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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Brit-Am Spelling Crankiness

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 6:38:41 AM9/5/00
to
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> Day"?
>
> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> offensive, I recall.

In an article in today's Times, concerning what the recent polls mean
for fortune-telling concerning who'll win in November, they refer four
times to "Labour Day" and twice to "Labor Day". They Know The Truth,
and still can't get it right.

--

Lis Carey

This post is copyright 2000 by Elisabeth Carey. Permission to
insert links when displaying it is available for $100. Use in
this fashion constitutes acceptance of these terms.

Johan Anglemark

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 7:23:23 AM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:

>Gary Farber wrote:
>>
>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>> Day"?
>>
>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>> offensive, I recall.

Why?

It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.

I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.

-j
--
johan.a...@bahnhof.se --- www.bahnhof.se/~anglemar/
***** Upsala Science fiction-sällskap:
***** http://sfweb.dang.se/

iain.coleman

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 8:29:17 AM9/5/00
to

Gary Farber wrote:

> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> Day"?
>

For the same reason that US media refer to the British Labor Party,
I imagine.

Iain


D. Potter

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 9:04:44 AM9/5/00
to
Gary Farber wrote:

>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<

And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
distinguish?


--
D. Potter

"The tabloids have failed the American electorate by neglecting to reveal
whom the space aliens are endorsing for president this year." -R. Nash, MD-

mike weber

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 10:33:18 AM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:23:23 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan
Anglemark) typed

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>> Day"?
>>>
>>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>> offensive, I recall.
>
>Why?
>
>It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>
>I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>

It *is* a proper noun as part of the name of a national holiday here
in the States.

In this case, "Labor Day" is the correct, official,
part-of-the-legislature spelling.
--
"It's not what you don't know that can hurt you -- it's the things that
you do know that AREN'T true..." ("The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"?)
================================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
half complete website of Xeno--http://weberworld.virtualave.net

mike weber

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 10:33:52 AM9/5/00
to
On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed

>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
>
>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>distinguish?
>

Isn't it properly "Times of London"?

Johan Anglemark

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 10:57:25 AM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:33:18 GMT, kras...@mindspring.com (mike
weber) wrote:

>johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan Anglemark) typed


>
>>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>>> Day"?
>>>>
>>>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>>> offensive, I recall.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>>Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>>
>>I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>>
>It *is* a proper noun as part of the name of a national holiday here
>in the States.
>
>In this case, "Labor Day" is the correct, official,
>part-of-the-legislature spelling.

But that's in the US. For comparison, should I take offense if I read
a reference to the Swedish "Midsummer's Eve" holiday, and require that
you spell it "Midsommarafton"? Same words, spelled differently in the
two countries, and of course, "Midsommarafton" is a proper noun, the
name of one of our holidays.

Labor/Labour should be 100% interchangeable, shouldn't they?

I still don't understand why this is a touchy subject, I'm afraid.

John Richards

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 11:14:44 AM9/5/00
to
mike weber wrote:
>
> On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
>
> >Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> >>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
> >not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
> >
> >And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
> >publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
> >distinguish?
> >
> Isn't it properly "Times of London"?

Isn't what properly "Times of London"?

--
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth

Lucy Kemnitzer

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 10:09:06 AM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:23:23 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se
(Johan Anglemark) wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>> Day"?
>>>
>>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>> offensive, I recall.
>
>Why?
>
>It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>
>I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.


I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.

Lucy Kemnitzer

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 12:39:28 PM9/5/00
to
In article <39b4fe6...@enews.newsguy.com>,
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:

[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
September "Labour Day"]


>
>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.

Or because it's an American-only holiday? I mean, if there were
some traditional* British holiday that had a variant spelling
(sorry, can't think of any alternate way of spelling "Guy Fawkes")
then I think I might try to spell it their way too.

Wandering not too far afield, I have a copy of Betty MacDonald's
_Anybody Can Do Anything_ which was printed in Britain. All the
-or endings are changed to -our, no biggie. But somebody
monkeyed with the vocabulary as well, and I jump a little bit
every time I see MacDonald speaking of her journey home in 1930,
talking about petrol stations.

