Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)/Archive 3

message: The long-awaited transfer of the rewrite into the live version has finally happened!  For those of you who haven't been following the rewrite, you'll notice that there are three columns of meanings: BrE, common and AmE.
Notice also that consistency has been restored to some stylistic conventions:
* part of speech is indicated, where necessary, by "(noun)", "(verb)", etc. not by the more awkward "to" prefix that crept into the old version
* UK and US, rather than U.K. and U.S. or a hopeless mix of the two
Wishing the new layout a long, prosperous and tidy future.... -- Smjg 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to the rewrite! 

message: This was suggested on the List of British words not widely used in the United States talk page, but it could belong here. I'm quite sure the "attactive female" usage does not exist in the US, but what about the cake made from flour or potato and yeast?--Adzz 05:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a tidbit. But it's pretty much at home on the British list, since it's part and parcel of British cuisine & culture. And it's a good example of a word that assumes a new meaning in the country where it's more commonly used; a similar American example would be cookie (for the transfer of meaning, not for the cake).  JackLumber, 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crumpet

message: Perhaps an American could write an entry about phrases like, "I got to 3rd base with her last night" commonly heard US Teen comedies etc. There is no such usage in Britain.--Adzz 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JackLumber, 12:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Base

message: Shouldn't "casualty" be added to the list? When the London bombing occurred last year, I kept getting confused. US reports were saying that there were only about 19 "casualties" whereas the BBC kept referring to over 100 "casualties". I was later told that in England "casualty" means "wounded", whereas here in the US it means "killed". -- Andrew Parodi 11:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish it were as simple as that... I guess it's a tricky usage issue. Even in the U.S. "casualty" is not necessarily "killed," but check out how I laid the entry.--JackLumber 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, thanks for the tip. Sorry for being ugly with you. --JackLumber 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Casualty"

message: This is an ugly Americanism that I thought of (as I posted elsewhere) as fully established in Britain. But thinking it over, I'm not so sure anymore. To sum up, this verb roughly has 3 meanings in the U.S.: in order of appearance, 1) to produce or manufacture (an item, as a car) in a smaller size; 2) to reduce the size (of a business, corporation, etc.); also used intransitively ("the company had to downsize"); 3) (this is really outrageous) to fire from employment. "1000 employees were downsized." (it doesn't mean, "1000 employees were put on a diet." Actually it does, to some extent...) Akin to British "make redundant."  I don't have many "natural" examples of senses 1) & 3) in British data; and even Smjg looked uncomfortable a couple years ago---so? --JackLumber 13:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think of it as an Americanism as you say, but that doesn't mean it isn't used here (UK). I am familiar with only meaning 2.  I have seen outrageous meaning 3, but only in the US! TrevorD 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have confirmed my suspicions. While we're at it, tell me about the British currency of this couple of American "euphemisms" for "fire"/"sack": rightsize (itself an euphemism for downsize, appeared 15/20 years ago) and terminate ("Gray Davis has terminated jobs... has terminated dreams... has terminated opportunities... and now it's time to terminate him" --- Arnold Schwarzenegger - Note: I don't live in California, so this is not a political commentary, just a quotation :)--JackLumber 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downsize 

message: A while ago I asked what the driving age in the US is.  The reply: "Here, you have to be 16 to get a driver’s license and 15 to get a learning permit."  I haven't looked up the extent to which the age varies from state to state, but this suggests a difference between the UK and US uses of the term.
Here in the UK, it's usually "driving licence" rather than "driver's licence", though I've come across the latter term over here a few times.  There are two kinds: a provisional licence, which is for people who are learning to drive, and a full licence, which is for qualified drivers.  It would appear that US "driver's license" = UK "full driving licence" and US "learning permit" = UK "provisional driving licence".  Is my inkling correct? -- Smjg 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except that it's usually called "learner's permit" (or sometimes improperly "driver's permit"). Rules vary from state to state—but with "Graduating Licensing Systems" you may have to face three stages, namely learner's permit, intermediate/provisional license, and regular/full license. On the flipside, some states don't even have a "learner's permit." Guess I've confused you even more, huh? --JackLumber 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added entries to both lists - please check them. TrevorD 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver's licence/license 

message: What do you Americans understand by the term?  I seem to have come across three definitions:
# a sausage of any kind together with a long roll in which it is served
# a kind of sausage, similar to a frankfurter
# such a sausage together with a long roll in which it is served
Definition 1 is the normal UK meaning. -- Smjg 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usu. don't eat hot dogs myself (you know I live on journey cake), but I'd say 3 & 2. A roll with a wiener or frankfurter in it, but also a wiener or frankfurter. Btw, in the U.S. a "hot dog" is also one (as a skier, also a surfer) who shows off---also a verb, to "hotdog." --JackLumber 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot dog 

message: While in the UK (or is that "whilst"?) I sometimes heard the term "spotty", as in "spotty teenager", meaning afflicted with acne, whereas in the US this particular usage is completely unknown.  --Mark Taylor 05:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spotty

message: Someone really financially savvy is needed to figure this out. British and American usages of these terms doubtlessly differ. For example, shares of stock seems to be an American idiom; the British make little use of the word stockholder, but, unlike Americans, can have money in shares.  JackLumber, 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no financial expert, but in the UK stocks refer to bonds, usually government bonds, but also bonds issued by banks. I would wait for someone with financial knowledge as I a not sure if this is the only meaning. -- Chris Q 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Chris. This by itself would warrant an entry on the list, that meaning not being used in the U.S.; we put in stocks the money you put in shares. --JackLumber, 20:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stock, share

