PDA

View Full Version : What is the difference between 'color' and 'colour' ?



Pages : [1] 2

LinuX-M@n1@k
July 20th, 2008, 10:41 AM
I was looking for how to change the terminal's colors, but I found it like 'colours' -
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prompt-HOWTO/x329.html

What is the difference? I see that Firefox can't recognize 'colour' when I type it here.

clanky
July 20th, 2008, 10:44 AM
Color is the American spelling, colour is the correct spelling :)

Many words are different in US english which is why dictionaries, thesaurses etc. have english (US) and english (UK) as seperate languages.

If you can set the default language in firefox to english (UK) then it will recognise colour,

StOoZ
July 20th, 2008, 10:44 AM
I think that colour is the British way to say color.

bengamblin
July 20th, 2008, 10:45 AM
Colour = UK spelling
Color = US spelling

shad0w_walker
July 20th, 2008, 10:45 AM
Colour is the UK spelling. Color is the US spelling, where for some reason U seems to be dropped like the plague.

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 10:48 AM
Colour is the UK spelling. Color is the US spelling, where for some reason U seems to be dropped like the plague.
We're dropping it like the plage these days, actually.

fatality_uk
July 20th, 2008, 10:59 AM
We're dropping it like the plage these days, actually.

:lol:

English & American English.
A common language separated by a small dispute over a cup of tea, somewhere near Boston I believe!

Americanisms are filtering in the UK language quite quickly. I have heard children refer to pavements as sidewalks!

Vishal Agarwal
July 20th, 2008, 11:03 AM
Both are same, there is no mass difference. One is American Color and the other one is British Colour.

barbedsaber
July 20th, 2008, 11:21 AM
don't get me started on that.

saber and sabre is another example, (I picked the wrong one in my username)

mdsmedia
July 20th, 2008, 12:28 PM
don't get me started on that.

saber and sabre is another example, (I picked the wrong one in my username)LOL, the WRONG one or the AMERICAN one....or both I suppose :)?

It depends where you believe the centre (err center) of the universe is ;).

ELD
July 20th, 2008, 01:07 PM
Also "color" is used in html and css and the likes, dam spelling bugs me as i'm english so i'm used to "colour"

Koori23
July 20th, 2008, 01:34 PM
LOL, the WRONG one or the AMERICAN one....or both I suppose :)?

It depends where you believe the centre (err center) of the universe is ;).

that was cold man...

Masoris
July 20th, 2008, 01:51 PM
LOL, the WRONG one or the AMERICAN one....or both I suppose :)?

It depends where you believe the centre (err center) of the universe is ;).

My centre of universe is East Asia, which one is right for me? :wink:

Barrucadu
July 20th, 2008, 01:58 PM
Also "color" is used in html and css and the likes, dam spelling bugs me as i'm english so i'm used to "colour"

I have to be careful when writing a CSS file, otherwise I'll have 'colour's scattered everywhere!

Dixon Bainbridge
July 20th, 2008, 02:08 PM
LOL, the WRONG one or the AMERICAN one....or both I suppose :)?

It depends where you believe the centre (err center) of the universe is ;).

Americans speak a language derived from English. Color is wrong, colour is correct. How do I know this? Well, because we the English, like totally, invented it. :)

(I feel dirty now, I used "like totally" in a sentence).

mdsmedia
July 20th, 2008, 02:14 PM
that was cold man...It was, wasn't it ;)
Bear in mind, I love the USA.... I spent a month there in 2005 and I loved every second. I would have stayed but they wouldn't let me jump!!

LinuX-M@n1@k
July 20th, 2008, 02:14 PM
And what about 'gray' and 'grey'? :)

mdsmedia
July 20th, 2008, 02:20 PM
Americans speak a language derived from English. Color is wrong, colour is correct. How do I know this? Well, because we the English, like totally, invented it. :)

(I feel dirty now, I used "like totally" in a sentence).Don't you mean we comma the English comma??

mdsmedia
July 20th, 2008, 02:21 PM
And what about 'gray' and 'grey'? :)Totally ;)

tiachopvutru
July 20th, 2008, 02:21 PM
Americans speak a language derived from English. Color is wrong, colour is correct. How do I know this? Well, because we the English, like totally, invented it. :)

(I feel dirty now, I used "like totally" in a sentence).

nah... people use "colour" to make themselves believe that they are 1337 enough. ;)

Now then, 1337 is American spelling and leet is British spelling. :)

Dixon Bainbridge
July 20th, 2008, 02:30 PM
Don't you mean we comma the English comma??

Depends. Formal English or colloquial? You decide!

grouchy_hermit
July 20th, 2008, 02:39 PM
LOL, the WRONG one or the AMERICAN one....or both I suppose :)?

It depends where you believe the centre (err center) of the universe is ;).



I'm just curious when the rest of the world is going to start using the right measurements, like feet and Fahrenheit instead of meters and Celsius. It would be much easier if the rest of the world would just comply! :guitar:
:lolflag:

zmjjmz
July 20th, 2008, 02:39 PM
English, like totally, invented it.

You used it incorrectly too.
It should be

English like totally invented it.

Damn overcommafication is spreading.

rudihawk
July 20th, 2008, 03:10 PM
I'm just curious when the rest of the world is going to start using the right measurements, like feet and Fahrenheit instead of meters and Celsius. It would be much easier if the rest of the world would just comply! :guitar:
:lolflag:

Uh no. Water freezes at 0 degress Centigrade(not like 35 degress F or something random). Meters and kilometers is a whole lot easier to work with that Inches:| yards, miles etc. Ever heard of engineers measuring things in inches? The metric system is far more accurate, and easier to work with. 10mm in a 1cm, 100cm in a meter, 1000meters in a kilometer etc.

Why don't the Americans just comply with the rest of the world.

And as for the spelling :| the Americans can't spell to save their lives. I think they just drop letters to make words easier to spell so that the majority of the population wont look like retards when they write something.

Colour = correct proper way to spell it.
Color = lazy, uneducated :P

tuebinger
July 20th, 2008, 03:39 PM
Actually, British English is an amalgamation of many different languages. This is why it has so many confusing spelling patterns. The 'u' was dropped from 'colour' and 'flavour' and other such words in American English in an effort to try to standardize and phoneticize spelling. It really makes more sense, phnetically, to spell a word the way it's pronounced. You could view the way Americans spell color as an improvement over the old spelling.

Methuselah
July 20th, 2008, 03:48 PM
Colour, centre, etc is used pretty much everywhere else apart from America.
Anyway, nothing more than a complete overall will do any good.

So you replace 's' with 'z' in certain 'ize' words but you still write:
is instead of iz
was instead of wuz

Then it's theater instead of theatre but still
acre not acer.

And so you just end up introducing other inconsistencies.

tuebinger
July 20th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Good points.

The standardization movement didn't quite catch on; however, I don't think we've introduced more inconsistencies to a system of spelling that was already fraught with such contrariety.

I do think we've improved upon the unfortunate patchwork of discordant spelling rules that defines British English.

salvador_luna
July 20th, 2008, 04:10 PM
Well, not everybody speak english in America! I'm from Mexico and my contry is in America, not in the United States of America :)

Methuselah
July 20th, 2008, 04:13 PM
Good points.

The standardization movement didn't quite catch on; however, I don't think we've introduced more inconsistencies to a system of spelling that was already fraught with such contrariety.

I do think we've improved upon the unfortunate patchwork of discordant spelling rules that defines British English.

Not really.
For everything 'corrected' there are still exceptions.
The rules are still inconsistent, just in a different way.

Methuselah
July 20th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Well, not everybody speak english in America! I'm from Mexico and my contry is in America, not in the United States of America :)

And the spanish writing system is absolutely ace.
You can properly pronounce just about any word even if you've never seen it before in your life.
It's probably the most consistent orthography in common use. German isn't bad either.
Don't get me started on french...ha ha, where a thousand letter combinations sound the same.

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 04:58 PM
Well, not everybody speak english in America! I'm from Mexico and my contry is in America, not in the United States of America :)

Wrongo! You might be from NORTH America or the Americas, but Mexico is not in America.

America=USA

North America = The continent

Americas = North and South America


As for the spelling, it was introduced to bring a difference and a closer relation between words and their pronunciation.

you pronounce center cent-ER not cent-RE so that is why the e and the R get switched.


Also one you may have missed is check. A check is something you can use to pay, same as the UK cheque. Nobody likes the French so that is why we got rid of the "que" and replaced it with "ck".

As for the "our" and "or" thing, that comes because there needed to be a distinction between unstressed "our" and stressed "our", so they made unstressed "our" "or" like color. I believe the "our" ending came from latin and french.

Another distinction is in verbs or nouns (no -se). There is no difference between going to a practice, and needing to practice.

We catalog stuff and not catalogue stuff.

Most of the spelling stuff changed came from Latin, French, and Greek roots.



Language is not a static thing, it changes over time. It is a common misconception to compare American English to British English. That would be like comparing French to Cajun French.


Calling it "wrong" or "less formal" would be very ignorant. That is like calling Middle English wrong. If you think it is wrong, why do you not walk around saying "thou" instead of "you"? That is the more correct way to address 1 person informally. Why don't you pompous Brits do it? Oh yes, that is right, language evolves to make things simpler. Have you ever seen a language get more complex in terms of expressing sounds with letters? That would be suicide for a language.

JagDragon
July 20th, 2008, 05:02 PM
color is used in the USA and in programming, wheras colour is used by upper-class chaps such as myself, I do say, wot!

dizee
July 20th, 2008, 05:56 PM
Actually, British English is an amalgamation of many different languages. This is why it has so many confusing spelling patterns. The 'u' was dropped from 'colour' and 'flavour' and other such words in American English in an effort to try to standardize and phoneticize spelling. It really makes more sense, phnetically, to spell a word the way it's pronounced. You could view the way Americans spell color as an improvement over the old spelling.
i take your point on trying to make it make more sense, but i disagree with the "color" spelling because the two vowel sounds are different. if it were up to me it'd be spelled kulor.

Saint Angeles
July 20th, 2008, 05:58 PM
i take your point on trying to make it make more sense, but i disagree with the "color" spelling because the two vowel sounds are different. if it were up to me it'd be spelled kulor.
id prefer kuhlur... yours looks like "koolor"

dizee
July 20th, 2008, 06:05 PM
i don't see how the "u" is stressed there. it's flat. koolor would be "kúlor" (or koo'lor), but then maybe that's the irish language influence.

anyway i think we can agree кулор is the best option ;) just need to adopt the cyrillic alphabet to get rid of these problems.

RATM_Owns
July 20th, 2008, 06:23 PM
Color is the right way, colour is a lie.
Even my spell check says so. And so does these British-hosted forums.

this is red
this is not red

jomiolto
July 20th, 2008, 08:23 PM
Just out of curiosity: is the American spelling considered incorrect in Britain and vice versa? Ie. does an English teacher generally throw a fit if you use "colour" in USA or "color" in Britain?

I'm asking mostly because here in Finland they tried to teach us the British English (the real English :p), while the American spelling/words lost you points in exams. That requirement was relaxed in later years (highschool), though, and after that we were just expected to be consistent with our style and not mix the two with each other -- although, most people did just that, because they had learnt about as much English from films/music as they did from their English lessons.

Lord DarkPat
July 20th, 2008, 08:48 PM
we lose marks if we write color in our tests. I have a habit because all the books I read use the spelling "color" instead of "colour". The person who made color should be sued(I'm rather positive it originated from one-letter laziness or a typo)

wrtpeeps
July 20th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Just out of curiosity: is the American spelling considered incorrect in Britain and vice versa? Ie. does an English teacher generally throw a fit if you use "colour" in USA or "color" in Britain?

I'm asking mostly because here in Finland they tried to teach us the British English (the real English :p), while the American spelling/words lost you points in exams. That requirement was relaxed in later years (highschool), though, and after that we were just expected to be consistent with our style and not mix the two with each other -- although, most people did just that, because they had learnt about as much English from films/music as they did from their English lessons.

Yes, because we spell it right (colour), and they simplify it so they can learn it (color). ;)

If you are doing a spelling test, color will get marked wrong, because you have spelt it incorrectly.

Color is used in programming because a lot of the standards are written by merkins.

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 08:57 PM
we lose marks if we write color in our tests. I have a habit because all the books I read use the spelling "color" instead of "colour". The person who made color should be sued(I'm rather positive it originated from one-letter laziness or a typo)
It most likely originated in the period before widespread orthographical standardization. It is only very recently that we've had any kind of consistency in these things.

I'm tempted to ask those of you who think that UK English is more "correct" to stop using any words or spellings introduced in the past 200 years. :) Then you might have the right to complain.

popch
July 20th, 2008, 09:08 PM
I'm tempted to ask those of you who think that UK English is more "correct" to stop using any words or spellings introduced in the past 200 years. :) Then you might have the right to complain.

That appears to imply that in the USA you could use both 'color' and 'colour' with impunity in schools, both variants being equally "correct". What about 'coulour' and other trivial variants?

Methuselah
July 20th, 2008, 09:10 PM
I wrote a paper for a us college in which the professor 'corrected' spellings such as centre and tyre.

silkstone
July 20th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Never mind about colour/color, grey/gray and all that - at least we all know what it means.

The real PITA is the date format. :( US - mm/dd/yy (why?) European - dd/mm/yy - and you certainly can get those confused.

Can't we all agree on yy/mm/dd and then indexing would be easier too. :)

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 09:21 PM
That appears to imply that in the USA you could use both 'color' and 'colour' with impunity in schools, both variants being equally "correct". What about 'coulour' and other trivial variants?
They're not equally correct, just correct in different regions. Really, it's not so different from the fact that couleur is the word in Quebec.

