Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Gauntlet/gantlet etymology

I believe the etymology section for this word has been mixed up (towards the bottom of the page,American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Miscellaneous_spelling_differences . There are as far as I know two different etymologies for gauntlet. One is the French word gantelet (meaning armoured glove as in throw down the gauntlet), the other is the Swedish word gatlopp, later gant(e)lope in English (a type of punishment, transferred to mean hardship in general, run the gauntlet). I don't have my hard copy dictionaries at hand so I can't quote, but there is a mention of it referenced from American Heritage Dictionary on [1]. I would remove the part about "running the glove" in the table, but would appreciate feedback on my suspicion first.† Herzleid † (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. More external references are given at Gauntlet track#Usage and origins and Running the gauntlet#Post-Roman usage. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

POV and original research in this article

Before I even begin to edit this page I have to point out that the image of the Contra Costa sign has POV in the image text. To say "Many places in the U.S. use the British spelling centre for its exotic appearance....." Come on. You've got to be kidding. That is blatant POV and original research. You know this article is really lacking in true research. It is causing many conflicts with editors. One editor is running around changing the word theatre to theater even on pages where the name of the article is spelled RE and then referring others to this page. Guys (and gals) have you seen this? Theatre. OK, now try this Theater.

This is not right. This article is stating what is correct spelling when it is not correct. We need to come to a consensus on this as it is beginning to effect MANY articles. There is an international spelling that has been accepted for years and that is the RE spelling.

By the way....this IS the English Wikipedia...not the American Wikipedia. Maybe we should think about that. (I live in California)--Amadscientist (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, we have an article Theatre in Chicago, which is clearly about an American topic, and includes links to such things as the Goodman Theatre, the Steppenwolf Theatre, the Victory Gardens Theater and the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. It is, of course, conceivable, that about half the theaters in Chicago deliberately mis-spell their names in order to appear like sophisticated Britons.--Bhuck (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV. I am changing the text in this image. It is not based on the spelling variation, it is because to state a fact without a citation that is clearly the point of view of the person writing it is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have waited for consensus, and find the silence to be such. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an episode of TV's The Rockford Files which involves Rockford visiting a number of theatres/theaters around California where he's based. IIRC, just about all of them spell theatre as 'Theatre', which surprised me. Perhaps someone who lives-in and knows the area might like to see if my memory is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.15 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that surprising--Theatre is actually fairly common in proper nouns, establishment names, etc. in much of the U.S. Look it up in the "Yellow Pages"! I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is POV - there is no "British English" there is english as spoken and accepted by everyone else in the world. and Americans - as far as i can see missing out the occasional u and wanting to force everyone else to accept it as per their usual domination agenda as in their attempt to change the world rules of football when they were first mistakenly allowed to host the world-cup. They were of course told no by the rest of the world who actually play the game.Jameselmo (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

>there is no "British English"

scholarly opinion is not with you on that one, I'm afraid

>wanting to force everyone else to accept it

what?

>as in their attempt to change the world rules of football

irrelevant

Hadrian89 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Theatre and the RE, ER spelling variation

The section discussing this is lacking in references. I have chosen not to delete these sections regardless of my right to do so with unsourced information so that editors may have the chance to do their research. Please be aware that claims of expertise cannot be verified, so Wikipedia requires consensus and citations that are verifiable.

I will also endeavor to research this subject to collaborate my own beliefs as I was taught. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why add "fact" tags just to that section? Why not go ahead and sprinkle them throughout the article? The article is full of points that are "lacking references". But in fact all of them are sourced – from the dictionaries listed in the reference section, so they are perfectly well referenced. Before I delete all those tags again, however, I will see how this discussion develops. In my view, there is no need to insert an in-line citation for every point that is easily verifiable by a quick check of one of the dictionaries listed. To do this would make the article cumbersome and unreadable. But perhaps what is needed is some form of words at the top of the article explaining that the content is verified in the dictionaries listed. Would that help?

I am curious, however, to know what it is that you do not believe. What are those beliefs that you were taught, and that you wish to corroborate? Do you mean that there is some doubt that -RE = BrE and -ER = AmE? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most of the statements can readily be verified by reference to standard dictionaries. I've checked a couple of claims and provided the OED as reference. There are others that I don't have the resources to check, but I don't doubt their validity. Are there particular beliefs that this article contradicts? I have found from my own experience that some of the things that I was taught are not in fact true! Dbfirs 08:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very true. I have been taught many things that don't hold true today. More to the point I guess is how some information changes in spelling and that today more than any other time the RE spelling is coming back. It is not a misspelling as Bhuck has stated. It actually is correct. However I am not going to change an article with the ER spelling to reflect my view. That is how this started and I was point blank asked if I thought this article was wrong. Some points are. Most important is the POV about why anyone would use one spelling over the other. We cannot say it is to seem exotic or to look like sophisticated Brits. That would be an individual point of view. I see a small amount of that in this particular section, as well as claims to what is current use that do need to be referenced....and not with a dictionary.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've supplied one requested ref in response to the implied, but totally unreasonable, threats of deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That was not a threat to delete anything. Wikipedia states clearly that unreferenced material that may be challenged must have citations. I am saying that I am NOT deleting. I am discussing. The article has some problems but in this particular section the question is whether the use of ER in theatre and many other words is correct for American usage today. I did notice citations being used are pretty old. Oxford dictionary from 1989? Really? You don't think that this use changed in 20 years? "The State of the Language" from 1984? Anyway the first citation is for the statement "Most of these words have the ending -er in the US". That does need to be referenced and may need to be reworded. Their is POV in this section. It is making claims that even I as a layman can see don't hold up to actual usage today.

User:Bhuck and I are debating this here as well as at another article but I am not looking for people to run and start another revert war on that page. It wouldn't look good for any of us and only makes matters worse.

I am saying that people need to understand that the ER-RE usage in English changed at one time, and is changing again. I do not wish to use Wikipedia as a battle ground. What I do want is an article that has clear citations that are as up to date as possible. For this particular subject using even a twenty year old book could well have a difference. I will not make changes here until I research and discuss what I find. Thank You.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be an interesting thesis indeed, and certainly worth noting in the article, if the prevailing -er spelling had shifted in the last twenty years to become the -re spelling. Were the Chicago theaters I mentioned above either spelled differently, or non-existent twenty years ago?--Bhuck (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is my point. My very point indeed. They were there named at an earlier time. California Musical Theater was originally Sacramento Light Opera Association until the mid 90s. It spelling reflects a new outlook on the spelling of the name theatre. It's actually one conversation I remember having with it's executive staff about the spelling. Now that is original research and has no place in either article but lead me to this position and I am finding that theatre is being spelled more often now with the RE spelling. I have a number of citations now but I am waiting still for more. I know there is an article from a major paper on this subject but can't remember the name of the article or the paper. However there is one thing coming to light from my research. All books on spelling I am finding from the mid 90s forward do state plainly that either spelling is not a misspelling as long as consistency is kept.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Those who are mystified by what it is that is or is not believed can get some background information at Talk:California Musical Theatre. The current text also seems very confusing. Why do some theatrical institutions choose to annoy the New York Times editorial staff and numerous dictionary editors and name their theaters XY Theatre, even if they are in the U.S.? See my examples from Chicago in the previous talk section #POV and original research in this article.--Bhuck (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the example of 'Fibres' and 'Fibres' for American formed nouns and verbs is a poor one. Both nations keep the 'e' in this plural. As opposed to 'centering' (US) and 'centring' (UK). Whilst the notion is correct, the distinction between the words in this context is not noticable, and therefore unhelpful.