I still don't find it offensive, just weird.

-----
*I don't suppose Labor Day is a century old yet, but for
Americans it's traditional. Remember that America is the place
where a hundred miles is a short distance and a hundred years is
a long time.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt

Amanda Baker

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 12:58:25 PM9/5/00
to
Morning, all!

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?

I've really no idea - it is my belief that all such proper
nouns should be spelled the way the native users spell them (even when
that's a bit difficult in email e.g. Muenchen) because otherwise,
there is a crazy proliferation of alternative Anglicizations,
Francophonisms etc.

>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>offensive, I recall.

Heh. Something like that :-)

>Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>not what it's called. That's just a URL.

Indeed. They were presumably too slow off the mark to get
www.times.com (or www.times.co.uk?).

Have a day, every one.

Amanda

Alison Scott

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 1:31:54 PM9/5/00
to
Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:

>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?

Because they're ignorant. In particular, because all reasonable
standards of copyediting disappeared when journos started inputting
their own articles. You often find articles where a large letter O is
used for zero throughout, or a lowercase l instead of the numeral one.


>
>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>offensive, I recall.

Yes, it is; they shouldn't do it. But there are plenty of other things
to criticise the Times for.

--
Alison Scott ali...@kittywompus.com & www.kittywompus.com

Please remember that I was probably sleep deprived, or weirdly hormonal,
when composing this post.

James Nicoll

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 1:29:56 PM9/5/00
to
In article <G0FA...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <39b4fe6...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
>September "Labour Day"]
>>
>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>
>Or because it's an American-only holiday?

See

www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm

for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.

Although [despite the hideous typo which claim the
US didn't have a Labor day until the 1980s] the US Labor
Day predates the Canadian Labour Day IMS.

We also share Thanksgiving [on different days], Christmas
and New Years with the US. Don't think the US does Boxing Day,
though.

James Nicoll

James Nicoll


James Nicoll
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.

Rob Hansen

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 2:32:44 PM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?

Because this is actually hidden political advertsing for our own
Labour Party. If the editor of _The Times_ gets enough mentions of
Labour in the paper, Tony Blair gives him a toaster oven.
--

Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/

Andrew Plotkin

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 2:50:51 PM9/5/00
to
James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> In article <G0FA...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?

> See
> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
> for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.

Just because you have a Labor Day, doesn't mean it's the same holiday
as *our* shiny, pure, local Labor Day. I mean, it's not even on the
same *day*. And -- very relevantly to this round of nitpicking -- you
spell it differently.

Next someone will be saying that Chanukkah is not a Jewish holiday,
because it's the same as Christmas. Sheesh.

> We also share Thanksgiving [on different days], Christmas
> and New Years with the US. Don't think the US does Boxing Day,
> though.

Thanksgiving is clearly two different holidays in Canada and the US;
Christmas and New Years are shared holidays.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."

iain.coleman

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 3:27:36 PM9/5/00
to

Amanda Baker wrote:

Their more usual URL is www.the-times.co.uk. www.times.com was
taken by the New York Times, and www.times.co.uk is owned by
someone selling domain names, amusingly enough.

Iain

James Nicoll

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 3:38:22 PM9/5/00
to
In article <96817985...@rexx.com>,

Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> In article <G0FA...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
>
>> See
>> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
>> for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
>
>Just because you have a Labor Day, doesn't mean it's the same holiday
>as *our* shiny, pure, local Labor Day. I mean, it's not even on the
>same *day*.

No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
shopping season way short.

> And -- very relevantly to this round of nitpicking -- you
>spell it differently.

Same word, though. Same reason for the holiday. Same date.

>Next someone will be saying that Chanukkah is not a Jewish holiday,
>because it's the same as Christmas. Sheesh.

Well, I am just not getting dragged into -that- argument. That's
completely different.

>> We also share Thanksgiving [on different days], Christmas
>> and New Years with the US. Don't think the US does Boxing Day,
>> though.
>
>Thanksgiving is clearly two different holidays in Canada and the US;
>Christmas and New Years are shared holidays.

