratedly posh British accents but not American. American accents just aren't funny I'm afraid.

People do "American" accents here. It's also called the "sock in the mouth" accent, because you move your tongue very little and pronounce most vowels as "oooargh".

THAC0

2011-07-15, 08:11 PM

The "used for digging" utility requirement was there to qualify as a "spade", it's just that the front end of the flat-bladed ones don't work as well for that purpose.

As a result - "spade" (in my own personal language at least, probably in my brothers' as well at the very least) is a subset of shovel, not a different device altogether. Your "shovels" are more likely to have a qualifier ("snow-shovel" "coal-shovel" "grain-shovel" etc) depending on their design purpose.

All spades are shovels but not all shovels are spades!

Fiery Diamond

2011-07-15, 08:41 PM

Grew up on a farm - plenty of digging to be done. The connotation here was that "spade" implied the pointy end to aid in the digging. We were less likely to call a device like the thing in your picture a "spade" as it was less useful for that purpose (we had two pointy spades and one flat-bladed one, the unlucky brother got the flat one when we had a job to do because it didn't work as well).

The "used for digging" utility requirement was there to qualify as a "spade", it's just that the front end of the flat-bladed ones don't work as well for that purpose.

As a result - "spade" (in my own personal language at least, probably in my brothers' as well at the very least) is a subset of shovel, not a different device altogether. Your "shovels" are more likely to have a qualifier ("snow-shovel" "coal-shovel" "grain-shovel" etc) depending on their design purpose.

All spades are shovels but not all shovels are spades!

This is the case for my vocabulary also. It goes something like this:

Most encompassing category: Shovel.
-There are snow shovels, coal shovels, etc.
-There are also spades, which have pointed blades; a subset of shovels.
+There are large spades.
+There are also trowels, which are a specific subset of spades.

All of them are shovels.

I fixed one of your american spellings for you.
I am happy to let te Americans use their alternative words but I have a hatred of the word movie.

Actually, at least in America, sandbox and sandpit mean different things. A sandbox is the small (usually square shaped) "box," (varies from being an actual open-topped object with a legit bottom [these are often plastic] to just being an area with wooden sides holding the sand in) which is not more than a few feet on each side; these are designed for children to play in. A sandpit, on the other hand, would be something like the sand traps in golf or the sand...pits... on Tatooine in Star Wars Episode VI.

As far as movie is concerned...movie actually makes more sense, since not all movies are shot on film. Movie is just a shortening of "Moving Picture," which is what they were called back in their early days. (Have you heard the term "Motion Picture"? Similar, and still in use as a descriptor in the industry but not the vernacular.)

Dogmantra

2011-07-15, 08:52 PM

As far as movie is concerned...movie actually makes more sense, since not all movies are shot on film. Movie is just a shortening of "Moving Picture," which is what they were called back in their early days. (Have you heard the term "Motion Picture"? Similar, and still in use as a descriptor in the industry but not the vernacular.)

I was under the impression that after films with sound became a bigger thing, "movie" referred to silent films (i.e. films where there was only moving) and "talkie" referred to films with sound. That said, I think "talkie" sounds a hundred times sillier than movie.

Hylleddin

2011-07-16, 12:43 AM

For me, a spade is one handed tool, while a shovel is a two handed tool. It seems to be different for everyone. (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/1902.html)

'Bucket' is usually used around here, but 'pail' isn't unheard of either. I honestly don't know where we fall on soda/pop. Usually we just specify what kind (Pepsi, Coke, etc...) we want.

While I'm American, a number of Britishisms have slipped into my speech and typing. I have hard time leaving the 'u' out of 'colour' and I think 'torch' sounds much cooler than 'flashlight', which always makes me think of emergency blinkers flashing.

I use metric too, but that's just sanity. :smalltongue:

Fiery Diamond

2011-07-16, 01:09 AM

Nibleswick

2011-07-16, 04:47 AM

The difference between a shovel and a spade is simple: one is a tool, and the other is a suit of cards:smalltongue:

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-16, 05:09 AM

The difference between a shovel and a spade is simple: one is a tool, and the other is a suit of cards:smalltongue:

The difference between a spade and a spade is that one is named after the tool while the tool just is what it is. :smalltongue:

Heh, just realized that that the English word spade has the same spelling as the Swedish one for the same tool but with a wonky pronunciation. ^^

Heliomance

2011-07-16, 07:23 AM

The difference between a spade and a spade is that one is named after the tool while the tool just is what it is. :smalltongue:

We've already covered this bit. The suit is named after the Italian word for "swords" :P

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-16, 08:11 AM

The suit with the swords don't exist in the current deck which we're referring to, so it is more or less an irrelevant point isn't it? :-)

Reinboom

2011-07-16, 08:30 AM

The suit with the swords don't exist in the current deck which we're referring to, so it is more or less an irrelevant point isn't it? :-)

You said "named after" though. :smallconfused:

Imagine if your last name was Potter and you decided to name your poor bloke of a child Harry after Prince Harry.
Then when that child was 9, J.K. Rowling publishes that oh so relevant book.
That child is still "named after" Prince Harry. A change in cultural perception doesn't change the origin.

littlebottom

2011-07-16, 08:52 AM

it is how language evolves, deal with it. comes to mind.

anyway, although personally i dont like them more in the sense that ive no idea what some americans are talking about if i dont actually know the "Americanism" but beyond that i dont mind. oh and THANK YOU America, for "Jail" stupid backwards English "Gaol" Gaol makes no sense to me as a spelling.

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-16, 09:07 AM

Gaol and Jail are both valid British English. They were used interchangeably. They are just alternate spellings due to non-standardised spelling. Gaol is kinda archaic and no longer commonly used.

Zherog

2011-07-16, 10:53 AM

While I'm American, a number of Britishisms have slipped into my speech and typing.

I wouldn't say "a number" applies to me (unless "one" counts as a number in regards to this colloquialism), but I regularly use the British spelling of "theatre" rather than the American "theater." I have no idea why; I don't use the silly British spellings for any other words. :P

When my Dad's cousin* was over for a visit last year, he called our beer "fizzy beer." On this I agree -- the large-scale American breweries suck.

* Yes, I know that he's also my cousin - well, first cousin once removed - but it's just easier to say "Dad's cousin" than "my first cousin once removed."

Tirian

2011-07-16, 10:58 AM

I have no idea why; I don't use the silly British spellings for any other words. :P

After playing Neopets for a few years, I had lost all concept of whether "defense" or "defence" was correct. Common sense seems to have returned to me now. :smallcool:

Coidzor

2011-07-16, 11:14 AM

The shape of the blade is not what defines it as a spade or a shovel. it's the use it's designed for that defines it.

A spade is used for digging into compact soil and the ground whereas a shovel is designed for moving loose soil and sand and snow and stuff.

A lot of the times, the blade of a shovel doesn't have the stability to be used to dig into packed earth, whereas the blade of a spade is usually more robust and heavier in general.

And if it's designed to do both?

Dogmantra

2011-07-16, 11:17 AM

After playing Neopets for a few years, I had lost all concept of whether "defense" or "defence" was correct. Common sense seems to have returned to me now. :smallcool:

I end up just switching between them almost at random. It's the only UK/US English split I can think of where I have no idea which one's which. I think defence is UKian, but that looks wrong to me and it's about this time I want to apply the same rule as practice/practise except defense isn't a verb.

Whiffet

2011-07-16, 11:47 AM

After playing Neopets for a few years, I had lost all concept of whether "defense" or "defence" was correct. Common sense seems to have returned to me now. :smallcool:

Same. I also wanted to do "colour" and "omelette" and all sorts of spellings people don't use here.

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-16, 12:01 PM

You said "named after" though. :smallconfused:

Imagine if your last name was Potter and you decided to name your poor bloke of a child Harry after Prince Harry.
Then when that child was 9, J.K. Rowling publishes that oh so relevant book.
That child is still "named after" Prince Harry. A change in cultural perception doesn't change the origin.

