Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 1

message: Usually center in commonwealth English is used to mean the middle of something.
i.e.
The center of the circle is denoted by O.
Usually centre in commonwealth English used to mean a place that is used for one activity.
i.e
We went to the recreation centre.
IMO this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
217.251.122.242 10:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Center vs Centre

message: Some of the changes in American spelling were largely phonemic, while others involved the restoration of "etymologically correct" Latin (or Greek) spellings, often to words which English had borrowed from French (or indirectly, Greek) – color, center, Gk.διαλογος → Fr. couleur, centre, dialogue → British English colour, centre, dialogue.
I took out the centre/center example because I think it is not an illustration of the point the author is trying to make. If I'm not totally off then the etymology is: L. centrum -> Fr. centre (by degradation of final syllables) -> E. centre (taking over the written form, pronunciation then diverges between E. & Fr.) -> center (Websterised). I can't see how center should be any closer to centrum than centre is. BTW I think the whole argument is spurious: it seems to me that Webster did not try to make spelling closer to Latin/Greek but rather tried to simplify it (dialogue became dialog not because of anything Greek but because the -ue is silent).
There should be a justification for the etymology claim, or it should be removed.
217.251.122.242 10:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Latinisation?

message: It would be interesting to note somewhere what is the norm for the spelling here in Wikipedia.
--Staatenloser 19:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be a touchy subject, and I'm not trying to push the American view, but I think that if at all possible, if you are questioning which to use, American spelling would be the best to use, seeing as the US is the largest entity viewing these pages. Am I the only one who thinks this way? Jared 17:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I put up a proposal on the Wikipedia Manual of Style(spelling) talk page to have consistent spelling on all articles.  But nobody seems to like it.Cameron Nedland 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling differences in Wikipedia

message: I thought 'glamour' originated from French...?
I think you're right.Cameron Nedland 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glamour (-or/-our)

message: I was going to insert a period after the "St" in St Pancras railway station, but the lack of punctuation occurs in many places in UK railroad station names.  So now I am wondering if this is just a UK/US English difference? -- Beland 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint

message: I think both are common in the United States. For example, "plough" could refer to the horse-drawn variety, whereas "plow" could refer to more modern ones.
:You are dreadful right, that entry cries out for a usage note. In older literature "plough" was very common; newer "plows" are usually... plows. A "snowplow" would never be a "snowplough," for instance. Thanks for noticing, --JackLumber 13:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So plow is used in Canada. While you're at it, what do Canadian dictionaries (as the Canadian Oxford) say? And, most of all, why do you spell "utilize" utilise? JackLumber 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plough vs Plow

message: The spelling "plow" appears in Cockerams dictionary (1647) and was quite well used for at least another hundred years!
http://library.willamette.edu/project/index.cgi?work=Dict&page1=123v-2
User:RickP 21:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plough vs Plow

message: I have never, ever heard the form snicker to mean "snigger" in the UK. Indeed, when they changed the name of Marathon chocolate bar to Snickers some years ago, to bring it into line with its American name, they played on the fact that snickers means nothing at all in British English, by having people confuse it with sneakers (which itself hardly occurs, of course).
As for mom, whilst it is certainly the preferred American form, it also happens to be the form used in the Brummie dialect of English. TharkunColl 11:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Snicker and mom

message: Is it true that in science the American spelling is used? Certainly the more Greek spelling would be used, being that Greek & Latin names are more common in science.
:Yes, when I was learning chemistry in High School in Australia, the spelling we used is "sulfur" not "sulphur" and the former spelling is also used in our textbooks (published in Oz).  This is probably the case for Canada too. Mark 04:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in highschool right now, my textbook says "Sulphur" (Canada) Sum1else 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sulfur" being the scientific spelling

