of the differences. Colour/Color is but a superficial one, but it is important because it's a fundamental word and article entry. The issue is that to choose one spelling over the other goes against the principle that both spellings are equally valid; or that each spelling is regarded as the correct one (and the other as a foreign one) by millions of people, in each case. There are other issues with other words, phrases or terms. e.g.: if I want to search for "tap", do I redirected to "faucet"? If you use the word "faucet" in the British Isles, few people will know what you mean - even in context (they might think it's a technical term for part of a tap). In such a case, it's a foreign word to millions of "Commonwealth-English" speakers (though not necessarily all), and unintelligible - it has to be translated. To illustrate how the English I speak (in England) is a different language to American-English, I was in Bangkok a couple of years ago, and in an internet cafe - a man turned to me and said: "What's up?" I said, "Nothing? Why?", he looked at me, baffled; I looked back at him, baffled - we were using the same words, but speaking different languages; neither of us knew what we meant and why. It became apparent that we were from different countries, and some explaining was required - we had to learn each other's language. We were not speaking the same language. Americans might want to call their language "English", but the term is inappropriate, because it already exists for a language that is autochthonous to England, whence the name comes. Another term has to be created for this offshoot of English, and the term "American English" is used in the OED. So it's reasonable to say that Americans don't speak "English", they speak "American-English", which is written often using words that look identical or similar, but that does not mean that the meaning is the same. Having words which look the same does not mean they are the same. The word "color" is spelt the same in a number of languages: American-English, Spanish, Asturianu, Catalan... but not in Commonwealth-English. If it's good enough for Google and Gmail to have American-English and Commonwealth Englishes (which should probably be unified as Commonwealth-English), then it should be good enough for Wikipedia. No offence to all of you who are not native speakers, but this debate is better had between native speakers - as it would be for any language. I propose the fairest and most pragmatic solution is that the English Wikipedia be duplicated into two and that these two are renamed: English (Commonwealth) English (American) This is in keeping with Wikipedia's own policy statement on English; it also seems fair considering the existence of things like: Norwegian (Bokmal) & Norwegian (Nynorsk); Dutch, Limburgish and Afrikaans; Simple English; Galician and Portuguese; and frankly some Slavic dialects.
On 22/09/05, Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/09/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@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] _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l