But my larger point is that there seems to be a claim to historical precedent here when in fact none exists. If one were to return to the point in history where American and British versions of English began diverging, you would find that the language at that point would contain a number of spellings that would be considered incorrect today. Today's UK English conventions are no more grounded in the whole history of the language than are the American conventions.

popch
July 20th, 2008, 09:28 PM
They're not equally correct, just correct in different regions.

That explains it quite nicely. Thank you for making that clear.

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 09:33 PM
we lose marks if we write color in our tests. I have a habit because all the books I read use the spelling "color" instead of "colour". The person who made color should be sued(I'm rather positive it originated from one-letter laziness or a typo)

Then you would be 100% wrong.

It was invented by Noah Webster, a lexicographer and spelling man. He made almost all of the changes to the American spellings. So it was not done by laziness, but by a process of "trimming the fat" off of spelling.




Colour is NOT considered correct in the USA. Maybe in Elementary school it *could* slide, but normally it will not. You will not find it in an American (aka Webster's) Dictionary. It is not included in many dictionary lists, firefox says that I have spelled it wrong.

Although "grey" was taught when I was in school. But know it is no longer taught and excluded from dictionaries.

By your standards the hundreds of words Shakespeare introduced and popularized are considered wrong. The word "Forums" would be wrong too. What is the plural of a cow? Do you use the word cows? O that would be wrong according to your British way of thinking. We should use the much more archaic "kine".

Britain: Get off of your high-horse and understand that things CHANGE. Not because of laziness, but that is inherent in any complex organized thing which is transferred from agent to agent.

Majority rules when it comes to language. What are you going to do an another 50 years where things will REALLY begin to change (with the rate of communication between non english speaking countries). There will be new spellings, new grammar, and new words. What are you going to do then? Sit there and go "That is not right. We had it right 500 years ago and any deviation from that is laziness"?

dizee
July 20th, 2008, 09:35 PM
They're not equally correct, just correct in different regions. Really, it's not so different from the fact that couleur is the word in Quebec.

But my larger point is that there seems to be a claim to historical precedent here when in fact none exists. If one were to return to the point in history where American and British versions of English began diverging, you would find that the language at that point would contain a number of spellings that would be considered incorrect today. Today's UK English conventions are no more grounded in the whole history of the language than are the American conventions.
yeah, it's just the british conventions are established from all of those countries they invaded, whereas the american ones are pretty much exclusive to the US like so many other things (the metric system is even used in canada and that's basically a yellow-pack america, likewise fahrenheit vs celcius, american football vs soccer, etc).

so though the british spelling should be the de facto standard based on the number of countries, the extent of american cultural influence muddies the water.

bruce89
July 20th, 2008, 09:39 PM
american football vs soccer, etc).

You mean football.


Britain: Get off of your high-horse and understand that things CHANGE. Not because of laziness, but that is inherent in any complex organized thing which is transferred from agent to agent.

I have 2 words to say : imperial system. Stop using it, then we can talk about Britain being an old stick in the mud.

I fail to see what advantage dropping 'u's from words has. Is it just because anything British was disliked after independence?

dizee
July 20th, 2008, 09:42 PM
You mean football.

but of course. just used it for the benefit of the americans.

bruce89
July 20th, 2008, 09:45 PM
but of course. just used it for the benefit of the americans.

I really should look to see where people are from before I say anything.

Surely Gaelic Football is real football.

flytripper
July 20th, 2008, 09:49 PM
lol what a thread... My biggest bug bear is that biased software companies think they can change a language America doesnt even own. It makes me really mad and laugh out loud at the same time.I play warcraft and they assume the english servers all want to speak American English. I mean, WTF!?
Nothing annoys me more than installing windows software and having to accept (US English(recent Ubuntu convert)). To me, and forgive me for offending more intelligent Americano's, the dropping of letters is simply a dumbing down of a colourful language which needn't take place. Needless to say, It'll be a cold day in hell before a yank changes the way I spell.
You come from us, get over it.Face.

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 09:58 PM
the dropping of letters is simply a dumbing down of a colourful language which needn't take place.
Okay, two things:
1) We've spelled it that way for centuries, so it isn't "dumbing it down." It may seem that way to you, because you've become aware of the difference only recently (i.e., within the scope of your lifetime)

2) Your sentence employs a dangling modifier. To me, a grammatical error of that kind is -- besides being incorrect on both sides of the pond -- of much more gravity than a historical difference in orthographical convention.

flytripper
July 20th, 2008, 10:02 PM
So my "quoted" sentence is wrong to you? It could've been taken abstractly and in more broad, sweeping terms as the "dropping the letter U" crime is being committed en mass and not by one individual per-se.

dizee
July 20th, 2008, 10:03 PM
I really should look to see where people are from before I say anything.

Surely Gaelic Football is real football.
it depends actually :)

for a dubliner, football is football.

for country people, football is usually gaelic football, they use soccer but they'll understand when football is used for soccer too.

so it's a bit of a mess.

mssever
July 20th, 2008, 10:04 PM
One thing people seem to be assuming is that spelling differences between UK and US English are all American changes. Take, for example, curb. That is the older spelling, but the British changed it after American independence to kerb (I think I have that right). Also, the reason most countries use British spelling is because most countries were introduced to English by the British. In the Philippines, I'm told that American usage is much more common (due to US influence). I spent a year in the Marshall Islands where American usage is the norm. Britain simply had a larger empire than the US.

As far as the term American goes, I'm often amazed at how, despite the fact that English has a huge lexicon compared with most other languages, we're still missing some basic terms. Logically, an American is someone from the Americas. That's how Spanish uses the term, and I think that Spanish is correct. But there's no English equivalent to the Spanish estadounidense, which literally means "United Statesian." Brits can use the term Yank, but in the US the term Yankee refers to a specific region within the US (which region is a matter of some dispute). So adopting that term would only cause more confusion.

2cute4u
July 20th, 2008, 10:04 PM
I find it so funny that people from the UK insist that "American" spellings are wrong and "British" right, when actually many of the "American" spellings are actually OLDER British spellings. And the so called "British" spellings (such as colour) are actually more recent, french influenced variations.

So not only is COLOR more correct, it's even more British.

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 10:09 PM
So my "quoted" sentence is wrong to you? It could've been taken abstractly and in more broad, sweeping terms as the "dropping the letter U" crime is being committed en mass and not by one individual per-se.
Yes. The "which" has more than one possible referent (grammatically, I mean -- semantically the meaning is easy to get from context, but it is still incorrect grammar).

Canis familiaris
July 20th, 2008, 10:11 PM
So not only is COLOR more correct, it's even more British.
I dunno. It is correct in HTML at least. :guitar:

flytripper
July 20th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Funny you should say that as it was one of the entrance essay titles to my degree course. (foundation English lit)

flytripper
July 20th, 2008, 10:14 PM
I jest. I am not studying literature at all or ever. This whole U thing just gets my back up. Whatever happens I will always use it no matter how peverse the world becomes. lets call it quits. I concede to you good fellow.

ubuntu27
July 20th, 2008, 10:15 PM
Wrongo! You might be from NORTH America or the Americas, but Mexico is not in America.

America=USA

North America = The continent

Americas = North and South America


I've traveled many places in my life. Argentina, Peru, Chile, USA, and Japan. (I am only 21. I expect to travel more)

I never been in European continent, but, I can tell you this. Wherever you go (except japan), everyone will tell your that Peru, Chile, Mexico, and all other countries in south America and north America IS IN THE AMERICA CONTINENT.

USA is the only country that claims that they are in "America". Sorry pal, but, I think that is just selfish.

Ask any Latin-american if they are in America. All of they will affirm, "Yes, we are in America".

When I went to Peru, I was in Secondary school (High School for USA), I learned there that there are five (5) continents:

America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania.

I look at atlas and encyclopedia from different countries. Surely, they say there are five continents.

Now, when I came here to USA. I was also still in High School. (I am in USA's College now)
In American High School, they though me that there are seven (7) continents. What were they?

Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia (What!? Isn't Australia just a COUNTRY?!), and behold! North America, and South America. (Why do they have to dive it?)


I think it has something to do with racial discrimination and superiority.


Just like what the whole world calls Football (or futbol), USA calls it "Soccer"


I don't know exactly what's going on. But, from my experience and some observations, it seems that USA has been isolated from the rest.


In conclusion. Everyone in America (The continent) or Americas (If you wan to make it plural..) says that they are American. They are in the American Continent.


PS: For those who are curious. Japan says that there are SIX (6) Continents. You've read it right, not 7 or 5, but 6.

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 10:18 PM
You mean football.



I have 2 words to say : imperial system. Stop using it, then we can talk about Britain being an old stick in the mud.

I have very rarely seen any American chastise the Metric system; however, I quite frequently see Brits make fun or demean American spellings.

I see the metric system taking over in ~10 years in most commercial applications.

In school, I have never used the imperial system except for temperature telling.

You have to understand that 20-30 years ago that the government tried implementing the metric system. Road signs were changed to metric, and the whole deal. But then the Cold War paranoia took over and Americans feared that Russians would more easily infiltrate the States if everything was in metric.

In school, they use the metric system for pretty much everything. In science, they use the metric system for everything.

Britain does not fully embrace the imperial system either. You still sell things in "pints", your signs still have miles on them, you still use "feet and inches" and you still have MPH.

I really don't see how us using the imperial system is so bad. ALL of our scientific papers are published in metric. Very rarely is there a commercial en devour that spans across the ocean that is not in metric. So basically all of our communications with outside countries are in metric.

If you think that we use the imperial system in chemistry classes, science classes, or what not then you would be gravely mistaken.


Any who, there are several hundred word changes that separate UK spelling from US spelling. It doesn't simply stop at dropping a "u".

Yes, when the Americans parted ways with the British, there was a change to make them separate, but if you think that is the only reason,
you are missing a HUGE fundamental change in the way language *should* work. In America language is not based off of aristocracy, heritage, or "controlling" the language. It should be free to flow. The people should have a part in creating the language they want to speak. It is about freedom. They add new words to the dictionary all the time, do you know why? Because they become popularized and people see that THAT is a new word. "ginormous" is a word. Why? because enough people used it to be added.

I do not go down south and complain that relatives speak wrongly because they say "PURty". It is their way to talk and that is fine with me.

Do the Dutch go down to South America and make fun of Afrikaans and say it is wrong?

“Language is not an abstract construction of the learned, or of dictionary makers, but is something arising out of the work, needs, ties, joys, affections, tastes, of long generations of humanity, and has its bases broad and low, close to the ground” --Noah Webster

johnnybravo666
July 20th, 2008, 10:18 PM
Also, the reason most countries use British spelling is because most countries were introduced to English by the British. In the Philippines, I'm told that American usage is much more common (due to US influence). I spent a year in the Marshall Islands where American usage is the norm. Britain simply had a larger empire than the US.

I'm from South Africa and the English we speak down here is influenced by UK English. Logical as Britain were our colonial masters a long time ago. Although it must be said that the English spoken in SA is now a mixture of UK English and US English. For example, we spell colour like the British, but both the '-ze' and '-se' suffixes are widely accepted as interchangeable. Also soccer is used, not football.

mssever
July 20th, 2008, 10:22 PM
Just like what the whole world calls Football (or futbol), USA calls it "Soccer"
We can thank the English for that. Back in the day, there was Rugby football and association football. Some people at Oxford coined the term "soccer" to distinguish between their sport and the other football, "rugger."

The British army introduced rugby to the Canadians, who modified the rules and introduced it to the US, where the rules were further changed. Then, when assoc. football crossed the pond, there was a need to differentiate between the already established football and the new, very different, football. The Oxford term came to the rescue.

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Why do they have to dive it?
Because, well, they are separate geological masses. In other words, for the same reason we divide Europe from Africa (though you could walk between the two).

For those interested in seeing how they things were spelled before we Americans started lining the "U"s up against a wall, here is Shakespeare's (or, as it was spelled by one of his friends, "Shakspere") Sonnet XI. I'm not responsible for the page design. It contains the sonnet in his spelling as well as in contemporary UK spelling:
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/xicomm.htm

mssever
July 20th, 2008, 10:25 PM
Do the Dutch go down to South America and make fun of Afrikaans and say it is wrong?
I didn't realize that Afrikaans is spoken in South America. :)

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 10:29 PM
I'm from South Africa and the English we speak down here is influenced by UK English. Logical as Britain were our colonial masters a long time ago. Although it must be said that the English spoken in SA is now a mixture of UK English and US English. For example, we spell colour like the British, but both the '-ze' and '-se' suffixes are widely accepted as interchangeable. Also soccer is used, not football.
Canadian English is in a very similar situation. Many UK spellings and many U.S. spellings. And then French, which is also an official national language, so appears on all official documents and signage.

ubuntu27
July 20th, 2008, 10:32 PM
Because, well, they are separate geological masses. In other words, for the same reason we divide Europe from Africa (though you could walk between the two).
[/url]


That doesn't answer my question. As I said, every single country from Mexico (North) to Chile (South) claims that they are in America. Their textbooks, encyclopedia, and Atlas supports that. They don't divide North America and South America. They just call it America.

Also, USA says there are 7 Continents
Latin-american countries says that are 5 Continents
Japan says that are 6 Continents.

I don't think it is just about geology. [I think] that political issues are involved.

If they are all supposedly dividing by geological issues, then everyone should agree on how many continents there are.


We can thank the English for that. Back in the day, there was Rugby football and association football. Some people at Oxford coined the term "soccer" to distinguish between their sport and the other football, "rugger."