message: Tender basically means "offer" (as "to tender one's resignation"). But I would guess that the British use this word more often than the Americans, especially when referring to the process of (what we call) competitive bidding, request for proposal (or request/advertisement for bids, bid notice, etc., depending on the actual context)---that is, when someone puts a contract out to bid. Is it just an impression, or there is a terminology difference indeed?--JackLumber 12:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tender

message: Does US use "plant" to mean heavy machinery as in road sign "Heavy Plant Crossing"? TrevorD 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No---that sign indeed can cause everything from amusement to bewilderment to Americans in Britain, as it would actually mean (to us) that some giant perambulating vegetable is about to cross the road... speaking of plants, the power station article suggests that power station is preferred over power plant in the Commonwealth---the ratio in the British National Corpus is 6.44 : 1. JackLumber 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plant 

message: Is "anorak" used in the US for (1) a jacket, or (2) a person? TrevorD 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) not so much, parka enjoys much more use---although there probably is a distinction, and anorak suggests one (2) no, that's British slang, also acknowledged by the OED. I don't know whether the assertion in that article is correct or not, but I would put this word in the British pail, pointing out that meaning (1) has some currency in the U.S. and meaning (2) doesn't. --JackLumber 12:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, "anorak" has a specialized meaning in America, specifically a kind of hooded, rainproof outerwear that lacks a full-length zipper in the front, and thus is pull-over.  Clearly in Britain it means any parka-like outer garment, and by extension the dweebs that wear them. -- Gnetwerker 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, I feel the heat and usu. don't need a parka---luckily there's someone anorak-savvy out there, and luckily I don't live in California or Florida. --JackLumber 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a hooded, rainproof outerwear that lacks a full-length zipper in the front is called a "cagoule" in the UK. I remember I had a bright orange one when I was about 10 years old, it had a zipped pocket in the front which you could fold the cagoule into. LDHan 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anorak 

message: Is the word "thick" used in the US to mean stupid, as it is in the UK and other Commonwealth countries? if not it should probably be on the list... Grutness...wha? 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd say left column + asterisk. I don't have the time to do it myself now. JackLumber, 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thick

message: The recent additinn of agree doesn't make sense. Both meanings are the same except in one case people are agreeing and in the other it is things that are agreeing, but in either case as a Brit I would happily use and understand the word in both cases. Jooler 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was misled by the fact that this page now had three columnms. Last time I looked it only had two. So the suggesttion is the to "agree on terms" isn't used in the US. Well a quick Google suggests otherwise. In any case I don't think that any entry that has a blank space in either the far left or far right columns should be on this page. They should either be on List of words mainly used in American English (link updated to List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom because of proposed deletion of redirect page - TrevorD 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You was also misled by something else. Agree on terms (INTRANSITIVE) IS used in the U.S. Agree terms (TRANSITIVE) IS UNIQUELY, or at least, chiefly British. The guy who added that entry is an American English speaker that can even use and understand British English; you don't understand the American English language, do you ;-) (BTW AmE is not a "language," it's a dialect.) But regarding the second half of your second paragraph, you are probably right; that would spare ourselves the pain of writing down a load of (basically) useless information every time. That way, if a Brit looked up, say, "range" in the List of words mainly used in American English (link updated to List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom because of proposed deletion of redirect page - TrevorD 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thinking it over, I'd say... yessiree. "To agree on something" suggests achievement of harmony or understanding ("I hope we agree on this issue"). In British usage, "to agree something" seems to mean "to arrange, to decide" ("The Committee agreed their final report")  or even "to bring to an end" ("to agree a quarrel"). And while we're at it, "at the end of the day" is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO British, and it's amazingly recent (1970's)---that is, if you and I were visiting together, and you said "at the end of the day," well, that would be veddy British of you. We have coined an endless array of idioms, why use British ones? (Hey, I'm  1/2 kidding...) JackLumber 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: Dearest Jack ("I'm a Lumberjack") Lumbermanyard, from whence do you determine that the verb sense of lumber ("to encumber") is primarily Brit?  My venerable Webster's New World lists "to fill or obstruct with useless articles" and marks it not as a Britishism (nor does it mark the storeroom sense (from Lombard a pawnshop term) that way, though I've never heard that in the U.S.).  It would appear that the name for cut-up trees was back-formed from the storage room sense (displacing it in the U.S.), while the "move heavily" sense (from Middle English/Old Norse lomeran, similar to Swedish lomra "resound" or loma "walk heavily) has crossed with "fill or obstruct" to get to "encumber".  What say you? -- Gnetwerker 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even dearer Netwoika, the whole story is tangled. A Lombard was basically one running a hockshop; the useless articles to be stored away in a lumber room were primarily furniture; hence probably came "lumber" in the "timber" sense. The verb "lumber" in the "move heavily" sense goes way back (14th century), but the "encumber" sense didn't show until 1642. The first recorded use of the noun "lumber" dates back to 1552, but, surprisingly enough, "lumber room" appeared first only in 1741, 14 years after the commoner "storeroom." Thus, these dates are consistent with your theory. As far as the Briticism part... just to come clean, my even more venerable three-volume Webster's Third Unabridged 1986 hardcopy has no regional indicators either for lumber (encumber) or for lumber room, and additionally has a quotation by Marilyn Stasio ("plan to lumber the tiny town with a giant ski resort"). But newer American Heritage and Oxford Concise Dictionary stick "chiefly Brit." tags in front of these meanings; I believe they gradually obsolesced in North America around, or soon after, the middle of the 20th century. That's why I put an asterisk beside the British meaning. I even googled "was lumbered with" or something similar to catch a glimpse of present currency (yes, lexicographers usually employ other methods...), and all of the matches I got were actually Britspeak.--JackLumber 19:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll buy it.  I tend to be polluted by travel and marriage (my language, that is), so my own lack of remark at "being lumbered" is not in itself dispositive.  Also, as I am somewhat aged (by Wikipedia standards), I can actually still remember parts of "soon after the middle of the 20th century". -- Gnetwerker 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ay, days o' auld lang syne.--JackLumber 06:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumber 

