Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 2

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 and Canadian English.
 * (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:
 * {|class="wikitable"

!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)
 * 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)

Requesting some help
"Webster was a strong proponent of spelling reform for reasons both philological and nationalistic. Many spelling changes proposed in the U.S. by Webster himself, and in the early 20th century by the Simplified Spelling Board, never caught on. Among the advocates of spelling reform in England, the influences of those who preferred the Norman (or Anglo-French) spellings of certain words proved decisive. Subsequent spelling adjustments in the UK had little effect on present-day U.S. spelling, and vice versa. While in many cases American English deviated in the 19th century from mainstream British spelling, on the other hand it has also often retained older forms."

This section is confusing, and it should be reworded to make it more clear and precise. [unsigned]

barmy and balmy
I've removed "barmy-balmy" from the "Spelling and pronunciation" table. dictionary.com has
 * for balmy, in the AHD definition:
 * . Having the quality or fragrance of balm; soothing.
 * . Mild and pleasant: a balmy breeze.
 * . Chiefly British Slang Eccentric in behavior.
 * [Sense 3, alteration of barmy, frothy.]


 * for barmy, in the Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) definition:
 * .containing or resembling barm; frothy.
 * .British Slang. balmy (def. 4). [sc. "Informal. crazy; foolish; eccentric."]
 * [Origin: 1525–35; barm + -y1; def. 2 prob. resp. of balmy by r-less speaker]

That's pretty inconclusive. jnestorius(talk) 01:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, looking at my printed dictionaries (remember them?), Webster (AmEng) has "balmy" and says that "barmy" is a BrEng variant, while the Collins Dictionary (BrEng) does exactly the opposite. JackLumber has reinstated in (in the right place this time - thanks!), and I think it is now correct. Both spellings are used (with that meaning) in both Am and Br, but the primary Br spelling is clearly barmy and the primary Am spelling is clearly balmy. Snalwibma 09:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as to the spellings, I concur, though I think JackLumber and AHD have inverted the direction of origin. Since that is not currently stated in the table, it might be academic/moot.  However, I'm not sure balmy/barmy belongs in the "spelling and pronunciation" table as that is currently introduced:  "essentially the same word has a different spelling which reflects a different pronunciation".  It would appear that the table is for same origin and meaning, with different spelling and pronunciation; barmy/balmy is an example of different origin and same pronunciation.  Well, you can argue about pronunciation; I presume the minority of Americans who say "barmy" pronounce the R, as the Irish do.  Spelling "balmy" is considered incorrect by some British usage guides; justifiably so, if the barmy→balmy origin is correct. jnestorius(talk) 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related point, I'm not sure "m(o)ustache" belongs there either, since the difference in spelling and pronunciation are not always connected; "yog(h)urt" and "p(y|a)jamas" have been removed on similar grounds. jnestorius(talk) 15:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, ba[l|r]my is a Briticism, whatever the spelling—in American English, this adjective is relatively uncommon, but it's always spelled balmy anyways. Balmy "crazy" appeared first in 1852 and was respelled as barmy only 40 years later, yet the two forms can be thought of as alterations of each other—go figure it out!  The  pronunciation is however strongly connected with the o-less spelling, although the 2nd syllable stress pronunciation is also current in AmE.  But the different pronunciations of yog(h)(o)urt and p[y|j]amas have nothing to do with their spellings, witness the way Canadians pronounce pyjamas and the way Australians pronounce yoghurt.  And yes, the table title should be changed.  JackLumber.  19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The earliest cites for barmy and balmy may be 1852 and 1892; of course those are not necessarily the years they were coined, which could be much earlier for slangy words and senses. jnestorius(talk) 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * re "m(o)ustache": my point is that correlation is not the same as causation. I envisage this table as restricted to words where a difference in pronunciation is reflected in the spelling, rather than words which happen to differ in both spelling and pronunciation; the latter should simply be listed twice, in both the spelling page and the pronunciation page, as with reconnoiter/reconnoitre and anesthetize/anaesthetise. jnestorius(talk) 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the fact that Barmy & Balmy are actually two different words, rather than a word that means the same thing spelt differently means that this example is false. We're strictly talking about spelling differences of words with the same meaning.  Otherwise, we could fill this page with even more examples (mite/might, which/witch etc)  In my opinion, barmy/balmy does not belong in this list. Celticguy75 14:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The OED has barmy, frothy, in 1535 (from barm = yeast). The figurative meaning of excitable etc came 50 or so years later. Balmy, as an adjective from balm, soft, soothing, yielding balm, is from the early 17th Century. Here the pejorative meaning (cf soft in the head) did not arise until the late 19th century. Different words, different etymologies completely.  In this light they shouldn't, then, be in the article. However, the OED allows some subsequent confusion between the two, (1890s or so) but it cites Br usage only, while Oxford dictionaries of specifically US usage treat the words as equivalent. On balance the strong etymologies seem to support Celticguy75's suggestion. Old Moonraker 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Scalywag
this word appears to have different meanings rather than spellings maybe it should be put in a different article ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_British_and_American_English —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.146.52.12 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

A wag with scales?! Sibruk 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No - the meanings are identical. The spelling is scalawag (US) or scallywag (UK). It is quite correct as it is. Snalwibma 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange thing about this: this page says the word was originated in the United States, but the real page for Scallywag says it's originated in Ireland. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I think it's an Irish word and will change it in a day or two unless any one objects. The Irish word is "sgalog" or close variations in spelling. Lone Architect (18th October 2007, 1.02 BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.241.156 (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have family in the Shetland town of Scalloway and was led to believe that it's from there that the word 'scallywag' is derived (marauding raiders from Scalloway) - though this of course could be a false etymology. The article here http://podictionary.com/?p=345 somewhat supports the place name origin and suggests a Scottish rather than Irish origin. REVOL (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Although it's spelled "scalawag" in the USA, it's often pronounced "scallywag". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada
On what grounds are the claims made regarding Canadian usage? I see no specific Canadian references. I hear and read "titbit," "behove," "scallywag," "yoghurt," and "moustache" as frequently as the American variants. "Plow" is a rarity. Of course, anybody can edit Wikipedia, as I need to remind myself. Fishhead64 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) behove/behoove was actually wrong, thank you. (2) WP:AGF. (3) Take it out on (Peters, 2004). JackLumber. 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I always try to AGF, but I never assume expertise. Fishhead64 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who this "Peters" is, but he needs more research on Canada. I mean, who's ever heard of the spelling "mold" in Canada? Absurd. &#9773;  Zippanova  07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That line about mold was added by an anon from Canada, whose guess was as good as yours. Peters says, "Canadian usage tolerates both mould and mold, though the first is more visible." Peters is a lady. &mdash; JackLumber /tɔk/ 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am Canadian, and can assure you that the spelling "mold" is used for mould frequently. I would even speculate that the former spelling is more popular here. --Saforrest 01:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless anybody has any objections, I am going to add "Lieutenant" as a distinction between the U.S. and the Commonwealth. In the "U.S". it is pronounced as written and in the commonwealth, it's pronounced "leftenant". Canking 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Objection! This article is about spelling, not pronunciation. The left tenant thing is dealt with at American and British English pronunciation differences, Canadian English, and, of course, lieutenant.   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't see that article Canking 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by the claim that in Canada, the word "licence" is sometimes used for the verb, and that "practice" and "practise" are used interchangeably. Not because I disbelieve it -- it's true in the UK too, just as "it's" and "its" are used interchangeably by some people. Just as with "its"/"it's", however, I suspect it's more of a "common error" rather than being an accepted norm. dwmw2 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As the Canadian Oxford Dictionary puts it, ...Wherever British and North American practices differ from one another in vocabulary, pronunciation or spelling, Canadians usually tolerate both.   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Dropping the 'u' in -our words is seen as an insult to national character in some quarters, and the first exposure of a chemistry class to the British pronunciation of "aluminium" will invariably cause a torrent of laughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.187.62 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Did a Canadian with a vendetta edit this or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.65.5 (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Although "aluminium" is generally pronounced the American way in Canada, it IS spelled -ium.

