Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Normal English spelling in America

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Matt Davis

unread,
Jun 2, 2002, 7:50:57 AM6/2/02
to
I have read on some forums that some Americans prefer English spelling. Is
this acceptable? I'd like to think it is but is it considered "wrong" to use
English spelling in America?

Cheers,

Matt


Message has been deleted

CyberCypher

unread,
Jun 2, 2002, 10:24:07 AM6/2/02
to
"Matt Davis" <ma...@avengah.freeserve.co.uk> burbled
news:add0th$vdb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:

> I have read on some forums that some Americans prefer English
> spelling. Is this acceptable? I'd like to think it is but is it
> considered "wrong" to use English spelling in America?

It all depends. If you're writing informally and to friends, no. If
you're writing for American professors at American universities and
they know that you are American, perhaps. If you're writing for an
AMerican publisher with an American audience, yes. It all depends on
who gets to say what spelling is acceptable for the things you are
writing.

If you are writing to Americans who know that you are American and not
British, then unless they share your spelling preferences, they will
consider you odd. As will BrE native speakers who know that you are
American. It's most likely an unnecessary affectation.

--
Franke: ". . . when a man is in pain he doesn't think right, he only
asks for more." Charles Bukowski, "Life as a Sitcom"
Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language.
Grammar 2: Formal rules for the written language.
Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.

Larry G

unread,
Jun 2, 2002, 5:14:58 PM6/2/02
to
"Matt Davis" <ma...@avengah.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message ...

I prefer the British spelling as well on a personal level. In fact, my
grandma from the (U.S.) South spelled this way much of the time. At first,
I thought she was making mistakes. Now I wonder if this kind of spelling
was actually the standard in the South at one time or another. I don't
think it is now.

But for the most part, except for personal preferences, to spell British is
concerned "wrong" in public form. It is marked as wrong on school papers,
etc. There are only a few exceptions where both forms are used and
excepted. (i.e., theater, theatre). "Glamour" is more common in the U.S.
than "glamor" and is an exception to the -or rule in the U.S.

I spell American when around British or British sphere of influence friends.
However, due to their influence sometimes I might spell criticize as
"criticise" etc. Naturally when seeing it so much. But, if I were to spell
this way as normal, even my British friends would think I was odd, as would
my American friends. The same is true with accent. I prefer the British RP
accent, but if I spoke this way, people would begin recommending a good
hospital or rehabilitation center to spend some time recovering at ;-)
(unless it was under certain circumstances such as the New York upper class,
and even that accent has changed since the beginning of the 20th century).

The only Britishism to which I cling is the double "ll" in words like
"traveller". The U.S. form is "traveler". The British form looks more
pleasing to my eyes and is less likely to be marked wrong, or looked at as
strange, than a word like "colour". The double l (L) words and those with
an "e" such as "judgement" may be included with words like "theatre" in that
both forms are accepted, but these are few.

Larry

Richard Fontana

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 12:19:17 AM6/3/02
to

Yes, it is basically considered wrong and unacceptable for most standard
purposes. But it is true that many Americans think that English spelling
"looks better". It looks sort of "pretty", "decorative", "elegant", I'd
say. (This extends to the -ise for -ize thing, though in fact many
edumucated BrEs seem to prefer -ize now.) Sort of the way French
(written) seems, but less so. British spelling is like French Lite.

Some "Chiefly British" spellings are in fact acceptable alternative,
though less common, spellings in AmE. For example, no one would be
condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in general. But something like
"Grey is my favourite colour" would be subject to condemnation and
ridicule.

Tony Cooper

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 1:09:19 AM6/3/02
to
Richard Fontana wrote:

For example, no one would be
> condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in general. But something
> like "Grey is my favourite colour" would be subject to condemnation
> and ridicule.

Absolutely. Anyone that would pick grey as their favourite colour
should be ridiculed. Unless, of course, the person is a chartered
accountant.


