English (United Kingdom)... where did it go?

[Scorpus Veteran]

I'm Australian and should use UK spellings but I prefer the United States way.

Favor > favour (and all similar words) because "favor" has one less character, making it slightly quicker to type/write.

Organize > organise (and all similar) because you don't say "orga-nice" you say "orga-nize"

Center > centre again because it seems more phonetically correct to say "center" ("cen-ter" not "cen-treh").

I'm undecided, however, about the differences between single- and double-lettering in some words like focussed/focused and cancelled/canceled, and switch between -og and -ogue for things like analog and catalogue

Not that UK English is wrong, just the US way seems more logical. That said I prefer to say "aluminium".

[spader]

I'm from New Zealand and as a British Colony we are taught UK English. Americans are taught something different and thats ok. Were all different. the only time it becomes an issue is when you are having an English essay marked and they deduct marks for incorrect spelling. Other than that there really isnt a problem.

Having said that, there is a case for the Poms (enGB) to be having a whinge....this time. It does make it seem that their contribution to the English language is being diluted or in some cases discounted, as it is not an option. Yet it is up to each developer what language options they wish to have in their applications. Some may offer a smaller subset of dictionaries to reduce loading times or overall application size.

And Scorpus Aussie is worse than America. You claim Kiwi (enNZ) items to be your own! Phar Lap, Pineapple Lumps, Evermore, Crowded House, Scott Dixon, the list goes on. Is there no shame ? :) P.S you can have Russell Crowe.....

[simplezz]

Favor > favour (and all similar words) because "favor" has one less character, making it slightly quicker to type/write.

You could do that with many words. But the point here is consistency. Are you also going to shorten 'hour' to 'hor' just because it's one letter less? Or you could just go back to the latin root 'hora'. Having less letters does not make a word better. It maybe more convenient for you because it saves on typing, but that doesn't make it correct. More people speak, read, and study British english than US. So naturally your target audience will be smaller. There's nothing I dislike more than language irregularities. At least with english (British), word prefixes/suffixes are quite regular and predictable for a large percentage of the vocabulary. In US english it's a mishmash of different spellings, some the same, some not.

Organize > organise (and all similar) because you don't say "orga-nice" you say "orga-nize"

Center > centre again because it seems more phonetically correct to say "center" ("cen-ter" not "cen-treh").

If you want a phonetic written language you can forget about english. It's never going to be one. You'd be better off learning spanish. Things like this developed out of lack of education. The same as vulgar latin degraded classical latin.

I'm undecided, however, about the differences between single- and double-lettering in some words like focussed/focused and cancelled/canceled, and switch between -og and -ogue for things like analog and catalogue

Stick to British english, it's universally accepted as the standard for writing.

Not that UK English is wrong, just the US way seems more logical. That said I prefer to say "aluminium".

It sounds to me like you've been influenced by Americanisms. Nothing wrong with that, but if you want to be taken seriously outside of the US, then stick to British english.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Funny this debate's popping up. Occasionally you see this on the front page, when some of us spell it "rumor" and others (like me) "rumour."

It annoys me on the iPad I can choose between English (United States) and get American English spell-check with a "$" sign on the keyboard, or choose English (United Kingdom) with British English spell-check but have to have a "?" sign on the keyboard instead. What about non-British countries that use Dollars like Australia? Have to fiddle with the language options and keyboard layouts quite a bit to get it to work right.

Actually, I do get a dollar sign on the keyboard (though this is on the iPhone). It depends on what "Region Format" is set to under Settings > General > International.

Everyone, calm dowm. The solution is easy. Adopt Canadian English.

Excellent answer :shifty:

just use canadian english instead? (it's the same...)

There are minor differences. We adopt the British spelling for cheque and -our words, but use the American spelling for -ize words and aluminum. Names of edibles usually match those by Americans: cookies, chips, fries instead of biscuits, crisps, and chips.

