American English and British English
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Necromantic Hussy - de los tejones - 02 Jan 2004 13:46 GMT Hi there and Happy New year all :)
I think one of my new year resolutions is to improve my English. I started to last year but it kinda tapered off... lol I am mostly going to be learning from web sites and places like this :) I was thinking of maybe buying a book or two. My question: What is the difference between American and British English? My thinking is that they are pretty much the same and that the only difference is spelling and some small rules of punctuation? Is this correct? Can I learn English from an American book or web site and then just find out the differences later? I would like to know both anyway. Lastly, anybody have any good book recommendations? My English is pretty basic so I would be wanting something that takes me from that up to a good standard with easy to understand text. Thanks in advance.
Best Regards, Me.
-- "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to ." - Princess Bride.
MC - 02 Jan 2004 15:08 GMT In article <1073051774.178648@ananke.eclipse.net.uk>, "Necromantic Hussy - de los tejones" <necromantic_Hussey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think one of my new year resolutions is to improve my English. I started > to last year but it kinda tapered off... lol I am mostly going to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that the only difference is spelling and some small rules of punctuation? Is > this correct? This is the kind of question that youcan ask 100 people and get 200 answers!
Here's my answer: They are essentially the same. It's rare that Americans and Brits fail to understand each other, and when they do, it's usually over one or two words here and there.
If you want to go into detail, there are a number of sources you can go to.
Fort example, I just did a Google search and came up with over 8,000 hits for:
["american english" "british english" differences]
> Can I learn English from an American book or web site and then > just find out the differences later? I would like to know both anyway. I'd suggest you start with the one you are more likely to use.
> Lastly, anybody have any good book recommendations? My English is pretty > basic so I would be wanting something that takes me from that up to a good > standard with easy to understand text. Thanks in advance. Cece - 02 Jan 2004 21:33 GMT > In article <1073051774.178648@ananke.eclipse.net.uk>, > "Necromantic Hussy - de los tejones" <necromantic_Hussey@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > basic so I would be wanting something that takes me from that up to a good > > standard with easy to understand text. Thanks in advance. There are a few grammar and punctuation differences. There are many extreme pronunciation differences. There's a fair number of vocabulary differences, even excluding slang. Vocabulary differences can cause major misunderstandings when the same word or phrase has opposite meanings on opposite sides of the ocean (table [v.]; just about).
For written: read mysteries by British authors and by American authors. Recently written ones -- not Christie and Doyle nor even Sayers; not Queen and Hammett and Poe. Note which nationality the author is -- not necessarily the setting; some mysteries set in England are written by Americans.
Cece
Carter Jefferson - 03 Jan 2004 02:11 GMT >> In article <1073051774.178648@ananke.eclipse.net.uk>, >> "Necromantic Hussy - de los tejones" <necromantic_Hussey@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Cece I have no trouble reading British, and am familiar with the odd words that don'r match, like lorry and lift, but sometimes when I watch British TV drama and comedy I miss things--the accent throws me if they mumble, which some do. I can usually understand mumbling Americans.
Can Britishers understand Gilbert & Sullivan? Much of it, I can't.
Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/
Danny Kodicek - 02 Jan 2004 15:13 GMT > Hi there and Happy New year all :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > basic so I would be wanting something that takes me from that up to a good > standard with easy to understand text. Thanks in advance. At the basic level, there's not much difference between them. The grammar is much the same, and the spelling and punctuation differences fall mostly into standard patterns (the -or/-our ending being the most obvious). However, at the level of word usage, it's much more difficult. Of course there are the well-known hazardous ambiguities such as 'vest', 'pants' and 'suspenders', 'rubber', 'fanny' etc, and many phrases that are equally comprehensible to both groups will be used more or differently on one side or the other (my favourite is the example mentioned by Stephen Fry in Making History, where a character's use of 'named after' instead of 'named for' marks him out as British).
Very few speakers of either variant can speak fluently in the other. What's more, there isn't really any one version of English on either side of the pond - a Londoner and a Brummie will speak very differently, as will a New Yorker and a Texan.
My (probably bad) advice would be to read texts of both kinds and learn a hybrid language. Then you'll be equipped for both, and you'll probably find yourself automatically adjusting according to which other people you're talking to.
Danny
Bill Schnakenberg - 02 Jan 2004 15:26 GMT > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >character's use of 'named after' instead of 'named for' marks him out as >British). Not necessarily. I use "named after" probably as much as "named for" (USA-NY).
