Talk:List of words with different meanings in British and American English

This is my attempt at overhauling the article to be tidier and hopefully more maintainable. At the moment I have done only the A-F section.

I have used the notation [?] where I feel things might want checking/improving, and also dotted a few HTML comments here and there, but feel free to improve any entries.

A few open issues remain: -- Smjg 16:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * what to do with the old instances of "(+US meaning as an Americanism)"
 * what to do with meanings that are rare or dialectal on one side
 * what notation should fill blank cells - ideally this shouldn't be misleading when the US meaning overlaps the UK one or vice versa (as with bathroom).

It has always seemed to me that the mix of slang, colloquial, and standard-usage words in this list makes it harder to use. Take "beaver" for example. It has a standard meaning common to both dialects, a slang meaning common to both, and an additional slang meaning in Britain (which incidentally no Brit I have asked has ever heard of). Is this something likely to be confused on par with (e.g.) braces/suspenders? I think not.

If I was doing this (I'm not), I would create "Standard" and "Slang" variants, then further partition out highly regional or specific slang (i.e. Cockney rhyming). But that's just me. -- Gnetwerker 05:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fork divergence
The main article has been edited since this version was forked. If this version is to be merged back into the main article, it will need to be updated with those changes. -- Beland 21:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This version ought to replace the current version of the main article once it's ready. As I add to this version, I'm merging in changes from the main article while at it. -- Smjg 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Brackets
The more general meaning has moved from the British column to the common one.

Here's how I as a Brit understand the terms. "Brackets" by itself means. Other sorts [ ] { } < > might be considered as kinds of brackets, but they're practically always qualified (square brackets, curly brackets, angle brackets). So far, so good.

However, does any American use "brackets" by itself to mean ? Or does it always mean [ ]? -- Smjg 15:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

In U.S., are parentheses, [ ] are brackets, and { } are braces. 75.179.5.126 07:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Articles?
I think this article should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_English_words_not_used_in_American_English and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_English_words_not_used_in_British_English. I really don't see the point of having three separate lists. That's my view anyway.


 * Disagree. Cluttering it up with words that only exist in one dialect would reduce its usefulness. -- Smjg 16:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we need four columns?
I am wondering whether it's necessary to have a column here for "Meanings common to AmE and BrE". This isn't meant to be a dictionary, it's meant to be a list of DIFFERENT meanings. Wouldn't it be easier to just have two columns: one for BrE meanings which are not used in AmE, and the other for AmE meanings which are not used in BrE? (Either of these columns could, of course be blank.) This is like the old version... it was just that the column headings in the old version were confusing and needed to be clarified.
 * No, because it is also useful to know which meanings are used in both versions of English. -- Necrothesp 11:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that this information is extraneous to the purpose of the page. For example, let's suppose there was no entry for "ace" and I wanted to note that "ace" is used to mean "excellent" in BrE but not AmE. Instead of just explaining that one fact, I also apparently have to copy out from a dictionary that "ace" means "a one in a suit of playing cards; someone who is very good at something; fighter pilot who has shot down a certain number of enemy aircraft". (Incidentally, what about the tennis serve?) It doesn't make much sense.
 * But, if this information wasn't listed then it might be thought that it hadn't been confirmed one way or the other whether these were AmE or BrE. This is a dynamic list, it's being added to all the time. If you just missed out meanings common to both countries then it would be confusing and incomplete. To use your example, if the definition of "ace" as a one in a suit of playing cards wasn't included as common to both countries then I, as a British English speaker, might think that Americans didn't use the term, but nobody had yet thought to include it as a definition peculiar to British English (as frequently happens). In actual fact, somebody did try to do as you suggest and remove all definitions common to both countries a while ago. It was desperately unpopular, the person who did it was heavily criticised, and most of them have since been reinstated. So I think the suggestion is a non-starter. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The blurb at the beginning should make it clear that the article shows only differences in usage. It should say that meanings common to both BrE and AmE are not included, and then there is no confusion. Including the "common" column just serves to bloat the article with irrelevant information, which IMO is even less likely to be correct and complete than the "differences" columns. But, if it's the case that this has all been debated before and mine is a minority view, then that's fair enough.
 * You misunderstand me. The confusion does not stem from a lack of explanation in the blurb. It would be implicit if these definitions were removed. The article would be useless as a reference tool. -- Necrothesp 18:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no misunderstanding, just a difference of opinion.


 * Yes we do. Listing only those meanings that are different would destroy both usefulness and maintainability.  Please read the motive behind this whole rewrite. -- Smjg 16:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Bullet points for definitions?
The lists within cells are a little difficult to read -- it's hard to know whether a line is a wrap of the previous definition or a new definition. Would bullet points be a worthwhile addition here?