[Denis W. Veteran]

Good riddance to it, I say. All of us from England and other countries that speak British English, Australian English, and other such variants should just speak American English.

Try saying something similar like that to the Quebecois, that their French isn't "real" French, and watch how fast people will come at you with burning sticks. ;)

[Shaun N.]

Not that UK English is wrong, just the US way seems more logical. That said I prefer to say "aluminium".

They just got lazy with the language and the bad spellings have stuck throughout the years. I'm surprised they didn't change "hour" to "awa"

[foonacha]

Not going to matter that much in the great scheme of things as American "English" gradually morphs into Spanish/Gangsta patois :cry:

[Nashy]

Good riddance to it, I say. All of us from England and other countries that speak British English, Australian English, and other such variants should just speak American English.

What?!

American English is lazy English. Nothing more. English UK should be the only English on the planet. English-AU is only there for dumb Australians who think it's different from UK English.

[Reacon]

Oh wow. Didn't realize my spellcheck in FIrefox had an option for EN-GB. I occasionally spell things with the extra "u" and inverse the "er". Wish there was a dictionary that supports all spellings to a word, though, as my language is quite a mix of both.

Other than that, I really do not notice a big difference in all this. Anyone using the internet will come across both versions time and time again - I simply see it as a non issue. It's not like we're using unknown slang (usually).

[HardyRexion]

That would be because it's typically only racists and thugs who feel the need to fly St Georges and Union flags. I wouldn't worry though because that's generally the case all over the world. After all, you know what they say about patriotism and scoundrels.

Your culture/heritage isn't going anywhere and nobody's forcing any other culture on you.

Really??

I've never shook my head as much at a statement since I heard a black footballer say he can't be racist because he's black!

The point is, though I don't fly a national flag outside my home, politicians telling me I can't because it may cause offence, simply makes me want to! I'm a very proud English man and national pride is a part of human nature.

Though that is just one part of a large pie.

You can break that down like this.

I live in Radcliffe (a small town in North Manchester) and youths from neighbouring estates would fight over local pride.

These same people would fight together with people from South manchester

People from differing counties have fought over the pride of the county.

People from the North of England have fought with people just because they from the south

People from England have fought with neighbouring British countries (Wales Scotland Ireland)

People from Britain have stood shoulder to shoulder to fight Europeans

and so on,...and so on.... up to the point that if Earth was ever attacked by an alien race we would all stand shoulder to shoulder as a planet and fight. Without question.

So you see Pride starts at a very low level and when ever that pride is questioned we come out fighting. It's deeply set in human nature and to say typically, those showing pride by flying a flag is a thug and or racist is laughable and extreme.

There are those who welcome all cultures and religions but not at the expense of our own. I'm not racist but I should not fear offending someone by flying the flag of my nation.

Back on topic, with respect to English(UK) It's simply down to the nationality of the programmer who decides what locales to include and some software doesn't incorporate all variations of English because it's not worth it. If I wrote a software package that wasn't heavily dependant on local spellings then I would use English and have no option for US English.

Whilst I agree it's annoying I don't think it's going to change anytime soon unless UK programmers decide to exclude English US.

And if they intend on selling well in the USA then it would be a bad decision because of how proud Americans are and the size of the market is massive compared to the UK market so It isn't a straight forward argument...

[Calum Veteran]

It's probably best that I expand on my original post:

The only reason I'm against there being such different variations of written English is because I communicate a lot with Americans online, and I dislike that I spell many words differently merely because I follow British English. With the amount of cross-communication there now is between English and American citizens, since the Internet has become as popular as it has, I feel that the case for there being one standard of written English is more compelling.

I prefer American English to British English merely because I enjoy the use of 'z' instead of 's' in many words :p I think there are other spellings that seem to make more sense to me, too, but I can't think of any examples at this moment.

Having said all of that, some people have made some good points in this thread for the case of keeping the different variations.

