The absolute numbers don't need to be accurate. The comparative provides a good enough indication. e.g. Google shows 107,000 hits for "mock heroic" compared to only 270 for "mockheroic".
Active communication in English vs American
Hey all,
here's the next vocabulary list :
MOVEMENT :
nimble
to come to a standstill
to come to a halt
to come nearer
to take a step forward
to pace up and down
to quicken/slacken the pace
to dash away
to plod along
to trudge
to wander
to loiter
to roam
to lag behind
to linger
to sway
to totter
to grope for
to be propped against
to swing round (GB)/around (US)
to swing along
to nod one's haed
to shrug one's shoulders
to thrust
to hurl
MUSIC AND DANCE :
a conductor (GB), (US)?
to practise (GB)/practice (US)
a grand piano
an upright piano
a bugle
an oboe
a long playing record
a video disc (GB)/disk (US)
a tape recorder
a crooner
to hum
a tap dancer
a nightbird
a deejay
a fancy-dress ball (GB), costume ball (US)
to spin round (GB)/around (US)
to waltz
here's the next vocabulary list :
MOVEMENT :
nimble
to come to a standstill
to come to a halt
to come nearer
to take a step forward
to pace up and down
to quicken/slacken the pace
to dash away
to plod along
to trudge
to wander
to loiter
to roam
to lag behind
to linger
to sway
to totter
to grope for
to be propped against
to swing round (GB)/around (US)
to swing along
to nod one's haed
to shrug one's shoulders
to thrust
to hurl
MUSIC AND DANCE :
a conductor (GB), (US)?
to practise (GB)/practice (US)
a grand piano
an upright piano
a bugle
an oboe
a long playing record
a video disc (GB)/disk (US)
a tape recorder
a crooner
to hum
a tap dancer
a nightbird
a deejay
a fancy-dress ball (GB), costume ball (US)
to spin round (GB)/around (US)
to waltz
No differences again, Larissa. (I don't think you're going to find a lot of UK/US differences in common nouns and verbs -- look for things like sentence construction instead.)
<<The absolute numbers don't need to be accurate. The comparative provides a good enough indication. e.g. Google shows 107,000 hits for "mock heroic" compared to only 270 for "mockheroic". >>
Well, that's probably because "mockheroic" is not a real word.
But are you actually comparing instances of "mockheroic" to "mock heroic", or to a host of sites that simply contain the words "heroic" and "mock", but not necessarily even in the same sentence?
These considerations are why most statistical researchers have to be very careful to specify their parameters and margins of error when they design their studies.
<<The absolute numbers don't need to be accurate. The comparative provides a good enough indication. e.g. Google shows 107,000 hits for "mock heroic" compared to only 270 for "mockheroic". >>
Well, that's probably because "mockheroic" is not a real word.
But are you actually comparing instances of "mockheroic" to "mock heroic", or to a host of sites that simply contain the words "heroic" and "mock", but not necessarily even in the same sentence?
These considerations are why most statistical researchers have to be very careful to specify their parameters and margins of error when they design their studies.
>>Well, that's probably because "mockheroic" is not a real word.<<
Exactly and why Google confirms this.
>>But are you actually comparing instances of "mockheroic" to "mock heroic", or to a host of sites that simply contain the words "heroic" and "mock", but not necessarily even in the same sentence? <<
The 107,000 hits was obtained using "mock heroic" as a phrase. Without quotation marks it would simply seek heroic and mock in any old fashion, and obtain over a million hits.
>>These considerations are why most statistical researchers have to be very careful to specify their parameters and margins of error when they design their studies.<<
You don't need to be a statistical researcher or designer to observe and compare how people use a language. Google works well for this purpose.
Exactly and why Google confirms this.
>>But are you actually comparing instances of "mockheroic" to "mock heroic", or to a host of sites that simply contain the words "heroic" and "mock", but not necessarily even in the same sentence? <<
The 107,000 hits was obtained using "mock heroic" as a phrase. Without quotation marks it would simply seek heroic and mock in any old fashion, and obtain over a million hits.
>>These considerations are why most statistical researchers have to be very careful to specify their parameters and margins of error when they design their studies.<<
You don't need to be a statistical researcher or designer to observe and compare how people use a language. Google works well for this purpose.
a fancy-dress ball (GB), costume ball/party (US)
Is the American equivalent right?
Is the American equivalent right?
