Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)/Archive 1

message: Can someone confirm the American side of this for me? Matthew Woodcraft
*Oblong
*British: Rectangular
*American: Oval
:In my (Midwestern and Southern U.S.) experience, the term "oblong" is fairly rare in conversational speech, and is used more broadly than you describe.  It basically means any plane figure (or a plane aspect of a solid object) whose orthogonal axes are unequal.  So one could say in U.S. English that an ellipse and a rectangle are both oblong, but squares and circles or not.  You'd use the term identically when referring to, e.g., a table whose surface is asymmetric in the same way.
From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]:
  oblong
       adj 1: of a leaf shape; having a somewhat elongated form with
              approximately parallel sides
       2: deviating from a square or circle or sphere by being
          elongated in one direction
       n : a plane figure that deviates from a square or circle due to
           elongation
:Branden 21:42, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Oblong

message: I'm no big expert on this, so if I'm wrong please forgive me, but what about "fancy dress party" as opposed to "costume party"?
: What about them?  I'm from the U.S. and have never heard fancy dress party spoken without a British accent.  :) Branden 06:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancy Dress + Costume

message: Does this sound like complete nonsence to you or is it just me?:
(to) ring
to call (someone) by telephone
to make a bell-like sound; you cannot ring people unless they are wearing a bell. (Note: "To give someone a ring" is to call someone in British English, while in American English it's to give an ornamental band to someone).  Also understood as "to call on the telephone" when said as "here's my number, give me a ring when you can" or similarly.
Saul Taylor 08:52, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me, being the sort of slightly facetious comment I might make if someone suggested that I "ring" someone. -- Yath 08:14, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ringing

message: Why on earth would you use a purely American term to define the "British" meaning of a particular word? For example, to the British Bum means Butt. To be of any use, this article must be completely comprehensible to all English speakers. I would suggest the use of culturally-neutral English in all definitions. 195.238.50.252 05:05, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I like this idea. Greenmountainboy 15:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: Regards "tyke": Both terms are used in British English. 
The word is described as "chiefly Scots and Northern English" in the Chambers dictionary. I'd also suggest that it's use for "Yorkshireman" is no more insulting than Scouse or Geordie. In Australian English it's an insulting word for a Catholic, but as far as America and Britain are concerned, I think both sides of the Atlantic use tyke to mean "little rascall", but Britain also uses it to mean dog and Yorkshireman. -Nommo 14:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also suggest that it's use for "Yorkshireman" is no more insulting than Scouse or Geordie. - possibly true, though it is also can mean "a crude uncouth ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement . Certainly when my US wife referred to a (Yorkshire) friend's children as "Little Tykes" there was an embarrasing silence. -- Chris Q 14:39, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyke

message: "Tailgater" also has the supposed British meaning in the US.  Meaning is derived from context.  RickK 02:10, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tailgater

message: Removed garage again - see higher up this page. Andy G 18:47, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Garage again

message: Between Meadow's law and SIDS saw that Brits call it "cot death" and Merricans call it "crib death." Does that suggest a broader split over cot and crib? For USians, a crib is a small bed with high headboards and slatted sides. A cot is usually made of canvas stretched over four low legs. And a cradle is much smaller than a crib, and usually/often rocks like a rocking chair. Is it different in British English? Am I making any sense? jengod 19:08, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
: Looks like US crib = Brit cot; US (adult-sized) cot = Brit camp-bed; cradle the same for both. Andy G 21:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cots/Cribs...Cradles?

message: So what does "Mad" in Mad magazine mean? Angry? Have you heard of Angry Cow Disease? Does the acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction imply that it is an angry action or an insane action. Is Mad scientist confusing to you? I could go on. Mintguy 10:02, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the interpretation of "Jimmy's mad" would depend on the emphasis and the context rather than the words used, whichever side of the Atlantic you were on. Hence it is not a "word having different meanings in British and American English". Mintguy (T) 21:04, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mad