+US Meanings
There was a question of what to do with old instances of +US meanings. For example this is listed under beaver in the UK column. I think we should remove these - it adds no new information. The fact that these days many Americans understand the British meaning and vice versa can be added as a general comment. Films like Austin Powers or Full Monty can make it so. But will this take root? Who knows! I suspect that 5 years from today that most Americans wont use or understand to shag. Meanwhile a list like this is helpful - and more clear to list the most common usage and meaning.

I also think we should boldly remove archaic terms that are not verifyable per WP:NOR. I'll do so in a few days if there are no strong views. Obina 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I Strongly Object to the removal of 'archaic' terms. Archaic in whose opinion? "Wikipedia is not paper", and retention of terms little-known to some people is extremely useful to others who are looking for a (semi-)comprehensive reference. WLD 09:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point. We should not remove archaic terms from Wikipedia if verifyable and encyclopedic.  However we should remove terms from an article like this one that describes how Americans use a word today (what they think it means), and how Brits use a word today, if it is not verifiably true.  This page is not a list of terms used in Britain and North America through the ages. This is not a dictionary, so including every regional word meaning is also not appropriate.  Another article on historical uses is fine (if it is more than dic-defs).   In whose opinion? That is easy.  Verifyable.  If this document says that, say, in Britain people use the word tonic to mean a half pint of beer, and this is not verifable, then it should be removed.  I believe a word used commonly in Agatha Cristie Novels is fine to include - people read these today.  (Also, this is easy to verify.) I think the word that jumped out was beaver to mean a bearded man. No reference has been provided that this is true.  Any ideas? Would love to have a reference that is not just a mirror of this or one of the internet lists that has been around for years.Obina 10:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says nothing about currency of word meaning differences, simply that they exist. To my point of view, an article that covers both current (whatever that means) and historical word meaning differences is more encyclopaedic than one that just attempts to cover 'modern' differences. If you are looking at solely modern, or current usage, when is the cut-off date, and how and when shall review take place? We also have to be careful to not generalise from our own particular viewpoint - simply because I have not heard of a particular usage does not invalidate it.  On the particular point of 'beaver', that meaning is recorded in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Fifth Edition):


 * "beaver /'bi:və/ noun4. slang. E20
 * [Origin unkn.]
 * 1 A bearded man; a beard E20
 * 2 ..."


 * The entry continues. Interestingly, 'beaver' also means 'the lower face-guard of a helmet'. The game of 'Beaver', involving shouting 'Beaver!' at the sight of a bearded man was in vogue in the 1920s, and is referred to by P.G. Wodehouse in his fifth Berlin broadcast, and also in the letters of James Joyce (1922), where he refers to a 'King Beaver' being a "an Irish constabularyman with red whiskers, riding a red bicycle". I hope that satisfies your lust for a reference. I heartily recommend the purchase of at least one good dictionary - they are still useful quick references to the more obscure nooks and crannies of our vocabulary, even with Google and the rest of the Internet available to us. WLD 15:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the original subject, the "(+US meanings)" label on "beaver" is a mistake. Just look at the columns. -- Smjg 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes by JackLumber
I suppose the idea of using asterisks to denote 'mainly used here' is OK, or will be once we all get used to it.

But I'm not sure I like the decision to add the headwords from the live version before the definitions are put in. I don't see that much time has been saved by doing this, especially considering:
 * when we get round to putting the definitions in, we'll have to merge in the additions from the live version anyway
 * I personally find it easiest to copy and paste the whole section from the live version and then tweak it to the new format.

Moreover, which word should "to be on the telephone" really be filed under? Do we have a consensus? -- Smjg 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Smjg, thanks for your $0.02 (or £0.02, as you are British :). For starters, I apologize for abruptly making those changes, but I felt free to do it as this page is much of a work in progress. As far as filling out the grid, I will do it myself tomorrow; then we can post, like, a "please-don't-edit-this-page--edit-the-new-version-instead" warning on the "live" version before shutting it down completely. -- JackLumber

A few things we can't seem to agree on

 * 1) Prefix "to" on verbs.  I'd say no:
 * 2) * It looks rather a mess, especially with the number of words that can be more than one part of speech.
 * 3) * You don't see headwords like "to advocate" in a dictionary.
 * 4) * This is a list of words having different meanings in British and American English. "To slate" is not a word.  OK, so we list some phrases as well, but the average verb means the same whether the word immediately before it is "to" or not.
 * 5) * It would be arbitrary and inconsistent to single out verbs for labelling in this way. If we do, we ought to prefix countable nouns with "a" or "an" to match, and just as well, and as for other PsOS...?
 * 6) * For those words where we do single out one POS to talk about, we have the (noun), (verb), etc. notation, which is much more transferrable.
 * 7) "U.S." or "US".  It seems weird that this is being changed back and forth, but nobody seems to be engaging in a similar fight between "UK" and "U.K.".  Of course, with the page being about dialectal differences, we can't expect it to be all in one dialect, but we ought to be able to achieve some level of agreement.  I prefer consistency....

