Talk:Comparison of American and British English/Archive 6

message: :In the UK, from is used with single dates and times more often than in the United States. Where British speakers and writers may say "the new museum will be open from Tuesday," Americans always say "the new museum will be open starting Tuesday", and would probably be confused by the British saying.
I'm intrigued to know for what an American might confuse the statement "the new museum will be open from Tuesday".  Put another way, how else could you parse it?  Wooster 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they might think the museum was open after Tuesday. -- Boothman 16:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That phrase can't faze me any. Sure it's not idiomatic to me, but its meaning is clear enough. Maybe it's just because I'm quite the know-it-all and I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. --JackLumber 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that any educated speaker of English would have such a fundamental problem with the word 'from' even if it was not part of their usual idiom. Also, the comma belongs inside the quotation marks regardless of what kind of English you speak. The comma belongs inside if quoting someone, and outside if the quotes are being used to offset a "special term", unless the comma forms part of the term.--Jeffro77 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've got the comma problem half right. The true error is that it is within the quotation marks one time, and outside it a second time-- and in the same sentence! DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both right.  The generally accepted 'rule' in England is to only include the comma within the double quotation marks if it is part of that which is being quoted. --Veratien 13:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the statement In the UK, from is used with single dates and times more often than in the United States is true enough. I would just drop the bit about Americans being confused by the UK phrasing; as Jeffro77 says, while from doesn't sound natural to them (speaking as one, myself), it isn't exactly nonsense, either. The possible misinterpretation suggested by Boothman sounds like pure speculation, since Americans wouldn't be using from interchangeably with after if they meant 'after'. Positioning of quotation marks is a separate topic that has already been addressed, I believe.—mjb 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was just scratching around for any possible reason, and was only an idea. -- Boothman 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll agree with Mjb. Americans are used to hearing "from" always paired with "to", "through" or "until". To hear "from Tuesday" implies that you will be hearing or reading an "until" date. While the British useage is jarring (and sounds actually "wrong" to Americans, who would rather say either, "The new museum opens on Tuesday", or "The new museum will be open as of Tuesday"), there isn't a problem of misinterpretation of "from" with some other word. --213.46.139.101 10:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  it doesnt sound wrong--it sounds British. If used to an American reader about an American museum, it would sound strange. it would not sound strange--even to an American-- in a London newspaper. DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain this line? 

message: "A user of American English will often hand-write the mixed monetary amount $3.24 in the form $324¢ or $324⁄100 (using that solidus construction or with a horizontal division line)."
Americans would normally hand-write a dollar amount as $3.24. The only time the $3 24/100 or 3 dollars and 24/cents format would ever be used is when writing a check. You may want to revise the above paragraph to reflect this. In addition, I have never seen the $324¢ format used anywhere in the United States.
Dan Rhea
:Can someone who is familiar with current American usage (and Wiki/HTML formatting) make the necessary changes, and add the necessary provisos? --Nigelj 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Koweja 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetary Amounts 

message: After many years of living in Germany, I realised that the american use of numbers (one-hundred-ten) mirrors exactly the German way of speaking. There are other examples too. e.g. "Ice Rink" Does the word Rink derive from the English "Ring" spoken with a (german/yiddish) accent? My question is, is it thought to be the case that English spoken by newly arrived non-english speaking immigrants from Europe influenced spoken American English?|IsarSteve 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German influence on American English 

message: Q. from Jack:  ... is "oestrus" the usual British spelling?
Chambers Dictionary has:
estrogen, estrus, etc N American spellings of oestrogen, oestrus, etc.
oestrus, also oestrum n a gadfly or bot; a vehement stimulus or frenzy; (in the following meanings and words, also, esp US, estrus) heat or sexual impulse ...
oestrous adj.
So, I guess the answer is 'yes'! TrevorD 23:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different prepositions 

message: Slightly off topic as regards language, but Nigelj's comparison of the UK legal term "drunk in charge" v. the US terms "driving while intoxicated" (D.W.I.) or "driving under the influence" of alcohol (D.U.I.), prompt me to point out that in the UK you don't actually have to be driving to be comitting an offence, merely being in charge of the vehicle (e.g. with the vehicle keys and apparently intending to drive) as I understand it.  The US terms imply you actually have to be caught driving the vehicle.  Is this correct? -- TrevorD 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, just having the keys/intending to drive isn't a crime. --Zagsa 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  If you're so drunk you can barely walk, but you're stumbling towards your car with keys in hand, you can be arrested only for public intoxication, not driving under the influence.  But the second you turn the key in the ignition, you're a driver and you're in BIG BIG trouble.  --Coolcaesar 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. In Pennsylvania at least, being in your car while drunk and with keys in your possession is a DUI, even if the car is off. Some people have been arrested for DUI while sleeping in their cars. --67.165.6.76 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drink driving 