We are losing our culture with it being diluted with all the immigrants coming here, while I concede that English is a melting pot of different languages why should we have to adopt American English, why cant they adopt British English?

You make great points here. I'm currently not entirely sure what my views are regarding Britain losing its culture. I enjoy the idea of embracing multiculturalism and I don't value tradition; however, something I value when I visit another country is their culture, and I feel it would be a shame if countries didn't have distinct cultures anymore. So my views in that regard currently contradict, heh.

The only reason I'd prefer us to adopt American English is because I prefer how many words are spelt in American English :)

English is an evolving language and the different spellings in British English provide you with an insight into the history behind the language. Creating a universal, homogenous spelling may simplify things for a small number of people (does anyone really find British English difficult to spell/understand) but it makes the language less interesting (i.e. more dull) as a result.

Those are great points, and I don't have anything to say against what you've put forward there. I am fascinated by the history of different languages and how each of them have evolved.

I'm not sure why you think Webster's dictionary is any more authoratitive than British equivalents such as the Oxford.

I'm now not quite sure where I was going with that point :p You're right: none of the American dictionaries are more authoritative than any of the British equivalents.

I also think it's strange that you want to standardise spelling but seem happy to use a non-standard definition of the word speak :p

Touch? :D (Y)

Try saying something similar like that to the Quebecois, that their French isn't "real" French, and watch how fast people will come at you with burning sticks. ;)

Heh, I wasn't suggesting that any variation of English isn't "real" English :)

What?!

American English is lazy English. Nothing more. English UK should be the only English on the planet. English-AU is only there for dumb Australians who think it's different from UK English.

As I mention earlier in this post, the main reason I prefer American English to British English is because of the former's use of the letter 'z'; there isn't much else to that preference of mine :p

[The Laughing Man]

Two different countries/cultures. The majority of software is written by Americans in nature, so thus resulting in most to defaulting in "American English" with such spellings.

[Calum Veteran]

[. . .] The majority of software is written by Americans in nature, so thus resulting in most to defaulting in "American English" with such spellings.

That's another reason for my preference of there being one standard form of written English.

[tiagosilva29]

English blows. Learn Portuguese (from Europe).

[threetonesun]

You could do that with many words. But the point here is consistency. Are you also going to shorten 'hour' to 'hor' just because it's one letter less?

No, because "hour" is pronounced with the ou dipthong. Flavor is usually pronounced "flaver", at least in America. If people in Ye Olde England are still pronouncing it "fla-vour", then sure, the spelling makes sense.

English a very adaptive language, and it's been constantly changing over time, particularly when it comes to words we appropriated from French. See cache (cash) and forte (for-tay) as a popular example, but there are plenty more. The reality is that the Old English language was fairly limited (there wasn't much going on in England back then), and the language had to integrate a lot of other languages to quickly assume some amount of descriptiveness, and jamming English + French + Latin together and creating some sort of standardized rule set was not easy.

English reminds me a bit of PHP, in that it took a lot of ideas from other languages and mashed them together, so what you ended up with was multiple ways of doing the same thing, some overly-verbose ways of doing things, and a lot of work maintaining backwards compatibility. But, it's used all over the place, and even when done poorly, it's still functional.

[shine_victim]

I am sorry but I had to throw my views in as this has upset me a little!

We have a British guy here who wants there to be a standardised (not standardized) version of English so he doesn't appear to be wrong to his American friends. Don't be embarassed by the spelling of the words from your dialect.....after all, it's your Amercian friends that are spelling them wrong really! Calum, you do not need a standardised form of English, you need to move!

I cannot wrap my head around the fact that people get upset, embarassed, annoyed etc by different culture's spelling trends.

I say we push for 2 languages:

1. English. Any other culture wanting to use this language (or variant of this language) can stay as they are; English (Canadian), English (Australian)

2. American. This will mainly be used by people who need to remove letters from words such as favour so they can actually work out the pronounciation of the word, and also by the same people that need to replace the 's' in most words ending in 'ise', and replace it with a 'z'.