Uneducated and ill-informed computer users outside the US

As one such user, I deleted "uneducated and ill-informed computer users outside the US" as an opinion, pending a citation. However, the contributor asks: "shouldn't we just delete this paragraph?" Perhaps we should. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:OR. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks, and apologies for opinion. I would support a milder statement about US spelling checkers creating confusion, but not changing spelling. Dbfirs 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No offence/offense taken: I didn't take it as wholly serious! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't intend to offend, and I didn't mean it wholly seriously either. Now that Bill Gates is concentrating on making good use of his fortune, perhaps we no longer need fear Microsoft monopoly. Dbfirs 12:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "spelling chequers"?? Baska436 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

'verify' is 'check'; 'cheque' is the financial term. Peter Grey (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

judgement does not prevail in UK (except in law)

Despite the claim "sources... don't support the contention", Cambridge University Press and Longman have clearly decided that judgment is the more common UK spelling because they list it first and without a regional label. --Espoo (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oxford University Press and Chambers Harrap have decided the opposite. Dictionary preferences are motivated by a variety of factors, of which frequency of usage is only one. jnestorius^(talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is another factor at play here: The widespread incidence of American spellings in spellcheck programs, even in programs where the BritEng option has been selected. The fact that these spelling-frequencies are taken from newspapers only points up the commonly-observable fact that sub-editors are effectively out of a job, and that journalists usually sub their own work. As they obviously can't spell without the spellcheck, they are at the mercy of the American spellcheck.

Allow me to reiterate, judgement is the only correct spelling in British uasge.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Please read the whole discussion below. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 22:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

	Daily Telegraph	Guardian	Independent	BBC	Channel 4	ITV
judgment	15,900 [2]	43,400 [3]	4,020 [4]	12,600 [5]	1,770 [6]	81 [7]
judgement	7,090 [8]	4,960 [9]	11,100 [10]	2,710 [11]	2,170 [12]	77 [13]

Google hits as above would seem to indicate they are both in widespread use in the UK, equally acceptable, and wiki should not state a preference. Ty 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a genuine case of a change in the usual spelling. The OED lists first, and mainly cites, the "standard" UK spelling with the "e" to soften the "g", as was required by spelling rules taught fifty years ago in Britain. This spelling (judgement) also seems to be occasionally used in the US. Dbfirs 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Our main source, i.e. the Cambridge Guide to English Usage, states that judgement, the more regular spelling, strongly endorsed by the OED, has been the more common spelling in Britain (except in "legal contexts") for quite some time. Yet the "American" spelling judgment was used in the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. In the British National Corpus, judgement is used by twice as many source texts as judgment; in the Cambridge Corpus of American English, judgment is more common by a factor of 30 to 1. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting especially since the Cambridge University Press lists "judgment" first and only "judgmental(ly)" in this dictionary. I'll check their other, larger dictionaries soon. Longman seems to also have decided that judgment is the more common UK spelling because it lists it first and without a regional label in this and other dictionaries like L Exams Dict. Do you know if these dictionaries have prescriptive goals and/or try to harmonise spellings, i.e. choose spellings that are possible in most countries and thereby improve acceptance and sales :-) --Espoo (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to view judgement as British and judgment as American; either is accepted in the UK, different style guides favour one or the other, and unedited text may use either. CALD is for learners and aims to be dialect-neutral, which might tip the balance in favour of judgment since it prevails in the US. Also, beware of using BNC for spelling evidence, since it includes spoken dialogue, with transcriptions done in some standardised spelling. The simple web interface doesn't allow exclusion of speech, and I don't know the transcription spelling conventions, except that "er" and "erm" are used for filled pauses. jnestorius^(talk) 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of "judg(e)mental(ly)" on UK university sites:

126 from ac.uk for judgmentally

8,420 from ac.uk for judgementally

5,940 from ac.uk for judgmental

8,180 from ac.uk for judgemental

I did not query the BNC myself--Pam Peters did, so take it out on her... I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pam Peters is Australian, and has an agenda of spelling reform for Australian English. Neverthless, she mainly writes a lot of sense. The spelling does seem to have shifted away from judgement which was the only permissible spelling fifty years ago, back to King James's spelling. Dbfirs 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"We may follow the Oxford manner and write abridgement, acknowledgement, and judgement on the ground that these forms are more in accordance with English values of letters, but we should not object in the least to the Cambridge fashion of writing abridgment, acknowledgment, and judgment." - Simeon Potter, Our Language (1966), p.75. jnestorius^(talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an Oxford vs. Cambridge thing, then. This helps explain why CALD prioritizes judgment. (Not surprisingly, in OALD the main headword is judgement, and judgment is tagged "especially American.") I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 02:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

colo(u)ration, colo(u)rable

I (a US American) remember reading about a UK spelling rule to use Latin -or spelling before Latin suffixes and "normal" -our English (British) i.e. French spelling before suffixes that are not (or are no longer perceived as) Latin. Can somebody confirm this? It seems, however, that many even highly educated people in the UK no longer know about or bother to make that distinction:

9,930 Google hits from ac.uk for colouration (incorrect according to traditional UK rules)

6,500 from ac.uk for coloration (correct...)

1,200 from ac.uk for colorable (incorrect...)

2,250 from ac.uk for colourable (correct...) --Espoo (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on perception of Latin? Few understand the language these days. Both coloration and colouration have been in common use in the UK since both spellings were used by Bacon in 1626 and 1651 respectively. I don't think traditional UK rules go back that far. I think colorable is just Americans at UK institutions. Dbfirs 16:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't/didn't really need to know any Latin to be able to follow the rule, which i'm very sure was taught in UK schools (at least until recently) because i remember reading about it. The whole point is that -able looks English (despite its Latin origins) and so requires/d the normal British spelling colour, whereas -ation is perceived as more fancy or formal i.e. Latin and requires/d color- even in British spelling.

The fact that colouration has existed for a long time shows that it took a long time for the rule to catch on / develop (and that it was maybe always observed only among highly educated people), but the fact that coloration has been and is tolerated whereas colorable and especially color are not shows that some rule existed that permitted / prescribed this spelling that violates the normal British -our spelling.

And yes, you're probably at least partly right about colorable, which i'm sure hurts British eyes almost as much as color. Maybe colorable is also written by British students who have become confused by the traditional UK spelling coloration or by reading a lot of US texts and/or who have decided US spelling is the international language, especially of science. --Espoo (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that color- is used if the suffix carries the accent - can anyone verify this? Peter Grey (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maths

Brits and the like say "maths" when referring to mathematics whereas Americans say "math".

So do Australians.--114.74.147.1 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Both short for mathematics, obviously, but math is certainly easier to say than maths. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Easier to say; but not easier to do.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Harder to say, actually, at least in conversation, so i suspect BB is offering opinion only. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Math" is the American term, but I still uses it because it sounds better, despite being English. (It's "mathematics" not "mathsematics".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJN SEIFER (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian English

I am Australian and I know for a fact that Australians use British spellings all the time. Sometimes American spellings are accidentally used because the spell check default setting is American English.

I am also Australian and agree. Most of us grew up on the "Oxford" dictionary because Aust dictionaries didn't start arriving until 1960-70s. (I am 57 and went to school in 50s and 60s). Euc (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Australian, but we are taught to agree that. However, you use eggplant and zucchini instead of aubergine and courgette, which are claimed to be used in British (however my British host family always said eggplant). However, I don't think it's such a big difference, but you still have cases which are the same as American, but different than British. But that's not spelling. Ferike333 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Australian here; british spelling is the norm here with a smattering of American names for things here and there. Mjharrison (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

spelling used in this article

Is there policy about what spelling to use on this page? The normal WP policies about local spellings doesn't apply. We don't want to waste time switching spellings back and forth, and we probably don't want different spellings of the same words and word elements. For example -ize is correct in both UK and US spelling and used everywhere on this page, but someone felt that -isa- should not be changed to -iza-. --Espoo (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wandering the same. The main body of the article seems to be consistently written in British English. So based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style I would guess the consensus for this article is British English. Sendalldavies (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you enjoy your "wander"?

Ligatures

The last paragraph of Simplification of ae (æ) and oe (œ) on which European languages use the æ or œ ligatures or what their equivalent is has little to do with the article's subject. The topic is about the difference between American and British usage of ae and oe, not about their use in general. Alloverme (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And is partially incorrect. Remove, someone .. ? or .. something? 83.248.35.216 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Chili vs. chilli?

