Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:American and British English differences -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American and British English differences article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

To-do list for American and British English differences:	· history · watch · refresh
Count and mass nouns. Plurals. Ellipsis of articles. Modal verbs. Aspect; more on tenses. Complementation. Adverbs and prepositions (about, round, around). Disjuncts. Determiners, hedge words, intensifiers. Word order. Rewrite vocabulary section. Tag questions. General cleanup.
Priority 3

Contents 1 What people prefer 2 A few institutional nouns take no definite article 3 'To do' in British English 4 please 5 Small correction 6 Inaccurate / arguably incorrect assumptions in Times section 7 Nearer/Closer 8 An historic event 9 Highways 10 Ireland belongs here

What people prefer

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but I couldn't find a better place to put it, so here it is.

Anyway, I have noticed that there is often debate as to whether standard English or American English is more "correct". I have also noticed that normal English people object more to American spellings than American people do to proper English spellings. Therefore, since Americans don't seem to mind English spellings as much as we mind American spellings, if everyone used English spellings, more people would be happy! Am I right?

Yes it's not your fault and this is not the issue. The fault - the mistake - was in creating the vanity domain 'en' instead of 'us' and 'uk' from the beginning. As things go on there will merely be more and more friction, more and more debilitating debate. The designers should have demonstrated more perspicacity and less cultural myopia and chauvinism.

Oh yeah, also - people from both England and America agree that English spellings are prettier and more aesthetically pleasing, for example "Colour" is more colourful than (ugh) "color"!90.205.80.229 (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument is hard to distinguish from trolling. —SlamDiego_←T 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense. It's an aesthetic. As such it's an opinion. But it's not trolling. What you are writing however is tantamount to policing. As if you're afraid 90.205.80.229 is going to sway people in a direction you don't like.

I can think of a good reason for that...... -- Q Chris (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Both!--Roguexviii (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a huge and contentious topic. Again I will state the trouble is attempting to dismiss the fact these are all in reality separate (disparate) languages with various things in common rather than a single language with a few exceptions on either side of the ocean. My personal muse tells me to think like Hemingway: when proofreading always chose the minimal alternative. Rationality plays a big part here and sorry to say for those in the US: 'good' UK English ('English English') is often far more rational. Yet whatever: until such time as there are URLs such as 'uk' instead of the 'imperialistic' 'en' we'll have to work to make Wiki as efficient as possible. Many countries have language academies to 'preserve' their linguistic heritage but we all should realise dictionaries do not define things - they report on how things are used. This language continually evolves. And it will continue to do so here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A few institutional nouns take no definite article

In BrE one can write in Parliament or Parliament's troops is this not so in American English? Could one write in Congress in American English or would it have to be in the Congress?

This came up in an edit on the article First English Civil War. An edit was made that changed:

There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunottar Castle to Parliament's troops.

to

There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunottar Castle to the Parliament's troops.

But one would write in BrE:

There was some continued organised Royalist resistance in Scotland which lasted until the surrender of Dunottar Castle to the Long Parliament's troops.

and not to do so would be wrong.

Not at all the first version (which is what's in use today) assumes a reference to the third.

If this is a difference between BrE and AmE, please will someone add Parliament to the 'institutional' nouns paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Institutions aren't monoliths. They are people. Remember that and you won't need lists.

As a native AE speaker, I'd consider both "in Congress" and "in the Congress" to be acceptable, but the former is far more common and, to my mind, preferable. The latter has something of an old-fashioned ring to it. On the other hand, it's always "in the House" or "in the Senate" -- never "in House" or "in Senate". JamesMLane t c 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an English article, so English style should be used, per the MoS. If someone changes it, revert it, with this explanation in the summary. Avengah (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not asking clarification for permission to edit the article, but suggesting that a regular editor of this page add this difference to this page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'To do' in British English

High, there. I'm sorry, I don't know anything about this phenomenon or what it might fall under, but it seems to me that the ellipsis/replacement of a verb after a modal works differently in British and American English. Like in British English, the response to 'Can I walk though the garden?' would be something like 'Yes, you can do', but in American English, you'd have something more like 'Yes, you can' or 'Yes, you can do so'. Does anyone know what I'm trying to get at, or am I just crazy? Rdr0 (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In *both* forms of English (not just AmE), you can say something like

She didn't apologize, although she should have. This is unquestionably common-core international standard English.