The British army introduced rugby to the Canadians, who modified the rules and introduced it to the US, where the rules were further changed. Then, when assoc. football crossed the pond, there was a need to differentiate between the already established football and the new, very different, football. The Oxford term came to the rescue.

:guitar: Thank you for the little history lesson :)

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 10:34 PM
I didn't realize that Afrikaans is spoken in South America. :)

Doh...



Because, well, they are separate geological masses. In other words, for the same reason we divide Europe from Africa (though you could walk between the two).

For those interested in seeing how they things were spelled before we Americans started lining the "U"s up against a wall, here is Shakespeare's (or, as it was spelled by one of his friends, "Shakspere") Sonnet XI. I'm not responsible for the page design. It contains the sonnet in his spelling as well as in contemporary UK spelling:
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/xicomm.htm

Yes. Saying that it is "racial discrimination" is in my opinion ignorant.

Also, Distinction varies according to culture.

Some cultures only distinguish between 3-4 colors. (i think red black white and blue) but dont quote me. but Culture has a huge part in distinction between objects.

mister_k81
July 20th, 2008, 10:35 PM
Just out of curiosity: is the American spelling considered incorrect in Britain and vice versa? Ie. does an English teacher generally throw a fit if you use "colour" in USA or "color" in Britain?


"Colour" is also the commonly used spelling in Canada (though, "color" is also acceptable here too). But, some of my old English teachers in the past would drop marks for spelling "colour" as "color".

The same thing goes for other words like "armour", spelling "cheque" instead of "check", "grey" instead of "gray" and so on :D ...

johnnybravo666
July 20th, 2008, 10:37 PM
Canadian English is in a very similar situation. Many UK spellings and many U.S. spellings. And then French, which is also an official national language, so appears on all official documents and signage.

We have 11(eleven) official languages here. Try that on for size. All government documents are printed in all of them. Fortunately signage is determined by whichever language(s) are most common in the area. Having signs in all eleven languages would be a bit silly.

And words from all of them have crept into colloqial(and occasionally formal) English.

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 10:38 PM
That doesn't answer my question. As I said, every single country from Mexico (North) to Chile (South) claims that they are in America. Their textbooks, encyclopedia, and Atlas supports that. They don't divide North America and South America. They just call it America.
Your question is hard to answer because it goes both ways. Why would it be either way?

The division between North and South America is geologically much more obvious than the division between Europe and Asia. If you want to challenge historical conventions that divide continents, that would be the place to start.

mssever
July 20th, 2008, 10:40 PM
We have 11(eleven) official languages here.
You must be from India.

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 10:41 PM
Your question is hard to answer because it goes both ways. Why would it be either way?

The division between North and South America is geologically much more obvious than the division between Europe and Asia. If you want to challenge historical conventions that divide continents, that would be the place to start.

It is kind of like asking what divides red from green. Extremely hard to answer with out cornering yourself in the thought of the people that made the distinction.

johnnybravo666
July 20th, 2008, 10:48 PM
You must be from India.

South Africa :)

koenn
July 20th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Do the Dutch go down to South America and make fun of Afrikaans and say it is wrong?

That's South Africa,
and yes, it does sound funny sometimes.



I really don't see how us using the imperial system is so bad. ALL of our scientific papers are published in metric. Very rarely is there a commercial en devour that spans across the ocean that is not in metric. So basically all of our communications with outside countries are in metric.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html

wrtpeeps
July 20th, 2008, 10:55 PM
The most annoying american word has got to be "soccer".

What the hell is that?

p_quarles
July 20th, 2008, 11:00 PM
The most annoying american word has got to be "soccer".

What the hell is that?
Heheh, you missed the discussion of that. That's a British invention, of Oxonian pedigree no less. Don't look at us. :)

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 11:01 PM
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html

lol I know. but I never said always, I said rarely.

guildofghostwriters
July 20th, 2008, 11:03 PM
And the spanish writing system is absolutely ace.
You can properly pronounce just about any word even if you've never seen it before in your life.
It's probably the most consistent orthography in common use. German isn't bad either.

Finnish is pretty much entirely consistent. Perhaps not very much used however.

Some geezer called Isaac Pitman, who devised (and whose name is given) to shorthand, came up with a spelling reform to make the spelling consistent with how it sounds. Here's an example I stumbled upon on project gutenberg a few years back:


MR. EIZAK PITMAN,
AUTHOR OV "FONOGRAFI OR FONETIK SHORTHAND," AND ORIJINATER OV THE
SPELING REFORM.


If a breef skech ov mei leif, and the deietetik maner ov it, wil be
ov servis tu you, ei gladly giv it. Your rekwest abzolvz me from the
impiutashon ov boasting. If you make it publik, pray let it be printed
in the parshiali reformd speling in hwich it iz riten. (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ststm10.txt)

The problem with making English spelling consistent with how it sounds is that it sounds different wherever you go. I can travel less than 30 miles in various directions and get huge variations in the sounds of words, especially anything with an o or a in it. And it's like that all around the UK, let alone all the other parts of the world English is spoken.

ubuntu27
July 20th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Also, Distinction varies according to culture.

Some cultures only distinguish between 3-4 colors. (i think red black white and blue) but don't quote me. but Culture has a huge part in distinction between objects.

So you are bringing Theory of Relativity here? That my reality is right, and your reality is also right, even if it contradicts mine?

That will make salvador_luna (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=116287) correct. As you say, his culture dictates that he lives in America (Mexico).

Then you will be wrong in your previous post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5423289#post5423289) in which you stated that Salvador was wrong.

But then again, if we bring relativism both of you are right.

dracule
July 20th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Finnish is pretty much entirely consistent. Perhaps not very much used however.

Some geezer called Isaac Pitman, who devised (and whose name is given) to shorthand, came up with a spelling reform to make the spelling consistent with how it sounds. Here's an example I stumbled upon on project gutenberg a few years back:



The problem with making English spelling consistent with how it sounds is that it sounds different wherever you go. I can travel less than 30 miles in various directions and get huge variations in the sounds of words, especially anything with an o or a in it. And it's like that all around the UK, let alone all the other parts of the world English is spoken.


This annoys me:

read and read

I heard that illiteracy in Denmark is rising because the language does not accurately reflect the sounds which the letters should make.

flytripper
July 20th, 2008, 11:13 PM
I red it earlier. hehe.

ubuntu27
July 20th, 2008, 11:19 PM
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html

Good Read!

The whole world uses metric system except 4 countries:

1) Brunei
2) People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
3) United States of America
4) Yemen Arab Republic


I think it is time we ditch United States System. :)

mips
July 20th, 2008, 11:50 PM
I didn't realize that Afrikaans is spoken in South America. :)

Neither did I. I know that many many moons ago some afrikaans people did leave for argentina or somewhere but they no longer speak afrikaans.

mssever
July 21st, 2008, 12:27 AM
The whole world uses metric system except 4 countries:

1) Brunei
2) People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
3) United States of America
4) Yemen Arab Republic
Add to that list the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Maybe the Marshall Islands is such a small country that it gets ignored.

But, I think that we should switch to metric.

Cap'n Skyler
July 21st, 2008, 01:45 AM
Colour is the UK spelling. Color is the US spelling, where for some reason U seems to be dropped like the plague.

you guys just like to make things complicated for no real reason.
hehe

it is the british way really.
i like to condense and simplify--ala jeff foxworthy
ie "yant tew?"
is do you want to?
"djeet?"
is did you eat?

:popcorn:

Cap'n Skyler
July 21st, 2008, 01:48 AM
Add to that list the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Maybe the Marshall Islands is such a small country that it gets ignored.

But, I think that we should switch to metric.
i am an american in america..i use the metric system exclusively.

take british standard and the american inch and dispose of both of those asap!!

Squid Tamer
July 21st, 2008, 06:05 AM
YAY!!! British vs American flame war! What fun!:D

But really, I live in the good ol' USA and prefer color to colour and center to ceeneeteereeeee (or whatever it is).

Who does it hurt to simple things up?:)


Us in the south US rarely say two words separately. A common word down here is yall. Use it every 10 minutes. Means "all of you" or "you all". It can even be used as in "all of yall".

handy
July 21st, 2008, 06:12 AM
u

rated727
July 21st, 2008, 06:30 AM
](*,)
I'm just curious when the rest of the world is going to start using the right measurements, like feet and Fahrenheit instead of meters and Celsius. It would be much easier if the rest of the world would just comply! :guitar:
:lolflag:

Don't EVEN get me started!

Born in Arizona,US but can't understand why USAmericans won't give up their confusing and disjointed measurement systems. ](*,)

rated727
July 21st, 2008, 06:35 AM
:lol:

English & American English.
A common language separated by a small dispute over a cup of tea, somewhere near Boston I believe!

Americanisms are filtering in the UK language quite quickly. I have heard children refer to pavements as sidewalks!

God save the Queen's English. ;)

ad_267
July 21st, 2008, 06:41 AM
Interesting fact I learned today. Only three countries in the world haven't adopted SI units as their official units:

Myanmar, Liberia and the USA.

And to answer the original question, "color" is just colour spelt incorrectly.

rated727
July 21st, 2008, 06:46 AM
Good points.

The standardization movement didn't quite catch on; however, I don't think we've introduced more inconsistencies to a system of spelling that was already fraught with such contrariety.

I do think we've improved upon the unfortunate patchwork of discordant spelling rules that defines British English.

OH? How do you pronounce "ghoti"?

hint: gh from "laugh" - o from "women" - ti from "action"

"ghoti" can according to established rules of English pronunciation (and this applies in England, South Africa, Australia, and US) be the same as "fish"

Latin based languages are far more dependable when it comes to spelling and pronounciation, my favorite is Spanish which has VERY few odd or exceptional pronounciations.

tuebinger
July 21st, 2008, 06:59 AM
Yes, I've heard that example before about ghoti. That really drives the point home. English is a mess, phonetically.

But I still say we've improved upon it... if only for a few words.

Spanish definitely does a lot better phonetically. So does German for that matter.

rated727
July 21st, 2008, 07:19 AM
Finnish is pretty much entirely consistent. Perhaps not very much used however.

Some geezer called Isaac Pitman, who devised (and whose name is given) to shorthand, came up with a spelling reform to make the spelling consistent with how it sounds. Here's an example I stumbled upon on project gutenberg a few years back:



The problem with making English spelling consistent with how it sounds is that it sounds different wherever you go. I can travel less than 30 miles in various directions and get huge variations in the sounds of words, especially anything with an o or a in it. And it's like that all around the UK, let alone all the other parts of the world English is spoken.


As far as different pronounciations are conserned, from eastern Tennesee,US to centeral Tennesee,US you would physically complete the crossing of a mountain range. In the same distance, you linguistically cross vast distances of time and space. (similar linguistic distance can be found in the film "My Fair Lady")

Everyone sing along, "Thee rayn in Spayn stays maynly in the playn."

Sef
July 21st, 2008, 08:57 AM
Latin based languages are far more dependable when it comes to spelling and pronounciation, my favorite is Spanish which has VERY few odd or exceptional pronounciations.

French is not nearly as phonetic as Spanish. For example, there are 8 way to write a long A.

jay019
July 21st, 2008, 09:36 AM
For me, I couldnt care less how you spell a word as I think I am intelligent enough to work out what you mean (maybe :P)

But two things I wish were standardized the world over are dates and units of measurement.

I mean, is 9/11 the ninth day of november or the 11th day of september? Depends where you live. I think that the best format is day/month/year as to me its most logical (smallest unit to largest unit) but I'd be just as happy with YYYY/MM/DD but doubt I'll see that happen (except in any application I write that uses dates ;))

And whats with inches/yards/feet/miles whatever. Damn, metric is so much easier to understand.

Disclaimer: These are only my opinions. If you dont agree, whatever, just dont lose any sleep over it.

lisati
July 21st, 2008, 09:41 AM
God save the Queen's English. ;)
Our American friends have hijacked the melody


BTW: it's neither pavement nor sidewalk, but footpath. Or in other words, watch out for skateboarders and cyclists.

lisati
July 21st, 2008, 09:45 AM
For me, I couldnt care less how you spell a word as I think I am intelligent enough to work out what you mean (maybe :P)

But two things I wish were standardized the world over are dates and units of measurement.

I mean, is 9/11 the ninth day of november or the 11th day of september? Depends where you live. I think that the best format is day/month/year as to me its most logical (smallest unit to largest unit) but I'd be just as happy with YYYY/MM/DD but doubt I'll see that happen (except in any application I write that uses dates ;))

And whats with inches/yards/feet/miles whatever. Damn, metric is so much easier to understand.

Disclaimer: These are only my opinions. If you dont agree, whatever, just dont lose any sleep over it.
Personally, I had high hopes for New Zealand when we went metric in the 1970s. These days, I am bugged by measurements I was never taught at school - cageys and kays......Thankfully the conversion from cageys and kays to their metric equivalent is fairly straightforward: none of this subtract 32 and multiply by 5/9th stuff.

Aaah, that feels better. I think I'll go now and calculate the compound interest on the parabolic circle traveling at the speed of light past three men who take four days to mow a lawn of six acres (or is that hectares?)

flytripper
July 21st, 2008, 10:00 AM
Yes, I've heard that example before about ghoti. That really drives the point home. English is a mess, phonetically.

But I still say we've improved upon it... if only for a few words.

Spanish definitely does a lot better phonetically. So does German for that matter.
English is English, NOT American so leave our language alone!! Its not yours to improve. Its our right to be phonetically incorrect. Its OUR language!!

jay019
July 21st, 2008, 10:21 AM
English is English, NOT American so leave our language alone!! Its not yours to improve. Its our right to be phonetically incorrect. Its OUR language!!