The page itself seems to note that these are alternate spellings, and it would seem likely from here and here that chili is more American, and from here and here that chilli is more British, but it's kind of a loanword anyway, so can this really be verified? Atp627 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Claro que si. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of food it is definitely spelt "chilli" in Britain. Oxford, Cambridge and Collins dictionaries all concur. Sendalldavies (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

An hairy pickle to be in

I came here looking for the "a vs. an" usage that precedes the "h" sound. If I'm not mistaken, British grammar allows the "an" before the "h", as in "an hairy pickle". American grammar requires it to be "a hairy pickle". I looked all over this article, but found nothing on this difference. Or did I just miss the bleedin' entry? My guess is that, as in other cases, consistency within an article governs usage?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The rule is based on the initial sound of the following word, whether vowel, consonant, semi-vowel (or glottal stop in some dialects). It's independent of spelling. Peter Grey (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know from pickles, but probably the most common "an before h" in my experience is a phrase such as "an historic event". That phrase is used in American as well as British English. You can also say "a historic event", which kind of forces you to say the "h" fairly strongly, and frankly doesn't sound quite right. When preceded by "an", the "h" is spoken softly or almost not at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"An hairy" is certainly wrong in either form of written English (though you will hear people who drop the letter H say "an 'airy"). The Collins dictionary (BrE) explains it thus: "An was formerly often used before words that begin with h and are unstressed on the first syllable: an hotel; an historic meeting. Sometimes the initial h was not pronounced. This usage is now becoming obsolete." The small Merriam-Webster (AmE) pretty much agrees. The reason there is nothing on it in the article is that there is no difference betwen AmE and BrE. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you find "an hairy", then it is either some kind of joke, or an attempt to represent a local accent or mispronunciation. There are still people in England who mistakenly think that they have to say "an hotel" even when they pronounce the "h", because they were taught spelling when the "h" in hotel was silent (as it possibly still is in some pronunciations). Dbfirs 07:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"A policeman's lot is not an 'appy one." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your input! No longer in an 'airy pickle on this one. <g>  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice article

I learnt a lot from reading this. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean you *learned* a lot! There is no such word as 'learnt'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.201.219 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. From what I can tell, it is only the Americans that consider 'learnt' to be incorrect, and use 'learned' instead. I think everywhere else uses 'learnt'. See wiktionary:learnt. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not like that. And wiktionary is not a reliable source anyway. (learned is not a different "spelling" of learnt.)

As a matter of fact, British English uses both learned and learnt, learned being somewhat more common. (The anon above was British, btw.)

As for U.S. English, it's not that learnt is incorrect over here--it's simply not used.

Irregular verbs are a matter of *grammar* rather than spelling; it's all covered (and properly sourced) in the main article under American and British English differences#Verb morphology. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Learnt is a word which I use constantly, and recall from a childood spent in large part in Appalachia that it is a word used by a lot of other Americans. But then again, in that region learnt was often used in sentences instead of taught as in “My dad learnt me to swim.” But I digress … From Webster’s:

Main Entry: learn

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): learned \-nd, -nt, Brit usually -nt\; also learnt \-nt\; learned also learnt; learning; learns

Citation: “learn.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (30 Apr. 2009) Emphasis added.

By the way, I hear learnt used quite often here in the Greater Toronto Area (Central Canada).

— SpikeToronto (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Explaining Webster's 3rd:

• U.S. usage usually has learned, occasionally learnt. (That's what the "also" means.)
• In British English, the word is usually pronounced "learnt" regardless of how it's spel{led, t}. [The -nt in backslashes indicates pronunciation and not spelling.] (This was probably true in 1961, when that dictionary was published. I'm not so sure about now.)
• Nothing is said about British usage as far as spelling is concerned.

My guess is that, in U.S. English, learned people use learned :) I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, didn't quite expect such a big discussion from my comments. Thanks for the clarification though. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 07:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is really nothing to add - except that learnt/learned can be spelt either way. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I’m not sure that I completely agree with JackLumber’s explanation of the Webster’s entry for learn.

• The entry is taken from the revision of the dictionary and is dated 2002
• According to Webster’s user’s guide for the dictionary, the “inflected forms” section is not merely as regards pronunciation: That’s what the “pronunciation” section is for. The “inflected forms” section provides the inflections for the verb entry and spelling variants for those inflections, if any.

• Thus, Webster’s is saying something about spelling as far as both American and British usage is concerned.

• Moreover, according to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, learnt is an accepted British spelling variant. In the following, note the variations given, and further note the third and fourth examples:

Definition

learn

verb learned or UK ALSO learnt, learned or UK ALSO learnt

1 [I or T] to get knowledge or skill in a new subject or activity:

They learn Russian at school.

"Can you drive?" "I'm learning."

I've learned a lot about computers since I started work here.

[+ to infinitive] I'm learning to play the piano.

[+ question word + to infinitive] First you'll learn (how) to use this machine.

2 [T] to make yourself remember a piece of writing by reading it or repeating it many times:

I don't know how actors manage to learn all those lines.

We were told to learn Portia's speech by heart (= be able to say it from memory) for homework.

3 [I or T] to start to understand that you must change the way you behave:

She'll have to learn that she can't have everything she wants.

She soon learnt not to contradict him.

He's not afraid to learn from his mistakes.

4 [I or T] to be told facts or information that you did not know:

We were all shocked to learn of his death.

[+ (that)] I later learnt (that) the message had never arrived.

I only learnt about the accident later.

(Emphasis is as at Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary except for text in red, which is added).

Taken together, one may interpret Webster’s and Cambridge Dictionaries as telling us that learnt is perfectly acceptable — in both pronunciation and spelling — on both sides of the pond. Or at least that’s what I learnt today … and am thusly more learned … :)

— SpikeToronto (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are both forms of spelling correct when the word "learned" is pronounced as two syllables? As in...

• learn-ed?

That is, the spellings... "learned", as you spelled it, SpikeToronto, and also "learnèd"?

 ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Let's factor the pronunciation issue out of the equation, and let's focus on spelling for a moment. "The matter between reversed virgules \\ is the pronunciation." (W3, Explanatory Notes, page 14a.)

If we take out pronunciation information (that is, everything that's between backslashes), the W3 entry reads thusly:

Main Entry: learn

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): learned; also learnt; learned also learnt; learning; learns

What does the label also mean? "When another spelling or form is joined to the first entry by the word also instead of or, the spelling or form after also is a secondary variant and occurs less frequently than the first form." (ibid.)

Now, it is worth noting that Webster's Third does not distinguish between common-core (UK + US) English and Americanisms (US only). For example, the entry for theater reads

theater or theatre \ [pronunciation] \ n -s [etymology] 1 a: ...

This entry implies that theater and theatre are both used and acceptable in the U.S., with theater being more common and theatre being an equal variant. (Not a "secondary variant"; note the or). Clearly, nothing is said about British usage; indeed, we know for a fact that theatre is the one and only spelling in the UK.

Now, the entry for learn

Inflected Form(s): learned; also learnt; learned also learnt; learning; learns

implies that

(1) learned is the primary form (in the U.S.) and

(2) learnt is a "secondary variant" (in the U.S.).

Again, nothing is said about British usage.

If we look at the "matter between reversed virgules," we get pronunciation information on *both* U.S. and British usage. Namely,

Inflected Form(s): learned \-nd, -nt, Brit usually -nt\; also learnt \-nt\; learned also learnt; learning; learns

This means that

(1) the form learned is pronounced \-nd\ or \-nt\ in the U.S., but usually \-nt\ in Britain;

(2) the form learnt is always pronounced \-nt\.

Webster's Third was first published in 1961; it was reprinted with an addenda section in 1966, which was subsequently expanded in 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1993, and 2002. The main body of the dictionary, however, has basically remained the same since 1961, and a few entries are indeed dated. For example, slash (the punctuation mark) is defined by cross-reference to diagonal. In the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition, 2003), slash is of course the main term, reflecting current usage.

Last September, Merriam-Webster published an Advanced Learner's Dictionary--at long last. Unlike American dictionaries for native speakers, MWALD distinguishes between Americanisms and common-core English. And MWALD basically agrees with CALD [14] in saying that learned is common-core English, and learnt is a "chiefly British" variant.

Incidentally, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has learned (pronounced \-nd\ or \-nt\) as the only possible past form without even mentioning learnt, which has its own entry where it's defined as a "chiefly British" variant. We may therefore speculate that the use of learnt in U.S. English has dwindled over the past 40 years.