message: I came across the following today in a trivia question:
:"Which six U.S. state capitals are located on rivers named for other states?"
"named for" grates with my British ears: I would say "named after"; "named for" sounds to me as if it means "named for the benefit of someone".  Any thoughts from anyone else before I add this to the article?
P.S. The answer was: "Austin, Texas, on the Colorado River; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and St. Paul, Minnesota, on the Mississippi River; Trenton, New Jersey, on the Delaware River; and Bismarck, North Dakota, and Pierre, South Dakota, on the Missouri River."
TrevorD 10:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's just another difference I was about to add! Named for & named after are both standard in the U.S. For in this sense is rare in British usage---outnumbered 1:10 by after in the BNC, and is often probably used "as an Americanism." --JackLumber 19:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepositions 

message: If you are stuck in a rut, or can't think of other differences to add to the article, or just ain't got nothing better to do, I suggest youse guys check out great H. L. Mencken's The American Language at bartleby.com. This classic explores the differences between American and British English... as of 1921. OK, it's a tad dated, and you'll find out how many of the differences he notes have now disappeared. But one thing we can do is spot all the differences that still remain and categorize them according to our system (words mainly used here or there, or with different meanings, grammar, etc.). Check out especially chapters four (American and English Today) and five (International Exchanges). The link. Happy reading! --JackLumber 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: I've never heard someone use the phrase, "he pointed up the mistake."  Where in the US is this used?Tenfour 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It ain't no regional thing, but a usage that arose---I believe---in the 1920's or so; maybe not very common but considered standard, see a couple posts above. --JackLumber 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what post you're referring to...if this used to be an American phrase, it seems to have completely fallen out of use now. Tenfour 18:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point it out/point it up 

message: Trovatore has changed one section from:
:"Directional suffix -ward(s): British forwards, towards, rightwards, etc.; American forward, toward, rightward. The forms with -s are only used as adverbs or prepositions in American English, ..."
to
:"Directional suffix -ward(s): British forwards, towards, rightwards, etc.; American forward, toward, rightward. The forms with -s are used as adverbs or prepositions only in American English, ..."
with the comment:
:"I think this is what was meant? Before it seemed to say Americans never say "towards", which is false"
To me it now seems to say that only Americans use towards, etc. - and the British don't, which contradicts the first sentence!
I read the original form as meaning that Americans use the -s forms only as adverbs and prepositions - and not as anything else.  And that is not inconsistent with Trovatore's assertion that Americans DO say towards.
What was originally meant and can we make it unambiguous? -- TrevorD 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: jnestorius has just rephrased the section, but it still needs to be rewritten. In AmE rightwards sounds very strange, while towards is used, although conspicuously outnumbered by toward. Furthermore, the forms with -s are used as adverbs or prepositions, but rarely as adjectives is incorrect. Toward (or towards), regardless of the spelling, is usually a preposition, never an adverb, and very rarely an adjective. Forward(s) is never an adverb and rightward(s) is never a preposition. I'll be back later on. --JackLumber 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: jnestorius---thanks for your rephrasing. At least the paragraph can be _read_ now. --JackLumber 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  There are so many points on this page that, in handling any one, there is a constant tension between, on the one hand, overwhelming the reader with finnicky detail, and, on the other, attempting to summarise with a broad statement which is ambiguous or misleading. jnestorius(talk) 13:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  -ward(s) 

message: Quote from JackLumber on Talk:American English:
:"... how much bullshit pours off of that talk page"
To me, as a Brit, off of always sounds like extremely bad usage (that's not to say some Brits don't use it!).  Is it standard US usage or just informal usage?  I think it probably merits mention somewhere. -- TrevorD 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quote Trevor, but it's already mentioned on the list of American words... --JackLumber 20:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would contest the fact that is is more common in American than British - cockney and "Estuary English" regularly features this particular odious idiom. -- Boothman Talk. 12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is more common in American than British---with respect to _standard_ usage. But things like "borrow money off of someone" are everywhere substandard. --JackLumber, 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Prepositions 

