Talk:Comparison of American and British English/Archive 2

message: Q: I am British, and for the noun-form of admonish I say admonishment. 
: Fred received an admonishment from his teacher for untidy work.
My American wife says admonition.
: Fred received an admonition from his teacher for untidy work.
Is this a UK/US difference, are they just alternative words, or is one of us plain wrong! -- Chris Q 09:24 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
: For what it's worth, I'd say the first, but I wouldn't think the second was wrong. Bagpuss
: I've always heard and used 'admonition.'  - Rob (American)
: "Admonition" is more common among the older folks, but I've heard "admonishment" among peopl 30 and younger in Indiana. Dogface 22:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admonishment vs. admonition 

message: Does "lounge" really mean "bar" in the States? Bagpuss 23:45 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
:I think of a specific kind of bar, a relatively quiet place with some sort of generally unobtrusive live music (i.e. a lounge singer, lounge music). Tuf-Kat
:: Okay, it's not one I'd heard of.  UK pubs sometimes have a lounge, a large room with couches (a small one would be the snug). Bagpuss
In the most common usage of "lounge" in the US, it does not mean a "bar".  It could mean a bar, but it's much more likely that it simply means a place to relax. 
Bagpuss. - You're probably too young to remember this, but most pubs used to have two or more bars, the "public bar" or "saloon bar" was for working men (in workman's clothes perhaps) and might have had lino (linoleum) or possibly even sawdust on the floor, whilst the other bar (the "lounge bar") would be for women in company and the more refined customer and would have had carpet and some soft chairs. A pub might have also had a "snug bar" which would have been a small room for a few people to enjoy their own company. Mintguy (Actually this should go in the the entry on pubs).
:It's still like that in Scotland for the most part. -- Derek Ross
I'm surprised the UK doesn't use lounge meaning bar. It is so common in Ireland a pub will often have a separate lounge, with it described as that in the signage. A lounge is usually more comfortable, with soft seating, softer music, carpeted floor, more relaxing. In many ways, a lounge is more feminised, a bar more masculinised, with harder seats, seats at the bar counter, wooden or tiled floor, with Sky sports blaring on a TV (God I hate Sky Sports!). It never dawned on me that that term didn't exist in the UK. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:03 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
Don't let the Englishmen confuse you, JTD. There are still plenty of hotels and public houses with lounge bars, public bars (and even snugs) in the UK of just the type that you describe.  Maybe they're dying out in some parts of England but they are still going strong in Scotland. -- Derek Ross 04:37 25 May 2003 (UTC)
:Don't let the other Englishmen confuse you. They're still common in English pubs as well, although not as common as they used to be. Most older pubs that haven't been bought up by chains still have both a lounge bar and a public bar. -- Necrothesp 00:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lounge as a (commerical) drinking location 

message: The article claims that "phi is "fie" to Britons and "fee" to Americans".  φβκ in "American" though would seem to be "fie beta kappa" not "fee beta kappa": American dictionaries also seem to give the pronounciation "fi":  is φ indeed pronounced as "fee" by most Americans? -- Someone else 02:25 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
I think it depends greatly on the context.  As you say, "fie" appears to be the most common pronunciation when the letter appears as itself, but in a technical or scientific context it is almost invariably "fee" (as in "the oiler fee function" -- i.e., Euler's φ function, with stress on the "fee").  A check of my AHD gives "fie" and only "fie" as a pronunciation for the word phi.  18.24.0.120 03:04, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Greek-alphabet letters 

