Defence and Defense:
I've been looking at some 1800s American legal sources, and I noticed that many still used "defence" well into the second half of the century. At some point, though, "defense" became the universal American term. Do any of you know why the "-ce" shifted to an "-se"? Did the "-our" / "-or" shift and the dropping of "-me" on "programme" and the like happen for the same reason? If the latter shift was part of a spelling simplification movement, why the "-ce" / "-se" change, which isn't really a simplification?
http://www.m-w.com/info/spelling-reform.htm
Defense, offense, and pretense. -- In these words, s is substituted for c, because s is used in the derivatives, as defensive, offensive, pretension. The words expense, recompense, and license have, on this ground, undergone the same alteration within comparatively a short period, and a change in the three mentioned above would complete the analogy. These words are here given in both forms of spelling.
Given the remarkable inconsistency of spelling when one reads historical documents even as late as the 18th and early 19th centuries it is easy to understand Mr. Webster's frustrations. We moderns tend to view the matter as one of poor education among the general population but that doesn't hold as far as I can tell. Inconsistencies in spelling are rampant even among the most well educated of the time and even among those who shared educational backgrounds. Spelling was, basically, a personalized free-for-all.
How the public went about accepting and rejecting Webster's suggestions over a seemingly short period is a puzzle. Why the legal industry took longer is not as puzzling. You legal types are, after all, insular, intrasigent old Mustache Petes.
British, and those they influenced.
Like "as well", "in hospital", "at university", and "at table", superfluous and effete.
I have spoken.
"I drove to town and she did as well" - how is that superfluous and effete?
Also, putting the commas outside the quotation marks as Glenn W. Bowen has done is itself a Britishism. American usage is as in this post - commas and other punctuation marks inside the quotation marks. On this score the British usage probably makes more sense.
This seems to have become a popular usage in the last twenty years or so- or so I think.
"also", or "too".
Since they were both going to town then both of them driving was clearly superfluous. And if he couldn't talk her into riding with him rather than driving herself he must be effete.
Still stuck with "through" though.
Has anyone else had this problem and figured out how to fix it?
Also, the new spelling might be considered a simplification in that "defense" and "defensive" are easier to remember.
"
Please send me two mongooses"
Please send me two mongeese"Please send me a mongoose, and please send me an additional one as well."
Foobarista:
I'm much in agreement with the idea of putting punctuation that's not part of what's being quoted outside the quotation marks. Rules or no, this is how I do it in all writing. Coincidentally, I develop software.
IIRC, American judicial decisions from the early 20th century were pretty careful about leaving punctuation outside the quotation marks unless they actually appeared in the original material.
Webster wanted a distinctive American dictionary for a proud new nation, and wished to highlight the differences between British and American versions. As Southern In the City notes, he was only partly successful.
Once language it written down, it changes more slowly. Once a dictionary arrives, it changes more slowly still. Thus we retain bizarre spellings that were already going out of common pronunciation two centuries ago.
How would you say those expressions in the U.S.?
"In the..." "at the..." "at the..."
"In hospital" means "hospitalized." "In the hospital" could mean that you are in a hospital because you work there or are visiting somebody.
Similarly, "at university" mans "in college," as in "Jane is in college." "At table" could be translated as "having dinner" as opposed to sitting at the table typing on a computer, as I'm doing right now.
Not that it means anything, but I have gone to putting extraordinary punctuation, ? ! outside the quotes and commas and periods inside about half the time. It seems to me the extraordinary punctuation, if it is mine, does not reflect the source quoted accurately if it is within the quotes.
He said,"Now, why am I doing this?"
He said, "Now, why am I doing this"?
If accuracy of the quote is the important thing, then periods and commas should be within the quotes only if they are there in the original source - but was trained American, which is why sometimes in, sometimes out.
For that matter, it wasn't unheard of for someone to use different spellings for the same word inside the same document. (George Washington and Shakespeare being examples.)