message: There is some discussion on an article, where it has been decided that local dialect (in this case UK English) takes precedence over standard Wiki policy, that the capitalisation of "The" in the name the subject is not grammatically correct. This argument is proposed by a US grammatician, but is resisted by the UK based editors who believe that it is an example of US/UK language differences. An example of this point of contention would be the phrase, "It was reported by The Independant that former members of The Who were...", where it is suggested it should be grammatically, "It was reported by the Independant that former members of the Who were..." (nb. neither of the subjects mentioned above are part of the article.)
Is this a difference between US/UK grammer (and therefore worthy of inclusion within this/your article?) or a bunch of limeys unable to speak/write their own language?LessHeard vanU 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I can't comment on US/UK grammer differences, but (as a Brit), I would say that if the word "The" is part of the proper name of the subject - as it is with both the cited examples - then it should be capitalised, otherwise not.  (It's not clear to me from your explanation whether the UK or US editors are opposing capitalisation.)  -- TrevorD 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK editors are for capitalising the "The", the US grammatician editor is against. As it is a grammatician that is opposing the capitalisation it was considered that this talk page might be an appropriate venue for discussing it - as it may be a language/culture difference.LessHeard vanU 09:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be: "It was reported by the Daily Mail" as "the" is not part of the name, so should it be "It was reported by the The Independent ..." :-) (Note it's The Independent.)  Are there other articles in WP referring to the subjects in question?  The articles on The Who and The Independent (largely) always capitalise the "The".  -- TrevorD 00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said, I'm not a grammatician, but I would say that the WP articles that already use the capitalised form indicate appropriate usage.  User:JackLumber is an American who contributes a lot to these pages and has apparently a lot of professional knowledge - but whether as a grammatician I couldn't comment.  He's probably already seen this - but you could try his talk page.  (Jack, hope you don't mind me mentioning you. Trevor) -- TrevorD 12:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wi Trevor, capitalised "The" suggests that the thing has the as part of the name (The Kooks, The Cribs, interestingly The Vines (australian) has a mixture of both "The" and "the".</br></br>As an aside, I hate to be pedantic, LessHeard vanU, but you spelt "grammar" wrong. -- Boothman Talk. 12:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (grin) It is small wonder that I need refer matters of grammar to others, then.LessHeard vanU 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bug in my ear, Trevor... never mind! I already laid out my standpoint before about my (not?) being a grammarian---by the way, an interesting but misplaced (and hence unnoticed and too hastily archived) thread, seeTalk:American_and_British_English_differences/Archive_3.  I basically agree with Trevor & Boothman; I would therefore write The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Who, but the Rotary Club. Obviously, if the article is part of the name thou shalt not duplicate it. --JackLumber, 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you to all concerned. After reference to these comments the matter was agreed amicably between the parties.LessHeard vanU 21:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of The/the within proper nouns 

message: I recently became aware that Americans will readily call someone a "cheater", when Brits tend to regard the word as infantile (although readily comprehensible), preferring "cheat".
Are there other, similar usages?
It's interesting, as English normally tolerates verbs becoming adjectival nouns in this way - "I teach children" makes the speaker a "teacher".
I'd speculate that it's to avoid confusion with cheetah, only that's so preposterous it can't possibly be correct... can it!??!?
-- Dweller 13:03, 22 May 2006 (GMT+1)
::I feel there is a mixture, like someone who paints is a painter, but someone who tutors is a tutor. Someone who teases is a tease, yet someone who writes is a writer. I don't know whether it's an American/British thing, I always thought it depended on the word itself and it's etymology. -- Boothman /tɔːk/. 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheating

message: I think  a lot of this stuff is very good, but on the whole it doesn't really reflect current usage of English spoken in Britain.  As an English person, I can't really comment on how accurate the information is from a US point of view, but I'd definately suggest an expert who is a lot more familiar with British English should make the page better reflect the current situation of the language.  A good example would "to read" in the sense of studying. I for one consider this usage archiac and would never hear it except in an American film where they're trying to mimic British English.
:Or Oxford/Cambridge University (and some other Academia) alumni. It was always fairly exclusive use in the UK, but one which was well known since many of the "ruling classes" attended these institutions.LessHeard vanU 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An expert opinion 

message: Is this entire article sourced from The Cambridge Guide to English Usage or is it just very poorly referenced? --Coroebus 10:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely, but in large part. JackLumber, 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And in (American) English, one can verb any noun. "He penned the letter and keyboarded a denial." --Ancheta Wis 11:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: From article
* The British say at the weekend and at weekends; Americans say on the weekend and on weekends.I don't think this is strictly true - I say all four of these phrases, and none of them sound particularly American or British. Does anyone have a reasonable source for this? -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each and every handbook states this. To me, at the weekend sounds British. Maybe the American usage has gotten a foothold in Britain. To the BBC folks, on the weekend still sounds American. JackLumber, 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be a regional thing, don't forget. On weekends sounds as natural to me as the alternative. I'll ask around some old-ish people to see if it is an Americanism that's cross over. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepositions 