>Very few speakers of either variant can speak fluently in the other. What's >more, there isn't really any one version of English on either side of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > meirman - 04 Jan 2004 03:34 GMT In alt.english.usage on Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:26:25 GMT Bill Schnakenberg <willshak@frontiernet.net> posted:
>>At the basic level, there's not much difference between them. The grammar is >>much the same, and the spelling and punctuation differences fall mostly into [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Not necessarily. I use "named after" probably as much as "named for" >(USA-NY). Me too, except I use "named after" almost all the time.
USA, all the way.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
Wayne Brown - 02 Jan 2004 18:52 GMT [...]
> Of course there are the > well-known hazardous ambiguities such as 'vest', 'pants' and 'suspenders', > 'rubber', 'fanny' etc, and many phrases that are equally comprehensible to > both groups will be used more or differently on one side or the other (my > favourite is the example mentioned by Stephen Fry in Making History, where a > character's use of 'named after' instead of 'named for' marks him out as > British).
I've heard both prepositions used in the United States with 'named.' Sometimes examples of British and American English, I've noticed, don't seem to work. Reading an editorial in a British newspaper these days on, say, the political situation in China or some other country, I'm often struck by words and even entire expressions that English friends 30 years ago said were exclusively American and were not used in the British press. They also used to tell me, for example, no one in Britain would say that a telephone line was 'busy' instead of 'engaged.' But an American acquaintance of mine called a telephone number in London just the other day and got a recording by a woman with a British accent saying the line was 'busy.' What gives?
> Very few speakers of either variant can speak fluently in the other. What's > more, there isn't really any one version of English on either side of the > pond - a Londoner and a Brummie will speak very differently, as will a New > Yorker and a Texan.
I don't know how many Americans can imitate British English with any degree of fluency and sustained accuracy, but I've heard English children in London who have grown up watching American films switch to American English for a joke. Listening to them at length, I expected the desk sergeant in NYPD Blue to come out any minute to book a suspect. Perfect!
[...]
Regards, ----- WB.
Larry Trask - 03 Jan 2004 21:07 GMT > Sometimes examples of British and American English, I've noticed, don't seem > to work. Reading an editorial in a British newspaper these days on, say, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > called a telephone number in London just the other day and got a recording > by a woman with a British accent saying the line was 'busy.' What gives? What gives is that words and expressions that were formerly exclusively American are now pouring into British English in some numbers. Traditional 'lorry' has now been largely supplanted by 'truck', and 'elevator' is gaining ground at the expense of 'lift'. American 'dweeb' and 'wuss' crossed the pond some time ago, and 'hissy fit' has recently begun to be used over here.
This presumably results from the influence of American films and TV. I am told that many British children believe that the emergency phone number is 911. It is in fact 999.
Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk
Peter Duncanson - 03 Jan 2004 23:28 GMT >> Sometimes examples of British and American English, I've noticed, don't seem >> to work. Reading an editorial in a British newspaper these days on, say, the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I am told that many British children believe that the emergency phone >number is 911. It is in fact 999. There are runours that 911 works in the UK. I have never tested this.
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
Dr Robin Bignall - 04 Jan 2004 15:43 GMT >>> Sometimes examples of British and American English, I've noticed, don't seem >>> to work. Reading an editorial in a British newspaper these days on, say, the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> >There are runours that 911 works in the UK. I have never tested this. The introduction of mobile phones has apparently caused a huge increase in false 999 calls through the single button being pressed accidentally while the phone is on a belt or in a pocket. There's another emergency number (112 or 211 - something like that) which works, and which is being suggested as a new European standard, so my phone manual says.
 Signature wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire England
Danny Kodicek - 05 Jan 2004 09:35 GMT > >>> Sometimes examples of British and American English, I've noticed, don't seem > >>> to work. Reading an editorial in a British newspaper these days on, say, the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (112 or 211 - something like that) which works, and which is being > suggested as a new European standard, so my phone manual says. Reminds me of a Paddington Bear story where he gets his finger trapped in the 9 of an old dial phone in a phone box, then when they ask what he requires, he yells 'help', thus getting the fire, police and ambulance simultaneously...
Danny
Dr Robin Bignall - 05 Jan 2004 14:17 GMT >> The introduction of mobile phones has apparently caused a huge increase in >> false 999 calls through the single button being pressed accidentally while [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >requires, he yells 'help', thus getting the fire, police and ambulance >simultaneously... That actually happens quite frequently, if 999 is dialed and the operator hears either suspicious noises, a small child crying, or an incoherent adult. From personal experience, I know that the operator gives to the emergency service(s), in real time, the name and address of the person to whom the calling phone is registered, for landlines. I don't know how they deal with mobiles, but imagine that GPS is used if the phone is not cut off.