-- Smjg 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Prefix "to" on verbs: I went on with the pre-existing notation while merging in entries from live version, not realizing I was actually messing it all up. But yep, I utterly agree, the (noun), (verb), etc. notation is best. As for U.S. US, periods/full stops, colons, etc. I apologize for creating a haphazard hodgepodge---I usually write U.S. for United States, as suggested by Wikipedia Manual of Style or something (this is probably what makes for the wrangle); as it would be clumsy to see, like, "U.S.: shopping cart", I boldy did away with the colon; of course, for the sake of, duh, consistency, I did the same with the UK counterpart, not realizing that I was actually rendering the UK thing a tad unreadable (as in "UK spanner, without the colon)... Oh yeah, thanks for erasing that "trim the Christmas tree"---it definitely bordered on the ridiculous! JackLumber 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why has the merge proposal appeared here?
I was trying to keep the mess that UK-US heterologues A-Z is at the moment out of this rewrite. Ewlyahoocom, did you actually read my reasons for objecting to the merge? -- Smjg 11:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I was disambiguating some links. I got interested in the merge proposal but thought it had stalled at Talk:List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_British_and_American_English -- I'm not even sure how I wound up on this rewrite page. Looking at the histories I see that changes are continuing to be made over at UK-US heterologues A-Z; perhaps the folks over there are unaware that their page will soon be replaced? Again, let me apologise. Keep up the good work! Ewlyahoocom 13:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * UK-US heterologues A-Z is currently a mess and always will be. Taxonomical categorization of Englishes is never where. (Incidentally, the word "heterologue" is not in the OED nor in W3.) (W3 being "Webster's Third" and not "WWW".) More often than not, the difference between British and American variants of English is a matter of usage, that is, aside from a few well-defined instances (e.g. petrol/gasoline) there is no "British Heterologue" or "American Heterologue" or anything like that---take arugula, for example; as an American, I might as well say garden rocket or just rocket. British and American usages often overlap and the distinction is blurry, or at least not so clear to be displayed on such a grid. An effective, thorough way to catch the real essence of British vs. American would be reporting differences in usage. Minimal pairs like (track, line), (movie, film), (figure out, work out), (corporation, company) are good examples---the word that comes first in each of these pairs sounds somewhat more "American," the second, somewhat more "British." But this means little to lexicographers, as both words are actually standard in both Englishes. Is "dirt" (as in "loose earth") American English? Yes, because it's chiefly found in North America. And no, because it's precolonial English usage that some British speakers did retain (although most of them dropped it.) Is "rubbish" British English? The word "rubbish" was written in my lease (along with garbage, trash, refuse, and waste!) Did my ex-landlord want to sound "british"? Rubbish. (Technically, "rubbish" means something akin to "trash", i.e. packing, paper, metal junk etc., "garbage" being food waste). The use of asterisks on this page is, in my opinion, necessary to adequately outline (was that a split infinitive?) this often hazy borderline --JackLumber 13:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remodeling, Additions
I operated some changes while transferring in the content of the old version, and some of them need explaination, as they concern a few controversial points. I also realized I slotted in some words that were independently added to the old page. Specifically, some American meanings I inserted might be actually used in Britain---in this case please either asterisk them or translate them to the middle column, if they are standard and common. So, here we go.

ace: U.S. to perform outstandingly, esp. to get an A on a school exam

alternate: I took "alternately" away, as the difference lies in the adjective "alternate" (the adverb comes for free then.) Specifically, Americans oftentimes make a mess of it when it comes to use this word. Let's just say that you might want to use an alternate route to bypass a construction area; alternately you can take an alternative route (that's what Britons usually do). But you cannot anywhere on Earth mow the lawn on alternative weeks. The very idea.

anymore: I'm not sure of the way this word is usually spelled in Britain. The American usage can be summed up as follows: I don't have any more cookies; actually I don't bake them anymore---everybody is dieting anymore.