See here: http://www.gdsourcing.com/works/Aluminium.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.131.197.45 (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. In Canada it's spelled "aluminum." And people should stop using the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as a reference. Thankfully that piece of crap and it's social engineering editor Kathryn Barber have been put out of business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.2.138 (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How about using some real life references? Go to any local grocery store and do a survey of how many rolls of aluminium foil use each spelling. ALCAN used the -ium spelling from 1966 onward. It is simply innaccurate to say that Canadad only uses the US spelling. Wiki should be descriptive (and thus accurate), not prescriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.131.197.45 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sport vs Sports
I believe sport/sports should be listed here. In America, we say things like, "I'm not that into sports" whereas in the UK, they would say, "I'm not that into sport." If you search Google for "sport", the first result is "BBC Sport" .. if you search for "sports", you get "ESPN: The Worldwide Leader in Sports." Yahoo's entry for the UK is listed as "Yahoo UK Sport" whereas their American version is "Yahoo Sports"

Maths/math is listed as a difference, and believe that this is exactly the same kind of usage difference. If sport/sports is removed, i believe maths/math should go too. If not, what's the difference?

--Mike Schiraldi 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But what you say is spurious. Sports and sport are used interchangeably in both dialects. Stop reverting. Examples? JJB Sports, Streetwise Sports, Sky Sports all BrE - but BBC Sport, ITV Sport, Sport England. Interchangeable see? -- Boothman /tɔːk/  21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Yup, dead right, Boothman. Both used both places. Snalwibma 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a difference. But it's not about spelling.  It's singular + mass noun vs. plural + count noun.  See e.g. OALD and type sport.  JackLumber.  00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So why not get rid of maths/math for the same reason? The American_and_British_English_differences puts maths/math and sport/sports in the same class: "Singular attributives in one country may be plural in the other, and vice versa. For example, the UK has a drugs problem while the United States has a drug problem (although the singular usage is also commonly heard in the UK); Americans read the "sports" section of a newspaper, while the British read the "sport" section. Similarly, students in America learn math; in the UK, maths."

--Mike Schiraldi 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because in the case of math/maths there really is a difference. In the USA it's called math and in Britain it's called maths. In BrE the word "math" is never heard. Snalwibma 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * UK maths is singular, just as US math is; both are abbreviations of mathematics. American_and_British_English_differences was wrong; I've changed it. jnestorius(talk) 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The decision process is as follows:
 * 1) If BrE maths is strictly a mass noun, always singular in construction, then 1) math/maths can (loosely) be regarded as a difference in spelling 2) the sentence "Similarly, students…maths" was correctly rewritten.
 * 2) If BrE maths can be used with a plural verb, then 1) math/maths is not a difference in spelling 2) the germane entry must be removed 3) The sentence in American and British English differences must be rewritten. JackLumber.  14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jack, your no. 1 (or should I say #1?) is correct. In BrE, maths is definitely singular (a mass noun). Maths is a subject of study. Never (never, never, never) "maths are..."! Snalwibma 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Snal, number one is the only plausible decision. -- Boothman /tɔːk/  18:40, 13 February 2007 (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 learnt.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree: this page really made my day! I've been battling with stubborn spelling programs and almost as stubborn colleagues for ages, trying to justify the (non-native) style I've learned to not be inconsistent (mixing British and American rules), just non-extremist. Finally I was pushed far enough to start googling for a page that could explain the differences that dictionaries cannot fully clarify and which definitely aren't resolvable just by going "by ear". Thank you, Wikipedia! 128.214.9.63 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent article! Proof reading and converting US English to UK English is a big part of my job, and it's great to see such a comprehensive article. Well done to all the contributors! Sibruk 11:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Two more possible examples
This is a great article, I think - comprehensive and clear (unlike the article on pronunciation differences which is so full of linguistic jargon as to be complete gibberish). Two more possible miscellaneous examples that I can think of but don't have dictionaries to hand to verify are:

swath/swathe - where 'swath' is American and 'swathe' is British. The pronunciations are different too - 'swoth' in American and 'swaythe' in British.

spit/spat - possibly a more fundamental difference than one of spelling - may be considered more of a grammatical variation. In British English, the past participle of 'to spit' is 'spat', e.g. 'he spat at me' or 'I was spat at'. In US English, I have only ever heard or seen 'spit' used in this context. 87.86.239.10 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) swath/swathe: exactly.  Way back, swath was a noun and swathe a verb, just like bath and bathe---hey, bath *can* be a verb in British English!  a whole new can of worms...
 * 2) spit/spat: grammar rather than spelling, I just added it to the main article.
 * Thanks for your input! JackLumber.  23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! This helped me a lot with my English Languge essay, and common knowledge.

Incorrect information about "theater" and "center"
The links to support -re lead to a single example on a map (for theatre) and (for center/centre) a less than authoritative British site speculating in a vague, off-hand footnote on some notion of reversion in America which can be supported by no American source I know of.

Theater is used by America's national theater and all major American newspapers such as the New York Times (theater section) to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to buidlings where performances take place. This is more reliable than attempting to use a single private auditorium as a guiding example.

I suggest ammeding the article accordingly. Any comments before I proceed to do so? W.C. 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * American theatre scholars use both spellings but with the following distinction: a theater is a building; theatre is used in all other contexts; I write mainly about ballet and leave philology and orthography to others. Robert Greer (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Continuing this below for new discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated information about "theater" and "cinema"
The following sentence has been removed from this article "Americans also often make the distinction of using theater in reference to cinema, (e.g. movie theater) while using theatre when speaking of stage productions." It has been tagged as needing a reference since August. Unless some basis for this assertion can be provided, the best it can be is an opinion. (check out AMC Theatres for a differing opinion) Bfx12a9 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

-xion
Does -xion vs -ction merit its own subsection? There appear to be no extant differences, apart from complected, which in any case rather falls outside the terms of reference of the title. jnestorius(talk) 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I vote to delete the entire section. Snalwibma 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't! Weirdly enough, the section fails to mention what it's all about—the -ction/-xion thing applies to British English only, since -ction stands alone in American English. Therein lies the difference.  JackLumber.  14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slightly reworded, attempting to address these concerns. --Old Moonraker 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, tomorrow I'll put in a footnote. JackLumber. 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the deletion of this article to be a good thing. When one looks in the dictionary with the /xion spellings, they are non-existent, and are not correct. I concur in the motion to delete this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spacedwarv (talk • contribs).
 * The fact that you couldn't find anything on the topic anywhere else seems a very good reason for keeping it here! (There are three citations in the paragraph but it might be possible to find more.) Please also note that, since the original proposal to remove the paragraph, there has been a re-wording to put the differences into better context.--Old Moonraker 06:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MuzikJunky has asked me to reinstate his/her edit here, which I reverted. I reiterate, I do not believe that "...complexion [is] now somewhat rare in British usage: ...the more common complection [has] become the standard internationally." Apart from anything else, it contradicts "In both forms, complexion (which comes from the stem complex) is standard and complection is not." lower down. Other editors' views (especially those with a more international viewpoint thin mine) requested. --Old Moonraker 06:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of supporting citations inserted. --Old Moonraker 07:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. Complection is somewhere between rare and non-existent, in any form of English. BTW, I also retract my comment (above) that the section should be deleted. It now looks good, and seems accurate. Snalwibma 07:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur - complexion is the absolute norm in British English. I have never seen it spelled with a c! Sibruk 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * hmmm - so how do you spell it? xomplexion? komplexion? ;-) Snalwibma 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh, you're a cad ;-) Sibruk 12:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

program/programme
didn't want to add this because i'm not sure if program is an american spelling or just an alternative british spelling for programme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.72.81.84 (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

'Programme' is correct UK spelling in every sense except that referring to a computer program in which the (American) spelling 'program' is used almost without exception.

