Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 26

message: This brings up a different issue than those mentioned in the discussion in Manual of Style archive ("U.S." or "American") in that it refers specifically to the name of the language spoken in the U.S., not the use of the language to name things other than itself.
Because the word "American" has multiple uses, referring to either the U.S. exclusively or to what is pertinent to cultures/peoples in either the Americas (North, Central, and South) or North America, its use on pages dealing with language is not transparent because it cannot be immediately interpreted. There are distinctions between American (North American) English and British English. This is a different matter than the differences between U.S. English and British English and Canadian English.
Canadian English (which is distinct on a number of counts from British English and has certain elements in common with U.S. English) is, in a certain sense, "American English," and though the article explains its exclusion, a change of title would remove the need to make this distinction. Since "Canadian English" is a distinct article, one would think that the parallel for the country just south would bear that country's name, not a name that can also refer to the continent.
So, arguably, the article currently called "American and British English Differences" should be titled "U.S. and British English Differences" (and any parallel changes in other articles made) in order to disambiguate the meaning of the word "American" with reference to the English language. This would allow the ability to distinguish without confusion or need for explanation between U.S. English usage and usage that extends to multiple countries in the Americas or the other country in North America, which would be useful given the realities of language use.
I put this note on the "American and British English Differences" talk page first. That was the first time I ever posted here, and I haven't been able to find a guideline about multiple postings about the same issue. I'm not sure if it was correct to post in both places, but I didn't know that this page existed at that time. I apologize if this is not the way things are done.
Emme 13:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:!American" means "of or pertaining to the United States of America". There's no need to complicate the issue, jguk 18:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that "American English" is the standard form to refer to the language. Also, I believe "U.S. English" is an organization. Maurreen (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody talks about "North American English". There is no need to talk about "North American English". Canadian English is a different thing entirely (we don't tend to lump it together with the English spoken in the United States, that is) and Mexico is Spanish-speaking. South America rarely enters into discussions of English dialect, so there is really no need to talk about "(North and South) American English" There is not really a whole lot of potential for confusion. -Aranel (Sarah) 18:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. "Nobody talks about "North American English". Rmhermen 17:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed use of "U.S." when referring specifically to language in U.S. 

message: In the article Diacritic, there is a very clear explanation:
"A diacritical mark can appear above or below the letter to which it is added, or in some other position; however, note that not all such marks are diacritical. For example, in English, the tittle (dot) on the letters i and j is not a diacritical mark, but rather part of the letter itself. Further, a mark may be diacritical in one language, but not in another . . ."
However, the article is driven to using the heading "Non-diacritic usage" for the inclusion of such marks within letters.  If there is a term for markings on letters other that "diacritical mark" or "accent" this would help. Possibly because no such term has been introduced (does it exist?), this careful distinction is not being followed in all language/alphabet articles, with the result that what is a letter, collated and counted among letters, and what is a letter with a diacritical mark is not discussed with clarity, and could be improved.
This issue arises in, for example, Latvian alphabet ("the remaining 11 [letters] are obtained from Latin letters by using diacritic marks"); Polish alphabet ("It is based on the Latin alphabet but uses diacritics such as kreska . . ."), Romanian alphabet ("Five of the above letters have diacritical marks . . ."), Slovak language ("The Slovak language . . . uses four types of diacritical marks"), Sorbian alphabet ("The Sorbian alphabet is based on the Latin alphbet but uses diacritics . . . "), Vietnamese alphabet "The many diacritcis, often two on the same letter, makes written Vietnamese easily recognizable." - this example is particularly confusing because some of these markings referred to are proper to the letters themselves, while others are true diacritics), etc.
Possible approaches: 
Use "letters with/including marks" (to avoid using the term diacritic of a mark that is part of a letter)
When possible, name the mark (as is done in Diacritic to refer to "u with a breve" in speaking of non-diacritic use in Esperanto, for example).
Anybody know of a standard term for this language element?
Emme 13:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't believe that there is a real problem using the word diacritic to refer to modifying marks beyond the general set of Latin characters. The use of the word is the boundary of a number of linguistic fields. For example, one might say that the letter ö as employed in German is the letter o with a diacritic. However, this letter is a distinct phoneme in that language. To be strict one should use the word diacritic only to refer to marks used to distinguish homographs and supersegmental signs. However, in practice, one uses the term more loosly to refer to any letter that receives a modifying mark. Gareth Hughes 14:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Diacritic" is being used inconsistently 

message: Should:
:When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (for example "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").
be changed to:
:When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (for example "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S."), unless mentioning it more than once (for example "France and the United States consume lots of cheese, while Germany and the U.S. consume the most sausages.".
? Andy Mabbett 08:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not prescribing against that.  It is stating that in a list of cheese consumption by country, one would list as follows:
#France
#United States
#Germany
Not:
#France
#U.S.
#Germany
Your example is not a list but rather usage within an article. Hope that helps. Hiding  talk 08:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It should definitely remain 'United States' when in a list.  Proto t c 12:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Lists are not repetitive in presenting information the way a body of text is.  Also, the example in the manual of style is making the point regarding lists, therefore the example presented is in the context of lists.  Your example is not in the context of a list, and so is a different usage.  Hiding  talk 19:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviating United States more than once

message: My example is an expansion of the example in the MoS; however, consider:
Contries which consume cheese
*France
*United States
Contries which consume sausages
*Germany
*U.S.
Contries which consume beer
*United Kingdom
*U.S.
Andy Mabbett 08:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should definitely remain 'United States' when in a list.  Proto t c 12:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Lists are not repetitive in presenting information the way a body of text is.  Also, the example in the manual of style is making the point regarding lists, therefore the example presented is in the context of lists.  Your example is not in the context of a list, and so is a different usage.  Hiding  talk 19:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Indent reset