Lol. Arent yanks just poms that decided to **** off and sail across the ocean
:P

flytripper
July 21st, 2008, 01:06 PM
the fore fathers or something like that. a bunch of quakers i beleive.

scragar
July 21st, 2008, 01:38 PM
Heat should be measured in Kelvin, not Celcius,much more logic to have a scale for thermal energy that start's at 0 for no energy, that one that starts at 0 because for some reason water is seen to be important.

Oh, and I can't get my tongue around the USA's spelling(I'd use Yank or American, but that looks to want to cause an argument more than solve one).

Oh, and my speed is measured in km/hour, my weight in newtons, mass in kilograms and height in meters. Can we all just agree to those standards? They have been used by all of the world for quite some time now.

koenn
July 21st, 2008, 01:53 PM
Oh, and my speed is measured in km/hour, ... Can we all just agree to those standards? They have been used by all of the world for quite some time now.

speed in m/s maybe ?

caravel
July 21st, 2008, 02:01 PM
Color is the Spanish for colour. Vapor is the Spanish word for vapour. Then there's favour and favor and many more. This does not apply to some American English words that have the u dropped as they don't appear to be Spanish in their origins, but the dropping of the u probably does have something to do with the US' very hispanic history.

The "ou" is a softer sound sort of like "culahh", "vaypahh", "fayvahh", wheras the "o" is a hard sound as in "culOR", "vaypOR", "fayvOR". This is why the "ou" is the correct form and the other version is well... Spanish.

Edit: Have the Americans changed would, could and should to "wold", "cold" and "shold" as well?

:lolflag:

DrMega
July 21st, 2008, 02:03 PM
Heat should be measured in Kelvin, not Celcius,much more logic to have a scale for thermal energy that start's at 0 for no energy, that one that starts at 0 because for some reason water is seen to be important.

You have to admit that water is slightly important. Life would be much less fun without water:)



Oh, and my speed is measured in km/hour

mph is better. Why use a metric measure for the distance if you're not going to use a metric measure for time? (Ok, I know there is no other measurement for time, I'm being pedantic:) )


my weight in newtons

Newtons are used to measure force, not weight.


Can we all just agree to those standards? They have been used by all of the world for quite some time now.

Standards are a bad idea. If everything was standardised, what means would we have to confuse each other for fun? How would the French raise so much in speeding fines when British drivers see their speed limit signs and take the figure as mph instead of km/h? How would the older folks pick on the younger folks for not understanding guinees, shillings and old pence?

R_T_H
July 21st, 2008, 02:07 PM
Newtons are used to measure force, not weight.

And weight is a force, no? Or at least a measurement of gravity acting on a mass

scragar
July 21st, 2008, 02:16 PM
Newtons are used to measure force, not weight.


erm, no.

weight = mass * gravity
gravity is acceleration towards the GPC(gravitation point of centre) for both objects, so:

weight = mass * acceleration
now please, remind me again, what's the rule for finding a force? It wouldn't happen to be:
f=ma
force = mass*acceleration
would it? I thought so.

Vishal Agarwal
July 21st, 2008, 02:17 PM
program and programme ?

Government and Goverment ?

R_T_H
July 21st, 2008, 02:41 PM
Goverment

Never seen that spelling before

popch
July 21st, 2008, 02:44 PM
speed in m/s maybe ?

As anyone knows, furlongs/fortnight is the only reasonable unit of speed.

scragar
July 21st, 2008, 02:45 PM
Goverment = the UK spelling, not that many people actualy use it, the offending n is far to common lately.

Why are we fighting over English against American? Shouldn't it be English+American vs TxtSpk? or
r u ok wit tis i duno y ppl lik it*shudders*

DrMega
July 21st, 2008, 02:49 PM
erm, no.

weight = mass * gravity
gravity is acceleration towards the GPC(gravitation point of centre) for both objects, so:

weight = mass * acceleration
now please, remind me again, what's the rule for finding a force? It wouldn't happen to be:
f=ma
force = mass*acceleration
would it? I thought so.

I don't doubt your maths, but the Newton is a measure of force, weight is measured in grams and kilos etc. If memory serves (and may not) 1N = 1 gram, it is just the way we use them that makes the difference. If you are pushing a stantionary object to make it move, the force you apply is measured in Newtons. You might implement that force using some apparatus involving some gears and pullies and a 1Kg weight, so assuming a 1:1 gear ratio and no friction etc, the force applied would be 1000 newtons but the weight of the object that pulled the pully would be 1000 grams.

I don't care either way. I know that if I fall over on some ice while drunk, it will hurt either way whether no matter what unit of measurement we choose to measure the force of impact:)

popch
July 21st, 2008, 02:56 PM
I don't doubt your maths, but the Newton is a measure of force, weight is measured in grams and kilos etc.

Or very nearly so. Use Newtons to measure force, grams to measure mass. Weight as such does not exist.

Part of the confusion derives from the instruments we use to determine 'weight'. Most of those actually measure a force while their readouts appear to be calibrated in grams, which is reasonable under the assumption that a given scale will be used in a field of a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s2.

scragar
July 21st, 2008, 02:57 PM
I don't doubt your maths, but the Newton is a measure of force, weight is measured in grams and kilos etc. If memory serves (and may not) 1N = 1 gram, it is just the way we use them that makes the difference. If you are pushing a stantionary object to make it move, the force you apply is measured in Newtons. You might implement that force using some apparatus involving some gears and pullies and a 1Kg weight, so assuming a 1:1 gear ratio and no friction etc, the force applied would be 1000 newtons but the weight of the object that pulled the pully would be 1000 grams.

I don't care either way. I know that if I fall over on some ice while drunk, it will hurt either way whether no matter what unit of measurement we choose to measure the force of impact:)

a KG is constant(being a measure of mass, so total amount os stuff) no matter where you are, your weight changes based on gravity, on the moon you weight much less, but your mass is still the same, so weight cannot be measured using the same scale as mass. The problem occurs because long ago people were stupid and assumed that mass and weight are the same, which is causing your confusion.

DrMega
July 21st, 2008, 03:05 PM
a KG is constant(being a measure of mass, so total amount os stuff) no matter where you are, your weight changes based on gravity, on the moon you weight much less, but your mass is still the same, so weight cannot be measured using the same scale as mass. The problem occurs because long ago people were stupid and assumed that mass and weight are the same, which is causing your confusion.

I take exception to being called stupid. I know that mass and weight are not the same, I believe I indicated as such earlier, and even if I didn't know that, it wouldn't make me stupid. Are all those people who never took an interest in physics at school stupid?

Oh, and the newton is still a measure of force and not weight.

scragar
July 21st, 2008, 03:45 PM
I never said you were stupid, I said that long ago people were, by the masses, stupid. Sorry if you missunderstood that.

What your missing is that weight is a force. Common group idea is to call it gravity, but gravity is not the force itself, it's the interaction.(in the same way that light, magnetics and such are all interactions).

DrMega
July 21st, 2008, 04:16 PM
I never said you were stupid, I said that long ago people were, by the masses, stupid. Sorry if you missunderstood that.

What your missing is that weight is a force. Common group idea is to call it gravity, but gravity is not the force itself, it's the interaction.(in the same way that light, magnetics and such are all interactions).

Ok. Anyway, we've hijacked this thread a fair bit now, back on topic.....

colour vs color, favour vs favor, nappy vs diper, tap vs fawcet, pavement vs sidewalk, English vs US American. It is a point of great confusion that the US folks choose to call their language "English" becuase there are many differences between English (ie the first language of the English folks) and US "English" (US American) the official language of the folks of US of A.

popch
July 21st, 2008, 04:28 PM
It is a point of great confusion that the US folks choose to call their language "English" because there are many differences

Those differences are, however, very small indeed. Of course, they tend to confuse bloody foreigners who think that the English speaking countries ought to make up their silly minds and arrive at a consistent way of writing things.

Once you hear some people speak English, those differences become very insignificant. Alone the vowel shifts across Britain are a wonder to hear. 'Meshreams' with your steak, anybody?

If that isn't enough, learn some German. German German even has a letter which the Swiss do not have. Germans do not usually understand Swiss people, even when they think they are speaking formal German. There are variations in spelling and lots of mutually incomprehensible words and turns of speech.

Some say that this was the reason why Germans generally like the Swiss, because they cannot understand what they say. The Swiss, OTOH, usually understand what the Germans say.

jay019
July 21st, 2008, 04:47 PM
Once you hear some people speak English, those differences become very insignificant. Alone the vowel shifts across Britain are a wonder to hear. 'Meshreams' with your steak, anybody?


Lol. Ask a New Zealander to say 6 pack or fish and chips. :P

tuebinger
July 21st, 2008, 04:58 PM
The Swiss, OTOH, usually understand what the Germans say.

Unless the Germans are from Bavaria or Schwaben!

chucky chuckaluck
July 21st, 2008, 05:07 PM
i only understood a fourth of what my wife said when i first met her. we're both americans, born in america, but i'm originally from boston and she's originally from a small town in north carolina.

tuebinger
July 21st, 2008, 05:16 PM
English is English, NOT American so leave our language alone!! Its not yours to improve. Its our right to be phonetically incorrect. Its OUR language!!

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. English is a beautiful language just the way it is -- even with all of its exotic spellings. I merely wanted to point out how Americans phoneticized some of the spelling patterns, thereby improving upon the original, in my opinion.

But I disagree that English is not American -- the language we speak is ours, and it's very much English -- American English, or 'US English' if you insist.

All languages belong to the people who speak them. So in this sense your English belongs to you. But England can no more claim ownership of this language than they can of the countries that used to be part of its empire.

mick222
July 21st, 2008, 05:18 PM
This topic just goes to show how wars start . A stupid argument over tiny differences in language.

scragar
July 21st, 2008, 06:32 PM
This topic just goes to show how wars start . A stupid argument over tiny differences in language.

where's the war?

I don't see anyone claiming to know of WMDs anywhere... :P

LaRoza
July 21st, 2008, 06:40 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. English is a beautiful language just the way it is -- even with all of its exotic spellings. I merely wanted to point out how Americans phoneticized some of the spelling patterns, thereby improving upon the original, in my opinion.
The original spellings of English words often made sense at one point. Old English, Latin and French words are spelled "oddly", because we say them differently but the spelling still reflects their origins.



But I disagree that English is not American -- the language we speak is ours, and it's very much English -- American English, or 'US English' if you insist.
American English is much more unified. In fact, American English is uniform across the entire nation much more so than "English English" which is a fractured language.



All languages belong to the people who speak them. So in this sense your English belongs to you. But England can no more claim ownership of this language than they can of the countries that used to be part of its empire.

In that case, it belongs to the French and Romans ;)


This topic just goes to show how wars start . A stupid argument over tiny differences in language.

Tell me, which end of an egg do you crack? The big end? Or the little end?

As for the title of this thread, I often use the so called "British" spellings for things, mainly because I read a lot and take on the older or non American spellings of words. However, I refuse to call soccer football and I refuse to call Aluminum (which is named scientifically and by a Brit) "Aluminium" which was also coined by a Brit, but this time to "sound Classical".

R_T_H
July 21st, 2008, 07:10 PM
I don't see anyone claiming to know of WMDs anywhere... :P

Not yet... Give me time :twisted:

forrestcupp
July 21st, 2008, 08:15 PM
Tell me, which end of an egg do you crack? The big end? Or the little end?
Now that's something I've never thought of. I always crack it right in the middle of the side. I'll have to try it on the end sometime. That's making me hungry for a McGriddle! :)

LaRoza
July 21st, 2008, 08:17 PM
Now that's something I've never thought of. I always crack it right in the middle of the side. I'll have to try it on the end sometime.

It was a reference to the Lilliputians and Blefuscans whose war was about that. From Gulliver's Travels.

DrMega
July 21st, 2008, 08:22 PM
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. English is a beautiful language just the way it is -- even with all of its exotic spellings.

English doesn't stand much chance of following a standard because it is a mishmash of native languages plus European languages with influences spanning about 6000 years. Add to that the fact that Britain or its constituent countries didn't exist as anything more than a load of different tribes, each with their own language for years, add to that the fact that our foreign invaders, traders and refugees all settled in different parts of the country, and top it all of with the fact that we've lost quite a few letters from our alphabet over the years, thus forcing us to substitute them in a non-standard way with other combinations of letters, and you'll start to see why English is the way it is.


I merely wanted to point out how Americans phoneticized some of the spelling patterns, thereby improving upon the original, in my opinion.

But I disagree that English is not American -- the language we speak is ours, and it's very much English -- American English, or 'US English' if you insist.


No. The early group that we now call the Americans (sorry but I struggle to find the appropriate term, original or early Americans won't do because I'm not talking about the natives and US citizens won't do because it wasn't the United States then) deliberately modified the language so that they could call it their own, having decided that they were not British.

Here's a bit of etymology: England is so called because it was the land of the Angles, then Anglos etc. So England was once Angleland, and the people who lived here were Angles, and everything here was Angleish if you like, or English. So by declaring that you are no longer English, nor do you want anything to do with the English, and in fact that the English are your enemy, and you even change your language, it is hard to see how someone could claim that the resulting changed language that the US folks use could be called English.

(I know we are buddies now, I'm speaking historically about a specific sequence of events long past that led to the language difference that we have today).


All languages belong to the people who speak them. So in this sense your English belongs to you. But England can no more claim ownership of this language than they can of the countries that used to be part of its empire.

The clue is in the name. "English", ie belonging to/created by the "English". The former colonies can call their language English because it is English, brought to them by the English people.