message: Based on my personal experience, I would say that Mysekurity is right. And our perception turns out to be backed by Webster's 3rd transcription of the pronunciation of this word (legend: å is the vowel of father---when distinguished from that of bother; a is the "flat a"; ä as in bar; ă as in day)
\in the US 'as, 'aa(ə)s, 'ais also 'ås, and sometimes 'ärs euphemistically by speakers who have preconsonantal r and who are aware that there is a spelling "arse"; 'ås in standard British and 'å(r)s or 'ärs or 'ărs or 'ers in British and Scot dialect; in the US the pronunc 'ås occurs chiefly in New England and is there prob more often associated with the spelling "ass" than with "arse"\
Thus, whenever "arse" can be heard in New England, it's actually a pronunciation of ass rather than arse. --JackLumber 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Thanks for that :). IPA makes sense I guess, but I'll have to learn it one day soon too. People more say "arse" in NE as a farce (heh) of "ass", rather than as an actual pronunciation. I think it's safe to delete it. If anyone really wants it in, they can re-add it. -Mysekurity [m!] 14:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait a second. One thing is to remove the "NE comment", which I agree was inappropriate. Quite another was to remove the entire line, which is equivalent to denying that Brits spell the word with an "r". Hence my reversion. PizzaMargherita 14:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, no apologies. I got the wrong end of the stick. I thought  referred to the entire line. I cover myself in petrol and humbly ask you not to light up. (Old Indonesian saying) PizzaMargherita 14:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: S'alright. Hmm "Petrol"... Haven't heard that one in a while.... (Thanks for checking, it's good to see there are more than just assholes in this place). -Mysekurity [m!] 15:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, Merriam dictionaries (unlike other American dictionaries) don't flag "arse" as chiefly Brit., as you might expect. Hey, I hope it's well understood that when I said "based on my personal experience" I didn't mean "based on how many times I was addressed as 'asshole' in New England." JackLumber 20:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ass/Arse

message: The text as written so far suggests that the spelling squalour exists. But I couldn't find that in the online versions of Merriam-Webster, American Heritage and Oxford English Dictionary. They only give the spelling squalor. Shouldn't the text state that squalor is the only correct spelling? — 194.97.234.76 12 May2006 (was unsigned, undated)
:BBC news article with squalour this is from a reporter posted in Russia, so I can only say it isn't in common usage! I'd guess it's wrong. Widefox 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the spelling ''squalour'' exist?

message: Have just added this to the list of miscellaneous spelling differences.  Don't know if any usage comments apply, or if it should fit anywhere else, or if it's really just a misc. difference? -- TrevorD 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments---I'll take care of those ;-) Folk etymology is at work with the British variant... --JackLumber 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Pam Peters (an Australian, btw) says that licorice is commoner than liquorice in Australia. JackLumber, 12:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding this statement: "Licorice, foregrounded by Canadian and Australian dictionaries, is rarely found in the UK; liquorice, which derived from licorice by folk etymology, is nonexistent in the U.S."  I would have thought so too, but on a recent trip to northwestern Montana I saw it on a package (which could have been manufactured in Canada) and on a storefront.  So I changed the statement to "rare in the U.S." BlongerBros 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liquorice / Licorice

message: Hello there, the intro goes
Spelling differences between American English on one side, and British and Commonwealth English on the other are generally more conspicuous than spelling differences within the Commonwealth. For this reason, the term Commonwealth English is used throughout this page to collectively refer to the spelling used in the British Isles and the Commonwealth of Nations, as opposed to American spelling. Differences within Commonwealth usage are duly noted.
However, in the article there is some serious mishmash of both British and Commonwealth. Shouldn't we make this consistent? (I guess change all British->Commonwealth) PizzaMargherita 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch it. Something only applies to British. But I'm gonna remodel the whole schmeer soon, a few points being not completely accurate. See ya, JackLumber, 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth or British?

