Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)/Archive 4

Bang

The common to both BrEng and AmEng section shows that bang can mean "small explosions or retorts". After searching through several online and physical dictionaries, I found that only Wiktionary defines retort as the sound of small explosions. I believe this to be incorrect as well as no other dictionary that I searched (AskOxford, Bartleby, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Oxford advanced learner) showed retort to mean this. I believe that the person who made this entry intended to use the word report which is defined as I believe the author intended. As such I am making the change and also reporting the discrepancy to Wiktionary.Radiooperator 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for noticing! That was kinda embarassing. I just fixed the wiktionary entry. JackLumber. 19:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So I noticed!...I was in the middle of typing up an entry on the discussion page on retort to let people know I was changing it and why and before I saved it I checked it again and noticed that you had changed it. Sorry for the dual entry on your talk page, the first time I saved the page it did not show my entry so I did it again. Whoops... Thanks again Radiooperator 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Middle East

Word	British English meanings	Meanings common to British and American English	American English meanings
Middle East	area of southwest Asia and northern Africa, stretching from the Mediterranean to Pakistan, in particular Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria		countries of SW Asia and northern Africa, usu. considered as including the countries extending from Libya on the west to Afghanistan on the east

Is it just me, or are these definitions not all that different? Granted, this does imply that Americans regard Afghanistan as being in the Middle East and the British do not, but are these definitions all that clear cut on either side of the Atlantic? --Bletch 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Personally I would think it wrong to describe Libya or Afghanistan as Middle Eastern (I am British), which confirms the description given, but I would not be surprised if other people had different interpretations. -- Chris Q 07:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always understood it to be from Turkey and Iran to the Arabian peninsula, and not to include any of Africa. But Image:GreaterMiddleEast2.png gives Egypt to be part of the "traditional" Middle East. Hmm.... -- Smjg 17:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, the phrasing should be changed; the current phrasing vaguely suggests "Americans regard Libya and Afghanistan being a part of the Middle East whereas the British do not" without being clear. Even then, I'm not convinced that is truly accurate; while I cannot speak for British English speakers, I've always regarded the term "Middle East" as one of the amorphous geographical labels without a hard definition. Is there really data out there that suggests that Americans are more keen to have Afghanistan as part of the ME? Unless there are any objections, I'd like to remove this entry. --Bletch 16:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got the feeling that the (British) definition of 'Middle East' has changed with time. I've always personally had to define it as anything the the west of the 'Far East' (which I've associated with Burma, Malaysia and on towards Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos). However, neither phrase really includes the Indian sub-continent (which is a geographical area in its own right). So, I guess I would apply 'Middle East' to any country to the west of India and Pakistan, ie, Afghanistan and Iran. Libya I would certainly define as 'North African' - nowhere near the Middle East. – Agendum 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove that definition; we have a few British defs but not really any solid evidence that the idea that Libya and Afghanistan as being in the Middle East is a "necessarily American" idea. While I can't speak for other Americans, my perception is that there isn't a hard and clear definition. Even then, given the ambiguity in the term itself, its weird to have it in the same list as words like "Purse" and "Cot". --Bletch 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have lived in America my entire life and the middle-east has never included these nations when used properly; it defines the regions of Persia south of the black sea and unconquered by romans or the byzantines and has always had refered to Iran, pakistan, and afghanistan, occasionally including iraq and saudi arabia and syria etc although these are properly defined as the near-east. the middle east is surrounded by the near east, anatolia, the black sea states, the southern steppes, and the far east (india). The definition listed here is more what we americans refer to as "the arab states" which stretch from morocco to pakistan.

I have heard uninformed people using the term "middle east" to refer to "the arab states" in general, but why should idiots pick the definition? It's not as though they make up the majority anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.67.211 (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Collapsing spellings

Could this article have a section (or easy-to-find entries) that list cases where one dialect "collapses" words that are distinct in the other? I'm thinking of pairs like cheque/check, tyre/tire, practise/practice, vise/vice. --Shreevatsa 06:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Coot and Staff

I have recently commented out both these entries. In the case of staff this was because the BrEng definition was wrong (staff is used to refer to a group of employees, not to an individual, who is "a member of staff" or "staff member", exactly as in AmEng). In the case of coot, (a) I have never heard (not a good guide, I admit!) the word used to describe a bald man, and this meaning is not in any of my dictionaries; and (b) the meaning given as American ("an eccentric old person") seems to me (and the dictionary) to be perfectly standard BrEng too. So in both cases we are left with no difference in usage between BrEng and AmEng. Anyone care to comment before I go the whole hog [now there's an interesting phrase - is it used in AmEng?] and delete both entries? Snalwibma 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Coot used as meaning bald, but thinking about it only since moving to a small Yorkshire town. It could be too local to mention, I will wait and see if anyone else has heard this usage -- Chris Q 08:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard, and read the phrase "Bald as a coot". I've not heard of anyone being referred to as a coot when they were follicly challenged. That is, I've heard "X is as bald as a coot", but not "X is a coot". WLD 09:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Bald as a coot" refers to the Eurasian Coot, which sports a white facial shield (hence bald). As with WLD, that's the only form of that phrase I've seen or heard - never "is a coot" Carre 13:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have said in my original comment that of course "bald as a coot" is a well-known expression. Snalwibma 19:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Living in the eastern United Stated, I've yet to hear the phrase "bald as a coot" in my life; I've only heard the word used when referring to an aged individual that is beginning to lose their good sense in the phrase "old coot." Surely this usage exists elsewhere in at least the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.132.240 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In its most common BrE usage, "staff" is a plurale tantum, but "member of staff" is indeed a common way of turning it into a singular. And the only meaning of "coot" with which I am familiar is the bird. -- Smjg 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Staff is a real can of worms. Actually, staff is not a bona fide plurale tantum (pardon my Latin...), but rather a singular noun than can be (in BrE) plural in construction, as in "the staff are underpaid." (The plural of staff is staffs: "I met with the staffs of both Senators." [in both BrE & AmE, although this example is clearly American.] In other senses of the word, the plural can also be staves.) But that's only scratching the surface! Staff can really mean "a member of a staff"; in this sense, it's almost always used in the plural—and the plural is staff: "Two of the three staff were subsequently sacked." (BBC). This construction is British in origin, and very rarely found in AmE, although it appears in M-W online (sense 5e) without restrictions. The word staffer, which originated in AmE in the context of newspapers, appears to be comparatively unfamiliar in the UK: site:gov staffers gets 109,000 hits, site:gov.uk staffers only 90. This being said, an individual is most often a member of staff or a staff member—yet there are regional differences on that one too! In BrE, member of staff and staff member are both current, although member of staff clearly prevails; but AmE speakers are very strongly committed to staff member. (Google it!) Furthermore, staff also refers to the five horizontal lines you write music on, also known as stave (back-formation from staves); in this sense, staff seems to prevail in AmE and stave in BrE. (Musicians usually are aware of both names.) And then of course there are differences in pronunciation—broad A in RP, flat A in General American... JackLumber. 13:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Some good points, Jack! Yes, the example you quote (two staff were sacked) does suggest that staff can indeed mean a singular employee. But it is (I submit, IMHO, etc) never used to refer to just one employee. I can say "two of the three staff are female", or "fourteen staff were present", but I can never say "one staff is male". The dictionary (Collins) says it means "a group of people employed ...". So I'm not entirely convinced by what you say. It can (in BrEng) be used as if it meant a single employee, but it doesn't actually mean that. I reckon so, anyway... Moving on - would anyone in America say "two staff were present" - or would it have to be "staff members" of "staffers"? I suspect there is a real difference between BrEng and AmEng here, but it's not quite accurate to say that staff can mean an employee in BrEng. Snalwibma 15:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I said "almost always plural," and the M-W definition is a little bit of a stretch—I would have expected a "usu. used in pl." tag at least. The "<number> staff" construction sounds much less natural to American ears exactly because AmE uses grammatical agreement rather than notional agreement with staff (and other collective nouns)—and therefore the S word seems to take on a different meaning. This stuff definitely belongs in main article, section 3.1. JackLumber. 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cooker?

I think something is wrong here:

Word	British English meanings	Meanings common to British and American English	American English meanings
cooker	appliance for cooking food (US: cookstove, stove, range); see also AGA cooker	one that cooks ("a pressure cooker")

Surely a pressure cooker is an appliance for cooking food, not "one who cooks," unless you're talking about a chef working under stressful conditions! This second definition seems to be a mangled combination of two entries in dictionary.com. Is the term "pressure cooker" actually used in the US? If so, this ought to be a separate meaning in its own right.

Also, I don't think I've ever heard "cooker" referring to a person in the UK, and it's not in my British dictionary - so perhaps this meaning does not belong in the middle column. In British English, the word "cook" (noun) is commonly used to mean a person who cooks. It is roughly equivalent to "chef," but used in different contexts - e.g. on a ship, or in the home (e.g. "my wife is a good cook"). Is "cook" also used like this in US English, and if so, is it synonymous with "cooker"? Mtford 06:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Cooker can never mean a person in BrEng, only a piece of machinery or a container. I have amended the definition in the middle column, though - and I think it is now correct. Snalwibma 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have in fact made a few more adjustments (cooking apple etc), and I think it wants checking by a native speaker of AmEng (or at least someone with a wider range of AmEng dictionaries than me). I have added "a person who cooks" to the AmEng column, following Webster, but I'm not convinced. Is it really used to describe a person in America? Snalwibma 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agreee it does not refer to a person, at least not in the New England states. I'm from Boston. I have never known "cooker" to describe a person. Yet, it is used with other words, as in, slow-cooker, as in an electrical pot.[I believe there are many common words that may be spelled or pronounced differently, yet have the same meaning, esp. true for those speakers of New England specific to the State of Massachusetts. And I'm only on the "C" words lol. Bum; is the the slang term in New England/Massachusetts for butttocks, also Bill, (with Capital letter)is a term to introduce a law to the government, etc.)

Specialized usage, not really common. JackLumber. 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "cooker" as a person is an AmEng regional colloquialism. My father (born in Texas) has often referred to my mother as a "good cooker". Anecdotal, I know, but I have heard it often. Donperk 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have never heard in America someone called a cooker, unless they were children who didn't know correct grammar. Someone who cooks is a cook. The only use of cooker I know of in the US is for cooking tools. pressure cooker etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.3.0 (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge articles

I am going to float this again, in the hope that there will be some support. I think that it is unnecessary to have the articles List of British words not widely used in the United States and List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom in addition to this one (List of words having different meanings in British and American English). It just invites duplication, confusion about where one should look up a word, and confusion about what is a different meaning of the same word and what is a different word. Surely a way can be found to include the British words not used in the US, and vice versa, in "List of words having different meanings in British and American English", with some indication of their status and possibly a change of article title - and wouldn't that arrangement just be so much more convenient for everyone? What are the arguments for keeping the articles separate? Matt 12:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Support. While we're at it, we could set forth a different approach. For example, we could have an entry named, say, toilet or bathroom, to explain all about the usage of the words toilet, bathroom, men's room, WC, restroom, etc.; an entry named roads, to cover motorway, freeway, highway, etc.; and entries for corn; football; lawyers; cot, crib, and creche... you get the idea. No data fragmentation at all. Furthermore, this approach would make the article less dictionary-ish and more flexible---after all, differences in lexicon are often a matter of relative frequencies rather than pure compartmentalization (this is "British," this is "American"); see e.g. staff, or even things like lobby-foyer-entry-hall-hallway, film-movie-cinema, baggage-luggage, garbage-trash-rubbish, etc. I can do most of the work myself, offline, on weekends. (My calendar is pretty jammed at the moment!) JackLumber. 15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By "a different word", do you mean a different string of letters, or an etymologically distinct instance of the same string of letters? It's been pointed out before that this page is not supposed to be scientific, but merely useful. See Talk:List of words having different meanings in British and American English/archive2#Confusion about what this table is meant to show. Moreover, an attempt was made a while ago to merge these concepts, and it didn't work out well. Besides, as I see it, there are two reasons for keeping this page in its form:

• words that change meaning when you cross the pond are a phenomenon of interest of its own right
• it's long enough already before you begin to clutter it up with information from the other two pages.

There should be no duplication between this page and the other two. This page should be kept as it is, and anything on the other two pages that is duplicated here should be removed from there. They would then agree to one meaning of the word "word" (or if you prefer, one word made from the letters 'w', 'o', 'r' and 'd' in that order). -- Smjg 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your first question, examples chosen at random would be "bog" (toilet), "chippy" (chip shop), "cock" (term of address), and "engaged tone" which all appear in both List of words having different meanings in British and American English and List of British words not widely used in the United States. Then there are problems such as "mobile (phone)" versus "cell phone", where "cell phone" is in List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, and "mobile (phone)" is in List of words having different meanings in British and American English because "mobile" is a word with other meanings in both dialects. Judging from the history of edits, and the numerous in-line "do not add this word" comments in the articles, significant time is spent trying, evidently with only partial success, to keep the lists disjoint. This indicates a general confusion amongst editors that merging the articles would eliminate - as well as, of course, making it easier for readers trying to learn about word differences. Matt 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Matt - it would be useful if you were to register an account. That way, we could engage with you on your talk page, which is not easily possible when you edit from multiple IP addresses. WLD 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tentative support - I was going to say I oppose the proposal to merge, because it would replace a number of reasonably distinct (OK, not perfect) articles with one long and unwieldy one - but I do like the way JackLumber's mind is working... Are we talking about a central article which lists "words which cause transatlantic problems" (or some such), and then a fuller article about each of them? Hmmmmm... Snalwibma 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Listing concepts that are subject to different word usage in BrE and AmE, as per JackLumber's suggestion, may be a good idea but not as a replacement for this. How would such a thing deal with the many entries where the AmE and BrE meanings bear no relation to each other? And I don't see how having a separate article for each word or concept can make sense either.

