| Author |
Message |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
I have great trouble with this one -- I try to use the non-
controversial version ("from"), but I have trouble recalling
which one it is. I seem to have to check it each time I use it.
If "they're different than each other" doesn't set your ears on
edge (excuse the skewed simile), there's no hope.
|
Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Bill McCray had it:
| Quote: | On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:25:49 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Joanne Marinelli had it:
Most atheists I've interacted with online are zealous conspiracy theorists,
That's not true, but you can't be blamed for not knowing it. Most
Europeans you interact with online are atheists, but they never
mention this as it's not important.
Unless you know all the atheists she has interacted with online, you
don't have the knowledge to know whether her claim is true or not.
Perhaps you meant "That's probably not true, ...".
|
That may be the case. But it's my opinion that I am more likely to
be correct about this than not.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:38:04 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | RickyC wrote:
[ ... ]
I was unaware (or had forgotten) the longstanding British military
usage of the word. What I have heard "currently being adopted" in
Britain is the use of "regular" as in "regular coffee" (as opposed to
a small or large coffee). In other words "regular" meaning "usual" or
"normal". Had I known of the British military usage, I would not have
used the example.
I'm beginning to think that RickyC has an entire closet full of cans
of worms.
"Regular coffee" in the United States can mean black, or with cream
and sugar (mainly in and around New York, LCIA), or caffeinated (as
opposed to decaffeinated) or, probably, of a particular size, as
appears to be the case in RickyC's experience. But I'll bet that
it's rare indeed that anyone sells coffee in a "regular size." In
fact, just sitting here mulling it over, I can't think of any
product that comes in a "regular" size. Granted, the smallest is
often "medium" or even "large," but that's a separate problem
(related to my difficulties in getting any purveyor of pizza to tell
me the actual diameter (or length and width) of the various sizes of
his product).
Really, RickyC, are you sure you speak the same English as everyone
else? (Said in bemusement, and not intended to offend. Infer a
smiley if all else fails.)
|
I'm not sure just how tongue-in-cheek the above response of yours is,
i.e., whether you are trying to clarify the issue or confuse it, just
for fun's sake. I've travelled extensively in America and my own
impression is that "regular" as an adjective applied to fast food and
drinks is more often than not an indication of size rather than
ingredients. Take American fast food restaurants for example (many of
which are also established in the UK). "Regular fries" means a normal
portion of fries, as opposed to a small or large portion, does it not?
If not, then I stand corrected. The fact that a "regular" coke at some
stage has became what I would call a very large coke, (so that if you
want a human-sized coke rather than a giant-sized one, you have to ask
for a small coke) is another issue! Yes, you are right it's a can of
worms and yest another reason why I wish I hadn't chosen "regular" as
an example of what I was talking about...
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:50:11 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
I have great trouble with this one -- I try to use the non-
controversial version ("from"), but I have trouble recalling
which one it is. I seem to have to check it each time I use it.
If "they're different than each other" doesn't set your ears on
edge (excuse the skewed simile), there's no hope.
Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
|
As in a Chinese cymbal vs. a Sabian HH Medium-heavy Ride cymbal, you
mean?
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:07 pm
Post subject: Re: regular coffee (was check/cheque) |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:40:41 GMT, "Joanne Marinelli"
<Jozanny@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:423E095C.B05A8BD7@Verizon.net...
RickyC wrote:
[ ... ]
I was unaware (or had forgotten) the longstanding British military
usage of the word. What I have heard "currently being adopted" in
Britain is the use of "regular" as in "regular coffee" (as opposed to
a small or large coffee). In other words "regular" meaning "usual" or
"normal". Had I known of the British military usage, I would not have
used the example.
I'm beginning to think that RickyC has an entire closet full of cans
of worms.
"Regular coffee" in the United States can mean black, or with cream
and sugar (mainly in and around New York, LCIA), or caffeinated (as
opposed to decaffeinated) or, probably, of a particular size, as
appears to be the case in RickyC's experience. But I'll bet that
it's rare indeed that anyone sells coffee in a "regular size."
snip
Just to chime in for the yung'un, regular coffee may possibly stand on its
own in relation to flavored coffee, or espresso, lattes and cappuccino?