I suppose you could argue that the different choice in dates
makes them different holidays. You could eat cheese with bread and call
youself a philosopher, too. I won't do it myself, of course. Claiming
that the holiday we both celebrate for the same reasons on the same day
through a linked process is different on the basis of one letter so as
to argue it is purely American seems weak at best. Why not claim every
denomination of Christian who celebrate Christmas on Dec 25 celebrates a
different holiday because the version of Christ varies slightly from
sect to sect?

Understand, I respect your right to an opinion on this, no matter
how fundementally flawed.

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 4:29:23 PM9/5/00
to
On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) wrote:

>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
>
>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>distinguish?

Oh, and there's always the Washington Times, Moony-ridden as it is.

--
Marilee J. Layman The Other*Worlds*Cafe
HOSTE...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group.
AOL Keyword: OWC http://www.webmoose.com/owc

Del Cotter

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 5:19:58 PM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
mike weber (The Higher United Nations Defence and Enforcement Reserve)
wrote:

>On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>>>not what it's called. That's just a URL."
>>
>>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased

>>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>>distinguish?
>
>Isn't it properly "Times of London"?

No, the "Times" of London, or the London "Times". London appears
nowhere in the newspaper's actual name, which is "The Times", as shown
on the top of the front page.

--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .

JustRead:abanBadLand:EricIdleTheRoadToMars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&Apostrophes
MichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodbye:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit
ToRead:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPip

Del Cotter

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 5:19:39 PM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
Gary Farber (fwa pp) wrote:

>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?

Ignorant, I expect.

Where've you been?

William Burns

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 5:41:02 PM9/5/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?

>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>offensive, I recall.

Are you certain they weren't referring to Canada's 'Labour Day'? That
is also in America and, iirc, held on the same day. Besides, as far
as the US of A is concerned, "noone looses the meaning."

(Gods -- that hurt.)
--
William

Only 118 days, then it's "Welcome to the Third"

Bob Webber

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 9:50:45 PM9/5/00
to

As is "Labour Day", in Canada.


--
And Sharkey says: All of nature talks to me.
If I could just figure out
what it was trying to tell me.
-- Laurie Anderson

Richard Horton

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 10:09:26 PM9/5/00
to

On 5 Sep 2000 19:38:22 GMT, jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James
Nicoll) wrote:

> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>shopping season way short.

Having Thanksgiving in late November hasn't stopped U. S. merchants
from starting the Christmas shopping season at Halloween.


--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 11:08:06 PM9/5/00
to
Johan Anglemark wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Gary Farber wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> >> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> >> Day"?
> >>
> >> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> >> offensive, I recall.
>
> Why?
>
> It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
> Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>
> I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.

Firstly, Gary wrote the words you're responding to, not me.

Secondly, Gary's referring to the (often somewhat huffy) corrections
received every time some American is incautious enough to refer to
Britain's "Labor Party".

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 11:11:58 PM9/5/00
to
Bob Webber wrote:
>
> Lucy Kemnitzer (rit...@cruzio.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:23:23 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se
> > (Johan Anglemark) wrote:
>
> > >On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> > ><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Gary Farber wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> > >>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> > >>> Day"?
> > >>>
> > >>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> > >>> offensive, I recall.
> > >
> > >Why?
> > >
> > >It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
> > >Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
> > >
> > >I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>
> > I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>
> As is "Labour Day", in Canada.

And if the Times articles in question were not referring specifically
to the _US_ Labor Day, that would be a highly relevant fact. As it is,
though, no, it's not relevant. They referred to the American holiday,
and spelled it wrong.

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 11:16:49 PM9/5/00
to

I wouldn't call it touchy, but it's worthy of comment because of the
annoyed corrections every time an American refers to Britain's "Labor
Party".

--

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 11:21:37 PM9/5/00
to
William Burns wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> >_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> >Day"?
>
> >We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> >offensive, I recall.
>
> Are you certain they weren't referring to Canada's 'Labour Day'? That
> is also in America and, iirc, held on the same day. Besides, as far
> as the US of A is concerned, "noone looses the meaning."
>
> (Gods -- that hurt.)