IMO this article must stay in its current form and purpose. Not just because I've contributed so much to it, but also because of the interest value of this specific kind of transatlantic language difference. I began trying to make a list myself long before I discovered this article, but I think the community effort that has gone into it speaks for itself here. It would be a shame to lose such a great resource from Wikipedia. -- Smjg 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating "losing" anything. I'm advocating consolidating all the existing information into one article. Matt 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

My points about losing something are:

• losing the focus on this particular kind of AmE/BrE difference
• in one of the proposed rewrites, losing somewhere for certain kinds of words. If JackLumber's idea of a list of topics were to replace a list of words, what would we do with e.g. "boob tube"? -- Smjg 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "this particular kind of AmE/BrE difference" refer to distinguishing words not used at all in AmE or BrE from words that are used in both but with different meanings? The problem with this approach is that people's perceptions of these concepts varies in a subjective way. Take "bog", for toilet, as an example. The person who added this to List of British words not widely used in the United States presumably thought, quite reasonably IMO, that "bog, meaning toilet, is a British word not used in the United States, so rightfully belongs in this article". Matt 15:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Support. Look at the many words on this page which have entries in exactly two — the middle one and one of the two ends — columns. These are really words which, apart from the common meaning, are really either "British words not widely used in the United States" or "American words not widely used in the United Kingdom". In other words, the only thing distinguishing words on one of the other two pages from words on this page is that the words here happen to have an extra, unrelated meaning: a factor that seems pretty irrelevant to me. There really isn't such a big difference between this page and the other two.

But I do agree that this page is quite long and unweildly and cluttered… there must be some way to improve it (with better markup, or grouping related words as JackLumber suggested, or an ability to sort words by frequency, or something). -- Shreevatsa 02:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As you say, the page suffers from some layout problems. There is masses of unused white space in the tables, short lines with lots of line wrapping, and often no punctuation between different definitions, all of which impairs readability and contributes to a general impression of messiness. But of course it's easy to be critical and maybe not so easy to come up with anything better! All I can think of at the moment is a non-tabular layout, something like this:

accommodation

UK: lodgings (as for travellers); also housing ("residential accommodation")
US: (esp. in the past) a local public conveyance, esp. a train; (accommodations) lodgings (as for travellers)
Both: something supplied; a compromise; a loan; see also accommodation (eye)

Matt 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

My shot: User:JackLumber/Draft of American and British English lexical differences. The title is modeled after American and British English spelling differences and American and British English pronunciation differences. The layout is that of a standard alphabetized guide; combined entries are laid out in alphabetical order too (e.g. apartment, commonhold, condominium, flat.) Just a preliminary draft; feel free to judge, criticize, edit, and improve! All "common" meanings are taken for granted (so as to leave out awkward/irrelevant information, e.g. s.v. let or office), unless they are of philological/historical interest (e.g. s.v. chip in). In the end, the List of different meanings will be, like, transwikified to Wiktionary, where it actually belongs. JackLumber. 13:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Smjg---nothing will be lost. The new page will be a standard "A to Z" guide (in the style of many guides and handbooks), not just a list of topics. Any word that deserves inclusion (like, say, boob tube) will be included; words or concepts that are related to one another will be grouped for the sake of clarity, simplicity, flexibility, and maintainability (e.g. boob, boob tube, and tube top); irrelevant common meanings will be left out (e.g. bird, panda, or zebra); the current list of different meanings will be wiktionarized. Check it out. Happy Halloween! Jack O'Lantern... um, JackLumber. 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Where AmE and BrE meanings are clearly distinct I would much prefer to see these identified by some concise labelling or formatting device, rather than having to spell it out in descriptive narrative using words like "in British, ... in American, ..." all the time. I would not like the ability to quickly look up any word alphabetically and quickly find its AmE and/or BrE meanings to be lost in a mass of text. Of course, this wouldn't preclude also having a "notes" section for general discussion.

2. Personally I find the non-tabular layout easier to read and easier on the eye, and it accommodates the sort of discursive discussions that you are proposing much better than the tabular format.

3. At one point a long time ago I argued against the need to include meanings common to both AmE and BrE, on the grounds, as you say, that these are irrelevant to the point of the article. I've slightly revised my opinion on this because listing the common meanings is confirmation that a meaning that one might have doubts about has actually been identified as common. The omission of the meaning isn't confirmation of its status one way or the other - it might just have been forgotten.

Matt 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

You begin to take the words out of my mouth Matt. The alternative layout you propose seems OK, being little more than a cosmetic change. Whether to list common meanings has been debated extensively - I first objected when Lysdexia undertook to remove them in a previous incarnation of the article, and my view, for the same reason as you state, has remained ever since. -- Smjg 22:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Where AmE and BrE meanings are clearly distinct... Many's the time they are not so distinct, witness such bywords as hire, mean, apartment, bug, fix, mad. Even the divide between burgle and burglarize is not absolute (burgle shows up in AmE sometimes, although burglarize appears 20 times oftener.) Compartmentalization may work well in business sometimes, but not in dialectology. Whenever common meanings are philologically interesting, or their omission may cause confusion, they ought to be listed, of course. Examples: juggernaut, depot, bug, garage, elevator. But entries like let, fall, trim, range, or wrench are currently a little awkward. It wouldn't even be feasible to list all the meanings of words like run, stand, or point. In many cases the common meanings can just be hinted at—remember that WP is not a dictionary. Anyways, in order to merge the three articles, we have to figure out a consistent layout. What should we do with "UK-only" and "US-only" words? What about combined entries? An entry for a word with two meanings (e.g. table)... An entry for two words with one meaning (laundrette and laundromat)... feel free to edit my draft according to your standpoint! JackLumber. 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on some of your points, and a few other issues that came to mind...

There is an existing mechanism (*) for flagging meanings that have some currency in the other dialect.

I myself devised that notation---as a stopgap. Lexical differences between British and American English are not limited to words mainly used here or there, but are often a matter of relative frequencies. Language is dynamic, its evolution is constant and relentless. Run-up (to an election) is a Briticism, in theory at least, but it shows up in American English too. Why? Because there is one English language, and writers worldwide feel free to borrow new words and usages and, more often than not, make them their own.

Where this is felt inadequate, I think that a "Notes" section should be introduced in addition to, but not as a replacement for, the list of meanings. For example:

hire

UK: to rent* (as a car); rental

US: to employ, recruit*; a person who is recruited

Notes: <anything further that you want to say about cross-usage>

If there are an unmanageable number of common meanings then I think we should just say "many common meanings" or "many other common meanings", and/or reference Wiktionary (as is currently the case with "run"). For example:

run

UK: (n.) a leisure drive or ride ("a run in the car")

US: (v.) to propose (someone) as a candidate; to drive past ("to run a red light"); to hunt (as the buffalo or the deer); (n.) an instance of running for office; a creek (q.v.)

UK and US: many shared meanings; see Wiktionary

So why not wiktionarize the whole list, including British and American meanings?! This is the key IMO.

I'm not quite sure why you've singled out "table" as a problem example with two meanings - a very large number of the words in these lists have multiple meanings. Maybe you are referring to the fact that in the current article the "table" headword has been restricted to the verb sense, presumably to avoid the need to list all the noun senses. I'm not keen on this.

By the way... Keen is sometimes regarded as a Briticism. No doubt that the British use it a lot---witness you. But should it be considered a "word not widely used in the U.S."? No serious American general-purpose dictionary would label it Brit or chiefly Brit. That's the "relative frequencies" thing.

I think there should be one headword, and all meanings - regardless of the part of speech - should appear under it, in the usual dictionary manner. So:

table

UK: (v.) to raise for consideration (also lay on the table)

US: (v.) to suspend from consideration, to shelve (also lay on the table); (colloquial) to postpone

UK and US: many shared meanings; see Wiktionary

Remember that British and American English are two dialects of the same language. Meanings of a word that are *not* shared are the exception and not the rule. This arrangement is too dictionary-ish to comply with WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a dictionary, among other things.)

(Incidentally, the articles are not currently very consistent about labelling parts of speech.)

I am not a big fan of including compounds under the same headword, which is currently often the case. For example, I think that hire purchase should have its own entry, and not be listed under the hire headword.

I'm not sure what to do when two words coincidentally happen to have the same spelling but are unrelated. "Chaps" is an example. It seems illogical to me to list these under the same headword, but I'm not sure if the alternative is much better from a usability point of view:

chaps¹

UK: men and/or boys (but increasingly used for people of either sex; in the singular it still almost exclusively refers to a male) (US: guys); one's friends ("the chaps") (US: the guys); cheeks – as in Bath Chaps – stewed pigs' cheeks, a delicacy

chaps²

US: leather leggings worn by cowboys and designed to protect the legs against thorns (sometimes pronounced shaps)

All the way from the dictionary dept.

Where different words are used in the US/UK with the same meaning, I think they should be listed separately and cross-referenced, as is largely the case now. For example:

launderette

UK: self-service laundry (US: Laundromat ™)

Laundromat

US: self-service laundry (UK: launderette)

You could argue that this information could be compressed into a single entry with just one cross reference, but I think the usability is so much improved with the above format that it's worth the redundancy.

Your format is too dry, too colorless to be really usable. Regular prose would be clearer, more flexible, and truly appealing.

However, if usage notes apply to multiple entries then these obviously shouldn't be duplicated. For example:

bathroom

UK: room containing a bath (US: bathtub) or shower, other washing facilities, and usu. (but not necessarily) a toilet

US: room, in a home or hotel room, containing a toilet, related washing facilities, and often, but not necessarily, a shower and/or bathtub

Notes: <anything that you want to say about the bathroom-lavatory-toilet-restroom-etc words in general>

toilet

UK: lavatory

US: commode

Notes: see bathroom

Btw, toilet is not even a "word with different meanings." It's a word used in different ways. This entry is a somewhat inaccurate compartmentalization.

If UK-only or US-only words are to be merged into a single list (my preference), then is there any problem with listing just a UK or US meaning, as appropriate? For example:

candy floss

UK: spun sugar confection (US: cotton candy)

Do you think this is in any way ambiguous?

Finally, I can't decide what the usage labels should be if we decide to go for this non-tabular layout. Should we use "UK:" and "US:" or "AmE" and "BrE"? For the shared meanings I would like to use "Common" but unfortunately that could be misunderstood to mean "not rare" rather than "used in both UK and US". I don't like "Both" or "Shared" much, and "UK and US:", as I have above, looks a bit repetitious.

Matt 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

I guess my project and your project can pretty much go their separate ways. I support the merger, but I claim the title I chose for "my" article. And I recommend wiktionarization. JackLumber. 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if your draft is anything to go by they can't! Surely we don't want two articles that alphabetically list and define exactly the same set of words? Am I missing something here?

There are two aspects to this:

1. A look-up list (such as we have at the moment), where words that have different uses in AmE and BrE are listed alphabetically, with meanings and some brief usage notes.

2. Longer topic-related essays (such as the piece on education) that cover a lot of different words.

To say that the dictionary-style format of (1) is "too dry, too colorless to be really usable" is to confuse the two. The look-up format is clearly eminently usable and useful. However, a more detailed essay in regular prose on usage, history etc. would also be useful and interesting.

It seems clear to me that this article (or what it turns into) should remain the repository for the alphabetical word list and brief usage information. Then, in cases where the topic-related usage notes are so broad and lengthy that they no longer fit easily into this list (such as the piece on education), they should be split into a separate article (or subsection of a separate article) and links should be provided in this list from all the words referenced. So, under "college" we would have "Usage notes: See American and British English lexical differences – Education", or whatever the link might look like.

I do take your point about the overlap with Wiktionary though. I've never really looked at Wiktionary much, and it's not something that's uppermost in my mind. But I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "wiktionarization". Do you mean transfer to Wiktionary all the info in this article that isn't already there, and then delete this article, leaving in Wikipedia only the topic-related essays (which are truly encyclopaedic, rather than dictionary-style)? I expect that this must have been discussed before and rejected for some good reason for us to have even got to this point? I wasn't involved in those discussions though; perhaps someone else can shed some light. Matt 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

As Smjg said, "words that change meaning when you cross the pond are a phenomenon of interest of its own right." Therefore, this page can exist even without the other two lists---and, after all, it should. Thinking it over, it's clear that the current three-page set can't serve its purpose. My newest idea:

1) discontinue the List of American words and the List of British words. They are difficult to get relevant information from, not very useful, not really encyclopedic, slightly glossary-like, somewhat fluffy---and unmaintainable anyhow.

2) merge their (usable) content into American and British English lexical differences, which will cover the main differences between the two vocabularies (including the usage of terms like lift and elevator, absolute divides and relative frequencies), and explain the history of such differences.

I think that the entries from List of American words and List of British words should be merged into this article, which will remain as the sole alphabetic word-by-word lookup list of AmE/BrE meaning differences. However, I support the idea of another place (either a single article, or, if it becomes unmanageably long, individual articles) where lengthier topic-based explanations of usage and lexical differences can reside, with appropriate links from this article. I guess this would be your American and British English lexical differences article. Matt 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3) remodel this page (no additions, no wiktionarization), moving usage notes, compounds (like hire purchase) and the like to American and British English lexical differences.

Huh? JackLumber. 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean by "wiktionarization". I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "no additions" either". If you mean not moving entries from List of American words and List of British words into this article then I don't agree. It may be desirable to keep usage notes in this article if they are very brief and don't fit into the longer topic-based article, and don't merit their own individual discussion there. But otherwise, yes, moving these discussions elsewehere seems a sound idea. I think that compounds should continue to be listed in this article as separate entries. This is because the AmE/BrE differences in meaning of compounds may not be obviously related to the differences in meaning of the headword (in fact, there may be no differences in headword meaning at all). Matt 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

[reset indent] I'm getting confused. Short attention span, etc etc. As I understand it, the current proposal (mainly from JackLumber, but with other people chipping in) is (a) to scrap the two lists of words used in X but not in Y, and (b) to merge their worthwhile content into this article, then (c) rename this article something like American and British English lexical differences, then (d) develop the article to allow a fuller discussion of the nuances of each word, where a word merits it. Does this mean scrapping the three columns? I guess so - we end up with a mini-essay on each "interesting" word. Is that about right? If so, I think it's a GOOD IDEA! Just one thing - are we going to be bombarded with suggestions (or even demands) that it should be an article covering ALL varieties of English, not just AmEng and BrEng? If only in the interests of keeping it manageable, I don't think that would be a wise way to go. I think it would also invite lots (and lots) of parochialisms and in-my-neck-of-the-woods-we-say-it-like-this-isms. But I'm thinking about it... Snalwibma 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of proposals

Since a number of different suggestions are being discussed at once here, a summary might be in order at this point. This is my understanding of the various proposals that have been made. If you feel I have misrepresented or omitted anything then please feel free to edit what follows directly, so that there is one accurate and complete list of everything suggested, rather than a string of comments and replies.

1. Merge the content of the three articles List of British words not widely used in the United States, List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom and List of words having different meanings in British and American English into a single article.