I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting that "learned" has another meaning for which "learnt" is not a substitute. My learned friend; the learned judge; my learned adversary. It's a fairly common compliment/insult in formal situations. "The previous learned speaker would have done well to have followed his usual high standards and carried out some, perhaps any, research before rising".80.58.205.99 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else annoyed by the comment about "grey" and "gray" being used differently in the USA, in that one indicates the "colour", and the other "the adjective"? A colour IS an adjective. That sentence is uninformative and should be eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.185.171 (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Learned and learnt are interchangeable in U.K. English, but not U.S. English. Leanrt only appears in Southern U.S. dialects, and areas that are influenced by Canadian spellings. (which, in turn, are somewhat influenced by U.K. spellings) Outside of these areas, the usage of learnt comes off as belonging to a Southern dialect, or otherwise ignorant. Note that I'm not trying to make a POV statement, of course. This is how Americans outside of these regions will perceive the usage of learnt.

To elaborate, it's common for Southern U.S. dialects to use -t for many past participle forms. This is just because of a lack of knowledge on the user's part about irregular verbs, or verb endings in general. People, in some Southern regions, will actually say things like fount instead of found. This is where the conception that learnt denotes a lack of education stems from.

In conclusion, if you're an American, it's proper-usage to say / spell learned. 72.155.98.170 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding Canadian and Australian spellings

Would it be crazy to add another section to the chart, showing the differences between these two countries as well? It seems silly to me to have to read the box at the side for Canadian/Australian spellings, when it could be in the chart clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.206.210 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be highly in favor/favour of this. You'd be surprised how rare comprehensive Canadian spelling lists are. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed before. Long story short, (1) this article is called American and British English spelling differences, not American and British and Canadian and Australian and you-name-it English spelling differences, and the reason why is that (2) this article is part of a series on American and British English, not American and British and Canadian and Australian and you-name-it English, and that's because (3) American and British English are the reference norms (as per Trudgill, Crystal, McArthur etc.) and (4) we don't have enough sources and references to provide systematic, comprehensive information on Canadian and Australian spelling and (5) some Canadian and Australian spellings are currently in the article as *additional* information, so don't look a gift horse in the mouth--I'd rather take them out altogether (6) if we allow for Canadian and Australian variants, then everybody would probably start to add their own favo(u)rite variants and the article would quickly deteriorate into a free-for-all and grow out of control. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In most cases a particular regional variant is adopting most or all the spellings of en-GB and then some of en-US, so it makes sense to consider Canada, Australia, etc. in terms of the two-way split American vs. British. So this is the article where they belong, unless they become unwieldly and need to be split off into a separate article. There might be more a systematic way of presenting the data, as well as clarifying where spelling differences are considered tolerable variations as opposed to 'incorrect' spellings. Peter Grey (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of JackLumber's points. (1) and (2) are pedantic. (3) explains why an explanation of US/UK differences is more important in the grand scheme of things, but doesn't prove other differences are unimportant. I heartily endorse the inclusion of as much information about other varieties as can reliably and conveniently be added. The existing perfunctory paragraph in the "Historical origins" section of this article:

The spelling systems of Commonwealth countries and Ireland, for the most part, closely resemble the British system. In Canada, however, while most spelling is "British", many "American" spellings are also used. Additional information on Canadian and Australian spelling is provided throughout the article.

could at least do with citations and wikilinks to Australian English#Spelling and Canadian English#Spelling and dictionaries.

(6) doesn't worry me. Apart from South Africa, what other variety has a standard dictionary to cite as reference?

(4) is a fair point:

• It would be convenient if we could simply say at the top "Australian spellings are as British, unless stated." That would be feasible if the relevant Australian dictionaries give consistent information, although each row in the table would need to be cited individually; also, whenever someone adds a row, someone else needs to add an Australian cite or exception-note pronto. For Canada, the vacillation between U.S. and British is even greater, which would make a similar strategy even more impractical.
• If we were to sytematize coverage of other dialects, there are two basic ways of altering the table structure:
  • add a new column for each dialect, with the relevant preferred spelling; add any further notes to the Notes column. I do think that would be a lot of clutter and duplication for not much extra information. When I said above "as much information as can conveniently be added", this is the inconveniency I would not support.
  • have columns for the spellings and separate columns for the dialects, like this:

British spelling	American spelling	UK	US	Aus	Can	Notes
liquorice	licorice	aaab	b	ab	bba	liquorice has a folk etymology cognate with liquor.
mould	mold	a	b		ab	in all senses of the word.

Where the a-aaab-aab-ab-ba-bba-bbba-b value would symbolize the relative frequency of the two main variants. I'm not literally suggesting an aabb code, as that would be intimidatingly non-intuitive; but if someone had some nice icons it might be user-friendly and not add to the complexity of the table. If we don't have a reference for Australia or Canada for a particular word, we just leave the relevant cell empty, as in the Australia-mo(u)ld above. jnestorius^(talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

fuze / fuse

I'm missing this pair, but I can understand it's not there because it's rather a technical term. A "fuze" has nothing to do with a fuse which you find in households so that you don't burn your house if your washing-machine wreaks havoc once again. A fuze is an element(more exactly: a pyrotechnic initiator) you can find attached to bombs for the purpose of setting 'em off. What about the spelling now? The US spelling - in this meaning! - is ALWAYS "fuze" with a z, unless you tell me otherwise. BE may also use "fuse" with an s, but this is not recommended because it must not be confused with a fuse in a fuse box. -andy 92.229.132.73 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not really. As far as I know, fuse is the more common U.S. spelling, as in this song by Bruce Springsteen [15]. I'm not sure about technical usage, though. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed at fuse (explosives). A piece of string that burns is a fuse, everywhere. A complicated hunk of gadgetry, that sets off a bomb, is a fuze. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

prise/prize/pry

A look at COCA suggests that US authors overwhelmingly reject both "prize" and "prise" in favor of "pry". The article that you rely on to support saying American speakers "often" use "pry" understates the case. At COCA "pr* it open" yielded 29 occurrences of "pry" and 2-3 (one possible misspelling) for "prise"/"prize". In my years of native-speaker experience I have never heard anything other than "pry". BTW, great article. DCDuring (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

-ize vs -ise

Even though -ize is the original form of most words, it is still not necessarily false to say that -ize is an Americanism.

It is certainly more common in North America and the UK, and if it were to increase in popularity in the UK, it would surely be down to the influence of American English. I'd say that's arguably enough to qualify as an "americanism", but I accept that people differ on this. As such, the NPOV would be to say that it is regarded by some as an Americanism without judging this as correct or incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Australian 'yse'

The sentence In Australia, -yse stands alone is ambiguous. Does it mean alone in the sense of exceedingly rare, or standing alone in the sense of a complete absence of competing forms? Peter Grey (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Vowel Shift of 1385

I removed this for WP:TOPIC, but it's back. In what way does the usages of English courtiers in the 14th century relate to the subject of this article, please?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I have removed it again. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I use plow to refer to a gasoline powered plow whereas a horsedrawn plow is a plough. I also distinguish between ax (tool) and axe (weapon).

The Ameriacn spelling "plow" appears to derive from the Latin "plovus".

Yoghurt is still occasionally used in the US. I also saw yogurt used in Ireland. 67.188.45.27 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So if I used the tool to cut down a tree, but then chopped off your leg with it, you'd first spell it AX and then AXE?

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur

I have just graduated with an MChem from Durham in England, and have exclusively used and been taught to use "sulfur" since way back in secondary school. I have no evidence, but can recall seeing this spelling being used often in Britain, and think it should be in the table for British English too; I'm hesitant at editing the description to fit, however. Tom Meakin (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny case: "sulphur" is the Oxford Dictionary spelling, and is found in, for example, medical literature; however, "sulfur" is the official IUPAC spelling. See Sulfur#Spelling_and_etymology. Peter Grey (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Joolery

Currently, the pronunciation of jewelry as /ˈdʒuː.lə.ri/ is considered nonstandard (it's preceded by an obelus in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary) and, more importantly, has nothing to do with the spelling (compare the often stigmatized /ˈnuː.kjə.lɚ/ for nuclear). However, for many (if not most) speakers of U.S. English, jewel is pronounced /ˈdʒuːl/ and rhymes with fool rather than with dual (some speakers may also pronounce dual to rhyme with fool, but whatever.) Adding /ri/ to /ˈdʒuːl/ would force a speaker to pronounce the cluster /uːlr/, which is difficult to articulate. If you add an extra schwa before the /r/ (thus creating a new syllable), it's easier. Again, this is unrelated to the word's spelling. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

alumin(i)um

It's not entirely accurate to say that aluminium is "the international standard". IUPAC backed off somewhat from its original promulgation and agreed that aluminum is also acceptable. The text should make this clear — I'm too lazy to look up the exact details right now, but I'll get around to it at some point if no one else does. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think the article points out the change in pronunciation, either, between AL YOU MIN EE UM and UH LOO MIN UM.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Scallywag" and "adze"