message: Text says "Another difference is with acronyms. Typically, American English capitalises all the letters (NATO, AIDS), whereas British English prefers to use the initial capital only (Nato, Aids)." --- Nah, surely not. This Brit, at any rate, would use the all-caps versions: NATO, AIDS. And I don't think the uc/lc versions are common here. Snalwibma 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Nato looks like Latin to me. Dweller 21:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I have removed the sentence that is just plain wrong. British would use all caps too, except where acronyms have become words (radar, laser, etc.) which I assume would also be the case in the USA -- Chris Q 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. We (Americans) tend to capitalize all acronyms, so the only way an acronym stops being capitalized is when people don't know that's it's an acronym (laser, radar, etc.), which usually happens after it becomes so commom that people use the acronym almost exclusively instead of the full word/phrase (PIN, ATM, etc. are this way now and will most likely stop being capitalized sooner or later). I'm guessing it is the same way everywhere. Koweja 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure you are right, at least as regards school textbooks and the like. There seems to be a developing UK style to use as few capitals as possible, and little typograpic distinction. I have examples, but i don't know the prevalence, so I want to check first. DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and headlines 

message: "Americans may have a ¢ or c after the 24, but in British English the p is only used when the amount is in pence, so £3.24 is correct, as is 324p, but £3.24p is considered incorrect."
 
Are you saying that Americans would say "$3.24¢" or 324¢? I'm pretty sure that is incorrect in American English as well. Even if it isn't technically incorrect it happens so rarely that it isn't worth mentioning.
:You could be right. I was just assuming that the article as it stood was correct in terms of US usage, so I just changed the UK usage. I hope an American will let me know or change it themselves -- Chris Q 13:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that someone has done! Incidentally, if I had seen a cheque for $324 I would have thought it would probably be enough to buy a county! -- Chris Q 13:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had changed it. Few people are fluent in both American and British English, so it's hard to know what is different. Especially since both countries have so many regional variations. Incidentally, if I had seen a cheque for $324 I would have thought it would probably be enough to buy a county! - When we write checks like this we normally write it as either a fraction over a hundred or as $324 for clarity. Koweja 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little off-topic, but isn't £3‒24 (on a cheque) too easy to change to £3424?  I always write checks in the form $3·24 with a fairly large, dark decimal dot. --dreish~talk 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would actually write something like £3 --------- 24, with one very long dash. You also have to write the amount in words on UK cheques, so I don't think it would be really easy to change . -- Chris Q 06:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair point, dreish.  I had a longer dash in there when I first added the example, but thought it looked a bit strange and so I shortened it before saving, if my memeory serves me right.  I think the longer dash is more realistic, even if it does look a bit odd in print, so I've changed it back to an mdash, then unicodified that. --Nigelj 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Americans may have a ¢ or c after the 24, ..." 

message: Perhaps a mention could be made of the British use of the word "Cheers."  When I started working with British clients one of the major differences I discovered in telephone etiquette is that the majority of Brits will say "Cheers" before ending a phone conversation.  The word, somewhat rarely used in the US, is quite common in the UK.
:See List of words having different meanings in British and American English, where such lexical differences are dealt with. But yes, as an American I find cheers really ubiquitous in British speech. JackLumber. 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  I've always found the British usage weird. To Americans, "cheers" is a toast used often at parties and in bars.  It's also the name of a popular TV show from the 1980s, Cheers. --Coolcaesar 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a really interesting feature. Greetingz 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's just the people I've been associating with lately, but I've been hearing it more often (in America).  It still seems a little bit like an affectation, but decreasingly so. --dreish~talk 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheers 

message: The greetings section states that British people say "Happy Christmas" instead if "Merry Christmas". I've never heard anyone say, "Happy Christmas" before, the norm being to say "Merry Chrsitmas If I don't see you". Can any Brits back me up?--Big Moira 01:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this page, which contains a discussion on the matter and the eventual action taken. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 10:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greetings Section 

message: :Apart from normally referring to 9th November, dates are not usually abbreviated in this manner ["nine-eleven"] in speech in the UK. Londoners would generally refer to the "the seventh of July bombings" and not 7/7.
The first sentence here seems to imply that dates are abbreviated in this manner in speech in the US, which as far as I'm aware is not the case.  And would Londoners refer to the "seventh of July bombings"?  As far as I know the 2001 hijackings are unique in that people refer to them by date at all.  —Blotwell 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- the paragraph implies that 9/11 is a common abbreviation, although this form is mainly just used to designate 11 Sep 2001, except in writing. I think we should cut the middle two sentences from this paragraph and just emphasize the fact that the the month-date order is rarely used in the UK, except when referring to 9/11. Philbert2.71828 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I gather, 9/11 is unique to that particular incident on both sides of the pond, however, we Londoners do refer to the attacks on 7th July, 2005, by the phrase "the seventh of July bombings".  Most other major events are referred to by the place in which they occurred, eg, the Omagh Bombing, the Admiral Duncan Nail Bombing, Hatfild Rail Crash, etc.  --Veratien 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrorism 