 * I'm a bit puzzled about what the distinction is. Does the latter mean "everybody is still dieting" or "not everybody used to be dieting, but everybody is dieting now"?  Or can it mean either? -- Smjg 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely "everybody is dieting now." According to the OED, this usage is found in Ireland too; Hibernians out there, please confirm. --JackLumber 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't tell me anything. "Everybody is dieting now" would be equally true regardless of whether everybody was dieting in times gone by.  Which is it?
 * Everybody is dieting now, unlike before
 * Everybody is dieting now, just like before
 * Everybody is dieting now (leaving the former state of affairs unspecified)
 * -- Smjg 18:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say number 3. Usually, "anymore" in positive constructions doesn't suggest much about the previous state of affairs; it might as well mean "from now on."--JackLumber 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

closet: the old U.S. definition read "built-in wardrobe". But a closet is not necessarily built-in nor just a wardrobe. The U.K. definition I put in was taken out of the OED. But this entry still calls for some sprucing up, and so do coach and college---though I improved the U.S. def. of the latter.

post: two important U.S. meanings were missing. I know for sure that at least one of them has currency in BrE (keep me posted). The other is ubiquitous in newspapers, news reports, etc.

pressurize: this is real tricky. After meditating for quite a while I sought comfort by interrogating the Merriam-Webster collegiate. But the MWC is even more confused than I am. Under pressure (pun intended) you read: "1. to apply pressure to; 2. PRESSURIZE" (cross-reference). So I looked up pressurize, and it goes like this: "... 2. to apply pressure to ...". Kind of a loop, huh? Go figure.

quite: I changed "quite good" to "quite," as the ambiguity lies in the predeterminer and not in the phrase itself.

range: "range" meaning "cooking stove" is at least chiefly American, but please Britons check if you normally use "range" as "grazing area" (as in "Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antilope play..." oh dear, I'm waxing corny... but yes, I'm quite the sentimental guy.)


 * I think of "sequence or scale between limits" being the primary meaning. And there certainly was a kind of cooker called a range over here, which was featured on the TV programme The 1900 House once upon a time.  What I recall seeing was a simple row of burners or something to that effect.  But CALD's definition sounds like what I know as an Aga. -- Smjg 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

rubbish: this was erased by Smjg, I guess. And I totally agree. It's mainly used in Britain, but has the same meaning on either side of the pond. (See also my above post.)

shingle: mysteriously enough, this entered the table first as a Briticism for "seashore gravel." But that ain't no Briticism any. Maybe British seaboards are shinglier than American ones---I actually can't tell, I've never been to the beach. Sigh. I'm just stuck inside my wooden shack in the North forests. Maybe I should just quit vacationing in Canada.

yankee: originally, the def. was "pejorative term for..."; then it was changed to "(can be pejorative)"; I just erased "pejorative" from the U.S. side, as I don't actually feel it is (and dictionaries are on my side), but this is questionable indeed.

I also added a bunch of words such as deck, draw, duff, glaze, hole in the wall, levee, motorbike, smudge, track (questionable), and yard, and I plan on adding more when I find the time. Last but not least, I did away with some verbal illustrations whenever they sounded obscure ("to put it back on the table after having picked it up," at "table") or were just horrid puns ("pay a bill/check with a check/bill"); more to come soon.

(sorry, forgot my John Hancock) --JackLumber 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reconvergence Timing?
OK, I don't mind being yelled at for editing the old page, but this rewrite page has been around for almost a year -- when is it going to be reconverged? I came to the (perhaps erroneous) conclusion some time ago that this page was, in effect, a "minority report". Catching up on the chat shows my view to have been in error, yet there is no timing for re-uniting the pages. What is the story? -- Gnetwerker 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Gnetwerker, I apologize for my yelling and hope we can still be friends :) This page is quite a majority report indeed. The unsightly mess of the old version can't hold a candle to this neat new layout. I just wanted to discourage people from editing the old version---we have just to transfer the most significant changes, and then we can discontinue it all the way, according to what my friend Smjg, who authored this rewrite, plans on doing. -- Jack. While we're at it, I was wondering why you reversed the columns at "napkin" (see how unmaintainable the old page was? :)


 * No problem, I am NOT going to get up in arms about Britspeak. Clearly a lot fo work has gone into the rewrite since the last time I dropped in.  See below for "napkin" comments. -- Gnetwerker 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Napkin
I reversed the definitons of "napkin". My credentials (such as they are): American with Irish/British spouse and London-resident brother. In my experience, and the estimation of my spouse, in the U.K. while "napkin" is understood in context from an american speaker to mean "serviette" (an increasing old-fashioned word, I am told), its primary usage would be for the female hygiene product. In America, on the other hand, I can state with confidence that except in the (unusual) phrase "sanitary napkin", the word would always mean a cloth (or paper) dining accessory. Hence the common phrases "paper napkin" or "cloth napkin", to distinguish the kinds. To put it another way, if you were to walk into a store and ask where to find the napkins, you would be directed to the same aisle as the plastic cutlery, rather than the aisle also stocking (e.g.) bath tissue. Finally, in Webster's New World dictionary, the cloth-for-dining sense is listed first (with an "aka serviette" after it), and the sanitary product comes in 4th/last, saying simply "see sanitary napkin". I would argue that this evidence is dispositive. -- Gnetwerker 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Upon further questioning, my spouse now says that "napkin" as a sanitary product may be "old-fashioned", and that the American usage has overtaken it. Someone else pointed out that "napkin rings" have been around since the dawn of time, and they are certainly a culinary, rather than sanitary, product. In my defense, I will point out that the British "nappy" (diaper) was almost certainly back-formed from "napkin", and that is a not dissimilar use from my alleged British one. Nonetheless, my certainty on the British side is diminished. My certainty on the American side remains unbowed. I need to find a British dictionary. -- Gnetwerker 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oxford Dictionary of English 2nd ed (2003)
 * 1. a square piece of cloth or paper used at a meal to wipe the fingers or lips and to protect garments
 * 2. Brit. dated a baby's nappy
 * 3. (also sanitary napkin) N. Amer. another term for sanitary towel.
 * origin: late Middle English, from Old French nappe 'tablecloth'


 * Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
 * napkin noun 1 (also table napkin) a piece of cloth or paper for wiping one's mouth and fingers at mealtimes, and used to protect one's clothing. 2 formal or old use a baby's nappy.
 * ETYMOLOGY: 15c: diminutive of French nappe tablecloth, from Latin mappa cloth.


 * FWIW I'm British and female and have never heard of "napkin" for a sanitary towel before, although I have read it in books used for a nappy. Saint|swithin 08:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the Kotex site (US) uses "napkin" (excuse the detail, but...)
 * "8) When do you normally use feminine wipes?
 * Used as often as I like for cleansing of the private area
 * For wiping when changing napkin
 * Others (Please specify)"


 * I have removed this entry as the given British meaning is definitely wrong. It sounds as though the meain meaning is the same in the UK and the US, with US possibly having a secondary meaning of "sanitary towel" -- Chris Q 11:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa whoa whoa, before y'all guys bewildered me I thought I knew what a napkin is! I agree with Gnetwerker that the primary U.S. meaning of this word is "dining accessory," and that this meaning is also, apparently, the most common BrE sense. The word "serviette" is, according to Webster's 3rd and all of my sources, chiefly British and Canadian. I thought I knew that a "napkin" was also a sanitary napkin, and I'm not surprised by Saintswithin claiming she has never used the word in this sense before, given that the OED lists this usage as "chiefly N. Amer." Additionally, as Saintswithin correctly pointed out, "napkin" means also "diaper"/"nappy" in BrE, although this usage might be dated---incidentally, the noun nappy meaning "diaper" comes from "napkin" by shortening, while the adjective nappy meaning "kinky" comes from "nap" meaning "hairy surface." (Source: Webster's third.) All this considered, I move that the entry for "napkin" be restored as it used to be (before fellow Gnetwerker haunted us with his doubts :-), with possibly an additional British meaning (i.e. that of "nappy"/"diaper"). What do you think? -- Jack, Feb 9th 2006 This is for Gnetwerker: Hey man, I'm no powers that be, I just want to be friends with you, maybe we just got off on the wrong foot, please if there's something I can do for you (aside from disappearing, of course) let me know, I am but thy humble servant. (And, I'm glad to see that someone else deems nonplussed meaning "unfazed" definitely nonstandard.)

(Unindented) Not sure what "before" is, but I have no objection to correction of my apparent mistake about the British meaning. The "before" state for the US entry had the primary meaning being "sanitary towel", and I would still posit that this is incorrect, as that sense doesn't exist outside the full phrase "sanitary napkin", except strongly in context (to wit the Kotex site's use above). In short, this is perhaps, not a word with a different meaning in British and American. We should consider deleting it altogether (despite my still clear memory of being subjected to a withering look when asking for a napkin in Ireland in the 1970s). -- Gnetwerker 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I guess the mix-up stems from the layout of the old version. The two columns we find there are entitled "More common British/American meaning," and this has led to a lot of confusion---of course "sanitary towel" is not at all the primary American meaning of napkin! This is one of the reasons why a new arrangement was called for; the new page simply aims to list all meanings of a given word with different UK/U.S. interpretations, categorizing them into 3 groups---British, American, and common to both dialects. "Sanitary napkin" seems to be a chiefly American phrase, and this alone justifies an entry for "napkin" in this page (see how the other entries are organized). Additionally, the word "napkin" in this sense evidently does have currency, as reported by all the American dictionaries I consulted; on the flipside, all British dictionaries (most notably, the OED) consider this meaning an Americanism. This is enough for me to lay out an entry for "napkin" the way I did. Until next time, --JackLumber 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC) For Gnetwerker: I just wanted to hone in on my absolute lack of decisiveness. Anyways, thanks for your apology, pal. Quite unneeded, indeed. Now that we have figured this out I guess we'll get along fine!