message: Donner Kebab's seem to be highly amusing to American's, at leat those from the South-western states. My wife (from the US) always takes photos of Donner Kebab shops back to the States to show her friends, and they all laugh about having a Donner Party. -- Chris Q 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Always thought the (kebab) spelling was "donnar" but ...) Here in Portland, OR, there is a a storefront just outside of town, owned for generations by ... wait for it ... the Wanker family.  It has a prominent sign saying "Wanker's Corner".  Whenever my (Irish) wife's family members and visiting friends go there to have their picture taken, someone inevitably steps out and says "You're English (sic) aren't ya?". -- Gnetwerker 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donner what? I live on yankee cornbread and I'm more than happy.--JackLumber 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen many varuiations on the spelling, the Döner kebab article gives döner, doner, donner, or donair, but donnar is also quite common. I came accross Wankers Corner, Oregon in [Place names considered unusual (previous version)], though this has now been cut down to only a few entries. -- Chris Q 07:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess I didn't get the "donner kebab" reference until I looked up the article. But then again, all of these are corruptions of the Turkish döner, which had the advantage of sounding vaguely German, when in 1971 a Turkish snack bar owner on Kottbusser Damm in Berlin had the bright idea of adding cabbage to it. ('Twas the most important moment in postwar German culinary history.) However, outside the German- and Turkish-speaking world, the name döner seems to invite people to re-spell it. ProhibitOnions 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  donner kebab (a bit of trivia) 

message: I would say that the liquid measure form (along with hogshead and others) has fallen into disuse in Americay -- don't know about UK.  And it's not to be confused with butte ("It's not a butte, it's a mound!" ... "Right purty, too").  I know it doesn't belong here, but I always enjoyed the phrase "Glasgow kiss", synonymous with the (head) butt form. -- Gnetwerker 18:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually agree. "Butt" as "large cask" goes way back; "butt" as (specifically) "unit of liquid capacity" has different interpretations, and I forgot to mention it. "Glasgow kiss" is dreadful fun! Are Scots really so gentle? And btw, thanks for reminding me of "butte"---I'm gonna slot it in the List of words mainly used in AmE in a NY minute.--JackLumber 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Smjg, why did you move "butt"(ocks) to the middle column? Tell ya what, I created the entry just because "butt"(ocks) was in the List of words mainly used in AmE (erroneously, as it has many other shared meanings.) But all of my sources consider it "U.S./N.Amer. slang/informal" (not even chiefly or mainly). (But the weirdest thing is the verb butt. Butt in and butt out are perfectly complementary terms in America, but butt out seems to be rarely used in Britain. Perhaps there's no need for such a word in UK, because British people only butt in and never butt out...? Hey, just a theory.)--JackLumber 14:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I thought butt in/out had to do with the verb to butt, as in headbutt, etc., not with the slang word for buttocks, which is amply filled in the UK by bum although not unknown. Perhaps "butt out" is less common because other phrases such as "Get lost" or "Sod off" are more likely... ProhibitOnions 21:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yessiree Prohibit, butt in/out came from to butt, but (not butt) the article has no pretense of being etymologically exhaustive (yet); "butt in" was first recorded in 1900 and "butt out" in 1906.  I'd say bum : arse = butt : ass. Bum (as in buttocks) dates as back as C14—one of those old words that for some reason never really made their way across the pond.--JackLumber 19:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Butt, Butte, Glasgow Kiss

message: I would have understood an optometrist as one that measures people's eyesight and prescribes spectacles, but doesn't necessarily sell them as well.  Though CALD mysteriously claims it's an Americanism, and the only establishment I can think of that calls itself "optometrists" is one that does sell them as well, usually called an ophthalmic optician AIUI.  An optician may be either an ophthalmic optician or a dispensing optician, i.e. one that merely sells the glasses.  An ophthalmologist is something different again: a doctor who specialises in ailments of the eye.
(OK, so I can imagine that some would deal in contact lenses as well....) -- Smjg 13:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ophthalmology and Optician articles give a good explaination. Ophtalmic optician and dispensing optician are veddy British terms. I guess that my optician is your dispensing optician and your ophthalmic optician is my optometrist; ophthalmology (spelling reformers, where have you gone?) and optometry are 2 different things. The word optometrist is in fact an Americanism, but it's "Orig. U.S." for the OED, "Chiefly N.Amer." for Compact Oxford, and nothing at all for Oxford Advanced Learner's. Doh! -- Hey Smjg, why don't you help me categorize the meanings of "grade" (above)?--JackLumber 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds right to me, but maybe I should post a message on alt.usage.english and see what they think. -- Smjg 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feels like the word causing trouble is actually optician, not optometrist. Yes, optometrist is different from ophthalmologist in America, but—according to my sources and to your word—the distinction exists in Britain too (where you possibly substitute ophthalmic optician for optometrist). Thus I inserted "optician" and  commented out "optometrist," until we properly figure it out.--JackLumber 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Smjg, you have forgotten the first rule of the Internet: the best way to get the right answer is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong answer. :-) -- Gnetwerker 15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optometrist 