I drink far too much of all varieties at any coffee house I can find, and
basically hate any kind of coffee brewed in police stations, offices, or
fire houses.
|
What is a "fire house"? And how come you sometimes end up in police
stations? And why do so many people like all that muck they serve up
in Starbucks? :-)
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:34 pm
Post subject: Re: regular coffee (was check/cheque) |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:40:41 GMT, "Joanne Marinelli"
<Jozanny@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Just to chime in for the yung'un, regular coffee may possibly stand on its
own in relation to flavored coffee, or espresso, lattes and cappuccino?
|
PS I assume I'm the "yung'un". If so thanks for the input.
| Quote: | I drink far too much of all varieties at any coffee house I can find, and
basically hate any kind of coffee brewed in police stations
|
You mean, while you are sitting there waiting to be charged for using
inappropriate question marks?  )
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8a107e480260f989762@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: | Bill McCray had it:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:25:49 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Joanne Marinelli had it:
Most atheists I've interacted with online are zealous conspiracy
theorists,
That's not true, but you can't be blamed for not knowing it. Most
Europeans you interact with online are atheists, but they never
mention this as it's not important.
Unless you know all the atheists she has interacted with online, you
don't have the knowledge to know whether her claim is true or not.
Perhaps you meant "That's probably not true, ...".
That may be the case. But it's my opinion that I am more likely to
be correct about this than not.
|
On the substantive point, I'm sure David is right. Atheism in Europe
(including the UK) is a non-issue, as is religion in general Those atheists
who interact online with believers may, of course, be untypically abrasive.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:48:29 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8a107e480260f989762@news.ntlworld.com...
Bill McCray had it:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:25:49 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Joanne Marinelli had it:
Most atheists I've interacted with online are zealous conspiracy
theorists,
That's not true, but you can't be blamed for not knowing it. Most
Europeans you interact with online are atheists, but they never
mention this as it's not important.
Unless you know all the atheists she has interacted with online, you
don't have the knowledge to know whether her claim is true or not.
Perhaps you meant "That's probably not true, ...".
That may be the case. But it's my opinion that I am more likely to
be correct about this than not.
On the substantive point, I'm sure David is right. Atheism in Europe
(including the UK) is a non-issue, as is religion in general Those atheists
who interact online with believers may, of course, be untypically abrasive.
The beliefs of several religious leaders on abortion have become an |
election issue in the last few days. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that several million voters might be influenced.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joanne Marinelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8a107e480260f989762@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: | Bill McCray had it:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:25:49 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Joanne Marinelli had it:
Most atheists I've interacted with online are zealous conspiracy
theorists,
That's not true, but you can't be blamed for not knowing it. Most
Europeans you interact with online are atheists, but they never
mention this as it's not important.
Unless you know all the atheists she has interacted with online, you
don't have the knowledge to know whether her claim is true or not.
Perhaps you meant "That's probably not true, ...".
That may be the case. But it's my opinion that I am more likely to
be correct about this than not.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
|
While I debate whether or not to curse myself for giving this thread
extraneous drift within drift, let me add one or two things:
1. I know plenty of Roman Catholics, which shouldn't be surprising, as
great-grandfather hailed from Rome. Most of these whom I know are lukewarm
about the faith but stop short of disavowal of the doctrine, but I do not
now know any avowed atheists with the exception of one academic from my
past, and he doesn't count.
2. The atheists I have posted with online, by and large, appear to trade
religious doctrine for secular beliefs which are equally dubious, and I
trotted off away from them in grave unhappiness, and feel better for having
done so, but trotted off from them less quickly than I fled Internet
Catholicism.
3. If to European (AEU?) atheists their atheism is no big deal, that has not
been my experience with those in online groups devoted to the topic. The
Christians go at it with them like they're vying for the top seed at
Wimbledon.
Joanne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
In article news:<423de4c7.6596097@news.individual.net>, RickyC wrote:
| Quote: | ... but now I'm coming to wonder whether it isn't an
insidious evil that should stamped out with zeal?
That final question mark should be stamped out with zeal.  )
|
I thought that might cause comment. I wrote an indirect question -- it may
have the form of a statement, but is has at least some of the nature of a
question -- and I'm happy for people to respond to it.
I feel prefectly justified in using a question mark there, though I do
appreciate that some will regard it as an eccentricity and others will
consider it plain wrong. We've discussed this before, here. YMMV.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
In article news:<423E095C.B05A8BD7@Verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | I'm beginning to think that RickyC has an entire closet full of cans
of worms.
|
Whilst it's very possible that he has I don't think we've seen enough
evidence yet to start to reach a considered conclusion ... and it's
customary to cut the newcomers a little slack.
| Quote: | "Regular coffee" in the United States can mean black, or with cream
and sugar (mainly in and around New York, LCIA), or caffeinated (as
opposed to decaffeinated) or, probably, of a particular size, as
appears to be the case in RickyC's experience.
|
We Brits don't generally use the phrase "regular coffee" in everyday speech
... but those who sell coffee from stalls at railway stations seem to use
the term "regular" to describe the size that is neither "large" nor "extra
large".