However, in BrE, an alternat(iv)e construction with propredicate do is also used (I believe usage may vary from region to region and even from speaker to speaker):

%She didn't apologize, although she should have done. This is never heard in AmE.

The article makes no mention of this. I'd add it myself but I ain't got the time now. Jack^(Lumber) 20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, my personal observation/opinion (sticking my neck out here) is that in BrE the normal constructions are "Yes, you can" and "... she should have done" or "she should have" (both of these latter sound equally normal). "Yes, you can do so" would also be standard (but a bit long-winded) - but NOT "Yes, you can do". In other words, it's hard to find any clear consistency, or a general "rule" that says (e.g.) BrE does/doesn't use the pro-predicate while AmE doesn't/does. But it does seem to be the case that a speaker of BrE is more likely to tack a do or a done on the end of such a sentence. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I purposely changed the example provided by Rdr0 because "Yes you can do" sounded terribly awkward to me. I (have) just checked the sources--Algeo, Hargraves, Peters, and Trudgill and Hannah (now that was a useful serial comma, wasn't it Snalw?;-) all mention this difference. Jack^(Lumber) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

please

ts called 'english english' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.241.232 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the Lucky Country for that obvious observation. The Atlantic colonies don't seem to see the connection between ENG-land and ENG-lish. Or perhaps they don't want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not 'English English', it's just English. England is the country where the language originated. The term 'English English' seems somewhat cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.122.252 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad English is spoken all over the world, and every single English speaker in North America, Australasia, South Africa, India, etc. claims to speak "English." That's why we need modifiers to distinguish the form of English used in England from those used elsewhere. English English = English as spoken in England; Scottish English = English as spoken in Scotland; American English = English as spoken in the U.S.; and so on. Yes, "English English" is a cumbersome phrase, but... do you have a better idea? Jack^(Lumber) 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Small correction

The example "He majored in law at Harvard" is wrong for two reasons: First, Americans do not use the term "major" for the study of law because law is a graduate degree. The term "major" is used primarily (exclusively as far as I know) for undergraduate studies. (Just as a student in medical school would never say he is "majoring" in medicine). Secondly, Harvard College does not use the term "major" at all. They call a student's area of undergraduate study a "concentration."

Lgin (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The wrong example must have slipped in only recently--while the "regulars" were off guard. Thank you! Jack^(Lumber) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate / arguably incorrect assumptions in Times section

As a Brit I feel I have to point out some inaccuracies with the description of how we discuss times - I don't know who wrote it, but I'd hazard a guess it was an American.

LOL That's a pretty fair guess for almost anything at 'Wikipaedia'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For example,

whereas Britons often use a point, 6.00, although it is becoming increasingly popular to use a colon.

Right from my initial teaching about time at primary school (15/16 years ago), I was always taught to use a colon when writing times. I rarely see times written with a single full stop between the hour and minute, and I'd venture that if anything, that usage has crept in from either the US or overseas. I know that passage has a citation needed remark next to it, but even so, it remains for the time being. Also,

Often, in the UK, 18:00 will be written as 1800h, or 06:00 as 0600h - representing the military speak "oh-six-hundred-hours", even if people would usually read it aloud as "six o'clock". This has become popular in text messaging since it is easier to type an "h" than a colon.

Erm, what? I wholeheartedly disagree - nobody suffixes an "h" onto times when they write them in the 24-hour style, because it's plainly obvious exactly what it is. In fact, outside of military usage I rarely hear 24-hour format times spoken with the word "hours" after the time itself - it's self-evident.

Americans have lots of fantasies about what goes on in Britain and other countries. We must be patient with them, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I discuss times with people in texts, you just say "see you at 6?" (although my sister insists on abbreviating to "cu @ 6 k?" which she knows really winds me up!) So again, I take issue with this assumption that most Brits describe times in the manner mentioned in the article.