message: This sounds like an individual's personal opinion, and not something verifiable:
:Some American writers tend to assign wistful, positive connotations to grey, as in "a grey fog hung over the skyline", whereas gray often carries connotations of drabness, "a gray, gloomy day."
For what it is worth, I personally have the opposite connotations with those variants. Savatar 04:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleased to meet you Savatar! The article used to say, "American authors tend to assign..."---and I myself downplayed that assertion, changing it to "some American writers...". For what it's worth, what I think is that gray is the standard American spelling and grey is but a sporadic variant. JackLumber, 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it seems to me that this is unusually verifiable.  If we can find an author who uses both grey and gray, we should reference them and give examples of use of each.  If we can't, we should remove this assertion.  —Blotwell 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grey/Gray

message: In American usage; both "er" and "uh" are used and both have distinct pronucations (at least in General American). In fact it's quite common if even to follow one by the other if even more time to think was needed. In General American, "er" tends to have no discenerable vowel; just a solid wall of "r" while "uh" is prounouced as the article states. Jon 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jon, pleased to meet you. Our mileage may vary, I guess. Uh seems to prevail in transcription of speech (note that I myself added "the British variant is used in the U.S."); but er was "coined" by R-droppers (apparently, Britons; the first recorded use is in the St. James's Magazine) as a pronunciation spelling of the "schwa" or similar vowel. This vowel can be realized in various ways, but the use of the "r" or rhotacized schwa is improper IMO. The er-uh difference is more of a sociolinguistic thing, anyway---it could be as well deleted from this page. JackLumber, 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: er/uh

message: Re this entry:
:hiccup, hiccough || hiccup || Hiccup prevails everywhere; hiccough (folk etymology) is accepted but rare in the U.S.  Irrespective of the spelling the pronunciation is always "hiccup".
'hiccough' is also now rare in the UK. There is no UK/US difference here, so I've deleted it. Ben Finn 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. After all, the OED never liked hiccough. JackLumber. 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiccup

message: Does anyone have history page of why America decided to simplify (See deviant spelling) from its English origin.
:Why? Languages drift over time; it's just a fact of history. Moreover, though I'm no sutdent of linguisitics, I can tell you that the picture is a lot more complicated than "America decided to simplify" - not all US/UK differences are simplifications on the part of the US, and in a lot of cases, it's the Americans who have retained an older usage abandoned by the British, not the other way 'round. So the first piece of advice I'd offer is to ask a more nuanced version of your question. PurplePlatypus 20:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PurplePlatypus, just pay no mind to trolls. This aside, yes, that's where it's at. Historical notes are often provided (see or/our, ize/ise, tire/tyre, skeptical/sceptical, etc.), and I would add more if I had the time.  JackLumber. 13:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English

message: JackLumber's edit summary:
: No Michael—I wrote "dicts. favoring yogourt" just to point out that CanOxf prioritizes it, but yogurt prevails per Cambridge Guide & Canadian Eng.Usage. Ft. some, rm. "colorize" misleading note
Then why not just write that the Canadian Oxford prioritizes the yogourt spelling, while the other two prefer yogurt?  The way it's written it doesn't convey this information at all.  Perhaps this belongs in a footnote.  —Michael Z. 2006-06-27 13:38 Z
:Indeed. The problem is, the Canadian Oxford dictionary foregrounds the "French" yogourt---and I don't know why, since "Canadian English Usage" and "The Cambridge Guide to English Usage" point out (_based on corpus data_) that yogurt prevails (that is, they don't merely "prefer" yogurt). Interestingly, the original (British) Oxford dictionary had yogurt as the main spelling, but it was most likely a typo (yogurt never shows in the quotations!); however, the 2nd edition of the OED still prioritizes yogurt over yoghurt, but in fact yoghurt prevails (and has always prevailed) in Britain. Weird, huh? JackLumber. 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yogourt still prevails in most of Canada (particularly Eastern Canada), though both the British and American spellings are used in newspapers and magazine. Yogourt prevails in the supermakret, however. 198.20.40.50 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always used yogourt, it's even in the supermarkets. I don't 'bout the newspapers and magazines though. Sum1else 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian yogourt

