[Wikipedia-l] Re: Re: Wikipedia English English

[Rowan Collins]

On 21/09/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> You really are barking mad, aren't you?
> The vast majority of those aren't even real differences.

I think that is more than a little over-harsh. Declaring that the
differences don't exist is exactly the kind of attitude purists like
Jack object to.

Of course, it's amazing how many "Americanisms" end up being accepted
to the point that you don't even notice any more - my mum still
cringes at whichever of "fill in" and "fill out" came over from the
US, but I don't even notice the difference. In contrast, "write me"
instead of "write to me" still jars horribly whenever I encounter it.
Who knows what will change in the future, but there are certainly many
differences there.

Another point worth noting is that a lot of the US forms would be
easily understood - if it was realised from context that the speaker
was American - because of the large amount of US mass media
encountered in the UK. But that doesn't make them part of British
English - somebody else has mentionned not talking about your "fanny"
[which if you weren't aware means vagina in the UK] already, so I will
just expand on it by pointing out how [childishly] amusing the concept
of a "fanny pack" is...

> "note" vs "bill" -- "bill" would probably not be understood in the UK,
> but referring to them as notes would be understood in the US.

So, it's a difference. "Bill" would in fact be likely to be understood
as "request for payment" - what is known in the US as a "check".

> "bill" vs "check" -- uhh... we use both.

In the UK, a "bill" is never a banknote, and a "check" is never
anything to do with money. We have "cheques", which are the things you
write on and sign to pay for something, but that's something different
again.

> "autumn" vs "fall" -- we use them both as synonyms on this side of the
> pond. You guys don't?

No, we don't. Next question?

> "tick" vs "check" -- not the same thing. a check is a distinct symbol,
> as is a tick, and they are two different symbols.

Although I agree that they're different symbols, I think the idea of
"checking a box" rather than "ticking" it does sound distinctly
American to the British ear. Like "fill in"/"fill out", it may well be
forgotten in a generation which is which.

> "pissed off" vs "pissed" -- WTF!? first of all, this won't be found in
> most encyclopaedia articles. second of all, we say both here.

Yes, and in Britain, we *don't* use both. "Pissed" means "drunk";
newspapers quoting New Orleans' mayor recently had to clarify that he
had publically declared himself "pissed [off]", to avoid confusion
over him drinking on air...

> "trousers" vs "pants" -- although we consider "trousers" to be a bit
> old-fashioned, it will be widely understood here. I did used to think
> it meant shoes though.

So, once again, how is this "not a real difference"? You could never
make that mistake growing up in, say, Southern England, because
"trousers" is simply the single, normal, and unambiguous word for
them. "Pants", meanwhile, are unambiguously what you call
"underpants", another fun cause for confusion.

> "pedestrian crossing" vs "crosswalk" -- we use both here.

And "crosswalk" would mean absolutely nothing to a Brit. As wouldn't,
I would hazard to guess, a "pelican crossing" to you.

> "chemist" vs "drug store" -- "chemist" isn't common here, but it's
> better than "apothecary", which is probably less ambiguous than either
> of the other two.

A "drug store", if we weren't subjected to so much US media, would
sound like somewhere which sold illegal substances - we don't tend to
talk about "drugs" when we just mean "medicines".

> ".co.uk" vs ".com" -- that's not a linguistic difference. There are
> plenty of UK companies that have a .com, as it's supposed to be
> international (as opposed to .us)

Agreed.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]