message: My (Brit/NI) wife just used the phrase "made redundant" (again) to refer, of course, to someone being "laid off" as we would say in Americay.  Before I add, just wanted to float it here for a while.  Do words that have an *additional* meaning in the UK appear here? - Feb 24, 2004 Gnetwerker
:Maybe your wife was right (they usually are), depending on what she meant.  Made redundant is not necessarily the same as being laid off. Redundancy implies your position has suddenly disappeared (you are a cleaner and the company has decided to use contract cleaners). Laid off means you are terminated (dishonesty, misconduct. whatever) but your position remains and someone may be hired to fill it. Sure, some  might write "I was laid off because I was made redundant", but "I was laid off" by itself doesn't always mean redundancy. No? Moriori 23:46, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
::Traditionally in the UK, to be "made redundant" was indeed to lose your position because it had disappeared (and usually referred to white collar and professional workers). To be "laid off" was to lose your job because there was no longer sufficient work (such as when a factory's order book was not full enough or work finished on a construction site) and usually referred to blue collar workers, who would often be rehired when business picked up. The distinctions between the two are now very blurred. I (as a Brit) would never associate either term with dismissal due to dishonesty, incompetence etc - that's to be "sacked" ("fired" in American parlance). To be "let go", on the other hand, can often be a euphemism for being sacked (or may have no negative connotations and mean to be laid off). -- Necrothesp 15:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The British English term of being "made redundant" is the same as "being downsized" in the USA.  May be better if this went on the List of British English words not used in American English, unless the term is also used in America. -- kiwiinapanic 02:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that employees were made redundant, and companies were downsized.  Maybe I was wrong.... -- Smjg 12:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant

message: I think from reading on the Web that Brits and Americans have different meanings for series, when it comes for TV.
US: "I love season two of the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
UK: "I love series two of Buffy the Vampire Slayer--it's the best of the seven."
Whadja think?
:I agree, it might have something to do with the fact that American seasons typically last a lot longer than British series. Saul Taylor 01:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK we tend to use "series" for both meanings - the individual season and the whole thing. -- Necrothesp 14:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Series/Season

message: so it presumably doesn't belong here.  But one might have included "wrench," which is a verb in both countries, yet seems to be a noun (meaning spanner) only in the US.
:We have "wrench" as in the tool over here, but it isn't as common.  I think mostly as in "monkey wrench", the adjustable sort. -- Smjg 10:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Although even that is an Americanism. The correct British term is "adjustable spanner". -- Necrothesp 15:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  CALD gives both "wrench" and "monkey wrench" as "mainly US", and COED gives no qualification in this respect.  For that matter, I've also come across "wrench" used over here to mean the sort pictured.... -- Smjg 16:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "spanner" means nothing at all in the US 

message: Disclaimer: I'm a Canadian, but I consider myself fluent in American English. To me, the most common meaning of band is a musical group. The second most common meaning is strap, such as in "rubber band". The jewelry ring meaning is only understood with context. -Tom
:I concur.  The most common use of "band" in the Midwest is to refer to a small group of people; often a musical group, but maybe a set of compatriots; see the HBO television series Band of Brothers. --Branden 08:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band 

message: Firstly, "stroke" is rarely if ever used for the / character in the U.S.  Secondly, where is "to take a slash" used?  Can anyone confirm that this is an Americanism?  The entire "slash" row should go away as far as I can tell. -- Yath 08:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the U.S. Army uses "stroke" to mean the slash sign, or what Unicode calls a "solidus" ("/").  At least, I first encountered this usage in reruns of M*A*S*H when I was a kid.  I agree with you about "to take a slash" not being an Americanism.  I've never heard this. -- Branden 06:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

text: The only terms I (a Brit) would generally use for this character are "slash" (mostly in computing contexts) and "stroke" (mostly as a symbol used to mean "or" or similar). -- Smjg 13:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As another Brit, I would use "oblique" for this character. The only time I would use "slash" is when using computing expressions, and then only to avoid confusion. I would always look on it as an Americanism. -- Necrothesp 14:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Slash

message: This addition "make a telephone call (also British usage, but this is becoming rare)" should've had the summary "usage ambiguation" not "usage clarification".
Do you mean that Americans also have what you've put as the British meaning, or that this is also a British usage?  If you'd followed the pattern of the rest of the list, it would be clear.  But either way, it doesn't clearly match my understanding. 
But looking it up, all I can find is dependence on context and phrasing.  As a Brit, I 'call' people on the phone (on the odd occasion that I get round to it).  OTOH, one might 'call on' or 'call in on' someone, or 'call round', meaning to pay a brief visit.
-- Smjg 11:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans have, I think "had" what is listed as the British meaning, but that it is falling out of use.  Once when I was a child growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s, encountering a "closed" sign on a store that said "Thank you -- please call again" was enough to confuse me, as I hadn't ever heard that meaning used.  It has now been many years since I've seen such a sign.  (These days, businesses seem to content themselves with a simple "CLOSED" or just turning the "OPEN" neon sign off.)  If someone said, "the lady had a gentleman caller last night", it would be understood in the British sense but would be notably archaic.  Does this help any? --Branden 08:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "please call again" is intransitive "call", as is "call on".  So there's no discrepancy here.  And CDAE lists "call on" without any indication of obsolescence, so it must be still in use to a reasonable extent.  I'd say there's no real difference, so the term isn't really worth listing.  I'd also say "caller" is ambiguous except when clarified by context. -- Smjg 13:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call 