2. Change the format of the article(s) from a tabular layout to a more free-flowing text layout in an attempt to improve readability and make the page "look nicer".

3. Provide for longer essays paragraphs on "interesting words", or topic-based discussions on groups of words. As far as I can figure it out (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there are two options proposed:

i) Scrap altogether the dictionary-style alphabetic look-up-the-meaning lists, such as we have here, on the grounds that it's Wiktionary material, and focus entirely on a prose-style treatement of lexical differences, possibly in the form of an A-Z reference, grouping related words together (as petrol, gas and gasoline), including issues of frequency and word choice, possibly providing a wiktionary link for each relevant word---if wiktionary entries or meanings are properly categorized (UK, US...), a list of British/American words can be automatically generated.

ii) Retain the alphabetical look-up-the-meanings list as at present, and hive off the longer, broader essays into a separate article or articles, with links.

4. Scrap the listing of meanings common to AmE and BrE on the grounds that whenever they are irrelevant to the purpose of the article (that is, when they have no historical, philological, or practical interest).

Matt 12:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) - JackLumber. 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right section in which to express my personal opinion, but: 1: Support. Although all three lists are already very long, I think it's much more sensible to have all the words in one place - I can't think of a situation where someone would want to read this article without referring to the "unique words" articles as well.

2:Very Strong Support. The tabular format is both difficult to read and difficult to maintain.

3:Oppose. The place for essays/paragraphs is in the appropriate main articles. While occasionally a sentence rather than a single word may be needed to describe the precise meaning of a term, I think this article should confine itself to definitions and examples of usage.

4:Support. The need for this will be removed by getting rid of the tabular format, in any case. Tevildo 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I hope I'm not destroying the purpose of this section, but I think it might be an idea to divide Proposition 4 into two: 4(i), Scrap all common meanings; 4(ii), Retain common meanings if they're of "historical, philological, or practical interest". I would support 4(i) and oppose 4(ii). Tevildo 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

6:Strong Support. Same as 2, and please, merge.

Oppose all of 1-4. One reasons top oppose is that it is actually very useful when editing Wikipedia, among other things, to have a quick index of words that can be misconstrued by other readers or editors. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage says to avoid ambiguity, and then gives an example that isn't obviously ambiguous (at least to a speaker of British English, without knowing the supposed difference). How do we know if a word we want to use is ambiguous or has an unintended meaning in a dialect that is not our own? By reading such a list as this page in its current form. Mixing the entries with larger numbers of unambiguous dialect words would make it less useful, not more. The tabular format makes it quick to find the word you are interested in, and demonstrates the spectrum of meaning well. The listing of a common meaning clarifies more precisely the meaning that is unknown. Also the markings of meanings which are not unknown in one country but much rarer with an asterisk is useful, as it can still lead to misunderstanding. I don't personally understand the objections about being hard to read or maintain. Unlike the spelling and pronounciation lists, (a) there is frequently overlap rather than a 1:1 correspondence, and (b) no general rule to describe in extended text. The only problem I can see in this list is there are probably a few, but not many, omissions. --Cedders^tk 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE!!! I created this article precisely because the article you want to merge it with was unsatisfactory, and was guarded by trolls.

I argue that a word is an idea expressed in sound and orthography. People often say that a word like "set" has more than one "sense"; I argue that because these "senses" are actually different MEANINGS, albeit subtle, that these are actually different words. I base this assertion on the observable fact that you can have words with very different orthographies that mean almost the same, but subtly different things. Tell me the difference between a "vegetable patch" and a "vegetable plot"; or a "road" a "lane" and a "street"; we accept that they are subtly different, and it'd take us a while to agree how to describe that subtle difference. We can work shifts, where we shift boxes that contain something that shifts about inside, and periods of doing this work can shift, for example. The "shift" n. we work is a different word from the "shift" n. in roles as we get promoted; as is the shift of the shifting sands of the Sahara. This where I feel things like the way Americans use the word "need" as in "You need to..." is subtly different from the British usage of urgency, such that it expresses a subtly different idea, and thus can be defined as a different word. So as we have homophones: rose, rows, rose etc..., we have heterologues Hell in English, hell in German , and hell in Norwegian (that all mean very different things, yet share common pronunciation, and orthography), we have inter-dialectal heterologues such as "need" Br and "need" Am; and phrases like "What's up?" Br and "What's up!" Am (I expreienced this myself first hand with a puzzled exchange with an American, we just didn't quite get why the other was puzzled). This goes to the purpose of the page, to illustrate the subtle as well as the obvious differences between the two languages (or dialects if you like). Better understanding of these subtle differences can only help communication.

This is more than simply a linguistic page; it's a cultural one. The culutural significance of homologous (same spelling different meaning) words and homophonic words between dialects is a worthwhile endeavour to develop further understanding between the two distinct cultures.

It takes one to know one 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Promsan

Welcome back, Promsan! Why don't we take it a step further and cover not just different meanings, but also different connotations, differences in usage, the whole enchilada? For example, sea and ocean; smart and clever; preferred variants (e.g. building site vs. construction site); after all, words like hire, rent, mail, bug, mad, fix, etc. cannot be handled with a simplistic double-entry bookkeeping approach---we oughta figure out what they mean to a lexicographer, what they mean to the man on the street, what you normally associate with them, what their history is, connotation vs. denotation, yada yada. These words don't have "different meanings in BrE and AmE"---they just are not used in the same way. JackLumber. 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"These words don't have "different meanings in BrE and AmE"---they just are not used in the same way."

Surely that's the definition of a different meaning?!

Meaning includes: connotation, usage, definition, sense, nuance; they are embraced by the term "meaning".

I use "cheque" and "check" a different way, because they mean different things; they happen to be homophones, but fortunately they have a slightly different orthography that makes it easier to tell them apart. A "check" and a "check" can also both be nouns with utterly different meanings despite their common orthography.

It becomes useful when meanings are close and orthographies are identical, and is both a source of interest and a useful resource for people. I've witnessed the obvious humiliation of an American lady who blurted out among some British people "Oh my fanny's wet, I better take my pants off!" who was completely confused by the contorted chuckling, and extremely embarrassed afterwards.

There are largish dictionaries out there that serve the purpose of this article far better, and I wonder whether this article should be in Wikipaedia at all.

I certainly see plenty of support amongst British contributers for a non-American version of Wikipaedia... the precedent is already set with Norwegian divided into Nynorsk and Bokmal.

By the way, who deleted "UK-US Heterologues A-Z" without full consultation?! The vote was not conclusive.

It takes one to know one 19:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with this article is that if some Limey puts in a Britiscism, and then some Yank from (to quote Harry Enfield) "Budiddlyboingboing, Odalihaho" says "gee, I use that word", then the word doesn't get submitted and you an incomplete picture of which terms and words have their main usages and origins were (like the steady infiltration of "fill out" rather than "fill in" for forms. There's also a lack of discussion on syntax and preposition usage: I only recently heard the abomination "different than", I now know how Churchill felt "Oh! my eyes, my ears!"It takes one to know one 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If cheque is spelled check in the U.S., it ain't no difference in vocabulary. This article is (or at least was) supposed to deal with vocabulary. If check is used as in "check your coat" in AmE but not in BrE, that's a difference in meaning. Example: in both dialects, the adjective mad may mean 1) crazy 2) angry. [1] [2] Oxford and M-W definitions are practically identical. So mad ain't a word having different meanings in British and American English. Any. But sense 2) prevails in the U.S. while sense 1) prevails in the UK. This being said, I don't like the dictionary-like layout; I wanted something more flexible, more direct. For example, the middle column contains a lot of unneeded information, and often looks ridiculous---see e.g. s.v. sic. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

UK-US Heterologues was doomed from the start. Language ain't mathematical logic---language evolves. And heterologue ain't a word. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If "cheque" is spelt "check" in America, it's obviously two different words in two different languages; I dunno what you think you mean by "vocabulary", unless you actually mean "meaning"; it's the exact same difference as "cheque" in French, and "check" in American - surely that's beyond obvious?!

As you concede "aad" as in "angry" does not mean the same type of anger in each country: this is evidenced by the usage. E.g.: It's very commonly used in America in such phrases as "Are you mad at me?"; this would not happen in the British isles, because the meaning is not the same, it would be something like: "Are you annoyed with me?". A common example of a British usage would be E.g.: "He was hopping mad!", meaning "furious" - the intensity is notably different; the same marked difference in intensity of meaning goes for words like "own" and "need".

This "article" is not an article; it's a dictionary (or you might split hairs and call it a glossary or a vocabulary, but there i'n't much diff'rence beyond the size.). If it were an article it would be discussing the nature and history of the differences; and not just be a poxy list that gets scrapped over by bored pedantic little trolls.

On this basis, this "article" should be deleted.

You think there's no maths or logic in language?! Have you ever picked up a book on post-graduate linguistics or philosophy of language then?

Heterologue is a word if I choose to use it; just as haecceity, whulc, or anything else off the phrontisery... how do think words become words?!

If think that word's made-up, check these out: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_3732.aspx

To get to my point, the purpose of an article like this should be to help those from either side of the Atlantic understand each other and avoid misunderstandings; but these misunderstandings are not just superficial matters of vocab. By calling American English a separate language from English, we're actually doing Americans a favour.

How? Well, If we accepted that they speak the same language as us, then we would form judgements about them based on the way they use the language by our long-established norms of meaning.

People who went round using the words "I own..." are judged as being vulgarly materialistic and possessive;

Those who used the word "need" in the way Americans do, are

judged as obnoxious and aggressive;

Those who spell incorrectly, or use phrases like "different than", "I'm gonna need for you to..." and "often-times", would be regarded as thick.

However, by acknowledging that Americans are humans just like us, and have the same emotions and thought processes and need for expression as us, we can recognise that they are using words and syntax and orthography that bears a striking resemblance to ours, yet the meanings are usually quite different.

In doing this, we steer our way away from feeling as though all the stereotypes about Americans are being confirmed by the use of verbal and non-verbal language we experience when we encounter them; and acknowledge that they are expressing exactly the same things as us; but with noticably different words and phrases, and of course spelling; even grammar and syntax, to us.

So when we hear an American saying that he "owns a home"; we needed gasp in horror and disgust at his extreme sounding language; we can put it through the translation box and be aware that they don't mean that they "own a home"; but that they "have got a house".

They are speaking a different language.

What do I care, it's Wankypaedia, and no matter how big and American it gets, nobody but an idiot is going to cite it an academic paper, and it'll never be a proper info resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promsan (talk • contribs)

I don't like this so-called article, that's a fact. That aside, I gasp in horror and disgust at every single word of yours. If "cheque" is spelt "check" in America, it's obviously two different words in two different languages... Jesus Christ. Find yourself another interlocutor, I can't stand you anymore. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(I didn't even know I was responding to the same person - but then I am dyslexic!). I'm sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about; or what the precise description of what a word actually is. what I'm trying to explain is correct and based on academic study of logic and language; and not just the difference between American and English.

I don't think many Americans really appreciate how irritating it is to see the American language dominate Wikipedia and the internet, and pass itself off as the same language that we speak in England by using the same name.

For those who want see some evidence (in the form of a simple description from a linguistics dept. of a decent university) of what I'm talking about, go to: [http://www.sussex.ac.uk/linguistics/documents/essay_-_what_is_a_word.pdf]

Really, How the hell can anyone write an article about words without even understanding what a word is!? It's a safe bet that someone who doesn't understand what a language is beyond what it says when they flick through an enclyopaedia or a dictionary - there's much more to it than that.

This "article" is load of cack, and it's time it was flushed.

(P.S.: By the way, I can't particularly stand you either ; not because you're American, but because you're a tit.

One of the problems with Wikipedia is it's full of too many American tits who don't really know what they are talking about, yet convince themselves that they know enough to publish articles and edit away any changes or challenges to the content by simply persistently denying rather than discussing anything. Why should "English" Wikipedia's system (like on the deletion note) have American spellings? This is why we need to split it into American Wikipedia and English Wikipaedia.)

It takes one to know one 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

I think it would make more sense to have one list. Be a lot of work for some poor editor but it would make for easier reading. I write as a Briton who hears a lot of US English. (We all do these days what with Will and Grace, Friends, The Simpsons and many more. The British can understand US English a lot more than vice versa.) As Oscar Wilde said "America and Britain are two countries divided by a common language." That could make a good aphorism for the whole subject.SmokeyTheCat 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, and to score a smart-ass point - that was George Bernard Shaw, not Oscar Wilde! Snalwibma 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. An old chestnut, rather than a good aphorism. Oscar Wilde---the quintessential smart-ass!---wrote, "We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, the language." JackLumber. 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think to all those who want a large dictionary-style article... how about just buying a dictionary; splitting the English wikipaedias, and writing a software bot to go off and correct the spellings?

I've encountered American wikipaedians arguing on other pages that the title should be changed to their language on the basis of "utility" because of the number of people likely to search Wikipaedia with Americanese spellings being about 5 times the number entering Englishese... why not just ban people from the UK from creating articles, because all that seems to happen is Yanks going round "correcting" the English, I mean how offensive can you get! It's just cultural imperialism.

It's an interesting point that more Brits can understand Yanks than t'other way round. If this article serves the purpose of redressing that imbalance then fine, but it's looking more like a sloppy, incomplete dictionary, and I'm not sure what the point is in having that in an encyclopaedia: it should be a Wiktionary.It takes one to know one 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I've read all this with great interest (and a certain amount of confusion), and some of you people have put an impressive amount of thought into these issues -- but please can someone now sum up what has finally been decided? Woblosch 12:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nothing. There seems to be no consensus. I am still very much in favour of proposals 1, 2 and 4, but I am certainly not going to embark upon what might potentially be a lot of work without a clear majority in support of it! Matt 19:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't refer to "British English"

The people of Britain are regularily known as "the English". Many of them are not English, they're Celtic. Smaller nations within the United Kingdom are pointlessly humiliated by this ignorant treatment. The people of the British Isles should always be refered to as the British. The mistake in this case is to use the word for a sub-set to apply to the whole.

Yet, when it comes to the English language, the opposite effect is going on, the Celts are again humiliated - but this time, by using the word for the whole to apply to a sub-set.

The British Isles has 4 languages, it's simply wrong to speak of "British English".