message: Is there any empirical evidence for the following assertion, which I have removed from the article?:
* Letter-writing: When starting a letter, Americans usually write a colon after the greeting ("Dear Sir:") while Britons usually write a comma ("Dear Sir,").
Seems doubtful to me. Jfitzg
:I've seen the colon as at least an alternative in Am. usage, but I don't know how common it is. I can't recall ever seeing a colon in Br. usage. Gritchka
I was the one who added the assertion.  I am British, and have seen Americans
use colons many times, which I had never seen over here.  However, sorry,
there is a subtlety which I did not first realis/ze, that Am usage uses the
colon only for a formal letter, while still using a comma for personal letters.
A Google search with term "dear Sir" comma colon gives various references to
this, e.g.:
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/local/doc/punctuation/node52.html
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/c.html  (section Colon)
http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/writingcenter/semiandcolons.html (scroll near to bottom)
Please could you reinstate the comment, but with the modification that the
difference only applies to formal letters.
Alan
:Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize the British used commas in formal letters. More sensible, though. I'll restore it. To the right place, I hope. Jfitzg
:For the Americans, do you suspect that we are here perpetuating some (possibly British) myth that Americans use colons in the salutation ?
::I am American and I was definitely taught in school to use a colon after a salutation in a "formal" letter. However, I'd guess that because we Americans are so formality-averse the colon usage is very uncommon, as we maintain an air of informality even in formal situations. I guess this is because, at least in American culture, being extra formal about things often comes off as rude and/or condescending. But certainly letters addressed "To whom it may concern:" usually take a colon. --Nohat 20:24, 2003 Dec 14 (UTC)
::A check of the style guide used when I was in secondary school (Basic English Revisited by Sebranek et al, fifth ed.) says (paragraph 153): "A colon may be used after the salutation of a business letter."  Interestingly, I was taught a stronger rule than that; specifically, that a comma should only follow the salutation in informal letters.  I have invariably hewed to this rule, but I wouldn't notice if all of my (preprinted form-letter) correspondence suddenly started arriving with commas (assuming it hasn't already).  18.24.0.120 02:59, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of colons is to be restricted to business letters in the USA.  Friendly letters use a comma. However, such niceties are no doubt eroding in the face of corporate takeover of our culture.Dogface 22:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's quite so hard-and-fast as you suggest British usage is.  In formal letters, I think the single most common closing is "Sincerely yours", but there are several alternatives, any of which would be unremarkable: "Sincerely", "Yours truly", "Very truly yours", and probably a few others that aren't coming to my mind right now. JamesMLane 04:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long been my impression, living both in Canada and the U.S., that Yours sincerely, is usual whereas Yours truly, is for use by lawyers in a legal context.  In the U. S. Navy, the closings Very respectfully, and Respectfully, are usual in memos and e-mail.  cbc 17:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter writing 

message: As an American, I'd always choose the former in each of these pairs, and I rarely hear Americans say the latter.  Is this a US/Britain difference? Fg2 07:37, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
: I'm not a Briton, but I've lived here (Cambridge) for a little over a year.  "Whilst" and "while" seem interchangeable when the word means "even though", but when it means "when" or "during", "whilst" seems more formal than "while".  I suspect we're in a state of change on these, and perhaps in 200 years, no one on either side of the Atlantic will say "whilst". --Atemperman 17:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  While/Whilst, Among/Amongst, Amid/Amidst 

message: I have another list that I have been working on for a while; will someone attempt to incorporate? --Kaihsu 05:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source of information 

message: > Greek-derived words with ae or æ and oe or œ
Is this a British transliteration of omega with "oe", or of omicron, or of something else ?
I have never seen the word "esthetic."  It is always spelled "aesthetic" in my experience. - Rob (American)
Yeah, I too see "aesthetic" at least twenty times as often as "esthetic".  Same goes for "archaeology" over "archeology".  I've fixed this on the page now. --Atemperman 22:12, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Greek oe 