message: Recent edit summary: this article is supposed to illustrate the differences between word usage -- grass means first and foremost "the green ground cover" in US English, too, so I removed that explanation
Notice that the column headings are "most common British meaning" and "most common American meaning".  Even if these headings are rather out of date with current usage, it makes no sense to me to randomly omit the most common meaning from a given entry.
Moreover, we already list several meanings that are common to both sides of the pond.  Without them, quite a few entries would be blank on one side.  And though for some instances we have considered only one context, there is no common context of the definitions of "grass" we have.  So removing the "green ground cover" meaning just doesn't seem right. -- Smjg 16:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of common meanings 

message: ..as I've noticed other articles on wikipedia are. I don't know where most writers or admins are from, so I'm not saying this whole 'pedia should be american-centric. However, this article does little to help an American understand some of the UK meanings- like trunk. what the heck is trunk line?? And there are multiples for some. Of course, I know the US meanings really well. We call a huge suitcase a trunk, too. Anyway. I might do some of the tweeks (small changes, that is), but anyone else is welcome to. Kzzl
: Trunk-line isn't a term in the US? Hmm. How odd. Better?
: James F. (talk) 17:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article's a little UK-centric 

message: Pacifier doesn't mean one who opposes war in the UK. That's a pacifist. A pacifier is simply one who pacifies. I've therefore altered the entry. -- Necrothesp 08:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pacifier

message: We said "UK: Blah" and "US: Bleh", but we're meant to be talking about "British and American English", so shouldn't they be "BE: Blah" and "AE: Bleh"?
James F. (talk) 01:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country notes. 

message: The reason why I put 'thousand million' in the 'most common British meaning' for is because that is the most common British meaning - e.g. it is now used exclusively in the UK Gov and BBC websites for finance, science, demographics, etc.; it is the value taught in schools. By reverting the 'most common British meaning' entry to 'million million (but US meaning more common)' an ambiguous statement has been created. Ian Cairns 08:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point, but it's only more common among those who don't take the trouble to understand what billion means (bi-million, i.e. million x million). Sadly, the government and BBC are as ignorant in this respect as are many other people. And I would actually dispute that more people use the American version in Britain. Everyone I know would use million million and would refer to a thousand million as an American billion. Use by the government and the BBC does not equal use by everyone. I would say that billion billion is still the commoner usage. -- Necrothesp 16:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would prefer people to use the million x million as a billion, but it just isn't so. We have to reflect the usage, not what we'd like to be the case, and I have no doubt that the American billion is now used almost exclusively in Britain. -- Chris Q 06:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep the listing, as the ambiguity still exists at least in theory.  Though I'd be inclined to explicitly say "million million" or "thousand million".... -- Smjg 16:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I think "almost exclusively" is exceptionally wide of the mark. -- Necrothesp 12:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Necrothesp. In my experience in the UK over, say, the last 10-20 years, the British newspapers, TV, magazines, websites, personal communications, etc. have used the short-scale billion so consistently that I have trouble remembering the last time I saw a long-scale billion in the wild. The only times I can certainly remember seeing this is in some dictionaries (those which tend to delay reflecting new usage) and as a historical footnote added to defining the short-scale billion in schools / textbooks - however, neither time is it being used actively. I would put the proportion of short-scale usage that I come across at very much greater than 95%, probably 100% In a spirit of enquiry, may I ask which sources of long-scale billion you come across in the course of your day? Clearly, your peer-group uses long-scale. Would this be in a particular industry sector, etc.? Your experience is very different from ChrisQ's or mine, and I'm trying to understand where this usage is prevalent in the UK today. Many thanks, Ian Cairns 17:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. No, my field (archives) doesn't use billion on a regular basis at all. I'm just going on usage by people I know and by myself. Before about 10-15 years ago, I would have been surprised if anyone in Britain would have interpreted 'billion' to mean thousand million. Not only is it illogical for it to mean this (although I acknowledge that most people probably don't consider the logic), but there is absolutely no reason to change something long used in Britain and still used almost exclusively in the rest of the non-US world (as far as I know, 'milliard' is still the standard term used for a thousand million in France, Germany and the Netherlands, for instance). Yes, it is true that the government has started using the American billion, and therefore the media tends to use it, but I would still suspect that a majority of ordinary Britons think 'million million' when they hear 'billion'. Not that many of them probably think about its meaning at all, apart from as "a very large amount that means virtually nothing to me". As I said, I have no proof to offer here beyond the usage that I hear from people who are not involved in government, media or big business. In actual fact, I think the truth is that most people neither know nor care exactly what a billion is and just use it to mean a large amount. It is, however, interesting that we talk about greater international understanding and yet begin to use a definition only used extensively in the United States when we did not do so before. It seems ironic (and illogical) that the government is so keen to introduce the metric system (used in Europe but not the US) and the short billion (used in the US and not Europe). I know the debate here is about usage not logic, but it's an interesting point. -- Necrothesp 17:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am interested that you say Billion is used as "million million" in most of the non-US world. I assumed that most or all of the other English-speaking countries (Canada, Australial, etc.) used the short Billion. Would anyone from an English-speaking country other than the US and the UK like to comment? -- Chris Q 06:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in Canuckistan, or at least the part I'm from (Ontario), "billion" is usually understood in the American sense. It's also the usage that the Canadian Press favours, if that's any indication. -- Hadal 06:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: You may well be right that most of the other English-speaking countries use the short billion. But as far as I know, non-English speaking countries generally use the long billion. I say this both because all the European dictionaries I've seen give 'million million' as the definition and because I've heard this debate before with Europeans contradicting American claims that the long billion is unusual. -- Necrothesp 14:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: In fact, see billion (interesting article), which claims that Brazil is the only non-English speaking country to commonly use the short billion. In fact, the French and Italian governments at least have officially announced their retention of the long billion. Also see the (contradictory) quotes in the conclusion referring to British usage. -- Necrothesp 14:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Now, if the French wanted everyone to think of a billion as a million million, they should've called it a bimillion—though, that'd be multiplication rather than exponentiation.  Let's say that a thousand thousands is a million because mille fois mille égal million; then a thousand millions is a milliard and a million millions is a billion.  So why isn't a billion billions, say, a bille? and a bille billes a trille? and a trille trilles a trillion?  The only advantage of the French system is that the Latin prefix can be directly related to the number of noughts in the lot without a +3 shift from leaving the thousand-million crook.  But the system is flawed from the start because the affix cycle was an arbitrary choice.  It's a logical choice to make the cycle as small as possible, so the American system was the better to settle on. (I invented a superior numbering system though.) lysdexia 20:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Billion 