 * I doubt that anyone would actually use (or even understand) the use of napkin for nappy in the UK. I had never heard of it, so I have added "not well known" -- Chris Q 07:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You may doubt, but it is true. I heard the word used by several stern, no-nonsense midwives.  The way they spoke, it sounded natural, and in context, there was no difficulty understand the meaning of their pointed instructions. (*smile*)Obina 10:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Regular
This entry certainly could do with a bit of cleaning up. Firstly, "not irregular" is a rather poor definition. Secondly, fast food chains over here often call one of their sizes "regular", though which size varies - McDonald's uses it to mean "small", KFC uses it to mean "medium". Thirdly, COED, CALD and CDAE certainly imply that some of the so-listed British meanings are American as well.

I'll have a go at fixing it - please check. -- Smjg 11:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have never looked at it from upclose before, but it's actually unsightly. Heritage of the old page... --JackLumber 11:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cracker in the UK
Thin, hard, unsweetened biscuit is probably the most common UK meaning

See, , , etc.


 * OK, wise cracker. Roger. Historical note added. Over and out.--JackLumber 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Moot
I've added an "incorrect/uneducated usage" tag to the purported US meaning of "to moot" as "to make irrelevant". This was a stopgap, as I don't believe this is a common meaning at all. While it is true that, if someone were to say "I'll moot that idea at the next meeting", the (uneducated) American listener might misunderstand (while thinking "what an odd locution"), but I cannot imagine someone deliberately using the word in that way. -- Gnetwerker 17:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Gnet, I don't like this sense either, but you know me, I'm quite the descriptionist, not the prescriptionist. I just let others judge :-) But this meaning has been used for at least 50 years, and I added it because 1) it's nonexistent in BrE 2) the "shared" meaning is appreciably more common in BrE than AmE. See thisGoogling. Nevertheless I do admit being kind of on the same wavelength of the sentiment that pressured you into posting that usage tag. (What an odd locution!) As far I'm concerned, that entry can stay the way it presently is, i.e. with your addition. -- Jack Webster... er, Lumber 16 February 2006


 * Well, as distasteful as it is sometimes, I agree with the "descriptionist" direction. The google citations are all legal jargon, however I can see the argument that the incorrect usage is entering the language from that direction.  They are also, from a cursory review, "mooted" - a verbified back-formation of the (more or less proper) phrase "made moot".  For me, this ranks up there with people who will say "It's a mute point."  Legal jargon is apparently also giving us mootness, though for the time being has stopped mercifully short of "mootitude", "mootifull", and "mootastic". -- Gnetwerker 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your back-formation theory seems to be sound. I just checked my whole enchilada of dictionaries---while Webster's 3rd reports this meaning, the MW Collegiate, primarily designed for college students, bleeps it out. A myoot point indeed. --Jack 16 February 2006 - P.S. Oh yea, and what about "mootylicious"?


 * "Mootification", "mootism", "mootifaction" -- Gnetwerker 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no noun that can't be verbed. Obina 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comforter
In Brit Eng this can mean a baby's dummy or soother. Is that a US usage too? I think not, so I've put it in the first column - but maybe it belongs in the second. Snalwibma 10:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Never heard before. Definitely a 1st column. --JackLumber 18:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Primary meaning in the U.S. is synonymous with the Brit "duvet". With minor distinctions, it is also synonymous (in the U.S.) with "quilt". A baby's "dummy" is in the U.S. a "pacifier" most commonly. Has anyone else heard the Northern Irish or Scots usage of "dodi" (pronounced Doe-dee) for a dummy? -- Gnetwerker 06:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally tend to use the word "comforter" in lieu of "quilt," just a regional thing, and yes, a "comforter" & a "quilt" both have 2 layers of cloth and a filling, but strictly speaking are not exactly the same, but hear this one---the WP article for quilt says that "quilt" & "duvet" are the same in BrE. Transitivity yields that "quilt" has different meanings in BrE & AmE. This just adds to my discombobulation. -- Jack

Tap
The British version of "tap" is commonly used in the U.S. in the context of beer -- to "tap a keg", a "beer tap", etc. Less common (or non-existant -- I am polluted in this sense by a Brit spouse) in the sense of "faucet". -- Gnetwerker 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, "tap" is mostly used when speaking of casks and the like; maybe we should add this meaning in the 2nd column, with possibly the indication of spigot as U.S. synonym, spigot not being used in BrE AFAIK. "Tap" meaning "faucet" is regarded as *'ed British, as it occasionally shows up on this side of the pond, e.g. in the phrase "tap water." While we're at it, the "tap" is also the sound of the t's & d's in latter, ladder, party, everybody that is etc.--JackLumber 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC). Wait, wait--I looked up spigot in the OED and it has no "U.S." or "N.Amer." tag. 1383-4 Durham Acc. Rolls (Surtees) 593 In iij duodenis de Spigotes empt. pro butelaria,..iijs. iiijd. I was wrong. Of course I was. (That quotation sounds Latin, not English.) OK, I don't mean to violate copyrights, but hear this one: "Lo! my wombe is as must with out spigot, ether a ventyng." Lo! and behold, while you're at it! Thus, in sum, spigot meaning "tap" (as for water) is American, and spigot meaning "tap" (casks) is common to both. Another entry for our list.