All this is of course irrelevant, but entertaining:)

LaRoza
July 21st, 2008, 08:26 PM
Here's a bit of etymology: England is so called because it was the land of the Angles, then Anglos etc. So England was once Angleland, and the people who lived here were Angles, and everything here was Angleish if you like, or English. So by declaring that you are no longer English, nor do you want anything to do with the English, and in fact that the English are your enemy, and you even change your language, it is hard to see how someone could claim that the resulting changed language that the US folks use could be called English.

What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.

LaRoza
July 21st, 2008, 08:41 PM
Here's a bit of etymology: England is so called because it was the land of the Angles, then Anglos etc. So England was once Angleland, and the people who lived here were Angles, and everything here was Angleish if you like, or English. So by declaring that you are no longer English, nor do you want anything to do with the English, and in fact that the English are your enemy, and you even change your language, it is hard to see how someone could claim that the resulting changed language that the US folks use could be called English.

What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.

koenn
July 21st, 2008, 10:20 PM
What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.

Just about any language has loan words from other languages, usually as a result of occupation, or because of a cultural dominance that allows a nation to export its vocabulary.

But calling English a version of French is sheer nonsense.

LaRoza
July 21st, 2008, 10:42 PM
But calling English a version of French is sheer nonsense.

Is it? Thanks. I never know when I am writing nonsense, because I never have a reason for writing what I do.

forrestcupp
July 21st, 2008, 11:25 PM
It was a reference to the Lilliputians and Blefuscans whose war was about that. From Gulliver's Travels.

I actually remember that, now that you mention it. :)

forrestcupp
July 21st, 2008, 11:25 PM
What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.


What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.

Wow. An unfixed double post by a mod!

LaRoza
July 21st, 2008, 11:27 PM
Wow. An unfixed double post by a mod!

I never fix double posts even when reported. Forums hiccup (some are in bed for an hour) and there is no point spending the energy.

bruce89
July 22nd, 2008, 01:13 AM
The clue is in the name. "English", ie belonging to/created by the "English". The former colonies can call their language English because it is English, brought to them by the English people.

Nice to know that the Scots that went out didn't speak English.


I don't see anyone claiming to know of WMDs anywhere... :P

Britain's nukes live a few miles from where I live, I'll go and get them.

Cap'n Skyler
July 22nd, 2008, 04:41 AM
English doesn't stand much chance of following a standard because it is a mishmash of native languages plus European languages with influences spanning about 6000 years. Add to that the fact that Britain or its constituent countries didn't exist as anything more than a load of different tribes, each with their own language for years, add to that the fact that our foreign invaders, traders and refugees all settled in different parts of the country, and top it all of with the fact that we've lost quite a few letters from our alphabet over the years, thus forcing us to substitute them in a non-standard way with other combinations of letters, and you'll start to see why English is the way it is.



No. The early group that we now call the Americans (sorry but I struggle to find the appropriate term, original or early Americans won't do because I'm not talking about the natives and US citizens won't do because it wasn't the United States then) deliberately modified the language so that they could call it their own, having decided that they were not British.

Here's a bit of etymology: England is so called because it was the land of the Angles, then Anglos etc. So England was once Angleland, and the people who lived here were Angles, and everything here was Angleish if you like, or English. So by declaring that you are no longer English, nor do you want anything to do with the English, and in fact that the English are your enemy, and you even change your language, it is hard to see how someone could claim that the resulting changed language that the US folks use could be called English.

(I know we are buddies now, I'm speaking historically about a specific sequence of events long past that led to the language difference that we have today).



The clue is in the name. "English", ie belonging to/created by the "English". The former colonies can call their language English because it is English, brought to them by the English people.

All this is of course irrelevant, but entertaining:)
however...
all of (well not all,but many) the first americans(non native kind) were british citizens with the same english language.at some point,i dont have any clue when,it started to go flat.so to speak LOL.
i am from the south(the best of the country by the way) and have often wondered where the american southern accent came from.i do believe some of it is from the scots and them irishmen that came here.but how you get englishmen to the colonies and lose their accent/language i have no idea.
and yeah,we slaughter it bad...but so do you all.my friend in Ipswisch says she is "hoovering" when vacuuming the floors.is she still "hoovering" if she uses a dirt devil or a dyson?
LOL:popcorn:

HotShotDJ
July 22nd, 2008, 04:56 AM
I never know when I am writing nonsense, because I never have a reason for writing what I do.
:-#

:mrgreen:

Cap'n Skyler
July 22nd, 2008, 05:06 AM
Our American friends have hijacked the melody


BTW: it's neither pavement nor sidewalk, but footpath. Or in other words, watch out for skateboarders and cyclists.

and we drive our cars on a parkway and park them on a drive way!!!
i am born here and grew up here,and sometimes i think the US is 2/3 STUPID:lolflag:

Cap'n Skyler
July 22nd, 2008, 05:07 AM
Lol. Arent yanks just poms that decided to **** off and sail across the ocean
:P
we just like taxes less than you all do :P
taxes, not texas.

Silpheed2K
July 22nd, 2008, 05:24 AM
Color is the American spelling, colour is the correct spelling :)

Well it's time for a history lesson.. for one the correct spelling depends on the language....
but there's something else to take into account which I find this pure opinion to be false...
It's the fact that languages actually change over time. The way you type some words may be incorrect 20 years from now, due to the fact that languages actually change over time.
If you read the diaries and chronicles of explorers or historical figures.. you'll notice they spell quite differently... and you'll think to yourself probably "wow, they cant spell" when that isn't the case.
So proper spelling really depends on the time and language... along with region maybe..
which is why in my eyes.. there isn't really a correct spelling.. only proper usage.

brokenLockpick
July 22nd, 2008, 05:34 AM
...only proper usage.

I think that even that is pretty fluid. I remember the first time I heard someone say "my bad" instead of "my mistake", not sure if the colloquialism has visited itself upon you. I thought it sounded preposterous, but I've heard it so many times that I've not only accepted it but even caught myself saying it.

On a vaguely related note I remember a few years back being told that GUI (as in Graphical User Interface) should always be pronounced Gee-Yu-Eye, lest one sound like an idiot. Lately I've been running into formally educated tech types who were told by professors that it was pronounced like "gooey" perhaps it was a pretension of professors at my University to pronounce it otherwise or they were having a grand joke at our expense. Or maybe the "correct" pronunciation just changed.

LaRoza
July 22nd, 2008, 05:39 AM
I think that even that is pretty fluid. I remember the first time I heard someone say "my bad" instead of "my mistake", not sure if the colloquialism has visited itself upon you. I thought it sounded preposterous, but I've heard it so many times that I've not only accepted it but even caught myself saying it.


Word.

mssever
July 22nd, 2008, 06:10 AM
Color is the Spanish for colour. Vapor is the Spanish word for vapour. Then there's favour and favor and many more. This does not apply to some American English words that have the u dropped as they don't appear to be Spanish in their origins, but the dropping of the u probably does have something to do with the US' very hispanic history.

The "ou" is a softer sound sort of like "culahh", "vaypahh", "fayvahh", wheras the "o" is a hard sound as in "culOR", "vaypOR", "fayvOR". This is why the "ou" is the correct form and the other version is well... Spanish.

Edit: Have the Americans changed would, could and should to "wold", "cold" and "shold" as well?Well, there's been spelling revision on both sides of the pond since Britain and the US parted company. Yes, US English has been influenced by Spanish; but British English shows more French influence then American English--which makes sense, considering geography.

An interesting example is zucchini. Presumably, American English got that name from Italian immigrants (even though it looks to me to be an Italian plural that we treat as singular). Wikipedia has a list of word differences between UK and US English, and zucchini was one of them. The British term is obviously of French origin, and since I don't understand French phonetics, I can't begin to pronounce it. And if I can't pronounce a word, I can't remember it.


Standards are a bad idea. If everything was standardised, what means would we have to confuse each other for fun? How would the French raise so much in speeding fines when British drivers see their speed limit signs and take the figure as mph instead of km/h? How would the older folks pick on the younger folks for not understanding guinees, shillings and old pence?This is interesting. One reason that Spanish spelling is so logical is because Spain's Royal Academy standardized Spanish spelling some time ago, and the Spanish-speaking world mostly accepted the Royal Academy's pronouncements.

But imagine something like that happening in English. Suppose Britain established a standards body oversee the English language. I can guarantee that most Americans would very deliberately ignore that body's decrees. And I'm sure the British would ignore an American language standards body. Furthermore, any American language standards body would have a difficult time making progress even in the US. American culture doesn't take too kindly to taking orders.

So, American culture essentially guarantees that any attempt at global standardization will fail. <off-topic>I wonder if that's one reason we don't use metric. That said, when I suggest switching to metric here, people often say that metric is too complicated. What?</off-topic>

Once you hear some people speak English, those differences become very insignificant. Alone the vowel shifts across Britain are a wonder to hear. 'Meshreams' with your steak, anybody?
Yes, I've noticed that British regional accents are more diverse than American regional accents.

If that isn't enough, learn some German. German German even has a letter which the Swiss do not have.Are you talking about ß? Isn't that a ligature, rather than a letter? I understand that ß has no uppercase form, so even if you were in Germany, you'd write SS when writing in all caps, right?


What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.
According to an enclyclopedia a saw a while back, Dutch is more similar to English than any other major language. English is a germanic language, although French influence has certainly been significant.

Greyed
July 22nd, 2008, 06:12 AM
don't get me started on that.

saber and sabre is another example, (I picked the wrong one in my username)

Says who? I don't know of a single British person who says "sahb-reh". :P

LaRoza
July 22nd, 2008, 06:16 AM
But imagine something like that happening in English. Suppose Britain established a standards body oversee the English language. I can guarantee that most Americans would very deliberately ignore that body's decrees. And I'm sure the British would ignore an American language standards body. Furthermore, any American language standards body would have a difficult time making progress even in the US. American culture doesn't take too kindly to taking orders.
I think there could very easily be a standard simple English. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia



So, American culture essentially guarantees that any attempt at global standardization will fail. <off-topic>I wonder if that's one reason we don't use metric. That said, when I suggest switching to metric here, people often say that metric is too complicated. What?</off-topic>

British culture also. Remember, the USA is much large than the UK ;)

Switching to metric would be simple, and would have little gain. Even the UK uses obscure measurements (stones, for instance) Metric in certain professions certainly makes sense.

mssever
July 22nd, 2008, 06:24 AM
I think there could very easily be a standard simple English.
In programming terms, simple English could be considered a domain-specific language. It wouldn't be nearly so hard to agree on a standard simple English because such a DSL has certain specific purposes. Nobody would expect native English speakers to use simple English when communicating with other native English speakers, unless there were extenuating circumstances. So it couldn't really be considered the proper way to use English.

brokenLockpick
July 22nd, 2008, 06:25 AM
Metric in certain professions certainly makes sense

Seconded. Personally when I've seen physics calculations in imperial units they're quite a mess and certain "conclusions" are difficult to draw, but alot of the afore mentioned conclusions seem to jump right out. This is reflected in alot of SAE measurements in engineering that just make no sense to me, and several American born engineering students I know, and we grew up using pounds, feet, miles, etc. rather than kilograms, meters, etc.

popch
July 22nd, 2008, 06:32 AM
Are you talking about ß? Isn't that a ligature, rather than a letter? I understand that ß has no uppercase form, so even if you were in Germany, you'd write SS when writing in all caps, right?.

I am and it is. What's a bit strange about capitalizing it is the fact that it is a ligature of s and z. Hence, you would expect the capitalized form to be written that way.

Tomrade
July 22nd, 2008, 07:04 AM
Sabre is pronounced saber like meter and metre

popch
July 22nd, 2008, 07:30 AM
Sabre is pronounced saber like meter and metre

Since the 'e' is pronounced in neither sabre nor saber, you'd just as soon write sabr. While we're at it, why not Lestr and Glostr?

cavrep
July 22nd, 2008, 08:13 AM
:lol:

English & American English.
A common language separated by a small dispute over a cup of tea, somewhere near Boston I believe!

Americanisms are filtering in the UK language quite quickly. I have heard children refer to pavements as sidewalks!

I think Webster did a great job in making spelling more sensible and logical. It is is an advance forward as more and more English speaking countries adopt the US spelling. The official spelling bible in Australia is the Macquarie Dictionary which allows both spellings.

Now if we can only get the US to adopt the metric system we wouldn't have to listen to programs such as the Mythbusters babble away in some obsolete measure such as pounds/square inch.

grossaffe
July 22nd, 2008, 08:36 AM
I think Webster did a great job in making spelling more sensible and logical. It is is an advance forward as more and more English speaking countries adopt the US spelling. The official spelling bible in Australia is the Macquarie Dictionary which allows both spellings.

Now if we can only get the US to adopt the metric system we wouldn't have to listen to programs such as the Mythbusters babble away in some obsolete measure such as pounds/square inch.

in American Physics classes, we do use the metric system.

Sef
July 22nd, 2008, 02:56 PM
Now if we can only get the US to adopt the metric system

Actually it has, but it is not in widespread use, unfortunately.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States):


19th century

In the early 1800s, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (the government's surveying and map-making agency) used meter and kilogram standards brought from France. In 1866, Congress authorized the use of the metric system and supplied each state with a set of standard metric weights and measures.

In 1875, the United States solidified its commitment to the development of the internationally recognized metric system by becoming one of the original seventeen signatory nations to the Convention du Mètre, also known as the Meter Convention or the Treaty of the Meter. The signing of this international agreement concluded five years of meetings in which the metric system was reformulated, refining the accuracy of its standards. The Treaty of the Meter established the Bureau international des poids et mesures (BIPM, International Bureau of Weights and Measures) in Sèvres, France, to provide standards of measurement for worldwide use.