I'm American, and I've always seen it spelled "scallywag". The computer dictionary automatically corrects it to "scallawag", but I've rarely seen it spelled as such. I always thought the commonwealth spelling was "scallawag". Can this be addressed somewhere? The "adz" thing is bullshit too. I've never ever seen it spelled any way other than "adze". 71.178.11.90 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another American who agrees on Scallywag. Of course it's never used in normal sentences anyway... I've never heard it used outside of literature. Oh and what the hell is "adz" ? I don't know what it means spelled in the UK way or American way... 99.23.76.145 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OED has the headword as adz, adze (without considering either as pertaining to just one side of the pond) and their definition is "A carpenter's or cooper's tool, like an axe with the blade set at right angles to the handle and curving inwards towards it; used for cutting or slicing away the surface of wood." [16] --Thrissel (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The OED entry is unchanged from the first edition of 1888; the noun is "adz, adze" the verb is "adze", adjective "adze-like". Both spellings date only from the 18th century. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary has adze (US adz). The American Heritage Dictionary has adz or adze. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate has adze also adz. The Cambridge advanced learners has adze (US usually adz). My conclusion is that "adz" is obsolete in the UK and roughly as common as "adze" in the US. jnestorius^(talk) 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it's spelled "scalawag" or "scallawag" and is pronounced "scallywag". Like the famous Irish cudgel is spell "shillelagh" and pronounced "shillaylee". Or "cater-corner" is pronounced "catty-corner". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This American, for one, can't remember ever seeing scallywag in writing, and I think if I did I would assume it was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.191.29 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. It's "scalawag",[17] and is of American origin. There's no entry at EO for "scallywag". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online has the entry as "scallywag" with "North American also scalawag". McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries Online also says the British spelling is "adze" and the US spelling is "adz". McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimming the "=== -xion, -ction" === section

Re: this edit. There was certainly room for some tidying here: for example the opening list of examples was probably too long; The Times and UK government's use of "complexion" seems dated and could go, but the now-deleted material concerning Webster's influence seems relevant and I believe it should stay. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, nobody opposing: going ahead.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

-ism

Together with a some of arbitrary spelling changes and deletions of references, I reverted this paragraph:

Interestingly, while many word forms ending with the "British" -ise and -ised in North America take the "American" -ize and -ized, all such words also use -ism. Equally, word forms ending with -yze and -yzed, take the root -ysis

as it seemed to be original research. WP:EDITORIOP also applies. Someone reinstated it, without edit summary. Second opinions? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks User:Kgfleischmann. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

This edit has duplicated material already used in the article to illustrate particular topics. Is it helpful to have it available in a table as well as the text? --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

American abbreviations

I removed an unsourced sentance stating that all American abbreviations require periods. This is becoming more uncommon, except for the ones listed. I don't have a citation, but neither did this sentance. I never see "U.S.A." anymore (I used to), the periods are left out. The other examples were "Calif.", "W. Va.", etc. Nobody uses these anymore. The post office wants the two letter abbreviations on envelopes for delivery (specifically without periods), and that's what I generally see anymore everywhere, not just on mail. Squad51 (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends. You're correct that in informal usage a lot of people drop periods from many abbreviations, but in many types of formal writing, periods are still mandatory. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

er and re modern example list

double-entendre, genre, or oeuvre cadre, macabre, maître d', Notre Dame, piastre, and timbre are all listed as examples of exceptions to the re er difference however they arent comporable as they end differenly phoneticly than centre metre theatre etc so why compare them? it doesnt make much sence--69.146.146.25 (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the supporting text, not just the list. Some are explicitly said not to be exceptions; for others, pronunciation varies.

More recent French loanwords retain an -re spelling in American English. These are not exceptions when a French-style pronunciation is used (/rə/ rather than /ər/), as with double-entendre, genre, or oeuvre. However, the unstressed /ər/ pronunciation of an -er ending is used more or less frequently with some words, including cadre, macabre, maître d', Notre Dame, piastre, and timbre.

jnestorius^(talk) 11:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess i missread that; that being said I have never heard someone say matre d' or notre dame as er ive always heard people say matruh d and notruh dame (best i can transcribe it without knowing IPA--69.146.146.25 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

French language

Certain etymologists and linguists have pointed out the fact that British English is much closer to traditional French spellings, in words that have a common medieval origin, perhaps because British culture is more European than the culture of the United States, and that it is more used to interacting with French and Belgian peoples on the continent. ADM (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dropped E

Americans NEVER EVER spell singing as singeing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor, as a rule, do British people. "Singeing" is from "singe", not "sing". --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And some Brits are educated enough to know that "likeable", "loveable" etc. are incorrect. 91.107.160.243 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Some Brits think they know that. Others are educated enough to consult a reference and find that for "likeable". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) gives "likeable" as the primary spelling and "likable" as a secondary spelling. For "lovable", it gives only that spelling, except historically ("loveable" is recorded from the 16th Century). --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the British spelling of "pwned" differ from the American spelling? 98.166.109.81 (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's equally wrong everywhere. Peter Grey (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question... 98.166.109.81 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Orient(at)ed

Also: removed "orien(ta)ted". That's not a spelling difference, unless you think the extra "ta" is silent. It's two variant forms of the word. Nor is it true that the longer form is the British form. The longer form is simply a mistake. 91.107.160.243 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Added heading.) I take your point about begin a spelling difference. However, of "orientate". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) says: " More commonly used in British English than orient, while the latter is the more frequent of the two in American English. Orientate is commonly regarded as an incorrect usage in American English." and dates it from 1848.

However, even though this might be called a "usage" difference instead of a "spelling" difference, I do believe it belongs in this article, as it is likely to be looked up in similar circumstances. So I am going to restore this entry, and add "acclimate/acclimatise" (which is a similar case) and also add a note to the top of the table that sometimes it is substituting different words. --ColinFine (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Curly quotes

What are the international differences in usage, please? This new contribution doesn't make the relevance clear to this reader. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting as off-topic.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Amoeba

I've lived in the United States my entire life, and I have never seen anyone leave the 'o' out of "amoeba". 98.166.109.81 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Di's Carpet and Floor Centre

So I was looking for carpets on the internet, as you do, and I find the above titled emporium in Springfield, Oregon. Luckily I've got my wits about me because before placing an order I check delivery arrangements and discover that Springfield is 4977 miles from my house in England. That's going to be steep so I sensibly abandon my carpet ambitions. I'm puzzled by the 'British' spelling but I guess Di knows what she's doing. My question is, does my cautionary tale have relevance to the spelling differences article or will I just have to put it down to experience and soldier on? Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And you obviously thought it was located in Springfield OR somewhere else in the UK, did you? Is this, I wonder, even an actual contribution to the discussion, or perhaps a piece of Stealth Advertising? Obviously, Di knows what she's doing.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Justification

Much of the article smacks of justification for the many inconsistencies of American English. If Webster's plan had been to clean the language up and to formalise and simplify it, then he failed then and continues to fail now. There are anachronisms, with abandoned words proliferating, and dropping the "u" from words such as colour and favour is not simplification, but smacks instead of petty interference for the sake of it. How does dropping one letter make for simplicity and/or a national language variant? Far too many words are justified in the article like this (for aluminium/aluminum): "The spelling aluminium is the international standard in the sciences (IUPAC). The American spelling is nonetheless used by many American scientists." Which is akin to saying that scientists, like the rest of us, are liable to slip into colloquialisms or slang when at home or with like-minded people. The article would be a lot more honest, and less American-centric, if it did not try to justify the random, scattergun nature of American English and instead admitted that much of it makes no logical sense whatsoever, and does not really warrant existing. Guv2006 (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That off-topic rant was amusing, though a tangent. It sounds like you're deeply resentful of the fact that American English is the English dialect with the largest number of native users, or perhaps you merely resent its elegance, poise, and charm as demonstrated by brilliant writers like John Steinbeck, Vladimir Nabokov, and Philip Roth. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the difficulty in implementing a reform. Webster's drafts extended way beyond changing the spelling of a few words, but only a few of these reforms were actually implemented by the government and popularized. Had his entire proposal been implemented, U.S. English would be substantially different now. Here is some further information. 72.155.98.170 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

semi-automated conversion of American spellings to British spellings

For anyone who is interested, a maintenance script is available to convert the entire contents of a page from American spelling to British spelling, see the documentation here. If you have any queries or feel that the script needs modifying in any way, you know where to find me ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A script to render consistency into American spelling is planned, once I am reasonably sure all of the bugs in this script have been ironed out. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Smelt