 Signature wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire England
Danny Kodicek - 05 Jan 2004 16:14 GMT > >> The introduction of mobile phones has apparently caused a huge increase in > >> false 999 calls through the single button being pressed accidentally while [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deal with mobiles, but imagine that GPS is used if the phone is not cut > off. Now that you mention it, that happened to us: my daughter (about 18 months old at the time) phoned 999 while playing with the phone. The first my wife knew of it was my daughter saying 'man!' and holding out the phone. The guy on the other end was fine about it, but he did have to speak to her and confirm that there was no emergency. Since then, the phone has been out of bounds as a plaything - I wish I could find a decent phone toy that acted like a phone rather than playing inane tunes interspersed with animal noises.
911 is a *much* better emergency number, in my opinion.
Danny
david56 - 08 Jan 2004 19:56 GMT docrobin@ntlworld.com spake thus:
> >> The introduction of mobile phones has apparently caused a huge increase in > >> false 999 calls through the single button being pressed accidentally while [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deal with mobiles, but imagine that GPS is used if the phone is not cut > off. Mobile phone service providers can estimate the position of a handset because the phone is registered with one of the sectors of the base station (these each take a sector of the circle around the mast), giving the approximate direction, and the distance from the base station is calculated by the round time of a signal. But none of this has anything to do with GPS which uses signals from satellites.
I have called the emergency services from a mobile - I heard the operator give my number but not any location. I suspect they would have to go through to Vodafone technical support to get this.
 Signature David =====
Dr Robin Bignall - 09 Jan 2004 00:27 GMT >docrobin@ntlworld.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >station is calculated by the round time of a signal. But none of >this has anything to do with GPS which uses signals from satellites. Of course! Wasn't there some instance recently of a case where mobile phone records proved that a person was not where they said they were? Or am I thinking of a movie?
>I have called the emergency services from a mobile - I heard the >operator give my number but not any location. I suspect they would >have to go through to Vodafone technical support to get this. I wonder if they do when they get a 999 call which says something like "I've just driven round a bend on this country road and found this car in a ditch with a person bleeding badly." "Where are you?" "I don't know. On a country road on my way from (major towns) xxx to yyy. Just followed the signs, never been this route before. Wanted to avoid the motorway." "What was the name of the last place you went through?" "No idea."
I'm sure that this sometimes happens.
 Signature
wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire England
Peter Duncanson - 09 Jan 2004 00:53 GMT >Of course! Wasn't there some instance recently of a case where mobile phone >records proved that a person was not where they said they were? Or am I >thinking of a movie? There was a case a few years ago of a emergency call to HM coastguard apparently from a boat in distress off Northern Ireland. The call was eventually traced to a mobile phone in England, Lancashire I think.
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
david56 - 09 Jan 2004 09:38 GMT mail@peterduncanson.net spake thus:
> >Of course! Wasn't there some instance recently of a case where mobile phone > >records proved that a person was not where they said they were? Or am I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > apparently from a boat in distress off Northern Ireland. The call was > eventually traced to a mobile phone in England, Lancashire I think. In the case of the Soham murders, the police knew approximately where the girls' mobile phones were when they were switched off. But this would not be accurate enough to provide evidence that the phone (not the owner, of course) was inside a specific house. In a city you might be able to cut it down to within 100 yards, but in the countryside it could be half a mile or more.
 Signature David =====
meirman - 04 Jan 2004 07:54 GMT In alt.english.usage on 3 Jan 2004 13:07:34 -0800 larryt@sussex.ac.uk (Larry Trask) posted:
>> Sometimes examples of British and American English, I've noticed, don't seem >> to work. Reading an editorial in a British newspaper these days on, say, the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I am told that many British children believe that the emergency phone >number is 911. It is in fact 999. When I was in college, my fraternity printed an advertising book for our annual dance. I was in charge of advertising. We had empty space, so I put in an ad from.... The Chicago Fire Department / Call us for all your fire needs/ FI(re)-7-1212.
The printer called us, but unfortunately the chapter president got the call before I did.
It turned out their number was FI7-1313. I had only lived in Chicago about 16 months. What did I know.
I thought it was 1212 because long distance information was 555-1212.
The police number was PO5-1313. 5 is the 3rd letter in police and 7 the third letter in fire.
They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I don't know why these things don't get coordinated, like tv and vcr format. (Is dvd format going to be the same everywhere, at least?)
>Larry Trask >larryt@sussex.ac.uk s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
Peter Duncanson - 04 Jan 2004 13:03 GMT >They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I >don't know why these things don't get coordinated, like tv and vcr >format. (Is dvd format going to be the same everywhere, at least?) DVD seems to be several competing formats - everywhere.