In 1893, under the Mendenhall Order, metric standards, developed through international cooperation under the auspices of BIPM, were adopted as the fundamental standards for length and mass in the United States. The customary measurements – the foot, pound, quart, etc. – have been defined in relation to the meter and the kilogram ever since.

DrMega
July 22nd, 2008, 03:11 PM
What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.

No way. We have a few French words but our language isn't french. We have Greek and Italian words to.


This is interesting. One reason that Spanish spelling is so logical is because Spain's Royal Academy standardized Spanish spelling some time ago, and the Spanish-speaking world mostly accepted the Royal Academy's pronouncements.

But imagine something like that happening in English. Suppose Britain established a standards body oversee the English language. I can guarantee that most Americans would very deliberately ignore that body's decrees. And I'm sure the British would ignore an American language standards body.

Someone did attempt to standardise the English language. It worked a bit, but you won't even get English folks to agree on what the standard should be so you have no chance of standardising it outside of Britain.

koenn
July 22nd, 2008, 10:17 PM
Is it? Thanks. I never know when I am writing nonsense, because I never have a reason for writing what I do.

"Please click the 'Thanks' button if you think my post was helpful."

LaRoza
July 22nd, 2008, 10:19 PM
"Please click the 'Thanks' button if you think my post was helpful."

It doesn't exist in this forum...

scragar
July 22nd, 2008, 10:41 PM
It doesn't exist in this forum...

It should do, just because this board isn't for support doesn't mean that people never receive support and/or answers to problems here/

R_T_H
July 22nd, 2008, 10:47 PM
It should do, just because this board isn't for support doesn't mean that people never receive support and/or answers to problems here/

but being OMG pInk pOnI-ites, we would probably abuse it in a shower of sarcastic thanks. It would kind of devalue the whole system.

bruce89
July 22nd, 2008, 10:51 PM
I think Webster did a great job in making spelling more sensible and logical. It is is an advance forward as more and more English speaking countries adopt the US spelling.

I don't think that is the case at all. Perhaps on the Web, people speak the American way, but this is due to the large numbers of American people on the Web.

scragar
July 22nd, 2008, 10:54 PM
but being OMG pInk pOnI-ites, we would probably abuse it in a shower of sarcastic thanks. It would kind of devalue the whole system.

your right there actually.

koenn
July 22nd, 2008, 10:59 PM
It doesn't exist in this forum...
I know.

LaRoza
July 22nd, 2008, 11:10 PM
It should do, just because this board isn't for support doesn't mean that people never receive support and/or answers to problems here/

That first "do" isn't needed.

The thanks is aimed at the technical aspect of the forum, and only a few non tech forums have it.


I know.

So do I.

cavrep
July 22nd, 2008, 11:26 PM
No way. We have a few French words but our language isn't french. We have Greek and Italian words to.



Someone did attempt to standardise the English language. It worked a bit, but you won't even get English folks to agree on what the standard should be so you have no chance of standardising it outside of Britain.

There was an attempt I think, in Henry VIII's reign but the committee was divided between the scholars who wanted to show off their great knowledge of overseas languages and the other faction who wanted logical Anglo Saxon spellings ala Webster.

Unfortunately the scholars won so we are stuck with bastardized other language spellings eg "colour" instead of the French "couleur"?.However, today because of the universality of US English the more logical Anglo Saxon spellings are becoming the norm and this is good.

The crazy thing about all this is that the US spellings often have better antecedents than the English spellings. Eg US "check" instead of English "cheque" better describes the original money dealings over a checkered table.

guildofghostwriters
July 23rd, 2008, 12:40 AM
What about the French influence, which was massive. English, today, could be considered just a version of French.

The French influence in English are of a very specific type and for a very specific reason. Following the successful Norman invasion, the ruling class was Norman speaking but the people they needed to speak to about the supply of food etc were usually english and so what was originally a pidgin spread into general usage. Most of the French words in English are to do with food and luxuries such as fashion because it was the ruling class who consumed these products and the serfs who supplied them. But apart from that influence (plus many others), it's clearly a Germanic language and anybody who has even dablled in the history of the English language wouldn't dispute that and expect to be taken seriously.

I think it's really silly to get proprietary over language though. If we're going to claim English as 'ours' by virtue of the fact that we were born on the same sod as some of the words we share with various nations, where does it stop? Can the people descended from the anglo-frisians in Germany call it theirs and declare our spellings wrong? Or the Danish vikings? Or what about India, can they say that English along with just about every European language (except the finno-ugric/permic, basque and whatever other languages aren't part of the indo-european set) is theirs originally and so our writing system is totally wrong before we even get on to spellings? Maybe we just have to accept that languages are kind of open source and celebrate that - I for one think it's wicked.

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 12:44 AM
I think it's really silly to get proprietary over language though. If we're going to claim English as 'ours' by virtue of the fact that we were born on the same sod as some of the words we share with various nations, where does it stop? Can the people descended from the anglo-frisians in Germany call it theirs and declare our spellings wrong? Or the Danish vikings? Or what about India, can they say that English along with just about every European language (except the finno-ugric/permic, basque and whatever other languages aren't part of the indo-european set) is theirs originally and so our writing system is totally wrong before we even get on to spellings? Maybe we just have to accept that languages are kind of open source and celebrate that - I for one think it's wicked.

I know, that was my point. Language is way too fluid to claim ownership, unless one actual created it.

cavrep
July 23rd, 2008, 01:15 AM
The problems the French speaking Normans had is shown by their court records and legal phrases today. The court records were written in French but by Anglo Saxons so that the French was bastardized. To get across legal meaning we ended up with double barreled legal phrases which are still with us today:

"Without fear or favour" - fear is Anglo Saxon and favour French.

"With full accord and satisfaction" - accord is French and satisfaction Anglo Saxon.

There are a number of other examples.

This way, both races would understand the legal meaning.

Sef
July 23rd, 2008, 03:28 AM
No way. We have a few French words but our language isn't french. We have Greek and Italian words to.

About 50% of English vocabulary is from Latin or from Latin-derived languages, about 25% are from anglo-saxon, 15% from greek, and 10% are from other languages.

The anglo-saxon words are the ones that are most commonly used. Out of the top 100 most commonly used words, 94 are from anglo-saxon and 6 are from the vikings influence.

mssever
July 23rd, 2008, 03:28 AM
"With full accord and satisfaction" - accord is French and satisfaction Anglo Saxon.
But -tion is a French suffix. I'm wondering if that example is a better example of redundancy, similar to ATM machine and "This agreement lasts for three (3) days." That last example has always bugged me. I doubt that there is anyone who can read and understand a document but fail to know the word three. Yet some people insist on wasting space to write numerals in parentheses after spelled-out numbers.

cavrep
July 23rd, 2008, 05:06 AM
But -tion is a French suffix. I'm wondering if that example is a better example of redundancy, similar to ATM machine and "This agreement lasts for three (3) days." That last example has always bugged me. I doubt that there is anyone who can read and understand a document but fail to know the word three. Yet some people insist on wasting space to write numerals in parentheses after spelled-out numbers.

It's a legal thing. "Three" of course is sufficient for a legal clause but lawyers have got into the habit of putting numbers after it for absolute clarity. It might be more relevant for a big number where it is harder to grasp the written words eg "Four hundred and fifty five thousand dollars and forty five cents".

DrMega
July 23rd, 2008, 12:23 PM
But -tion is a French suffix. I'm wondering if that example is a better example of redundancy, similar to ATM machine and "This agreement lasts for three (3) days." That last example has always bugged me. I doubt that there is anyone who can read and understand a document but fail to know the word three. Yet some people insist on wasting space to write numerals in parentheses after spelled-out numbers.

There are a number of reasons why both numerals and text are used to represent numbers. Consider that English is not your first language, and you see the word "three", you might not remember what number this is in your language. On the other hand, if you just show "3" it is wide open to doctoring (especially on printed docs) to make it 30000 etc (extreme example I know).

I was on holiday once in Lanzarote (Spanish territory) and had to get coach number 69. I couldn't find it so I asked one of the drivers. He pointed at stand 47. His English was not great and nor was my Spanish. In the end, not knowing how to say 69 I said "seis nueve", he then looked confused, took out a pen and paper from his pocket, wrote 47 on it and in broken English said "sixty nine" then looked back at me. He was very confused indeed when I took the pen and paper from him and wrote 69 and said to him "sixty nine". So you see, there is good reason to use both numerals and text when representing numbers in some situations.

Incidentally, stand 69 didn't exist. Our incompetent holiday rep had quoted the wrong number to us and we missed our bus:(

guildofghostwriters
July 23rd, 2008, 02:39 PM
The problems the French speaking Normans had is shown by their court records and legal phrases today. The court records were written in French but by Anglo Saxons so that the French was bastardized. To get across legal meaning we ended up with double barreled legal phrases which are still with us today:

"Without fear or favour" - fear is Anglo Saxon and favour French.

"With full accord and satisfaction" - accord is French and satisfaction Anglo Saxon.

There are a number of other examples.

This way, both races would understand the legal meaning.

Anglo-norman/anglo-french as the written/legal language is fine but where do you get the rest from? Maybe it's just bad examples but as far as I can tell, both satisfaction and accord are latin in origin (even if they came to english via french, as I think is the case with satisfaction) and mean different things (one means we agree, one means that all conditions/requirements have been met - ie we are in accord that a peppercorn needs to be paid and are satisfied that it has been paid), and regardless of the origins of fear and favour they also mean different things so these aren't really examples of double-barrelled legalese. I always assumed that it was a more recent phenomenon to avoid ambiguity but I'm happy to be put right.

DrMega
July 23rd, 2008, 03:02 PM
Anglo-norman/anglo-french as the written/legal language is fine but where do you get the rest from?

The version of French that came to England wasn't even really French anyway.

In 1066 when the Norman army (from Normandy in France) defeated the Saxon army, thus effectively placing England in the hands of the "French", the French Normans were actually mostly Norse folks that had taken Northen France beforehand.

In fact, many of the folks of Normandy and Brittany (Northen France) still don't consider mainstream French to be their own language even now. They have a version of Gaelic, much as the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish folks do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt

xen-uno
July 23rd, 2008, 03:59 PM
counterclockwise vs anticlockwise?

forrestcupp
July 23rd, 2008, 05:55 PM
About 50% of English vocabulary is from Latin or from Latin-derived languages, about 25% are from anglo-saxon, 15% from greek, and 10% are from other languages.

The anglo-saxon words are the ones that are most commonly used. Out of the top 100 most commonly used words, 94 are from anglo-saxon and 6 are from the vikings influence.You're awesome! You just pulled all of that from the knowledge base already stored in your head, didn't you? :) It's pretty interesting stuff.


counterclockwise vs anticlockwise?
"anticlockwise" just sounds too much like you hate clockwise with everything in you.

koenn
July 23rd, 2008, 07:07 PM
The version of French that came to England wasn't even really French anyway.

In 1066 when the Norman army (from Normandy in France) defeated the Saxon army, thus effectively placing England in the hands of the "French", the French Normans were actually mostly Norse folks that had taken Northen France beforehand.

In fact, many of the folks of Normandy and Brittany (Northen France) still don't consider mainstream French to be their own language even now. They have a version of Gaelic, much as the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish folks do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt

you're mixing a few things here that have no real connection.

By 1066, the Normans had been well settled in Normandy for several hundred years and had adopted the local dialect, one of the dialects of what is now called "Old French" (the so-called "Oil" languages)
They introduced "French" words in the English language, as noted before.

However, the Normandy language has nothing to do with the celtic language from Brittany.

Brittany was Celtic until the Romans conquered western Europe (eg 57 B.C., Julius Caesar and his conquest of Gaul). They spoke Gaulish. That culture got completely assimilated by the Roman culture, and the language became extinct.
The Celtic in today's Brittany was brought there by Celtic immigrants from the Brittish Islands in the 3th century, and probably has roots in Welsh and Cornish.

LaRoza
July 23rd, 2008, 08:02 PM
I would also like to point out there is a Finnish influence on English as we know it. It is only one word, but "sauna" in English makes it sound like you are making vegatables.

schauerlich
July 23rd, 2008, 08:10 PM
"anticlockwise" just sounds too much like you hate clockwise with everything in you.

Ze clockvise must pay for vat zey haf done!

mssever
July 23rd, 2008, 08:19 PM
I would also like to point out there is a Finnish influence on English as we know it. It is only one word, but "sauna" in English makes it sound like you are making vegatables.

We've even got a Marshallese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshallese) word in English, though its meaning has nothing to do with the original: The two-piece women's swimsuit was named after Bikini Atoll. In fact, when I was in the Marshall Islands, wearing a bikini would have been scandalous. And the Marshallese word for island is quite similar to the English one, though I'm sure they aren't related: aelõñ (pronounced like island except there's no /d/ and the /ñ/ is like the /ng/ in sing).

English does seem to freely borrow words and create new ones, doesn't it?

schauerlich
July 23rd, 2008, 08:24 PM
English does seem to freely borrow words and create new ones, doesn't it?

Every language does. A language isn't defined by a set of grammar rules and a dictionary; they are merely ways to describe it. A language is whatever speech people use to communicate with each other. People are constantly discovering new things, and these new things need names.

DrMega
July 23rd, 2008, 09:52 PM
you're mixing a few things here that have no real connection.

By 1066, the Normans had been well settled in Normandy for several hundred years and had adopted the local dialect, one of the dialects of what is now called "Old French" (the so-called "Oil" languages)
They introduced "French" words in the English language, as noted before.

However, the Normandy language has nothing to do with the celtic language from Brittany.