I said "is named after" - not "was named after". What it is named after changed from the Italian sword to the digging-tool, along with the symbol.

So in terms of your example:
It would be more like my 9 year old son named Harry (after the Prince) died at the release of the relevant book, and I then had a second son which I also named Harry* but now after the fictional character. :-)
If you look at my (the Potter) family record it would show that I had always one son named Harry, but it wouldn't be the same Harry and they wouldn't be named after the same Harry. So my son Harry Potter was named after the prince, but my son Harry Potter is named after the fictional character.

*Possibly due to emotional trauma I suffered for reading the book so soon after my child's death, being constantly reminded of him and what he would never be.

^^

shadow_archmagi

2011-07-16, 12:07 PM

What bothers me is when the cafeteria promises "Fish and chips" and then proceeds to serve chips in the American sense.

Falconer

2011-07-16, 12:28 PM

What bothers me is when the cafeteria promises "Fish and chips" and then proceeds to serve chips in the American sense.

Which is dastardly. However much we Americans may mock you for confusing "chips" with "fries", when fish is involved, chips are always potato wedges.

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-16, 12:36 PM

What bothers me is when the cafeteria promises "Fish and chips" and then proceeds to serve chips in the American sense.

Yeah, I got served that once in America. I mean...what? WHAT? Who thought that was a good idea?

Avilan the Grey

2011-07-16, 02:57 PM

What bothers me is when the cafeteria promises "Fish and chips" and then proceeds to serve chips in the American sense.

What.

And tomorrow you get Strawberry Cheesecake made with Roquefort.

Thufir

2011-07-16, 03:00 PM

And if it's designed to do both?

Then you're toying with powerful forces (http://xkcd.com/419/).

Eldan

2011-07-16, 03:06 PM

What.

And tomorrow you get Strawberry Cheesecake made with Roquefort.

That always confused me, honestly. Why is that even called cheesecake when there's no cheese involved?

Thufir

2011-07-16, 03:12 PM

That always confused me, honestly. Why is that even called cheesecake when there's no cheese involved?

There is cheese involved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesecake)

Castaras

2011-07-16, 04:10 PM

There is cheese involved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesecake)

And it is amazingly delicious.

Simply divine. ♥

ZombyWoof

2011-07-16, 04:18 PM

What do yo uhave against cheese cassie?

Castaras

2011-07-16, 04:20 PM

Nothing whatsoever. I adore cheese, and it is one of the two food groups (well, small food group of Cheeses rather than Dairy Products or Proteins or whatever) that I am addicted to. :smalltongue:

I would happily live on cheese for the rest of my life if I could...♥

ZombyWoof

2011-07-16, 04:21 PM

You made it sound like cheesecake was divine despite cheese...

Castaras

2011-07-16, 04:23 PM

Well it's divine because its cheesecake. It's in addition to it being made of cheese that it is amazing. If there wasn't cheese it wouldn't be a cheesecake, therefore there's nothing wrong with the cheese in it.

Goddamnit Zomby, now I want cheese at 22:20! Your fault. :smallmad: :smalltongue:

ZombyWoof

2011-07-16, 04:32 PM

I'd love to split some cheese with you!

shadow_archmagi

2011-07-16, 10:11 PM

That always confused me, honestly. Why is that even called cheesecake when there's no cheese involved?

What are you talking about? Cream Cheese is the primary ingredient.

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-17, 02:44 AM

Maybe that's not considered a cheese in Switzerland? :smallwink:

kpenguin

2011-07-17, 02:55 AM

Maybe that's not considered a cheese in Switzerland? :smallwink:

Like how some American knives aren't considered knives in Australia? :smallwink: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01NHcTM5IA4)

Eldan

2011-07-17, 08:30 AM

Maybe that's not considered a cheese in Switzerland? :smallwink:

Exactly right, actually. Well. Some kinds of cream cheese still counts as cheese, some don't. The classification is a bit different.
Quark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_%28cheese%29), as an example (the most common cream cheese here, by far) is not considered cheese. It's used like Yogurth, really, and even more or less sold that way.

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-17, 11:45 AM

I did suspect that the Swiss were particular about their cheeses. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor

2011-07-17, 06:45 PM

Exactly right, actually. Well. Some kinds of cream cheese still counts as cheese, some don't. The classification is a bit different.
Quark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_%28cheese%29), as an example (the most common cream cheese here, by far) is not considered cheese. It's used like Yogurth, really, and even more or less sold that way.

How in the blazes do you use a spread like you use yogurt which is practically a liquid?

Jeebers

2011-07-17, 10:45 PM

I dunno. The Brits were just fine when their expressions were going to the USA, but now that the tables are turned, it's "Oh dear! Time to light the torches, or just sit and stew!"

Pretty silly, imho.:smallcool:

Eldan

2011-07-17, 11:54 PM

How in the blazes do you use a spread like you use yogurt which is practically a liquid?

You can make "cheese" with the same consistency as yoghurt. God, it's weird calling that cheese.

I'm not sure if that is only a Swiss thing. There just seem to be a few more categories of dairy product in German.

Ricky S

2011-07-18, 01:40 AM

Castaras

2011-07-18, 02:10 AM

I think the problem with the current day english has nothing to do with America but is instead brought on because of technology and lack of education.

While it is easier to type out a word than to write it people will still shorten it. I can understand that when texting, people want to use the least amount of characters possible. However, when people start speaking the way that they write in texts and write the same way in essays as they write in texts that is where the problem lies.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Sorry, but I have to call bollocks on this. The intelligence level of current generations are no different to the intelligence level of the people in the past. If anything, it has *increased*, if you look at the IQ tests (which may not be a brilliant indicator of intelligence, but is good enough for some purposes such as these). Plus, text speak, which I assume you are talking about in the second paragraph, isn't used in essays as far as I know. All my essay lessons, including when we were mixed set (both top and bottom intelligence in the same class) never had any such complaints. And if someone did use text speak, the teachers would be furious. The worst that would happen is kids (of lower than average intelligence, I might add - specific examples go go go!) talking to their teachers about what strange and interesting words they put into their exam.

And as to why to use text speak - I personally don't, nor do any of my friends, or fellows at school - but its the same thing as Telegrams from way back when (a little older than you, I'm assuming also). Less letters = less money paid on telegrams and texts. Therefore, the same shortening of words applied on texts as in telegrams. The idea that it is applied to speaking in real life has some merit - some people may use jokingly "LoL" or "OMG" - but again, this is the same phenomena as with using words such as "Wowza" or "Wicked" or "Sweet" or "Cool".

Technology, with instant gratification? That I can accept... But how exactly does that detract from *writing and speaking*? They're reading stuff on the internet a helluvalot, and learning words from there. Being unable to pronounce words they have written or read is a phenomena very common with those who read lots - they read the word, pronounce it as its written, when it should be pronounced differently.

So kindly refrain from insulting us with blanket statements. :smallmad:

Oh, and I find it amusing that you're ranting about the youth of this day not being as bright when you mispell/typo and don't correct "Intelligence". :smallwink: :smalltongue:

FoeHammer

2011-07-18, 02:43 AM

factotum

2011-07-18, 02:45 AM

Oh, and I find it amusing that you're ranting about the youth of this day not being as bright when you mispell/typo and don't correct "Intelligence".

*tries furiously to resist shooting at the open goal* *fails*

That's "misspell"... :smallbiggrin:

Avilan the Grey

2011-07-18, 02:51 AM

Dogmantra

2011-07-18, 03:52 AM

The length of the text message has no relevance to cost.
Due to the way text messages work (they basically replace the standard data exchange between the phone and any phone masts that lets you know if you have signal with the contents of the message) they do have a length limit, and going over, I think, 160 characters will count as two messages (and thus be charged at double the price). Of course, now that most phones are on a contract with free or nigh on unlimited texting, it doesn't have much relevance and it's more of a tradition than anything else, but LOL and other texty contractions did have their place.