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
MC - 04 Jan 2004 13:31 GMT > >They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I > >don't know why these things don't get coordinated, like tv and vcr > >format. (Is dvd format going to be the same everywhere, at least?) > > DVD seems to be several competing formats - everywhere. Not so much competing as deliberately formatted differently for different regions.
From: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
Motion picture studios want to control the home release of movies in different countries because theater releases aren't simultaneous (a movie may come out on video in the U.S. when it's just hitting screens in Europe). Also, studios sell distribution rights to different foreign distributors and would like to guarantee an exclusive market. Therefore they required that the DVD standard include codes to prevent playback of certain discs in certain geographical regions. Each player is given a code for the region in which it's sold. The player will refuse to play discs that are not coded for its region. This means that a disc bought in one country may not play on a player bought in another country. Some people believe that region codes are an illegal restraint of trade, but no legal cases have established this.
Regional codes are entirely optional for the maker of a disc. Discs without region locks will play on any player in any country. It's not an encryption system, it's just one byte of information on the disc that the player checks. Some studios originally announced that only their new releases would have regional codes, but so far almost all Hollywood releases play in only one region. Region codes are a permanent part of the disc, they won't "unlock" after a period of time. Region codes don't apply to DVD-Audio, DVD-ROM, or recordable DVD (see below for more detail).
Seven regions (also called locales or zones) have been defined, and each one is assigned a number. Players and discs are often identified by their region number superimposed on a world globe. If a disc plays in more than one region it will have more than one number on the globe. 1: U.S., Canada, U.S. Territories 2: Japan, Europe, South Africa, and Middle East (including Egypt) 3: Southeast Asia and East Asia (including Hong Kong) 4: Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, Central America, Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean 5: Eastern Europe (Former Soviet Union), Indian subcontinent, Africa, North Korea, and Mongolia 6: China 7: Reserved 8: Special international venues (airplanes, cruise ships, etc.)
Peter Duncanson - 04 Jan 2004 15:07 GMT >> >They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I >> >don't know why these things don't get coordinated, like tv and vcr [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >From: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html Sorry. What I had in mind, but did not make explicit, were the competing recording formats - DVD-R, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and DVD+R. http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#4.3
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
david56 - 04 Jan 2004 15:39 GMT mail@peterduncanson.net spake thus:
> >> >They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I > >> >don't know why these things don't get coordinated, like tv and vcr [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recording formats - DVD-R, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and DVD+R. > http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#4.3 My DVD burner (LG GSA4040) can write all of them, and my home DVD player seems happy with all (except for DVD-RAM which I haven't actually tried).
 Signature David =====
mUs1Ka - 04 Jan 2004 15:16 GMT >>> They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better >>> choice. I don't know why these things don't get coordinated, like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not so much competing as deliberately formatted differently for > different regions. That's regional coding, as you cited. The formats: DVD-R, DVD+R, (and associated RWs) and DVD-RAM are competing and incompatible formats. It was only in the last year, I believe, that DVD writers were produced that could write all three formats. m.
Peter Duncanson - 04 Jan 2004 17:11 GMT >They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I >don't know why these things don't get coordinated, At the time of introduction there was no need for international coordination.
I, dimly, recall the introduction of the 999 emergency number in the UK. The explanation for the choice of the number was to make it easy to dial in the dark or in a smokefilled room:
"Put two fingers in the rotary dial holes immediately to the left of the end stop, remove the rightmost finger, rotate the dial as far as the end stop and release. Repeat twice."
There are pictures of rotary dial phones at http://www.englishphoneboxes.com/accessories/traditional.html
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
meirman - 05 Jan 2004 05:50 GMT In alt.english.usage on Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:11:33 +0000 Peter Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> posted:
>>They're probably both 911 now. 999 might have been a better choice. I >>don't know why these things don't get coordinated, > >At the time of introduction there was no need for international >coordination. People travelled even then.
>I, dimly, recall the introduction of the 999 emergency number in the UK. The >explanation for the choice of the number was to make it easy to dial in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >stop, remove the rightmost finger, rotate the dial as far as the end stop >and release. Repeat twice." OTOH, maybe 911 was a better choice because it takes less time to dial.
When my mother moved to a new city, she would have to get a new phone number, and she would tell the person on the phone that she wanted a low number so that she and others could dial it quickly, and of course they would offer her a number with a bunch of zeroes, but she would say, "No zeroes, just ones and twos" and apparently was not able to convey, at least on one occasion, why zeroes were not low numbers. Maybe the person she was talking to had touchtone already and couldn't figure out what my mother was talking about.