message: I just noticed that the article generally uses the terms U.S. and UK, although both US and U.K. appear at least once. Is there any reason for this? I would think we would want to use US and UK, unless someone thinks US looks too much like the word us. If nothing else, we should be consistent and change the occurrences of US and U.K. if the other forms are preferred. Philbert2.71828 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with US and UK, or if you want to be explicit, go with USA and UK. Koweja 21:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Manual of Style, and it says to use U.S. but has no recommendation for UK vs. U.K., so I changed every instance of US to U.S. and U.K. to UK. That still seems a bit inconsistent but it required changing only a few abbreviations in the article, and we're following the style guide now. Philbert2.71828 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The UK style in this and all such abbreviations is without the periods. I've been consistently using UK and US in this discussion for brevity--it does not slow down reading. Just let an article be uniform.  DGG 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. and US, U.K. and UK 

message: "BrE: "The Clash are a well-known band." AmE: "The Clash is a well-known band." Both: "The Beatles are a well-known band.""
 
Sorry but I don't see why in both languages you would say The Beatles are a well-known band and you couldn't say The Beatles is a well-known band in American English.
"BrE: "Pittsburgh are the champions." AmE: "Pittsburgh is the champion." Both: "The Steelers are the champions"."
I don't think I've ever heard people say Pittsburgh is the champion (and I'm not making fun of Pittsburg, I just haven't heard this being used at all). Also, shouldn't the period in that sentence be inside the quotation mark?
Yonatanh 13:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because "The Beatles" is a plural word, so the plural verb is used. --67.165.6.76 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've not entirely convinced that British use has moved as far towards "logical" punctuation as this article suggests.
As a quick test I just grabbed two paperbacks I've read within the last week.  The first is "One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night" by Christopher Brookmyre (Abacus "printed and bound in Great Britain"- 2000).   The second is "The Portable Door" by Tom Holt (Orbit "Printed and bound in Great Britain" - 2006).
Both of these are fairly unequivacably (though very different) British authors.
Flicking through the first finds  'I thought you said this place was disused,' Dawson grumbled.  'There's shit everywhere.' 
In the second I just as rapidly found  He ought to have shrunk by six inches or so, but he didn't.  'True,' he admitted. 
The commas seem pretty conclusive - it's much harder to work out what a full stop inside a quote is doing, but a comma when the person involved has finsished speaking must be to link it with description of who is speaking, not part of what they said.
80.229.143.175 09:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation (commas in quotes) 

message: I'm unable to understand the parentheticals in the sentence:  "In American usage, [meanings with already, just, yet] can be expressed with the present perfect (to express a fact) or the simple past (to imply an expectation)."  Can someone clarify them (if they are both meaningful and correct) or remove or replace them (if not)?  —Blotwell 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very clever. :p --Veratien 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of tenses 