I agree - programme is used for everything (programming, TV programme, programme for a theatre production, a programme of works) except for computer program, and I'm fairly sure that is only due to overriding US influence in the computer industry. Same with dialog box (computing term). Sibruk 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

However, OED online accepts 'program' as its preferred spelling in all senses. That said, the majority of the OED's UK examples seem to be 'programme' and the OED itself refers to programmes rather than programs in its subheadings. I'll have to look at a hard copy of the OED and get back to you, if I remember. 129.12.200.49 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The OED is unfortunately no longer the guardian of British English spellings. The fact that they list ~ize spellings before ~ise these days does not reflect the "changing nature of language" but rather the desire to market their 'authorative' publications to the American market! Just my opinion :-) Sibruk 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaol in NZ
"gaol is still an official spelling in New Zealand" This is possibly the case but jail is certainly more common. Does anyone have evidence that gaol is the official spelling in NZ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.78.149.115 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The article doesn't attempt to cover New Zealand spelling (which is essentially the same as British spelling); that note was just an unnoticed, uncalled-for addition by an anon. Besides, the article clearly says that "jail prevails everywhere.  JackLumber.  19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ensure/insure
On ensure and insure, as a Canadian who teaches English at a university, my impression is that most people in Canada definitely do maintain the distinction and restrict the i spelling to matters pertaining to insurance policies. Lately, the i spelling has emerged for the other in other uses, but I suspect that the cause is the automatic spell checks on computers, which are mostly set to U.S. standards by default.

Having grown up in Canada, I can say that it would never even occur to me to use the i spelling except in reference to insurance policies.

Peter K. Perkins, Victoria, B.C., Canada

I have lived in the US all my life and have always definitely distinguished between ensure and insure. It seems ridiculous to me to confuse these two words the way this article suggested, so I speculate that this ambiguity of ensure and insure is probably particular to a part of the US (i am from the western united states, utah, to be exact) or just plain uneducated. I suggest someone look into this more and change the article.


 * I am another person from the US who has always seen (and used) a clear distinction between ensure (make sure something happens) and insure (provide renumeration if something happens or fails to happen). I have never seen insure used for the former case (notwithstanding the example provided from MWOD).  John Darrow (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks
I think there are too many wikilinks in this article. Where a word is mentioned because of a spelling difference, I don't see an automatic need to link to the word's Wikipedia article or Wiktionary page. There is a case for doing so if the linked article discusses its spelling in more detail; and possibly if it's a rather obscure word that many readers won't know the definition of. The tables are okay as the use-mention distinction is maintained by having separate columns. But I would rewrite the following paragraph (among others not quite so extreme):
 * Many words are written with ae or oe in British English, but a single e in American English.  The sound in question is  or  (or unstressed ).  Examples (with non-American letter in bold): anaemia, anaesthesia, caesium, diarrhoea,  gynaecology, haemophilia, leukaemia, oesophagus, oestrogen, orthopaedic, paediatric.  Words where British usage varies include  encyclopaedia, foetus (though the British medical community deems this variant unacceptable for the purposes of journal articles and the like, since the Latin spelling is actually fetus), homoeopathy, mediaeval.  In American usage, aesthetics and archaeology prevail over esthetics and archeology, while  oenology is a minor variant of enology.

where all the links are just distracting and irrelevant. We even have f(o)etus and others linked twice. jnestorius(talk) 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

-ed vs. -st/-ove
Snalwibma thought most of these didn't belong on List of British words not widely used in the United States so I'm proposing they be added here:


 * dived: dove
 * leapt: leaped (lept--rare)
 * learnt: learned
 * smelt: smelled
 * spelt: spelled
 * whilst: while (this is on American_and_British_English_differences--not in the spelling section, oddly--but should probably be here) -Eep² 20:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All those past participles are already covered (or can be added, if any are missing) in the verb morphology section - (here). No need to add them again. Snalwibma 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, getting confused between articles (though I suspect I'm not the only one)! Those verb forms are dealt with in American and British English differences (and that is where Eep² added them, duplicating the information already in the article), rather than here in American and British English spelling differences. Maybe there is justification for alluding to the issue in this article too - but I'm not sure where exactly it would go. Any ideas? Snalwibma 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Title
How about renaming this article to "World/International spelling differences" or "English spelling differences"? Then one of the first sentences could be that it is largely an American / British or Commonwealth distinction. Otherwise, it presupposes the knowledge that Australian spelling, for example, is closely related to British spelling. Colin MacLaurin 10:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Or just keep it how it is! This article is for documenting AmE and BrE spellings only. Why change it to make it broader and more confusing? -- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/  16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * This article is part of a series: Category:American and British English differences. Thou shalt not break its fearful symmetry.  &mdash;<font face="Bookman old style">  JackLumber /tɔk/ 18:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Or ... give us life & bid us feed ... there is more to be said on the matter. No, it doesn't have to be added here, but could another article with broader scope not be written, linking here for greater detail, and similarly for others in the series thus subsuming the aformentioned category itself into something of the likes of Category:Differences in English dialects?  Well, that's how I'd frame it. Jɪmp 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Section tables
I think that every section should be put in a table like the first section, which is easy to read. Rather you than me, but it would improve readability! Gigitrix 11:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would work - the best bits of the article are the more discursive sections that cannot easily be rendered as tables. Snalwibma 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymologically correct vs. etymologically conservative
I changed instances of "etymologically correct" to "etymologically conservative." As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia describes what is, doesn't prescribe what's better. "Conservative" is descriptive: the modern form more closely resembles its ancestor. "Correct" is prescriptive: this is a good thing. Humane Earth 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good point! Thanks. --Truth About Spelling 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take issue with this from the notes on "disc or disk": Both spellings are etymologically sound (Greek diskos, Latin discus), although disk is earlier.

Wikipedia should prescribe by an NPOV, and that includes not judging the etymological correctness of words. This article should describe what is, not tell what should be. Does anyone else think that "Both spellings are etymologically sound" and "although" should be removed?? Denis Diderot II (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Liquorice etymology
The OED traces "liquorice" from Greek γλυκύσσίζα ("sweet root") via the Latin liquiritia into European languages. Perhaps not a folk etymology after all? If editors think it significant I will restore it, giving OED as the citation. --Old Moonraker 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is possibly the most famous example of folk etymology, because it's well known in languages other than English. The Greek word is transliterated as glykyrrhiza; liquiritia is actually Medieval Latin, the classical Latin word being glycyrrhiza, of which liquiritia is an alteration, obviously influenced by liquor.  It was licorice in Middle English and Old French. &mdash;<font face="Bookman old style">  JackLumber /tɔk/ 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OED certainly labelled the latin as "late", but the joke seems to have been lost on them! In the light of this I'm withdrawing my proposal. Is there a source anywhere? --Old Moonraker 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Found a citation for the adoption of liquorice in concious echo of liquor. Apologies for my previous doubts!--Old Moonraker 09:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may think that Americans dislike folk etymology. That just ain't true!  What about the chaise lounge, the carry-all (French carriole), kitty corner and catty corner, Jonnycake/Johnny cake/journey cake, catchup/catsup (for ketchup, which is now the most common spelling in the U.S. too).  The most absurd of them all is, arguably, Jerusalem artichoke, which is not endemically American, although the plant itself is. &mdash;<font face="Bookman old style">  JackLumber /tɔk/ 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Licorice, foregrounded by Canadian and Australian dictionaries,"? Does this mean in the dictionaries it is listed first over the other spelling (of liquorice)? In the Macquarie Dictionary it is headworded with a see liquorice for a full description of the word. --203.220.171.11 13:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless, irrelevant discussion. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take away british spelling
Hey, what the hell happened to my sensical proposition to elimnate all british spelling from wikipedia?--PoidLover 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was removed, because it was irrelevant to this page. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's spelling policies, I suggest you take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling). Snalwibma 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand it was irrelevant, but I didn't know where to start. Can you at least put it back up so I can copy/paste it to the spelling policies thread; I think the way I put it together was practically perfect and I don't want to have to do it again.--PoidLover 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's your rant back. Watch your step, you're gonna get blocked again. &mdash;<font face="Bookman old style">  JackLumber /tɔk/ 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, it isn't in any way, shape, or form a rant, by any means, got it? Read it carefully and find out, then use a reliable dictionary and find out for yourself what defines a rant. Secondly, why do you think I'm going to get blocked? Why will nobody take this, a VERY serious subject, seriously? Actually, SOME people take it seriously, but for some reason, this isn't the majority. Also, I would like to speak to the Mod who deleted my post.--PoidLover 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite entitled to promote the elimination of Biritsh [sic] spelling, and to use whatever misinformed arguments you like in support of your views - but not here. OK? Snalwibma 07:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that some of my "evidence" is misinformed, but the main argument stands regardless of the evidence provided. The argument is basically, and please pay attention the the word BASICALLY, that an encyclopedia needs to have uniformity, and that using a dialect not used by the majority of the English speaking world in the majority of the articles makes no sense. All articles should have the same dialect, and if one wishes to learn about British dialects, that's why they go to this article. I already understand that I shouldn't go here to present this issue, as I have been told MANY times, so that's already been clear to me for quite some time. Gosh, you're making it sound like I hate the British or something, and you're also making it quite clear that you have some sort of personal affliction towards having British spelling on Wikipedia.

