Talk:Comparison of American and British English (vocabulary)

Inline citations

I've added some more since the top notice was added. I can see a couple of lines which could do with more citations. Any further suggestions re citations/sources?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Other articles to be deleted?

I assume the plan is to turn List of British words not widely used in the United States and List of words having different meanings in British and American English into redirects to this new article, as well. At present, it's a bit confusing, with two of the original three articles still extant, and one redirecting to here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the plan is to incorporate them into specific sourced and dated lists that actually meet the varying criteria of difference.

It's something I have as a to-do. First I plan to tidy up the lexis section, remove all the vocab lists for now and link them to this generic page. Anyone could change the links as of now - I might do it later, but don't wait for me.

There is a generic table here: just a list of some differences as was in 2003. It's evidence of variation. That's all: evidence there are differences.

Eventually, a fair amount of that prelude on this generic page should be merged back to the main article (since it applies, to a much lesser extent) to grammar too.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) edited - 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time at present to help with this. I look forward to a very worthwhile article! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the generic table must go according to WP:COPYVIO, since it's just (a simplified version of) the list found in Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, page 309. As a matter of fact, the original table is more accurate, since it features solid and broken lines to show crossing over (or lack thereof) into the other variety. Without that, the table is just confusing, as shown by this edit (car is much more common than auto in AmE), in that it really is not clear what the table is supposed to be--especially since the current lists of words (not widely used, different meanings, yada yada) are much more accurate as far as actual usage is concerned. Granted, they are largely unsourced, their approach is flawed, their layout is terrible, and need to be reworked and revamped and restructured and whatnot, which is what we're trying to do here. Yet the information they contain is, for the most part, correct. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Must it? I thought it would be covered under fair use. It's a portion of that list, and I wonder if you could copyright it anyway. But it's not my speciality.

If you think the table really is that confusing, take it out anyhow. I'm not precious about it.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Crystal's list contains a few items that are covered either in our grammar article (e.g. dollhouse/doll's house) or in our spelling article (airplane/aeroplane, ass/arse, aluminum/aluminium). I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And?

If you have something else you want to use, or add, then do it.

Or, like I say, take out if that's problematic. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you could copyright a table of words. The table is quite useful.

WeirdEars 11:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One table would attract any kind of speculation/original research and eventually grow out of control and turn out to be confusing and unmaintainable anyway; you can't compile a table with just a few example differences and expect it to remain that way--this is wikipedia! We also want the information to be practically useful and easily accessible. How about several tables, say "automotive," "clothing," "food and beverage," "household items," "housing," "transport(ation)" and whatnot? Each table may have three columns--British term(s); American term(s); comments (optional); with footnotes/references for each and every single entry as needed. These tables will only deal with equivalent (or near-equivalent) lexical items, and will therefore focus on concepts/objects (and mostly concrete objects at that) rather than words, pretty much like the list on page 309 of Crystal's CEOTEL. The next step would be to focus on word usage; for example, why and how certain words (adjectives such as smart, clever, mad, mean; verbs like table, mind, wash up, knock up; and so on) are used in different ways. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-linguistic categories eg "clothing" etc are probably the best for tables, I agree. Or even articles of themselves. All the stuff on education/transport etc is worthy of a separate article, and detracts from/is slightly at odds with the rest of the article which focuses on linguistic differences. Tables are probably a magnet, as you say, so examples in the text rather than as tables. I mean "purely" linguistic examples (organized by linguistic differences). Thinking about it, trying to incorporate all the social/cultural stuff as well is almost certainly too much - and beyond the scope of the main article.

It's a great topic in its own right and there's already enough material for a new article, let alone when expanded.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As a linguistic layman, I followed List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, naively expecting to find a counterpart to List of British words not widely used in the United States. I was redirected to to Differences between American and British English (vocabulary), which sounded promising but has no list. The closest match I found was List of words having different meanings in British and American English. These two tables (UK-only and different meanings) and the one I was seeking (US-only) could usefully be combined. For example, [television] anchor is defined as an American word, but appears in different meanings because it also means a ship brake in both cultures. (Here I pretend for simplicity that UK=British, US=American and no one else uses English.) Certes (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Well, "List of American words not widely etc." used to be a counterpart to "List of British words etc.": This is what that page looked like before being replaced with a mere redirect to this page, after the recent AfD discussion. Way back when, there were three lists, i.e. "List of American words...", "List of British words...", and "List of words having different meanings..." These lists have undergone multiple AfD nominations [1], [2], [3]; we are currently in the process of reorganizing the information, in order to eventually have one article in lieu of three lists.

These articles are all part of a series on British and American English. The focus on UK=British and US=American English is accounted for by the fact that "BRITISH ENGLISH and AMERICAN ENGLISH are the foremost varieties of the ENGLISH language and serve as reference norms for other varieties, [and as such] they have often been compared and contrasted." (Tom McArthur, The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language). I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 00:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Certes is saying a table of three or more columns, rather than they can be combined because they are the same.

But to clarify: "List of words originating in AmE" or "List of words used differently" would be significantly large. If it were accurate, "List of words not widely used" would still be large. Even a list of "words considered by the British to be 'American' rather than 'British'" would be large (but we couldn't usefully maintain it, here on Wikipedia).

There's lots of ways of showing difference, Certes, and some words definitely "belong" to one or the other even when they are not exclusive words, and used in subtly different ways too. The problem with "List of words not widely used in BrE" is the next record, movie, internet phenomenon , brand of foodstuff or clothing, episode of Gray's Anatomy, big US news story, or institutional adoption of an American practice can make any entry patently untrue. At least half of that list is amusingly out of the date, often for less "seismic" reasons.

However, the differences are many and interesting and complex. Sorry for the confusion with the tables, it's a matter of going back to go forward: not saying anything (for now) rather than saying something untrue.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for the useful explanations. I agree that there is more than one way to do this well, and you seem to be well along one of the better paths. Although it was not my aim, I seem to have stirred up a lively but friendly debate which may yet trigger more good ideas. Certes (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why delete the American Words Not Used In UK and not the other? I'd think you should have kept both and added this link to the bottom of those pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.68.80 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"The table on this page"?

The third sentence of the opening paragraph starts with "the table on this page". I see no table on this page. (I arrived here redirected from Faffing (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faffing#F>).) —141.150.23.24 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Exactly. No such table. Also this article seems very minimal. There's talk about moving the content elsewhere. It so, has the table moved to another article? Modus Vivendi (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This article says absolutely nothing

I don't think I've ever come across a Wiki-article with less information... Seriously, all this says is "it's hard to be specific on the differences." If there is nothing more that can possibly be said on the topic, there is no point in keeping this article, IMHO.

85.167.222.28 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC article

Useful source: ([4]) --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)