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]