>There are pictures of rotary dial phones at >http://www.englishphoneboxes.com/accessories/traditional.html s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
Peter Duncanson - 05 Jan 2004 11:41 GMT >>At the time of introduction there was no need for international >>coordination. > >People travelled even then. True. But the number of people travelling internationally was much smaller than today.
The is a webpage giving the history of the 999 service in the UK http://www.fire.org.uk/advice/999history.htm A couple of extracts: <quote> HISTORY OF THE 999 SYSTEM AND FIRE BRIGADES Before automatic exchanges the public telephone system was based on large numbers of local manually operated telephone exchanges, many of which were found in local tradesmen's premises manned on a "sleeping watch" basis by the occupier.
All calls, local or long distance, were connected manually by the exchange operators, since automatic dialling was then in its infancy. At that time Fire Brigades were also completely decentralised (organised in the form of local units) and created few communication problems. In cases of emergency subscribers called the local exchange , where upon the operator connected them to a local point for the receipt of the emergency calls. There was little if any need for the co-ordination of communications planning over a wide area. .... WHY 999
The 999 system came about via the Metropolitan Police in London. In 1829 they found that their Police Stations were being overrun either by visitors to the station alerting them to emergency situations or trying to phone them in the growing trend of using the new invention, the telephone. Not every one could remember or knew the telephone number of the local Police Station. In November of 1927 the general public in London were advised " if you have an emergency dial 0". When the operators answers ask for the service you require. The Metropolitan Police maintained this service till 1934 then they introduced their Information Room with the famous number of Whitehall 1212. Where all emergency calls ended up. Emergency calls via telephone kept increasing and telephone operators were unable to identify emergency calls from other operator service calls.
As is normal a disaster of some description was required to prompt government action. In November of 1935 a fire occurred in London in which five people died, in the inquiry which followed it became apparent that a system was required that alerted telephone operators to emergency calls. A parliamentary Committee called the Belgrave Committee examined the problems and set up various experiments in London. A great deal of discussion took place between the Home Office, the Police and Post Office. It was decided not to use 111 as this number can be dialled by phones which are faulty. 12 was not a good idea as at that time any one wanting a number on the 12 exchange would be barred because of the emergency calls. The same could be said for 222, this would have closed a big exchange in London and that could not happen.
999 was used because the numbers could be remembered easily, that they were all at the same end of the dial. It was relatively simple to convert coin boxes to accept 999 calls with out charge. The 999 system open in London in July 1937, it was 1938 before it reached Glasgow. It was the first service of its type in the world. ... </quote>
I suppose we should ask why other countries did not follow this example and use 999?
Wikipaedia has on article on emergency phone numbers. It lists the numbers by region and country - what a mess! (It is a very incomplete list.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number
>When my mother moved to a new city, she would have to get a new phone >number, and she would tell the person on the phone that she wanted a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Maybe the person she was talking to had touchtone already and couldn't >figure out what my mother was talking about. I can imagine her frustration. Numerically zero is a low number, but on a rotary dial it has the value ten.
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
Dr Robin Bignall - 05 Jan 2004 14:21 GMT [interesting detail cut for brevity]
If you look at a London phone directory, it's surprising how many local police stations still have the phone number XXX-1212, where XXX is an exchange code. I don't know about the rest of the country.
 Signature wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire England
Martin Willett - 03 Jan 2004 21:56 GMT > I don't know how many Americans can imitate British English with any > degree of fluency and sustained accuracy, but I've heard English > children in London who have grown up watching American films switch > to American English for a joke. Listening to them at length, I > expected the desk sergeant in NYPD Blue to come out any minute to > book a suspect. Perfect! My children can do that quite well. They know that what's on the television isn't what they should copy, but they pick it up. At school some of those American words and expressions are repeated and become acceptable slang (like dur! whatever.) They have picked it up as if it was a foreign language, and they can just drift into it if they want to: accent, idiom and sentence patterns. Scooby Doo, Recess, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and The Simpsons are particularly rich veins for them.
 Signature Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
meirman - 04 Jan 2004 03:34 GMT In alt.english.usage on Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:52:01 +0100 "Wayne Brown" <Wayne.Brownweedkiller@t-online.de> posted:
> I don't know how many Americans can imitate British English with any >degree of fluency and sustained accuracy, but I've heard English children in >London who have grown up watching American films switch to American English >for a joke. Listening to them at length, I expected the desk sergeant in >NYPD Blue to come out any minute to book a suspect. Perfect! Oy, so that's what they watch. One of our most embarrassing shows, (until they came out with more embarrassing ones).
It was called NYPC *Blue* to make the point that it was blue, profane, dirty.
