How do Americans feel about UK spelling?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's interesting. The past tense of "lead" is always "led" in British English.

I believe I mentioned we Yanks haven't used "English" in years and we essentially speak a different language than you Brits.

All seriousness aside, it is interesting because Yankee English usually drops letters the Brits retain yet, in this case, you all dropped the A and we kept it. "Curiouser and curiouser," said Jeannie.

[basilsands]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's interesting. The past tense of "lead" is always "led" in British English.

When anomalies like that occur I just revert to "Amalgamated Rural English" and say either "leadid" or "follerd" as in:

He was told to lead the troops into the canyon. He leadid them down the path, and they follerd his lead.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by basilsands

When anomalies like that occur I just revert to "Amalgamated Rural English" and say either "leadid" or "follerd" as in:

He was told to lead the troops into the canyon. He leadid them down the path, and they follerd his lead.

What is it with the English (and certain parts of the US such as New England) putting an "R" in a word that doesn't have one there?

Pronouncing the suffix "ed" as a separate syllable is proper in that it was the way it was originally done (it goes back to before the 16th century and one or two hundred years past then). It is now considered archaic and people who still use that pronounciation are looked upon as rustics (bumpkins on my side of the pond).

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

How about the English use of spelt for spelled?

Or, to put it another way, "spelled" is the North American version of "spelt".

One strange t/ed variant that I've come across frequently of late is on the IMDb forums, where it seems to be increasingly common to say that a certain actor was "casted" in a role (though they often spell it "roll" - I've pointed out a couple of times that the "roll" is what you do first so you'll get cast, but I don't think anyone's ever understood it).

I could be wrong, but it seems to be exclusively US posters (that I've encountered, anyway) using "casted"; is this correct in US English, does anyone know? Or is it an example of the Internet making wrong grammar right simply by how frequently it's copied and assumed to be correct by people who don't know otherwise?

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

felt
knelt
burnt
swept
wept

Also slept leapt crept meant spent and kept

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Or, to put it another way, "spelled" is the North American version of "spelt".

One strange t/ed variant that I've come across frequently of late is on the IMDb forums, where it seems to be increasingly common to say that a certain actor was "casted" in a role (though they often spell it "roll" - I've pointed out a couple of times that the "roll" is what you do first so you'll get cast, but I don't think anyone's ever understood it).

I could be wrong, but it seems to be exclusively US posters (that I've encountered, anyway) using "casted"; is this correct in US English, does anyone know? Or is it an example of the Internet making wrong grammar right simply by how frequently it's copied and assumed to be correct by people who don't know otherwise?

Cast is the correct term for both the present and past tenses in the US. At one time (like 500 years ago), casted would have been correct. What you are seeing is a sad result of our sorry educational system. Go to an exclusively US forum and you will be amazed by the poor spelling, grammar, etc. you will see there.

[MacEachaidh]

Well, I wasn't meaning to imply a criticism of Americans in saying that it seemed to be mostly Americans who used the term. (For starters, it's also mostly Americans who post generally!)

I hear what you say about American education, Jeannie, but I think it's also that the Internet has a perceived authority that is often unwarranted, leading people to believe something uncritically as absolutely true merely because they've seen it posted online somewhere. But there are so many posts, blogs, FAQ sections and information sites made by people who want to tell how it "is", but don't actually have knowledge or even correct terminology to back up their assertions. So along with imprinted opinions, the readers/carriers also inherit misused jargon and poor grammar as part of the job lot. And so it spreads.

I chuckle grimly whenever I hear mention of how we're living in the "Information Age", because of course it's no such thing. "Uninformed-But-With-An-Opinion-Anyway" Age might be a little closer. Or maybe that's just how it looks from atop this particular soapbox.

[basilsands]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

... So along with imprinted opinions, the readers/carriers also inherit misused jargon and poor grammar as part of the job lot. And so it spreads..

And thus rose the evolution of language, which nonetheless remains simply a meaningful series of grunts and clicks uttered with intent.

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I chuckle grimly whenever I hear mention of how we're living in the "Information Age", because of course it's no such thing. "Uninformed-But-With-An-Opinion-Anyway" Age might be a little closer. Or maybe that's just how it looks from atop this particular soapbox.

Or perhaps it could be called "The Overstuffed with Information We Can't Really Digest But Don't Want To Sound Stupid So We Must Say Something That Sounds Smart Even Though We Don't Really Know If It Is Age".

When it comes to the wisdom of the techno-era in which we live I simply look at things like "Second Life", "World of Warcraft" and "Farmville" where people pay real money for imaginary things in an imaginary world and I say to myself...."Did I miss something?"

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by basilsands

And thus rose the evolution of language...

Seems more like devolution now.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

"Uninformed-But-With-An-Opinion-Anyway" Age

A german cabaret artist (well known one) puts it this way:

Originally Posted by Dieter Nuhr

Democracy just means, that one's allowed to have an opinion about everything, not that one has to.
Thus, if being clueless - just shut up.

[crich70]

The way I heard it put was, "Democracy is not having the right to agree, but rather the right to disagree." There is a good deal of sense in that I think.

Originally Posted by Dieter Nuhr
Democracy just means, that one's allowed to have an opinion about everything, not that one has to.
Thus, if being clueless - just shut up.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Pronouncing the suffix "ed" as a separate syllable is proper in that it was the way it was originally done (it goes back to before the 16th century and one or two hundred years past then). It is now considered archaic and people who still use that pronounciation are looked upon as rustics (bumpkins on my side of the pond).

So pronouncing, say, "blessed", as in "The blessed Saint John", as "bless-ed", would be something that only a country bumpkin would do in the US? That would be the normal pronunciation in the UK.

Can you elaborate as to how you pronounce the word "toasted" without saying the "-ed" as a separate syllable? I can't see how it can be pronounced other than as a separate syllable.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So pronouncing, say, "blessed", as in "The blessed Saint John", as "bless-ed", would be something that only a country bumpkin would do in the US? That would be the normal pronunciation in the UK.

"Blessed" is one of those words that are pronounced differently, depending on how it is used, in the U.S.. Example, you might say someone "is blessed"... but in describing their marriage, "blessed" becomes a modifier and is re-pronounced, as in, "the bless-ed event."

So, in the U.S. "the bless-ed Saint John" would not be unusual... neither would "Saint John blessed the poor man."

Keep in mind, Americans often delight in using archaic forms of a word, in order to denote the importance of the word in the sentence... or to denote their own sense of superiority or accomplishment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

"Blessed" is one of those words that are pronounced differently, depending on how it is used, in the U.S.. Example, you might say someone "is blessed"... but in describing their marriage, "blessed" becomes a modifier and is re-pronounced, as in, "the bless-ed event."

It's exactly the same here in the UK, Steve. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So pronouncing, say, "blessed", as in "The blessed Saint John", as "bless-ed", would be something that only a country bumpkin would do in the US? That would be the normal pronunciation in the UK.

Can you elaborate as to how you pronounce the word "toasted" without saying the "-ed" as a separate syllable? I can't see how it can be pronounced other than as a separate syllable.

Blest is considered correct. Bless-ed (with two syllables) would be considered archaic here most of the time although I oft lapse into that pronunciation because I speak a simplified form of Early Modern English at Renaissance Festivals (have a two weekender coming up in a fortnight) and many archaic pronunciations, contractions, and terms have "leaked" into my everyday speech (add the 20-21st Irish accent I affect at Ren fests and it gets...ah...interesting).

Toasted would be two syllables.