| Author |
Message |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:51:46 GMT, RickyC@SurfinSouthCoast.com (RickyC)
wrote:
| Quote: | . 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?
|
You may think of one size being "regular", but you won't find a
"regular" anything on the menu board. There are extra large, large,
and medium drinks. There are medium fries and large fries. There are
no regular drinks or fries, and there are no small drinks or fries.
| Quote: | 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)
|
We've done this before in aue. Several people have reported - myself
included - that when asking for a "small" drink that they have been
told "We don't have a small size. Would you like a medium drink?"
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:49 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:
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'.
|
But you (and others) are sort of missing my point on this. I *know*
that (3) is "nonstandard" and considered (in some circles) to be wrong,
wrongity wrong.
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
I'm a well-educated, 52-year-old native speaker and writer of
colloquial and formal English; but "different than" does *not* -- I
repeat *not* -- "sound wrong" to my ear.
Which is why I have trouble remembering that "different from" -- which
sounds equally but not better to my ear -- should be the default.
--
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 |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Robin Bignall" <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qrdt31115sujk3tbdcconppk72gl6m2ohi@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:48:29 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
"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.
|
Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will change the
voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the unchurched majority?
Enough to override the appeal of parties' policies and records on education,
the health service, the use of military force, the environment, law and
order, security - and tax?
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Daniel James wrote
| Quote: | In article news:<Xns96204FB80DDE3whhvans@130.133.1.4>, Harvey Van
Sickle wrote:
"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.
|
Unfortunately, I can give only the same response as I gave to Michael's
comment about "grammatical/nonstandard": neither "to" nor "than"
sounds wrong to this native speaker.
And that's why I have great difficulty finding any way to remember that
those ones don't sound right to some other native speakers' ears; they
sound OK to me (which is the native speaker's test of whether or not
something is idiomatic).
--
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 |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
[...] |
(Posted through Google's elaborate hoax, as the Germans are doing that
silly refusal thing they do at intervals.)
OK, I'll have a go, but without warranty express or implied. If it's
straight "different than noun/pronoun", it's not hallal BrE. If
"different than" introduces a clause, complete or partly understood,
then it's not only hallal, but positively kosher.
The Oxford Style Guide offers "...American theatre, which is
suffering from a different malaise than ours" as a good case for
using "than", and I can't disagree. I think, though, it comes in
under my "understood clause" rule.
Guardian Style Guide just says never use "than", which I find
misleading.
(Fowler, by the way, says the objection to "different to" is mere
pedantry. Which is typical of his relaxed approach.)
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, wrote
| Quote: |
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[...]
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than
"it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind
me which one is "right" or "standard".
[...]
(Posted through Google's elaborate hoax, as the Germans are doing
that silly refusal thing they do at intervals.)
OK, I'll have a go, but without warranty express or implied. If
it's straight "different than noun/pronoun", it's not hallal BrE.
If "different than" introduces a clause, complete or partly
understood, then it's not only hallal, but positively kosher.
The Oxford Style Guide offers "...American theatre, which is
suffering from a different malaise than ours" as a good case for
using "than", and I can't disagree. I think, though, it comes in
under my "understood clause" rule.
Guardian Style Guide just says never use "than", which I find
misleading.
(Fowler, by the way, says the objection to "different to" is mere
pedantry. Which is typical of his relaxed approach.)
|
Thanks for that. I can understand the principle you've put forward,
but it still strikes me as a bit of Thistlebottom-ness: "It's not done
except in this case, and the reason is...er....because it's not done
except in this case".
I think I'll resort to a post-it note stuck to my monitor with it writ
large.
(For what it's worth, I agree entirely with Fowler, Gowers and
Burchfield on these things, and this seems as much a superstition as
not splitting infinitives or not starting sentences with "and". The
usual reason I use the Thistlebottom forms in these cases is to avoid
the distraction (and hassle) of having to defend a perfectly valid
usage.)
--
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 |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Michael Mendelsohn" <invalid@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de> wrote in message
news:423EC4F1.C6721BE6@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de...
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
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!
I agree that 4) is not done. |
On the other hand, I was taught (very rigorously, even though I never had
the ruler applied to palms or knuckles), that "than" is not to be used with
"different". In what I have come to accept as the usual US usage, "from" is
used in the US, while the UK usage is usually "to".
Now, that said, I recognize that "than" is probably used at least as often
in the US as "from", but hearing "different than" raises that funny little
irk behind my right ear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2rps311emfcn06bgg5vg7jgcgce69j8gti@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:38:04 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
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)
First time I was in Boston - visiting from my home in Chicago - I
ordered a cup of coffee in a diner. The conversation went:
Me: Coffee, please.