The Times article that I saw (six mentions, four of them spelled
"Labour", two spelled "Labor") explicitly referred to the US holiday.
The article was about the US presidential election, and how to use the
most recent polls in fortune-telling to predict the outcome. (Okay,
they didn't say "fortune-telling".)

mike weber

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 12:59:56 AM9/6/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:57:25 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan
Anglemark) typed

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:33:18 GMT, kras...@mindspring.com (mike

Because it was *our* holiday they were referring to.

Let'sa try a slightly different approach:

If i transliterated your name (if i knew how -- "John", i assume for
the first, and i can't guess at "Anglemark") every time i typed it
becuase it was the same as that name in English-speaking countires,
would that be okay with you?

Or, if i decided (as an editor Over Here actually did, once,
apparently) to change every reference to the "City of London" to "city
of London", would that not matter? After all, it's the same word.

Alan Woodford

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 1:28:58 AM9/6/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 21:09:26 -0500, Richard Horton
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:

>
>On 5 Sep 2000 19:38:22 GMT, jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>>shopping season way short.
>
>Having Thanksgiving in late November hasn't stopped U. S. merchants
>from starting the Christmas shopping season at Halloween.
>


Bah. Three weeks ago, one of the TV shopping channels was advertising
Christmas Trees.

Alan "at least it was the right side of the summer solstice!" Woodford


Men in Frocks, protecting the Earth with mystical flummery!

Ray Radlein

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 1:37:43 AM9/6/00
to
James Nicoll wrote:
>
> Why not claim every denomination of Christian who celebrate
> Christmas on Dec 25 celebrates a different holiday because the
> version of Christ varies slightly from sect to sect?

You can never step in the same manger twice.


- Ray R.

--

**********************************************************************
"LOS ANGELES: A city of millions; thousands more are born each day.
Some in maternity wards, some in creche incubators. The Artificial
ones don't have civil rights, but they still need the law. That's
why they turn to me. My name is Friday. I carry a badge."
-- Robert A. Heinlein's "Dragnet"

Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.

**********************************************************************

Ray Radlein

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 1:40:10 AM9/6/00
to
John Richards wrote:

>
> mike weber wrote:
> >
> > dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
> >
> > >Gary Farber wrote:
> > >
> > >"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the
> > >way. That's not what it's called. That's just a URL."
> > >
> > >And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of
> > >course, ceased to publish, so there is no longer any possibility
> > >of confusion or need to distinguish?
> > >
> > Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
>
> Isn't what properly "Times of London"?

The Guardian, of course.

Johan Anglemark

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 2:59:00 AM9/6/00
to
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:08:06 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:

>Johan Anglemark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
>> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Gary Farber wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>> >> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>> >> Day"?
>> >>
>> >> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>> >> offensive, I recall.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>> Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>>
>> I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>
>Firstly, Gary wrote the words you're responding to, not me.

Yes, I noticed I forgot to snip the attribution to you. I'm sorry.

>Secondly, Gary's referring to the (often somewhat huffy) corrections
>received every time some American is incautious enough to refer to
>Britain's "Labor Party".

Which seems quite OK to me as well. Well, you're only being fair,
then.

Johan Anglemark

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 3:07:48 AM9/6/00
to
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:59:56 GMT, kras...@mindspring.com (mike
weber) wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:57:25 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan
>Anglemark) typed
>

>>But that's in the US. For comparison, should I take offense if I read
>>a reference to the Swedish "Midsummer's Eve" holiday, and require that
>>you spell it "Midsommarafton"? Same words, spelled differently in the
>>two countries, and of course, "Midsommarafton" is a proper noun, the
>>name of one of our holidays.
>>
>>Labor/Labour should be 100% interchangeable, shouldn't they?
>>
>>I still don't understand why this is a touchy subject, I'm afraid.
>>
>Because it was *our* holiday they were referring to.
>
>Let'sa try a slightly different approach:
>
>If i transliterated your name (if i knew how -- "John", i assume for
>the first, and i can't guess at "Anglemark") every time i typed it
>becuase it was the same as that name in English-speaking countires,
>would that be okay with you?