> [...] s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
Alan Illeman - 02 Jan 2004 16:06 GMT > Hi there and Happy New year all :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > basic so I would be wanting something that takes me from that up to a good > standard with easy to understand text. Thanks in advance. I've been in Canada for over 30 years and it is the suffix -ise or -ize that I have found most difficult. From a Canadian dictionary:
Usage: Many English verbs ending in the sound (iz) can be spelled with -ize or -ise. In Canadian usage [and American, I suspect] -ize is preferred for words containg the Greek suffix, such as apologize, civilize, visualize but -ise is usual in differently formed words derived from Old French, such as advertise, exercise and supervise. The spelling -ize is used when forming new words, such as customize, slenderize, etc.
My difficulty stems from the fact that I never studied Greek or Old French, obviously :-)
Larry Trask - 03 Jan 2004 20:59 GMT > I've been in Canada for over 30 years and it is the suffix -ise or -ize that I have > found most difficult. From a Canadian dictionary: > > Usage: Many English verbs ending in the sound (iz) can be spelled with -ize > or -ise. In Canadian usage [and American, I suspect] -ize is preferred for words > containg the Greek suffix, such as apologize, civilize, visualize In American English, the spelling in '-ize' is obligatory for these words. As far as I know, the '-ise' spellings are never acceptable south of the border.
> but -ise is usual > in differently formed words derived from Old French, such as advertise, exercise > and supervise. Er -- "usual"? These words must be spelled with '-ise' in all varieties of English, and things like *'advertize' and *'surprize' are nowhere acceptable -- though they are sometimes produced by Brits trying to use American spelling.
> The spelling -ize is used when forming new words, such as > customize, slenderize, etc. That's because the set of words in obligatory '-ise' is closed.
> My difficulty stems from the fact that I never studied Greek or Old French, > obviously :-) If you use the '-ise' spelling for the Greek-suffixed words, you will never have to worry, as long as you remember the unique word 'capsize', which has no other spelling. If you choose to follow American norms, you simply have to memorize the list of words in '-ise'. It isn't long.
Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk
Martin Willett - 03 Jan 2004 22:04 GMT >> I've been in Canada for over 30 years and it is the suffix -ise or >> -ize that I have found most difficult. From a Canadian dictionary: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > American norms, you simply have to memorize the list of words in > '-ise'. It isn't long. Does anybody know how to make Microsoft Word's spellchecker in Word 97 use UK English spellings but with the preference for ize rather than the presumption of ise endings? This has been causing me much distress for years. The spellchecker in Dreamweaver lets me choose between US English, UK ise endings and UK ize endings. I want that "UK ize endings" option on all spellcheckers!
 Signature Martin Willett
http://mwillett.org/
Dr Robin Bignall - 03 Jan 2004 23:26 GMT >Does anybody know how to make Microsoft Word's spellchecker in Word 97 >use UK English spellings but with the preference for ize rather than >the presumption of ise endings? This has been causing me much distress >for years. The spellchecker in Dreamweaver lets me choose between US >English, UK ise endings and UK ize endings. I want that "UK ize >endings" option on all spellcheckers! You can probably automate it, but it may take some time. I think there's a facility in Word to automatically change one word to another. If, for example, you nearly always type 'teh' for 'the', you can get the correction made in-flight. Probably the easiest approach would be to use the American spell-checker and just add words such as 'colour', plus those you wish to end in 'ise' rather than 'ize'.
 Signature wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire England
meirman - 04 Jan 2004 07:57 GMT In alt.english.usage on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:04:40 -0000 "Martin Willett" <mwillett_yuletide_only@ntlworld.com> posted:
>Does anybody know how to make Microsoft Word's spellchecker in Word 97 >use UK English spellings but with the preference for ize rather than >the presumption of ise endings? This has been causing me much distress >for years. The spellchecker in Dreamweaver lets me choose between US >English, UK ise endings and UK ize endings. I want that "UK ize >endings" option on all spellcheckers! I don't suppose the spellchecker file is in text format?? If so you could just search for all the ize's and change the ones you want to ise.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
Dr Robin Bignall - 04 Jan 2004 15:49 GMT >In alt.english.usage on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:04:40 -0000 "Martin >Willett" <mwillett_yuletide_only@ntlworld.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >could just search for all the ize's and change the ones you want to >ise. There is a place in 'options' where you can specify the name of your custom dictionary. It has a default name if you do not. I do not seem to have created one so I don't know what format it's in.