Alright, just to help prove my point that British spelling remains only because of a personal POV agenda that some (though appearantly most) British people have, let me ask you something: Are you British?


 * erm... "a personal POV agenda that some (though appearantly most) British people have".  You are describing a National POV, in other words, a culture. What is more, it is THE culture that the subject itself emerged from. I would suggest that you have elevated pov to new heights - perhaps the answer would be to ban all non US isp's from access to wikipedia.org(com) (actually rather a good thing considering WP's content in relation to most non US subjects - see Cuba). Judging by the lack of British relevance here, I imagine that wikipedia.org.uk would go into decline fairly soon.
 * Damn I fell for the oldest trick in the book - now breath slowly... count to ten.... ahhh thats better.81.102.242.228 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. - who's the mod who deleted my post?--PoidLover 17:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat: This is not the right place for this discussion. This page is about the article on American and British English spelling differences, not for discussing Wikipedia policies. If you have a problem with those policies I suggest you take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling). I don't think you'll get much support, however, as Wikipedia has for long time operated on the basis of a well-argued case for using a mixture of spelling conventions. Snalwibma 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He got blocked again, quod erat demonstrandum. &mdash;<font face="Bookman old style"> JackLumber /tɔk/ 13:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a hunch
I've always known about the grey (UK) versus gray (US) issue (it has CSS ramifications!), but I have a hunch that for surnames it's the opposite. Gray (UK) versus Grey (US). Any ideas? 138.243.195.136 12:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's Gray's Anatomy (the British book) and Grey's Anatomy (the American TV show)... try Grey (surname) and Gray (surname)...  &mdash;<font face="Bookman old style">  JackLumber /tɔk/ 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that both are used in the USA and in the UK, but what is listed is the more predominant form in each country.
 * As a web designer that creates sites using CSS, color/colour still gets me every time! It's the first thing I check for now when something isn't rendering as I expect it to. Sibruk 12:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While not really a regional difference, I'm usually more inclined to use gray when dealing with light and dark in their actual, physical sense, and grey when dealing with them in a metaphorical sense (e.g. the Grey Council on Babylon 5, not named simply because of the color of their robes). John Darrow (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Honour
Should mention point that it's invariably "the honour of your presence" on American wedding invitations, one of the rare times this British spelling is used. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Daniel, I didn't know that. I've added a reference; apparently it's done for "favour" too though I guess that's less commonly used in invitations. jnestorius(talk) 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

-ogue
Hi all. I found that Ideologue is always spelt -ogue, but I didn't include it in the page because I can't find a citation for it (apart from the lack of the definition of ideolog on wiktionary and wikipedia - maybe that's a citation?). Also I left it out incase I come across some more words similar, or ones that are always spelt -og (like in computing for example, which has already been included). Bennelliott •  Talk  •  Contributions

Scallywag
I live in Ontario and have never heard the word scallywag called "scalawag" in my entire life. 67.68.137.98 17:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Titbit/Tidbit
For the word "titbit/tidbit" the explanation "Canada as U.S." doesn't make much sense I think it would be a good idea to clarify as in what they mean and change it so people aren't confused.

Pronunciation e.g. era
What about problems created not by spelling but by pronunciation? Era is spelled the same everywhere but Americans say era the way a Brit would say error and the UK pronunciation of the first syllable is like ear /'i:r/
 * American and British English pronunciation differences. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything written about the pronounciation of ugh or ough. This is a large difference between America and the Commonwealth. For example, in the UK, Edinburgh is pronounced "Edinbra" or "Edinbera". In Canada, Scarborough or Peterborough are pronounced "Scarboro/Peterboro" or "Scarbora/Peterbora" which is clearly more like the UK pronounciation. In America, Pittsburgh is pronounced "Pitsburg" stressing the g at the end. Canking 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In the U.S., burg and burgh are pronounced (but see Name of Pittsburgh), but borough and boro are pronounced, never  AFAIK. <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this distinction in the states although I surely would have imagined that boro is commonly pronounced everywhere. Ok so do you therefore agree on the difference of "borough" in Canada sounding "boro or bora" and in the States simply "boro"? I can provide examples in Canada if where it's pronounced "bora" if desired. Canking 19:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Alabama? They're not pronounced the same! I'm sure there are a few more. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Norwich, Connecticut and Norwich, England. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This one's really tricky: Norfolk (England); Norfolk, Virginia; Norfolk, Massachusetts and others; and Norfolk County, Ontario. And there's also the Norfolk Southern. <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the pron. of borough in BrE is (burruh), or even  (bruh), like  said. I'd like to actually know what the pronunciation in AmE is definitely, I can't figure out whether it's  (like the word borrow) or  (like burrow), or something else entirely. -- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman  <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/  20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
 * What happened then then? I put User:Canking (wiki-linked obviously), and it turned into "I am Canadian and currently doing a Masters degree in Economics in Scotland"!-- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/  20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

User:Canking (Test) <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's like burrow; transcribed in American English as or .  In Received Pronunciation, however, it's ; in most North American accents (notable exceptions are Boston and New York City), a  (, whatever) substitutes for the sequence  + .  Some conservative British dialects (including Boothman's, apparently...) have a different vowel altogether... <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In most of North America, furry rhymes with hurry; in Britain it usually doesn't. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does conservative mean in this context? Interestingly, in my area, furry rhymes with fairy. -- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/  22:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC).
 * They are conservative in that they retain "archaic" features. For instance, for many Scots, bird, turd, and herd still don't rhyme. <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For most Americans, Mary, merry, and marry are the same; for some, Mary and marry are the same, but merry is like Murray. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now don't tell me that Murray rhymes with jury in your accent... <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Murray rhymes with curry and hurry. Jury rhymes with furry. -- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/  22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Alumin*m
Aluminium fails to cite any source for the putative Latin root, and using platinum as a template is questionable (after all, it's not an element known to the Romans); further research reveals an OED citation dating to 1782 for the earliest use of platinum: "post-classical Latin platinum (T. BERGMAN Sciagraphia regni mineralis (1782 ) 109: cf. quot. 1783, which is translated from the 1783 edition of this source), alteration of PLATINA n.1 or its etymon Spanish {dag}platina, after the Latin names of other metals ending in -um (e.g. classical Latin aurum gold (see AURUM n.), argentum silver (see ARGENT n.), post-classical Latin niccolum nickel (see NICCOLIC adj.), zincum ZINC n.)..." so it would seem that Davey was more likely to be thinking of the classical Latin conjugation (of gold, silver &c) rather than that of platinum when he revised his appelation. - Nigosh 04:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Although "aluminium" is generally pronounced the American way in Canada, it IS spelled -ium.