message: As I can't find a reference to this in the article, I'll raise my point here:
I have often noticed, in American texts, the word "practice" (with the -ce ending) used as a VERB: for example, "you must practice the technique until it is perfect".
In British English, we make a clear distinction between "practise" (-se, verb) and "practice" (-ce, noun). This draws a logical parallel with words like "advise" (verb) and "advice" (noun). In this case, the difference is much clearer, because advice and advise are pronounced differently. However, because practise and practice are pronounced exactly the same, the different is not so clear.
What I am wondering is, in American English, IS it the case that "practice" is actually used as the verb? Is this a difference between British and American usage? Or do Americans also make the difference, as between advice and advise, and all usage of "practice" as a verb is just a common mistake?
I ask, because every time I see "practice" as a verb it looks strange to me, and I wonder whether I should correct it. If it's legitimate American English, and the article in question relates to the USA and/or the major contributor's style is American, then it's a legitimate spelling and I shall leave it alone. However, if it is indeed a mistake, then I should go ahead and correct it. In any British article, this would be corrected. But... can someone please enlighten me? Is this a  legitimate difference across the Atlantic, or is it just a case of Americans making mistakes? Thanks. EuroSong talk 10:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Practice is indeed used as a verb in AmE. The s/c difference is nonexistent in AmE. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). MrTroy 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks a lot! Then it is not a mistake. Funny though: because AmE does distinguish between "advice" and "advise", and to be totally the opposite: uses "defense" as a verb! I wonder how this came about. Was Noah Webster just being deliberately contrary? Hehe. EuroSong talk 21:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify: In American English, it is common for a lawyer to start a private practice (noun meaning "business"), to practice law (verb), and to practice reciting his oral arguments before going to court (noun meaning "rehearse/repeat").  --Coolcaesar 17:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I got that. Although you made a mistake: in the last example you gave, it's still a verb (meaning rehearse/repeat), not a noun as you said. EuroSong talk 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a similar mistake yourself, saying "defense" is a verb in North America, while it's a noun. The verb would be "to defend". MrTroy 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defense is indeed a verb in Englishes of any ilk, first recorded use being  c1400. It is obsolete, however, with such forms as "defensing" sounding rather bizarre to modern speakers!  Setokaiba✌≝ 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *_NO MISTER_*, the germane article is American and British English spelling differences, which is a spinoff of this very article and categorized under "American and British English differences."  Btw, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) is mostly useless and slightly ridiculous.  What's the point of having a page teaching people how to spell fiord or fjord in articles about South Africa when 90% of editors cluelessly use their own native spelling anyway?!? JackLumber.  13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, talking about a bad temper. I didn't mean in any way that MoS(spelling) is superior to American and British English spelling differences. I merely pointed to MoS(spelling) because it backs up my point about practice being a verb in AmE. Am I not allowed to link pages which are "useless and slightly ridiculous" in your opinion? I didn't see an "only link to JackLumber-approved articles" rule in the MoS... MrTroy 14:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There oughta be one. JackLumber.  21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practise/Practice 

message: operate (on) a patient. in school / at school / teach school.  Was ordered closed. Used not to, don't let's, verbal auxiliaries. TODO: subsection on phrasal verbs (e.g. rain out / rain off) + existing material. JackLumber.  14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Bespoke is (almost) universally a tailoring term; in tailoring there is a world of difference between bespoke and custom made. Custom made involves making the suit from scratch, exactly to the customer's measurements. Bespoke is the same, but has three main differences that I know of: 1) the roll of cloth which the customer picks is held for that customer (thus, it is spoken for, or to use the older term, 'bespoke'). 2) the canvas interlining of the coat is loose, and not fused to the outer cloth. 3) there are hundreds of threads stitched across the canvas interlining to make it hold its shape in bespoke tailoring, this is not done in custom made. All this makes bespoke last longer and look better. 
Anyway, all i'm trying to say is that bespoke isn't the same as custom made, and we should think of a different example.
:In the software industry, we talk about 'bespoke software'; that is, tailor-made software suited to fit the needs of the client.  It is created and customised according to what the client wants.  I believe the term also applies to some engineering and scientific projects, but I'd have to check up on that. --Veratien 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds to me to be very much a niche use of 'bespoke' and it's used in plenty of non-tailoring circumstances.  In everyday parlance, I don't think there is a difference between 'bespoke' and 'custom made'; if there is, it has never been apparent to me! Matthew 08:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commonly hear people (in Britain) using "bespoke" as the opposite of "off the shelf". Most frequently this is in a business setting, but not exclusively. I've heard it applied to fitted kitchens, websites, caravans etc. However, I also commonly hear custom-made and I think people use the terms pretty much interchangably, even if there's probably a difference in meaning. Similarly, I hear the terms "envy" and "jealousy" being used interchangably, when they are completely different in meaning. --Dweller 10:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a cafe near my flat in London that advertises "bespoke sandwiches".  I've never been in there, but at the very least, this example suggests that the name has extended beyond tailoring and has the general meaning of "dictated by the customer".Lfh 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, "bespeaking" is a kind of telepathy found in Ursula K. Le Guin's Ekumen universe. -- Evertype·✆ 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of bespoke as BrE version of Custom made 

message: I've noticed a number of usages in this encyclopedia (e.g. in the Penny football article) of the word "pinky". In British English we'd call it the "little finger". In American English is this a word that would be used in formal language? Is it appropriate for encyclopedic tone? And then there's the question of whether this article should log this difference (and any others in finger nomenclature!)? --Dweller 09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One would call it a "pinky" but I suppose in formal speech it would be called a "little finger". Personally I think the original Old English name is the best: earfinger. -- Evertype·✆ 09:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for fingers 

message: Even in MSWord it's not obligatory. All you need to do is to go to Autoformat, then to Autoformat as you type, and turn off the box for "Ordinals", and then do the same for the tab "Autoformat". It's an attempt to match print. In more sophisticated work, the Expert version of many Adobe fonts has all the superscript charaters. 
But I remember doing with  typewriters: Most good typewriters let you move the roller up or down by half a line. (but then of course the characters looked too large, which is part of the reason why it was rarely done.)DGG 19:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: even in MS Word