Brittany was Celtic until the Romans conquered western Europe (eg 57 B.C., Julius Caesar and his conquest of Gaul). They spoke Gaulish. That culture got completely assimilated by the Roman culture, and the language became extinct.
The Celtic in today's Brittany was brought there by Celtic immigrants from the Brittish Islands in the 3th century, and probably has roots in Welsh and Cornish.

Very informative, thanks for that. But do you realise what that means? The Welsh and Cornish are considered by some historians to be effectively what is left of the original English. The Romans only occupied (and therefore had a massive influence on) the East and North (not the North east, kind of the whole of the North, and right down the east side side) of England. Therefore if Breton Gaelic came from Britain AFTER the Romans had settled, then that means that much of French is actually influenced by English and not the other way round.

koenn
July 23rd, 2008, 10:51 PM
Very informative, thanks for that. But do you realise what that means? The Welsh and Cornish are considered by some historians to be effectively what is left of the original English. The Romans only occupied (and therefore had a massive influence on) the East and North (not the North east, kind of the whole of the North, and right down the east side side) of England. Therefore if Breton Gaelic came from Britain AFTER the Romans had settled, then that means that much of French is actually influenced by English and not the other way round.

Errm, no.

The impact of the Romans on England was minimal, it wasn't much more than a military occupation. Some words in English might date from back then, but will be mostly military vocabulary, eg. Latin: Castellum (reinforced buiding, stronghold) --> Eng. Casttle

The roman impact on what now is Spain, Italy, France, parts of Belgium, ... was much greater, those areas were incorporated completely in the Roman Empire, to the extend that the celtic culture was assimilated (Gallo-Roman), and the people started speaking a simplified Latin (Vulgar Latin), which later evolved to French, Italian, Spanish, ...

After the fall of the Roman empire, Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons) gained control over most parts of the "England" (as you mentioned) and they gave it its current language, which is a Germanic language (like German, Dutch, Swedisch, ...), not a celtic language. (See also Sef's post #171)

French, on the other hand, is decending from Latin. So there's no real relation between French, English and Gaelic.

Although England became Germanic, in some parts of the British islands Gaelic ("celtic)" survived (Wales, Scotland, ....)
(and then some of that Gaelic was re-introduced in a small part of France, in Brittany, and became Breton)

RealG187
July 24th, 2008, 05:22 AM
Color is the American spelling, colour is the correct spelling :)

Many words are different in US english which is why dictionaries, thesaurses etc. have english (US) and english (UK) as seperate languages.

If you can set the default language in firefox to english (UK) then it will recognise colour,

Can you set open office that way?

cavrep
July 24th, 2008, 10:44 AM
Anglo-norman/anglo-french as the written/legal language is fine but where do you get the rest from? Maybe it's just bad examples but as far as I can tell, both satisfaction and accord are latin in origin (even if they came to english via french, as I think is the case with satisfaction) and mean different things (one means we agree, one means that all conditions/requirements have been met - ie we are in accord that a peppercorn needs to be paid and are satisfied that it has been paid), and regardless of the origins of fear and favour they also mean different things so these aren't really examples of double-barrelled legalese. I always assumed that it was a more recent phenomenon to avoid ambiguity but I'm happy to be put right.

Your differentiation is applying modern meaning to archaic words. "Full accord and satisfaction" in law is used to abort a contract, something that the common law doesn't like, so a special phrase was introduced to show that both parties approve the new situation.

The original roots of words is best found in the full volume of the Oxford Dictionary, something I don't have.

It is interesting that the modern English common law is more alive and well in the US than England. This is because English law has been "tainted" by the European Civil or Roman law since England joined the EU whereas US law hasn't. Some of the best common law cases today come from the US. This would have been unheard of 20 years ago.

Scottish law has always been Roman resulting in Scot lawyers being better informed than English lawyers on European legal methods and systems when England joined the EU. This is a turnaround as English lawyers have traditionally looked down on their Scot counterparts.

DrMega
July 24th, 2008, 12:20 PM
This is a turnaround as English lawyers have traditionally looked down on their Scot counterparts.

English lawyers look down on everybody, including their own clients and each other.

guildofghostwriters
August 7th, 2008, 03:37 PM
I would also like to point out there is a Finnish influence on English as we know it. It is only one word, but "sauna" in English makes it sound like you are making vegatables.

I just got back from a fortnight in Finland and I'm already missing the woodburning sauna (pr. sow-na) next to a lake.

forrestcupp
August 7th, 2008, 06:40 PM
I just got back from a fortnight in Finland and I'm already missing the woodburning sauna (pr. sow-na) next to a lake.

Wow! a resurrected thread, and this time it wasn't done by Th3Professor. :)

ubuntu-freak
August 8th, 2008, 05:18 PM
Is it true that some US schools allow students to use British spelling if they so wish?

mssever
August 8th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Is it true that some US schools allow students to use British spelling if they so wish?
Mine didn't.

I would argue that in the US, US spelling is correct. In Britain, British spelling is correct. And there's only one correct way to spell a word.

cavrep
August 8th, 2008, 07:48 PM
Mine didn't.

And there's only one correct way to spell a word.

No, that's the problem, dictatorial spelling. Allow both (which is allowed in Austalia) and everybody is happy.

Asian languages have a number of different spellings for the same word and they seem to have survived ok.Blame dictatorial spelling on Samuel Johnson.

LaRoza
August 8th, 2008, 08:07 PM
Is it true that some US schools allow students to use British spelling if they so wish?

I do, and haven't run into problems (often with the "s" and "z" switched and the "ou"'s. I refuse to use spellings which are British Nationalistic, like "Aluminium", which is not only wrong, it is misleading)

scragar
August 8th, 2008, 08:16 PM
I do, and haven't run into problems (often with the "s" and "z" switched and the "ou"'s. I refuse to use spellings which are British Nationalistic, like "Aluminium", which is not only wrong, it is misleading)

huh? Your complaining because an element ends in ium? Most do, especially the higher numbers.

abgemacht
August 8th, 2008, 08:21 PM
I refuse to use spellings which are British Nationalistic, like "Aluminium", which is not only wrong, it is misleading)

Could you elaborate on this?

schauerlich
August 8th, 2008, 08:22 PM
huh? Your complaining because an element ends in ium? Most do, especially the higher numbers.

Yes, but the element was derived from the mineral "alumina" and named "aluminum" by the scientist that discovered it. When the Brits wanted aluminum to sound more refined and chemistry-like, they renamed it aluminium.

abgemacht
August 8th, 2008, 08:27 PM
Yes, but the element was derived from the mineral "alumina" and named "aluminum" by the scientist that discovered it. When the Brits wanted aluminum to sound more refined and chemistry-like, they renamed it aluminium.

I'm not sure that's true, if these sites are to be believed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Present-day_spelling
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

scragar
August 8th, 2008, 08:29 PM
Yes, but the element was derived from the mineral "alumina" and named "aluminum" by the scientist that discovered it. When the Brits wanted aluminum to sound more refined and chemistry-like, they renamed it aluminium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Nomenclature_history

ium was standard in UK and US, the US just changed it back because 1 guy put up a few posters(ok, so a lot of posters) and dominated public opinion, effectively forcing out the official spelling in favour of one which wasn't even it's original name.

schauerlich
August 8th, 2008, 08:31 PM
I'm not sure that's true, if these sites are to be believed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Present-day_spelling
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm

On that Wikipedia article, scroll up a little bit.



The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which British chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina.
...
By 1812, Davy had settled on aluminum, which, as other sources note, matches its Latin root.
...
But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."

abgemacht
August 8th, 2008, 08:37 PM
From the other site:

Sir Humphry made a bit of a mess of naming this new element, at first spelling it alumium (this was in 1807) then changing it to aluminum, and finally settling on aluminium in 1812.
This one doesn't make it as clear as to why he changed the name a second time. Why is there such a big deal detween the 2nd and 3rd change. Nobody seems to care about the original name...

Irregardless, my concern was with this comment:

View Post
I refuse to use spellings which are British Nationalistic, like "Aluminium", which is not only wrong, it is misleading)

That claims seems rather baseless to me, especially since IUPAC prefers aluminium. I don't know how that is wrong or misleading.

scragar
August 8th, 2008, 08:39 PM
On that Wikipedia article, scroll up a little bit.

yes, but which was the first official spelling?

Aluminium

schauerlich
August 8th, 2008, 08:40 PM
yes, but which was the first official spelling?

Aluminium

But I prefer aluminum, so you're wrong.

tomayto, tomahto.

scragar
August 8th, 2008, 08:45 PM
But I prefer aluminum, so you're wrong.

tomayto, tomahto.

not to pick an argument or anything, but WHAT? you can't state a preference and then claim it as fact, that's not the way anything has ever worked(except the term Microsoft security, that's clearly an opinion claimed as a fact, as is "best windows yet", everyone knows windows2.0 was best, all the bug fixes from 1.1 without the horrible effort put into multi-tasking that ruined 3.0 and 3.1 - Anyway, back on topic).

By that logic my preferred method of spelling "you" is now "j00", it's my opinion, there for I'm declaring it fact. "you" is now correctly spelled "j00", no arguments.

abgemacht
August 8th, 2008, 08:47 PM
But I prefer aluminum, so you're wrong.

tomayto, tomahto.

HAHA

I prefer Aluminum, too. But I think it's clear that Aluminium is the internationally accepted proper spelling. That's why I thought LaRoza's comment was a bit ridiculous.

schauerlich
August 8th, 2008, 08:48 PM
not to pick an argument or anything, but WHAT? you can't state a preference and then claim it as fact, that's not the way anything has ever worked

Perhaps I should I have used a smiley. That was a sarcastic remark made to highlight the futility of arguing over something that is ultimately up to what someone is used to, and therefore subjective and unprovable.

starcannon
August 8th, 2008, 08:49 PM
As I read through a greater portion of these posts, it suddenly occurred to me that world peace is impossible.

abgemacht
August 8th, 2008, 08:49 PM
Perhaps I should I have used a smiley. That was a sarcastic remark made to highlight the futility of arguing over something that is ultimately up to what someone is used to, and therefore subjective and unprovable.

I think (read: I hope) we all know we're just having fun. : )

scragar
August 8th, 2008, 08:50 PM
Perhaps I should I have used a smiley. That was a sarcastic remark made to highlight the futility of arguing over something that is ultimately up to what someone is used to, and therefore subjective and unprovable.

ah, OK(yeah, (I wasn't taking it seriously, so much more fun on teh intarwebs to just take everything too far though).

I'm still sticking with the spelling j00 though, it's so much cooler.

schauerlich
August 8th, 2008, 08:51 PM
ah, OK.

I'm still sticking with the spelling j00 though, it's so much cooler.

lol wut

j00 is t3h noobz0rz

scragar
August 8th, 2008, 08:52 PM
lol wut

j00 is t3h noobz0rz

OI, move that sort of thing where it belongs.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=870048

LaRoza
August 8th, 2008, 08:54 PM
huh? Your complaining because an element ends in ium? Most do, especially the higher numbers.

Platinum anyone? Or as the Brits will call it "Platinium".


Could you elaborate on this?

See history of name.


Yes, but the element was derived from the mineral "alumina" and named "aluminum" by the scientist that discovered it.
Exactly. Although the name changed a bit, it was settled on aliminum.



ium was standard in UK and US, the US just changed it back because 1 guy put up a few posters(ok, so a lot of posters) and dominated public opinion, effectively forcing out the official spelling in favour of one which wasn't even it's original name.

No. The UK changed it first. The US uses the original logical name from something extracted from alumina.

The British used their influence to spread the incorrect spelling.



That claims seems rather baseless to me, especially since IUPAC prefers aluminium. I don't know how that is wrong or misleading.

Misleading because it from alumina.


I prefer Aluminum, too. But I think it's clear that Aluminium is the internationally accepted proper spelling. That's why I thought LaRoza's comment was a bit ridiculous.
It is only accepted because they spread it. It didn't spread to the USA, which retained the correct spelling.

Of course, I was sort of joking, I really don't care how it is spelled as long as they don't try to change Platinum and other such elements, they can have their spelling.

RealG187
August 9th, 2008, 01:26 AM
My school made me use colour, neighbour(hood), etc.

It is a habit for me now....

Except on forums kida cuz I sometimes talk like this. Or if I talk about Gameboy Color, since it's a brand...

pbpersson
August 10th, 2008, 06:45 AM
Color is wrong, colour is correct. How do I know this? Well, because we the English, like totally, invented it.

WOW.....you guys invented color? I am totally impressed. :o

I think we invented color television....but if you invented the colors that is SO much more impressive!

As for the word colour.....I have NO idea what in the world that is - not in my vocabulary. ;)

JLB
August 10th, 2008, 06:52 AM
Penalty! Excessive use of vowels! You get to sit on the bench now.:lolflag:

Remind me again why there is a debate of US vs. UK English again?

scragar
August 10th, 2008, 07:00 AM
Penalty! Excessive use of vowels! You get to sit on the bench now.:lolflag:

Remind me again why there is a debate of US vs. UK English again?

didn't start of as a debate, started off as a serious question, then sort of morphed over a few posts...

mev03465
August 10th, 2008, 12:19 PM
We're dropping it like the plage these days, actually.
Now that's funny.

mips
August 10th, 2008, 07:12 PM
I would argue that in the US, US spelling is correct. In Britain, British spelling is correct. And there's only one correct way to spell a word.