 Signature wrmst rgrds Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire England
Harvey Van Sickle - 04 Jan 2004 15:59 GMT On 04 Jan 2004, Dr Robin Bignall wrote -snip-
>> I don't suppose the spellchecker file is in text format?? If so >> you could just search for all the ize's and change the ones you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your custom dictionary. It has a default name if you do not. I do > not seem to have created one so I don't know what format it's in. That seems to me to be the simplest method: the first time each "ize" form is highlighted, just add it to the custom dictionary and it won't reappear as an error.
The default for the "personal dictionary" is "custom.dic" -- it's a plain-text file that will open (and can be edited) in Word, Notepad, Wordpad, etc.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years; Southern England for the past 21 years. (for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Daniel James - 05 Jan 2004 11:01 GMT > > [Martin Willett posted] > > > Does anybody know how to make Microsoft Word's > > > spellchecker in Word 97 use UK English spellings but > > > with the preference for ize rather than the presumption > > > of ise endings? ..
> There is a place in 'options' where you can specify the name > of your custom dictionary. It has a default name if you do > not. I do not seem to have created one so I don't know what > format it's in. I Word's believe custom dictionaries are stored in plain text format, but the main Microsoft-supplied dictionary is supplied in a compressed format.
The big problem is that although it's fairly easy to add words like "realize" to the custom dictionary it is impossible to remove the "realise" spelling from the built-in dictionary.
Cheers, Daniel.
MC - 05 Jan 2004 11:47 GMT > I Word's believe custom dictionaries are stored in plain text > format, but the main Microsoft-supplied dictionary is supplied [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like "realize" to the custom dictionary it is impossible to > remove the "realise" spelling from the built-in dictionary. Well, both spellings are correct after all. One way to tackle this is to use the Auto Correct feature -- you instruct it to output "realize" when you input "realise" -- which will only work for any text you write, but not for texts that others write of course.
Another thing would be to change every occurrence of "realise" to "realize" (or vice versa -- plus every other custom change you might want to make) and put it in a macro which you run before you run spell-check. I haven't tried this in Word, but I know it works in WordPerfect.
Daniel James - 06 Jan 2004 11:35 GMT > > The big problem is that although it's fairly easy to add > > words like "realize" to the custom dictionary it is > > impossible to remove the "realise" spelling from the > > built-in dictionary. > > Well, both spellings are correct after all. True - but if someone uses both spellings in the same document it's probably an error.
It could be argued that checking that sort of consistency is a task more appropriate for a grammar checker than a spelling checker (though the grammar checker in Word is pretty awful -- or was the last time I played with it -- so I never use it).
> One way to tackle this is to use the Auto Correct feature > -- you instruct it to output "realize" when you input > "realise" -- which will only work for any text you write, > but not for texts that others write of course. There are problems with using auto-correct in this way; it doesn't always operate on text that has been typed as one thing and then edited to be something else, and it doesn't operate on pasted text. Auto-correct can also be quite slow in operation when there are a large number of entries in the auto-correct database. I'm sure I've also seen reports of crashes and hangs caused by Word's inability to cope with complex cominations of self-referential or recursive auto-correct entries.
I used to have terrible problems with one of my more common typing errors (probably "teh" or "thta", I no longer recall) which I would often realize I had made before auto-correct could finish correcting it. I would backspace and change the text while auto-correct was trying to do the same thing, and the result would be neither the word I had inteneded to type, nor the common mistyping of that word, but something else entirely. (In case it isn't obvious, I am one of those who types with about 8.5 fingers, but has to look at the keyboard more often than at the screen.)
I now keep auto-correct turned firmly off, and am far happier that way.
> Another thing would be to change every occurrence of > "realise" to "realize" (or vice versa -- plus every other > custom change you might want to make) and put it in a macro > which you run before you run spell-check. It could be done ... but there are a lot of -ize words.
It's not as nice a solution as having a spell-checker that checks for the spellings preferred by *THE* definitive dictionary of the English language.
Cheers, Daniel.
Peter Duncanson - 05 Jan 2004 12:51 GMT >> > [Martin Willett posted] >> > > Does anybody know how to make Microsoft Word's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >like "realize" to the custom dictionary it is impossible to >remove the "realise" spelling from the built-in dictionary. It is possible to block words in the main dictionary by creating an "exclude dictionary".
This capability exists in both versions to which I have immediate access: Word 97 and Word 2002
Using Word Help search for "dictionaries", then from the list of topics select "Specify a preferred spelling for a word".
From Word 2002 Help <quote> Specify a preferred spelling for a word
To specify a preferred spelling for a word, you add variations of the word's spelling to the exclude dictionary (exclude dictionary: A dictionary with words that the main dictionary recognizes as being spelled correctly, but that you want to verify during a spelling check. For example, if you prefer "theatre" to "theater," add "theater" to the exclude dictionary.).