message: From the article:
UK traffic officials, firefighters, and police officers refer to Lanes 1, 2 and 3, referring to the 'slow', 'middle' and 'fast' lanes respectively. In the U.S. the meanings are exactly reversed with Lane 1 referring to the fast lane and so on.
Is this right? It just seems to me that labelling with the fast lane as 1 would be inconvenient, as the lane numbers would change when the number of lanes change. Driving in the slow lane where there are three lanes you would be lane 3, and if the road narrowed to two lanes you would find yourself in lane 2 without physically changing lane. -- Chris Q 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this could be a badly worded way of saying that in the UK the lanes are counted from the side nearest the verge and in the US they're counted from the side nearest the central reservation.  But that's just a guess! Matthew 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: At least in the US, lanes come and go more often on the right (slow) side than the left side.  (Think of all the acceleration/deceleration lanes at entrance and exit ramps; also, "truck lanes" on steep hills usually come from splitting the right (slow) lane, and then having the trucks merge back left at the top of the grade.)  Thus starting from the fast side keeps the numbering from changing all the time. -- Coneslayer 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they would just call entry and exit roads slip roads and not change the number for these short stretches. -- Chris Q 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also wrong to call the lanes "fast", "middle" and "slow" - as this implies that variation amongst lanes is dependant upon speed, not upon overtaking. According to the highway code these are just referred to as "left", "middle" and "right" lanes, all lanes, except for the left lane are deemed to be overtaking lanes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.29.111 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lanes 1, 2 and 3? 

message: I believe usage of articles before the name of a highway is consistent with highway naming in the U.S.  As I understand it, usages like "I-495" and "Route 66" lack articles because the unabbreviated form would have no article ("I traveled up Interstate [Highway] 495", "I get my kicks on Route 66").  Roads with non-numerical proper names get an article throughout America: "the Boston Post Road," "the New Jersey Turnpike," but "I-95."   Southern Californian highways (referred to by Southern Californians as "freeways") all have proper names, which are used interchangeably with their numbers: "the San Diego Freeway" or "the 405 Freeway" is shortened to "the 405," "the Santa Monica Freeway" becomes "the 10 Freeway" or simply "the 10."
I can verify the usage in Southern California and New England, but have not lived in other parts of the country; can anyone verify that this is the case?  If so, I suggest changing the paragraph on roads to read:
"In BrE numbered highways usually take the definite article (for example "the M25", "the A14") while in America roads usually do not ("I-495", "Route 66"), unless they have proper names ("the Boston Post Road," "the San Diego Freeway,").  Southern Californians use freeway numbers interchangeably with their proper names ("the San Diego Freeway" is also "the 405 Freeway" or simply "the 405.")"Articulatron 02:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of articles with numbered highways 

message: Replaced the first sentence of the second paragraph (Nonetheless, as with the -tre words, the t endings are often found in older American texts.) with Nonetheless, as with other usages considered nowadays to be typically British, the t endings are often found in older American texts.I think that '-tre words' in the old version was referring to words like centre vs. center but I found that very confusing when I first read it. Tocharianne 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of sentence in "Verb Morphology" 

message: I just added this note in the main article:
"US usage sometimes substitutes the conditional for the pluperfect ("If I would have cooked the pie we could have had it for lunch")."
:Is this usage generally approved by careful users of English in the US, or is it considered inattentive? Comments very welcome. Notreallydavid 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem inattentive to me. And not just because I've lived in Ireland for 17 years. ;-)  My core dialect is Eastern Pennsylvanian. -- Evertype·✆ 22:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of tenses

message: In the "Different prepositions" section, "closed weekends" is given as an example of a phrase used in both dialects.  I would disagree with this; in BrE, it would always be "closed at weekends", as per the start of the paragraph.  Is it OK just to delete this example? Tevildo 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go ahead and delete it - "closed weekends" would appear on a notice in Britain, but not (IMHO) as an utterance. In fact, "closed at the weekend" (definite article, singular) sounds more natural to me. Snalwibma 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these examples are progressively more UK-en, but I don't think I've ever seen any of them in use: "Open Mon-Fri" seems more familiar to me as a normal UK idiom. --Nigelj 23:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekends 