However, I am by no means an authoritative source on BrE usage - just a real-world speaker ;) Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Christopher (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearer/Closer

In the section where it talks about the differences between prepositions and adverbs, it has this statement: BrE sometimes uses to with near (we live near to the university), while AmE avoids the preposition in most usages dealing with literal, physical proximity (we live near the university), although the to reappears in AmE when near takes the comparative or superlative form, as in she lives nearer/nearest to the deranged axe murderer's house.

From what I've observed, someone would be pretty unlikely to say "nearer to" in American English; they'd be far more likely to say that in Britain. Americans would seem to use closer/closest to far most often, as nearer to, imo, is kind of an awkward way to say it, and from what I understand most Americans would agree. Yet it seems to me that in Britain it's much more often-used. Am I mistaken in this? If I'm not I think this should be made clear as well. bob rulz (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that section is completely unsourced. And no, you're not mistaken. In the British National Corpus, closer to outnumbers nearer to by 3.97:1; in the BYU Corpus of American English, the ratio is 35.85:1. Jack^(Lumber) 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

An historic event

See this edit to Historical revisionism (negationism), and this website: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/a-an.html. A mention of this difference on this page would be useful. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We talked about that a year ago or so. Archive! Jack^(Lumber) 14:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(to Philip Baird Shearer) Kind of you to highlight my edit for this. I remain confused as to whether you thought I was changing it from British English to American or vice versa. Rushmore cadet (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Highways

I believe there are more exceptions than southern California to the 'no-article' rule in AmE. In New Orleans, for example, Interstate 10 is always "the I-10", and I think it applies to at least some other places as well. Technically "the I-10" has a ring of redundancy that "the 5" does not. Any thoughts from other places? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.250.248.36 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an inconsistent hodgepodge in the US; some places/highways are in the habit of adding the "the", some are not. The I-10 may be The I-10 in New Orleans, but it's I-10 several states to the north!

In a similar vein, colleges/universities are wildly inconsistent. I went to UT (Univ of Texas), whereas my brother went to "The UW" (Univ of Washington). Go figure.

Which is also known as 'U-Wash'. These are 'colloquialisms' - correct? And whilst we're on the subject: the HTML spec was written by a Brit. Brits don't put double spaces after full stops. White space in HTML is always compressed to a single character in HTML. Americans keep putting double spaces after their full stops here and elsewhere; they're TOTALLY ignored by the HTML rendering engines; they just keep on putting them in. Give me a nickel for every redundant space character after a full stop and I'll buy Manhattan.

→I was raised in Britain and taught during typing classes to use two spaces after a full-stop. Not sure this is an American thing but likely a generational thing.142.221.110.4 (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how this is dealt with in the UK, but I'd be careful about making any generalizations about "American usage" here.

64.48.78.13 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland belongs here

I don't want to start a war, but the article is not balanced. There is an argument to be made for describing North American English and European English. The article here mentions only Northern Ireland, but European English does not stop at the border, and while Hiberno-English is spoken in the Republic of Ireland it is not universally spoken and "standard" European/British English is, modulo accent and some vocabulary and grammar. (The same can be said about Canadian English and US English.) How can we improve this article to do a better job of description? One option would be to move it to North American and European English. (Australian, New Zealand, and South African English would I think be closer to European English.) Again, I am nt trying to start trouble here. I'm not in any way opposed to the word "British" and indeed I consider Ireland one of the British Isles (which some people gripe about). But there's no room for English as spoken in Ireland here it seems to me. -- Evertype·✆ 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bollocks. There is no such thing as 'European English'. There is 'English English'. You may also say there is 'Irish English' if you want. And if you did you'd be totally correct. You'd also join JK in asserting there is 'Scottish English' as well. And so forth. But 'European English'? Nope. Too far out on a wobbly limb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.40.139 (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 25 September 2008, at 22:29.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:American and British English differences".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:American_and_British_English_differences

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.