This is such a fun entry.   Devotchka

I once had a coworker from Korea and not only couldn't she tell the difference between USA-English and British English, she had trouble telling the difference between different European languages.  (Kind of keeps things in perspective, eh?) -)
Not suprising. While I can easily tell the difference between French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, etc., put me in a room with a Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and a Thai speaker and I probably couldn't tell the difference. (If I saw it written I'd probably have somewhat more luck though.)  SJK

Vietnamese has more syllable-final consonants than Japanese, I think you can tell them apart that way, maybe. Is this right? - Juuitchan

Someone suggested: "Heath Robinson" and "Rube Goldberg" as a vocabulary difference.  It's certainly an interesting parallel, but I don't think it really belongs here.  They were both artists with their own style, and both are known on both sides of the pond although their use as descriptive adjectives is split as suggested.  At any rate, they can't quite be considered translations, because as an adjective, "Rube Goldberg" is more specific, describing an overly complex mechanical device or a complex series of interdependent actions; Heath Robinson, in contrast, is more surrealistic or fantasy-oriented.  LDC

As an American, I would like to say that to me a bum is a homeless person as much as the butt, a flat is an apartment, and rubbish certainly is trash. Granted, I agree that a fag is not a cigarette, and underground is not a subway. I may do some actual research, and come back and fiddle with that list. - Eean.

I think Americans certainly understand the use of "bum" for "butt", "rubbish" for "trash", and (to a lesser degree) "flat" for "apartment".  But we don't use those terms much.  Point to a container for discarded things, and an American will say "that's a trash can"; a Brit will say "that's a rubbish bin".  Americans are more likely to use "rubbish" in the sense of "bullshit". LDC

I deleted the following pair: "limited (Ltd)" and "incorporated", since they actually mean different things. "Incorporated" means a corporation; "limited" means a limited liability corporation (you can also have unlimited liability corporations, and no liability corporations). British (and Australian also) Ltd is roughly equivalent to American LLC.  SJK

I would say 'torch' was much more common than 'pocket lamp' which sounds quite old-fashioned. 'Flashlight' would be more easily recognised than the latter.

Yes, I'd call it a "torch", and it would probably be labeled as a "flashlight" in its manufacturer's packaging. IMO, 'torch' is colloquial British English  The Anome

Oh, so "flashlight" is correct British usage? (My dictionary said [Am.] and the Oxford English Dictionary carried "flashlight" only in the meaning of photography.) Then I'll remove the entry again. AxelBoldt