message: In my experience American urbanites quoting an address often drop the word "street" if it is redundant, e.g. (to take two examples from films) referring to Spring Street as "Spring" (from After Hours) and Bleecker Street as "Bleecker" (from Spider-Man).  This is never done in BrE.  Can anyone confirm this is common? Lfh 11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done, if it can be assumed that the other person knows that it should have street on the end - say when you're talking to somebody who lives in the neighborhood. It is said/written in full otherwise. That said, it is also equally as common for people to say the full name of the street regardless of the situation, so it doesn't really merit inclusion here. Koweja 13:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of American tourists doing the same with taxi drivers in London and being disastrously taken at their word. It may be an urban myth. I can't imagine anyone who asked for "Oxford" instead of "Oxford Street" not actually clarifying the situation over the couple of hours of motorway driving. But I suppose it's possible. --Dweller 13:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard stories like that before too, but it sounds like a joke about tourists that got repeated so often that people started to believe it. Koweja 13:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: My wife had a letter sent to her from the USA with the "street" omitted. The address matched a "street" a "lane" a "road", a "way", a "drive" and "avenue" and a "crescent". Fortunately the postman knew that there was an American lady living at one of the matching addresses so she received the letter. Evidently in Houston and many other US cities the name part is unique. In Leeds and many other UK cities subdivisions will be known by the name, eg "The harolds" and will different roads will be differentiated by "way", "road", etc. See this map  -- Chris Q 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is even clearer on this map -- Chris Q 14:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job the guy wasn't going to Sydney Street.  I doubt any London taxi drivers would take you to Oxford but I suppose it might genuinely happen with Edgware/Edgware Road. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another point that probably needs to be mentioned somewhere - the AmE convention of referring to junctions by giving only the names of the streets, possibly with an "and" (Haight-Ashbury, Lexington-125, Wicker and Main, etc.).  The BrE convention is always to spell everything out in full - "The corner of Lisson Grove and Rossmore Road". Tevildo 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Street" 

message: A question.  In BrE, "Fork out" can be used intransitively, but not "fork over" or "fork up" (cough up, yes).  Is this the case with AmE? Tevildo 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork out/over/up 

message: In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand drink driving is against the law, while in the U.S. and Canada, the term is drunk driving. The legal term in the U.S. is "driving while intoxicated" (D.W.I.) or "driving under the influence" of alcohol (D.U.I.). The equivalent legal phrase in the UK is to be found "drunk in charge" of a motor vehicle (DIC).
Actually  its "Driving while under the influence of alcohol" OR "Attempting to Drive with excess alcohol" in the uk "drunk in charge" is a different offence of being in the possession of a motor vehicle while drunk. you can also be drunk in charge of other things but I will leave that to the lawyers to figure out --Davelane 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drink Driving 

message: * AmE: "What phone number can I call you at"?
* BrE: "What phone number can I call you on"?
Is this a valid difference? --IE 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right to me.  In America we always say "at" for phone numbers because we analogize them to physical addresses.  The same goes for Internet Protocol addresses and domain names, but not ports, though.  So when I use my Web browser to access the Web page at www.microsoft.com, my Web browser contacts the Web server located on port 80 at IP address 207.46.199.30.--Coolcaesar 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "at" verses "on"

message: Why do Americans use the word "momentarily" when they mean "soon".  In BrE, doesn't it mean "briefly"? DFH 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't. "Soon" means in the near future, so it could be several hours or even days from now depending on the context. "Momentarily" means in the immediate future - in other words, the next thing that is going to happen. Koweja 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BrE: "for a moment".  AmE: "in a moment". jnestorius(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Momentarily 

message: I learned English in the US, but I'm from Chile. Sometimes I feel quite offended when Yankees proclaim themselves "Americans." I am not sure the point I am trying to make, however, when I hear the word American, for me it means Native Americans (Mayas, Incas, Mapuches). I don't know if there is another word rather than American for Yankees...Yankees sounds informal.
If not, I'm going to have to "suck it up" and use "Americans" to describe Yankees in my papers.
:There is already a heavily disputed article on that very issue: Use of the word American.  --Coolcaesar 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Vs. America 

message: Perhaps mentioning the British words, "fiver" and "tenner", meaning £5 and £10 respectively, would be useful? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.144.58.74 (talk • contribs).
:And, pre-decimalisation we used to have the names 'tanner', 'bob' etc for coins. Americans still use 'quarter', 'dime' etc, I believe, for some of theirs. I'm not sure that anyone really cares, though. --Nigelj 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Monetary Amounts 

message: The article says that users of BrE would say "No fear" which is synonymous to the AmE, "No way". I'm British and I've never heard "no fear" until I read this article. I don't think it is accurate.
:It certainly used to be used in this way, though I last remember it being used a lot in the 70s -- Chris Q 07:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No fear!"