--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles


J. J. Lodder

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 4:07:17 AM6/3/02
to
Schainbaum, Robert <Robert.S...@Berlin.DE> wrote:

> English spelling is flat-out unaccepatble in writing for publication and
> in academic writing, e.g., in a thesis or dissertation written for a
> degree. Newspaper editors don't take kindly to English spelling either.

American science journals do accept papers in English English, usually,
as long as you don't mix English and American spellings in one paper.

Best,

Jan


Simon R. Hughes

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 8:58:53 AM6/3/02
to
Thus Spake J. J. Lodder:

Do you happen to know what the journals' responses would be to Welsh
English?
--
Simon R. Hughes
<!-- signature-challenged -->

Mike Page

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 4:04:13 PM6/3/02
to
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 01:09:19 -0400, "Tony Cooper"
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> For example, no one would be
>> condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in general. But something
>> like "Grey is my favourite colour" would be subject to condemnation
>> and ridicule.
>
>Absolutely. Anyone that would pick grey as their favourite colour
>should be ridiculed. Unless, of course, the person is a chartered
>accountant.
>

I am glad to see this sensitivity of feeling towards chartered
accountants who are an oft persecuted minority.

Mike Page, BF(UU)
Let the ape escape for e-mail

Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 4:44:45 PM6/3/02
to
da...@pagedm.orang.fsnet.co.uk wrote:

>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 01:09:19 -0400, "Tony Cooper"
> <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> >Richard Fontana wrote:
> >
> > For example, no one would be
> >> condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in
> general. But something
> >> like "Grey is my favourite colour" would be
> subject to condemnation
> >> and ridicule.
> >
> >Absolutely. Anyone that would pick grey as their
> favourite colour
> >should be ridiculed. Unless, of course, the person
> is a chartered
> >accountant.
> >

> I am glad to see this sensitivity of feeling towards
> chartered
> accountants who are an oft persecuted minority.
>
> Mike Page, BF(UU)
> Let the ape escape for e-mail
>


The following is an excerpt from an item recently sent in by a reader
to the "Bulletin Board" column of the St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer
Press:

From
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/3331071.htm


[quote]

"The commencement program from one of St. Paul's private colleges
includes a page explaining the gowns and hoods worn by the graduates.
We are told that the color of the velvet trim on a hood indicates the
field in which the wearer's degree was granted: purple for Law, gold
for Physics, crimson for Communications, and so on.

"The color for Accountancy? Drab.

"Drab?! I didn't even know that was a color! Fitting, don't you
think?"

[end quote]


--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 5:47:55 PM6/3/02
to

Sorry, no.
Never submitted a paper in that language,
to any sciencew journal anywhere.

Ask somebody else,

Jan

Mike Page

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 8:12:58 PM6/3/02
to
On 3 Jun 2002 13:44:45 -0700, mpl...@my-deja.com (Raymond S.
Wise) wrote:

>da...@pagedm.orang.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 01:09:19 -0400, "Tony Cooper"
>> <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Richard Fontana wrote:
>> >
>> > For example, no one would be
>> >> condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in
>> general. But something
>> >> like "Grey is my favourite colour" would be
>> subject to condemnation
>> >> and ridicule.
>> >
>> >Absolutely. Anyone that would pick grey as their
>> favourite colour
>> >should be ridiculed. Unless, of course, the person
>> is a chartered
>> >accountant.
>> >
>> I am glad to see this sensitivity of feeling towards
>> chartered
>> accountants who are an oft persecuted minority.
>

>The following is an excerpt from an item recently sent in by a reader
>to the "Bulletin Board" column of the St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer
>Press:
>
>From
>http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/3331071.htm
>
>
>[quote]
>
>"The commencement program from one of St. Paul's private colleges
>includes a page explaining the gowns and hoods worn by the graduates.
>We are told that the color of the velvet trim on a hood indicates the
>field in which the wearer's degree was granted: purple for Law, gold
>for Physics, crimson for Communications, and so on.
>
>"The color for Accountancy? Drab.
>
>"Drab?! I didn't even know that was a color! Fitting, don't you
>think?"
>
>[end quote]

See what I mean. If you prick us do we not bleed? And it ain't
red ink.