message: I am from (and live in) the geographic center of the coterminous USA, and I (and almost everyone else I know here) pronounces "cot" as "kaht," and "caught" as "kawt." Any comments?
:Yes. cot-caught merger clearly states that the merger is not universal; that is, there are many people who don't have it. Nohat 14:57, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)
::Thanks, Nohat, for the response.  I re-read that article, and see that it states:  Some varieties of North American English still have both the vowels [A:] and [O:], but [O:] is a conditioned variant that only occurs before certain sounds, particularly /r/ or /l/, and does not count as a separate phoneme.  I, and others in my regional area, say [A:] and [O:] differently when it appears before many different consonants.  However, I can easily understand it if someone isn't aware of this; I live in an area that is thought of as "flyover territory" (laugh).  Maybe someone could do more research into this and do a modest re-write of cot-caught merger.  Good luck to anyone intrigued enough to do this.  —Catdude
:::Well, from my fly-to/from area (next stop Hawaii if you fly over it), I'll report the same. Certainly some people in northern California say "cot" for "caught", but not most that I encounter. I think the generalization in the article isn't a good one, and the qualification is inadequate. Dandrake 23:53, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
::::I spent the first 18 years of my life in California and didn't even know that anyone might pronounce "cot" and "caught" differently until I went away to college in New York. In my experience, the merger is nearly complete in California. I've done actual research on this, interviewing people from around the country, and my results generally agree with , although I found the merger to be more complete overall among younger speakers. The merger of low front vowels before /r/, however, was much more widespread than the /a/ /C/ merger. Nohat 03:25, 2004 May 4 (UTC)
::In Indiana, we differentiate betwee "cot" and "caught" quite distinctly, therefore putting the lie to the claim that the distinction only appears when colored by sounds such as /r/ or /l/.  Therefore, whomsoeover claims that these two words are not distinguished at all in American English tells a lie.  My wife is from Massachussetts, on the other hand, and she could not distinguish between the names "Don" and "Dawn".  So she kept calling women named "Dawn" by the name "Don".  We finally taught her better. Dogface 22:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cot" vs. "caught" merger 

message: "epsilon is "epp-SIGH-lon" /Ep"saIl(@)n/ to Britons and "EPP-si-lon" /"Eps@%lOn/ to Americans". as a Brit i've never come across anyone pronouncing "epp-SIGH-lon". So if this pronunciation exists it may be archair. Therefore the only letter difference would be beta. Mintguy (T) 13:21, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek letters.

message: Apparently, only American English uses "in the hospital", whereas elsewhere (including Canada) it is "in hospital".  How did this one come about?  It's not mentioned anywhere in the article. 
:Whoops, I went ahead and added that to the article without checking here first. When this American English speaker hears "Sir Angus Ogilvy, husband of the Queen’s cousin, Princess Alexandra, is being treated in hospital []", I can't figure out if "in hospital" describes "where" or "how". When I hear this on BBC, I think of Russian ex-boss, who always confused by rules of the English (and put "the" where I'd least expect it).
:When we do use "in hospital" it's always as an abbreviated news headline ("Ex-President Clinton in Hospital for Heart Surgery" []). In normal speech, the "the" clues us into the phrase being a preposition and not an adj. How does the rest of the English speaking world parse it?
Also, I remember being taught that that names of languages should only be capitalized if they are part of a name or title, such as "English 101" class, but not when talking about the english language itself.  Again, apparently this is only in American English (or american english)?  This seems one of the odd parts of the language, along with capitalizing days of the week (which I do only if it's really darn important and expected) and months (which I do), but not say, the seasons.  Maybe this come from English being a polyglot of German (capitalize almost everything) and Latin (capitalize almost nothing)?  –radiojon 06:54, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
:As an American, I've never seen a capitalization like "american english."  I would use lower-case in a few specific instances in which the word is not the name of a language (put english on the ball, french kiss).  Otherwise, I would always capitalize language names, days of the week, and months, nor do I recall seeing any of these words lower-cased in any formal writing. JamesMLane 14:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Elf | Talk 03:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in (the) hospital" - capitalization of language names 

message: I snipped the following para:
:The Wikipedia:Manual of Style accepts both British and American spelling, although recommending American spelling for American subjects and vice versa. Direct quotations and proper names – for example 'Pearl Harbor' or 'Sydney Harbour' – should go as written.
See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
chocolateboy 11:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Snipped Self-Ref

message: With regard to telephone numbers, I think that the example of 999 as an example of the treble- construction is wrong. Certainly in the South East (RP and Estuary), I've only ever heard 999 pronounced Nine nine nine. Similarly for the new directory enquiries services e.g. 118 500 is pronounced ONE one eight five HUNdred. However, within a longer number the construction is used, e.g. 07700 900 333 would be pronounced OH double SEVEN double OH, NINE double OH treble THREE. Acanon 15:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It's always "nine-nine-nine", never ever "treble nine". For your other example, though, I'd probably say "oh double seven double oh nine hundred three three three", which proves that these things can never be standardised. -- Necrothesp 16:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even OH double SEVEN double OH, NINE double OH double THREE, THREE. This seems to be used in phone numbers in a lot of TV adverts. -- Chris Q 06:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine Nine Nine 

