Why Americans can't spell!
I kind of like the PH words, like "sulphur". I think you can use either in the US; sulf (ph) ur isn't one of those words that gets a lot of everyday use, so it's not written in stone like some others.
Hell, it has to be said that many forms popular in the UK today are actually innovations (such as -"ise" where -"ize" was up until recently very standard) or settling upon specific forms where there formerly were multiple competing versious, where the US just happened to settle on different forms (such as with -"our" in many places). I think we currently have a whole thread on here about essentially the -"ize" issue, and how it is still advocated by the OED even though many in the UK today would use just -"ise".
<<I think we currently have a whole thread on here about essentially the -"ize" issue, and how it is still advocated by the OED even though many in the UK today would use just -"ise".>>
Yep, it's something that I mentioned a while back that some else also posted this week. I did mention the use of "ize" words in old literature. Cockram's dictionary only lists "ize" as in "canonize" below.
Incidentally, all modern British dictionaries list "ize" spellings either first or totally exclusively. Out of 8 dictionaries that I own, only one (Chambers) lists "ise" spellings.
"-or" spellings were also the original spellings in English, as most of them came from Old French "or," for instance, Old French "color" came into English as "color" and was spelled that way for centuries before "-our" came into vogue (possibly because French itself had changed to spellings like "couleur"). Some American spellings are innovations, but "-or" "-er" and "-ize" are pretty traditional as far as English spelling goes.
It think it's really funny when people call British English spellings "old-fashioned"... in reality, British spelling is quite modern.
I think Americans usually regard British spelling as quaint. Is that correct?
Chaucer is full of "our" spellings, so certainly by late middle English this had become popular. However, I suspect that it would depend very much on the individual. I've seen old maps C1600 that use the spelling "harbor", but others where "harbour" has been used.
I don't know that I think of British spelling (or I guess I should call it "commonwealth spelling" since essentially everyone EXCEPT us uses it!) as "quaint". Just different, and not really markedly so. If anything, I think of our spelling as a little more streamlined, but I don't think I really place a value on one over the other.
I sense that this thread will turn (as many of the other threads have) into transatlantic war.
The main thing we can still communicate without the need of a translater. (well lets say 99.9% of the time =) someone can correct me if this percentage is wrong.
>>I sense that this thread will turn (as many of the other threads have) into transatlantic war.<<
The sooner the better! ;)
What's gotten into you, Travis?
>>What's gotten into you, Travis?<<
Notice the ";)" above? Heh.
>> The sooner the better! ;) <<
This phrase is good for spelling reform.
Then there's my own dear Dominion, Canada, where spelling gets a regular workout in the tug-of-war between British and American preferences!
One of my favourite examples is the computer process for turning old black and white movies into colour. The Americans call it "colorization" while the British opt for "colourisation."
It takes a Canadian to come up with a compromise like "colourization."
<<One of my favourite examples is the computer process for turning old black and white movies into colour. The Americans call it "colorization" while the British opt for "colourisation.">>
I think the most "British" verb would actually be "to colour" as in to burgle or to burglarize. Personally, I would use "colorize" as it fits most comfortably with other words in Oxford English spellings- vapour but vaporize and glamour but glamorize etc.