message: BrE slate (n.) = a criticism. 
Is there any evidence for this? Surely a criticism is a slating, not a slate. Examples:
*In IMDb's summary of movie critics' reactions, it's getting a slating
*Cage receives a slating for directorial debut
*Genie got a slating after Christmas for its poor service
Picapica 10:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I got evidence. Slate is a professional term for a severe criticism. Quotation date .... 1887. Pretty archaic, huh? Sorry, I was a tad drowsy when I edited that entry. I'm going to fix it in no time. Thanks for the tip, magpie. --JackLumber 12:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slate 

message: I note the new entry is draft.  My initial comments:
1. I would have put "motor vehicle for carrying heavy cargo" in the US column with an asterisk.
2. In qualifing the above, I would have put "(UK usually lorry)"
3. I think of "truck" as usually referring to a pick-up truck or similar, and certainly an open (as distinct from covered) motor vehicle, probably usually a lighter / smaller vehicle (like a pick-up truck!)
4. What do you mean by "any of various vehicles for carrying esp. things"?  Do you mean as distinct from people?  A truck may carry animals.  Or did  you mean something else?
-- TrevorD 13:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I purposefully decided to be kinda vague ("any of various"...), pointing out just the most conspicuous differences, trying to devise a catch-all definition---many, many thingamajigs can be named "trucks" indeed. I'll do further research. JackLumber 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the phrase "having no truck with x", meaning having nothing to do with x? Common; or just British? WLD 18:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point, WLD---From the original meaning of the word (that is, barter). Although OALD labels it "British," this idiom is used in American English as well. I'm going to search my corpora---if it really appears to be more common in British usage, then it can stand an * in the left column. --JackLumber 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truck 

message: Can anyone provide a citation for the (purported) American use of "interval" to mean "intervale"?  It does not occur in my dictionary (though "intervale" does). -- Gnetwerker 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wondered that, when I noticed it doesn't appear in my dictionary (Chambers) (though "intervale" does). Maybe it's just a common misspelling? -- TrevorD 20:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's probably a bit of a stretch but I absolutely wanted a reference to "intervale"... The spelling interval is actually not so common nowadays, but it's recorded by both the OED and Webster's III, with examples.--JackLumber 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My wording was 'strongly influenced' by Chambers - but I certainly wouldn't have used such a long string of adjectives as you - and of course I intentionally spelt storey the British way.  (I assume 3 storeys means the same in UK & US, even tho' '3rd floor' doesn't?) -- TrevorD 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to floor numbering international communication issues (!), both words floor and stor(e)y have a caveat. Floor has different meanings, stor(e)y only different spellings; in sum, stor(e)y is to be preferred---and this is the conclusion that Pam Peters herself draws.--JackLumber, 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: More: The original Webster (1828), definition of interval: ...5. A tract of low or plain ground between hills, or along the banks of rivers,usually alluvial land enriched by the overflowings of rivers, or by fertilizing deposits of earth from the adjacent hills. [De. Belknap writes this intervale; I think improperly.] --JackLumber 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack, there must come a point when a reference is just too archaic.  Perhaps this is one? -- Gnetwerker 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noah regarded intervale as improper also because he just wanted to "keep it simple" (he had even proposed tung for tongue...). W3 doesn't prefer one spelling over the other, defining both by cross-reference to bottom. You can even find a few examples on the Internet, even in Canada. OTOH, intervale smells like folk etymology (a blend of interval and vale); but the OED says, ...It is not clear whether the association with vale, valley, was, in the first place, one of popular etymology, favoured perhaps by the partial survival of the old variant form in -vale . . ., or whether this was in New England a natural development of the sense, arising from the fact that the chief intervals in the primaeval forest were the bottoms of the river valleys, and giving rise to an association with vale. . . It is possible that both principles operated together; and it is to be noted that, in this specific sense, intervale has not, even in American use, ousted interval. That being said, it's probably not a crime if someone (other than me, ça va sans dire) removes it. --JackLumber, 12:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interval 

message: I'm not sure that a jumble sale is equivalent to a garage / yard sale.
A jumble sale is specifically a charity fund-raising event and usually lots of people (maybe anything from say 20 - 100 or more) give items for sale.  It's usually held in a community hall or similar, and people often pay a small admission fee.  Sometimes people will buy things just to help the charity, not because they want the item!
I thought (and of course I may be wrong) that a garage / yard sale is usually a private sale of unwanted goods to raise money for the seller?  This seems to be borne out by the articles on jumble sale and garage sale (nothwithstanding that the garage sale article equates it to a jumble sale!)
Our closest to that is probably a car-boot sale or table-top sale, where people hire a space or table to sell items privately. -- TrevorD 13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flea market? -- Gnetwerker 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, I got it. Jumble sale ≈ rummage sale. Huh? --JackLumber, 20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumble sale 

message: I've deleted the entry for "socialist" as I don't believe that in the UK it specifically means  "a member of the Labour Party" - and that meaning isn't borne out by my BrE dictionary.  A member of the Labour Party may well be described as a socialist, but that would be a comment on their (apparent) political beliefs rather than their party membership.
And the US meaning (as amended by Gnetwerker) is equally valid in the UK. -- TrevorD 11:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socalist 

message: Q. from JackL.: "Btw, is CONCIERGE used in Britain in this sense?"
:Yes. -- TrevorD 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concierge 

message: This means a hiding place or the thing hid in Britain too, but it is usually always in reference to pornography. I'm not sure how the article should be changed to accomodate this.--Adzz 07:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that UK has the meaning of "a thing hid" (not sure about "hiding place"), but I disagree that "it is usually always in reference to pornography" (what's "usually always"? - it's either usually or always!).  It could be in reference to money or liquor hidden away.  -- TrevorD 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also thought about moving at least some of it to the middle column - but do we use it to mean the hiding place itself rather than the thing hidden?  I don't think I've come across that. -- TrevorD 11:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stash