The fact is, British English was the language that the chaps spoke when they landed in North America in the 17th Century. Since then the British have evolved the language on the traditional route whilst the American's devolved the language to simplify it! Not slating them for doing so as they had a need to.

America was multicultured a long time before the British Isles were.

[the better twin]

Writing CSS annoys me so much. I always write colour and have to go back and correct it :( .

[threetonesun]

The fact is, British English was the language that the chaps spoke when they landed in North America in the 17th Century. Since then the British have evolved the language on the traditional route whilst the American's devolved the language to simplify it! Not slating them for doing so as they had a need to.

The people who came here in the 17th century didn't speak modern English. Here's the intro to "The History of the Plymouth Plantation"

And first of the occasion and indusments ther unto; the which that I may truly unfould, I must begine at the very roote and rise of the same. The which I shall endevor to manefest in a plaine stile, with singuler regard unto the simple trueth in all things, at least as near as my slender judgmente can attaine the same.

That's an Englishman who came to America writing from 1620?1647. Suffice to say, we've both lost some "e"s since then. The Americanized English has always preferred phonetically spelled words, probably due to the fact that, as you noted, it's easier to deal with when you have a country full of people with different backgrounds.

[simplezz]

Writing CSS annoys me so much. I always write colour and have to go back and correct it :( .

That annoys me too. That and function names with -ize in them when it should be -ise.

[SirEvan]

None taken, seeing as English originates from England, by the English people, who speak English.

You speak "the Queens English"

We speak "English"

[SirEvan]

That annoys me too. That and function names with -ize in them when it should be -ise.

make an auto-correct entry?

[simplezz]

The people who came here in the 17th century didn't speak modern English. Here's the intro to "The History of the Plymouth Plantation"...

That is modern English, specifically around Shakespeare's time. You also have to remember that was nearly 400 years ago.

Languages do change over time, no one will disagree with that, especially when communities are isolated, but in a global age like today there's no excuse for degrading a language based on spelling mistakes (that's what these Americanisms are). The Spanish, Italians, and French have formalised their written languages, it's high time we English do so too. It's only logical to base it on British English, the form people are taught around the world in India, China, and so forth.

That's an Englishman who came to America writing from 1620?1647. Suffice to say, we've both lost some "e"s since then. The Americanized English has always preferred phonetically spelled words, probably due to the fact that, as you noted, it's easier to deal with when you have a country full of people with different backgrounds.

Except not all words follow the phonetic rule, which in itself creates cognitive dissonance.

[simplezz]

make an auto-correct entry?

The linker/compiler has to connect the function calls to the library's interface in order to work correctly. So that's not possible.

[Calum Veteran]

I am sorry but I had to throw my views in as this has upset me a little!

We have a British guy here who wants there to be a standardised (not standardized) version of English so he doesn't appear to be wrong to his American friends. Don't be embarassed by the spelling of the words from your dialect.....after all, it's your Amercian friends that are spelling them wrong really! Calum, you do not need a standardised form of English, you need to move!

I cannot wrap my head around the fact that people get upset, embarassed, annoyed etc by different culture's spelling trends.

[. . .]

I appreciate the post and the suggestion, but I thought I'd mention that I'm not embarrassed when speaking to Americans, using British English; I'd just rather spell words the same as the person I'm writing to, when speaking English. That's all I mean :)

[threetonesun]

That is modern English, specifically around Shakespeare's time. You also have to remember that was nearly 400 years ago.

It's early Modern, but it's before dictionaries. You said we bastardized the English that was brought here, my point was that it has changed considerably since the 17th century on both sides of the pond.

But, as I said before, English is a functional language. If you want something pretty and elegant, try a Romance language. If u want smting u kin just stik on a payg n stll understand... English! Seriously, spelling is pretty irrelevant when the majority of its user don't spell it correctly at all.