Waitress: Regulah?
Me: No, with cream..
Waitress: What are you, a smaaat ass?
|
Don't they use the term Coffee Boston? Or even Boston Style? Seems to me I
heard of that back in my pre-teen years. Not that I ever ordered it that
way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005 07:46:14 -0800, mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
| Quote: | (Posted through Google's elaborate hoax, as the Germans are doing that
silly refusal thing they do at intervals.)
|
ROFL!
| Quote: | [...] it's not hallal BrE. [...]
[...]then it's not only hallal [...]
|
Not "halal"?
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:49:16 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
I'm a well-educated, 52-year-old native speaker and writer of
colloquial and formal English; but "different than" does *not* -- I
repeat *not* -- "sound wrong" to my ear.
Which is why I have trouble remembering that "different from" -- which
sounds equally but not better to my ear -- should be the default.
|
"Different from" is correct, or so I was taught some years before you were
taught it. However, "different than" and "different to" are now so widely
used that it is no longer reasonable to classify them as wrong. By habit, I
use "from", but my ear ceased objecting to the others years ago.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005, [Mike L] wrote
[...]
OK, I'll have a go, but without warranty express or implied. If
it's straight "different than noun/pronoun", it's not hallal BrE.
If "different than" introduces a clause, complete or partly
understood, then it's not only hallal, but positively kosher.
[...]
Thanks for that. I can understand the principle you've put
forward,
but it still strikes me as a bit of Thistlebottom-ness: "It's not
done except in this case, and the reason is...er....because it's
not
done except in this case".
[...] |
I think it's a bit more than Thistlebottomry. There seems to be an
underlying clash between the sense that "than" belongs only to
grammatical comparatives, which "different" is not, and a rival sense
that "different" _is_ in effect a kind of comparative.
"Your hair is different than mine" will feel to some speakers exactly
parallel to "Your hair is darker than mine"; but to me it doesn't. I
couldn't say "dark than", so I couldn't say "different than". I feel
it's a case of intuitive parsing, not of an artificially learned
rule. But why I don't experience the same intuitive discomfort with
"other than" or even "something else than" isn't obvious to me, so
perhaps it is socially conditioned after all.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:11 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | "from" is used in the US, while the UK usage is usually "to".
[...] |
No, standard formal BrE demands "from", in spite of Fowler's
impeccably-argued acceptance of the old-established "to". I think
"to" is commoner in general speech, though.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:22 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Thanks for that. I can understand the principle you've put
forward, but it still strikes me as a bit of Thistlebottom-ness:
"It's not done except in this case, and the reason
is...er....because it's not done except in this case".
[...]
I think it's a bit more than Thistlebottomry. There seems to be an
underlying clash between the sense that "than" belongs only to
grammatical comparatives, which "different" is not, and a rival sense
that "different" _is_ in effect a kind of comparative.
"Your hair is different than mine" will feel to some speakers exactly
parallel to "Your hair is darker than mine"; but to me it doesn't. I
couldn't say "dark than", so I couldn't say "different than". I feel
it's a case of intuitive parsing, not of an artificially learned
rule. But why I don't experience the same intuitive discomfort with
"other than" or even "something else than" isn't obvious to me, so
perhaps it is socially conditioned after all.
|
Fair enough. The intuitiveness of it to you (and many others) and to
me is -- for me -- at the root of the problem. (It's not intuitive to
me, is the problem...)
As I mentioned, the only reason I try to use "from" when I write -- or
recast a sentence to avoid a split infinitive, or avoid "and" at the
start of a sentence -- is to avoid handing irrelevant-but-sometimes-
annoyingly-effective rhetorical ammunition to people who might want to
take issue with what I'm writing.
I don't see this as pandering to such people (who, as opposed to people
who read this group, have no understanding of the fragile or non-
existent foundations of such "rules"). It';s more a case of not
wanting the hassle of counteracting objections which are not relevant
to the issues at hand.
--
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 |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:57 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam wrote:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005 07:46:14 -0800, mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
(Posted through Google's elaborate hoax, as the Germans are doing
that silly refusal thing they do at intervals.)
ROFL!
[...] it's not hallal BrE. [...]
[...]then it's not only hallal [...]
Not "halal"?
|
It's a fair cop, ya sidi!
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:56 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Robin Bignall had it:
| Quote: | On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:48:29 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
"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.
|
True. It's certainly put me even more off politicians.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in