How long will it take you to get it wright? Search for every use of the word "riter" and variants on your site, and change it to wrighters' where appropriate. How hard is that?
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
You sub-literate baftards! It's ritters'!!!!
(23 posts) (12 voices)
-
Quaz
offlineMemberThe US spelling of colour goes back to their decision to regularise spellings, while Faucet has it's origins in middle English and comes from the Old French fausset, cask stopper.
Many of the US words that Brits love to mock are actually words which have fallen from favour in the UK since the colonials got all huffy and threw our tea into the pond. Fall (for autumn) is one and trash is another, which I think may have even been used by Shakespear.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Jammydodgers
offlineMemberNuffink rong wiv eever trash or fall Rik. Good and proper English words and meanings both.
And I have given up on the whole US/British spelling debate since the Internation Union of pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially redesignated Sulphur as Sulfur ... so now the ph spelling is technically the incorrect one (in a scientific journal sense at least).
Language is dynamic and should be allowed to change over time, developing and maturing like a good malt.
However, it has to be said that there are instances where you colonials have been pissing in the cask a bit:A few uniquely american words/expression that do grate a bit:
"snuck"??? - I mean... c'mon off it - you made that up. (Its sneaked)
"scotch" - this is a drink. The inhabitants of Scotland are Scots. And things that derive from scotland are Scottish.
People who refer to 'Scots' (the people) as Scotch (the drink) run some danger of being 'glassed' (the receptacle)."being juiced" means being subjected to a process of intense maceration of the type to which oranges and other soft may be subjected. Whenever I (all to frequently) encounter one of your fellow countrymen (vacuous MBA and marketing types normally) describing himself as the former, I can't help wishing upon him the latter.
But,then again - I do love the descriptive word you guys use for a street beggar: that which you call 'a panhandler.'
Well any Geordie's or fan of Viz will know full well that a 'Panhandle' is a wonderfully vivid slang expression used to describe an enormous 'stonk on', or 'extremely erect male virile member.'
So when our US based director of R&D once, in all innocence described to a roomful of us sour faced limeys how a 'Panhandling bum had accosted him in the street'
... well he had it coming!
Posted 5 years ago # -
thisisall1word
offlineMemberSo when our US based director of R&D once, in all innocence described to a roomful of us sour faced limeys how a 'Panhandling bum had accosted him in the street' ... well he had it coming!
To call a Bum 'it' is a bit off. Bums are people too. Smelly, unwashed, drunk people maybe, but still deserving of a 'him' surely.
Anyway, overly kind of you boss, I usually give them a few coins and leave it at that...Posted 5 years ago # -
Jammydodgers
offlineMemberBums are people too...
Sounds like the strapline for a bad *nappy advert... hehe!(*thats a daiper commercial Rik - cos 'bum' in English means 'ass' ... geddit?!)
Posted 5 years ago # -
bang2rights
offlineMemberOK, a few general observations. . .
Quaz: that'll be 'Shakespeare' you were linking with trash. Jammydodgers: I feel certain that when rikkor wakes up, he will be keen to point out that in the US babies wear 'diapers'.
Everybody else: I'm assuming that all the misplaced or missing apostrophes in the above exchanges have been put there deliberately to make rikkor go Postal, so I won't mention them.
I hope this puts an end to all this pointless bickering about the right and wrong ways to construct internationally comprehensible grammar for a global market. So their.
Posted 5 years ago # -
PluckyMunky
offlineMembertell me: why are grammar and punctuation so important as long as accurate communication is maintained? i worked as a university full professor for years and a vice dean for 10 and still fail to see what the fuss is about. i often wonder why we don't adopt the texting form of writing. communication is the key, surely, not some elitist need to keep things locked in stone?
Posted 5 years ago # -
bang2rights
offlineMembersauce: SO, the gloves are off, are they? Right! You asked for it!
The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name
by David KathmanOne of the most common articles of Oxfordian faith is that there is great significance in the various spellings of Shakespeare's name. The spelling "Shakespeare," according to most Oxfordians, was used to refer to the author of the plays and poems, while the spelling "Shakspere" (or "Shaksper," in the version sometimes promoted by more militant Oxfordians such as Charlton Ogburn) was used to refer to the Stratford man. A milder version of this claim acknowledges that Elizabethan spelling was not absolute, but still says that the usual and preferred spelling of the Stratford man's name was "Shaksper(e)," as opposed to the poet "Shakespeare." These claims about spelling are usually accompanied by an assertion that the two names were pronounced differently: "Shakespeare" with a long 'a' in the first syllable, as we are accustomed to pronouncing it today, but "Shakspere" with a "flat" 'a,' so that the first syllable sounds like "shack." A separate but related claim involves hyphenation: the name was occasionally hyphenated in print as "Shake-speare," a fact which Oxfordians say points to it being a pseudonym. These claims are given more or less prominence in different presentations of the Oxfordian theory, but they are virtually always present in one form or another. Indeed, they are vital for the Oxfordian scenario, since they make it easier for Oxfordians to believe that the "William Shakespeare" praised as a poet was some mysterious figure with no apparent connection to the glover's son and actor "William Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
As it turns out, though, all of the above claims are false. Specifically:
1. "Shakespeare" was by far the most common spelling of the name in both literary and non-literary contexts, and there is no significant difference in spelling patterns when we take into account such factors as handwritten vs. printed and Stratford vs. London spellings;
2. there is no evidence that the variant spellings reflected a consistent pronunciation difference, but there is considerable evidence that they were seen as more or less interchangeable;
3. there is no evidence whatsoever that hyphenation in Elizabethan times was ever thought to indicate a pseudonym, and other proper names of real people were also sometimes hyphenated.
More than you would ever what to know can be found right here
See?! See what a crashing bore you've turned me into, with your thoughtless throwaway challenge?! Oh, it makes me so. . . so dull!!
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.