Talk:American and British English spelling differences

NATO

"This does not apply to most pure initialisms, such as US, NATO, IBM," what is meant here by "pure", that NATO (Nay-toe - North Atlantic Treaty Organization) qualifies and NASA (Nah-sah - National Aeronautics and Space Administration) does not? Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Is it possible that whoever wrote that OR thought that NATO is pronounced N-A-T-O? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

among / amongst - while / whilst

First of all, please do not remove content from the article without first discussing proposals for doing so.

Let me further elaborate on this. Amongst more commonly appears in U.K. English, and almost exclusively never appears in U.S. English. This is something you can verify by looking at U.K. spellings on Wikipedia, where amongst is quite common from U.K.-based editors. It's prevalent enough that you're going to find it in many random articles. The same goes for whilst, which is never used in U.S. English. The scope of the claims made by my additions indicate a difference in habit between these two dialects. There is no official usage of amongst / whilst in U.K. English, as far as I know - it only stands that these forms appear in some common-use of U.K. English, while not appearing in U.S. English at all. 70.153.107.88 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is specifically about spelling differences between US and UK English. The difference between "while" and "whilst" is not one of spelling: they are also pronounced differently and therefore are two different words. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Coupe in American English

Is it not worth mentioning in the table where Coupe (American spelling without the accent) is listed, that it's pronounced "Koop".

Sledge vs. sled

Someone should add "sledge/sled" (winter pastime/sport/polar necessity) to the Other section, the former in the UK, the latter in the USA and Canada. It is fair game for this article.05:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.234.236 (talk)

That's not a spelling difference, that's a variant word.

If we start going into that detail we could get bogged down in an etymological tangle stretching beyond just sleds and sledges to sleighs, slides, skates, skis and even gliders, ships and skipping ropes....

Agreed, in order for it to be a spelling difference, the words must be pronounced the same or nearly the same. For instance, as mentioned in the article, "pry" is a back formation from "prise", not an alternate spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.191.29 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Peters...?

There's a lot of citations of "peters" with just a page number. Can we be a bit more specific please? It helps to be clear what you're referring to.... Prof Wrong (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's in the "References" section. jnestorius^(talk) 15:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah right. The citations should be linked to it, so that it can be found easily. Prof Wrong (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Near by vs nearby

In the example of and adverbial usage of "near by" ("No one was near by (sic)"), "near by" is being used as an adjective; since "was" is a linking verb, "nearby" describes the subject, not the verb. Not really sure how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.191.29 (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the default format for the article?

I notice that user 121.222.6.104 changed 'spelled' to 'spelt' in the article. I see that 'spelled' is used elesewhere, but wasn't changed. Is there a preferred format (American or British English) for the article? Apau98 (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything in the WP guidelines to account for this -- usually it says to use whichever is more appropriate to the topic, which in this case can't be resolved.

However, as "spelled" is universally accepted, I'd go with that. (Even though I would personally say and write "spelt" more often than "spelled".)

Prof Wrong (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR says to use the original authors spelling if there are no obvious connections to a particular style. The original author used "spelt". McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How about having the article be self-defining, by using both spellings? Like saying "spelt/spelled", "colour/color", etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, as the article is about English Language, they should use the British spelling. The British did create the English Language, and the Americans adopted it. So, as seen as the British created it, we should use their spelling.2.216.30.156 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Despatch?

I found this spelling of the word 'dispatch' in another article. Is that a British spelling, or just 'less common' (as my on-line dictionary says). WCCasey (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what EO has to say about it:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not "less common" in Britain: usage about 50:50 with dispatch, according to the British National Corpus. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Which goes to show how influential a typographical error can be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, "despatch" is acceptable in American English too. However, in both varieties, I would say it was less common. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think in UK English 'dispatch' (noun) means a military document before, during or after its delivery, while to 'despatch' (verb) means to run a bayonet through someone?

I thought despatch meant alacrity or all deliberate speed or something like that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

Perhaps we need coverage of advice/advise, licence/license and practice/practise? I believe that in UK English '-ice' is used for the noun while '-ise' applies to the verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.45.137 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of "phoney"

The article says

 "Originally an Americanism, this word made its widespread appearance in Britain during the Phoney
  War."Phony" is the older spelling"

and the footnote claims the reference for the etymology is the Oxford English Dictionary. Actually, the Oxford English Dictionary online (www.oed.com) gives the following etymology:

 "Probably alteration of fawney n. (compare fawney n. 2)", 

where fawney n.2 is defined as a) "fawney-rig" or b) "one who practices the fawney rig". The Merriam-Webster agrees with this etymology.

Pajama Urdu or Persian?