Click New Blank Document on the Standard toolbar. Type the words you want to include in the exclude dictionary. Press ENTER after each word. On the File menu, click Save As. Locate the folder to save the exclude dictionary in. This should be the same location as the main dictionary. The location may vary depending on your version of Microsoft Windows: Microsoft Windows 2000 or later
Save in the C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Proof folder.
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition or Microsoft Windows NT 4.0
Save in the C:\Windows_folder\Profiles\User_name\Application Data\Microsoft\Proof folder.
Microsoft Windows 98
Save in either the C:\Windows_folder\Application Data\Microsoft\Proof folder or the C:\Windows_folder\Profiles\User_name\Application Data\Microsoft\Proof folder.
In the Save as type box, click Plain Text. In the File name box, type a name for the exclude dictionary. Make sure to give the exclude dictionary the same name as the main language dictionary it's associated with, except use the file name extension .exc. For example, the English (United States) dictionary is called Mssp3en.lex, so name the associated exclude dictionary Mssp3en.exc.
Also make sure that the file extension is correct, for example, that .txt isn't appended to the file name extension.
Click Save. In the File Conversion dialog box that appears, select the options you want, and then click OK. For Help on an option, click the question mark , and then click the option.
On the File menu, click Close. To activate the exclude dictionary, you need to restart Microsoft Word. </quote>
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
Daniel James - 06 Jan 2004 11:35 GMT > It is possible to block words in the main dictionary by > creating an "exclude dictionary". [method snipped]
Ah, thank you, Peter, I didn't know that. Well-hidden, isn't it?
Now all I need is a list of all -ize words ... <smile>
.. and a way to do the same with the spell-checker in my EMail package, of course <long face>
Cheers, Daniel.
Peter Duncanson - 06 Jan 2004 11:43 GMT >> It is possible to block words in the main dictionary by >> creating an "exclude dictionary". >[method snipped] > >Ah, thank you, Peter, I didn't know that. Well-hidden, isn't >it? Yes. Even having looked at the Help entry one day, I still had to search hard to find it again the next.
>Now all I need is a list of all -ize words ... <smile> A wildcard facility would be useful - e.g. "*ize" to exclude all words ending in "ize".
>.. and a way to do the same with the spell-checker in my >EMail package, of course <long face> <sympathetic smile>
 Signature Peter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u)
Daniel James - 07 Jan 2004 23:58 GMT > A wildcard facility would be useful - e.g. "*ize" to exclude > all words ending in "ize". I thought of wildcards, before posting ... but there are too many exceptions -- especially as it's the *ise spellings I'd want to expunge.
Cheers, Daniel.
Daniel James - 04 Jan 2004 14:59 GMT In article news:<48c7f19.0401031259.515be3e7@posting.google.com>, Larry Trask wrote:
> Er -- "usual"? These words must be spelled with '-ise' in > all varieties of English, and things like *'advertize' and > *'surprize' are nowhere acceptable There are, however, words that are spelt with 'z' in AmE and with 's' in BrE ... "analy[s|z]e" springs to mind (even though it hasn't got an "-ise" ending). As that [s|z] is an 's' in "analysis" turning it into a 'z' for "analyze" is particularly infelicitous.
> ... the set of words in obligatory '-ise' is closed. I'm sure I could invent a few new ones (e.g. new words coined from derivatives of /videre/) if I really wanted to.
> If you choose to follow American norms, you simply have to > memorize the list of words in '-ise'. It isn't long. Fowler would say that that is what we should all be doing anyway.
Cheers, Daniel.
meirman - 04 Jan 2004 03:33 GMT In alt.english.usage on Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:46:01 -0000 "Necromantic Hussy - de los tejones" <necromantic_Hussey@yahoo.com> posted:
>Hi there and Happy New year all :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >basic so I would be wanting something that takes me from that up to a good >standard with easy to understand text. Thanks in advance. Like someone said, learn the one you are most likely to use the most.
There is not much difference. I usually can't tell where the author of a post on this newsgroup is from by reading what he wrote. That's why I wish more people would say so in their sig, like I do. At least the users of Agent, for whom it is easy.
Read books about serious topics you are interested in. Most of the writers use good English. I would not assume that was the case regarding books on pop culture, like rap music. But history, literature, science, etc. yes.
I had a plan once to read a book by William F. Buckley, who uses a lot of words I don't know. But I ended up with a book that didn't interest me.
When my brother read, he would write down words he didn't know, write down their definitions, and study them. I don't and I end up looking up the same word several times sometimes. But either system works.
>Best Regards, >Me. s/ meirman If you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years Baltimore 20 years
|
|
|