See here: http://www.gdsourcing.com/works/Aluminium.htm


 * Is that a joke? That page points to the Aluminum (not Aluminium) Association of Canada. I'm <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) and I approve this message. 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that all their web addresses use the -ium spelling illustrate that BOTH are used in Canada? Also note that ALCAN used the -ium spelling from 1966 onward. Go to any local grocery store and do a survey of how many rolls of aluminium foil use each spelling. It is simply innaccurate to say that Canada only uses the US spelling. Wiki should be descriptive (and thus accurate), not prescriptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.131.197.45 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is neither "proscriptive" nor prescriptive. The point about web addresses is completely irrelevant; do the websites www.la2nite.com and www.boston2nite.com imply that 2nite is a legitimate variant of tonight in the U.S.?  No.  Also, the Aluminum Association of Canada is based in Quebec, where French is the primary language: This explains the use of aluminium in the URL.  A similar argument can be applied to Alcan--which is now owned by a British company anyway--and to aluminum foil packaging.  As for the Canadian Oxford, it actually prefers aluminum.  I'm <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the URL addresses, I think a distinction can be drawn between that of an official national organization and one of a private site. ALCAN's current status is irrelevant as they could not have predicted being bought by Rio Tinto 40 years before the fact. The correlation between the French spelling may have been convenient for the company and be convenient for aluminium foil packaging, but won't that French language have an effect on the English of the country? Would -re spellings persist in Canada were it not for French? It is impossible to say for certain, but quite likely -re would have given way to the American -er without French. Aside from all that, many if not most in the Canadian scientific community use -ium because it is the preferred spelling of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).

As for the Canadian Oxford, it clearly had its own agenda and is not to be trusted as descriptive of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.116.131.228 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Matt / matte (as in not glossy)
This seems to have been overlooked; I've just added it. It is matt in British English, and appears to be (from repeated edits to various wiki articles) matte in American English. Can someone dig out some refs, and usage in Canada, Australia, etc., please? - MPF 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's actually a little complicated; this probably belongs under "Different spellings, different connotations." I'll get to it later today.  Thanks! <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

endeavo(u)r?
Should we add endeavour/endeavor? 84.9.108.180 03:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be written in proper english. At the moment the article is not expressed clearly and has major flaws. It needs fixing. However, I cannot be bothered to stand the sillyness of the article to do so. [User:dbmoodb|dbmoodb]] 12:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Webster was a strong proponent of spelling reform for reasons both philological and nationalistic. Many spelling changes proposed in the U.S. by Webster himself, and in the early 20th century by the Simplified Spelling Board, never caught on. Among the advocates of spelling reform in England, the influences of those who preferred the Norman (or Anglo-French) spellings of certain words proved decisive. Subsequent spelling adjustments in the UK had little effect on present-day U.S. spelling, and vice versa. While in many cases American English deviated in the 19th century from mainstream British spelling, on the other hand it has also often retained older forms.

This section is confusing and should be re-worded to make it more clear and precise.


 * Regarding endeavo(u)r, just to clear up any confusion I thought it might be interesting to know that the Space Shuttle Endeavour is so spelt because it is named after the British ship HM Bark Endeavour, but endeavor is the correct U.S. spelling. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Question
Not sure if this is the place to ask this, but what is the Wikipedia policy for article title spellings? For example, the color page is color, but the honor page is honour. Shouldn't they be consistent with which spelling is used? Emperor001 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENGVAR. Unfortunately, the words spelling and Wikipedia are not collocates of the word consistency.  If it were up to me, Oxford spelling would be used throughout WP. <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oxford spelling? For a database which is primarily located in Florida? Time to lose the provincial attitude, methinks. 2007 July 25 20:32 EDT mjd
 * Heh, JackLumber is an American. And the database location has nothing whatsoever to do with it, seen as Wikipedia was created as a neutral, international site. -- <font color="#0f6e0a">Boothman <font color="#5c9337">/tɔːk/  11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Personally, I think they should allow a selection under preferences. In the articles, there could be some sort of html to choose the correct version to display. For example the word corn/maize/whatnot would be {en|am:corn|au:corn|br:maize|cd:corn|sa:mealies, etc, etc.} and appear different depending on the set region. Yet this would require a great deal of work which, since we all understand (for the most part) anyway, would be almost entirely a waste... I would do it though, if no one else Alexandre-Jérôme 02:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Accoutrements
I beleive the folowing statement is incorrect:

British spellings accoutre(ment), goitre, litre, lustre, mitre, nitre, reconnoitre, saltpetre, spectre, centre, titre; calibre, fibre, sabre, and sombre all have -er in American spelling.

In my favorite (American) dictionary, the Merriam-Webster, accoutrement and accoutre are the only acceptable forms. Although I have never heard the word "accoutre" spoken nor seen it written, "accoutrements" is relatively common. Curious, I looked in another dictionary of mine, the American Heritage (need I say, also American?), and it stated the opposite: accouter is the only acceptable term, accoutre being "archaic" and "chiefly British." It is to note that both had "accoutrement" and the latter stated "accouterment" alongside as a variant, although the 're' form was neither "archaic" nor "chiefly British." The reason I thought to look is that I could not imagine pronouncing "accouterments" at all, as when I have heard the word used, it is not pronounced with an -re/-er sound at all, but /ə.'kʰut.rə.mɪnʦ/, split into two separate syllables. What's odd, is that both dictionaries stated it is primarily pronounced "/rə/," even the one that chose the "accouterment" spelling!! This leaves me confused, and impelled me to inquire here.

Although I accept that both versions are acceptable, seeing neither as better, I don't think they fit soundly into this generalized list. Primarily because all the dictionaries I have consulted state both as relatively equal variants and secondarily because it is not only/always pronounced /ɝ/, setting apart from the others of the list who are without exception. I think they: -Should be separately mentioned -Should be discluded altogether as irregular - or I should be regarded as a lunatic Whichever is chosen, is correct, or whatever should occur, I am unsatisfied with the current situation --Alexandre-Jérôme 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

-ise/ -ize
I changed this because it seems like there isn't any real proof that -ise is used at all in Canada. Maybe by individuals, but in newspapers (at least those in Ontario and the national newspaper The Globe and Mail), -ize is the form used. That -ise is listed as an acceptable alternative in any Canadian OED doesn't, in my opinion, constitute proof. I'm happy enough to leave it as it is, I just thought I would explain why I changed it. I would have done that in the edit summary but I mistakenly thought the reason would be evident. America&#39;s Wang 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Actually, the paragraph you edited is about -yze vs. -yse (as in analy?e, paraly?e, etc.); the Canadian Oxford prioritizes -yze, but lists -yse as an equal variant (note that the same dictionary tends to see -ise as British.)  Furthermore, your revision suggests that -yze and -yse are both equally used in Canada, since "Canada" belongs to both "Commonwealth" and "North America."  That sentence needs to be reworded anyway. <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am Canadian, and "ise" is not uncommon. In fact, I was specifically taught "ise" in school. It is especially common in areas with a francophone influence, like Ottawa. The Globe and Mail, comming out of Toronto, is less likely to use it. --RogueMountie 05:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No Canadian publisher I know of uses "ise." Granted, individual usage may vary, but Canadian dictionaries tend to see ise as British, and that's good enough for me.  After all, both British and American spellings are acceptable in Canada, so what do you expect.  <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the following interesting and partly contradictory sites:    (e.g. S page - direct link doesn't work) --Espoo (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you that no self-respecting western Canadian would ever use "ise" and I doubt many other Canadians do except those that think we're still back in the 1800s and a British colony. Same applies for "our" endings. Someone needs to write an article on the effects of social engineering on Canadian spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.2.138 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dropped 'e' - usage in British English
As a Brit, I'm a little confused by the 'dropped e' section. When I was at primary school I always got taught 'drop the -e and -ing'. So doesn't that turn age for instance into aging, and route into routing? (Note: I'm using Firefox with the BrE spell checker, and it lists aging as a mistake, but doesn't have a problem with routing -- and on the suggestions list it has caging, paging, waging, etc.) If they're a reason for this or am I being stupid? --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to dictionaries, British spelling accepts both ageing and ageing and both routeing and routing. Ageing appears to be much more common than aging, but routing (as the present participle of route) is at least as common as routeing.  Note that routing can also be the present participle of rout; but confusion is unlikely. <font face="Courier New" size="1">  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Kidnaped" and "Worshiped"
"Among consonants other than l, practice varies for some words, such as where the final syllable has secondary stress or an unreduced vowel. In the U.S., the spellings kidnaped and worshiped, introduced by the Chicago Tribune in the 1920s,[50] are common alongside kidnapped and worshipped, the only standard British spellings"