*tries furiously to resist shooting at the open goal* *fails*

That's "misspell"... :smallbiggrin:
As far as I'm aware both are acceptable. :smallwink:

And slightly closer to the topic at hand, I knew someone who was vaguely related to Noah Webster (some distant great uncley type I think) but the amusing thing was that he would use British English despite being American.

Castaras

2011-07-18, 05:20 AM

The length of the text message has no relevance to cost. (The dirty secret being that text messages are basically free for the phone companies to send) My guess is that LOL and the like became popular because they are easier to type and much easier to text. dum ppl stll liek 2 tlk liek tis tho kk lls jkjk Even though it's inefficient and wastes their time typing it and my time reading it.

Maybe for some people, for me certainly if I go over a certain number of characters - aka, go to a second page of the text, the cost goes up. Not by much, but enough that if you do it too much it adds up.

*tries furiously to resist shooting at the open goal* *fails*

That's "misspell"... :smallbiggrin:

As far as I'm aware both are acceptable. :smallwink:

What he said. :smallamused:

To be fair, IQ tests has never really been able to measure "intelligence" as such, but only a certain type of problem-solving skills.

Anyway, I think the idea that people get dumber comes from these points:

1) Young people today are very smart, but they act very stupid. They do that because they are young people.

2) Some old people are also acting stupid.

3) People acting stupid can spread their stupidity much quicker than before due to media in general and Teh Internetz in particular. Either their stupid behavior or stupid ideas are picked up by the news, or they broadcast them themselves.

4) There is a reason why terms like "Book Dumb" exist. It doesn't matter how much capacity your brain has if you don't fill it with anything.

This I definitely agree with. :smallsmile:

paddyfool

2011-07-18, 06:04 AM

And if it's designed to do both?

In British English, that would be a spade. The distinction on the two being based on "is it designed for packed earth or not" (a spade is, a shovel is not). This image is another way of showing the distinction (shovel on the left, spade on the right):

http://www.premierplanthire.co.uk/08G%20-%20Spade%20&%20Shovel.jpg

So if you use "shovel" in the UK, the assumption will be that you're talking about something shaped like a snow shovel or a coal shovel.

Tebryn

2011-07-18, 06:26 AM

Exactly right, actually. Well. Some kinds of cream cheese still counts as cheese, some don't. The classification is a bit different.
Quark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_%28cheese%29), as an example (the most common cream cheese here, by far) is not considered cheese. It's used like Yogurth, really, and even more or less sold that way.

The link you just provided calls it a cheese. Cream Cheese is cheese, at least in America. The FDA wouldn't allow it to be called such if it didn't meant the qualifications of Cheese.

Eldan

2011-07-18, 09:41 AM

The link you just provided calls it a cheese. Cream Cheese is cheese, at least in America. The FDA wouldn't allow it to be called such if it didn't meant the qualifications of Cheese.

That's because it's the English Wikipedia. They use English terms for things. I haven't looked at the German Wikipedia, and the Alemanni Wikipedia (probably the closest to a Swiss Wikipedia you'd get) is a mess.

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-18, 10:12 AM

The FDA wouldn't allow it to be called such if it didn't meant the qualifications of Cheese.

The FDA could classify sausages as cheese if they felt like it, you just change the qualifications a bit. :smallwink:
So it really depends on where you as an country draw the line in the classification, in addition to language differences.

Joran

2011-07-18, 04:04 PM

The FDA could classify sausages as cheese if they felt like it, you just change the qualifications a bit. :smallwink:
So it really depends on where you as an country draw the line in the classification, in addition to language differences.

Technically, it's the USDA. I couldn't find a definition for what "cheese" is, but they have a definition for "cream cheese".

P.S. That's why we get spelling atrocities like "Cheez" and "Wyngz". The products can't be legally marked as "cheese" or "wings" because they don't match the legal definition. Also, if you mess up the spelling, you can always Trademark it.

Aedilred

2011-07-18, 06:39 PM

The only problem I have with that is the well-documented American love affair with the letter Z, granting it preferment over the perfectly adequate S.
Actually, this is a common misconception. The s versus z thing all got very complicated, but the usage of "z" is always "correct" in Commonwealth English. American English uses "s" and "z" variously. I don't know exactly how the confusion got caused, but some time ago someone got very confused and decided that, presumably because "z" was a letter they didn't see all that often, it must be one of those filthy American uses, and started "correcting" them all with "s".

In popular use there is now pretty much no distinction between the two in either dialect.

I am ambivalent towards Americanisms for the most part; where I find a word fills a useful hole and isn't phonetically or etymologically nauseating, I'll take it. However there is a particular American proclivity to over- or reverse-engineer words which are already perfectly good, often appearing in management-speak, and that annoys me. Gratuitous and thoughtless conversion of parts of speech winds me up too. For instance:

"usage"
"winningest"

However this is not confined to Americans or Americanisms; I find the geek community is a particular culprit, with alleged words like "ept" and so forth, which make me grind my teeth.

There's a fairly regular argument I have with my dad about Americanizations in British speech: he reserves a particular dislike for "can I get?" (as opposed to "could I have?") and "good" (in response to the question "how are you?", as opposed to "well"). The former is really just a question of taste; the latter is interesting because it really is a different answer even if the inference is identical: "I am good" is describing you, while "I am well" is describing your act of being. He usually goes on to argue that "good" used in this sense is incorrect as it refers to a moral and not a physical state, and then it devolves into semantics. Still, it's an interesting point.

However, if I'm honest, and the reason why I'm still slightly linguistically xenophobic, is that I think all languages and dialects are precious, and, what with the rise of globalized society and language, and the ability to communicate across the world so quickly, languages are under threat as never before. The British English dialect might not be any more meritorious than the American dialect, but it's still distinct, and I'd like it to remain so. Considering the amount of effort and money put into preserving endangered animal species, the lack of general interest in preserving languages (and, by extension, dialects), our most valuable cultural talismans, is slightly alarming.

There's a bit of a "decline and fall" feeling about it too. Us Britishers still haven't quite got over '56 and having to accept that we're no longer a truly global power, and now we can't even maintain control of our own bloody language what's named after us, wot! It's just not cricket.

snoopy13a

2011-07-18, 06:52 PM

There's a fairly regular argument I have with my dad about Americanizations in British speech: he reserves a particular dislike for "can I get?" (as opposed to "could I have?") and "good" (in response to the question "how are you?", as opposed to "well"). The former is really just a question of taste; the latter is interesting because it really is a different answer even if the inference is identical: "I am good" is describing you, while "I am well" is describing your act of being. He usually goes on to argue that "good" used in this sense is incorrect as it refers to a moral and not a physical state, and then it devolves into semantics. Still, it's an interesting point.

Most Americans know that answering "good" to "how are you?" is grammatically incorrect. We just don't care :smallsmile:

The same with "Can I..." For example, I had a grammar school teacher who would answer requests to "Can I go to the bathroom?" with "Yes, you can go to the bathroom, but you may not."

Overall though, we use our improper slang and we could care less* what others think :smalltongue:

* Another improper phrase. If one could care less then obviously one cares to some extent. Not caring at all would be reflected by "I couldn't care less."

Aedilred

2011-07-18, 06:55 PM

Oh, "I could care less" drives me mad. I think that's just universal laziness/ignorance (I'm not pulling any punches tonight!) rather than a particular American/UK thing, though.

Heliomance

2011-07-18, 09:10 PM

Gratuitous and thoughtless conversion of parts of speech winds me up too. For instance:

"usage"
"winningest"

I'm not sure what your problem is with "usage", I suspect it's been in common usage for a very long time.

As for "winningest", the only thing I can think it might mean is the superlative form of the adjective "winning", as in "a winning smile". In this case, grammatically, it ought to be "most winning".

Helanna

2011-07-18, 11:04 PM

Oh, "I could care less" drives me mad. I think that's just universal laziness/ignorance (I'm not pulling any punches tonight!) rather than a particular American/UK thing, though.

Oddly enough, the subject of today's Irregular Webcomic (http://irregularwebcomic.net/3095.html).