But that's not a good paralell. Proper nouns and personal names are
not the same thing. I would expect you to call me Johan, but I would
also expect you to refer to Sweden as Sweden, and to Gothenburg as
Gothenburg. Don't tell me you talk of the capital of Greece as being
Athinai?

But labor and labour are not cognate words, they are variant spellings
of exactly the same word in the same language.

>Or, if i decided (as an editor Over Here actually did, once,
>apparently) to change every reference to the "City of London" to "city
>of London", would that not matter? After all, it's the same word.

But then he alters the meaning also in UK English. That's not a US
spelling adaptation, that's ignorance of how the noun phrase is
constituted. Different thing.

But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
"Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...

John Richards

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 4:19:44 AM9/6/00
to
Ray Radlein wrote:
>
> John Richards wrote:
> >
> > mike weber wrote:
> > >
> > > dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
> > >
> > > >Gary Farber wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the
> > > >way. That's not what it's called. That's just a URL."
> > > >
> > > >And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of
> > > >course, ceased to publish, so there is no longer any possibility
> > > >of confusion or need to distinguish?
> > > >
> > > Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
> >
> > Isn't what properly "Times of London"?
>
> The Guardian, of course.
>
Shouldn't that be The Manchester Guardian of London?

--
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth

Elisabeth Carey

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 7:00:40 AM9/6/00
to

But "Labor Day" *is* a proper noun, just as "Labour Party" is a proper
noun--and, as you point out, the English aren't even speaking a
different language. Unlike the French quite reasonably saying "Les
Etats-Unis" rather than "United States", there's no reason for them to
not be using the correct spelling of that proper noun, especially when
so many are so free with corrections when Americans incorrectly say
"Labor Party".



> >Or, if i decided (as an editor Over Here actually did, once,
> >apparently) to change every reference to the "City of London" to "city
> >of London", would that not matter? After all, it's the same word.
>
> But then he alters the meaning also in UK English. That's not a US
> spelling adaptation, that's ignorance of how the noun phrase is
> constituted. Different thing.
>
> But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
> British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
> "Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
> take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...

Yes, we should both, and Gary was just (rather sarcastically, as is
sometimes his wont) suggesting that the respect should go both ways.

Avedon Carol

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 6:59:29 AM9/6/00
to
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:31:54 +0100, Alison Scott
<ali...@kittywompus.com> wrote:

>Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>Day"?
>
>Because they're ignorant. In particular, because all reasonable
>standards of copyediting disappeared when journos started inputting
>their own articles. You often find articles where a large letter O is
>used for zero throughout, or a lowercase l instead of the numeral one.

How 'bout the disappearing italics for titles? I hate that.

>>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>offensive, I recall.
>
>Yes, it is; they shouldn't do it. But there are plenty of other things
>to criticise the Times for.

I can't believe people still read it.

Chris Malme

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 7:16:31 AM9/6/00
to
lis....@mediaone.net (Elisabeth Carey) wrote in
<39B6235F...@mediaone.net>:

>But "Labor Day" *is* a proper noun, just as "Labour Party" is a proper
>noun--and, as you point out, the English aren't even speaking a
>different language. Unlike the French quite reasonably saying "Les
>Etats-Unis" rather than "United States", there's no reason for them to
>not be using the correct spelling of that proper noun, especially when
>so many are so free with corrections when Americans incorrectly say
>"Labor Party".

I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.

On the other hand, I don't read every thread, and Deja is a somewhat
unreliable source.

Who were these pedants, Lis, and roughly when did the thread occur?

>Yes, we should both, and Gary was just (rather sarcastically, as is
>sometimes his wont) suggesting that the respect should go both ways.

Spoiling for an argument, I would say.

Chris

Kip Williams

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 7:49:28 AM9/6/00
to
Ray Radlein wrote:
>
> James Nicoll wrote:
> >
> > Why not claim every denomination of Christian who celebrate
> > Christmas on Dec 25 celebrates a different holiday because the
> > version of Christ varies slightly from sect to sect?
>
> You can never step in the same manger twice.

Ever have one of those days when you want to show your admiration
for one of Ray's jokes, but can't come up with a suitable rejoinder
as tribute? I guess I'll just have to send cash this time.