Mike Oliver

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 8:15:20 PM6/3/02
to
Richard Fontana wrote:

> Some "Chiefly British" spellings are in fact acceptable alternative,
> though less common, spellings in AmE. For example, no one would be
> condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in general. But something like
> "Grey is my favourite colour" would be subject to condemnation and
> ridicule.

An amusing outgrowth of the grey/gray thing is that you sometimes
see Gray codes referred to as "grey codes", presumably as a back-translation
into UK English. But of course the codes were never named after
the color (if it is a color), but after a man named Gray.

Larry G

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 12:54:06 AM6/4/02
to
"Mike Page" <da...@pagedm.orang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message ...

> See what I mean. If you prick us do we not bleed? And it ain't
> red ink.

{{{{accountants}}}}

You are the engineers of the financial world. For without you, the wheels
of the industrialized age would not turn, and there would be utter chaos.
Accountants are cool people.

Larry

Save this post ladies and gentlemen. It is probably the only time there's
ever been a typical newsgroup cyberhug either at aue or sci.lang, I'd bet.

Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 2:44:58 AM6/4/02
to

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1fd7yy4.w6...@de-ster.demon.nl...


Perhaps Simon found the term "English English" curious. It's not a term that
I myself have much occasion to use, but it *is* used--even preferred--by
some. The following is from *The Oxford Companion to the English Language*
by Tom McArthur, (C) 1992:

From
http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=441289&secid=-


[quote]

British English short form _BrE_

[...]

_Precision of reference._ [...] The English sociolinguist Peter Trudgill has
observed: 'My own preferred label for varieties of English from England is
"English English", by analogy with "American English", "Australian English"
etc.... Note that, whatever label is used, we have been careful in this book
to distinguish between the terms "English English" and "British English".
The latter is often used in literature, particularly, it seems, by Americans
and writers on English as a foreign language, where it is really the former
that is intended' (Introduction, _Language in the British Isles,_ 1984).


Kinds of British English.

It is not, however, surprising that the term _English English_ is not widely
used. To the English it seems as tautologous or as silly and inelegant as
'German German' and 'French French', whether or not there may be grounds for
using those names, as for example to distinguish German in Germany from
Austrian German and French in France from Quebec French. However, to many
Scots, Irish, and Welsh people, and to others with comparable perspectives,
some such term is essential to allow an explicit and productive contrast
among the British varieties of English. Equally, however, the term _Scottish
English_ can seem odd to English and Scots alike, because of the ethnic
sense of the word 'English': _Scottish English_ seems a contradiction in
terms. Similarly, the term _Irish English_ may seem bizarre, both because of
centuries-old connotations of illogic and whimsy acquired by the word
_Irish_ and because of the hostility of many in Ireland towards anything
that links them too closely with England.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 4:14:02 AM6/4/02
to

Thanks for the reference.
Indeed, I considered British English, but deliberately didn't.
The point is that some non-natives, when writing a science paper for
publication in an English language journal, do attempt (usually in vain)
to emulate an Oxbridge style as closely as possible.
They want to be even more English than the real native English.

No need to say that the competence to really do so is usually lacking,
and that skilled secretarial assistance to help achieving real English
English no longer exists in most science departments.

Best,

Jan


Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 6:14:54 AM6/4/02
to
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 01:09:19 -0400, "Tony Cooper"
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> For example, no one would be
>> condemned for spelling 'gray' as 'grey', in general. But something
>> like "Grey is my favourite colour" would be subject to condemnation
>> and ridicule.
>
>Absolutely. Anyone that would pick grey as their favourite colour
>should be ridiculed. Unless, of course, the person is a chartered
>accountant.

When living in a grey world, alls you see is grey, I imagine. What
choice, the poor puppies?
--

Charles Riggs

Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 6:14:56 AM6/4/02
to
On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:54:06 -0700, "Larry G" <thela...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Mike Page" <da...@pagedm.orang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message ...
>> See what I mean. If you prick us do we not bleed? And it ain't
>> red ink.
>
>{{{{accountants}}}}
>
>You are the engineers of the financial world. For without you, the wheels
>of the industrialized age would not turn, and there would be utter chaos.
>Accountants are cool people.