No-one here in the uk writes or says "smelt" we all say "smelled" so I changed it to "burnt" (UK) and "burned" (US) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.185.11 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I also found "foetus" and "paedophile" both of which are utterly stupid and also not used. Fetus and pedophile are used. In fact, I can almost any UK science book you can find will say "Fetus" and not "foetus", and ive never seen one saying "foetus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.185.11 (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Burnt can also be an acceptable past participle of burn in American English. For example "the toast has been burned" or "the toast has been burnt". So it would be best to come up with a different example before changing this particular section. Colincbn (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

92.7: Your claims are not supported by sources: smelt is found in dictionaries [18] , media, etc. If you find foetus and paedophile to be "not used" in the UK, I can only come to the conclusion you have been living in a cave somewhere, away from any newspapers [19] [20], television, dictionaries [21] [22], etc. I do agree that fetus is common in science books, but to say foetus is "not used" in the UK is utterly erroneous. Please cite sources. -- the Great Gavini 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Image removal: File:Contracostacentresign.jpg

Some institutions in the U.S. (such as the Contra Costa Centre in Contra Costa County, California) deviate from the prevailing "-er" spelling.

I've removed this image from the article because it isn't an example of the article's subject (American and British English spelling differences). It is just a sign from a county in the US in which there are deviations from spelling. There aren't any spelling differences on the sign itself. I got really frustrated reading the sign over and over, trying to find words that have British spelling. --Brainmachine (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Some over-enthusiastic people seem to forget that this article doesn't apply to proper names, which are spelled identically in every variation of English, regardless of which spelling scheme they are derived form. Peter Grey (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Arse/Ass

This entry is confusing as Ass in British English means a Donkey, and so both Ass and Arse can be an insulting term applied to a person. So to some extent the article is right to say Arse and ass can refer to a stupid person, but if you call some one an arse it is more "a contemptible person" whereas a "stupid ass" is the intention behind ass. In most UK dialects they are pronounced differently. I will edit this but please discuss here if you disagree.Billlion (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed that it was in the tables in sections 2 and 10. The mistake was in sec 10 so I deleted this entryBilllion (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I always figured that "Ass" to mean "Bottom" was the American word not spelling. I have no idea what "OED" is, but I bet it was made by someone British, who just love to make themselves feel superior to the Americans :) (I'm British, but I do not think we're any beter than any country). They are pronounced different, and are spelt different - If you look at words like "Center" and "Centre" they are spelt different, but pronounced the same, because they are the same word.

Also, a lot of people in UK do say "Asshole" rather than "Arsehole" becuase (thankfully) Americanisms are catching on. MJN SEIFER (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OED is the Oxford English Dictionary, a good authority on etymology. Ass "donkey" (maybe from Latin asinus, from which comes asinine) and arse/ass "bottom" are different words: ass, n.¹ and ass, n.² in the OED.

But the article explains that ass-donkey and ass-bottom are different, so what's the problem? — Eru·tuon 21:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is bum::bottom and bum::itinerant ... or is it tramp::itinerant, tramp::prostitute? Or ho::prostitute, ho::laugh or.... Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

NATO

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

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

among / amongst - while / whilst

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

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

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

Sledge vs. sled

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

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

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

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

Peters...?

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

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

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

Near by vs nearby

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

What is the default format for the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despatch?

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

Here's what EO has to say about it:[23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Advice?

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

Pajama Urdu or Persian?

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

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

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

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

Gantlet?

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

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

— American Heritage Dictionary, [[24]]

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

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

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

Large number of disambiguation pages

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

Spelling of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford spelling

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

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

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

I find it difficult to see how note 40 can be in any way construed to represent Fowler supporting -ise at the expense of -ize. Very selective reading of the article which also says ".. The difficulty of remembering these -ise verbs are in fact the only reason for making -ise universal, and the sacrifice of significance to ease does not seem justified." The trend to -ise is undeniable but this can possibly be seen as a direct result of changes to the educational system. The two spelling used to be colloquially described as the "Grammar School" (-ize) spelling and the "Secondary Modern" (-ise) spelling. DickyP (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the guilty editor and it was clumsy, rather than selective, reading on my part. The article sentence tweaked to follow the source more closely. The footnote has the quotation.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Merchandize

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

Nite - Night

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

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

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

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

Indefinite article before "h"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a, not an, before all words beginning with a consonant, or with the sound of w, why or y, as: a eulogy, a euphony, a European, a ewe, a ewer, a herb, -al, a honorarium, a hope, a horse, a hospital, a humble, a one, a oneness, a unanimous, a unicorn, a uniform, a union, a unison, a unit, a univers/e, -al, -ity, a useful, a usurper.

Authors' & Printers' Dictionary

F. HOWARD COLLINS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.180.39 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Gauge vs. Gage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm an American engineering student, and "gauges" come up all the time, both in the physical device sense and in the sense of gauge (vs. absolute) pressure. I have never seen the spelling "gage" used, neither in everyday writing nor in engineering works. This article states (according to the top of the table) that the common spelling in the United States is "gage." Not only does experience prove this wrong, but the very reference used to justify its place in the article seems contradicts this usage (check out the origins). Other references suggest that "gage" is a uniquely technical term, something which I cannot confirm but am hesitant to deny. Regardless, this article does not seem to be bent toward technical word usage. If not removed from the list, the word should be moved below the spelling "gauge." Just because you once saw an American misspell a word doesn't mean its always spelled that way. There are a dozen other words in here that I've never seen before ("opake," "fantom," "rime," and "woful" are laughable) and probably originate from product names, ad campaigns, or archaic misspellings. This might seem vituperative, but this table really does seem geared towards pointing out childish backwards American spellings. Many of these have dubious references without any remarks. The reference is typically to the 1828 version of Webster's dictionary, hardly a modern source. The UK spellings seem much more reasonable; I've seen nearly all of them in other contexts (many were probably UK-originated wikipedia articles). I'm not a wikipedia contributor, so I'm hesitant to begin on the extensive editing required to make this table look less like a prank. 72.12.198.206 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cigaret(te)

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

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

theatre/theater

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

Something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pallate/palate, obsession/obssession`

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

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

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

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

How many spell using each variety?

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

inaccurate AmE notes on ensure/insure

The article currently claims

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

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

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

Parametre

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

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

re used by all.

Here = citation.

In words like acre even Webster retains re because er would make the c (or g) soft.

THE ART of WRITING & SPEAKING The ENGLISH LANGUAGE

by SHERWIN CODY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.180.39 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Coupe in American English

Is it not worth mentioning in the table where Coupe (American spelling without the accent) is listed, that it's pronounced "Koop". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.242.82 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of "phoney"

The article says

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

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

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

where fawney n.2 is defined as a) "fawney-rig" or b) "one who practices the fawney rig". The Merriam-Webster agrees with this etymology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catito63 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alphabet

Is there somewhere in this article where it might be appropriate to list the variants of the final letter of the alphabet as in 'zed' and 'zee'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frannbug (talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Noun-verb agreement

In this edit the contributor makes the valid argument that noun-verb agreement, even in lists, isn't affected by ENGVAR differences. Why, then, the change to "Canadian usage generally follow British" (my emphasis), please? RV.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Canadian tolerance

Article sez:

The spelling systems of most Commonwealth countries and Ireland, for the most part, closely resemble the British system. In Canada, the preferred spellings include some American forms and some British, and Canadians are somewhat more tolerant of foreign forms.

