Wikipedia is the differences in spelling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shahil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wikipedia
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
68 replies · 9K views
Shahil
Messages
116
Reaction score
21
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


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.
 


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:
 


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:


Moonbear said:
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.
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' :smile:
 


I'm wildly in favour of the superfluous use of the letter u.
 


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.
 


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.
 


cristo said:
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' :smile:

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 can't 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?
 


cristo said:
:rolleyes: Hay, letz rite everything how it sownds.

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.
 


Kurdt said:
Mum probably comes from German where mother is mutter.

The high germanic origin is muoter.
 


WarPhalange said:
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.

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.
 


Kurdt said:
Its not about looking smart. Thats how things are spelled.

Spelt.

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.

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.
 


WarPhalange said:
Spelt.
Both the irregular (spelt) and the regular (spelled) are permitted in English.
Transverse -> transvers
That would rhyme with "hers" instead of rhyming with "verse." These are distinct sounds.
Temperature -> temperatur (or er)
That would rhyme with "metre" (or meter) and instead of rhyming with "sure"
c/ck/k -> k
But then what to do in, say, the word "clock"? The sounds at the beginning and the end of the word are strictly different.
Think of how much time and space it would save if we didn't have so many unneccesary letters.
You've not improved anything: you've just bastardised the language such that it looks like the way that you pronounce the words. This might work in American, but you should note that not everyone in the English speaking world pronounces the words in the same way as you do.
 


Kurdt said:
Uk all the way. At least we know what a biscuit is :wink::-p
Cookies are not biscuits! You need to come to the US and learn about food.

Spelt is an ancient type of wheat.

And this is a yorkshire pudding as they should be made, none of those tiny round things.

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2706/yorkshirepuddingvg8.gif

Biscuits

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/3473/buttermilkbiscuitspf9.jpg

Cookies

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/4977/sugarcookiesefd0.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Evo said:
Cookies are not biscuits!

All cookies are biscuits, but not all biscuits are cookies :wink:

I agree with you on the yorkshire pudding (in fact, it can be the shape of any container you may have!).
 


cristo said:
instead of rhyming with "sure"

In Atlantic Canada, "sure" doesn't rhyme with "sure"!

Evo said:
Spelt is an ancient type of wheat.

Canadians can go either way; I use "spelt".
 


One of the great strengths of English is the fact that it is a very "permissive" language. Without shame it uses all sorts of words from many other languages. To me it is not surprising that such a permissive and eclectic language has odd and inconsistent features like British-v-American spelling.

Frankly, I am much less bothered by spelling differences than by the fact that we still have not adopted the SI units and the 24-hour clock.
 


cristo said:
Both the irregular (spelt) and the regular (spelled) are permitted in English.

That's my point. It's ridiculous.



That would rhyme with "hers" instead of rhyming with "verse." These are distinct sounds.

Hers -> herz

That would rhyme with "metre" (or meter) and instead of rhyming with "sure"

meter -> meter

temperature -> temperatur

ur vs er. ur would have more of the "ure" sound to it.

But then what to do in, say, the word "clock"? The sounds at the beginning and the end of the word are strictly different.

That's news to me! I've been saying it exactly the same all my life. Or are you referring to that straight line we like to call and "L"? Yeah, that's a different letter.

You've not improved anything: you've just bastardised the language such that it looks like the way that you pronounce the words. This might work in American, but you should note that not everyone in the English speaking world pronounces the words in the same way as you do.

Yeah, the British accent is a load of garbage. Drawring? WTF? It's ridiculous. At least Scottish sounds cool and is used as the accent of dwarves in movies.

I *think* the Scottish and Irish accents derived from the locals speaking Celtic or whatever their native tongues were at the time. How did the British accent develop? German doesn't sound anything like it.

And then you have the abomination called "Australian", but they get a pass because they were a boat load of convicts and it's freaking hot over there. Brain damage is inevitable.
 


Most European countries use 24-hour clocks regularly, even if not exclusively. Only time I see 24-hour time here is when it's related to the military or my professor tells me when to meet him, and he travels to Europe frequently so that's probably why.
 

Similar threads

Using Wikipedia to Find Answers on Physics Forums
  • anorlunda
  • · Replies 13 ·
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
13
Can an AI write a credible novel with Wikipedia and YouTube?
  • aalaniz
  • · Replies 3 ·
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
3
Questioning the Science Behind AGW: Wikipedia as a Source
  • D H
  • · Replies 27 ·
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
27