message: I enjoyed reading this article and popped it up as a GAN. The article is informative, readable and helpful. But, for those who like all the boxes to be ticked, it may fail because of lack of referencing and sources. The two main references, of course, are OED and Websters - both of which are listed - though Fowlers and other main souces are not given, merely mentioned in the text. Anyway - see what the Reviewer has to say when the article gets round to being reviewed. SilkTork 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just popped in a few references and a notes section to get things started. Good luck! SilkTork 14:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: "In both forms, complexion (which comes from the stem complex) is standard and complection is not." Is "forms" here a typo for "traditions" or "nations" or similar? As it is, I don't understand the sentence. And while I don't have the OED (or similar) on me now, I'd thought that "complection" was the commoner spelling in the much less usual sense of interweaving, e.g. chrestomathy. 
How about "can not" vs "cannot"? -- Hoary 02:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor niggles

message: Dear 203.94.135.134 (you might want to get establish an account...): if you're going to change something that's been in place for a while, could you try to discuss it here, and give reasons for the change? "Britain" generally means the bigger of the two British Isles, while the UK includes Northern Ireland, and, for a while, also included the entirety of Ireland (when "UK" was short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "Britain" seems to me like a more sensible choice here. Could you explain why you disagree? Thanks. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-14 16:05 (UTC)
:In normal usage "Britain" tends to be synonymous with the "UK", and is regularly used as such by everyone, including the government. If you wanted to refer specifically to the island, you would say "Great Britain". I know this sounds illogical - inasmuch as "Britain" refers to a larger area than "Great Britain" - but that's how it's used. TharkunColl 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See further at User talk:203.94.135.134. Likewise, "North American" usually refers to a larger area than "American." (But note that "America" includes "North America," not the other way around!) Why? American (U.S.) imperialism and all that jazz... JackLumber. 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, the term 'Britain' is short for 'Great Britain' the largest island of the British Isles, and excludes most of the other islands — not part of the constitute countries of England, Scotland and Wales — surrounding it such as Ireland and the Isle of Man.  However, it also says that administratively both the terms 'Britain' and 'Great Britain' are synonymous with 'UK' which includes Northern Ireland and all the other smaller islands surrounding it, except the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.  I tend to agree with what Britannica says about this, so therefore 'Britain', 'Great Britain' and 'UK' can be used interchangeably.  Is it really a big deal if a user changes Britain to UK or Vice-versa? I highly doubt it. If we want this encyclopaedia to be respected, perhaps we should use what is used in offical documents, etc. But anyway, all the best. Cheers. -- 203.164.189.167 08:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what the Encyclopædia Britannica says, then it is wrong. "Britain" is synonymous with "UK", but "Great Britain" refers to the island. This is how the terms are used in contemporary Britain. But you are right to say that Britain and the UK are interchangeable - which one prefers must depend on stylistic considerations. TharkunColl 09:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is definitely what Encyclopædia Britannica says and perhaps you and others who have made your determination above have done so on wrong assumptions and/or information. At least the term 'Britain' means both the largest island of the British Isles and the UK itself as a whole. -- 203.164.189.167 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, what TharkunColl says is what style guides say, including Pam Peters's. In *modern* usage, Britain != Great Britain. I have never used Great Britain to mean "United Kingdom," in this article or elsewhere. JackLumber. 20:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are probably right that 'Great Britain' does not equal 'UK', but after reading through some other modern encyclopaedias they tend not to agree on this matter, some say Great Britain = UK, whilst others say Great Britain != UK, but they do agree with each other that Britain does equal both Great Britain and UK, and say that 'Britain' is short for 'Great Britain'. Even though you never equate Britain for Great Britain there are people who do, such as myself, but I do know of other people who do too; this does not make it wrong or incorrect, just different from you. But this discussion is about whether Britain or UK is better to use. If this article is to be taken seriously then UK would be the better choice, and also the use of citations for contentious issues to be used.  Also why not use America for United States? Because in the English language 'America' is short for 'United States of America', but it is also means the whole landmass that the US and other surrounding countries are apart of. I think if you use 'UK' then 'U.S.' should be used, but if you use 'Britain' then 'America' should be used (but only informally and not in an encyclopaedia). This is only logical, and would make the article more pleasing to read. -- 203.164.189.103 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which part of Ireland? If Northern Ireland, then obviously you are in the UK, which is very commonly (if informally) called Britain. If the Republic, then you are not in Britain at all, just the British Isles. TharkunColl 06:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is certainly only one Ireland, but a large chunk of it is part of the UK because that's how the majority of its population want it at the moment. I'm not saying that Britain doesn't mean the island also known as Great Britain, because it does. But in informal usage, "Britain" is also used as a synonym for the UK. Illogical yes, but language is not a mathematical formula. And on the subject of illogicalities, at the Olympic games the UK team goes under the name "GBR", and its international driving licence plate code is "GB". Don't ask me why, but that's the way it is. TharkunColl 12:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition of the word 'nation' is probably a bit more complex than you presume. Without having checked this very thorougly, and quite ready to withdraw it later, I would probably argue that England may be considered a nation, though it is certainly not a national state. This distinction is often confused. A 'nation' is 'an imagined community' and the term could be applied with some justification to England, which has several of the defining features of a nation, such as a flag, a football team and so on. A state, on the other hand, or a national state, is an administrative unit that excerts sovereign power over a territory. Thus, e.g., United Nations really isn't an organization of nations, but of national states. Emil 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "UK" vs "Britain"