message: The article gives this example of different usage:
* British English: "The Beatles are a well-known band."
* American English: "The Beatles is a well-known band."
As an American, I think "are" would be much more common here.  For example, a book about Beatlemania in America was titled The Beatles Are Coming.  Also William F. Buckley, Jr.: "The Beatles are not merely awful. They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic."   When the band name is singular in form, though, it can go either way; I wouldn't be surprised to hear either "Korn is awful" or "Korn are awful".  Furthermore, many Americans will even use plural forms when talking about a corporation: "Ford is discontinuing that model because it doesn't fit into their plans."  I personally consider this usage substandard but it's dismayingly common here. JamesMLane 14:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who added that example.  I should have given more examples or clarified.  For instance, I wouldn't say "The Beatles are a band", but I would say "The Beatles are awful", but not "Korn are awful".  The last sentence "Ford is discontinuing..." wouldn't sound strange at all to me. (I'm an American in New England.) Peter O. (Talk) 15:17, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
To some extent, I believe many of us are not recognizing that this isn't a page to discuss the differences in speech patterns and pronounciation throughout the U.S. The article starts off by saying "For the purposes of this article: American English is the language spoken by U.S. government officials, network newscasters...." For instance, the British contributors aren't pointing out differences between Cockney and American English. I think one would be hard pressed to find an example of Peter Jennings or Tom Browkaw saying "The Beatles is a well-known band."
Actually, the suggestion that "U.S. government officials" may be used as a barometer for some sort of "standard" U.S. English is also questionable, (I offer the speech of the current president as example). It seems to me that it is only among our national broadcasters that one can find anything even remotely resembling the British notion of a received pronunciation. AdmN 16:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with AdmN that this article can't get into regional differences within the United States, and I'm one of those who needs that reminder.  As for the specifics here, I'd expect a national newscaster to say "The Beatles are a well-known band"; I'd be very surprised to hear such a newscaster say "The Beatles is a well-known band"; neither construction as to Korn would surprise me.  As for corporations, I believe that the use of "they" to refer to Ford is substandard, and I'd expect a national newscast or a formal government report to avoid it, but it's so common these days that I wouldn't be astounded if it appeared even in one of those sources.  To return to the differences that are the subject of the article, I'm not convinced there's any UK-US difference in band references, but maybe the corporations thing should be mentioned, if no Commonwealth speakers would ever employ this usage.  (In the U.S. it surfaces with regard to other large institutions, too, like universities or government agencies.) JamesMLane 09:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In British English, pluralisation of collective nouns denotes the members of the referred unit as opposed to the unit as such. So because Ford is referring to the corporation, the sentence would read, in British English, 'Ford is discontinuing that model because it doesn't fit into its plans.' However, it would, according to Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, be acceptable to say 'Ford are discontinuing that model because it doesn't fit into their plans.' (I should suspect that here a certain department and the management and so forth of Ford is what is warranting the plural, not the individual employees.) The mixing of the singular and the plural is nonstandard and, in my experience, not very common in British English. —Sinuhe 11:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Collective nouns

message: Does anyone know why user User:Wereon just replaced the wiki-style italic markup for the HTML tags ? That just makes articles harder to edit, doesn't it? func(talk) 14:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-Wiki-fied!!! 