You misspelled "cold".
--

Charles Riggs

Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 6:14:54 AM6/4/02
to

I thank Buddha the minority is a small one. I hope it gets smaller.
--

Charles Riggs

Feckless

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 1:49:28 PM6/4/02
to

"Matt Davis" <ma...@avengah.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:add0th$vdb$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

I've noticed that "colour" is now standard in cosmetic and hair-care
products.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Larry G

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 3:05:08 PM6/4/02
to
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message ...

Well, not all of them, hehe. I knew a very nice, lady accountant once.
Maybe she was some kind of mixed blood person. ;-)

Larry

Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 7:34:21 PM6/4/02
to
Larry G wrote:

> "Mike Page" <da...@pagedm.orang.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message ...
> > See what I mean. If you prick us do we not bleed? And it ain't
> > red ink.
>
> {{{{accountants}}}}
>
> You are the engineers of the financial world.

And actuaries are the bookies.

--
Rob Bannister

John Johnson

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 8:52:43 PM6/4/02
to
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:m21pfug5j3r4qopf3...@4ax.com...

And you misspelt "misspelt".

JJ


Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 9:06:54 PM6/4/02
to

"John Johnson" <do...@bother.com> wrote in message
news:adjnfq$83o$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...


You spell a /d/ sound at the end of a word with a "t"?

John Johnson

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 11:22:31 PM6/4/02
to
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:ufqovmr...@corp.supernews.com...

No, everyone pronounces it with a t normally. I dunno, "spelt" sounds more
succinct than "spelled", in any case.

JJ


Raymond S. Wise

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 1:53:42 AM6/5/02
to

"John Johnson" <do...@bother.com> wrote in message
news:adk08t$mu1$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...


I was, of course, joking--as you were, I take it. It was a joke with a
point, however. Charles didn't misspell "misspelt" because he wasn't aiming
to spell *that* word, but another. He correctly spelled the word he intended
to spell.

Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 7:57:39 AM6/6/02
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 01:52:43 +0100, "John Johnson" <do...@bother.com>
wrote:

Sorry, but no, my accountant-loving friend:

misspell
· v. (past and past part. misspelt or misspelled) spell wrongly.

from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, edition 10.
--

Charles Riggs

John Johnson

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 8:59:51 AM6/6/02
to
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:s2iufucdr8j7vpic2...@4ax.com...

I never said I loved accountants.

Everyone says Misspelt. Everyone always pronounces it with a t, it sounds
more succinct. So why use the -ed ending? There's no point.

JJ


R H Draney

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 11:10:20 AM6/6/02
to
"John Johnson" <do...@bother.com> wrote in
news:adnmcb$8ia$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Everyone says Misspelt. Everyone always pronounces it with a t, it
> sounds more succinct. So why use the -ed ending? There's no point.

I'd love to get in on this, but I need to get drest for work....r

Donna Richoux

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 6:14:30 PM6/6/02
to

I hopt you walkt there, and workt hard.

Ben Webster

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 6:57:03 PM6/6/02
to

John Johnson wrote:

Who you callin' everyone? I say "misspelled" with a /d/.

Ben


Robert Bannister

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 7:32:36 PM6/6/02
to
John Johnson wrote:

Everyone? I do, and obviously you do, but many people pronounce it with a
clear D.


--
Rob Bannister

Charles Riggs

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 6:18:09 AM6/7/02
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:59:51 +0100, "John Johnson" <do...@bother.com>
wrote:

Except for those of us who think that "misspelt" sounds, and looks,
parochial at best, ignorant at worst. Perhaps it's the American blood
in me that causes this opinion.
--

Charles Riggs

Kevin Plumley

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 8:12:00 AM6/7/02
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:18:09 +0100, Charles Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
wrote:

And you would never expect that of yours truly," he chimed in..

0 new messages