It's probably too difficult to get people to respect the non-English nationalities in the UK and speak of "The British". But at least the Wikipedia could refrain from the other mis-use. Articles like this one should refer to "English English".—Preceding unsigned comment added by PalestineRemembered (talk • contribs)

And here I saw your section heading in the ToC and was actually expecting a more inclusive name, something like "Commonwealth English" or even "International English". Sigh... --Shreevatsa 02:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, British english encompases all dialects in England, Scotland, Wales and northern Island. When refuring to English english, say it! BTW Britain isn't a country, just for reference! MHDIV Englishnerd 15:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to get some facts straight.

People who refer to the British as the English are simply mistaken and wrong. Also, the people of the British Isles are not “British”, the “British Isles” is a geographical term for the islands that make up the UK and Ireland (Republic of Ireland). “British Isles” itself is problematic.

The term "British English" does not mean "English English" nor does it mean that it is the only language spoken in Britain, it simply refers to one variety of English, and it is not only spoken in England. There is probably as much variation in the English spoken in England itself as there is in the whole of the UK. LDHan 17:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

British English, as a term, is the lesser of two evils. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

As an English person living in Scotland, I agree that "British English" is better than "English English". Certainly there are big differences between, say, English English and Scottish English. Doubtless there are big variations within US English too. But there is enough in common between the different varieties of UK English on the one hand, and the different varieties of US English on the other, for the comparison to be useful.

For example, as far as I know, almost everyone in the UK prefers "toilet" to "bathroom" (as a word for where one goes to do a euphemism), and almost everyone in the US is the opposite. The same holds for most of the entries in this article.

If we want to be more accurate, "British English" should be "UK English". (The UK contains Northern Ireland, but Britain does not.) -- Tom (no login)

Actually, if we want to be even more accurate, Britain DOES contain Northern Ireland -- it's "Great Britain" that doesn't. Woblosch 12:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the previous statement makes no sense. Britain is an abreviation of Great Britain and means the same thing, unless you are referring to the race/clan of the Britons who existed several centuries B.C. and enhabited a partial amount of modern day Britain, though mainly England, and that is a very shady area. Britain does not iclude N.I.--124.150.113.214 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)tooplanx

Whatever you do please ensure that you keep the list of different words/terms somewhere or they, the British/UK ones, will be forgotten. I'm middle-aged & Australian born, having lived when younger in New South Wales among post WWII British migrants (where most went) and there were words listed which I have forgotten hearing. I've spent 20+ years in Queensland where Americanisms became common afer WWII because of the large number of US troops in this state at that time. There are US many words and terms today in use in Qld which are not used in other states except with much younger people raised only on a diet of American TV. Australian English was another form of English but it is often bemoaned on radio and in print media that it is fading, and sadly it is, too quickly as the old language was historical, it showed the steps in the migrant origins from 1788. 09:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)60.228.91.22Carole

It is certainly not wrong to refer to "British English". That is a well-established term used by linguists. For instance, it is explicitly what the various language services of the EU institutions use to describe the version of English into which they translate EU documents for the attention of British and Irish officials, politicians and populations. It is regarded as the appropriate form for European use and they go to some lengths to stop Americanisms from creeping into it. Note also that language schools like Berlitz and Linguaphone market separate language learning products called "American English" and "British English". The dialect usages that occur in individual bits of the British Isles (Irish English, Liverpool English, Estuary English, Scottish English, etc.) are surely add-ons to the main language, not "instead of"; there isn't anybody in any part of the British Isles who doesn't understand mainstream British English, and there is IMHO no such entity as "English English".

To a lesser extent I think (at a tangent from Carole's point) that the same could be said of Australian English and South African English, although -- just to complicate the issue -- there are nowadays so many Australians and South Africans in London that Ozisms like "cop a feel of this" and S.African-isms like "pitch up" (for turn up or show up) are noticeably seeping into BrEng. Woblosch 13:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just want to set a couple of thinks straight-'British Eng'is not offensive but merely refers to the common usage of most words and phrases originating and based mainly in the british isles, but has the addition of regional slang and phrases. I'm pretty sure 'Welsh english and Irish english' are as simliar to 'English English' as Cockney English is to Scouse English. Also, the U.K's full title is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' therefor N.I. is not part of Great Britain, however N.I., Eire, Isle of Man, and the Scilly Isles are all part of the British Isles and have a relatively common English language, plus Welsh, Gaelic, and Irish languages. --124.150.113.214 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)tooplanx

British English is not the only language spoken in Britain, but neither is American English the only language spoken in America. The terms are just used to make it simpler to understand which version of English we're talking about. "English spoken primarily, but not exclusively, in Great Britain, alongside other British languages such as Welsh, Gaelic and Irish" is a bit of a mouthful would you not agree? Let's stick with British English, and remember that no-one means to cause offence by the term. Alex9788 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. 'American English' is a similarly all-encompassing term. One could argue that what we're calling 'American' unfairly besmirches Mexicans, Canadians, Inuit, [insert long list of Native American tribes], Central & South Americans, given that 'America' has come to mean the US, even though originally it referred to North & South America taken as one unit. Similarly, there are subcultural differences within the US itself. I understand that New Englanders use the term bubbler (I think) to refer to a drinking fountain, but that term doesn't have much currency elsewhere. Does it unfairly snub New Englanders to refer casually to 'American English' as a single dialect? Clearly not. What about the independent nations of Native American tribes living in the US southwest, who have undoubtedly adopted English at least in some ways, but beyond doubt have modified it to fit with their cultural norms and standards? It's clumsy, when referring to broad-based language classes like this, to try to mention all the variants for the sake of no one being left out. It's not a normative influence being exerted when someone makes a generalisation -- it's simply a matter of being concise. 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.159.4 (talk)

New entry for write

Someone has just enterd to sit a written exam, as a british interpretaion of write. Personally I would never say that I have just written an exam, Can anyone back me up that this isn't standard english? didn't want to revert without finding out for definite. MHDIV Englishnerd 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This meaning is unknown to me too. The "written" as I see it refers to the fact that the questions are presented in written (OK, normally printed) form, as opposed to an aural exam. If anybody writes exams, it's the examining boards. -- Smjg 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To take a "written exam" is perfectly normal UK English to me, but I've never heard of "write an exam" to mean "to take a written exam". LDHan 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's Canadian or South African, if I'm not mistaken. JackLumber. 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In my experience it is pan-African English and certainly not mainstream BrEng. Woblosch 12:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of this usage in BrE either. Matt 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC).

This has been ringing bells for a few days, since I first saw the question here. I am pretty sure it sounds familiar, in an old-fashioned way - to write an exam - yes, I'm almost sure I have heard it. Cambridge, 1970s? hmmm... It does in fact crop up in a few recent/current British book synopses, newspaper articles etc (as revealed by a Google search) - but it's definitely not mainstream BrEng. Snalwibma 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

i've written plenty of exams in america, it's simply used when the exam is purely based on essay response (no short answer, no multiple choice, and no math). Teachers also "write exams" when they create them.

Fire

I have just commented out the (newly added) entry for Fire, which had "(v.) to dismiss an employee (UK: to sack)" under the AmEng coliumn. Surely that's standard BrEng too. Checked in Collins dictionary - no mention of "American" or "chiefly US" or anything... I'd delete altogether if I were brave enough! Snalwibma 07:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree - "to fire" meaning to dismiss is very common in British English. -- Chris Q 12:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire v. sack is a "relative frequency" thing. That's why I keep on saying that we need to drop this books-of-account approach and remodel the sucker to factor in this kind of differences---if we had, say, a paragraph explaining how and why make redundant, fire, sack, lay off, downsize, terminate, etc. are used in the UK and/or U.S., instead of saying that a sack is "a bag used to carry items," wouldn't that be more fun? JackLumber. 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Base

The only dialect-specific meaning given relates to baseball. What is it correct to call them when playing or talking about baseball, or more commonly rounders, in the UK then? When I went to school they were always called bases. OK, so looking it up here, GAA calls them bases and NRA calls them posts. Hmm.... -- Smjg 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Baseball and Rounders are two different games although Rounders is played far more than (and as an almost replacement to) Baseball in the U.K. I'm sure the opposite is also true. Rounders involves holding the bat with only one hand, no strike system, and leaving the bat at the hitting point; Baseball Bats are held two handed, the srike system, and I think you run with the bat but I'm not 100% sure on that one. Also, I believe all throws or bowls in Rounders must be made under-arm. --124.150.113.214 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)tooplanx

• FYI - in Baseball, you don't run with the bat. Karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.3.0 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Flack over Flak

Two issues here--meaning and spelling. I use flack in the two instances I'm most likely to write the word: public critcism ("he caught a lot of flack for his decision"; flack jacket a milatry bullet-proof vest or garmet that resembles same (usuage is a bit dated--Vietnam era or before. Body-armour or bullet-proof vest would be more contemporary). Other usages in the US are: publicity agent (slangy hollybiz term not used outside of that kind of venue) or Anti-Aircraft fire (again a bit dated). I'm not sure how the spelling splits in the US, flack v flak. What are the meanings, usage in the UK? Does this merit a line on this page? Jdclevenger 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point! Flak is a German acronym standing for Fliegerabwerkanonen or something (hence flak jacket and flak vest). Flak "criticism" does come from flak "antiaircraft fire"; it's used in both AmE & BrE and can also be spelled flack; however, flak outnumbers flack by 8:1 in Britain and by 6:1 in the U.S., according to Pam Peters's data. Flack "press agent" is apparently a genuine Americanism and has nothing to do with flak. Curiously enough, flak appeared for the first time in 1938 and flack "publicity agent" in 1939. JackLumber. 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

since when is flak jacket "dated"? body armor is what the politicians call it more than it is what soldiers say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.67.211 (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've served two separate tours in Iraq with two different units and was never without my body armor. We never called it a "flak jacket" or "flak vest" and I don't recall anyone else saying that either. I think even the quartermaster receipts refer to it as body armor. Surfbruddah.

Pitch

Sorry if this has been dicussed before (I have not checked all of the archives) but I have two questions about the pitch citations

pitch

outdoor site for a stall or some other business site for a tent (US: campsite) playing field for a particular sport (football pitch, rugby pitch, cricket pitch, etc.)

an attempt to persuade somebody to do something, usu. to accept a business proposal a sticky black substance obtained from tar the slope of a roof rotation on a lateral axis (as an aircraft or spacecraft) the frequency of a sound to erect a tent to discard (in various card games, e.g., bridge)

in baseball, the delivery of a baseball by a pitcher to a batter (slang) to have an erection (slang) to dispose a brief summary of a broader work or idea meant to to be attractive to a third party e.g. "What's the pitch?"

1) In the common area, pitch is given as to discard (in various card games, e.g., bridge) This is correct as far as it goes, but in the US it goes further. "Let's pitch it" is a pretty common expression for any kind of item that has been throw away. Is the discard concept restricted to card games in the UK? If so, then the more general form should be listed in the US section.

2) Can someone verify the US usage (slang) to have an erection. "He was pitching" would be appropriate in this context. But would you ever use just pitch? I don't think so. Also my understanding is that it really is only apprpriatly used for someone who is at least partially clothed (even a towel will do). The full expression (and the one most commonly used) is pitching a tent and it strikes me as odd to say of someone who is naked. Any thoughts? Jdclevenger 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say this is incorrect, pitching a tent is common US slang but I have never heard just pitching, at least not in Southern US usage. Could be used up north though and I wouldn't know. --Dennypayne 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

guesswork, really, but here goes. I think this meaning of "pitch" should probably be deleted. I think "pitching a tent" and variations on it are used in BrEng too, along with various other colourful metaphors. But I don't think the point of this article is to document every slang and nonce usage in AmEng and BrEng which may or not overlap to varying degrees - rather to catalogue the (more stable?) differences in daily usage. There seems to be some doubt about to pitch = to have an erection, so I think best delete. Snalwibma 06:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may opine, the penis is sometimes (in British English) referred to as the tentpole, as in the expression, "to hoist someone's tentpole" (to give them an erection), but I've never heard the usage "to pitch", either transitively or intransitively.

What is more common is for someone to be desribed as "packing" (= carrying a pistol, as it were). Among my FTM (female-to-male, or transmen) friends, a prosthetic penis is referred to as if it were a noun: "my packing".

Nuttyskin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.199.50 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Forward

I have added a section on forward. I'm not sure that it is quite right or fully fleshed out. There are several thoughts here: 1) Sports. In the US, a forward is first and foremost a basketball position. But perhaps enough people are involved with soccer that they understand the term as applied there. (That is why I listed in the common area). I'm curious about the penetration of basketball in the UK. Are the terms guard, center', and forward well known? 2) personality. I think both the US and UK have the concept of someone being forward. It can be positive "Do you mind if I am a bit forward" or slightly negative, "He was a bit too forward with me last night." 3) forward as a spatial concept. In the US military, forward areas are combat zones. Is this understood in the UK? There is also the forward cabin used to indicated first class in an airplane. Jdclevenger 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't comment on (1) sports usages, but I agree that (2) the personality meanings are common (= bold or presumptuous). (3) The spatial-concept meanings are also mostly common, I'd say, and "forward area/zone" certainly sounds familar as front-line or combat zone. The only usage here that sounds odd to my BrEng ears is "forward cabin" to mean first class. It is of course a simple literal description of where the first-class area generally is, but I don't think it would be used other than literally in BrEng. Snalwibma 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bomb" meaning "striking success" - archaic usage?