message: It would seem to me (as an American, btw) that the usage of disc and disk no longer depend so much on one's nationality as on the thing being described. As the article states, optical storage mediums are spelled disc and magnetic storage is spelled disk. Mathmaticians call them disks and biologists call them discs. For this reason, I suggest that the section be removed. I would have done it myself, but I wanted to make sure that someone British agreed with me too ;) --Mark Yen 06:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scenario is very complex and the entry needs either cleanup/expansion, as the embedded HTML comment I put there a few days ago suggests, or... yes, removal, as you suggest. Music & computing aside, American usage is divided. And British usage seems to be divided too.  Long story short, both spellings are widely used in both countries.  (Sorry for not being British ;-)  JackLumber. 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being British, I have to say that I'm never sure how that word is spelt in any context and will randomly spell it either way, possibly even in the same paragraph. TharkunColl 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford English Dictionary (1989): "The earlier and better [sic] spelling is disk, but disc is now the more usual form in British English, except in sense 2g, where disk is commoner as a result of US influence." (Sense 2g is the computing sense.) Things of changed, though.  The Columbia Guide to AmE (1993) is outdated in this respect.  Look it up in any modern style guide, you'll read a one-page paragraph and then you'll probably say, "huh?" According to Merriam-Webster, disk and disc are equally acceptable, disk being commoner, but disc _usually_ used for "a phonographical record," the farm implement, and an "optical disK" (yes, it reads usually disc: OPTICAL DISK---go figure!)  Yet according to present-day British dictionaries disk is _the_ spelling in computing and a U.S. variant (Oxford, "disc, U.S. also disk"; Chambers, "disc, especially U.S. disk") in all other senses.  And what about the distinction between a compact disc and a compact disk? Oh, and disc brake is more frequent than disk brake in both British and American English.  Have you had enough or should I continue ;-)  JackLumber. 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disc/disk

message: I started this project in the hopes of avoiding edit wars, etc. (Shortcut: WP:REDS). While these discussionas have taken place here, it seems better to do it on an independent project because it also takes place at MoS, NAME, etc., and this talk page is, after all for an article, not for a policy discussion. SB Johnny 11:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New project (Regional English, shortcut: [[WP:REDS]])