I think most Brits of my acquaintance think that when our cousins from
across the pond say "regular coffee" they mean "white coffee with sugar" --
which one ex-Royal Navy friend calls "NATO standard" -- but that
observation predates the availability of such abominations as "double
skinny hazelnut latte" so the usage may have changed (and may well never
have been correct in any case).
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
In article news:<423DDC65.F8E0920A@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de>, Michael
Mendelsohn wrote:
| Quote: | Speculating onward:
If I were google, I'd locate webservers by IP address: if a web server's
IP address belongs to an IP block assigned to a provider located in the
UK, then the pages on that server are certainly "pages from the UK".
|
Despite the comments by RickyC and Peter I suspect they do just that ... or
something rather like it.
Certainly using google.co.uk and selecting the "pages from the uk" radio
button often yields a very different result set form that obtained by
adding "site:.uk" to the search string.
There are, of course, many UK-originated sites hosted on servers in the US
(or elsewhere), just as there are many UK-originated sites hosted on
servers in the UK but using a non-UK TLD (e.g. ".com"). Neither method of
discrimination will be wholly successful.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
In article news:<Xns96204FB80DDE3whhvans@130.133.1.4>, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:
| Quote: | "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
|
Oh yes it bloody well does! For me, at least.
You can have:
The colour of his new sweater wasn't noticeably different than
all his other sweaters.
if you like, though I prefer:
The colour of his new sweater wasn't noticeably different from
the colours of all his other sweaters.
but better still is:
His new sweater wasn't noticeably different in colour from all
his others.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
In article news:<423de6a5.7074445@news.individual.net>, RickyC wrote:
| Quote: | As Michal pointed out (thanks, Michael), "different than" is widely
used. However, I have to agree that "from" and "to" sound
significantly more "correct", now you mention it.
|
"Different to" is illogical. Things may be "similar to" one another -- the
word "to", like the word "similar", suggesting likeness, closeness, and
convergence. The converse is that things may be "different from" one
another -- the word "from", like the word "different", suggesting distance
and divergence. You will hear a lot of people -- particularly on the right
of the pond, I'm sorry to say -- using "different to", but most educated
speakers regard it as ignorant and incorrect.
The case for "different than" is ... different. "Than", like "from",
suggests a contrast between the things being compared and so makes some
sort of logical sense. In the UK "Different than" is usually considered to
be an Americanism, but I rather like it where the things mentioned as being
compared are not strictly comparable.
If one is comparing the linings of overcoats, for example, one might say:
The colour of the lining of my overcoat is different from that
of your overcoat.
That might be shortened to:
The colour of the lining of my overcoat is different from yours.
... but that contraction changes the two things that are being changed, on
the one hand we are considering a lining colour but on the other we appear
to be considering an overcoat. That's fine in casual speech where everyone
knows what's being discussed and is disinclined to pick nits, but I would
be uneasy about writing it in a formal context. Changing "from" to "than"
as in:
The colour of the lining of my overcoat is different than yours.
seems to me to remove the specificity that would make the elision invite
nitpicking criticism of the original.
Note that this is a very artificial example as what you'd actually say is
probably more like:
My overcoat lining is a different colour from yours.
Which is shorter and clearer, and avoids the problem altogether. The
"different than" construction comes into its own in more complex sentences
that can't so easily be rewritten.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Mendelsohn
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
I have great trouble with this one -- I try to use the non-
controversial version ("from"), but I have trouble recalling
which one it is. I seem to have to check it each time I use it.
If "they're different than each other" doesn't set your ears on
edge (excuse the skewed simile), there's no hope.
Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
|
Some similar constructions:
1) I want something else than this.
2) I want something other than this.
3) I want something different than this.
Items 1) and 2) are grammatical, 3) is 'nonstandard'.
Then again, there are no verbs for "else" and "other".
4) I want something differing than this.
That is definitely wrong!
Cheers
Michael
--
It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend
in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country
and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.
-- Ronald Reagan, October 10, 1965 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in