It is not instantly clear from the text whether Canadians are more tolerant than Americans, than British, than Commonwealth usage in general, or perhaps two or all three of these. I would guess that it means "more tolerant than general Commonwealth usage", given that that's what the first sentence is talking about, but I'm not sure. In any case the point should be clarified. --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird statement to make, period. I have to believe that "...more tolerant **than most English speaking**" is implied by the context, it appears in. I am not sure what the whole paragraph is doing in the article. It is a little off topic and POV but still related somewhat. The reference seems not followable. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Naivety

Naivety is the second most common in America, according to Ngrams (Naivete is the first) Naiveté and Naïveté are almost never used OttomanJackson (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The spelling "naivete" follows the French use, but many spellers use "naivety" because of noun forms such as variety, sobriety, and so forth that exist as US standards. (trollish copyeditor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.234.95 (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the OE spellings, does anyone here use "ameba"?

I learned that this was taken from the original spelling and very rarely encounter an "ameba" compared to amoeba/amoebae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.234.95 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

America?

As a Canadian, I feel we have been implicated by the usage of "America". "American" refers to people of the USA, alright, but to my understanding "America" refers to **ALL** of the countries in North America (and possibly South America), in the minds of European readers. This creates many nontruths for most of these American spellings when the term "America" is used. My feeling is to replace most of the usage with another term specific to citizens of the USA that spell this way. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm -- in English the unmodified word America, in absence of other contextual cues, generally means the United States. European (I assume you mean non-British European) readers, if they want to read works in English, ought to know this. Still, I have no strong objection to changing most instances of America (but not American!!!) to United States. --Trovatore (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We need to hear from some European people, to confirm. I know the Brit TV shows seem to reflect my concern, above. Just trying to accomodate more than just us N.Americans here. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, we really don't need to hear from them. This is the English-language Wikipedia. If they read here, they can read in English, including the nuances that might be different from their own languages. --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, the British use America to mean United States with less embarrassment than Americans do. I assumed you weren't counting the British. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) )

The "Brits" are the majority of Engish speaking Europeans and the initial point of this section. I doubt we can be that conceited to think Wikipedia is only for English speaking N.Americans and other readers do not matter. This article is about just that, English dialect differences. People from all English diaects should be able to read it and understand the meaning. It may be hard to portray correctly for all dialects but it can be done with input from all involved cultures. This doesn't imply my impression from TV shows is correct and we need people from that region to verify it. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, your word was Europeans, which is often used in a way that excludes the British. I certainly agree that we need to be inclusive of all genuine varieties of English (which I take to mean first-language speakers, not "pseudo-varieties" taught in schools). I just think you're wrong that the British commonly use America in a meaning other than United States. I think they use it to mean United States more uncritically than Americans do. (If you meant British, why didn't you say British instead of European?) --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I probably did use the wrong word to describe the situation in general. I know, depending on geographical location "European" has the same problem "America" has for definition, even though geographically it should be simple. "America" certainly does mean the N. & S. continents by many dictionary's definitions. The WP article America discusses of this problem and discloses that many other languages also use this term to mean North and/or South America. I know US citizens like to think of their country as the only "America" but, that is not what is well defined everywhere and is a regional or cultural dependant. Clarity to readers is what is important and the term is thus poorly defined. Most Canadians would never use the term "America" for our closest neighbours. We would use "The States" or "the US". "America", to Canadians, would mean local vs. Europe, Asia, Africa or Australia. However "American" would always mean "U.S. citizen". Input from European people is still needed here. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it's what the word "America" means in English. In all English-speaking countries, as far as I know. The other usage is mostly from other languages, and therefore not relevant to English (language) WP.

But as I said earlier, I don't have any problem with the change, only with the proffered rationale. --Trovatore (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you that you are most certainly wrong that the British use the word "America" in any other way than to refer to the U.S. I'm sorry, but when the Brits refer to the continents, they use North, South, or Central America, and if they wanted to refer to these combined they say "the Americas". You are creating this issue out of nowhere as I can assure you that in no English-speaking country is the word "America" used to refer to anything but the U.S.Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong. In Australia "America" always refers to the United States, as this is the short-form name of that country. Just as the official name of Britain is The Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we may still call it "Britain" and everyone will understand correctly. The long name of the U.S. is the "United States of America" but we may, and do, still call it America. I can assure you Canadians are not implicated in any way whatsoever, as we would only think of Canadians if it said "North America". As it is, Canada has its own name, "Canada", short for "the Dominion of Canada", which would be used if it were Canada being referred to. Also, in the English-speaking world, unlike some other nations, "America" is not a continent - North, and South America are, however - and these were not referred to. Objections to America being called "America" seem to stem more from anti-Americanism or resentment toward that country than actual concern about the accuracy of language, unfortunately. Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tangential note: Actually I think the name Dominion of Canada is obsolete, as of the patriation of the Canadian constitution late last century. The "long name" of Canada is now just Canada. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the same impression but... I can not find any decent sources to that, either way. I find mention that "Dominion of Canada" is still in effect although never actually used in official documents. I couldn't find one mention of "Dominion" in Can. gov. docs. in the last 50 years. Interesting. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

99, I have to register my strong objection to your edit summary about "clarifying the location as per talk discussion". I do not see any consensus above that anything is "unclear". There is no English speaking country where America by default means anything other than the United States, and yes, if you are saying Canada is an exception, I am directly contradicting you.

Just the same I have no objection to changing to United States. I do have an objection to changing to USA. --Trovatore (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"But as I said earlier, I don't have any problem with the change, only with the proffered rationale" wsa your statement from previous discussion. Now you are objecting to the edit summary? Apparently, Canada may be an exception and their common terminology is stated quite clearly in other WP:articles. We haven't managed to get any Brits to participate, here, yet. I do like your full "United States" better but it was much more verbose and some may argue that the whole name "United States of America" should be used to clarify the term from "United States of Mexico". Now we have vandal edits reverting the whole thing back to the original without any discussion. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

For British usage, take a look at The Economist sometime. Mexico is essentially never referred to as "the United States", so I don't see issue there. However, I would also accept US, just not USA. --Trovatore (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I would be interested in the "the US" vs "the USA" comment. Canadians would not likey use the term "in America" except in reference to North America or more specifically Canada and the US (we feel close to our brothers). We would refer to our southern brothers as "the US" or "the States" and never "America" for reasons above. Starngely enough "American" is frequently used. This has been discussed and posted in several WP articles. It appears your reasoning waffles for one reason or another and a some emotion may be inflicted in your arguments on this. Whether you support any editing action is moot after a surprise appearance of a sniper revert. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

US is a more formal initialism. USA tends to be associated with sporting events and such. The newspaper USA Today consistently uses USA, but that's a (rather jarring) idiosyncrasy specifically of that particular publication.

I don't really accept your claim about Canada. I lived in Canada for a year and never noticed anyone saying America to mean anything other than the United States. (They do definitely say North America for the US+Canada, generally omitting Mexico for some reason.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have never noticed any Canadian saying "America" either unless they are referring to the "new world" and usually Brit descent people. Funny we use "US" and "USA" interchangably but the shorter form is typical. We know what continent it is on. Perhaps you visited a different area tha Ontario and they use "America" more frequently. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I lived in Toronto. I didn't say they said America much; actually I don't recall it. But what I definitely don't recall was them using unmodified America in the sense of the two continents. I think that's primarily a non-English-language usage. --Trovatore (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Trovatore, this may be aside from the point, they dont omit Mexico when refering to North America "for some reason". There is a very good, blindingly obvious reason. The US and Canada are Anglophone, English-derived cultures, majority white, highly developed, and culturally so close they could be continuations of the same nation. Mexico on the other hand is Spanish speaking, racially mestizo, a poor country, and culturally so different that it may as well be on the other side of the world. This should be immediately obvious to anyone, that Mexico is culturally, socially, politically, etc a part of Latin America rather than North America, so I find it perplexing when people make comments to the effect that Mexico is somehow one of a trio along with the US and Canada and is strangely "left out" for no immediately obvious reasons. Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

North America is a continent. It unambiguously includes Mexico. That's just a fact of physical geography and would be true if there were no people there at all. (Actually, it unambiguously goes all the way to at least Nicaragua — Costa Rica and Panama are starting to get a little iffy.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Filet Fillet meanings and pronunciations