It says Pajama is originally Urdu but it is originally a persian word according to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pajamas http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pajama http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0676280#m_en_gb0676280

I once changed it but it was changed back again... so I'm wondering why? Lilied1 (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The cited source has "Urdu pāy-jāma, pā-jāma" but, as you say, adds that the Urdu word originates from Persian. An addition along the lines of "in turn derived from Persian pay, pa (leg, foot) and jama (garment)" would be fine, but just substituting "Urdu" left out the immediate derivation altogether. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Many Urdu words (and almost all distinctively Urdu words not found in Hindi) are loanwords from Persian (some are ultimately of Arabic or Turkish origin, but they came into Urdu via Persian). English would have borrowed the word from Urdu during the days of British commercian and colonial activity in India. Grover cleveland (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Gantlet?

I see "gantlet" (misc. sp. differences) has a footnote, but this is basically never used in American English. Also, this:

The spelling gauntlet is acceptable for both gauntlet meaning "glove" or "challenge" and gauntlet meaning "a form of punishment in which lines of men beat a person forced to run between them"; but this has not always been the case. The story of the gauntlet used in to throw down the gauntlet is linguistically unexciting: it comes from the Old French word gantelet, a diminutive of gant, "glove." From the time of its appearance in Middle English (in a work composed in 1449), the word has been spelled with an au as well as an a, still a possible spelling. But the gauntlet used in to run the gauntlet is an alteration of the earlier English form gantlope, which came from the Swedish word gatlopp, a compound of gata, "lane," and lopp, "course." The earliest recorded form of the English word, found in 1646, is gantelope, showing that alteration of the Swedish word had already occurred. The English word was then influenced by the spelling of the word gauntlet, "glove," and in 1676 we find the first recorded instance of the spelling gauntlet for this word, although gantelope is found as late as 1836. From then on spellings with au and a are both found, but the au seems to have won out.

—American Heritage Dictionary, [[2]]

Which explains the railroad track definition of "ga(u)ntlet." "Gantlet" would be the preferred spelling for "running the gantlet" whereas "gauntlet" would be preferred when meaning "glove." So we're talking about two different words here...based on that and the fact no one uses "gantlet" here (and also the fact "sledge/sled" was shot down), "gantlet" should probably be removed from the Misc. section. LM

The Toronto Star made a big deal out of this many years ago, explaining why, for etymological reasons, they were switching from "running the gauntlet" to this weird-looking "running the gantlet". And then they left open the issue of how do you say "gantlet"?

Varlaam (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Large number of disambiguation pages

I think in many cases those disambiguation pages are the most appropriate wikipedia article, since no one sense of the word is intended. would the wiktionary for those words be a better link? i am unaware of any policy preventing those links, but it occurs to me that i have seen such links taken to disambiguation pages before, so is this convention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.221.42 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of the article

Currently, there does not seem to be any particular spelling used in the article. Per WP:ENGVAR we should use the spelling the original author used. There is no obvious choice for this; however, the original author did use "spelt", suggesting the article should be in British English. However, perhaps it would be better if decided upon a standard now rather than arguing about it later. In the discussion that follows do not just suggest one particular spelling variety because that's what you use. We need to have a standard that can be justified. Spellings preferred by the international Oxford English Dictionary, being the dictionary of choice of many organisations, such as the New Zealand government (I discovered), seems an appropriate choice. Oxford English is British English with -ize endings. This is the variety of English used by the United Nations, the ISO and other such major international organisations. For words which have extra letters in one variety of English (usually British), we could use brackets, for example, "colo(u)r", "program(me)" etc. Obviously, this would not apply when deliberately spelling a word a certain way to illustrate a point. We also need to apply WP:COMMONALITY if it is ever appropriate to do so. What does everyone else think? McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It really seems time for Wikipedia to introduce some tags and user preferences so that people see the version they choose. The mix of spellings through the encyclopedia really takes away from what is otherwise a professional work. Peter Grey (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I doubt that will happen any time in the near future. One benefit of the current system, however, is that it educates people on the spellings of other varieties of English. But until that is sorted out, we need to sort this page out. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref to Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage in British usage for -ise, -ize (-isation, -ization)

The (reprinted) first edition of Fowler that I have (ISBN 0-19-860506-4), published in 2002, is fully in agreement with the OED, and quotes the OED's judgement on this. Whereas, as written, this seems to be invoking Fowler on the side of ise rather than ize, as the first edition states.Graham Fountain 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs)

I reverted the change, mostly on technical grounds: it left a big, bold, red "citation error" notice in the references section. Furthermore, the article statement needs a reference from somewhere; just deleting isn't a fix.

My Fowler (The King‘s English, 1973) doesn't carry this at all, but Eric Partridge cites the Fowler passage we were using approvingly ("an admirable article"): it must be right. Perhaps recast the article text slightly, to match more closely the reference?