Until I read this article, I had never heard the phrase "went down a bomb" used in British English to mean "a striking success". A cursory Google search seems to suggest it's used occasionally, but is very uncommon, and in some cases actually appears to have the opposite meaning (i.e. "[He refused] to tell a joke because the last time he told one it went down a bomb"[3]). I would say that the US slang meaning of "bomb" (failure) is now far more common in the UK. 217.34.39.123 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not archaic. In current use - but I think "went like a bomb" rather than "went down a bomb" would be more usual. See Collins Dictionary, for example. But maybe avoided somewhat because of awareness that it means the opposite in America. Snalwibma 13:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Snalwibma. WLD 13:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pud

The pronunciation sections for "pud" should be clarified, as in some British English dialects, "good" actually rhymes with "mud". 217.34.39.123 13:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I come from the North-West of England, and for me "good" rhymes with "mud".
138.243.228.52 09:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Toilet

A perennial problem, but I'm sure it's possible to find better words on both sides of the table than are currently in the article. _Is_ there a word that's common to both dialects meaning "place or apparatus for excretion", or do we have to use that phrase? The three words that are currently there seem wrong - "restroom" is probably OK as an AmE alternative but not as a definition, "lavatory" is a valid BrE synonym, but I don't think it means the same as "toilet" in AmE (mainly because I remember being very amused by a reference in a Patricia Cornwell novel to a bathroom containing "a toilet and a lavatory"), and, to me, a "commode" is a portable toilet - so, is "toilet" in AmE a portable apparatus for excretion? Did that bathroom contain a fixed and a mobile version of the same sanitary fitting? If not, what is it? Suggestions welcome. Tevildo 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it:

toilet

UK: Room containing a toilet (US restroom, bathroom)

Both: Apparatus for excretion

lavatory

UK: (also lav) Toilet (both the room and the apparatus)

US: Washbasin

commode

UK: Portable toilet for use by persons of limited mobility in rooms without plumbing

US: Ordinary plumbed-in toilet in a bathroom

86.145.123.190 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

lavatories are rooms with toilets in the parts of america I am from, but do not refer to the actual toilet. you go "to the lav." commode is a word I have never heard in conversation and had to look up to be sure it was even in existence. I'd say john, can, and restrooms are far more common words than commode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.31.67.211 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Commode I believe is primarily a Southern US word. It's used mainly by older people. Karen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.3.0 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

additional US meaning for pud

PUD or pud-Real estate term for 'Planned Unit Development' precise definition varies but usually means deed restrictions on a group of residential properties and an association to enforce them (other than a local governmental authority), particulars will vary with each development. It may be on any type of residential development (single family homes, duplexes, townhomes, condos etc.) and there may be many restrictions or few, depending on the development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.225.155.181 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2006

Would this be pronounced as one word, or as three letters, P-U-D? If the former, it should be included. (I've also taken it on myself to clarify the pronounciation differences mentioned above). Tevildo 20:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jug

I have just reverted to the following:

• BrEng column: any container with a handle and a mouth or spout for liquid (US: pitcher)
• AmEng column: large container with a narrow mouth and handle for liquids (UK: pitcher)

This means that (a) in the UK a "jug" is "any container..." - a thing that in the USA is called a pitcher; (b) in the USA a "jug" is a "large container..." - which in the UK is called a "pitcher". Compare the entry under "pitcher". The third (AmEng) column gives the AmEng meaning, then the UK equivalent. It therefore should say UK, not US! Snalwibma 10:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is confusing because the use of pitcher is so rare in the UK; we would usually use jug, saucepan, teapot, coffe-pot, tankard, etc. as appropriate rather than a generic term. -- Chris Q 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Q. In the UK, "pitcher" would only be used (a) as a conscious Americanism (on a menu, for instance), (b) as a conscious archaism ("Gadzooks, sirrah, a pitcher of thy fin'st mead, i'th'faith!"), (c) in combinations such as "pitcher-plant". I don't know the precise distinction in AmE between "pitcher" and "jug", but both vessels would be called a "jug" in the UK. Tevildo 11:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that "pitcher" is not a generic term in the UK, but a specific one for a particular sort of large, tall, narrow-necked jug - and, yes, with archaic overtones. "Jug" isn't generic either, though it is more generic - it means something with a spout and a handle. In the USA (I believe - I am in Britain, and am not a native speaker of AmEng) it's precisely the opposite - a pitcher is anything with a spout and a handle, designed for pouring liquids, and a jug is a special type of pitcher - a large, tall, narrow-necked one! I will check the dictionaries and have another look at the definitions under jug and pitcher and see if it can be improved. Snalwibma 11:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should at least mention that it is an unusual/esoteric term in the UK. My wife is American and she would use it as an every-day term, like "pass the pitcher" for a jug of water on the table. I probably have not said pitcher in years! The fact that we have to resort to dictionaries illustrates this! -- Chris Q 12:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that due to the obscurity and lack of use of "pitcher" in the UK, it is best to omit it as a description of jug. I certainly would not have understod it to mean some large container with a narrow mount! -- Chris Q 13:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also I have never heard of pitcher being anything other than an obscure synonym for jug. This is confirmed by [4]. I am therefore changing the pitcher entry, and adding a citation.

Sorry - but what you use/hear in your daily life is not the ultimate guide to English usage! I can easily (and truthfully) counter by stating that pitcher is a word I know and use in Britain. Not often, but I do use it. And what I mean by it is a sort of large jug with maybe no handle and a narrow neck. And the dictionaries back me up, including the online Cambridge one you cite. Yes, it's a bit old-fashioned, but it does exist. And it seems to me that the interesting fact here is that the jug/pitcher pair is precisely the opposite in the USA. And your recent edit has obscured that, which I think is a pity. I'd like to see the entries reinstated, with perhaps the addition of a note that "pitcher" is somewhat archaic in BrEng. OK with you? Snalwibma 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the entry for pitcher on that site says "(UK) a large container with a wide round base, straight sides and a narrow opening at the top, used in the past for holding water or another liquid" - suggesting it is archaic. Jooler 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best compromise would be the Asterisk of Comprehensibility. A problem at the moment is that it seems none of us know exactly what an AmE "jug" is. Other than jug, I'd call a large jug with a narrow neck a "flagon" - seeing an AmE jug might resolve the issue. Tevildo 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have put it back to somewhat the way it used to be, but a bit more nuanced - with the asterisk for US "pitcher", and with a bit more detail. I really think it's a shame to delete a perfectly good BrEng word, even if it's not especially common - particularly with the interesting reversed-meanings issue. But let's wait for an American to show up and clarify the AmEng usage. Meanwhile, can we agree that in BrEng (1) jug is the everyday word for a container with a spout and a handle that you put water or milk in, and from which you pour it; (2) pitcher is a more old-fashioned (obsolete? - some say yes, some say no) word for a rather larger vessel, which may or may not have handle(s) and spout, and which may be used for storing rather than pouring. Snalwibma 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course in Britain "jug" is also used to describe the squat dimpled glasses use to server beer see pint glass. Jooler 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a mug? Snalwibma 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Predominantly called a jug in my experience as in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1239522.stm Jooler 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• smiles * - I would call that a "tall glass" as opposed to the more usual "straight glass", despite it being considerably shorter. Let's not confuse the issue further than is necessary, though. Tevildo 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you'd be in a minority of 1 there. Jooler 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, 20 years ago, when the transition was well in progress but by no means complete, it was usual to be offered the choice between a "tall glass" and a "straight glass" at the bar. However! This is rather irrelevant. As things stand, we have two uncontroversial propositions:

• "Jug" is the generic term for the vessel in BrE (possibly including an obsolete type of beer glass).
• "Pitcher" is the generic term in AmE.

one for which there is no support one way or the other:

• "Jug" is a specific type of this vessel in AmE.

and one which only one editor (so far) has supported and three have contradicted:

• The specific type of vessel referred to as a "jug" in AmE is referred to as a "pitcher" in BrE.

I really think we need some US input on the issue to progress things further. Tevildo 02:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting! (though admittedly irrelevant here) - I don't think I've ever heard one of those called a jug. But if it's good enough for the BBC... Snalwibma 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously never worked behind the bar. Er.. irrelevent? I thought the discussion was about the use of the word Jug. Oh nand I agree with Chris I think the word pitcher is pretty much obsolete. I would be suprised and amused to hear someone use it in everyday conversation. Jooler 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A common British use of pitcher which might have sprung up in the last few years (total anecdata) is "huge jug of beer/cider/cocktail served in a pub". You're encouraged to buy a pitcher to share. This has little to do with the specific type(s) of glass vessel described above, though (which as a BrE speaker is the other meaning I recognise for "pitcher"). 87.113.13.121 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Enlightenement has dawned!. Reading the definition above, I now know what Snalwimba is referring to - one of those large cylindrical pottery things with cream-coloured bodies and brown tops and a little handle at the neck and the name of the brewery embossed into them that you see in antique shops. I didn't know that they were called "pitchers" - presumably these days it's a specialist term in the antiques trade. Can someone confirm that this is an AmE "jug"? Tevildo 03:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Enlightened maybe, but I think a bit mistaken... When I say pitcher I don't specifically mean one of those (though it might fall within the definition). I'd call that a jar, strangely - and we have two of them standing on our front-doorstep. For "pitcher" I picture something standing on a patio or veranda with rose petals floating in the water. Or something vaguely connected with a poem by Keats (or is that an urn?). Yes, it's old-fashioned. I mean the object is old-fashioned. The word is not obsolete! We really do need American input, though. Incidentally, I asked (a) a Scottish adult friend and (b) a 15-year old what "pitcher" meant. (a) said "a big kind of jug-like thing" and (b) said "it's what Americans call a jug, in films and stuff." Snalwibma 11:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is settled but an American opinion. I don't see any "jugs" in Image:Jugs.jpg - just creamers, pitchers and mugs. Image:Irish pottery water jug.jpg could be called a jug but the typical jug is one like shown here: [5] (often seen marked with XXX in cartoons refering to the triple distilled moonshine they held - and used as an instrument in jug bands). Rmhermen 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Those links to pictures are very useful indeed. It is now quite clear to me that it is just as I thought at the starat of this exchange - AmE and BrE usage of jug and pitcher are exact opposites. From my BrE perspective I see nothing but jugs in Image:Jugs.jpg, and the thing in Image:Irish pottery water jug.jpg is a pitcher (though any kind of large jug is also a pitcher)! I think the article has it right, then. I might revisit and clarify if necessary. Snalwibma 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a speaker of AmEng, the most common image for the word "jug" is indeed the vessel described by Tevildo -- a wide, ceramic, cylindrical, flat-bottomed container topped with a very short, narrow neck to which a small ring-shaped finger-handle is attached. (cf: the American folk song "Little Brown Jug".) The most common use for such a vessel is the containment of home-brewed corn whiskey, colloquially known as "moonshine". It is commonly associated with humorous (and possibly derogatory) references to hillbillies -- in which case the vessel is commonly emblazoned with "XXX" in large letters. Jug is also used to describe other similarly-shaped decanters made of clear glass (again with a finger-ring type handle) used in the sale of fruit juices. (Such as apple juice or apple cider.)

Probably the most common distinguishing features of a jug in AmEng is the ring-sized handle located at the neck of the container and the lack of a spout.

Photographic examples of the American interpretation of jug (all, unfortunately, are off-site and subject to removal): Example 1 (moonshine jug) Example 2 (cider jug) Example 3 (maple syrup jugs)

One other use of jug, though less common, would be in reference to large containers having a spout at the bottom -- like those used to dispense sports drinks on the field of an American football game, or lemonade at a church picnic, though these would be more commonly referred to as a cooler.

It should be noted that Americans will sometimes use the word jug in a casual sense for any container for liquids with the intent of making a colloquialism. For example, many Americans might casually refer to the container in this image Image:Irish pottery water jug.jpg as a jug, but in a more formal sense it will be called a pitcher.

In that vein, pitcher refers to almost any vessel with a full-sized handle and a directed, open spout. (As opposed to the closed, tubular spout found on a teapot.) It occasionally refers to vase-shaped containers that have no handle or spout used for serving wine (or sometimes iced-tea), but these are more commonly called carafes.

(Note that the word carafe is also used to describe hot coffee and hot tea decanters (both of which have handles and open spouts) supplied with coffee makers. I don't know how or if this word varies from the UK usage.) Donperk 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for the information. Based on the above, I would recommend changing the AmE definition of "Jug" to "large container with a narrow mouth, no spout, and ring-shaped handle for storing liquids, especially alcohol (UK:Jar)", and removing the "(US: Jug)" from the BrE definition of "Pitcher", as the "Irish pottery water jug" image would (I gather from the above) be described as a "pitcher" on both sides of the Atlantic. Incidentally, I would say that both the above uses of carafe are valid in BrE as well, although a decanter in BrE is exclusively used for a glass bottle, with a stopper, for serving wine; if, in AmE, it also refers to a vessel for serving coffee, perhaps it's worth an entry? Tevildo 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a "large container with a spout at the bottom used to dispense drinks" would be an urn in BrE. Tevildo 10:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably more important than the ring shape of the handle is the handle's location at or near the mouth of the vessel (as well as the lack of a spout.) For example, one gallon milk containers are commonly called milk jugs.

Decanter probably opens up a whole new can of squirmy little worms... ;) --Donperk 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, detergent jugs. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• In southern US, a jug is used for basically any largish container (gallon specifically) you buy prefilled with liquid (to drink) and it has a handle and a small mouth. Milk Jug. A pitcher is a container you fill with liquid that has a wide mouth and is suitable for placing on a table. For example, at a casual restaurant, they wouldn't put a jug of milk on the table, but they could put a pitcher of sweet tea on it. Karen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.3.0 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian

What is a Caucasian in the US, in the UK, in other English speaking countries and in Europe? --Filll 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for UK usage, but "Caucasian" as a synonym for "white" would only be used in a scientific context, not in casual conversation or official documents. The literal meaning (someone from Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc) is, I assume, common to both dialects. Tevildo 20:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I have had several people tell me that it is never used for "white" in the UK. It is a common more polite way to say "white" in the US and Canada.--Filll 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be less polite in BrEng, conjuring up Victorian or at least outdated notions of "Mongoloid", "Australoid" and "Caucasoid" race. Why the Caucasus was chosen to represent white people is unclear. However, it is usually recognised as meaning "white" in Britain when it occurs in the context of an American crime fiction or drama. --Cedders^tk 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say it's more polite to use "Caucasian" here in the states, I think "politcally correct" is the right term for it. It's even used on some legal documents. But in normal conversation, most people I know use "white" just as they use "black" instead of the more p.c. "African-American" ---Surfbruddah

More p.c., but more capable of being inaccurate. A Black person need not necessarily be an African-American, even if he is in the US. He might, for example, be Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Iranian, or pretty much anything.

Nuttyskin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.199.50 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most people would consider "white" and "caucasian" to mean the same thing (some consider "caucasian" to be a broader term). "Black" is perfectly acceptable, and African-American is only for black Americans. My sister-in-law is black but not African-American, as she comes from the Bahamas. Kman543210 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pud (again!)