>But people act like it's the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Interestingly, it's still the Encyclopaedia Britannica - even though it's been more American than Britannic for a long time.
Interestingly, it's still the Encyclopaedia Britannica - even though it's been more American than Britannic for a long time.
I thought we spelt it "practice" here in the UK.
As for Language being about numbers, that is true for spoken word, If enough people say a word it becomes part of the language (which is why the Oxford dictionary adds a few to its list every year or so) I dont think it counts for spelling words that allready exist. Its like saying the spelling of "see you" should be changed to CYA, because alot of people spell it that way in passing.
As for Language being about numbers, that is true for spoken word, If enough people say a word it becomes part of the language (which is why the Oxford dictionary adds a few to its list every year or so) I dont think it counts for spelling words that allready exist. Its like saying the spelling of "see you" should be changed to CYA, because alot of people spell it that way in passing.
<<I thought we spelt it "practice" here in the UK.>>
'Practice' is the noun, 'to practise' the verb.
'Practice' is the noun, 'to practise' the verb.
>>I dont think it counts for spelling words that allready exist. Its like saying the spelling of "see you" should be changed to CYA, because alot of people spell it that way in passing.<<
CYA won't somehow displace "see you" or "see ya" but it is readily recognised as an abbreviation by millions of people. The acronym IOU for "I owe you" and OK for "all correct" probably came about in the same way. They can happily live side-by-side.
CYA won't somehow displace "see you" or "see ya" but it is readily recognised as an abbreviation by millions of people. The acronym IOU for "I owe you" and OK for "all correct" probably came about in the same way. They can happily live side-by-side.
Yeah, i see what you mean. One stupid question, I am a terrible speller (constantly checking my self in the dictionary on this site, as you all are such clever people and i dont want to appear more stupid than i actualy am) so I constantly got very bad marks at school for spelling. Lets say I went to the US and sat an exam, would I get marked down for using UK spellings? or another question, have any of you Americans used UK spellings in your exams?
***i dont want to appear more stupid than i actualy am***
JIM in YORK: Stop selling yourself short! That's such a typically unwarranted English attitude! You are every bit as good as the next (Scots)man.....almost! ;-)
btw: please capitalise yourself while you're at it! ;-) Cheers!
JIM in YORK: Stop selling yourself short! That's such a typically unwarranted English attitude! You are every bit as good as the next (Scots)man.....almost! ;-)
btw: please capitalise yourself while you're at it! ;-) Cheers!
<<Lets say I went to the US and sat an exam, would I get marked down for using UK spellings?>>
Depends on your professor, and how much of a dick he wants to be. But I would think most of them would be reasonable about it, especially once they heard you talk.
But here you would be taking an exam, not sitting it. ;) (Although strangely we do preserve "sit" in that sense when we talk about certain specific tests, usually at very high or professional levels.)
<< or another question, have any of you Americans used UK spellings in your exams?>>
No.
Depends on your professor, and how much of a dick he wants to be. But I would think most of them would be reasonable about it, especially once they heard you talk.
But here you would be taking an exam, not sitting it. ;) (Although strangely we do preserve "sit" in that sense when we talk about certain specific tests, usually at very high or professional levels.)
<< or another question, have any of you Americans used UK spellings in your exams?>>
No.
Family trait I'm affraid, Humble is not the word for my Grandad.
And yes Sir! I will try to correctly capitalise my self!
<< or another question, have any of you Americans used UK spellings in your exams?>>
<No.>
No messin' about with that answer! haha
And yes Sir! I will try to correctly capitalise my self!
<< or another question, have any of you Americans used UK spellings in your exams?>>
<No.>
No messin' about with that answer! haha
What's there to elaborate on? ;)
From what we've hashed out on this forum in the past, there are some spellings that are considered exclusively American or exclusively commonwealth (things like color/colour, center/centre), spellings that are usually associated with one but can be found in the other (such as -ise or -ize), and some that have a greater amount of variability in both circles (traveller/traveler, doughnut/donut) and probably aren't really the provenance of either one. (Oooh! I said "provenance"!)
From what we've hashed out on this forum in the past, there are some spellings that are considered exclusively American or exclusively commonwealth (things like color/colour, center/centre), spellings that are usually associated with one but can be found in the other (such as -ise or -ize), and some that have a greater amount of variability in both circles (traveller/traveler, doughnut/donut) and probably aren't really the provenance of either one. (Oooh! I said "provenance"!)