Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Wikipedia is the differences in spelling

  1. Jul 18, 2008 #1
    Hey guys :)

    One thing that really gets me whilst reading sites like Wikipedia is the differences in spelling (US English vs. British English) that are o various Wikipedia sites. One of the main differences is the use of -ize in US English compared to -ise in British English. South African English does use both of these with a preferences towards the British spelling. I, honestly, prefer the British spelling and if I really get irritated, I edit the Wikipedia pages and change the American spelling to British. :blushing:

    Anyway, what I wanted to know ... What's your take on this? I know that a lot of the members here are from the United States and do you feel the same when you come across a British spelling rather than the American spelling.

    Here's the Ubuntu as well as another, free site that was listed on the Wikipedia site that list the variations.

    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EnglishTranslation/WordSubstitution
    http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/BritishCanadianAmerican.htm
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2008 #2

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: English

    Well, I prefer English as opposed to American English, but then I'm bound to say that. I say good on you for trying to change the American way! :biggrin:
     
  4. Jul 18, 2008 #3
    Re: English

    South African and British English are built into my genes, I find color and other American words disturbing to read and also feel compelled to change them. Also the use of single l's, like marveling instead of marvelling, bugs me a little. The -ise and -ize not so much, but I prefer -ise.

    Where does American English orignate from? British settlers or other colonists maybe, never really thought about it.
     
  5. Jul 18, 2008 #4

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: English

    I don't know where the single l's came from, actually. When I was a kid, we were taught double l's too. I never saw those words spelled with a single l until Microsoft Word started including SpellCheck. I'm pretty sure it's Bill Gates' own misspelling forced upon everyone.

    Otherwise, growing up in the US, I use US spelling of words. It doesn't bug me to see British spelling, because I know what it is. Though, why would you change Wikipedia pages to British spelling? Wikipedia is a US-based site. Then again, spelling is the least of my worries when considering Wikipedia entries. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Jul 18, 2008 #5

    neu

    User Avatar

    Re: English

    Question remains as to why there is a different spelling in the US.

    Mom p***es me off. How does Mum sound like Mom?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2008
  7. Jul 18, 2008 #6

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: English

    Uk all the way. At least we know what a biscuit is :wink::tongue:
     
  8. Jul 18, 2008 #7

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: English

    The l thing is weird: there are words like 'fulfil', which are written in American as 'fulfill', but then words like 'travelling' that are written in American as 'traveling.' That looks like a classic case of 'the Brits do this so we'll do the opposite' :rofl:
     
  9. Jul 18, 2008 #8

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: English

    Hear, hear!!
     
  10. Jul 18, 2008 #9
    Re: English

    I'm wildly in favour of the superfluous use of the letter u.
     
  11. Jul 18, 2008 #10

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: English

    They're not superfluous :grumpy:
     
  12. Jul 18, 2008 #11

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Re: English

    My preference is for the English spellings even though they are less compact for the most part. It seems that the more letters that words have the less likely they are to be confused with each other. Speaking from my perceptual experience, I think the extra letters appeal to reinforcing the cadence of the written word into thought and facilitates my understanding of what is said.

    But I rather fear that the American compact forms are like kudzu, fertilized by technology standardizations, that will eventually strangle the last remaining islands of traditional English use. Today's UK English will likely go the way of the 18th century's Olde English - recognized but archaic.

    I myself have succumbed to using the American forms because I think most (though I recognize not all) people are more likely tuned to seeing them, and then too spelling checkers in email and even in these PhysicsForum message boxes reinforce the American spellings.
     
  13. Jul 18, 2008 #12

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: English

    Does anyone know what spelling the Chinese are learning since they're about to become the largest English speaking nation on the planet?
     
  14. Jul 18, 2008 #13
    Re: English

    British English is like putting racing stripes on your car. It doesn't actually do anything besides make people chuckle behind your back.

    -ise? Do you pronounce it with "s" or "z"? I pronounce for example realize with a "z" sound. So why not write it like it sounds? Extra "u"s that are mostly silent? What the hell? It's a waste of time in an attempt to look sophisticated. It's not, it's just stupid.
     
  15. Jul 18, 2008 #14

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: English

    :rolleyes: Hay, letz rite everything how it sownds.
     
  16. Jul 18, 2008 #15
    Re: English

    The base word is travel.

    Do you consider the additive to be "ing" or "ling"

    Do you go partyling or partying on the weekends?

    Why throw on the extra l in travel? Not needed.

    I cant even speculate where "mum" came from...? All the origin searches I found talked about roots that started with "mo" no "mu"'ness anywhere to be found.

    mum's the word?
     
  17. Jul 18, 2008 #16

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: English

    Mum probably comes from German where mother is mutter.
     
  18. Jul 18, 2008 #17
    Re: English

    It works in most other languages. English has got to have the dumbest writing system ever.

    Great sounds like "ate", but "meat" sounds like "eet". What the hell? And you actually support this kind of writing system? Seriously? Do you think it makes you look smart or something? Because it has no practical use. It's highly inefficient and needlessly complicated.
     
  19. Jul 18, 2008 #18
    Re: English

    The high germanic origin is muoter.
     
  20. Jul 18, 2008 #19

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: English

    Its not about looking smart. Thats how things are spelled. Besides if you start writing how things sound then you'll be in all sorts of trouble that the dictionary solved hundreds of years ago. People have regional accents that will make their spelling so much different to other places.
     
  21. Jul 18, 2008 #20
    Re: English

    Spelt.

    Yeah, and people have regional accents in Japan too but everything is spelled as it sounds.

    If you want to spell "suzuki" (and don't know the Kanji for it), you put the characters for "su", "zu", and "ki" together. It's pretty basic. But in English we'd spell it Suhzookey because why? I don't get it.

    We need to retool the entire English writing system. The spoken part is great, but writing it is unnecessarily hard because of stupid rules like silent letters.

    Transverse -> transvers
    Temperature -> temperatur (or er)

    Two/to/too -> to. How do you tell the difference? Context. That's how we tell them apart when we speak (Another crappy word. Why don't we pronounce the A?).

    c/ck/k -> k

    c as in cytrus -> s so it's systrus.

    What to do with c? Make it a "ch" sound. "sh" might be unavoidable, but I think I've already cleaned up the language a bit. Think of how much time and space it would save if we didn't have so many unneccesary letters.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Wikipedia is the differences in spelling
  1. Spelling (Replies: 39)

  2. Spell checker (Replies: 2)

  3. Spelling surprises (Replies: 28)

  4. Spelling Protesters (Replies: 64)

  5. Not on wikipedia (Replies: 6)

Loading...