Actually, in my experience as an American, "in the hospital" (as in, "Johnny is in the hospital.") almost invariably means the subject in question is hospitalized. That's how we use it and the term "in hospital" doesn't exist in our common usage. If you were visting someone at a hospital, you would say "I was at the hospital" and not "in" it. If you were employed there you would tell someone you worked "at" a hospital. In the few cases where "in the hospital" didn't mean hospitalized, it would be clear from the context, e.g. "Did you get that test done in the doctor's office?" "No, in the hospital."
As to the other terms you mention, speaking from my lifelong experience as an American, I would say we just don't use them at all in our every day language. In terms of higher education, we stick pretty exclusively with "in college" or "going to college", even when that college is a university. For example, we'd say, "I go to college at Stanford University." or "My son is in college this year." I've never heard any American I know say they were "at university" (or "uni" for that matter, as I've seen on Australian blogs). And "at table" is just some British anachronism that's so quaint it's almost amusing. I dare say it doesn't show its face on these shores. If we're eating, we're eating. Or we're dining. Or we're having dinner. But any time we're using a table for a purpose, there is generally a "the" there. "I was sitting at the table writing a letter when the phone rang."
Having said all that, I do put my commas outside the quote marks when they belong there. I'm with the British on that one.
People will say “He is in school” or “She is in church.” But they will also say “He is in the hospital”. So sometimes “the” is inserted and sometimes it is not.
I can live with these but what really irks me is the British pronunciation of words like garage, fillet, etc. These were French words and Americans tend to pronounce them in a manner similar to the original. The Brits mangle these words rather grotesquely. Where Americans will say “fi-ley” the Brits call it “fil-it”. No wonder the French aren’t fond of the British.
I’ve always refused to adopt the British mispronunciation of French words. So I will go in and order a “fi-ley”. In one of the colonies (not the US obviously) some child working as a waiter (I say child in that he was obviously in his teens and I doubt he has traveled or travelled outside his home country). I ordered a “fi-ley” and he had to correct me and tell me it was a “fil-it”. I was ready to smack the child. I didn’t and just told him: “Excuse me. The word is actually French. It is pronounced fi-ley. That you are unaware of that is your problem.”
Now with Mexican food appearing around the world you run into funny problems with pronunciation. In Africa a chain of restaurants added Mexican to the menu and decided to teach their customers how to pronounce these new items. And true to the British tradition of commonwealth countries they screwed up the pronunciation again. They told the customers that the correct way to pronounce fajita was to say “fa-gee-ta”. No wonder we get British films in the US with English subtitles. Exactly when did the Brits stop speaking English?
Linguistically, it doesn't seem to be true that languages change more slowly after they are written down or put in a dictionary. The fact that we have words that are now pronounced much differently from how they are spelled is, after all, evidence of language changing *despite* being written down.
Americans invariably refer to both universities and colleges as "college." I've never heard an American say "at table." I doubt an American would even know what a Brit meant by that phrase, though he'd know what you meant if you said something like "I went to a fund raising dinner for So-and-So charity and we were seated at the head table."
Well, I might be more inclined to feel indignant about the mangling of Spanish words if it weren't for the fact that the Mexicans take good Celtic names like "McDonald" and "O'Brien" and turn them into "Maldonado" and "Obregón."
So what is the deal with this "waiting on line" stuff? Where is the line they are on? If they are queued, they are in line on on line.
And what's the deal with "waiting on Godot"? Is he prone or supine and being stood upon, or is he being waited for because he is due to show up.
But, of course, London is spelled and pronounced Londres in that part of the world so perhaps (as in the O'Brien example above) there's enough sin to go around. (However, I would certainly nip that "fa-gee-ta" thing in the bud, if possible.)
Think Jaguar, which to say, Jag you are
Yours sincerely,
Stephen St.John Cholmondeley
Leicester Square, Marylebone.
This is true. What was once merely a quaint verbal tic by our New York friends has become downright confusing with the rise of the Internet, though. The other day, someone said to me that they were "on line" when X event happened. I (natually) assumed that they were surfing the web, but in fact they were standing outside with a group of other people arranged in a linear fashion.