"I could care less" drives me crazy. What, is one extra syllable too hard to pronounce? You are saying the exact opposite of what you mean to say! It's almost as bad as the plague of 'literally' being used figuratively. :smalltongue:

Avilan the Grey

2011-07-19, 01:15 AM

The same with "Can I..." For example, I had a grammar school teacher who would answer requests to "Can I go to the bathroom?" with "Yes, you can go to the bathroom, but you may not."

My pre-school teacher was like that. She had her personal mission to stop all 5 and 6 year old from asking "can you tie my shoes" (a very normal request for a 5 year old) and refuse to do it unless you asked "Will you tie my shoes". Never mind that A) you are preaching to the wrong crowd and B) 99% of Swedes uses the first variant of the request.

Oh, "I could care less" drives me mad. I think that's just universal laziness/ignorance (I'm not pulling any punches tonight!) rather than a particular American/UK thing, though.

I am not a native English speaker but... Although I see the problem, I find it a much better way of saying it than the most common alternative: "WhatEVER". :smallwink:

FoeHammer

2011-07-19, 02:34 AM

I'm not sure what your problem is with "usage", I suspect it's been in common usage for a very long time.

As for "winningest", the only thing I can think it might mean is the superlative form of the adjective "winning", as in "a winning smile". In this case, grammatically, it ought to be "most winning".

I see what you did there.

Mina Kobold

2011-07-19, 06:18 AM

Heliomance

2011-07-19, 06:23 AM

I'm pretty sure that "common use" is the neologism, and usage is the older term in that context.

us·age
[yoo-sij, -zij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a customary way of doing something; a custom or practice: the usages of the last 50 years.
2.
the customary manner in which a language or a form of a language is spoken or written: English usage; a grammar based on usage rather than on arbitrary notions of correctness.
3.
a particular instance of this: a usage borrowed from french.

use
[v. yooz or, for past tense form of 9, yoost; n. yoos] Show IPA
verb, used, us·ing, noun

–noun
11.
the act of employing, using, or putting into service: the use of tools.
12.
the state of being employed or used.
13.
an instance or way of employing or using something: proper use of the tool; the painter's use of color.

Mina Kobold

2011-07-19, 09:35 AM

I'm pretty sure that "common use" is the neologism, and usage is the older term in that context.

Dunno, use is 100 years older than usage so common use could be older.

Neither word is anywhere near new, though, so it may simply be the result of centuries of liguistic evolution muddying the waters. :smallsmile:

For example, "English usage" seems extremely awkward to me, but apparently it shouldn't. :smallredface:

Aedilred

2011-07-19, 11:50 AM

I just find "usage" a redundant word. It doesn't do or say anything that isn't already covered by "use".

I understand what "winningest" is meant to mean; I just find it a lazy and etymolgically ignorant neologism. I can't think of any other legitimate words in the English language that end with that -ingest suffix; it's the sort of thing that you would find charming if a child said it, and then you'd correct them. However I see "winningest" on the internet, even on reputable news sites, relatively frequently.

Fiery Diamond

2011-07-19, 12:17 PM

Due to the way text messages work (they basically replace the standard data exchange between the phone and any phone masts that lets you know if you have signal with the contents of the message) they do have a length limit, and going over, I think, 160 characters will count as two messages (and thus be charged at double the price). Of course, now that most phones are on a contract with free or nigh on unlimited texting, it doesn't have much relevance and it's more of a tradition than anything else, but LOL and other texty contractions did have their place.

As far as I'm aware both are acceptable. :smallwink:

And slightly closer to the topic at hand, I knew someone who was vaguely related to Noah Webster (some distant great uncley type I think) but the amusing thing was that he would use British English despite being American.

Hm. Well, when I was in grade school, my spelling/English teachers always made a point of emphasizing that it was "misspell," not "mispell." The "s" isn't shared. The prefix is "mis," and you add the word to that: the fact that the word begins with an "s" means that two "s"s must be used. This is how I was always taught in school.

I just find "usage" a redundant word. It doesn't do or say anything that isn't already covered by "use".

I understand what "winningest" is meant to mean; I just find it a lazy and etymolgically ignorant neologism. I can't think of any other legitimate words in the English language that end with that -ingest suffix; it's the sort of thing that you would find charming if a child said it, and then you'd correct them. However I see "winningest" on the internet, even on reputable news sites, relatively frequently.

I use "use" and "usage" slightly differently when I speak, though I guess there really isn't any significant difference. I would say "[a term] is in common use" but that "in common usage, [the term] means [meaning]."

I have never encountered winningest before. What reputable news sites use it frequently?

Zherog

2011-07-19, 12:25 PM

I see "winningest" used most often in sport-related stories. To make up an example, "Cy Young is the winningest pitcher in Major League Baseball history."

Ricky S

2011-07-19, 12:31 PM

Sorry, but I have to call bollocks on this. The intelligence level of current generations are no different to the intelligence level of the people in the past. If anything, it has *increased*, if you look at the IQ tests (which may not be a brilliant indicator of intelligence, but is good enough for some purposes such as these). Plus, text speak, which I assume you are talking about in the second paragraph, isn't used in essays as far as I know. All my essay lessons, including when we were mixed set (both top and bottom intelligence in the same class) never had any such complaints. And if someone did use text speak, the teachers would be furious. The worst that would happen is kids (of lower than average intelligence, I might add - specific examples go go go!) talking to their teachers about what strange and interesting words they put into their exam.

And as to why to use text speak - I personally don't, nor do any of my friends, or fellows at school - but its the same thing as Telegrams from way back when (a little older than you, I'm assuming also). Less letters = less money paid on telegrams and texts. Therefore, the same shortening of words applied on texts as in telegrams. The idea that it is applied to speaking in real life has some merit - some people may use jokingly "LoL" or "OMG" - but again, this is the same phenomena as with using words such as "Wowza" or "Wicked" or "Sweet" or "Cool".

Technology, with instant gratification? That I can accept... But how exactly does that detract from *writing and speaking*? They're reading stuff on the internet a helluvalot, and learning words from there. Being unable to pronounce words they have written or read is a phenomena very common with those who read lots - they read the word, pronounce it as its written, when it should be pronounced differently.

So kindly refrain from insulting us with blanket statements. :smallmad:

Oh, and I find it amusing that you're ranting about the youth of this day not being as bright when you mispell/typo and don't correct "Intelligence". :smallwink: :smalltongue:

I marked papers for a year and I saw first hand how awfully students wrote on their tests. They did indeed use "text talk" in their papers. Even if the intelligence of the students has not gone down, their willingness to do the work has which is essentially the same. They may be just as smart as they used to be but they have no incentive to learn. A lot of children feel entitlement where they should have none.

The problem with technology is that while it does contain a lot of useful information it also provides a lot of unhelpful information too. Yes, the students could be reading online encylopedias but it is more likely that they are talking on facebook. Also because of the nature of the internet anyone can add information which may or may not be correct.

What I was also refering to was that because of the instant gratification of technology they are less likely to read literature. They are also less likely to learn the correct spelling of something when they can simply auto correct it on word.

I have found that those students who did not read at all were the ones incapable of pronouncing the words correctly. They were the students who thought that reading a magazine was the same as reading a classic novel. I would equate reading things on the internet the same as reading a magazine.

Incorrectly typing "intelligence" has less to do with my grasp of the english language and more to do with my typing.

lastly I was not insulting anyone. It is true. I would assume that the majority of playgrounders are not who I am talking about anyway.

KenderWizard

2011-07-19, 12:51 PM

My little brother managed to pick up his vocabulary from the US cartoons on television rather than the people around him, so we used to have constant
"That's how Americans talk! You mean
[GAR-adge]
/pavement
/[tuh-MAH-toh]
/aluminium
/[EN-velope]
/crisps
/carpark,
not
[gar-AWSH]
/sidewalk
/[toe-MAY-toh]
/aluminum
/[ON-velope]
/chips
/parking lot."
in our house. The one that really drives my parents mad is "I'm done." instead of "I'm finished." in relation to, say, a meal.