message: The article is particulalry interesting to me as a Brit who uses the Grammar check on Word. After reading it nore I have conlcleded that changing regional settings does not convert 100% in to UK-English and I while the obvious differences can be recognised, on the more subtle rules I have questioned my own judgement and let microsoft change the way I express.  Examples include hyphens where I would not have bothered beore, using "is" after a collective noun rather than "are" and being told when to use "that" or "which with a comma before it" in a sentence but never which without a comma before it!  Communication does tend to merge the use of language, but Microsoft may have more to answer for than I had thought!
Dainamo 21:15, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
You may find that Microsoft Word can mark that a particular language is being used for document content.
If you haven't set this correctly in your doc or in your default template, then it's possible that your documents are being marked as "English (U.S.)" [nods to section above about the use of periods] and are being spell-/grammar-checked according to this.
(see  Tools menu -> Language -> Set Language... -> "Mark selected text as <language>")
::Even with the above settings the problems that Dainamo describes still exist. Microsoft has only done half a job as far as grammar checking goes. -- Chris Q 15:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These character names come from the Unicode and ISO 10646 standards, which in turn took them from the ISO 646 standard (also known as ASCII). The standard names of the characters are known not to be without problems, but have been agreed not to be changed any more to avoid confusion. So this one is not particularly a problem created by Microsoft. Markus Kuhn 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Microsoft have played their role in this

message: I'm not sure this section belongs in the article. As far as I'm aware -xion has been used in both British and American English in the past, but is becoming rarer and rarer in both forms of the language. I certainly don't see this as a notable difference between British and American English. Would anyone object strongly if I completely removed the section? jguk 08:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to have been a time when "connection" was indeed the primary spelling in the U.S. and "connexion" was the primary spelling in the U.K. Merriam-Webster's Unabridged (second edition, 1934, 1944 printing) states, "Connexion is now rare in the United States, but it is frequent in England." Supplement Two to Mencken's The American Language (1948) mentions "connexion, which the English authorities still prefer to connection, though they usually add the latter as an alternative." Even the 1988 Longman Guide to English Usage states of connection and connexion that "[b]oth spellings are permissible in British English; but connection is commoner, and is the only American form." In light of this, I would vote to leave this section in. Tomgally 10:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: -xion vs -ction

message: Somebody mentioned each code covers only a few addresses.  What about  multi-storey apartment buildings?
:As far as I know, a single building has the same postcode, no matter how many separate flats/apartments it's divided into. After all, they all have the same street address. -- Necrothesp 16:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true - large commercial buildings can have more than one postcode, depending on how many businesses they contain. Businesses that get a large volume of mail are entitled to their own unique postcode, so there could be quite a few. For example, 1 Canada Square in London has 21 postcodes. Even residential buildings are often split up with multiple postcodes  if they contain a large number of flats/apartments. Owain 09:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UK postcodes

message: Offtopic, but I think I'm likely to get an answer here. In the United States, ordinary household wall-mounted light switches are made and installed so that turning the handle up turns the lights on and turning the handle down turns the lights off.
When I visited England in the 1950s the situation was the reverse: down = on, up = off. IIRC this was true in general.
a) Are my memories accurate?
b) If so, is this British/U. S. cultural difference still in effect?
(This is apropos of the Light switch article, on VfD but likely to be kept). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the newer light switches in our U. S. house fit that description—except that you press the top of the panel for "on" and the bottom of the panel for "off." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Khendon must have only visited newer houses. Most older places still have the handle, and, yes, the convention is the reverse of the U.S. David Brooks 19:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offtopic: which way is "on" for British light switches? 

message: :British English is assumed to be the form of English spoken in southeast England and the BBC and understood in other parts of the United Kingdom. The section on pronunciation assumes the received pronunciation of British English, from which there are many regional variations.
This paragraph needs a rewrite:
* received pronunciation (RP) is not spoken in the south east any more than any other region in England. In the south east most of native inhabitants speaks a form of Estuary English which can range in strength from "London East End" Cockney to close to RP (but usually with enough of an accent that one can tell that they were born and live in the south east). Speaking close to RP is much more of an  class/education indicator (as is strenth of accent in may other English speaking countries). To my ears, the regional city which seems to have the accent closet to RP  is Oxford.
* The BBC now favours many accents and encourages ones from regions other than the south east which tend to dominate with mild forms of Estuary English.
* and understood in other parts of the United Kingdom this can be read that no one outside the UK understands it!
* From the point of view of a written encyclopaedia then there is a standard written form of written English which is taught in schools in England and Wales, whatever the regional accent or dialect. I am Not sure about Scotland (or the island of Ireland) but I suspect that any differences between the written English taught in the three would not be very big. I think this is what needs to be emphasised in this article and not how the language is spoken. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: British English