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

British usage for -ise, -ize (-isation, -ization) in Peters

Explanatory note for recent reversion: In a quote from The Cambridge Guide to English Usage Pam Peters reports information from the British National Corpus: "[With] contemporary British writers the ise spellings outnumber those with ize in the ratio of about 3:2" (emphasis as original). An IP editor continues to revert this, describing the cited version as "dumb". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Now expanded the reference with the quote. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxford spelling

The article states: "British English using -ize is known as Oxford spelling, and is used in publications of the Oxford University Press, most notably the Oxford English Dictionary." I'm not sure this is true. The OED definitely uses -ize but the Oxford University style guide specifically calls for -ise. Would books published by OUP follow the style guide or the OED? McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford University Press continues to prefer -ize, in line with the OED. The "Oxford University style guide" is this, which must have some status within the ox.ac.uk web site, but I do not believe it has been approved on behalf of the University itself. I should be surprised if the notion of seeking to impose a particular "style" on writers were ever adopted by the University. I believe the 'stlye guide' is promulgated by Jeremy Harris, the University's Director of Public Affairs, who is a journalist by profession, not to mention a Cambridge man. Moonraker (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the style guide is actually just the press style guide, which recently made news because of the "outrage" it caused when people realised it advises against the Oxford comma. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Merchandize

The OED does have examples with merchandize and an older spelling of merchandise but this spelling is surely obsolete. Oxford Dictionaries Online states "The nouns merchandise and merchandiser must always be spelled with the ending -ise. The verb can also be spelled with the ending -ize, although this is far less common than merchandise." McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nite - Night

Night and Nite are notable by their absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.248.244 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Night is still the AmEng spelling of BritEng night; whereas nite is a creature of ad men and their vile misspellings.

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nite" has no legitimacy. Varlaam (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite article before "h"

Is there any guideline or reference to the practice of when to use "an" before words beginning with "h" e.g. "an history", "an hotel"? --Bermicourt (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This article might be of some use: A_and_an Gandru (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Old Moonraker beat me to it! Whilst there are differences between American and British English use of 'an', I think the general principle is the same, and as such is not for this article? Gandru (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - that's spot on. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean indefinite article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

These cited references seem to be missing the point, which involves stress.

I, personally, say "an historic" and "an heroic". Both adjectives have the stress on the 2nd syllable.

So the rule is, if the 'h' drops from the unstressed initial syllable, because you happen to say it that way, then "an" is used because it now precedes a vowel.

If you pronounce the 'h', then use "a".

It will always be "a hobby" and never "an hobby", because the first syllable is stressed.

Similarly, it is never "an history" because the stress in the noun is on the 1st syllable. It shifts to the 2nd in the adjectival "historic(al)".

Varlaam (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)

"An history" was common in the 18th century but is rare now. Cf. Oliver Goldsmith's An History of England in a Series of Letters from a Nobleman to his Son and his An History of the Earth and Animated Nature. Moonraker (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gauge vs. Gage

I've never seen gage as far as I can remember(I'm American). There are some other differences that perplex me (as to why they're in the list). Is gage really that popular in America? Can't believe I have to ask that... Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the word gage is used anymore, except in books. the definition of gage is:

1. something, as a glove, thrown down by a medieval knight in token of challenge to combat. 2. Archaic. a challenge. 3. Archaic. a pledge or pawn; security.

ya, not sure it is important since it does not apply anymore. MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's "not used anymore, except in books" then it's still used. I'v seen it used plenty of times by Americans. It doesn't matter how common it is. ~Asarlaí 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As an American, I have never ever seen gauge spelled "gaged". The above users explanation does not seem sufficient and the note that is linked to the "gaged" is to a dubious online dictionary. Im deleting it, dont be surprised if I butcher the entire article by mistakenly deleting something else. Ill try my best not to.

69.65.74.174 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed just because you think you'v never seen it. If reliable sources say that the spelling is used then it should be included, so I'm adding it back with a reference from Merriam-Webster. I'll also add the spelling gauge since both seem to be used in the US. ~Asarlaí 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Asarlai: Didn't say it needed to be removed, I was just bringing it up. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cigaret(te)

That's a difference which could be noted.
I believe "cigaret" is an older US usage which has largely fallen out of favour?
Except in The New Yorker magazine, or some such place?
Varlaam (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there was a Canadian publication that liked that spelling too. The Globe and Mail? Varlaam (talk)

theatre/theater

Shouldn't be a note that, though theatre is standard British and theater is standard American (I think, have no bothered to source though), many American theaters (but again no source) use 'Theatre' is their titles, likely because of an association of European culture and sophistication. Mayumashu (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Something like:

Theater is the prevailing American spelling used to refer to both the dramatic arts and buildings where stage performances and screenings of films take place (i.e. "movie theaters"); for example, a national newspaper such as The New York Times uses theater throughout its "Theater", "Movies" and "Arts & Leisure" sections. In contrast, the spelling theatre appears in the names of many New York City theatres on Broadway^[19] (cf. Broadway theatre) and elsewhere in the United States. In 2003, the proposal of the American National Theatre, eventually to be founded and inaugurated in autumn 2007, was referred to by The New York Times as the "American National Theater"; but the organisation uses "re" in the spelling of its name.^[20][21] The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. features the more common American spelling theater in its references to The Eisenhower Theater, part of the Kennedy Center.^[22] Some cinemas outside New York also use the theatre spelling.^[23]

perhaps? Fat&Happy (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of having two tables in the article?