Speaking of meal, it's time for me to go have some fish and chips! With chips, chunky potato cuboids, not crisps. What the diddly was with that?!

Whiffet

2011-07-19, 01:15 PM

My little brother managed to pick up his vocabulary from the US cartoons on television rather than the people around him, so we used to have constant
"That's how Americans talk! You mean
/[EN-velope]

The rest of that is pretty accurate, but some Americans say EN-velope. Most people I know do.

In other news, I don't know why there's a big deal over chips/crisps. Why is it so bad for Americans to call them chips?

Artemis97

2011-07-19, 01:37 PM

I don't the the outrage is over crisps vs chips, it's more that somewhere someone decided to serve fish with crisps, which, even from an American viewpoint, is just wrong.

Heliomance

2011-07-19, 01:41 PM

/[EN-velope]

I say ON-velope, and always have. I suspect that's the original pronunciation; it probably came from French.

Joran

2011-07-19, 01:44 PM

hamishspence

2011-07-19, 01:46 PM

"Comprehensive" is one term that tends to be used- but that might have a specific age group.

Imperial Psycho

2011-07-19, 01:47 PM

'local comp' or 'state school' is what I usually hear them referred to as.

Castaras

2011-07-19, 01:50 PM

I marked papers for a year and I saw first hand how awfully students wrote on their tests. They did indeed use "text talk" in their papers.

Now this boggles me. I'm guessing it's a country difference, because I know nobody - even the lowest denominator of intelligence - who would even consider using text talk in exams. From either of the two secondary schools in my area.

The problem with technology is that while it does contain a lot of useful information it also provides a lot of unhelpful information too. Yes, the students could be reading online encylopedias but it is more likely that they are talking on facebook. Also because of the nature of the internet anyone can add information which may or may not be correct.

And anyone can write a book, and the book can be incorrect. It's just that it is easier to get information, both false or correct, on the internet compared to books. And I'm not so much talking about reading online encyclopoedias, more just everyday getting linked to interesting things - news articles, certainly, are a major one. Including ones that do give people interest to other things. Yes, many people will be on facebook rather than reading such things. But people will more likely be outside chatting with friends than sat in the library reading through non-fiction books.

What I was also refering to was that because of the instant gratification of technology they are less likely to read literature. They are also less likely to learn the correct spelling of something when they can simply auto correct it on word.

I find that if there's auto correct, the more it auto corrects, the more I get used to seeing the spelling as it corrects it. Quite honestly, it seems more like a dictionary sat next to me than anything "easier".

I have found that those students who did not read at all were the ones incapable of pronouncing the words correctly. They were the students who thought that reading a magazine was the same as reading a classic novel. I would equate reading things on the internet the same as reading a magazine.

I disagree with your last statement, and define magazine. I've read quite a few magazines - family friends gave me a huge batch of Nature magazines. Didn't understand most of it, yes, because most of it was at late undergrad / postgrad level science. But there are other magazines of that level and kind. A lot of the stuff on the internet that people may read will end up being at that level.

And honestly, the number of people who equate magazines to reading a book I'd say is no different to the number of people in the past who read a book or didn't read a book. It's that same level of intelligence.

Incorrectly typing "intelligence" has less to do with my grasp of the english language and more to do with my typing.

Was not meant to be taken seriously. Aka, the :smalltongue:. :smallsmile:

lastly I was not insulting anyone. It is true. I would assume that the majority of playgrounders are not who I am talking about anyway.

Reading over it now, no it wasn't insulting, and I got aggravated partly due to having only just woken up and not looking forward to work. People saying things like "This generation is destroyed by technology!" or "This generation is the most stupid!" do make me very irritated at times, and I mistook your post as one such as that - while it does have elements of it, it isn't purely that. My apologies. :smallsmile:

'though I'd still disagree wholeheartedly on the "It is true." bit, judging by my experiences. I'm guessing yours are different.

Edit: Annnnd this is getting a little off topic. I'll shut up now. :smalltongue:

Mina Kobold

2011-07-19, 02:22 PM

I marked papers for a year and I saw first hand how awfully students wrote on their tests. They did indeed use "text talk" in their papers. Even if the intelligence of the students has not gone down, their willingness to do the work has which is essentially the same. They may be just as smart as they used to be but they have no incentive to learn. A lot of children feel entitlement where they should have none.

A good point, but have you ever marked papers from before the Internet? It's possible that they were just as bad in their own way, but you have only experienced this generation.

I have never marked any papers, though, so I am probably wrong. But I know nowt about what my peers' essays entail, so I would personally be biased if I ever became a teacher. ^_^'

The problem with technology is that while it does contain a lot of useful information it also provides a lot of unhelpful information too. Yes, the students could be reading online encylopedias but it is more likely that they are talking on facebook. Also because of the nature of the internet anyone can add information which may or may not be correct.

They did essentially the same before the Internet and as far back as we allowed teenagers to have choices. They just talked by telephone or met in person instead.

Not saying that it's a good thing that students don't spend more time learning, we really should, but the method used to do so is not the reason it is done. Just as you can't blame nuclear weapons for the Cold War, it would have been different without them but it would have been there nonetheless.

What I was also referring to was that because of the instant gratification of technology they are less likely to read literature. They are also less likely to learn the correct spelling of something when they can simply auto correct it on word.

I have found that those students who did not read at all were the ones incapable of pronouncing the words correctly. They were the students who thought that reading a magazine was the same as reading a classic novel. I would equate reading things on the Internet the same as reading a magazine.

Did you know that reading was criticised in ancient Greece for being an easy way not to learn anything? It was argued that writing something down would let people get away with not learning it by heart, since they could just read the writing when it was needed.

Same with recorded music a hundred years ago.

Those students you describe do indeed sound terrible, and I agree that they should read more books. But I would try to motivate and encourage them if I were you, the problem may lie in the way they are raised. :smallsmile:

No offence meant, of course. I know I probably sound like it, though. So I apologise deeply. m(_ _)m

WalkingTarget

2011-07-19, 04:52 PM

I disagree with your last statement, and define magazine. I've read quite a few magazines - family friends gave me a huge batch of Nature magazines. Didn't understand most of it, yes, because most of it was at late undergrad / postgrad level science. But there are other magazines of that level and kind. A lot of the stuff on the internet that people may read will end up being at that level.

Nature is an academic journal, and a well-thought-of one at that. When I hear "magazine" I (personally at least) don't think of peer-reviewed journals that publish original scientific research. I think of glossy, usually advertisement-filled periodicals generally read for entertainment purposes.

Castaras

2011-07-20, 01:57 AM

Nature is an academic journal, and a well-thought-of one at that. When I hear "magazine" I (personally at least) don't think of peer-reviewed journals that publish original scientific research. I think of glossy, usually advertisement-filled periodicals generally read for entertainment purposes.

I just think of a magazine as a glossy publication of pages that's different to a normal book. :smallsmile: So yeah, it's a question of definitions of Magazine. Plus, there are magazines out there with a bit more oomph to them than most. Doesn't excuse someone using a magazine as an excuse not to read books, but it isn't entirely inappropriate to read them, literature-wise.

Zeb The Troll

2011-07-20, 02:07 AM

Some other differences:

British American
Bracers SuspendersBraces and suspenders are not the same thing. Braces are buttoned to the slacks front and back. Slacks without the appropriate buttons can't be used with braces. Suspenders have clips to attach to any old pair of pants.

I use "use" and "usage" slightly differently when I speak, though I guess there really isn't any significant difference. I would say "[a term] is in common use" but that "in common usage, [the term] means [meaning]."To me, "in common use" sounds clunky. If you asked me not to use the word "usage" I'd say "is commonly used" instead. Aside from that, the difference between "is commonly used" and "in common usage" is purely stylistic. So what if they mean the same thing? Would people also chomp at someone who said "in common parlance" instead, since clearly "is commonly used" suits that need already and we don't need to have different ways of saying things? :smallconfused:

Nature is an academic journal, and a well-thought-of one at that. When I hear "magazine" I (personally at least) don't think of peer-reviewed journals that publish original scientific research. I think of glossy, usually advertisement-filled periodicals generally read for entertainment purposes.There is absolutely a distinction between a "magazine" and a "journal". Just because they might both have glossy pages doesn't mean they're the same level of thought provoking reading. While there is access to journals online, most of it is paid access and not what our youth are reading.