message: The same problem with the billion entry also exists for the Trillion entry. Ian Cairns 11:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And the same explanation from me. -- Necrothesp 16:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trillion

message: I'm not sure that this belongs.  Is there any evidence to suggest that they really are forms of the same word?  Or that anyone would confuse the two? -- Smjg 10:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleb/plebe 

message: I disagree with the changes Lysdexia has just made:
=== Removing meanings that are common to BrE and AmE ===
Given a meaning that is not listed, we have no means of seeing whether that meaning is common or just not yet considered for this list.  Consequently, it could also lead to the same meanings being repeatedly added to one side of the list and then removed by someone who decides that the meaning is valid on both sides of the pond.
Moreover, it makes the list look incomplete where the BrE meanings form a subset of the AmE meanings or vice versa.
Perhaps better would be something like this:
Word  	British meanings    	Common to British and American	American meanings
garage	fuel filling station	vehicle repair shop
building attached to or in the grounds of a residence for storing a car	(parking garage) building serving as a public parking facility
The only thing left to consider is how we should list meanings that are 'rare' on one side....
-- Smjg 15:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial changes 

message: Given a meaning that is not listed, we have no means of seeing whether that meaning is common or just not yet considered for this list.  Consequently, it could also lead to the same meanings being repeatedly added to one side of the list and then removed by someone who decides that the meaning is valid on both sides of the pond.
Moreover, it makes the list look incomplete where the BrE meanings form a subset of the AmE meanings or vice versa.
Perhaps better would be something like this:
Word  	British meanings    	Common to British and American	American meanings
garage	fuel filling station	vehicle repair shop
building attached to or in the grounds of a residence for storing a car	(parking garage) building serving as a public parking facility
The only thing left to consider is how we should list meanings that are 'rare' on one side....
-- Smjg 15:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing meanings that are common to BrE and AmE 

message: This looks pointless to me, and creates inconsistencies (wanting nouns to be prefixed with "a", etc. to match).  In my mind, the left-hand column should read like headwords in a dictionary.
Part of speech would be indicated as "(noun)", "(verb)", etc. after the word (as is already done for some entries), and only where the entry considers just one POS of two or more that a given word can be (the word deemed to be unambiguous in other PsOS).
-- Smjg 15:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefix "to" on verbs 

message: Being a bit of a pedant, could I suggest we use the term 'most common' rather than 'most unique' for the columnn headings? Or, preferably, 'more common', as some words do have multiple commonly used meanings.  A thing is either unique or it isn't, and some of the words most definitely do not have unique meanings, let alone 'most unique'.
WLD 16:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maurreen 17:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most Unique"