I'm an American, and I had never, ever seen "kidnaped" or "worshiped" before in my life except as spelling errors. I would think they would be pronounced as [ˌkɪdˈneɪpt] and [ˌwɑɹˈʃaɪpt] in that respective order if I ever saw them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron CurtaiNYC (talk • contribs) 02:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Burnt/burned, learnt/learned, dreamt/dreamed, spelt/spelled...& others
Unless I missed it, the UK/Australia/NZ differences to the American spellings was not commented upon. 24.121.15.234 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is which? In Canada at least I've seen both used but Canada is a special case wrt these kinds of spelling differences.Zebulin 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a cross-reference from the "Spelling and pronunciation" section to American and British English differences which discusses this. jnestorius(talk) 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the spelling differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian
I have removed the warning to the effect that the phrase "Spelling differences" can also refer to the differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. What about the spelling differences between Brazilian Portuguese and Continental Portuguese? Or between Latin American Spanish and Iberian Spanish? Or between Canadian French and Continental French? Or between Romanian and Moldovan? Or between Bahasa Malay and Bahasa Indonesia? Or between Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese? And so on and so forth.

This is the English-language Wikipedia. Whoever types just "Spelling differences" in the Search box must perforce have the English language in mind, not what used to be known as Serbo-Croatian, or any other language for that matter.

I am frankly surprised that this utterly irrelevant warning, introduced by User:Melsaran on 31 May 2007, has resisted for more than nine months without apparently raising an eyebrow. Pasquale 00:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As a footnote, I might add that User:Melsaran has been blocked indefinitely. Pasquale 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Must perforce", eh? Well, "spelling differences" does redirect here. I agree with the sentiment behind your rhetorical questions, but I have answered them differently.  jnestorius(talk) 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the creator of the spelling differences redirect; it was indeed supposed to be a shortcut to this article. The whole Serbo-Croatian dab thing actually dates back to October 27, 2006, when User:Grandmasterka first raised the issue.  Wow, I didn't know Melsaran f.k.a. Salaskan got blocked, that's a shock to me.  Granted, he was a handful, but he wasn't a bad guy after all.  The weirdest thing about him was that he claimed to have a near-native knowledge of English when in fact he proved to know little about English phonology and there were a couple of grammatical errors on his very userpage.  Joesty: thanks for the subp(o)ena thing--or, a couple of typos mistaken for a source!  <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think it should be put back in, or maybe even that a disambiguation page should be made; someone looking for "spelling differences" might well not be looking for them in English. Twin Bird (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My earlier comment was cryptic. To clarify: I replaced with , which category includes differences between standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. jnestorius(talk) 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arch(a)eology
The article says that words like anaemia, anaesthesia, caesium, diarrhoea, gynaecology, haemophilia, leukaemia, oesophagus, oestrogen, orthopaedic, and paediatric "are written with ae or oe in British English, but a single e in American English." Since archaeology is prioritized by three four American dictionaries at least, and is more than twice as common as archeology according to corpus data, we CANNOT say that this word "is written with ae in British English, but a single e in American English," because it ain't true. The following sentence points out that archaeology is more common than archeology; that's all there is. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for this mistake. My latest devastating typo, attributable to my poor cut-and-paste skills. Sigh. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Article title
Why not Regional differences in English spelling? Clearly there's no sense in having a different article for each combination of countries, and the spelling in many Commonwealth countries is the same as in Britain, so "British" spelling isn't distinctly British. Since detailed information on Canadian and Australian spelling is provided throughout the article this article doesn't even attempt to limit its scope to difference between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Ben Arnold (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt
There's a statement at the bottom of the table of miscellaneous spelling differences that says "In Canada yogurt prevails, despite the Canadian Oxford preferring yogourt, which has the advantage of being bilingual, English and French." The sentence claims that either yogurt or yogourt (it's ambiguous as written) is the Metropolitan French spelling for the thick gooey milk based stuff (ttgmbs). But as far as I know, the French word for ttgmbs is yaourt. So what is meant here? Is it just that Canadian French and Canadian English share a word for ttgmbs? And if so, is it really worth noting? Those two language variants must share many words because of their regular close contact. Can anyone shed any light on this? Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * yogourt is an accepted variant of yaourt in the Petit Larousse; Hachette lists both yogourt and yoghourt as variants. Not surprising that the multilingual form should be a compromise from the otherwise-usual forms of both languages. Googling  produces quite a few hits in both languages; not so many as  but far more than . jnestorius(talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I've lived in France and never noticed the alternative spelling, but it seems there are many variants. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I note that the examples given for yog(o)urt come from Canadian websites. The equivalent google searches for, and  give about a 20 to 1 ratio in favour of yaourt, so I think perhaps yog(o)urt is largely a Canadian usage, and should perhaps be marked as such. 4u1e (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The orthographic analogue of accent prestige
To talk circumspectly about Americans sometimes using British spellings, one must broach the topic of the orthographic analogue of accent prestige. Recurrent in this article (and its talk page) are cases where a British spelling is occasionally seen in the U.S. There is an underlying reason uniting many of these cases: In the U.S., British accents (most often RP) often have accent prestige, and, analogously, British spellings sometimes connote prestige (or some other desirable aspect, such as foodie romanticism toward the "Olde World"). Consequently, two contexts in which you recurrently see Americans affecting British spellings are (1) in marketing & advertising (e.g., "draught beer", "AmEx cheques") and (2) in anything wedding-related (e.g., "the honour of your presence is requested"). The latter will be the more ridiculous the more the social striving is bridezilla-ish; however, even non-bridezilla weddings tend to show a weakness for affectation.

I think that this article needs to mention this "orthographic prestige". I don't have any references to cite offhand, but surely discussions of this must have been published already, given how obvious both accent prestige and "orthographic prestige" are.

— ¾-10 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dropped e
Aging/ageing. Ages/agees? (I mean the verb, obviously) Is it spelled like this in the UK? It does look a bit odd to me! Allthecoolnamesweretaken (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

-ise, -ize
I believe the spelling with an s is due to the influence of French, where the suffix is -iser (not ignorance!) Unfortunately, I do not have a source. FilipeS (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as a matter of fact, the article clearly states that -ise is French-influenced. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I missed that. But the article still reads a bit as though the spelling with "z" should be favored, and the spelling with "s" were due to ignorance:

"In contradiction of these reasons, likely due to ignorance rather than conflicting rationale, -ise is used extensively."