To me, as a resident of North East England, the "pud" in pudding sounds the same as the "pud" in puddle - just as "mud" rhymes with "good"! Unless anyone can demonstrate that there is an obvious difference here, it would probably be best to take out the pronunciation sections altogether. 217.155.20.163 02:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it's important to mention that, in accents where the vowels are different, the two words are pronounced differently. We could resort to IPA, but that means deciding on one particular accent. Would you say that "foot" and "Fudd" (as in Elmer) have the same vowel? If so, I doubt we'll find a pair of words to make the difference clear for everyone. Tevildo 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in the IPA symbols, so at least it's accurate, if not immediately comprehensible. :) Tevildo 04:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Stuffed

I don't trust my table editing skills, but stuffed needs to be on this list. The shared meaning is to fill something densely with something. In American English, "to get stuffed" means to eat an almost uncomfortable amount, whereas in a British English it is a moderately vulgar expression similiar to "to get fucked." "I'm stuffed" in American English is an expression of supersatiation; in British English, a statement of dismay. Pawsplay 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm - not so sure about that. I have always used "I'm stuffed" to mean I am full up and this was also used most famously, by Mr Creosote in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life.... I think that this is used equally both sides of the Atlantic..... Lunnster (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Accumulator

I see that JackLumber has reverted the description of this word in BrE from "obsolete" to "archaic". I'm not a linguist, but I'm not sure that either is correct. The point I would make is that the device is obsolete/archaic, rather than the word - it has the same status as (say) "gramophone" or "velocipede". If "archaic" is appropriate to describe those words, then it's appropriate here. Tevildo 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of word to include

• Prat in the UK means silly and maybe sometimes ass or buttocks
• Prat in the US means buttocks, as in pratfall

--Filll 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pratt?

And another one: Preserve. While both mean keep and can mean condiments like jam/jelly, ISTR that in America it can also mean a park - it's never used that way in the UK. Grutness...wha? 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions: form, I think like U.S. "rap sheet"; barracked - don't know exactly but I don't think the BBC headline "Muslim who barracked John Reid is arrested" refers to a military bunkhouse. Rmhermen 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Barrack= Heckle, jeer. Grutness...wha? 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More I've noticed: "pry" (vi) in BrEng is to peer into something private, but in US (vi & vt) to prise open or prise out. "pet" (vt) a dog or cat is unusual in UK (in competence but not performance). "coolbox" appears to be UK for "cooler" US. "bonfire" means a fire for celebration (US and UK), but also one for burning garden or household waste in UK. Finding references for all these would be something else.

Back on the subject of reforming the list - there could also or instead be a "List of meanings having different words in British and American English", but it would be much harder to arrange alphabetically than the three lists we have now. --Cedders^tk 02:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find a way of listing meanings without words it will come down to the same thing! -- Q Chris 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Which option gets more work done? One big fat one with lots of big arguments, or lots of little ones with lots of minor squabbles?It takes one to know one 19:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pry" has both meanings in AmE, and "bonfire" is certainly used to refer to a waste disposal fire in the US. --SodiumBenzoate 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And in the UK Pet as a transitive verb is unusual with respect to cats and dogs (where stroke is normally used), but occurs quite frequently in phrases like "petting barn" (see [6], [7], [8], etc.) -- Q Chris 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What sense would it make to replace this list with something that bears no resemblance in purpose? -- Smjg 10:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to "prat", the meaning it normally has here in the UK is to the effect of a foolish person. -- Smjg 10:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bang, again

"Bang" is listed in UK as slang for "to have sex with"; it also has this meaning in the U.S., but the usage seems to be somewhat different. I've often heard the phrases "He's banging her" and "They're banging", and occasionally "She's banging him", though that last one has an unusual ring to it; it parses okay, but sounds unusual, like calling a guy a cunt or a girl a dick. "Bang one out" is something I've never heard in USian. Not sure at all how to integrate all this into the table, so I figured I'd mention it here. unless 12:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Flat

Does this word have no common meaning, like an adjective to describe the topology of the surface of a table??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.243.60.12 (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Chatter moved from top of article

In the UK, 'graft' is another word for work and not used in the USA. In the US, graft is money that is skimmed from the public purse. 'Public purse' may be a British term. Inflammable in the US means that it can be set alight but in the UK it means the opposite: that it cannot be set on fire. To 'table' a motion in the USA means to kill it. In the UK, to table means to propose it - or is it the other way? letloveflow 86.150.62.191 05:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong about inflamable, it means that it can be set alight in the UK also[9]. -- Q Chris 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

inflammable

 • adjective easily set on fire.
 • noun a substance which is easily set on fire.
 — DERIVATIVES inflammability noun inflammableness noun inflammably adverb.
 — USAGE The words inflammable and flammable both mean ‘easily set on fire’. It is, however, safer to use flammable if one wishes to avoid ambiguity, as the in- prefix of inflammable can give the impression that the word means ‘non-flammable’.

Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary

L. inflammare "to set on fire, kindle," from in- "in" + flammare "to flame," from flamma "flame" (see flame). Literal sense of "to cause to burn" first recorded in Eng. 1382. Inflammable "able to be set alight" is from 1605. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=inflammable&searchmode=none

This is a usage issue. It takes one to know one 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In the US Jug is a large container, glass or pottery, with a small spout and small handle. A pitcher is is usually something that holds a liquid. You pour into glasses from a pitcher. much smaller than a jug. the pictures that I saw of what someone would consider a jug, looked like pitchers, tea cups and other smaller pitchers. No jugs at all.

stuffed is over-eating.

bang is a loud noise, usually from an explosion.

staff in the US would be a member of a staff or more than one would still be called staff. or staff members.

a cooker would be like a pressure cooker. not someone who cooks. A person who cooks would be called a cook or chef.

Pitch-would be a person on a baseball team who pitches the ball to the person who is up to bat. Pitching a tent- having an erection. obviously slang.

Toilet is not portable. a bathroom is a room that contains a toilet and SINK. formally you would say restroom. which is the same as bathroom. If you were home you would say bathroom, in a restaurant you would call it a restroom.

for me, good and mud do not rhyme.

donna new york, us 72.226.98.68 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian corn

User:Snalwibma left an edit comment: But is this entry correct? Both BrE and AmE dictionaires give the same meaning, with no sign of it meaning a particular variety

I don't know, but indian corn must be a very rarely used phrase in the UK as I have never heard it. We would usually say maize or "sweet corn". - Q Chris 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Join the club. And BTW, I'm used to "sweetcorn" being one word. Moreover, at the moment both "corn" and "Indian corn" refer to each other - we ought to clarify which is meant in each case, especially which meaning of "corn" is meant in the American definition of "Indian corn". -- Smjg 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maize, of course. The word corn is kinda like football, in a way. Yes, in U.S. everyday speech Indian corn currently refers to multicolored varieties used for decorations---also, confusingly enough, known as maize, although this might be old-fashioned. Yet Indian corn meaning "maize", um, "corn", um, Zea mays is far from being "British English"---it's the name used by the earliest English settlers of North America; maize was the Spanish name. JackLumber. 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This may be somewhat academic at this point, but the definition of corn as being the "primary cereal crop of a region" is one that is not typically taught to American schoolchildren. Point to a wheat field in Kansas and tell an American that it is a field full of Kansas corn and you will be carted off as a madman -- no matter how technically correct your statement may have been. In the U.S., corn refers to the maize plant and the grain it produces. Period. I wrote all that to suggest that there be some form of annotation on the common definition to indicate that the "primary cereal" definition is rarely used (or even understood) in the U.S. -- Donperk 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that statement wouldn't be correct in any case, no matter the definition. Region doesn't mean "your neck of the woods" here. Region means "country" (Scotland, England) or "continent" (the Americas, Australia), according to history. But then again, I guess no one would actually recognize that definition, within or without the States, within or outwith Scotland... No one would think outside of the proverbial box, that's all. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Band

I'm not sure this should have been removed, as I think we should have a reference to AmE "wedding band" (BrE "wedding ring") somewhere. Perhaps in the US-only list, rather than here? Tevildo 10:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The so-called AmE sense of band is covered by the common meaning "loop of material, either decorative or as a fastening". The use of "wedding band" for wedding ring is mostly flowery speech, and wedding ring is the standard term in AmE. -Acjelen 01:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think we should mention somewhere the fact that band _never_ means (finger) ring in BrE. We have "(baby) shower" in the AmE column, after all, which is (a) equally compatible with the dictionary definition of "shower", and (b) equally incomprehensible in the UK. Tevildo 20:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kebab

Since the UK and US pronunciations diverge somewhat radically, I've added IPA pronunciations for each variant. Please dicuss and remove if this seems inappropriate. -- Donperk 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Not having heard the US pronounciation and just relying on the IPA, I don't see any difference that isn't covered by the general difference between a "British" and "American" accent. (Incidentally, I would have expected /ɑ/ rather than /a/ for the US version, but I may be wrong). However, I don't think it's something that needs to be reverted. Tevildo 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the use of /ɑ/, which should render (kuh-BOB) -- I could be wrong, but the BrEng (keh-BAAB) seems to have more than the usual Br/Am differential, which is why I made the addition. I know that I was very surprised the first time I heard the BrEng pronunciation (on the television programme Brainiac), since RP tends to prefer /ɑ/ over /æ/. If the difference seems too trivial, then please revert it. -- Donperk 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Biro

Added IPA pronunciation for biro to help us poor yanks who would unwittingly pronounce this word as "BEER-oh" /'bɪɹ oʊ/ instead of "BUY-roh" /'baɪ ɹoʊ/. -- Donperk 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this entry, as it's BrE only, and is already on the BrE-only list. Of course, adding the pronounciation there might be a good idea. Tevildo 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Donperk 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Baggage

In almost all usage, baggage means exactly the same for us Brits as it does in the US (eg baggage-handlers). The slang term currently in the Brit box is very old and very rarely used these days. Alexpritchard 18:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I can see no real difference between BrE and AmE usage, and I'd be inclined to delete the entire "baggage" entry (along with all its baggage!). Snalwibma 08:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wingnut

I see that an additional AmE definition - "a right-wing extremist, neo-con" - has been added and removed. Although the example might have been contentious, I don't see any objection to the definition. Should we put it back in? Tevildo 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty - I removed that because it was an anon addition that also included "a wingnut like Rush Limbaugh". Sounded like some sort of personal attack, and I was suspicious of the whole thing - but perhaps I was a bit hasty. If the definition is correct, let's put it back in, but without the example. Now I'm off to find out who Rush Limbaugh is (though I suspect I don't really want to know). Snalwibma 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill/check/tab

I believe that this entry may be in need of attention, but I don't know US idiom well enough to do it myself. I can definitely say that "check" meaning "request for payment" (at a restaurant, for instance) is AmE only, but I'm not sure about "tab". In BrE, a "tab" is an informal credit account at a bar, enabling customers to pay for a number of drinks in one go rather than having to buy them individually - also known as a "slate". Does "tab" in AmE have the same meaning, or is it synonymous with "check", referring to the more formal "invoice" presented, for example, at the end of a meal? "Tab" is also slang in parts of England for "cigarette", incidentally. Tevildo 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tab has both meanings in AmE (to put sth on the tab; to pick up the tab); both are endemically American, as well as the related idiom to keep tabs on. Individual usage may vary, though. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

A WP:PROD seems a very inappropriate way of dealing with an article like this, which (for all its faults, and there are many) has been here a long time and has been much edited and much used. I have accordingly removed the PROD tag. If it is felt to be a candidate for deletion, please can we go down the WP:AfD route! Snalwibma 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this article clearly breaks two well-established fundamental rules about what an article should contain.

Just because no-one's noticed it for ages is not grounds for trying to keep an article that breaks two rules on content. There are plenty of articles like this floating around, and there has been plenty of directionless debate on this one.

On that basis alone it is a suitable candidate for speedy deletion. Hence I'm restoring the WP:PROD, we can then discuss whether any changes could be made to justify this article's existence; I see none, as there is already an article about the differences.

It takes one to know one

• OK, fine - but what happens to all the useful information in the article? Does the baby get thrown out with the bathwater? Are you saying it's all in American and British English differences, or all in Wiktionary? It isn't. I appreciate and to a large extent share what I assume are your concerns. But the trouble is that I find this article actually useful, and I would be sorry to see it go for that reason. And why PROD? Why not AfD? Snalwibma 18:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Accommodation

Just a question... In the "accommodation" entry at the top, "lodgings (as for travellers);" is listed at British English, and "(accommodations) lodgings (as for travellers)" at American English. Wouldn't it be better to list this at "meanings common to BrE and AmE"? Salaskan 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Accommodation" is British English, "Accommodations" is American English. The difference is the "s". I have split it into two lines, same as was already done for "transport" and "transportation". TiffaF 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The way forward

Now this article has survived AfD, I think we need to address the issues that led to its being nominated. As I see it, there are three major points:

1. Do we stick with the current division of the topic into three articles, or merge them? If a merged article will be too big, may I suggest that we split it up alphabetically? What format is best - the tabular arrangement of this article, the headword-based approach of the other two, or something new?
2. What constitutes adequate sourcing for the entries? Our own personal knowledge probably won't be enough. Does every entry have to appear in one of the books currently listed in the "References" section, or will an example of the quoted usage be sufficient?
3. To what extent do we address other dialects and regional variations? Tevildo 20:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles cry out for a merger; the current division is linguistically indefensible. Of course we're gonna have to alphabetically split the infinitive... um, the material. Pretty much everybody knows what I think about the tabular layout... Most of the entries can be sourced, although many should be rewritten or rearranged beforehand; for example:

accommodation. When it means "lodging" or "seating", it is singular in BrE and plural (accommodations) in AmE. In BrE, it can also mean "housing" <residential accommodation>. In the U.S., the accommodation train used to be...

mad. The meaning "insane" is more common in BrE, while the meaning "crazy" is more common in AmE...

slate. As a verb, it can mean "to disparage" in BrE <many critics have slated the film>; the meaning "schedule" <slated for demolition>, originally American, is now found in BrE also; a mostly American sense is "to designate" (a candidate, as for political office).

These can all be referenced via footnotes.

Words from other English-speaking countries shall be left out, as well as most regionalisms, e.g. coulee. Speaking of regionalisms, what the heck is the word aye doing here? Everybody knows that aye means yes; OK, it's a Scotticism, but so what? By the way, several words are common in AmEng and ScotEng, but not in EngEng (pinkie, janitor, carry-out); these are particularly interesting and should be treated. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this has been done to death already. That you don't see words differing in meaning across the pond as an interesting phenomenon in its own right doesn't mean nobody else does. This article needs to stay as what it is at the moment. -- Smjg 10:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

*Real* words with different meanings are few in number (Trudgill & Hannah, pp. 84-85; among them are pants, pavement, nervy, biscuit). This article was supposed to cover lexical differences between British and American English, and has failed. If you want to go on with this page, fine. But just because you want it to stay doesn't mean nobody else wants to start a different, accurate, more to-the-point article. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that I've stated my opinions a few times before on this page(!), but for the record:

• I support merging all three articles.
• I support a headword-style format rather than a tabular format because (to me) it's easier to read, easier to edit, looks nicer, and is more amenable to a prose discussion of word usage that is potentially more interesting and more encyclopedic than just a list of definitions.
• I think that addressing other dialects and regional variations extends the scope of this article quite considerably. Could be opening a can of worms?