message: I have deleted "(Chiefly S. England)" added by Adzz because it was not clear whether this was intended to refer to the usage of "pants" or "briefs". -- TrevorD 23:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to "pants". In the North we say "pants" to mean "trousers" (hence the asterisk added to AmE) the "underpants" usage is almost exclusive to the South (and yes, it does cause confusion). How should the article be changed to reflect this unambiguously?--Adzz 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refute that this is "usage is almost exclusive to the South". Certainly in Leeds and Bradford "Trousers" is the norm, though in Leeds "pants" seems to be used fairly frequently. -- Chris Q 10:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that we don't say "trousers" at all in the North, my claim is that "pants" means "underpants" mainly in the South.--Adzz 11:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pants is certainly used to mean underpants frequently in the Leeds/Bradford area. -- Chris Q 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this also be generational? -- TrevorD 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, 'US' usage was all I knew for most of my childhood. These comments lead me to believe it must be very regional, perhaps confined only to Manchester. How very odd.--Adzz 05:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pants

message: 1. I've never heard offices used to mean "the outbuildings and dependencies of a dwelling", altho' I concede that Chambers has a similar definition.  I would think that this applies only to old, large estate houses, not just any old "dwelling".
2. Do you use "office" to refer to an individual room within a firm's offices, e.g. "the boss's office", meaning the boss's room?
3. I noticed your spelling of practise (v.), which is what I always thought was the US spelling, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) gives practice (n. & v.).  Which is correct? -- TrevorD 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Found in H. L. Mencken's The American Language. The most recent OED quotation is dated 1990. 2. yes, "a place of business" is intended as an umbrella. 3. Funny, I spelled it practise because I thought it was the _British_ spelling (which is the spelling of the whole page)... American spelling has normally a c for both noun & verb. --JackLumber, 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office 

message: Lush is understood as alcoholic by at least some Americans. I just ran across the September 25, 2004 New York Times crossword, in which the clue for 4 across is drunk and the answer lush (you could look it up). I have also seen it used recently on American TV, but couldn't be bothered to make notes. One occurrence was on Just Shoot Me, in which one joke consisted of the alcoholic character sitting beneath a sign reading Blush from which the B had been removed (it was a bit funnier in the show because of the context, but not much). John FitzGerald 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lush "alcoholic" is standard, yet colloquial, in American English, and is currently flagged as "asterisk-American."  Yet there's nothing specifically "American" about its origin, AFAIK.  Chambers Dictionary and CALD list it with no regional indicators, but OALD regards it as "NAmE."   Thanks for your note, JackLumber. 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lush 

message: === The "Other Discussion" section that was here ===
What's the point of having an "Other Discussion" section on this page?  Surely discussion is "other" by mere virtue of not being under any other heading.  Usually, one adds a new discussion to a Wikipedia talk page by starting a whole new section at the == level, e.g. using the "+" link at the top of the page  (MonoBook skin).
If this section were "Discussion of existing entries", which would set it apart from discussion concerning the page as a whole or other aspects of it, then it would make sense.  Otherwise, it seems pointless for new discussions to go in at the === rather than == level. -- Smjg 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. The best thing we can do is probably scale up these subsections. Hey Gnet, any objections?--JackLumber 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection - I was trying to overly orgazine after the refactor. It clearly didn't take, and was probably a bad idea to begin with, per Smjg. -- Gnetwerker 15:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.s. My original idea was that, at the end of the day, we would have an alphabetical list of the discussion surrounding each word on the list, to keep down future disagreements by new arrivals, and provide a record of sources and justification, etc.  I now realize the futility of this utopian dream, sigh. I removed/struck the template, see above. -- Gnetwerker 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this painfully worked out smart-alecky tradeoff of sorts?--JackLumber 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But now you'll have to move "grade" and "slate". -- Gnetwerker 22:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I was speaking of American things, I thought it was clear that a "parkway" is a "highway" in the American sense. I didn't say that a British "parkway" is a "train station" or a "railroad station," I defined it as a "railway station." As far as the sidewalk/pavement thing, you clearly didn't get the HTML comment...--JackLumber 12:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's only clear to somebody who's got as far as discovering that there is an American sense.  And indeed, I don't get the pun. -- Smjg 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't call a North American highway by an alternat[iv]e name. It's a highway. My way, or the highway. Period. Or full stop. Of traffic. On the highway. --JackLumber 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Jack, Jack, Jack.  Highway is highway, but also "Turnpike" (New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, probably elsewhere), and "Freeway", and "Interstate" (with "highway" assumed), and "Tollway" (with the obvious etymology), and "Throughway" and "motorway" and I am probably forgetting some. Regardless of what OED says, a "parkway" is/was originally a divided road with a grassy strip separating the the opposing lanes, and usually a grassy verge on one or both sides, is: 1) distinct from (e.g.) a "turnpike" and is insufficiently specific to describe an Interstate Highway (which may not be actually inter-state, but may have parts that are parkways); 2) originated with the Long Island Motor-Parkway; 3) and is described in detail here. Happy motoring! -- Gnetwerker 00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This time you are *really* putting me on, Gnet. First off, you didn't mention (purposefully?) ME, DE, CT, & NH Turnpikes, all of these basically following the route (not: Route) of I-95. (Mass Pike is a different thing altogether.) And yet terminology is not quite consistent—they are mostly toll roads, but some sections are toll-free; Connecticut Turnpike is entirely toll-free, I believe. Second off, I'd rather call "Expressways" what you call "Freeways." (Floridians would probably be confused.) Third off, the word "highway" has no synonyms, in the sense that you can't replace it with an equally comprehensive term. The word "superhighway," although not really "institutional," can also serve as a catch-all term for turnpikes, freeways, expressways, etc. Fourth off, yes, a "parkway" would be supposed to have a grassy median, and the median itself is/was occasionally referred to as "parkway." Fifth off, if you noticed, I put a big fat "generally" in front of the parkway definition, with an explicit reference to the WP article, utterly aware of how much the matter is complicated (me, not the article). Sixth off, the OED definition is fairly accurate, and aside from this I wanted just to let Smjg know how the OED itself basically says that a "parkway" is a type of "highway," no matter how fancy. Seventh off, yes, the history of parkways has been long disputed, although generally associated with Noo Yawk; someone suggested that a "parkway" was meant to be a "park" you could drive through—but the term was actually first recorded as early as 1875 (The most important improvement made of late in the general plan of cities has been the introduction or increase in number and breadth of parkways). Eighth off, I was surprised by running across the term "motorway" in that article, as it is usually associated with Britain & Ireland. Ninth off, "happy motoring" can be much of an oxymoron. Tenth off, I gotta go. I must be counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike—they've all come to look for America. Best, JackLumber 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to know: in limey-land, do they, like us Yanks, park on a driveway, and drive on a parkway? -- Gnetwerker 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you park on the parkway either you get hit or you get a ticket. (Depending on the meaning of parkway.)--JackLumber 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Discussion 