The table under "Different spellings for different pronunciations" is essentially the same as the one under "Miscellaneous spelling differences".

I would also like to know what the standard that is being used for a word to be included in the table. Merriam Webster turned up nothing for the word "ake". How far back are we going? Whats the criteria to determine if a word is no longer in use? And, if its no longer in use and is to be included, was its use standard or nonstandard(slang?

69.65.74.174 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Traveling/Travelling, Canceling/Cancelling etc.

This cannot be right. I live in England, and in England you are learnt to spell it Traveling, Traveler ect. because you are only adding on er, not ler, and ing not ling. Despite this, the Oxford Dictionary spells it as Travelling and Cancelling. It needs to be taken off here, its just stupid. 86.15.144.198 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly it is, but travelling and cancelling ar the standard British spellings. Hav a flick thru all the national newspapers and those ar the spellings you'll find. ~Asarlaí 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your school got it wrong. Peter Grey (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's only true in Crawley; in the rest of England, they're spelt with a double 'L'. Students in the rest of England are also learnt to talk good English as well. Radiopathy •talk• 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate those who compiled this article, as it is very informative and comprehensive. Does the doubling of consonants apply to the word 'obsession', i.e. is the British variant spelled 'obssession'? 16:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)16:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ðœð (talk • contribs)

No. The suffix -ion is added to form a noun that indicates verbal action. I don't think there are any regular verbs that end in a single s.

All of the verbs having an s as the penultimate letter have either had another s added (to ensure the last vowel is short, such as obsess) or a letter e added to ensure the last vowel is long, such as infuse.

If there are already two consonants (ss or ct) at the end of the root verb, we simply add the -ion. So induct=induction and obsess=obsession.

If there is a letter pair se at the end, we drop the final e and add -ion. So confuse=confusion, impulse=impulsion, etc.

The rules about the whole "-ion" thing are much more complex. There are intrude=intrusion, seduce=seduction, recede=recession, and converse=conversation. I'm only touching on a small part of them, so I'm open to corrections.

I've heard back-conversions of nouns into verbs, such as the noun conversation becoming a verb conversate, not converse. That makes me shudder. I'm glad to be a native English speaker.Twistlethrop (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pallate/palate, obsession/obssession`

Firstly, I would like to congratulate all those who contributed to this article; its is informative, comprehensive and pays close attention to detail. I was wondering whether the doubling of consonants rule applies to the words 'obsession' and 'palate'? I.E. in British English are these words spelled 'obssession' and 'pallate' nowadays or at any point in the past? Nihil impossibile arbitror. 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ðœð (talk • contribs)

This particular rule applies to certain words, usually two syllables, ending in -al and -el: bevel, cancel, channel, counsel, fuel, funnel, gruel, initial, jewel, label, level, libel, marshal, marvel, model, parcel, quarrel, refuel, remodel, revel, rival, shovel, shrivel, signal, snivel, spiral, swivel, total, travel, unravel. Peter Grey (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Viz., no, 'obssession' and 'pallate' could not have been created by the doubling of the consonant at the end of the word. In fact, they have never been standard forms in British English. For centuries few educated people thought it mattered how English words were spelt, but before English spelling settled down words with a Latin origin were generally less variable than native words, because most Latin words did have a stable spelling. 'Obssession' would undoubtedly have been considered a bad spelling by men and women who knew Latin; 'pallate' may have been used sometimes, but not by lexicographers. Moonraker (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have read this section before I answered the one preceding it. A nod to Moonraker. Twistlethrop (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How many spell using each variety?

Are there reliably researched figures to show how widespread each type of spelling is? How many people in the world mainly use British spellings, and how many use American? — O'Dea (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

inaccurate AmE notes on ensure/insure

The article currently claims

...in (North) America ensure is just a variant of insure, more often than not.

This is simply incorrect. It is true that Americans sometimes use insure to mean "make sure of", but we never (in careful, correct writing) use ensure to mean "take out an insurance policy". I will remove this claim unless someone shows up to support it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the entry. My wording may not be ideal. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Parametre

I'm not sure why "parametre" was introduced by 87.114.12.29 on 12 September. The modern British usage is parameter, as (I assume) it is in the US. Pterre (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Peter Grey (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)