message: The article mentions that some Commonwealth spellings ("Centre", "Theatre", etc.) are increasingly used in the U.S. It should be pointed out that, for the most part, these spellings are actually used to look more "foreign," not because Americans are increasingly seeing these spellings as "American." For example, the use of "Centre" in the naming of a building or other place, this is normally intended to imply "European sophistication." This is similar to cases where America might be spelled Amerika to refer to German or Russian influences in the U.S (e.g. the miniseries from years ago about Russia conquering the U.S.). This spelling would really be a euphimism but would not be considered proper spelling. In the same way the use of British spellings in the U.S. is generally more euphimistic than anything else. Although it can be argued that the more these "euphimisms" are used the more they will start to be considered "proper," today these spellings are still almost universally considered incorrect in the U.S. even when they are used. MCorazao., 26 July 2006
:<< The article mentions that some Commonwealth spellings ("Centre", "Theatre", etc.) are increasingly used in the U.S.
::Where did you read that?!? Not in this article, that's for sure.  Centre is used but in some toponyms; theatre has wide currency, at least among professionals, for historical reasons (cf. Broadway Theatre).  JackLumber. 14:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influx of Commonwealth spellings to U.S.

message: What does "Canada as U.S." mean?
 —jwandersTalk 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Means that our northern brothers spell the same as we do.Cameron Nedland 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada as U.S.

message: I don't really understand this part. It says "(Thus American spelling treats -l the same as other final consonants, whereas Commonwealth spelling treats it irregularly.) This is incorrect. The word is "swimming" in both dialects, not "swiming", so AmE doesn't treat -l the same as final consonants. The doubled letter is to differentiate between words with the "magic e" and words without. So "equalling" has no magic e, whereas "equaling" looks like it may do. Thus "hand-written" and "hand-writing", not hand-writen. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Suffixes

message: I heard "penquin" somewhere and I typed it in google and some sites use the "q" but is it an old commonwealth spelling?
:What's the other spelling?Cameron Nedland 14:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, an amazing number of Google hits for "penquin"! But they look like commercial sites which are playing on words, plus a fair sprinkling of simple typos. I don't think there is any etymological justification for the Q spelling, and no, it isn't an old spelling of penguin, in the commonwealth or anywhere else.  Snalwibma 18:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penquin

message: I'm not sure, but would "racket" vs. "racquet" qualify for the list of varying American and British spellings? I know both are correct, but is one preferred more than the other in these places?
:I know that "racquet" is rare or almost unknown in Canada& the US. I dunno if it's true but I think that both are acceptable in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth, though racquet is preffered and both are widly (and probably equally) at use in the Commonwealth (with the exception of Canada which only uses racket). Sum1else 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tennis Terminology

message: "Note that not all spellings are interchangeable; some verbs take the -z- form exclusively, for instance capsize, seize (except in the legal phrase to be seised of/to stand seised to), size and prize (only in the "appraise" sense), whereas others take only -s-: advertise, advise, apprise, arise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disguise, and televise. Finally, the verb prise (meaning to force or lever) is spelled prize in the U.S. and prise everywhere else, including Canada."
More of these words don't originally come from Greek words ending "izein" through the Latin "-izare" ending so why are they part of this section?
:Well, I guess I'll move it if you can find a source...Cameron Nedland 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add one more remark about one "-ise must", if I may: circumcise. I've seen it written as "circumsize", which I take to be a _very_ poor attempt at irony. (Also, "televise" is an oddity, being another one of those mixed language bastards: "tele" from the Greek + "videre" from the Latin. May its originator - who was German, I think - rot in some suitable purist hell! As may the medic who came up with "neonate" ...) But if you want a source for the Greek/Latin origin distinction, I can do no better than to point you at Eric Partridge's "Usage and Abusage". His gloss on the matter is that, if the word comes *directly* from the Latin, use -ise; otherwise, -ize is preferable. (Example: "excise", from Latin ex- + caedere; but "realize" has no (direct) Latin origin.) (He also makes an exception for words with a "y", such as "analyse" - without explanation.) This is, in essence, exactly what I was taught at school, in the 1960s (in Britain, by the way), and explains the forms which I personally use and prefer. (Note also: it's a guard against laziness - in a certain way!)  Hair Commodore 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: more on IZE