Tea
I think putting "tea" (the hot beverage) in the British column is a vile calumny against Americans (also not true). "Tea" in the U.S. means the hot beverage, regardless of British horror at how poorly we Yanks brew it. "Iced tea" (or "ice tea") is the cold beverage. In hot weather an American might use the back-formation "hot tea" to ensure understanding, but no one asking for a "cup of tea" would get iced tea. Furthermore, in other Commonwealth countries (notably Australia and New Zealand), the phrase "white tea" is often used to indicate a preference for milk (versus "black tea" or "lemon tea", though the former may confuse Americans, who distinguish "black tea" from "herbal tea" (which the Brits call "an infusion"), and the latter (still with me?) can confuse black tea plus lemon with a lemon-flavored infusion) (whew!). All this is to say, the hot beverage, with or without milk, is the common (middle column) definition. -- Gnetwerker 00:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article used to be strongly British-oriented, this resulting in many definitions of American meanings being not entirely correct. Additionally, this tea thing is a heritage of the 2-column version---those who wrote this down put "hot beverage" in the UK column assuming that, while Britishers are proud of invariably drinking their worldwide known traditional tea, Americans have a distorted perception of what tea is. And yes, the question is much more complex, but I guess you nailed it down. Things of changed now.--JackLumber 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Hey Brits, what's that frown? Just kidding! I like you all too much to incite a riot. And I like tea too. Only when I'm sick or blue, though.

Prospective Additions (Reminder)
Bath, porter, room, ride, package, life preserver, cooker, stove, dresser, draft/draught, bath, car, motor, motor car, truck, carriage, wagon, nor, slip, bump, ramp, remit, second, sud, and daddy longlegs (yes, daddy longlegs). All of them cry out for a slot in the list. More I'm unsure about coming soon. Right now I'm too busy and too boozy to add them myself. --JackLumber 19:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps but we've got to cut this list over to the main page before a year is up. It's confusing. -- Gnetwerker 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just what I've been thinking all along. But Mr. Smjg is the one who's large and in charge (although he's no Powers That Be, that being me:), I'm just waiting for him to accomplish the big relocation. Hey Smjg, can you hear us? Ahoy! Ahoy! Anyone ashore? --JackLumber 13:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I entirely agree it's about time to move it across. But just a few things remain:
 * final merging of changes from the live version
 * deciding what to do with the talk pages in the process
 * -- Smjg 10:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just done more merging. Now just two things remain as far as I'm concerned:


 * 1) The number of instances of "[?]" that are still here.  Have these been here long enough that people have had time to make corrections?  If so, I suppose we can remove the "[?]" labels.
 * 2) What are we going to do with the talk pages?  My thought is that we should archive both this and the live versions at the same time as we make the move.  But should we keep this talk page under its current title, or rename it to follow more-or-less the archive page convention?

If nobody has a better idea or gets there first, I plan to make the move and be done with it at some point in the next few days. -- Smjg 12:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just spiffed up some entries to remove the question marks, still there at beaver, chaps, get, military, pressurize, and some acronyms. Get seems to be but a bad joke; beaver could be boldy removed, as all meanings are actually common to both dialects (the "beard" one might be kind of dated); military--? It's obvious that an American uses the word to refer to the U.S. Armed Forces, and a Briton to refer to the British Armed Forces, but so what? Probably the only fact we should report is that "military" is oftenest an adjective in British usage, and that "military" as a noun is an Americanism. As for pressurize, I would take it away and put in "pressure" instead---"pressurize" as "pressure" can be used in AmE, while "pressure" as a verb is a certified Americanism. (Why don't we all say just "press"? Go figure.)
 * (On second thought, "pressurize" is not that commonly used nowadays; journalists invariably say "pressure" anymore. So I'm gonna de-? "pressurize" and add "pressure" before going to bed.)
 * Chaps is the trickiest of'em all; "chap" is (or at least was), interestingly, used regionally in the U.S. to refer to a child, and was once in common use in the now mainly British sense. As far as the acronyms, I would sentence them all to a landfill. "D.C." as District of Columbia is not really "American English," it's just a geographic name. The talk page of the rewrite should IMO retain its original name.--JackLumber 13:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Jack The Jackal Lumberman ("Da Power Dat Be") takes me to task for my boozing (below), I will say this this Talk section should really be called Prospective additions. I was going to let it go, but this is a page about language, and he ... uh ... got my Irish up. :-) -- Gnetwerker 17:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a trivial misspelling, netwoikuh. You might as well call me the Jackass. Besides, there's a not so subtle difference between a Lumberman and a Lumberjack. When I find the time I'll beef up the Wikipedia article on lumberjacks.--JackLumber 18:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) And googling "perspective buyers" yields 63,000 matches (!) All the way from the English Language Entropy Department.