Thing is when you are taught english in countries outside of the USA & UK the spelling used is generally that that comes out of the Oxford dictionary. Who outside of the USA uses Websters dictionary? International English is based on UK english and not USA english, right or wrong?

mev03465
August 10th, 2008, 07:37 PM
yes, but which was the first official spelling?
"Colour" :biggrin:

cavrep
August 10th, 2008, 08:48 PM
What annoys me is that OO always defaults to US letter when most of the world uses A4. Talk about US centric!

mssever
August 10th, 2008, 09:21 PM
Thing is when you are taught english in countries outside of the USA & UK the spelling used is generally that that comes out of the Oxford dictionary. Who outside of the USA uses Websters dictionary? International English is based on UK english and not USA english, right or wrong?More accurately, the version that is taught depends on whether US or UK influence is stronger. Because the British Empire was once very large, UK English is taught in many countries. But in countries that are former possessions of the US, the situation is opposite. In the Marshall Islands, for example, US English is the universal flavor. I understand that the same is mostly true in the Philippines, though I've never been there. So international English isn't necessarily British English.


What annoys me is that OO always defaults to US letter when most of the world uses A4. Talk about US centric!
That's odd. Back when I was using Dapper, I had a tough time making OO, cups, and whatever else all agree that I use US Letter, not A4! Of course, the ideal solution would be for the US to switch to A4. Unfortunately, I'd have to special order A4 to get it here. And Firefox's spellchecker only knows UK English unless you install a separate add-on.

LaRoza
August 10th, 2008, 10:52 PM
Thing is when you are taught english in countries outside of the USA & UK the spelling used is generally that that comes out of the Oxford dictionary. Who outside of the USA uses Websters dictionary? International English is based on UK english and not USA english, right or wrong?

I don't think English outside the UK and the USA is all the different. I mean, a few minor spelling differences doesn't matter much. I am in the USA, and usually use many "British" spellings because I am used to read them in the USA.

One interesting thing was in the English subtitles for one of my Indian movies used American spellings, but English terms (it took me a while to figure out what a "boot" was)


What annoys me is that OO always defaults to US letter when most of the world uses A4. Talk about US centric!

Sun Microsystems is in California. Why don't the Maltese speak Mandarin? Many more people speak Mandarin than Maltese. (Point is, people follow the conventions of their location, not what people in other places do)

scragar
August 10th, 2008, 10:55 PM
One interesting thing was in the English subtitles for one of my Indian movies used American spellings, but English terms (it took me a while to figure out what a "boot" was)
I'm assuming you mean car-boot? What the americans call the trunk.

gjoellee
August 10th, 2008, 10:56 PM
Colour = UK spelling
Color = US spelling

exactly

LaRoza
August 10th, 2008, 11:07 PM
I'm assuming you mean car-boot? What the americans call the trunk.

Yeah. I don't know why they call it a 'boot', it used to be an actual trunk so using that term makes more sense. I'd have understood it if I heard it, instead of reading it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/1931_Ford_Model_A_roadster_rear.JPG/250px-1931_Ford_Model_A_roadster_rear.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Fieldboots.jpg/200px-Fieldboots.jpg

cavrep
August 10th, 2008, 11:27 PM
Sun Microsystems is in California. Why don't the Maltese speak Mandarin? Many more people speak Mandarin than Maltese. (Point is, people follow the conventions of their location, not what people in other places do)

Funny, I and I always thought OO was marketed internationally?

scragar
August 10th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Yeah. I don't know why they call it a 'boot', it used to be an actual trunk so using that term makes more sense. I'd have understood it if I heard it, instead of reading it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/1931_Ford_Model_A_roadster_rear.JPG/250px-1931_Ford_Model_A_roadster_rear.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Fieldboots.jpg/200px-Fieldboots.jpg

well boot has older origins, coming first from the box the driver of horse drawn coaches used to sit on(because of it's shape), then slowly becoming the box under the seat, and finally storage in the back of said coaches.

Kind of lost it's origional meaning long ago though really.

LaRoza
August 10th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Funny, I and I always thought OO was marketed internationally?

You are Jamaican?

Does it support the other size? That is international isn't it?

LaRoza
August 10th, 2008, 11:30 PM
well boot has older origins, coming first from the box the driver of horse drawn coaches used to sit on(because of it's shape), then slowly becoming the box under the seat, and finally storage in the back of said coaches.

Kind of lost it's origional meaning long ago though really.

Ah, we don't use horse drawn coaches in the USA.

(Joking here, I don't care what it is called and I am sure both have their history)

mssever
August 10th, 2008, 11:34 PM
Yeah. I don't know why they call it a 'boot', it used to be an actual trunk so using that term makes more sense.
That reminds me of a time when I was in Zimbabwe. I had a metal case for the laptop and projector I was travelling with. As the person who was to be driving the car I was riding in was loading equipment into the car, he referred to the trunk. It confused me for a bit, because I expected him to use the term boot for what I, as an American, would call the trunk. But it turned out he was calling my case a trunk.

Later, when he was translating for me, I managed to confuse him by unintentionally using a few Americanisms.

LaRoza
August 10th, 2008, 11:47 PM
That reminds me of a time when I was in Zimbabwe. I had a metal case for the laptop and projector I was travelling with. As the person who was to be driving the car I was riding in was loading equipment into the car, he referred to the trunk. It confused me for a bit, because I expected him to use the term boot for what I, as an American, would call the trunk. But it turned out he was calling my case a trunk.

Later, when he was translating for me, I managed to confuse him by unintentionally using a few Americanisms.

Watching the movie was fun, as it used Mumbai slang, with "British" like subtitles.

I just happened to see this article (I googled earlier to check spelling) and it has a neat article on British/American influence in another English dialect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_English#Vocabulary

cavrep
August 11th, 2008, 12:52 AM
You are Jamaican? :confused:

Does it support the other size? That is international isn't it?

In the context of this thread which is basically why do certain countries spell and do things differently I said that the DEFAULT in OO was US letter DESPITE the fact that the vast majority (rest of the world) use A4. Therefore, OO is US centric.

Not only OO of course but a number of international programs that default to archaic imperial measurements despite the fact that the majority of people use metric.

LaRoza
August 11th, 2008, 01:00 AM
In the context of this thread which is basically why do certain countries spell and do things differently I said that the DEFAULT in OO was US letter DESPITE the fact that the vast majority (rest of the world) use A4. Therefore, OO is US centric.
I have seen distros with OpenOffice that had it customised to suit their locale.

Don't say "majority" unless you can prove it. It may be that OpenOffice has the majority of its users in the USA.



Not only OO of course but a number of international programs that default to archaic imperial measurements despite the fact that the majority of people use metric.
Is it archaic if people still use it widely? I have seen many programs default to metric or SI units despite being in the USA, and I didn't feel a need to complain about it.

cavrep
August 11th, 2008, 01:30 AM
It's bad programing (nb 1 "m" not 2) because the solution is so easy. In install after language 2 checkboxes come up:

1. Do you want to use the old fashioned and illogical imperial units?

2. Do you want to use the modern and logical metric system?

You takes ya pick and the program then defaults to that.

scragar
August 11th, 2008, 01:35 AM
It's bad programming (nb 1 "m" not 2) because the solution is so easy. In install after language 2 checkboxes come up:

1. Do you want to use the old fashioned and illogical imperial units?

2. Do you want to use the modern and logical metric system?

You takes ya pick and the program then defaults to that.

Is there a program that does that? I thought everything just defaulted to metric already.

mssever
August 11th, 2008, 01:44 AM
Is it archaic if people still use it widely? I have seen many programs default to metric or SI units despite being in the USA, and I didn't feel a need to complain about it.
It comes down to the fact that most of us notice what's different than what we expect, and fail to notice what's the same. For example, I notice when a program uses British spelling, not because it's wrong, but because it's not what I normally expect. (By the same token, I usually don't notice website spelling differences, because I don't expect websites to be localized to US English like programs often are.

I mentioned earlier that Firefox in Ubuntu is improperly localized as far as it's spellchecker dictionary is concerned (of course, it's dumb for programs to maintain their own wordlists, anyway instead of just using a system one).

The point is, some programs are written by Americans and follow American conventions (spelling, measurements) by default. Other programs are written by people elsewhere and follow those conventions. Either way, programs should be localized, but sometimes aren't. In open source, you can either fix it or deal with it (whereas in the proprietary world, the only option is to deal with it).

eddVRS
August 11th, 2008, 02:03 PM
I have heard children refer to pavements as sidewalks!

That's annoying...
another that gets my goat is reference to Dinner Jackets as 'Tux's... grr...

mev03465
August 11th, 2008, 05:52 PM
So what is "A4"? And if something that is developed in the U.S. defaults to U.S. standards, why is that so offensive? Sounds like just some more anti-American sentiment.

schauerlich
August 11th, 2008, 06:42 PM
That's annoying...
another that gets my goat is reference to Dinner Jackets as 'Tux's... grr...

A tux isn't just the jacket, it's the whole pants/shirt/vest/jacket/bowtie combo. And if calling a tuxedo tux annoys you, then you can't call Linux's mascot tux anymore. He is now Tuxedo. :)

mips
August 11th, 2008, 07:07 PM
That's annoying...
another that gets my goat is reference to Dinner Jackets as 'Tux's... grr...

Yeah well a dinner jacket and a tuxedo is not exactly the same thing.

mips
August 11th, 2008, 07:10 PM
So what is "A4"? And if something that is developed in the U.S. defaults to U.S. standards, why is that so offensive? Sounds like just some more anti-American sentiment.

I would not say it is an anti-Amrican thing. I think what people are trying to say is that if the majority of the world uses A4 then let applications default to A4, same goes for language, en vs en_GB. I mean if you need to change a setting would you not rather have the minority change it instead of the majority. Thats the way I see it anyway.

Trollslayer
August 11th, 2008, 07:22 PM
I was looking for how to change the terminal's colors, but I found it like 'colours' -
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prompt-HOWTO/x329.html

What is the difference? I see that Firefox can't recognize 'colour' when I type it here.

Colour is correct :lolflag:

LaRoza
August 11th, 2008, 08:04 PM
It's bad programing (nb 1 "m" not 2) because the solution is so easy. In install after language 2 checkboxes come up:

1. Do you want to use the old fashioned and illogical imperial units?

2. Do you want to use the modern and logical metric system?


Why is it to illogical? Imperial units are based on things people can see and touch, metric may be mathematically easy, but it is based on the speed of light!

I think the metric system is a good universal system, but I am not so arrogant to think it is the best or only one.

And A4 isn't metric...


I would not say it is an anti-Amrican thing. I think what people are trying to say is that if the majority of the world uses A4 then let applications default to A4, same goes for language, en vs en_GB. I mean if you need to change a setting would you not rather have the minority change it instead of the majority. Thats the way I see it anyway.

The majority of the world speaks Mandarin, with English and Hindi following. Shouldn't we just use those languages (or just Mandarin) and be done with it?

They way I see it (the right way) is that if you can change it, it doesn't matter what the defaults are. Logically, it should have no defaults, and have them set when you run it (for the first time, or possibly everytime), but that is a PITA, so they default according to what the programmers probably use (in Open Source, the programmer has the control) or their standards. My clock was set to 12 hour time by default, but I like 24 hour time so I set it (it is a binary clock) that way.

mips
August 11th, 2008, 08:26 PM
They way I see it (the right way) is that if you can change it, it doesn't matter what the defaults are. Logically, it should have no defaults, and have them set when you run it (for the first time, or possibly everytime), but that is a PITA, so they default according to what the programmers probably use (in Open Source, the programmer has the control) or their standards. My clock was set to 12 hour time by default, but I like 24 hour time so I set it (it is a binary clock) that way.

Ideally you should only have to choose your defaults once and that is if you install the OS (or the supplier knowing they are shipping to X location). All applications installed after that should follow the system defaults.

LaRoza
August 11th, 2008, 08:29 PM
Ideally you should only have to choose your defaults once and that is if you install the OS (or the supplier knowing they are shipping to X location). All applications installed after that should follow the system defaults.

It would depend on the setting (which could also be a setting and have defaults).

There are several ways, having default defaults (like Ubuntu) and have the user change them after, having it configured on install/first run and saving it, having it set each time you run. For the system wide settings, I am not too fond of that. I like to think of apps as being independant. Once you start having unrelated apps working together, you have limitations for the sake of convenience (which is what people are complaining about here) and that is going to far for an entire system.

BLTicklemonster
August 11th, 2008, 08:39 PM
Colour is more inclusive because it has U in it.

:)


*looks up. Huh, there's laroza again! Are you following me?

LaRoza
August 11th, 2008, 08:42 PM
*looks up. Huh, there's laroza again! Are you following me?

That doesn't make sense ;)

It is you that are following me. Note, you posted after I did, not the other way around.

BLTicklemonster
August 11th, 2008, 08:45 PM
AHA! So you deny it!

:)


... like I ever make sense...

forrestcupp
August 11th, 2008, 08:46 PM
Colour is more inclusive because it has U in it.

Maybe we should make it more French sounding and spell it "colouir" so it will have U and I in it.

HotShotDJ
August 11th, 2008, 08:53 PM
metric may be mathematically easy, but it is based on the speed of light!Partially correct:
To obtain a standard of length a quadrant of the earth (one-fourth of a circumference) was surveyed from Dunquerque in France to Barcelona in Spain along the meridian that passes through Paris. The distance from the North Pole to the equator was divided into ten million parts to constitute the meter (spelled metre in some countries). The definition of the meter has become more and more precise through the years since, even though its length has not changed. Currently the meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second.So, in reality, the Meter is based on the length of one quadrant of the earth. Using the speed of light as part of the definition of a meter came later to improve precision.

A GRAM is the weight of 1 cubic centimeter of pure water in a vacuum.

A LITER is 1 cubic decimeter of liquid

A Degree Celsius is 1/10 of the range between water's freezing point (0 degrees Celsius) and water's boiling point (100 degrees Celsius). -- Note: The official definition is in terms of the Kelvin scale