message: what? I've NEVER seen/heard that in the States.
:Me neither.Cameron Nedland 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: complected

message: Are spellings like Jon/John and Elizabeth/Elisabeth based at all on what country they come from?Cameron Nedland 13:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Snalwibma 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: I'm sure that's a common spelling difference. Sum1else 14:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I don't know if it's based on nationality.Cameron Nedland 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doughnut vs Donut

message: People have been throwing RVV into edit summaries.  I you to WP:VAND, in particular:
----
===Types of vandalism===
;Improper use of dispute tags: Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.
===What vandalism is not===
;Bullying or Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.
----
Let's all count to ten and go to our happy places. jnestorius(talk) 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: ;Bullying or Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.
----
Let's all count to ten and go to our happy places. jnestorius(talk) 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What vandalism is not

message: As a Brit, I've always used "blonde" for a woman and "blond" for a man - reflecting the French origin of these words. I have seen US usage utterly confused over these words: somehow, it rankles to see a man with light-colo(u)red hair called "blonde".
Comments?
Hair Commodore 20:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "as a Brit" is the right opening. "As someone who believes rather strongly that etymology should guide usage" seems more appropriate to your position. Nor is "confused" the right word (unless one assumes the correctness of your position on the normative role of etymology in orthography -- a position which is not at all weird, of course!). Nor is U.S. usage appreciably different from British, at least according to all of my dictionaries. --Truth About Spelling 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point(s) taken! I have no problem over the etymological/orthographical point. However, my point about US practice is based on observation of actual printed usage, rather than dictionaries. Hence, I note the (inevitable?) prescriptive/descriptive divide. If you insist, I shall (sic!) substitute "inconsistent" for "utterly confused" ... and I remain - inevitably - British! Hair Commodore 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my case, at least, the "confusion" is simply ignorance.  I'm a well-educated and reasonably well-read American, but in all my life I somehow never managed, until a month or so ago, to come across the tidbit that "blonde" and "blond" were different, and why.  It doesn't seem to be a well-known fact on this side of the pond. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Far be it from me to make anyone describe themselves as ignorant! (When I added this remark originally, I was thinking about the erstwhile (still living?) American commentator who called himself "Doctor HipPocrates", who wrote of a "blond assistant" (meaning, in my terms, "blonde") - and, no: I do not remember the exact reference, unfortunately ...) Hair Commodore 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a well educated, well read, incredibly smart Hun and ill-mannered aber sehr ordentlicher Kraut I have always thought 'blond' was the adjective used for f. and m. alike (the gender is not mirrored in adjectives in Eng.) and 'blonde' a noun describing fem. blond people, sim. to 'brunette'. Take a look here. Since I'm right, it's irelevant here. We should stick to the dictionaries. INTERNAZI 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blond/blonde 

message: This talk page is, I hope, on the general matters of spelling and punctuation differing between English users on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.
I have noticed that, especially in recent years, there has been a tendency (not only in American publications) to capitalize letters after a colon. (Yes - Americans do use colons, and not just for alimentary purposes.) Unless there is some other (/a fortiori/) reason for using a capital (such as the next clause starting with "I", or a personal or company name), surely a colon is merely a means of subdivision of clauses within a sentence, and hence capitals are not needed. To my way of thinking, such usage is solecistic.  Alfista inglese 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 14th ed, 1993, section 5.103. Maybe I need to invest in a newer edition. I won't quote the whole section (though I will if you ask me to) - suffice to say for now that it gives three examples, two with a capital letter after the colon and one without. In British English I don't think a capital would be used in any of the three cases. Anyway - in my experience, many (most? maybe - but I never said "all"!) American authors (in the life sciences) routinely use a capital letter after a colon, and as an editor preparing their texts for publication I routinely knock them down to lowercase. Snalwibma 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital letters after a colon 

message: Why do Americans spell everything so differently - is this for spelling ease?  I really want to know. Elevenzeroonnechat / what i've done / [me] 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why don't you just read the article?!  JackLumber.  22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the differences?