This is original research, and also not very NPOV. FilipeS (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're dead right. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

analyse/analyze in French
However, analyse was commonly spelled analyze from the first — a spelling also accepted by Samuel Johnson; the word, which came probably from French analyser, on Greek analogy would have been analysize, from French analysiser, from which analyser was formed by haplology. I know this is supposedly referenced, but analysiser sounds really, really weird in French. Are you sure it was ever used?! It certainly isn't nowadays! FilipeS (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * analysiser was the original form of analyser, as the Oxford English Dictionary points out. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Probably", "would have been"... It all sounds very speculative. Is the word analysiser actually attested in writing? FilipeS (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, nobody said "it probably was" or it would-a could-a should-a. I said, it WAS. Take it out on the Oxfordians! <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They are the ones who said "probably" and "would have been", as quoted in the article! FilipeS (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only did I read the article---I wrote that sentence, man. Merriam-Webster has "analyze... probably irregular from analysis" (emphasis added.) Duh! <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "would have been" refers to the etymology of the English word, and not to the French form: since analysiser was the original form of analyser in French, the corresponding word in English *would have been* analysizer, although the word was actually coined as analyze (or analyse); all the OED note does is point out that analyze and analyse are equally acceptable from the standpoint of etymology. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that I question whether the word analysizer ever existed at all in French. FilipeS (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We might search for French sources to back up the OED's claim. Until then, the OED is a good enough reference. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming late to the party, sorry. The OED para is a bit dense, but it appears to be theorising about routes into English which had been bypassed: "On Greek analogies the vb. would have been analysize, Fr. analysiser" (my emphasis). As I read it they are trying to adjudicate on the -ize -ise issue and the French example is only used notionally to explain why both forms could be acceptable. No surprise, then, that FilipeS hasn't heard of it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also-rans
When it comes to list variant spellings, many dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, AHD, and Oxford, distinguish between The tables in the article do not list the also variants, for the sake of simplicity, but they do mention them in the notes. In other dictionaries (for example Webster's New World), the main headwords don't even mention the also-rans, which are listed at their own places in the dictionary and defined by cross-reference (x2 variant of X1). <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) equal variants:  the alternate spelling (preceded by or) is equally acceptable, but somewhat less common.  An example from AHD: catalog and catalogue.
 * 2) "also" variants: the alternate spelling (preceded by also) is equally acceptable, but much less common. (e.g. gray and grey).  Appropriately enough, such variants are also known as also-rans.

Complain Complain
Thats all you people ever do. If someone wanted THAT much information on spelling, they wouldn't come to Wikipedia to get it because this website is notorious for lapsing into fights over content or constant edits and is generally taken for an unreliable source because of such.

So chill out and let it be. No one looking for perfect information would come here, so perfection is not needed.

P.S. "in Australia, mum is the word." Very clever. Thanks to whoever put this bit in, I had a nice chuckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.57.173 (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, man. That was me. <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack (Lumber) 14:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Artefact/Artifact
In the section on artefact versus artifact, it is stated that in AmE, while artifact is the usual spelling, “it is regarded as nonstandard by some U.S. authorities.” However, according to Merriam-Webster's, artifact is the AmE spelling and that spelling is used for both of the meanings sometimes distinguished in BrE by different spellings. That is, whereas it might be acceptable in BrE to use the spelling, artefact, for something created by artisans for a practical purpose, and to use the spelling, artifact, for the extraneous results of a laboratory experiment, in AmE both are spelled artifact. According to M-W, artefact is a “chiefly British variant of artifact.” Therefore, the wikiauthor might want to add a citation to support his/her comment that some AmE sources regard the “i” spelling as nonstandard. Personally, I rarely recall ever seeing it published with the “e” spelling in a modern, (North) American publication. SpikeToronto (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the "authoratative" reference book I have, "artifact" is the standard American spelling Kman543210 (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Catsup and Ketchup
In the UK there is "only ketchup" (citing OED) and the variation "catsup" only occurs in American English (citing The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English). This is completely contrary to the article. The spellings in the table could be reversed or, as the two variations only exist within the U.S., the entry could be deleted altogether, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the inclusion of ketchup/catsup was incorrect. I distinctly recall a piece years ago on the American NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw reporting on the passing of the word, catsup, from the production/manufacturing lexicon with the changing of Brooks-brand “catsup” to “ketchup,” the last such sauce to have theretofore been so-named in the United States. I have a vaguer recollection of the same report mentioning that the word, catsup, was not used anywhere else in the English-speaking world. (By the way, the BrE Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary lists the word, catsup, as “US FOR ketchup”.) SpikeToronto (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's done. Thanks JackLumber. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Term English English Vs British English and the term American English
Britain, or The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no less than five native languages, including Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Scotts, Cornish and of course English. Whilst English is spoken widely in most of the countries comprising The Union, only in England is English the only official language. Surely English English would be a more correct term for the English language, or perhaps just the term English.

The St George's flag would need to be used in place of the Union Flag.

Also, by the same reasoning, the term American English, would be the English spoken by people from the Americas, this would include the predominantly Spanish and Portuguese speaking Mid and South American countries and Canada. All are American countries. A better term might be United States English or US English. 81.138.5.131 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to come up with differences between CanE and AmE that are significant enough for CanE not to be subsumed under AmE. SpikeToronto (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly sympathize with your efforts of achieving both a factually correct and politically correct article, I have to disagree with the re-namings. AmE/BrE and American English/British English are the terms used to discuss this issue. If we change the title people will be less likely to find it.

Additionally, I believe that the name changes would constitute "new research", which Wikipedia does not allow. Denis Diderot II (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

spell -> dispel; toll ->
I'm removing these examples because the "spel" of dispel is not whatsoever etymologically related to "spell." Likewise, the "tol" in extol isn't related to "toll." All the other examples make the point with shared roots.68.188.2.182 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Naivety nonsense
here's http://www.merriam-webster.com/mw/netdict.htm the online version of the 11th Collegiate


 * naivety
 * One entry found.


 * naivety


 * Main Entry:

na·ive·ty Listen to the pronunciation of naivety
 * Variant(s):

also na·ïve·ty Listen to the pronunciation of naïvety \nä-ˈē-və-tē, -ˈēv-tē, nī-\
 * Function:
 * noun
 * Inflected Form(s):
 * plural na·ive·ties
 * Date:
 * 1708


 * chiefly British : naïveté

But what this article says is pretty much bass-ackwards from this. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * MW is not saying "naïveté is a chiefly British alternative of naivety"; it's saying "naivety is a chiefly British alternative of naïveté ", which is what the article says. jnestorius(talk) 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen anyone write naïveté in Britain. And I'm British. Jonnyboy5 (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ise and -ze
I changed the paragraph:

despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ize form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "[T]he suffix…, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.

to read "...did not list the -ise form."

Otherwise it doesn't seem to make sense. Not to me, anyway. Les woodland (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)les woodland

While the article states that 'ise' is used by the British government, I don't think there's any evidence that it uses as an official policy. You will find examples of 'ize' as well, although they are notably less frequent. Jonnyboy5 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC) No-one complained, so I changed it today. Jonnyboy5 (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. This was bothering me too. I would rather remove all mention about the UK government from here, because there is no primary evidence about it. I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling), but it is probably more of a problem here and also at Oxford spelling. Sam (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've been bold and removed the sentences. If someone finds some evidence, e.g. an external article with these kinds of assertions, we can put something back in. Sam (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

carmel and caramel
I'm Australian, where c-a-r-a-m-e-l is the only spelling and pronunciation of the word. However, I've also lived in California and travelled extensively around the USA and you almost always hear the pronunciation without the second "a", and you often see the spelling, for example on candy bar wrappers, as "carmel". Maybe it isn't the predominant spelling in the USA, but you certainly see it. Philryan (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