message: What's the point of having an "Other Discussion" section on this page?  Surely discussion is "other" by mere virtue of not being under any other heading.  Usually, one adds a new discussion to a Wikipedia talk page by starting a whole new section at the == level, e.g. using the "+" link at the top of the page  (MonoBook skin).
If this section were "Discussion of existing entries", which would set it apart from discussion concerning the page as a whole or other aspects of it, then it would make sense.  Otherwise, it seems pointless for new discussions to go in at the === rather than == level. -- Smjg 12:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. The best thing we can do is probably scale up these subsections. Hey Gnet, any objections?--JackLumber 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection - I was trying to overly orgazine after the refactor. It clearly didn't take, and was probably a bad idea to begin with, per Smjg. -- Gnetwerker 15:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.s. My original idea was that, at the end of the day, we would have an alphabetical list of the discussion surrounding each word on the list, to keep down future disagreements by new arrivals, and provide a record of sources and justification, etc.  I now realize the futility of this utopian dream, sigh. I removed/struck the template, see above. -- Gnetwerker 15:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this painfully worked out smart-alecky tradeoff of sorts?--JackLumber 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But now you'll have to move "grade" and "slate". -- Gnetwerker 22:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Other Discussion" section that was here 

message: The definitions should, as much as possible, be readily understandable to speakers of UK and US English alike.  As such, we should try to avoid making definitions ambiguous with terms that themselves are (or belong) on the list.  The way US "highway" was defined recursively until I fixed it is one example.  As I write, there are the US definitions of
* parking - "turf strip between pavement and sidewalk" - reads as "between pavement and pavement" to a Brit
* parkway - which meaning of "highway"?
I suppose it's OK to use such a term if you're using it with one of the meanings common to both UK and US English, it's the best word we have and the meaning is clear from the context.  Additionally, when it refers back to the word being defined, only do it if it's being used in a different part of speech than that in which the word is being defined (as with "grass").  Otherwise, we should stick to words that mean the same on both sides of the pond as much as we can. -- Smjg 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was speaking of American things, I thought it was clear that a "parkway" is a "highway" in the American sense. I didn't say that a British "parkway" is a "train station" or a "railroad station," I defined it as a "railway station." As far as the sidewalk/pavement thing, you clearly didn't get the HTML comment...--JackLumber 12:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's only clear to somebody who's got as far as discovering that there is an American sense.  And indeed, I don't get the pun. -- Smjg 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't call a North American highway by an alternat[iv]e name. It's a highway. My way, or the highway. Period. Or full stop. Of traffic. On the highway. --JackLumber 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Jack, Jack, Jack.  Highway is highway, but also "Turnpike" (New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, probably elsewhere), and "Freeway", and "Interstate" (with "highway" assumed), and "Tollway" (with the obvious etymology), and "Throughway" and "motorway" and I am probably forgetting some. Regardless of what OED says, a "parkway" is/was originally a divided road with a grassy strip separating the the opposing lanes, and usually a grassy verge on one or both sides, is: 1) distinct from (e.g.) a "turnpike" and is insufficiently specific to describe an Interstate Highway (which may not be actually inter-state, but may have parts that are parkways); 2) originated with the Long Island Motor-Parkway; 3) and is described in detail here. Happy motoring! -- Gnetwerker 00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This time you are *really* putting me on, Gnet. First off, you didn't mention (purposefully?) ME, DE, CT, & NH Turnpikes, all of these basically following the route (not: Route) of I-95. (Mass Pike is a different thing altogether.) And yet terminology is not quite consistent—they are mostly toll roads, but some sections are toll-free; Connecticut Turnpike is entirely toll-free, I believe. Second off, I'd rather call "Expressways" what you call "Freeways." (Floridians would probably be confused.) Third off, the word "highway" has no synonyms, in the sense that you can't replace it with an equally comprehensive term. The word "superhighway," although not really "institutional," can also serve as a catch-all term for turnpikes, freeways, expressways, etc. Fourth off, yes, a "parkway" would be supposed to have a grassy median, and the median itself is/was occasionally referred to as "parkway." Fifth off, if you noticed, I put a big fat "generally" in front of the parkway definition, with an explicit reference to the WP article, utterly aware of how much the matter is complicated (me, not the article). Sixth off, the OED definition is fairly accurate, and aside from this I wanted just to let Smjg know how the OED itself basically says that a "parkway" is a type of "highway," no matter how fancy. Seventh off, yes, the history of parkways has been long disputed, although generally associated with Noo Yawk; someone suggested that a "parkway" was meant to be a "park" you could drive through—but the term was actually first recorded as early as 1875 (The most important improvement made of late in the general plan of cities has been the introduction or increase in number and breadth of parkways). Eighth off, I was surprised by running across the term "motorway" in that article, as it is usually associated with Britain & Ireland. Ninth off, "happy motoring" can be much of an oxymoron. Tenth off, I gotta go. I must be counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike—they've all come to look for America. Best, JackLumber 12:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also want to know: in limey-land, do they, like us Yanks, park on a driveway, and drive on a parkway? -- Gnetwerker 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you park on the parkway either you get hit or you get a ticket. (Depending on the meaning of parkway.)--JackLumber 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid using these terms with different meanings in definitions 