Matt 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

The more I edit this article, the more I realise it will never have no original research, it will never be properly verifiable and it will always be based on someone's point of view. Although I think it'd be a shame to waste this information if it were deleted, it never will be, and never could be, an accurate list. Alex9788 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of a Word

Perhaps I am simply fanning the fires of the numerous flame wars already seemingly having bogged down this article (hmm, bogged down, is that transatlantic?), I would be interested in further discussion of what constitutes the sort of difference this article/list/Wiktionary refugee is meant to illuminate.

There are some different types here, and it would be nice to see them more clearly defined, so as to lead to discussion on how each should be treated. Let me attempt to give a few examples, and hopefully I will not miss too much:

1. No Transatlantic Equivalent

Words like 'chav', 'building society'

This is the strongest case, where words in BrE are arguably similar to words in AmE, but truthfully have no exact counterpart. Chavs are a subcultural phenomenon absent from the US (arguably, in the extremely precise sense), and building societies are similarly only found in the UK. A lot of these are going to be slangs, as well. Perhaps slang should have its own subsection or maybe even a distinct article?

1. Different Token, Same Referent

Pairs like 'aubergine/eggplant', 'courgette/zucchini', and other non-culinary examples

Another strong case, though far simpler to understand, is the case where there are two different words denoting the same thing, depending on the country. This is also the case for which many people will likely be searching, in order to learn things like 'nappy/diaper' and 'pram/stroller'.

1. Same Token, Different Referent

Words like 'pants', 'fanny'

The last of the strong cases, IMO, is the one highlighted in Promsan's amusing example, where the American woman exclaimed (in the company of several UK natives), "Oh, my fanny's wet! I had better remove my pants!" Here, the same word, like 'pants', has two different meanings, depending on the side of the Atlantic you're on when you say it.

1. Etymologically Indistinct Tokens, Subtly Different Referents

See description

This is a weak case, and one that concerns me, as it's currently dealt with (by this two articles and a few similar ones) inconsistently. I'll stick to culinary examples, since I've already brought up food. This article mentions 'kebab' and 'pudding', for obvious reasons. Americans expect something like shish kebab (skewers), rather than a döner kebab; similarly, a 'pudding' is a very specific type of sweet in the US, not (arguably) a synonym for 'dessert'. There are other things in this category which are left out, though. Consider 'pie', which in the US is almost always going to be a sweet dessert (with the exception of something like a 'pot pie'), but in the UK is almost always going to be a main course ('steak and ale pie'). There are even weaker cases, like 'tea' and 'coffee'. In the US, 'coffee' means filtered coffee, regardless of how it's served (iced being the only thing that comes to mind that needs to be specified). Here, in the UK, coffee might mean espresso, as opposed to 'drip coffee' (a phrase not encountered in America) or the instant variety. Similarly, no American is going to ask for a 'white coffee', even if they take theirs with milk, and if they do, they won't expect the milk to be steamed. But is this the sort of difference we're after? Another example is tea. In the US, tea is predominantly iced tea, and in the South (the US southeast), it's extremely sweet and often served with lemon. But what's really the difference? The difference is the implicit expansion of the word's context, which is to say, tea is tea and coffee is coffee, but what subtype of those is understood to be unspoken will vary from place to place. Is this a noteworthy difference?

1. Slightly Different Tokens, Identical Referents

Words like 'raise/rise', 'let/lease'

These are, misleadingly I think, treated in the same place as clearly distinct words, and I wonder if this does not deserve some attention. The pairs I mention (I'm sure there are others) are what I'll call usage variants, for lack of knowing a proper name. 'To rise' and 'to raise' have clearly defined, distinct meanings. Arguably, these meanings do not vary across the proverbial pond. Confusingly, though, their usage in metaphor often varies. Americans have 'self-rising flour' (it moves upward of its own accord, sort of passively) while Brits have 'self-raising flour' (more active; the flour raises itself up). That's not a difference in rise and raise, but in which is chosen to represent the 'action' the flour causes. Does the flour actively raise itself upwards or does it simply (passively) rise? Similarly, UK employees get a pay rise and US employees get a pay raise. The words don't have different meanings -- even, I think, taking Promsan's strict standards for meaning into consideration (correct me if I'm wrong!). Should these be treated the same or differently as other words/variations in this context?

1. Subregional Variation

Words like 'buggy'

Even among clearly distinct transatlantic variants, some confusion may arise. For instance, a pram (UK) is a stroller (US), and it is fairly clear that this is a proper difference as defined in the second case above. Trolley UK/US is a similar sharp divide viz. case 3. But what of 'buggy'? I have occasionally run across this word in the UK meaning a pram ('Please leave prams and buggies here'). In the southeastern US states, the word 'buggy' may refer either to a shopping cart or to a baby carriage ('a baby buggy'). This is the worst-case scenario for an article like this one. Here you have a word which (albeit uncommonly) enjoys UK usage and has representation in America, but only in one part. Other parts of the US don't recognise the usage I've just given. What's to be done here? (This gets into a general problem discussed mostly from a UK standpoint, such as what to do with Scotticisms. The US has a fair few regional dialects with their own slang that doesn't permeate the rest of the country, so it's a problem both ways.)

07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Property, real-estate

Different meanings. "Real estate" has a technical legal meaning in the UK I think.

This is an interesting one. The legal meaning is the same on both sides of the Atlantic, but only in AmE is the legal term also in popular use. American and English lawyers will both use the term, but the American lawyer doesn't need to explain it to his client. If we're sticking with the tabular format, I think the best option is to put the legal meaning in the centre column, and note that it's also in general use in AmE in the right column. Tevildo 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This real estate thing is also supported by CALD and OALD, as well as Yahoo (it's "Real Estate" on yahoo.com and "Property" on yahoo.co.uk). Also, compare AmE real estate agent/broker (Realtor), BrE estate agent; AmE real estate developer, BrE property developer; and probably other compounds. Too many flavors for the Neapolitan ice cream layout... ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Athlete

Someone recently moved Athlete to Sportsperson to "Avoid confusion over what this article is about, due to American/British English differences"[10]. But I don't see it listed here (except as an example e.g. "British athletes play in a team; American athletes play on a team.") Should "Athlete" be added to this list? Ewlyahoocom 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The primary difference is "Athletics" vs "Track and Field", which is already covered under "athletics". I'm not sure that we need a seperate entry for "athlete"; if a footballer (gridiron) or a wrestler or a weightlifter would be described as an "athlete" in AmE, we probably do. Tevildo 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, a sportsman is primarily a hunter or a fisherman to me. The gender-neutral sportsperson is more frequent in BrE than AmE. As an aside, footballer is now a British term; in AmE, it was common in the 1920's and 1930's---visit the Time corpus and execute the following query: footballer*.[nn*] ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no point putting athlete on the list because athletics is already there, and so it logically follows that athlete follows the same trend. To clarify my point:

One cannot disagree that an athlete is one who participates in athletics.

Athletics, according to this page, can mean "track and field" or "sport in general".

Therefore, by substitution, an athlete is one who participates in "track and field" or "sport in general".

For this reason I changed the redirect on athlete to the disambiguation page, but it was reverted, though I still think it should be reverted back. See Talk:Sportsperson. Alex9788 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, but language isn't logical. :) I'm not 100% convinced that "sport in general" is a perfect definition of BrE "athletics", but an "athlete" in BrE is someone who participates in a sport that specifically requires speed or agility (not only athletics/track and field proper, but sports such as tennis, swimming, basketball, etc). It's _not_ used of sports that require strength (weightlifting, rugby, American football), hand-to-eye coordination or dexterity (cricket, archery) or skill in controlling something (motor racing, horse racing, sailing). Someone who's good at such sports may be physically fit, but they're not _necessarily_, in BrE, an _athlete_. If this distinction isn't made in AmE, I think we do need an entry. Tevildo 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Language is often illogical, but thankfully not always. I am British myself, and am not quite sure how the word's used in America. But do you agree that athlete shouldn't be redirected straight to sportsperson, whether or not it is in this table? Thanks for your reply, Alex9788 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue for the Athlete talk page, but, for what it's worth, I agree that the words aren't synonymous. Tevildo 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And personally I wouldn't add athlete to this list because athletics is already there, but at the same time I wouldn't object to it being there. Alex9788 08:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"an "athlete" in BrE is someone who participates in a sport that specifically requires speed or agility (not only athletics/track and field proper, but sports such as tennis, swimming, basketball, etc)."

Is that your opinion or dictionary definition? If so, which dictionary?

Mine says "someone who trains for and competes in field and track events such as running events, the high jump, long jump, pole vault etc."

Which is prompting me to take out the sentence in the "both" section for athlete. I'll bring it out for now, it can always go back in if others agree with you. I think we've made things at least a little clearer between the two of us anyway. Alex9788 22:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Done that, just need an American to take a look now if possible. Alex9788 22:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably not authoratitive enough, but [11], particularly s.v. "athleticism". However, I agree we've probably got as far as we can on our own. And "sportsman" can probably go if there's no significant difference in meaning. Tevildo 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sportsman/woman is now off the list. Thanks for your help so far, Alex9788 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think in BrE "athletics" only refer to track and field events, not sport in general or any other specific sport. "Athlete" in the main means someone who participate in "athletics" (track and field). However "athlete" is also sometimes used to compare certain other sportspeople who are like an athlete, ie having attributes that an athlete might have, or that they have all round abilities such as high stamina, strength, agility and flexibility that are not specific to any one sport. LDHan 13:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone is athletic, then I agree that they possess qualities of an athlete but do not neccessarily compete in athletics, like you described athlete. But if they are an athlete, I think that this does indicate they compete in athletics specifically. Therefore:

• Athletics (n) = Track and field events
• Athlete (n) = Someone who competes in athletics
• Athletic (adj) = Strong, quick, agile, toned, flexible etc. like an athlete

Hope that makes sense. Alex9788 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sportsman/woman

I'm not sure whether I'd agree with the latest addition myself: I can see why you added it, but a sportsman/woman can mean both of those definitions in both countries. Alex9788 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I hoped that this would resolve the "athlete" issue, but apparently it hasn't. It comes down to the vexed question of "primary meaning", and whether or not a difference in primary meaning is enough for a word to be included on this list. If so, "sportsman/woman" really ought to stay. The ideal solution would be to get a definite statement that "Athlete" == "Someone who participates in any sport" in AmE, which is a clear distinction from BrE and therefore deserves an entry; alternatively, a statement that both words have the same meaning in both dialects, so they can both be safely eliminated. Tevildo 18:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna put athlete in. Before I didn't see it as neccessary because athletics is there and athlete's just a derivative, but I guess it would do no harm to put it in there for the people who can't work that out for themselves. So I'll put athlete in now.

And with regards to sportsman/woman, I think that yes it has two meanings, but that they are not different on either side of the ocean so it doesn't belong here on this page. Feel free to disagree with me, but if you agree, sportsman/woman can go from the list. Alex9788 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Athlete's on the list now. Does it look stupid having two entries that are almost the same (ie athlete and athletics)? Let me know what you think. Thanks, Alex9788 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've changed it as per my description of "athlete" above, but I'm still not sure that the AmE usage given is correct. We need US input on the issue, I think. Tevildo 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In Britain, athlete could refer specifically to someone who competes in track and field events, which is why I put that in the first description. I wouldn't describe a footballer or a cricket-player as an athlete myself. In fact, that brings me to think maybe the athletics entry needs changing too, because I wouldn't describe sport in general, or football or cricket as athletics. I'm gonna move what's currently in both on athletics to AmE. And you're right, we do need US input. And more UK input wouldn't hurt either. Alex9788 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just this one sentence I'm not sure about now:

one who participates in a sport requiring speed or agility

I'd take that out myself, but I'll wait for further input if you want.

Are we in agreement that sportsman/woman can go from the list? Alex9788 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ginger

I live in the UK, and I don't think ginger is derogatory. I'd say someone has ginger hair, or is ginger, just like I'd say they have blond hair or they're blond. It only becomes derogatory if you start using words such as dirty in front of it ("dirty ginger"). But this could apply to many words (eg. Muslim isn't derogatory but put dirty in front and it could be enough to get someone arrested for inciting racial hatred). Secondly, when I say ginger, refering to the spice, I pronounce jin-jer, and so does everyone else I know. Maybe the other pronunciation is just American, or is it a regional thing? Alex9788 22:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In the UK, "ginger" by itself is of course not always derogatory, but the word is sometimes or often used by itself in a derogatory manner, not many people would name themselves "Ginger". I reckon most would pronounce ginger (spice) and ginger (colour) exactly the same, no doubt there are regional variations though. LDHan 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I also live in the UK and this line seems to be totally fictitious, both the derogatory meaning and the pronunciation. (ginger might rhyme with ringer in Birmingham, but that's just the accent) -- Q Chris 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope I live very near Birmingham, and ginger doesn't rhyme with ringer. I see you've taken it out anyway so yeah that's that sorted. Thanks, Alex9788 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oriental

Not sure if we need an entry for this - the relevant information is covered under "Asian", and I don't see how the term can be both inoffensive (centre column) and offensive (right column) in AmE. "An Oriental" (to describe a person) is probably not the sort of expression anyone would use these days on either side of the Atlantic, but the word is being discussed as an adjective. Tevildo 20:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said when I edited the entry in my summary, I'm not convinced it needs an entry. Alex9788 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. "Roly-poly fishheads are never seen drinking cappucino in Italian restaurants with Oriental women. Yeah." Tevildo 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Meanings

In terms of the way multiple meanings in the same version of English are listed, we're currently using:

• A simple list, with the second meaning on a second line directly underneath the first.
• A numbered list using 1. and 2. with a line between each.
• Another way of numbering meanings, that Repku made a very small start in implementing using 1) and 2), a set of edits which personally I think needs reverting.