In America, fillet rhymes with delay when referring to food. But for other uses (architecture, metallurgy, bookbinding, etc.) it rhymes with billet. You can verify this info in any dictionary (e.g., Collins, American Heritage, Meriam-Webster). I didn't put this into the chart, but thought it worth pointing out, since that particular entry included pronunciation. Finally, I'm not sure if Brits use this distinction...maybe someone with an OED could check.....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0w8st8s (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OED has the sounded t for all use: /ˈfɪlɪt/. It does note the French origin of the word (which would indeed be fee-lay), but this was never used in BrEng. In UK the only, creeping acceptance is the fish-in-breadcrumbs menu selection at those ubiquitous, US-inspired fast-food establishments.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Traveling/Travelling, Canceling/Cancelling etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Native, English, speaker" may mean a whole different thing to many other people, especially North Americans. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's necessary to clarificate that, then, let me put it another way: An English English speaker who lives where most people are not English English speakers. ;) Twistlethrop (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Colorized/Colorised/Colourized/Colourised

I'm quite lost on this one... I think all four are proper spellings, but would America use "Colourized" and/or "Colorised"? lol ~ Tony64 ^(Talk) 01:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

US English would always omit the 'u' and, as far as I'm able to guarantee, use the 'z'. So, Colorize and Colorized. In Canadian English, however, I've seen 'Colour...' most often, but occasionally 'Color...'. Twistlethrop (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

US: colorize UK: colourise, colourize Canada: colourize Australia: colourise

Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "British" English?

Be patient, this isn't just some "Americans ruined our language" rant.. I am a linguist and also a US native speaker. However, the title of this article is a bit confusing. Shouldn't the title read "English and American English spelling differences" or something along those lines since there is no such thing as "British English"? At least, not in any scholarly text I have ever read. Also, ironically, (1) the UK spellings have actually begun to become Americanised and (2) there are other English-speaking countries in the world and every single one of them aside from the US use so-called "British English". The US and some British scholars are the only ones who use the Latinized "American English". I know this site has to include references for using either term... which is another reason why I doubt anyone outside of the US would use the term "British English" and I highly doubt that any scholar or linguist (American or otherwise) would use the term.24.96.49.159 (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is no English vs American English. The US has about 60% of the world's English-as-a-first-language speakers, so if there's any "default" English, it's actually American English. The term for the commonalities between British English and the rest of the Commonwealth is Commonwealth English. -Trovatore (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'commonwealth english' as the Englishes of Australia and Canada, for example, are about as different to the English of Great Britain as the English of the US is from the English of Great Britain. In the case of Commonwealth countries like India and Malaysia the difference is much further than US-UK English. Indeed there is no "English" vs "American English", there is only English, and words such as "American English", "British English, "Australian English", etc are really only used to distinguish national varieties from each other, based on the small differences (tiny, when compared to dialectal variation in other languages), between them. Although it is true that there are for example many very different dialects that come under British English for example that all sound quite different, these will have some features that link them together as being "British" dialects, as will different US, Australian, NZ accents, etc. Also, the word "British English" is certainly used in Australia, when we are referring to a british accent or pronunciation, or a particular word (such as "lorry", "bollocks" or "aubergine") which they would use and we wouldn't. Same goes for American English, and Australian English - the terms are used when we want to distinguish one from the others. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pam Peters, noted Australian lexicographer, uses the term "British English". She frequently identifies it as such by reference to the British National Corpus, "a representative sample of spoken and written British English…". --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of spelling, which is the subject of this article, there is a definite scheme of spelling for which British English is the name in common use, even though Commonwealth+Ireland would be much more accurate geographically. Canadian spelling is typically described as a variation of this, and US spelling as an even more substantial variation. Peter Grey (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

-log(ue) endings

The article text currently reads: "British and Commonwealth English uses the ending -logue and -gogue while American English usually uses the ending -log and -gog for words like analog(ue), catalog(ue), dialog(ue), demagog(ue), pedagog(ue), monolog(ue), homolog(ue), synagog(ue), etc."

I'm a native speaker of American English and have never seen the reality this purports to describe. Analog is, as the article notes, the typical form; catalog is a fairly common form for that word, and dialog is also often seen, though I have to say dialogue predominates. But demagog, pedagog, monolog, synagog .... these are unheard of in my experience. I checked my desktop dictionary, a Funk & Wagnalls, and this "American" standard is news to them as well. All these words except analog are listed under their -logue/gogue forms, with the abbreviated version noted only in passing --- as not primary usage.

So what is the basis for this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.89.8 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Where are you in the States that dialogue "predominates? In my area, when I do see it, it's dialog:

• Almost everything as far as sound in film or TV these days is replaced or added later in the studio. We can mix that for you too. We can also track your Automatic Dialog Replacement (ADR) needs.

And here is an ngram. You can see that dialog is favor'd in Am. Eng.

--AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Spelt vs Spelled

Can we please rectify the usage of spelt vs spelled? I found this the most frustrating thing in the article, and nearly choked while eating my spelt cereal. So far as I understand, "spelled" is acceptable in either locale. At the very least, the form of the past tense should be used without alternating throughout the article!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.48.150 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a compromise ... spell'd ... or even speld? --AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the rule for doubling the final consonant?

American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Doubled_consonants did not help this reader find out what I want to know. Please help me. I understand that in AmEng, we double the final consonant if we stress that syllable; if not, not. It's simple. For example, water-watered, but occur-ocurred. Or repel-repelled, but travel-traveled. What is the corresponding rule in British English? Chrisrus (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this may shed some light and can be included in the main article http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-travelled-traveled.asp 203.2.172.129 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this angiogram?

I don't know. British spellng is fake. Fake? Counterfeit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.209.15 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Either this was written in jest, or it stands as a repulsive display of American nationalism.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Maths

Australian usage of the word 'maths' depends on demographics and context but the general preference is British. Perhaps more to the point is that there is a lingering bias against 'American' grammar in Australia, especially amongst the aging population, although some phrases like "do the math" are becoming more common. Sources do not always reflect the accelerating evolution of language.Biguglygremlin (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jail vs gaol for Australia

The article mentions that gaol is used exclusively in Australia. This was the case several decades ago, however jail has been used exclusively at least since I was born and raised in Australia 35 years ago. Gaol is considered archaic spelling in Australia and many kids wouldn't even recognise it as a word and see it as a misspelling of goal. 203.2.172.129 (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

jail leads gaol by about 10:1 in Google hits in ".au" sites. Many of the "gaol" hits refer to particular buildings.JimBreen (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaol is still used int he formal sense as it was always meant to be used. it rarely enters general conversation and letters/email's however if you look at newspapers for arrests it is majority of time Gaol and not because of the location they are sent.203.219.85.18 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Past tense and participle

Regarding this edit, which introduced text which is still in the article - it's simply not true that it's the standard! It would be perfectly normal to say "I drank a cup of water", for example. Can we have more specific information about which verbs are affected, and sources please? Count Truthstein (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the editor was familiar with a non-standard usage. This is not the correct article for details of dialectal usages. The errant paragraph was removed some time ago. There are some verbs with pondian differences, but not what was claimed there. Dbfirs 20:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing words

Some other words could be added: carat/karat as different spellings for different meanings, phial/vial as different spellings for different pronunciations, gybe/jibe and whisky/whiskey as miscellaneous spelling differences.--2.192.200.84 (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've added the carat/karat spelling as a mainly pondian difference, but the others are more complicated. Do Americans not recognise Scottish Whisky? Dbfirs 07:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally, Americans write Scotch whisky (not "Scottish") without the e, but whiskey for the spirit in general. Scotch whisky is generally called "Scotch" for short, not "whisky". --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same on this side of the pond. (I used "Scottish" just to emphasise the Scottish spelling.) There might be some differences in frequency of usage, but both spellings seem to be recognised everywhere. Dbfirs 06:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So it may come down to what sort of whiskey you think of when the word is used alone without any qualifier. When an Italian uses the word, he's normally thinking of Scotch, and I had sort of assumed the same would be true in England. An American is probably thinking of bourbon (or Tennessee whiskey, which is pretty much the same thing), or maybe Canadian. Looking it up it looks like Canadian whisky is spelled without the e, but I'm not sure most Americans know that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the whisky drunk here in the UK is Scottish in origin, so we usually refer to "whiskies" on the assumption that we'll be drinking scotch. If I see the spelling "whiskeys" here in the UK I assume that the spirit is Irish. I'm not sure about imports from other regions. Dbfirs 14:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)