forever / for ever
Article claims: In British usage, for ever means for eternity (or a very long time), as in "I have been waiting for you for ever." Forever means continually, always, as in "They are forever arguing." Forever prevails in all senses in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In fact, for ever is not common in British usage. I am a voracious reader and have rarely or never seen it. The Chambers Dictionary (2005) also lists the two phrases as synonyms. 86.160.226.66 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may often have read it without remarking the spelling. The British National Corpus gives 1246 matches for "for ever" as against 1773 for "forever".  It's a pointless distinction enforced by a fair few style guides (e.g. Guardian, Times, Economist) in the face of widespread public ignorance.  Dictionaries having moved from prescription to description recognise and hasten the abandonment of "for ever".   Neveertheless it has not yet vanished.    The COD recognises "for ever" (as a variant of "forever") only in the "for all future time" sense. I agree it does not belong in the misc section, but it should be mentioned in the compounds section.  "anymore" could usefully move there too. --jnestorius(talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many phrases in everyday use in English come from the Book of Common Prayer. All versions have for ever and ever as the last line of the Lord's Prayer. To anyone of "a certain age" (or as BCP has it: such as are of riper years) exposed to an education in England can only wince at "forever and ever". --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1989, the OED editors tagged forever "chiefly U.S. exc. in sense ‘incessantly’"; the first quotation is however British (John Eachard, 1670). I think that both for[]ever and any[]more should be moved to the main article, because it's more a matter of grammar; this would also give us the opportunity to mention "anymore vs. any more" and "positive anymore" in one place.  (Positive anymore, as in All I do anymore is edit Wikipedia, used to be Pittsburghese, but it's now heard in other parts of the U.S. too.  The OED (2002) labels it "Chiefly Irish English and N. Amer. colloq."; its use in the U.S. is obviously of Scotch-Irish origin.) <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Positive anymore is grammar, but I'm not sure we want to broach nonstandard forms. (BTW, my dad has positive anymore and he's the nonnest of non-Scotch Irish ;) Even if OED2 is believed, "incessantly" forever is lexicon, not grammar.  Are you sure that's 1989 OED as opposed to 1889 NED? Very little of the first-edition text was amended (as opposed to augmented) by the supplements (i.e. the 2nd ed.).  Usage labels in particular have often survived through neglect.  And spaced or solid any[ ]more / for[ ]ever is definitely spelling.  Ask Oxford has a nice graph of AmE/BrE compound trends under "Some day or someday?". jnestorius(talk) 14:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was actually the first edition. And yes, but there are differences in meaning between the spaced and solid forms.  That chart is interesting indeed; note that adverbial straightaway "immediately" is more common in BrE than AmE, while the noun straightaway "straight part of a road or racetrack," which arguably never appears as two words, is more common in AmE than BrE. (In a random sample of 50 BNC tokens, none had to do with asphalt, while 11 of 50 random BYU CAE tokens did.)  In case too has two meanings: A construction like "In case of rain, the event will be cance[l]led" is said to be more American (as opposed to "Bring an umbrella in case of rain").  Be that as it may, solid incase makes me flinch.  As for underway, Hargraves (p. 31) says "some British dictionaries don't even give underway as a headword, insisting that it must always be two words, but in fact the solid form of this adjective is as common in British writing as in American."  Yet Peters (p. 557) seems to disagree: "The Shorter Oxford (1992) gives priority to underway, and its popularity with British writers is strongly confirmed in data from the BNC. [Jack's note: what‽ under way prevails by 1.64:1 in that corpus]  But under way is still well used in American English, and outnumbers underway by about 3:1 in data from CCAE [Cambridge Corpus of American English]."  In the BYU corpus, under way still prevails, but the ratio is 1.57:1.  Big time and up front are the quintessential early 20th century Americanisms.  <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, whenever I read sentences like, "I have been waiting for you for ever." I immediately think the writer is writing in American English. In Britain it is uncommon, or at least, is only slang, to refer to things in the past as being 'for ever' (spelling is not my issue here). If I wished to express the sentiments of the example sentence, I would say/write, "I have been waiting for you for ages". "Waiting for ever" only sounds like it refers to future events, like, "If you are waiting for income tax to be abolished you will probably have to wait for ever." Am I alone in this belief? Pheasantplucker (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - but it's not relevant to an article about spelling! Probably also too small a point for American and British English differences. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No offence intended, but we strive to be accurate here SNALWIBMA, isn't that right? I just wanted to clean that issue up. Greetings, Pheasantplucker (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - I hadn't realised how easily a small change to the text of this article could make it better match BrE usage, without labouring the point about meaning in an article about spelling! Good edit. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Section? (-ed/-t)
There are several verbs whose past tense is denoted by the suffix "-ed" in American English but with the suffix "-t" in British English. For example, consider "spoiled" vs. "spoilt." I would make this section myself, but I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to begin. Thanks, more qualified, intelligent, and good-looking person reading this! What's the future like? Candent shlimazel (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The future? You mean, aside from the housing market crisis, the skyrocketing fuel prices, the bear market, the job cuts, the recession, and the ongoing wars? The future's so bright I gotta wear shades.  No, this is a matter of morphology rather than orthography; it's dealt with in the main article of this series, in the Verb morphology section; in any case, this article contains a cross-reference to that section, under Spelling and pronunciation.  Oh, and it's not quite true that "-ed is American and -t is British"... <font color="SteelBlue"> Jack  (Lumber) 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bogeyman/boogeyman
I've used the tag instead of the  one for now to provide an opportunity for explanation. With its current phrasing, the sentence is awkward, leading to the possibility of misinterpretation.

I read this as "the British purposely pronounce it BOH-ghi-man to make it distinct from the US pronounciation, which they consider silly because it is reminiscent of 1970s disco dancing...." First of all, that implies that, prior to the disco era, the British (and Australians, I might add) pronounced it the same way as Americans (and Canadians). Since I know this isn't true, it leaves three possibilities (correct me if there's more, but I can't think of any). It could mean that this is an editor's opinion, and would be as unfounded and irrelevant as me adding the following to the article: "Since the British call the semi-hardened mucous pulled from the nose when "picking it" a "bogey", the UK form causes North Americans to visualise their "boogeyman" covered in snot and picking the noses of others." Hilarious, but irrelevant. If this is the case, it should be immediately removed. Second, it could be an opinion from a reliable source; if this is the case—and I really doubt that it is—it needs to be cited; whether or not it belongs in the article or not is moot. That leaves the possibility of a huge defect in sentence construction, hence the "clarify" tag. If someone can determine the correct meaning of this sentence beyond a shadow of a doubt, please fix it! But don't assume! —Skittleys (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proportional fonts
...or what ever most modern WYSIWYG fonts are called that cram text into half-spaces and such REALLY LOOK BAD on perusing this page... in fact, so bad, I couldn't hardly make out the sense of some paragraphs, <tt>particularly the part about words ending with "L" and L doubling and so forth, but a few other places too.</tt> I would suggest the page be formated for monospace like the end of the previous sentence. In most browsers, at least using windows computers that will default to New Courier and maintain the spacing and therefore the legibility of the article. Sorry, but it really reeks like this... interesting though, and much improved I think since the last time I saw it about 18 months ago. // Fra nkB 04:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

NZ
I serached the entire page and found only one, ONE reference to New Zealand english in the entire passage. As opposed to countless references to Australia, despite the fact that they use almost identical English spellings? I think this needs to be rectified. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3.75"> Taifarious1 10:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I correct in my guess that New Zealand follows British spelling more closely than Australia does?   D b f i r s   09:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

British English
There is no such thing as 'British English' There is English and all other forms thereof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.95.214 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * British English is used by the Welsh, Irish and Scottish as well as the English. As far as I know, there is nothing unique about their form of English re: spelling. Therefore British English is the most accurate term Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Irish aren't british and American English is common in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.181.169 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling of Cipher/Cypher Old?
What's with the comment on the Cipher/Cypher saying that the spelling of both variants is old? There is no other spelling to my knowledge, so is the commenter basically just saying the word is old? If so, this seems pointless to me (lots of words are old, why mention it here?) so I'm just going to go ahead and delete it unless there's something obvious I'm missing.71.179.44.207 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

colonisation/colonization
In the article colonisation/colonization are linked as follows: colonisation/colonization. Firstly, would links to Wiktionary not be more appropriate, as in colonisation/colonization. Second, should the two Wikipedia articles colonisation & colonization really redirect to different articles? --Azertus (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No they shouln't - these, and the disam page, are a mess. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the redirect for now, but more work needs doing. Sam5 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Two noteworthy inclusions for the 'ae' section?
Hi folks. I think there are a couple of words that ought to be included in this section because the diminution of 'ae' to 'e' changes their respective pronunciations. The two words in question are 'paedophile' and 'aether'. In both cases the 'ae' is sounded as 'ee' in British pronunciation (so 'peedophile' and 'eether'). The latter is particularly notable in that 'aether' and 'ether' are not used interchangably in Britain: 'aether' is 'air' (or the sky, or the heavens, or the void - as in, "He broadcast into the aether, to be heard he knew not where"); whereas 'ether' is a chemical compound, sometimes used (due, presumably, to the particular physiological effects of diethyl ether) as a synonym for anaesthetic, hence its becoming a verb i.e. 'etherised' (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3050/is_3-4_20/ai_n29150271/) Regards, BlackMarlin (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)