I think that both of the first two options are acceptable, but we need to stick to one or the other. Comments? Alex9788 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vacation

Could someone from the US please confirm for me, that there is no such verb as vacation, as in:

We're vacationing in France this year

I haven't vacationed since last summer

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound right to me. Thanks, Alex9788 09:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of a well-educated American: "We're vacationing in France this year" sounds perfectly fine--although perhaps a bit formal. Less formal and more common would be "We are going to France for vacation" "I haven't vacationed since last summer" is not used, instead "I haven't had a vacation since last summer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.91 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome

This word may have originated in America, but I think it is now well established on both sides of the Atlantic. Most Brits would recognise this word. Delete the entry? Alex9788 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting this word. My (British) mother had driving lessons in the US and was horrified to hear her driving described as "awesome" by the instructor. To her this meant he was terrified. He (presumably) meant it to be encouraging. Rachel Pearce 15:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal

With regards to the tags at the top of the article, here is my suggestion:

This list should contain only words where there are articles on wikipedia for both meanings. Any other entries, although of use to some people, are not relevant to wikipedia, and introduce issues of verifiability etc.

The meanings of the words listed should be a very brief summary of what is written in the first paragraph of the articles.

This would mean getting rid of a lot of entries, but I think that in itself solves some of the problems this article has.

I also think there needs to be a tag at the top of the article asking editors to discuss changes on the talk page before making them, because otherwise people will endlessly add entries to this list, or incorporate their own ideas of the meanings of words into existing entries.

All comments appreciated. Alex9788 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AISI it would both be a waste and compromise the article's usefulness if we cut it down as you suggest. The other major contributors to the article would probably agree with me.

And if every little change had to be discussed on the talk page first, the talk page would be cluttered, and people would spend time discussing changes that would be better spent making them. This is probably one of the reasons that we're encouraged to be bold in making changes. -- Smjg 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bunk?

At the weekend, I had the dubious pleasure of watching that classic cinematographic masterpiece, "Sleepaway Camp". One point that came up might need mentioning on this page. In the film, the word "Bunk" is used to refer to a group of people who share sleeping accommodation. Is this common usage in AmE? If so, I think it should go in - we could then move "bunk off" from the BrE-only page, as well. Tevildo 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From an American standpoint, a 'bunk' is either a type of bed (where two smallish beds are stacked, as here), or a group of rather plain beds used as no-frills lodging, especially when referring to a commercial campsite or the army. I've heard a group of people who share the latter type of accomodation referred to as 'bunkmates', but I've never heard the plain word 'bunk' used to refer to anything but a (collection of) inanimate object(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.159.4 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a difference worth recording. I've updated the page. 87.194.245.158 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New addition - Garnish

I'm not sure about this one. It's very similar to "real estate", where the term is known to _lawyers_ on both sides of the Atlantic, but is only in everyday use in the USA. (The AmE definition given isn't strictly correct legally, either, but it's an accurate description of the actual effect of the court order). We didn't keep "real estate" (see above), so we probably should lose this entry, as well. Tevildo 16:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I got the AmE definition from the online Miriam-Webster, so I apologise if it's wrong. I had certainly never heard of "garnishing" until I lived in the US. It may be used legally in the UK, but would not be understood unglossed by most people. Since the legal meaning (taking something away) is somehow contradictory to the "normal" meaning (adding something) I had to have it explained to me when I first encountered it. Rachel Pearce 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrgghh! MERRIAM-Webster of course! Rachel Pearce 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... The issue is that the thing itself (the garnishee order) is far more common in the USA than in the UK, so the term is commonly understood. I'm not sure whether this counts as a language _difference_, though. And, incidentally, the perceived contradiction is due to people saying "my wages have been garnished" when they should be saying "part of my wages has been used to garnish my creditor's bank account", but you can understand why they do it. :) Tevildo 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, would it not be true that the common (slighty inaccurate) usage you quote above, which is essentially completely unknown in the UK, is the one that is a US-UK difference and the correct legal term could go in the middle column?

Rachel Pearce 09:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Exaggerates

I think this page really exaggerates the differences among the various dialects of English. For example, I do not think there is any real difference between what "asian" means in the UK and what it means in the US. Also, some of the "regional differences" discussed really seem to be generational differences. I would categorize the discussion of the term "girlfriend" as a generational disagreement... at one point, "girlfriend" implied something sexual. Recently, "girlfriend" has come to mean a mere acquaintance. I don't perceive that as strictly a US trend, I perceive it as a recent change to English everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.116 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Having had to code "race" data on both sides of the Atlantic, I can confirm that there are real differences in the way "Asian" is used. Both uses are in fact inaccurate and idiosyncratic, but they are distinct.

This is certainly correct. My wife is American and someone commented about the large number of Asians in Bradford (West Yorkshire, England) . She said "that's funny, I've only seen one or two, but there are a lot of Pakistanis there. To her Asian meant Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. I can imagine someone from the UK making a similar comment about not seeing many Asians in Chinatown, San Francisco for example. -- Q Chris 07:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As for "girlfriend": this is a very complicated question, changing over time as well as by generation: when I was young(1960's & 70s) I think a girlfriend would have to have been a girl (i.e. given the use of language at the time, up to say mid 20s in age, in other words of my generation). These days older people (i.e. people of my own generation) talk about their girlfriends. I still think that "girlfriend" would generally mean a sexual partner in the UK, except when used in a slightly ironic way with the emphasis on the second syllable (or to or about very young children). If a man or woman talked about their girlfriend I would assume her to be their partner.

• In the southern US, my mother had girlfriends (female friends) in the 40s/50s. In the 80s, when she mentioned it seemed a strange way to call them we just said friends. And now, girlfriends is commonly used to talk about a group of female friends, when speaking one on one, women under 30 may call each other girlfriend. But I believe it is rarer to hear a women talk about her girlfriend (singular) to a 3rd party, unless she is in a romantic relationship with her. More often she will say friend or the name. This is at least the way it is in Southern US. Karen.

To address the general question, I suppose I would agree that the two languages are pretty much mutually comprehensible, although there are some very dangerous "false friends" (see "table"). But that does not mean that the differences do not exist. Some such differences are picked up gradually as films, TV and other media popularise them on the other side of the Atlantic. However, US usages I had never heard until I went to live there Rachel Pearce 15:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is over the top. There are, as Rachel notes, some significant differences in word meaning that are important. On the other hand there are a lot of subtle differences in usage (rather than meaning) that I don't think need to be listed, because you could go on forever and it would be neither useful nor accurate. Alex9788 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

City

I want to put city in, because I know from personal experience that it is a word with different connotations in the US and the UK. Can a US person help? In particular, on address forms (especially now that everyone uses US-based internet sites) we are asked for our "city" when many (or even most) UK people do not live in a city and the name of one would not appear in their address. The town from which their mail is delivered could be a substantial one, and even (in my case) a county town and administrative headquarters, without being a city. What size would a US town be before you would automatically call it a "city"? I think in the UK it would have to be about 500,000 people. Rachel Pearce 09:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference between towns and cities

To summarise, in both the US and UK, population isn't necessarily important, and you can get towns that are bigger than some cities. There is a difference in usage, but not one that I would believe causes too much confusion, so my personal opinion would be that an entry is not required. Alex9788 14:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I was profoundly confused when US Immigration asked me for the "city" where my parents lived. My parents lived in a hamlet of no more than 50 people. No city (in the English sense) would appear in their address. The nearest city was more than 40 miles away and of no particular relevance. What they meant (I much later found out) was what would be called in BrE "postal town" i.e. the line of the address which tells the mail system whre the mail is sorted. This is definitely a different usage. Rachel Pearce 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The crucial line of the article you link to above is : "In many U.S. states, any incorporated town is also called a city."

This usage is unknown in BrE. Rachel Pearce 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

British English incorporates many terms from American English

As a result of the mass media and the Internet, many of the terms used in American English have long been known, understood and indeed often used by speakers of British English. Most British English speakers in 2007 would associate 'faggot' with homosexuality, for example, with its older British English meanings (with the exception of 'fag' for cigarette) as somewhat archaic. That's why I agree that the factual accuracy of this list should be disputed, and that this may contain original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard quite a few British men in their 40s and 50s use American English expressions like 'bullshit' and 'faggot', for example, whereas the reverse would probably not be true. It seems as though people in any Western country, even the UK, cannot avoid being under the influence of American culture. I have no opinion on this, because in some ways I would rather hear American English than English English, being Scottish myself.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't "is it used by Brits?", but "is it unique to Brits?" I've heard, & sometimes used, many of the Britlish forms, & some of the Americanisms I've seen are unusual to me; which ones are almost never heard in Britain or the U.S. is the issue. (I also have a hunch improved communications has as much to do with it as "cultural domination"; we get BBC/ITV & US network TV here, so we've got exposure to both. Some small amounts of OzTV, too.) Trekphiler (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Amber

This should be removed, if you do a poll and ask an American what amber is would most probably say: orange-yellow colour or fossilised resin, not AMBER Alert. Webhat (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about it! But we are supposed to list all the meanings, regardless of their frequency. And btw, this is one of the issues that need to be addressed. Jack^(Lumber) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Affair

I have heard the word "affair" used in the US to mean "party" or "social gathering" in a way it would never be used in the UK (in my experience anyway). E.g. "She's planning a big affair." I mean one might use it of a previously mentioned event: "The Queen's garden party was a very swanky affair." but the primary meaning (infidelity) would make the "planning an affair" phrase unusable in British English unless one wanted the double entendre. Is this "party" usage common in the US or has someone been teasing me?) Rachel Pearce (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was very commonly used in the US but I would have no trouble parsing it and would not assume the double entendre without a wink or two to go along... Dennypayne (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting this article into alphabetical sections.

May I suggest that this article be split into 26 alphabetical sections? The fact that this is section 56 on the talk page itself suggests that the article is too long. This would have the effect that discusions on particular words could be kept on a narrower bandwidth and would therefore help to reduce duplication. It may also help with dealing with the quality issues that have been raised. Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I think to split it into 26 actual articles would carry more disadvantages than advantages, even though this article is long. Alex9788 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Then consider the possibility of something between the two extremes, like splitting it into a few pages each covering a range of initial letters. Let's get the debate going now: How many pages should we have, and where should we draw the various lines? -- Smjg (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Air Marshal

Would it be pedantic to point out that, strictly speaking, in GB Air Marshal is equivalent rank to Lieutenant-General and Vice-Admiral? PatGallacher (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Featherbed

Am I right this is also used as a verb ("to featherbed" or "featherbeading"), meaning "make oneself a cushy position"? U.S. or Brit? Trekphiler (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to featherbed = to pamper or spoil, or to provide (for oneself or others) a cushy position. Both BrE and AmE. No difference, so not for this article. Sorry - try again. I think there is a difference, and I have added something to both the BrE column and the common-meanings column. Snalwibma (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tossing off

Am I right this applies also to having sex, or just masturbation? Confirm & include? Trekphiler (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally just masturbation, though it can be used to describe a handjob, as in "she grabbed hold of his dick and tossed him off". -- Q Chris (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's still _masturbation_ (as opposed to self-abuse), of course. :) 87.194.245.158 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugger

Can someone explain how the term "bugger" is used as endearment in the US? I.E. In what context? It doesn't make sense! Also, I often hear bugger meaning not anal sex, but as a mild insult - "stop playing silly buggers and help me with this ironing" - is an example.

Anyone else? St91 (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it would be considered a term of endearment. I have heard and used it as, "That little bugger" as in "that little stinker". I would use it in place of calling someone a swear word, so I guess it's more of a euphemism. I'm not sure if it's regional here though; I live on the west coast of the U.S. and speak what would be called General American. Kman543210 (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its a Texas thing. When my wife first came to the UK I had to tell her not to refer to neighbour's kids as little buggers. She associated the word with "bug" as in insect and also calls kids names like "sally-bug", etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can see "bugger" being used towards a kid in the same way that I would use "tyke". To me, it would be equivalent to calling them "rascals" or something like that. Kman543210 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Beaker

When in USA some years ago I asked for a "beaker" in the UK sense of "A drinking vessel without a handle, sometimes for the use of children", and was met with blank looks. Is this another candidate? - Wiktionary does not appear to identify different UK or US uses. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that would be a candidate if it's not already there. In the U.S., a beaker is a glass cylinder-like thing used in science class. Kman543210 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's used in that sense as well in the UK, but also in the sense of a child's drinking vessel, usually of unbreakable plastic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanings Missed

If this is supposed to be a list of words with different meanings, then shouldn't the words actually have meanings? If there's no meaning in either British or American English then one should be added, or the entry should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemarshall04 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just one of many problems. I discussed this and other issues when I nominated the article for deletion last year (read the discussion). See also The way forward. Rachel Pearce also raised a couple of interesting questions. Jack^(Lumber) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Do you think that there should be a defininition for each word in both the British and American columns? As long as there is a definition in one of the columns and one in the "both" column, that is fine. If there is only a definition in one column, then that word would belong in the other articles that state words that are rarely used. I do not believe the article should be delted, but rather improved. Kman543210 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I never really believed that deletion is the solution, either. (If these articles were to be deleted, I would lose 999 edits--this one being edit #1000!)

I think that this clumsy article and its two equally impractical siblings (#1, #2) should be merged into one article titled American and British English lexical differences (along the lines of American and British English differences, American and British English spelling differences, American and British English pronunciation differences) to address the concerns I raised in my nomination; the merged article should look something like this. Jack^(Lumber) 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Track

The word "platform" is also used in US English when talking about trains. Using it alone, without denoting which track to go to would be inadequate, as a platform may serve more than one track. Perhaps platforms are numbered in Britain, and the tracks are not? Still, I find it unlikely that there would be no way to differentiate between the two trains reachable from one platform; one on track 1, the other on track 2! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.74.211 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You may find it unlikely, but in British English the platforms are indeed numbered and the tracks are not (or more accurately, I'm sure the railway companies have numbers for them, but they are not used by or for the public. The piece of raised land between two tracks will have two "platform numbers", usually consecutive - one for each side e.g. a station with two tracks running in each direction might have Platform 1 on one side, platforms 2 and 3 in the middle and platform 4 on the other side. Like this, where ":" is track and "|" is platform edge

Ticket office 1| : : |2 3| :  : |4

Occasionally two sections of the same side of the same platform have different numbers, usually something like "4a" and "4b". Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mint

Isn't "mint" often used as an adjective in Britain? Such as in, "that's mint", meaning "oh that's classic" or "that's awesome". I've never heard it used in that way over here in the U.S., but I've heard it occasionally in British media and in talking with Brits. bob rulz (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good current teenage slang in Britain. May be worth an entry. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)