pretenCe, pretenSion, pretenTious
pretenCe, pretenSion, pretenTious
Why Americans can't spell!
I also prefer "colorize". Believe it or not, it's the preferred British (!) spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary.
I don't want any kind of Transatlantic War. Let's simply carry on regardless and blissfully pretend the other doesn't exist and that the Ocean is where civilisation as we respectively know it.... ends......as pre Columbus....Then we need never, ever again get all wound up over poxy irrelevant spelling differences.
Anglo saxons are all just here for the power. Doesn't think of others selfcentred people will takes no regards for others.
Viva la France!!
It's a bit of a shame that the OED still insists on the archaic "-ize" endings; but at least they've got the past participle of "get" sorted.
>>It's a bit of a shame that the OED still insists on the archaic "-ize" endings; but at least they've got the past participle of "get" sorted.<<
/me glares in the general direction of "Guest".
<<It's a bit of a shame that the OED still insists on the archaic "-ize" endings; but at least they've got the past participle of "get" sorted.>>
It's not archaic in Britain and North America.
"improve the British English spellings
It will make children more literate, and make the English language easier for foreign speakers to learn. It makes sense....."
I saw the above most ridiculous suggestion to “improve” the British English spelling of words. This is a classic example of Americans trying to take over and dumb down everything so they can understand it. Is it not realised that some of these words have two spellings because there are two meanings e.g. site and sight? The structure of words is linked to their history and origins. Yes we could loose this and make everything wud, woz and coz but it will make for an ugly and ignorant version of a previously beautiful language.
As for making children more literate, do you honestly believe that?
<<Is it not realised that some of these words have two spellings because there are two meanings e.g. site and sight?>>
Actually different spellings weren't purposely devised simply to create separate orthographic forms for homophonous pairs in Modern English, but spellings such as those resulted from a historical merger of formerly separately sounding words different on phonemic and phonetic levels. For example, "site" was ["si:t_h(@)] in Middle English and "sight" was [sICt] (both in X-SAMPA).
The "u"-less spelling from those words was the original spelling in English, since they largely came from Old French words which had "-or" there.
<<it will make for an ugly and ignorant version of a previously beautiful language. >>
That's entirely subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also, spelling reform would have no effect on the how people spoke, so the "previously beautiful language" would not be going anywhere as a result of spelling reform.
By the way, I've seen very similar (nearly identical) spelling-reform suggestions from British people as well and they're heeded the same there as here in America--with a giant yawn.
There should be no spelling reforms in the English Language as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. What happens elsewhere is their business and is no concern of ours. If the Americans (and others) wish to simplify and regulariSe even more than they have done already then they are perfectly at liberty to do so. Their version of the English Language is completely their property and they are free to doctor it at will.
Part of the beauty of English are its wonderful inconsistencies and irregularities, all of which no doubt have their origins now lost in the linguistic mists of the past.
But here in Britain we have SPEL. Join SPEL now...no subs are required, just a strong desire to protect and preserve a priceless heritage for all of us in this "Throne of Kings, this blessed plot, this precious stone set in a silver sea".......the English Language.
SOCIETY for the PROTECTION of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
Application forms and postage paid return envelopes are available at the desk near the door so pick one up on your way out and return to address shown asap after completion. Thank you!
The British have showed yet again that their military is the world's best.
The Americans have been spending millions of dollars trying to invent imaging devices that can help them get past invisible trip wires.
Meanwhile, Britain's SAS just used "silly string", the stuff that children use at parties - and it costs just £1.69 per can from Woolworths stores.
String is SAS lifesaver
By JOHN KAY
SAS troops have discovered a new secret weapon against al-Qaeda booby traps — party aerosol cans of silly STRING.
They spray the joke substance to expose virtually invisible trip wires in caves or darkened buildings they must enter.
The brightly-coloured string hangs across the wires, but is too light to set off explosives.
America has spent millions trying in vain to develop battle-ready imaging devices that can spot the deadly menace in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the SAS — motto Who Dares Wins — have beaten them to a solution with the £1.69 cans of string they buy from WOOLWORTHS.
Their “Who Dares Strings” brainwave came from a senior NCO at a regimental Christmas bash at their HQ near Hereford.
One reveller let loose some string and it landed on fishing line holding up decorations. A source revealed: “Bingo, the idea was born.
“Now it works very successfully. There is no doubt that a considerable number of lives have been saved — and others have been spared from horrendous maiming.”
The Americans are said to be “totally gobsmacked” at the ingenuity. A senior security source said: “They have spent millions developing infra-red and ultra violet hi-tech imaging devices to show up tripwires.
“But these are both bulky and not robust enough for combat conditions.
“However the SAS men just popped into Woolies in Hereford and bought several cans of silly string each.”
“It’s cheap, it’s quick and it doesn’t need tech support or extensive training.”
Terrorism expert Chris Dobson said: “This is another example of the ingenuity of the British soldier.”
Does Adam's sentence sound strange to any but me?
"The British have showed yet again that their military is the world's best."
To me, this should be:
"The British have shown yet again that their military is the world's best."
Better yet, it should be:
"The British have shown an effective and low-cost alternative imaging device."
Of course, I think all this business about how this somehow makes the British army better is nonsense, but back to my point - is "shown/showed" another point of contention between the Americans and the British? I've never heard of this one.
<<The British have showed yet again that their military is the world's best.>>
<< is "shown/showed" another point of contention between the Americans and the British? I've never heard of this one.>>
It's more a point of contention between the literate and the illiterate- "have shown" is the correct English in all countries.