Hazyshade

2011-07-20, 06:01 AM

Goddamnit Zomby, now I want cheese at 22:20! Your fault. :smallmad: :smalltongue:

Now I want fried halloumi!, and I'm in an office with neither halloumi nor a frying device. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus)

There's a fairly regular argument I have with my dad about Americanizations in British speech: he reserves a particular dislike for "can I get?" (as opposed to "could I have?") and "good" (in response to the question "how are you?", as opposed to "well"). The former is really just a question of taste; the latter is interesting because it really is a different answer even if the inference is identical: "I am good" is describing you, while "I am well" is describing your act of being. He usually goes on to argue that "good" used in this sense is incorrect as it refers to a moral and not a physical state, and then it devolves into semantics. Still, it's an interesting point.

A bad habit of mine is using "I'm good thanks" to mean "No, I wouldn't like any of whatever you just offered me". I think that's common in American English?, but British people look blankly at me.

However, if I'm honest, and the reason why I'm still slightly linguistically xenophobic, is that I think all languages and dialects are precious, and, what with the rise of globalized society and language, and the ability to communicate across the world so quickly, languages are under threat as never before. The British English dialect might not be any more meritorious than the American dialect, but it's still distinct, and I'd like it to remain so. Considering the amount of effort and money put into preserving endangered animal species, the lack of general interest in preserving languages (and, by extension, dialects), our most valuable cultural talismans, is slightly alarming.

But... why? There are and will always be comprehensive historical records of this thing called British English. If it dies out as a living dialect because no-one cares enough about it to keep speaking it, why is that a problem?

Oh, "I could care less" drives me mad. I think that's just universal laziness/ignorance (I'm not pulling any punches tonight!) rather than a particular American/UK thing, though.

I think it's very strongly a US/UK thing, but there is controversy as to whether it originated from laziness/ignorance or in fact, sarcasm: behold (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001256.html).

I just find "usage" a redundant word. It doesn't do or say anything that isn't already covered by "use".

Thank your chosen deity that "utilise" and its various derivatives have yet to push "use" right off the stage. People think "use" and their mouth autocorrects it to "utilise" for no reason other than to sound important and it drives me binkers.

I understand what "winningest" is meant to mean; I just find it a lazy and etymolgically ignorant neologism. I can't think of any other legitimate words in the English language that end with that -ingest suffix; it's the sort of thing that you would find charming if a child said it, and then you'd correct them. However I see "winningest" on the internet, even on reputable news sites, relatively frequently.

I see "winningest" used most often in sport-related stories. To make up an example, "Cy Young is the winningest pitcher in Major League Baseball history."

...in which context it means "Cy Young has the most wins of any pitcher in MLB history". For me "winningest" fills a semantic gap. A small one maybe, but one that you'd need two or three "legitimate" (ooo, you opened a can of worms there) words to fill, and the result would still be less elegant. How would you rephrase a headline like "LaRussa is Cardinals' winningest coach" and still fit it on a headline ticker? I think British English would benefit from "winningest".

Annnnd this is getting a little off topic.

There should be a General Linguistic Geekery thread.

Heliomance

2011-07-20, 07:16 AM

Braces and suspenders are not the same thing. Braces are buttoned to the slacks front and back. Slacks without the appropriate buttons can't be used with braces. Suspenders have clips to attach to any old pair of pants.

In Britain, braces refer to both, AFAIK. Not very often, though; they're very out of fashion.

...in which context it means "Cy Young has the most wins of any pitcher in MLB history". For me "winningest" fills a semantic gap. A small one maybe, but one that you'd need two or three "legitimate" (ooo, you opened a can of worms there) words to fill, and the result would still be less elegant. How would you rephrase a headline like "LaRussa is Cardinals' winningest coach" and still fit it on a headline ticker?

"LaRussa is Cardinals' most successful coach"

Hazyshade

2011-07-20, 07:29 AM

"LaRussa is Cardinals' most successful coach"

Nu-uh, cos success is subjective, you could measure success by win percentage or pennants or something else not worthy of a headline, whereas "winningest" has the specific jargon meaning of "having achieved the greatest number of wins".

pendell

2011-07-20, 08:20 AM

Nu-uh, cos success is subjective, you could measure success by win percentage or pennants or something else not worthy of a headline, whereas "winningest" has the specific jargon meaning of "having achieved the greatest number of wins".

I would say "Larussa Victorious", then explain in the sub-heading that it meant to his winning more games than any other coach.

Of course, one would ask what exactly that number meant. If he won 500 games -- more than any other coach -- but also played more games than any other coach - 1500 -- then "number of wins" means nothing save that he's been around a long time.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Hazyshade

2011-07-20, 08:57 AM

I would say "Larussa Victorious", then explain in the sub-heading that it meant to his winning more games than any other coach.

See the box labelled Headlines? (http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tor) That's how much space you have. No subtitles allowed.

Heliomance

2011-07-20, 04:31 PM

Very well, explain in the first paragraph of the article then.

Hazyshade

2011-07-20, 04:41 PM

People aren't going to read the article if they aren't sufficiently enlightened by the headline as to what the article's going to be about!

Prime32

2011-07-20, 04:44 PM

Nu-uh, cos success is subjective, you could measure success by win percentage or pennants or something else not worthy of a headline, whereas "winningest" has the specific jargon meaning of "having achieved the greatest number of wins".Like subjectivity stops newspapers. :smallsigh: The number of headlines which say things like "Monster Finally Behind Bars"...

Aedilred

2011-07-20, 04:46 PM

Oh, another sign that would indicate American words are entering the British lexicon.

Public Schools.

In the U.S., a "public school" is a school funded by the government that children in the area can attend.

In the U.K., a "public school" is actually what we in the U.S. would call a "private school". A school that is funded by tuition and private endowments, but is open to anyone who can pay the tuition and meet the requirements.

I assume this is still the case? Also, what's a government funded school called in the U.K. then?
I'm going to be pedantic </redundancy> - you're correct that in the UK a public school is fee-paying, but is really limited to the schools who make up the Head Master's Conference (of which there are 243). That said, calling anyone who went to a fee-paying school a public schoolboy isn't usually wide of the mark. "Private" or "independent" schools cover every fee-paying school.

Government-funded schools are generally called state schools. There are also grammar schools, which are state-funded but academically selective based on examinations taken at the end of primary school. These are a dying breed as none have been founded for a generation and they tend to be a byword among liberal/socialist politicians for academic and social snobbery (I'm not taking a side here, note). There are also academies, which are free to attend but part-privately funded, and (as of last year) free schools, which can be, confusingly, either fee-paying or not, but are not obliged to follow the national curriculum.

For me "winningest" fills a semantic gap. A small one maybe, but one that you'd need two or three "legitimate" (ooo, you opened a can of worms there) words to fill, and the result would still be less elegant. How would you rephrase a headline like "LaRussa is Cardinals' winningest coach" and still fit it on a headline ticker? I think British English would benefit from "winningest".
I just find it a horribly ugly, not to mention unimaginative, word. I find "most prolific" or "most titled" or even "most successful" plugs the gap fairly usefully, and offends my ears less. But I might be in a minority on that one.

Elder Tsofu

2011-07-20, 04:54 PM

If my newspaper* started to use words like "winningest" I'd seriously start to look around for a new paper. To me it seem like a word belonging in a discussion between pre-schoolers.

*Paper or electronic or whatever...

pendell

2011-07-20, 04:57 PM

See the box labelled Headlines? (http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tor) That's how much space you have. No subtitles allowed.