Vet
The Best of British gives another American meaning, which seems to be what we'd call a beggar. Has anyone else heard of this meaning? Not a single OneLook hit gives it. -- Smjg 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "vet" in the picture is in fact a veteran. Sadly, many war veterans wind up homeless and penniless. See this. --JackLumber 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Parakeet
Any justification for adding this? or is it too subtle and/or too technical. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong... In AmEng it seems to be generally understood to mean budgerigar, but in BrEng it would never mean that. In BrEng it is something like "any small parrot other than a budgerigar". Snalwibma 09:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents worth---parakeet is kind of a catch-all term, budgerigar is much more specific. But, if I'm not mistaken, the "shell parakeet" and the "budgerigar" are the same bird, I should google it. --JackLumber 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was right, as usual ;-) Budgerigar and shell parakeet are synonyms. Anyway, if I were to be accurate, I wouldn't call a budgerigar just a "parakeet," the latter being a very general term. "Shell parakeet" would do. But, after all, I'm content with my robins and my bluebirds. --JackLumber 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth, Australian, and Canadian English
Why not set this up as a comparison of U.S. English (American English if you like) and Commonwealth English? Most of the so-called British English stuff is equally valid in other English-speaking Commonwealth countries, and where it isn't we can say so. 202.175.143.143 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is going to get very complicated. A small example is my request in Australia for an "off-license".  As an American, I would normally ask for a "liquor store", but being in a Commonwealth country, I automatically substituted the British phrase.  The Aussies had no idea what I was talking about -- they call it a "liquor store" (or a "bottle shop", which I'm not sure anyone else understands). -- Gnetwerker 07:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not being able to get any sleep or relief, I decided to boldly hang around here. And this is something I've been thinking of all along. I recently renamed the pages List of British English words not used in American English and List of American English words not used in British English as List of words mainly used in British English (link updated to List of British words not widely used in the United States because of proposed redirect deletion TrevorD 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)) and List of words mainly used in American English (link updated to List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom because of proposed deletion of redirect page - TrevorD 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)), respectively. I also created a page named List of words mainly used in Australian English, but it's just a #REDIRECT to Australian words. And I was fixing to create List of words mainly used in Canadian English as a spin-off from Canadian English, but I realized that, in fact, British and American English are given privileged treatment; if one looked up a Canadian word in the page of Canadian words, s/he likely wouldn't find it if it's used also in Britain, or in the U.S., with different connotations, etc. So I was actually thinking of adapting this page to accommodate at least Australian & Canadian words as well, given that 1) British, American, Canadian, and Australian are the four major varieties of English, and 2) Australian is very close to British and Canadian is much like American; so we would just need to post like an "Australian goes like British and Canadian goes like American except where noted" tag, and to appropriately rename the columns, and additionally to invent some new abbreviations, like NAm (for North America), DU (for Australia, Down Under), and EH (for Canadian)---hey, just kidding!!!!---with respect to this issue, however, the term "Commonwealth English" is misleading at best, as Canadian lexicon is much closer to that of the U.S., in spite of Canada's being part of the Commonwealth of Nations. In fact, I never bumped into the phrase "Commonwealth English" in my life anywhere except for Wikipedia. (Please don't show me the outcome of your Google search for "Commonwealth English." I was speaking of authoritative publications.) Of course we would desperately need contributions from Australian & Canadian users; but I planned this as a medium- or long-term project. --JackLumber 10:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) As far as the liquor store thing, the word "off-license" is gibberish if compared to "liquor store." Provided that you know what "liquor" and "store" mean. But that's just my ultra-biased standpoint. And, Gnet, you really let me down. I couldn't even figure you were so much into liquor as to seek booze down under. Kidding again! I'm rambling, arent'I? It turns out that the boozy one is me...


 * Oh yes, I get a wee bit frosty if I canna have me dram. But you ask for a "liquor store" in (e.g.) small-town Scotland, and they may understand what you mean, but they'll look at you like you have two heads. -- Gnetwerker 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the word "liquor" is not apparently so idiomatic in British parlance, and "store" means different things in BrE and AmE. Speaking of that, I recently fine-tuned the entry for liquor in the main article. Further info will be provided in the upcoming entry for package.--JackLumber 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Och, keep yer hands off me package, wee man. -- Gnetwerker 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)