message: Why did somebody remove cunt? In its use as an offensive word, it has a very different meaning - in the US it is applied to woman, and in the UK to men. TharkunColl 08:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Steinsky (an Englishman in Cincinnati, Ohio) removed the word, claiming "there is no difference in usage, both more commonly refer to women, but can refer to anybody." JackLumber 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is simply not true. I have never heard a woman being called a cunt in the UK - such a usage would simply be considered bizarre, rather than offensive. On the other hand, men are called cunts all the time. I didn't even realise that the reverse was true in North America until I went there and made a fool of myself once. TharkunColl 11:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded the word to help prevent further transatlantic misinterpretations. But UK use sure is not unknown in the U.S., although it seems---as you pointed out---to have replaced the original connotation (i.e., woman) in Britain. JackLumber 12:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have heard the word used for both sexes in both countries, and haven't noticed any difference in usage.  Calling a woman a cunt in the UK certainly wouldn't be considered bizarre, indeed I find it bizarre that you claim that. Joe D (t) 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I concurr with Joe D on UK usage, but can't comment on US usage.  TrevorD 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Woman"-related meanings are definitely predominant in the U.S. as far as I can see, and are generally considered---needless to say...---abusive and extremely vulgar. This being said, the "man" meaning is found; it's a relatively recent usage, probably imported from the UK. But the very cunt article could use revising indeed! (Be careful---that article was referenced by the press...)--JackLumber 07:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So I believe we just bumped into yet another regional difference within the UK. --JackLumber 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cunt

message: (moved from above to make it easier to find:)
This artilce, along with most of the English language edition is still too UK/US centric. Either it needs to be revised for additional lists created to dead with other Commonwealth Englishes, e.g. List of words having different meanings in Australiasia and English-speaking countries North of the equator and List of words having different meanings in US and Canadian English.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian):-O
PS. Someone do the same with pronuncation differences.
:I see you've moved these pages: American, British and other Commonwealth English pronunciation differences (was American and British English spelling differences) and North American, British and other Commonwealth English differences (was American and British English differences). If you do move them, you are going to have to change a lot, at the least in the first paragraph, as they are still only about British and American differences. If you don't change the article to match the title, eventually someone is simply going to move them back.
:I'd love to find out more about the differences between Australian and British English (as I'm British) - but it seems to me that it isn't too suitable to put all the varieties of English on one page for comparison, as there are rather a lot of them. As British and Australian English (or Indian English, New Zealand English, Canadian English etc) are not the same, you'd have to have a column for each, and I have trouble viewing both columns as it is. I couldn't work out from your comment above what you prefer (must be the language barrier :-)).
:I don't think there is any problem with this page only being about Britain and the US, as long as there are other pages comparing, say, Australian and US English, or Australian and British English. It will be hard work, but maybe you'd like to start them up? Saint|swithin 11:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, someone just moved them back, namely, yours truly. I believe everybody knows my stance on this one; see e.g. what I told Myrtone.   JackLumber 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian and Commonwealth English

message: Jack, earlier on this page it says:
"The definitions should, as much as possible, be readily understandable to speakers of UK and US English alike. As such, we should try to avoid making definitions ambiguous with terms that themselves are (or belong) on the list."
But on a recent edit you've added:
"in lieu of giving equivalents every time, i'd just refer readers to the entries herein."
Which do you want to do?  (I had added "(UK: points)" so that the definition was understandable to a Brit, as required by the earlier quote!)  
Personally, I'd prefer to make the definitions understandable without too many cross-references (provided it doesn't mean adding too much additional text), but I've no strong feelings either way - but can we please agree a consistent style?  TrevorD 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Agree a consistent style" is a "Briticism" that duly appears on the list :-) As for chippie, I hadn't noticed it was already here. Cross-references make the page better to look at, and, reserving the notation (UK: term), (US: term) for British/American equivalents, we would also have the advantage of isolating said equivalents, so that they would be easier to be zeroed in on. (What did I just say?!?) Additionally, words like highway (as you saw above) or block (of flats) cannot be smoothly replaced or given alternate terms. The flipside is, it would become slightly harder to read, as you noticed. I would wait for Smjg's opinion---he's the architect of this page, I just refurbished and remodeled it... --JackLumber 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions with non-understood terms 