As HelioMance said. The point of a headline is to convey some idea of
what the article is saying and to tease the reader into reading more. So the more interesting and exciting the words are -- the more outlandish and silly while still remaining accurate -- the better. Headline writing is all about the marketing of ideas.

Of course, I write software for a living :) .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Thufir

2011-07-20, 05:14 PM

However this is not confined to Americans or Americanisms; I find the geek community is a particular culprit, with alleged words like "ept" and so forth, which make me grind my teeth.

See, those I have no problem with though, because they're perfectly logical constructions. If you can be inept, logically it must be possible to be ept. Similarly fortresses can be pregnable, and other similar things.

However, if I'm honest, and the reason why I'm still slightly linguistically xenophobic, is that I think all languages and dialects are precious, and, what with the rise of globalized society and language, and the ability to communicate across the world so quickly, languages are under threat as never before. The British English dialect might not be any more meritorious than the American dialect, but it's still distinct, and I'd like it to remain so.

That's basically my view, as I think I said earlier in the thread, though I used less words.

I'm pretty sure that "common use" is the neologism, and usage is the older term in that context.

In any case usage is apparently c.1300, so it seems a bit silly to complain about it now.

I just find "usage" a redundant word. It doesn't do or say anything that isn't already covered by "use".

I understand what "winningest" is meant to mean; I just find it a lazy and etymolgically ignorant neologism. I can't think of any other legitimate words in the English language that end with that -ingest suffix; it's the sort of thing that you would find charming if a child said it, and then you'd correct them. However I see "winningest" on the internet, even on reputable news sites, relatively frequently.

See, I would view this as simply a case of fitness. 'Winningest' is fit for certain contexts but not others, I would feel. If I wanted to sound official, I would be unlikely to use it, but if I wanted to be enthusiastic, I would be more likely to do so, and certainly in such a context I would find its use perfectly acceptable - again, it's a logical construction.

I would equate reading things on the internet the same as reading a magazine.

That is highly dependent on what specifically you read. Quite apart from anything else, it is possible to read a classic novel on the internet.

/[EN-velope]
not
/[ON-velope]

Actually, I'm pretty sure both of those are valid, the word probably coming from the French, as Heliomance said.

Oh, another sign that would indicate American words are entering the British lexicon.

Public Schools.

In the U.S., a "public school" is a school funded by the government that children in the area can attend.

In the U.K., a "public school" is actually what we in the U.S. would call a "private school". A school that is funded by tuition and private endowments, but is open to anyone who can pay the tuition and meet the requirements.

I assume this is still the case? Also, what's a government funded school called in the U.K. then?

Yeah, that never made sense to me. Surely a public school should be one that is open to the general public, not just the select few who happen to have rich parents?

Braces and suspenders are not the same thing. Braces are buttoned to the slacks front and back. Slacks without the appropriate buttons can't be used with braces. Suspenders have clips to attach to any old pair of pants.

To us, both of those things are braces.

Edit: To add more to the discussion of 'winningest', Sushi Monster's example is a good one - in sports the kind of enthusiasm indicated by such a word doesn't seem remotely out of place, also of course it has the specific reference to winning games/matches. In other contexts though, it would jar.

Oh, also I just remembered the one place I've come across 'winningest' before this thread: A book about Bobby Fischer winning the 1972 chess world championship, which in discussing his challenger's match against Petrosian, contained the sentence:

The question was, could Petrosian, the best defensive player of our era, hold a small disadvantage against Fischer, the winningest player of ANY era?

I can't think of any decent way to rephrase that without changing the meaning of the sentence.

Hazyshade

2011-07-20, 05:21 PM

I just find it a horribly ugly, not to mention unimaginative, word. I find "most prolific" or "most titled" or even "most successful" plugs the gap fairly usefully, and offends my ears yet. But I might be in a minority on that one.

I'm going to go all Sapir-Whorf here and suggest that gap is smaller in British culture because they set less store by winningness and more by point-acquiring-ness. Number of wins isn't a statistic that really shows up in British sporting journalism, so less need to have a concise word for it.

As HelioMance said. The point of a headline is to convey some idea of
what the article is saying and to tease the reader into reading more. So the more interesting and exciting the words are -- the more outlandish and silly while still remaining accurate -- the better. Headline writing is all about the marketing of ideas.

You agree with me! Hurrah for outlandish words.

Scarlet Knight

2011-07-20, 05:25 PM

I just got a great idea for a game show !

"Do you speak English?" where you pull contestants out the audience for cash prizes if they can translate a phrase from a panel of celebrities.

Have Michael Caine say something in Cockney, Keith Urban using Australian slang or Jeff Foxworthy with a deep southern drawl.

Use lines that are purposefully hard to get & play it for laughs... kind of like the translation scene from Hot Fuzz.

littlekKID

2011-07-20, 05:38 PM

Hazyshade

2011-07-20, 05:43 PM

To add more to the discussion of 'winningest', Sushi Monster's example is a good one - in sports the kind of enthusiasm indicated by such a word doesn't seem remotely out of place, also of course it has the specific reference to winning games/matches. In other contexts though, it would jar.

*bows*

I can't imagine any context other than sports in which it would even make sense. It's sports jargon, effectively.

*thinks really hard*

Skinner is the Red Party's winningest MP in General Elections?

Nah.

I just got a great idea for a game show !

"Do you speak English?" where you pull contrestants out the audience for cash prizes if they can translate a phrase from a panel of celebrities.

Have Michael Caine say something in Cockney, Keith Urban using Australian slang or Jeff Foxworthy with a deep southern drawl.

Use lines that are purposefully hard to get & play it for laughs... kind of like the translation scene from Hot Fuzz.

Ant and Dec did that exact thing. At least once. "Ah dinnae ken why yer sae feart, yer eejit!" The contestant translated everything except "feart".

Mercenary Pen

2011-07-20, 06:40 PM

See, those I have no problem with though, because they're perfectly logical constructions. If you can be inept, logically it must be possible to be ept.

I was under the impression that the opposite of Inept was Adept...

Thufir

2011-07-20, 06:45 PM

I was under the impression that the opposite of Inept was Adept...

Whereas ept would fall somewhere in the middle. Inept means you can't really do something. Ept means you can. Adept means you're good at it.

Ricky S

2011-07-20, 08:36 PM

Now this boggles me. I'm guessing it's a country difference, because I know nobody - even the lowest denominator of intelligence - who would even consider using text talk in exams. From either of the two secondary schools in my area.

I am living in Australia and the schools I was marking for were in pretty bad areas. I think people fail to realise how bad the bad really is. World wide less than 1% of people go to universities. So there tends to be groupings of high intelligience people. The groups are of course bigger in first world countries but that are still not that big.

And anyone can write a book, and the book can be incorrect. It's just that it is easier to get information, both false or correct, on the internet compared to books. And I'm not so much talking about reading online encyclopoedias, more just everyday getting linked to interesting things - news articles, certainly, are a major one. Including ones that do give people interest to other things. Yes, many people will be on facebook rather than reading such things. But people will more likely be outside chatting with friends than sat in the library reading through non-fiction books.

Mm hmm.

I find that if there's auto correct, the more it auto corrects, the more I get used to seeing the spelling as it corrects it. Quite honestly, it seems more like a dictionary sat next to me than anything "easier".

I tend to find that the students I have been grading dont learn the words. The just correct the words, so when they hand in assignments it is fine but when they have exams the amount of mistakes is shocking. Also because a lot of the computers are set to American English when they auto correct it is not automatically correct. And then there are the students who have no hope and text type.

I disagree with your last statement, and define magazine. I've read quite a few magazines - family friends gave me a huge batch of Nature magazines. Didn't understand most of it, yes, because most of it was at late undergrad / postgrad level science. But there are other magazines of that level and kind. A lot of the stuff on the internet that people may read will end up being at that level.

And honestly, the number of people who equate magazines to reading a book I'd say is no different to the number of people in the past who read a book or didn't read a book. It's that same level of intelligence.