message: It seems to me that North Americans have a hard time understanding some ways of stating the time of day. All of the following are fine in the UK. Which are understood in the US?
* Three thirty (3:30 or 15:30)
**OK
* Half-past three (3:30 or 15:30)
**OK
* Half three (informal) (3:30 or 15:30)
**Not likely to be understood
* ten (10:00 or 22:00)
**OK
* ten o'clock (10:00 or 22:00)
**OK
* ten PM (22:00)
**OK
* ten oh five (10:05 or 22:05)
**OK
* five past ten (10:05 or 22:05)
**OK, rare
* ten ten (10:10 or 22:10)
**OK
* ten minutes past ten (10:10 or 22:10)
**OK
* five to ten (09:55 or 21:55) ("X to Y" used for X = 5,10,20,25)
**OK
* nine fifty five (09:55 or 21:55)
**OK
* twenty-one fifty-five (rare, heard at train stations etc) (09:55 or 21:55)
**OK, rare, understood as "military time"
* four minutes to ten (09:56 or 21:56) (NB "four to ten" isn't used)
**OK, rare
* twenty-five to six (05:35 or 17:35)
**OK, very rare
* five and twenty to six (rare) (05:35 or 17:35)
**Not likely to be understood
*** I think this form now has to be classed as archaic in the UK. My great-grandparents' generation used this (Germanic) form for
numbers in general (as in "four and twenty blackbirds"!); my grandparents used it only for times; to me it is familiar, but I've never used it myself; today's teenagers probably wouldn't understand it at all! Cambyses 09:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never even heard this used for times in the UK, not even from my grandparents' generation (who, as far as I know, always use the same terminology that I do). The only context in which I've heard it is the archaic "four and twenty blackbirds" example you give. -- Necrothesp 09:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. As a Brit, I'd understand (but never use) "quarter 'til six", but wouldn't know if "quarter of six" was 5.45 or 6.15. I've never used or heard "quarter before six" in the UK, although it is decipherable. Lupin 14:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Another fairly common US use for 6:15 is "quarter after six."  Like most of the other usages, things other than "quarter" can be used, though never "half after six." ("half past six" is, as mentioned above, perfectly fine.)
**Nohat 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times 

message: I thought the Americans invented the airplane.  If that's the case, then wouldn't it be an example of the British modifying an American word? --Kitch 12:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  airplane and aeroplane 

message: My own (BrE) use of "fresher" restricts it to first years in the first few weeks of university, not all first years. Do other Brits agree with this?
:Although I don't think there's any set definition (it's not an official term, as far as I know), I think I'd probably agree with you in general usage. -- Necrothesp 14:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freshers 