--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/

Ed Dravecky III

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 2:02:04 PM9/6/00
to
Chris Malme <mins...@filklore.com> wrote:
> I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
> Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
> search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.

The snarkiness, such as it was, was more than six months ago.

RASFF has a long collective memory. Some things, like Ulrika's
hovering bosoms (for which joke web page I seemed to have somehow
escaped her wrath at Chicon) never quite fade from RASFF memory.

--
Ed Dravecky III
(ed3 at panix.com)

Bernard Peek

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 2:57:09 PM9/6/00
to
In article <8fa77206...@filklore.com>, Chris Malme
<mins...@filklore.com> writes


>I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
>Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
>search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.

I recall PNH spelling it Labor Party and then apologising. Or should
that be apologizing?

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk

Alison Hopkins

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 2:52:07 PM9/6/00
to

Alan Woodford wrote in message <39b5d5bc....@news.demon.co.uk>...

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 21:09:26 -0500, Richard Horton
><rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 5 Sep 2000 19:38:22 GMT, jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>>>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>>>shopping season way short.
>>
>>Having Thanksgiving in late November hasn't stopped U. S. merchants
>>from starting the Christmas shopping season at Halloween.
>>
>
>
>Bah. Three weeks ago, one of the TV shopping channels was advertising
>Christmas Trees.
>


I bought a multi pack of Kit Kat in Sainsbury's yesterday. Bleeding Chrimbo
trees and cute Santas all over the wrappers!

Ali


Alison Hopkins

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 3:08:44 PM9/6/00
to

Bernard Peek wrote in message <62aU3KAF...@btinternet.com>...

>In article <8fa77206...@filklore.com>, Chris Malme
><mins...@filklore.com> writes
>
>
>>I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
>>Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
>>search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
>
>I recall PNH spelling it Labor Party and then apologising. Or should
>that be apologizing?
>


Only if he really *meant* to say sorry. :)

Ali


Niall Hedderley

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 4:42:01 PM9/6/00
to
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:19:44 +0100, John Richards
<jo...@panorama.panorama.com> wrote:

>Shouldn't that be The Manchester Guardian of London?

Which, despite their reputation for spelling mistakes, I notice referred to
"Labor Day electoral surveys". See? We don't all get it wrong.

Unless that was just a spelling error on their part.

Niall H.

--
Niall Hedderley
(Ni...@Tourmaline.demon.co.uk)

Del Cotter

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 5:01:45 PM9/6/00
to
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
>>September "Labour Day"]


>>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>>

>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
>
> See
>
> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
>
>for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.

How much is "not very"?

--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .

JustRead:Mars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&ApostrophesMichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodby
e:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings
ToRead:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPiperSpaceViking:VernorVingeADee

William Burns

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 5:47:30 PM9/6/00
to
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:21:37 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:

>The Times article that I saw (six mentions, four of them spelled
>"Labour", two spelled "Labor") explicitly referred to the US holiday.
>The article was about the US presidential election, and how to use the
>most recent polls in fortune-telling to predict the outcome. (Okay,
>they didn't say "fortune-telling".)

I sit corrected vis-à-vis which country the Times was talking about.
Have noticed an interesting trend wrt the polls though. Every
politician in Canada has been saying 'the polls don't mean a thing'.

OK, not a new trend. The predicted losers have always said it. But
this year, for the first time in my memory, the predicted winners are
also saying it.

They've lost their faith, I take it.
--
William

Only 117 days, then it's "Welcome to the Third"

James Nicoll

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 5:41:03 PM9/6/00
to
In article <zKa99hB5...@branta.demon.co.uk>,

Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
>James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
>>>September "Labour Day"]
>>>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>>>
>>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
>>
>> See
>>
>> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
>>
>>for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
>
>How much is "not very"?

As in 'axe to grind' and 'not proof read'.
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.

mike weber

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 6:15:23 PM9/6/00
to
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 07:07:48 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan
Anglemark) typed


>But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
>British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
>"Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
>take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...
>

In this context, "Brit" and "USAn" should be considered two similar
but not exactly cognatre languages.

Del Cotter

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 5:34:06 PM9/6/00
to