message: I have reverted all the edits made by Freedick for several reasons (to the "A" section - since I wrote this he's gone wild in the "B" section):
* Primarily, the edits have screwed up the formatting - added a fifth column in places, and added extraneous text above the table.
* Additions are in the wrong columns - e.g. under "ace", US usage is discussed in the British column.
* Some additions duplicate what is already there - e.g. under "advocate"; under "alternate" - "alternative" = "something else".
* Some additions seem inappropriate - e.g. under "anaesthetist" - adding "anethesthesic" seems inappropriate - this is not a dictionary, only an outline of differing usages.
* Some are in the wrong column - e.g. under "anchor", the addition is not US specific and belongs in the middle column, but in any event the usage is only figurative based on the middle column meaning already given.
* Some are not clear - e.g. under "apartment" - the addition is in the middle of text and I don't understand the point being made, nor whether it is appropriate.
TrevorD 14:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry. The Wikipedia formatting / style isn't really second nature to me yet. I maybe didn't understand what you were going for, I figured it would be interesting or at least relevant for readers to learn about the different ways in which English words are used in the US and UK. Aside from that, words also have different meanings depending on which part of the US you are in. I annotated some words with US whole or US West, to indicate that a term is used in that way in the entire US, only on the west coast, or only, for example in southern California. As a matter of fact, in southern California there are a plethora of terms that are specific to this region and not usually used elsewhere. As far as the accuracy of my annotations is concerned, I don't think anyone is omniscient. I've lived in San Diego for several years and I am familiar with the vernacular, and, having lived in many countries, I am also somewhat familiar with the different versions of the English language that are used across the world. I just figured that it might be interesting for you to hear from someone who is very familiar with a particular part of the US. Sorry if I screwed up your formatting or article. (Patrick 18:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Freerick]] 

message: Jack, re: diversion.
"construction zone" (US) = "road works" (UK).
I'll leave you to work out which list that belongs in and whether it's already there!  (It's bedtime here!) -- TrevorD 22:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roads 

message: The Wikipedia page on Radio masts and towers describes the different colloquial meaning of radio mast and radio tower in the UK and USA.  The correct technical difference is that radio towers are self-supporting and radio masts and guyed.  --jmb 08:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio masts / towers 

message: Jack, re: your recent addition of "wagon" - "paddy wagon" is also used in the UK. -- TrevorD 18:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wagon 

message: Does "hash sign" (#) belong in British only list or Different meanings list? -- TrevorD 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British only. "Hash" reminds me of hash browns---and my Oregonian-slash-Irish friend User:Gnetwerker the computer scientist would be surprised by the fact that I also know what a hash function and a hash table are... --JackLumber 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dearest ("Leaping from tree to tree"!) Jack (and Trevor) - Some US computer people call this "hash", more call it "pound (sign)", I happen to call it a "sharp" (typographically incorrect but more mellifluous, IMHO), and it has even been called (somewhat formally, by the Bell System) an "octothorpe" (which sources to "eight-winged flying thing", believe it or not).  Obviously the "pound sign" version cannot be Brit (until the $%&*%$% limeys adopt the Euro), but it doesn't follow, IMO, that "hash" isn't used here.  This symbol has a long and storied argument that goes along with it in computing and on the 'net, so you may or may not want to poke this particular bear. P.s. - Good for you re hash function, but I would rather prefer a hash brownie. -- Gnetwerker 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Gotcha. (I had no doubt actually...) I was aware of "octothorpe," but frankly I've never heard "hash sign" outside of a British context. Oh, and I also know about Binary search trees, AVL Trees, 2-3 Trees, Red-Black Trees, Skip lists...--JackLumber 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Searching .gov sites, "pound sign" outnumbers "hash sign" 292:1 (!) As for .edu domains, the ratio is reduced to 113:1, probably due to college computer geeks. So I guess it's pretty safe to assume this is not an "asterisk" word, Gnet notwithstanding... --JackLumber 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's your asterisk if it is :-) (but not much of a risk). -- Gnetwerker 21:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hash sign # 

message: I have never heard this used to mean "nowadays" (as it says under U.S.) I am a native American English speaker from Minnesota. Can anyone else verify that this is used somewhere in the U.S.? If not, it should be removed. Grandmasterka 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a trip to Tennessee and you could hear it.  I lived there for a few years and while I didn't pick it up in my speech, it was used by some of the longtime locals. Dismas|(talk) 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. OK. Grandmasterka 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in my part of Tennessee. I think this might be a regionalism.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anymore 

message: Is 'alternative' ever used as an adjective in the US?  Also, how would an American express the British 'on alternate weeks'?  Would 'alternate' ever be acceptable in this sense in the US?  If so, doesn't the term get a bit ambiguous from time to time? garik 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The corresponding entry on the page is clear, isn't it? Anyways, Americans oftentimes make a mess of it when it comes to use this word. Let's just say that you might want to use an alternate route to bypass a construction area; alternately you can take an alternative route (that's what Britons usually do). But you cannot anywhere on Earth mow the lawn on alternative weeks. The very idea. That is, alternate weeks is the correct phrase in the U.S. too; the context usually helps you out.   JackLumber. 19:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternate versus alternative 

message: Is it me, or are the American and British columns reversed? I cant recall ever hearing this word describing transportation in the United States.--Barrel-rider 11:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've certainly not heard it used that way in Britain. The columns are not reversed, but the US info could be wrong. -- Chris Q 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No sir, it can't be wrong, the author being yours truly. Barrel-rider (welcome, btw), it's most definitely you---you are not a railfan are you? Never heard of the "accommodation train"?    etc. etc. REMEMBER: just because you don't know a word doesn't mean that word is British. JackLumber. 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the trains over here, Midland Mainline at least, probably other operators as well, frequently talk of "first class accommodation" and "standard class accommodation" referring to the respective parts of the train.  And no, they're not talking about sleeping carriages!  And I'm not familiar with any of the meanings in the 'common' column.... -- Smjg 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, accommodation(s) as "seating," used in the U.S. too (modulo the plural), only less common than accommodation(s) = lodgings, a meaning that in fact overshadows the others. Oh, and... Smjg, great to have you back, sorry for my tardiness, but congratulations on your PhD! JackLumber. 11:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accommodation