message: * As a speaker of Oregonian English (or Chinook English), I would say formally, "I am going to go upstairs and take a bath" or "I am going upstairs to take a bath". The difference between Oregonian and British English is not in the grammar of "I am going", but in the use of "take" vs "have". Otherwise formal Oregonian is no different than the British.
* However, it is more likely that I would say, informally "I'm gonna' go upstairs to take a bath" or "I'm goin' upstairs to take a bath". 
* I am unaware of the dropping the "to" as in the so-called "American English" or of the use the "American" "and taking", or the British "to have". Both the "American" and the British sentences sound foreign to me. The American sounds contrived, the British sounds British. Perhaps it is a regional variation?
* Here is the original paragraph for comparison: Where a statement of intention involves two separate activities, it is acceptable for speakers of American English to use the simple continuous form "I am going". Speakers of British English are more likely to use the form "I am going to". So where a speaker of American English might say "I am going upstairs and taking a bath", British English speakers would say "I am going to go upstairs and have a bath", or "I am going upstairs to have a bath", which has a slightly different meaning.
**There is certainly a difference between American and British usage, but the paragraph you quote does indeed represent it completely inaccurately and I've changed it: do let me know whether you now find it more believable.  Incidentally, in Britain we can say "I went and had a bath" meaning "I went to have a bath" but also implying I succeeded:  is there any American equivalent of this?  (Both I went have a bath and I went had a bath, the logically analogous constructions, sound hopelessly ungrammatical to my poor British ear.)—Blotwell 29 June 2005 11:07 (UTC)
*** I would say, "I took a bath" (successfully). "I went to take a bath . . ."  (suggesting an interruption).   A mother might ask, "Have you taken a bath today?" or "When was the last time you took a bath?" 
*** However, the use of "had" is formal but never with the use of "and".  Formally, a mother would ask, "Have you had a bath today?" or "When was the last time you had a bath?". However, "I had a bath" sounds too formal. 
*** Also, "and" is used but extremely informally. I realise that sometimes I use it in this manner, "I went and took a bath". However, this is _approaching_ a form of "redneck" slang that has a severe social taboo. Only African-American English is more controversial. I would never write that sentence in a work of nonfiction without properly introducing it in a colloquial context. Suffice it to say, it is the antithesis of Academic American English. See my notes below.
*** I also realise that "had" with the informal "and" is practiced in the U.S. However it is informal and also approaching social taboo, at least in the West. It may be common in sections of the South and East.
*** The "redneck" accent can be further developed such as, "I went and took a bath", "I'm gonna' go and take a bath". In this instance it is similar to the British, except for the use of the informal "take".
*** This should probably be changed to "Grammer: Take vs. Had". I am assuming British English never uses "take" to mean "had". How about, "I took a philosophy class last term"? The sentence, "I had a philosophy class last term" would seem too formal for casual conversation. 
*** Does the American use of "take" seem agressive? In light of Lakoff and Johnson's  metaphor theory, I imagine it is. Perhaps its perceived as if we are "storming the castle". Such that when we say, "I am going to take a bath" you imagine some one in a campaign of war against the bath tub?
*** All this is kinda' disjointed. I'm goin' on vacation (on holiday) for a week. I will be anticipating further inquiry.
* "American English is the form of English used by the U.S. government, business, mass media, and education system." It should be noted that "American English" is academic Western (this includes California and  the Northwest) not the language of the Midwest. The language of Leave it to Beaver and Archie Comics is not American English as practiced by Hollywood, Business, and the education system today. Midwestern language sounds hokey, not professional, _to Westerners_. This is not meant as an insult, it is just a common perspective. Newscasters are more diverse in language, they speak Californian, Midwestern, and occassionally accented American English. Accented speakers are typically Latinos who speak Spanish English (Southwestern English). This is only common on public broadcasting.
* It should also be noted the socio-economic differences in speech spoken in regional areas. In rural Oregon, we speak "Oregon English" also known as "Chinook English" and "Cascadian English". However, at least one variant type of speech can be detected. This is the speech of a segment of the working class poor, my friends (who are woodworkers and do not speak it) call it simply "redneck". This language has a "country twang" and a drawl. The drawl is common in Eastern Oregon. However, self-identifying "rednecks" do not speak it as a whole. Nor do self-identified "hillbillies" or "mountain men". I grew up in the back woods learning to speak "Lumberjack Jargon" (see List of lumberjack jargon), but never aquired this speech. Every region has its own variation of this. In some areas of the south, this speech crosses the economic barrier. George Bush Jr. speaks a Texas businessman variation.
* Also, my grandmother says wash as /wɔɹʃ and /ˈwɔrʃ.ɪŋ.tən/ for Washington. According to wikipedia and anecdotal information, this is how some of the older generations in Missouri pronounce these words. My grandmother is third generation Northwesterner. She grew up in Washington in company towns living amongst Norwegian-American and other Scandinavian-American populations, most of who came to Washington via the Midwest. I have encountered other elderly Northwesterners who retained this unique pronounciation. <Posted by Cemendur, the Oregonian>
Please supply evidence that "will go and X" is "stigmatized" in GA!  This is very common (informal) usage; "will go X" is equally common in the future, formal or informal; "will go to X" is quite formal.  In the present (formal or not), "going and X'ing" sounds strange to me; "going X" impossible; "going X'ing" only in "activity" usages like "going fishing"; "going to X" normal.  In the past (formal or not), "went and X'ed" implies something that actually happened, "went to X" implies intention, "went X'ing" only with activities like "fishing", "went X" is impossible. Benwing 02:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar: I am Going