Oh no I dont mean magazines like that. When I say magazines I am referring to those trashy magazines which you can buy at news stands which just gossip about celebrities. Students think that that is reading material. The majority of the magazine is just pictures.

Was not meant to be taken seriously. Aka, the :smalltongue:. :smallsmile:

Lol I know. :smallsmile:

Reading over it now, no it wasn't insulting, and I got aggravated partly due to having only just woken up and not looking forward to work. People saying things like "This generation is destroyed by technology!" or "This generation is the most stupid!" do make me very irritated at times, and I mistook your post as one such as that - while it does have elements of it, it isn't purely that. My apologies. :smallsmile:

'though I'd still disagree wholeheartedly on the "It is true." bit, judging by my experiences. I'm guessing yours are different.

Edit: Annnnd this is getting a little off topic. I'll shut up now. :smalltongue

I guess I should have changed it to "It is true in my country" I am sure you could find similar stuff where you live too.

A good point, but have you ever marked papers from before the Internet? It's possible that they were just as bad in their own way, but you have only experienced this generation.

I have never marked any papers, though, so I am probably wrong. But I know nowt about what my peers' essays entail, so I would personally be biased if I ever became a teacher. ^_^'

I cant say that I have marked papers from before the internet because I am only 20. It could be that they were always this bad but I just cant see how it could be.

They did essentially the same before the Internet and as far back as we allowed teenagers to have choices. They just talked by telephone or met in person instead.

Not saying that it's a good thing that students don't spend more time learning, we really should, but the method used to do so is not the reason it is done. Just as you can't blame nuclear weapons for the Cold War, it would have been different without them but it would have been there nonetheless.

Yea that is true, but people are sure that the internet is a positive influence. It is not always so.

Did you know that reading was criticised in ancient Greece for being an easy way not to learn anything? It was argued that writing something down would let people get away with not learning it by heart, since they could just read the writing when it was needed.

Same with recorded music a hundred years ago.

Those students you describe do indeed sound terrible, and I agree that they should read more books. But I would try to motivate and encourage them if I were you, the problem may lie in the way they are raised.

I have no doubt that the problem lies in the way they were raised. But then why were they raised that way? It is an endless cycle which very few break out of.

No offence meant, of course. I know I probably sound like it, though. So I apologise deeply. m(_ _)m

No offence taken and no you dont sound like you are trying to be offensive at all. Really, I don't know why people get offended on the internet.

factotum

2011-07-21, 02:04 AM

With regard to "Winningest"--is there anything wrong with "most winning"? Still not brilliant ("most successful" would be better IMHO) but at least you're not actively making up new words that way!

Zeb The Troll

2011-07-21, 02:33 AM

With regard to "Winningest"--is there anything wrong with "most winning"? Still not brilliant ("most successful" would be better IMHO) but at least you're not actively making up new words that way!It is (arguably) more clumsy to say it that way. Like others have said, I don't mind it in sports talk. I just consider it jargon. Anywhere else it would be weird.

Feytalist

2011-07-21, 03:32 AM

I am living in Australia and the schools I was marking for were in pretty bad areas. I think people fail to realise how bad the bad really is. World wide less than 1% of people go to universities. So there tends to be groupings of high intelligience people. The groups are of course bigger in first world countries but that are still not that big.

This is the same where I'm from. Even worse, we've seen the degradation of language use in essays and exams with university-level English majors, which is simply shocking.

As you said, It's probably to do with the ease of use of the internet and technology these days, or perhaps just inherent laziness. Students just don't bother to use the correct grammar or spelling, either because it's constantly corrected via auto correct or simply because it's not important.

My worry is that it will become the norm in the future.

When I come to power, it's going to be mandatory reading classes for everyone :smallbiggrin:

Zherog

2011-07-21, 08:39 AM

With regard to "Winningest"--is there anything wrong with "most winning"? Still not brilliant ("most successful" would be better IMHO) but at least you're not actively making up new words that way!

Are you sure (in the context of sports) that "winningest" and "most successful" are synonymous?

Cy Young is the winningest pitcher in Major League Baseball history, with 511 victories. Does that also make him the most successful? Well, he also lost 316 games during his career, the most of any pitcher. His winning percentage of .618 is pretty damn good, but ranks him 69th in history. Does the 69th best percentage count as the most successful, or do we say the pitcher with the best career winning percentage is the most successful? (incidentally, that pitcher would be Spud Chandler, with a winning percentage of .717.)

There's other ways to determine most successful, too. Maybe you think the pitcher who struck out the most batters in his career is the most successful. That would be Nolan Ryan, with 5,714 in his career. (The next closest, incidentally, is almost 1,000 strikeouts behind Ryan - Randy Johnson with 4,875). But... on the flip side of strikeouts is walks. If you consider a strikeout to be the ultimate pitcher success, then the walk is likely it's opposite. The all-time leader in MLB in walks? Yeah, that's also Nolan Ryan, with 2,795. (And, much like his strikeout record, second place isn't even all that close. Steve Carlton is second all-time with 1,833.)

Especially in sports where there's a ton of different ways to measure players and managers/coaches statistically, "most successful" can be subjective. Is Cy Young the most successful? Spud Chandler? Nolan Ryan? You can argue each of those, and about a dozen or so other pitchers. But the winningest pitcher is very clearly Cy Young and his 511 wins. (since we've talked about second place for some others, I'll toss in that 2nd all-time in wins is Walter Johnson, with 417.)

The word winningest fills a niche, and fills it rather well.

All stats courtesy of http://www.baseball-almanac.com/

Ravens_cry

2011-07-21, 10:42 AM

Ah language, a constantly churning, shifting, thing and all the more beautiful for it. Trying to regulate English would be akin to trying to hold back the tide, foolhardy at best, deluded at worst. Some words introduced will fall on the wayside, unsaid and unmourned. Others will last awhile longer in the dance; lasting centuries, their spellings and pronunciation shifting, until they would be unrecognisable to our ears and eyes. We are almost certainly the past to someone, our words and deeds archaic and strange. So scoff not at the neologisms you read and hear, they may well be the future of our tongue, words that will be said when we are dust.

Scarlet Knight

2011-07-21, 11:20 AM

Hear ! Hear!

Caewil

2011-07-25, 06:55 AM

Wardog

2011-07-25, 06:34 PM

The people who responded to that BBC survey seemed rather ignorant.

A lot of the "Americanisms" they were complaining about were traditional British words and phrases. And I don't mean ones that were common 200 years ago and preserved in American, I mean things that have been used in various dialects up to the present. (Like "That'll learn you").

Generally I prefer to use British English, but I don't have any great objection to Americanisms, especially not when they provide useful ways of saying things. (E.g. as was mentioned earlier, being "hospitalized" has conotations of a serious and unexpected accident or that makes immediate hospital treatment necessary, rather than a going in for a routine checkup).

The ones I do object to are the ones that just don't make sense (e.g. "I could care less", when you mean the opposite), ones that have overwritten perfectly good English words, or worse still cause confusion (e.g. the loss of the much more sensible long-form numbers: billion = 1000000^2, trillion = 1000000^3, quadrillion = 1000000^4, etc), and ones that sound bizarre or ugly (e.g. "winningest" - seriously, it sounds like something a 5-year-old would say. Never head it before seeing this survey, and hopefully never will again).

On the subject of -ize and -ise:
"-ize" is the traditional British form (because that is show it is pronounced), but some time ago (18th or 19th Centuary, I think), some people decided "-ise" was superior, because that is what the French use. The Oxford English Dictionary (and, IIRC, Inspector Morse) considers this to be a silly affection and recommends using -ize.

On the subject of spades and shovels:
I didn't know what the difference was, until the winter two years ago when we got a lot of snow, and I tried to buy a shovel to clear the path outside my house, but they had all sold out and I had to make do with a spade. Trying to remove half an inch to an inch of compacted snow/ice on tarmac with a spade is not fun.

On the subject of pails:
I've never thought of "pail" as being an Americanism. I hardly ever hear it use, and have always just thought of it as a very old-fasioned term.