How do Americans feel about UK spelling?

[Joebill]

Another interesting thing about the Greeks are there claims of Amazon women. For centuries this was seen as just another Greek Myth.

Until graves were found in the Gobi Desert. Graves that included women who were buried with grave goods that included a bow, arrows, a quiver, and a sword. Along with some armor.

So the Amazon women of Greek Myth, are real after all.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I think "sod off!" is pretty much a UK-specific expression, no? Here in OZ we used to use "bugger off!" (which of course is pretty much the same thing) and "rack off!" (which is probably an English-language corruption of "rachaibh!" ["get away!"] from both Irish and Scottish Gaelic).

Both phrases have crumbled, of course, under the onslaught of the more pedestrian "f-bomb", as the USians call it.

Interesting! I love words. In the US, we understand the intent of Sod Off and Bugger Off, and pretty much its origins, (Never heard, or read of, the 'rack off' version).

In the US, we would just say (and do!), "F*** off".

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

(Never heard, or read of, the 'rack off' version).

There was a pop song doing the rounds when I was a kid, about a sheila (and her friends) outside a milk bar fending off the clumsy attempts a yob was making at chatting her up, and right now I can only remember the first line of the chorus, which went "Rack off Normie, you and yer mates!"

It may well be a solely Aussie, or Aussie+Kiwi, phrase, for all I know.

(But I think most Aussies these days would simply say what you'd say, Glen. Aussie English is disappearing very rapidly.)

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by Luke King

As an Australian author, I've been wondering whether I ought to use Australian (which is basically UK) spelling in my novels.

On the one hand, I'm thinking two-thirds of my audience are American. On the other hand, I would prefer to use the language as it was (before you all went and changed it).

Are Americans used to seeing UK spelling in books? Will it put them off reading? Will some think I've spelt the words incorrectly?

Good question, Luke, and one I've agonised over. I came to the conclusion that I can write consistent UK English, and although I'm very familiar with US English, I don't think I can write it consistently.

The question came up when I realised that I use the English version of Open Office, and English means US English by default. I noticed that some of my words were being marked as incorrectly spelled by the program, and decided then and there to get the UK English add-on.

My solution was to put a note to this effect in the foreword of my first book, which I hope to push out soon, and hope that American readers can cope.

[Luke King]

Originally Posted by James_Wilde

My solution was to put a note to this effect in the foreword of my first book, which I hope to push out soon, and hope that American readers can cope.

I figure this is the best way to go.

Since starting this thread I have received a review for my children's chapter book, "The Stinging Tree", which reads, "Spelling and punctuation are terrible."

There is nothing great about the book itself, but this review does annoy me. I have, obviously, run the Australian English spell-checker through it. As for punctuation...well, that is another topic altogether.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Luke King

There is nothing great about the book itself, but this review does annoy me. I have, obviously, run the Australian English spell-checker through it. As for punctuation...well, that is another topic altogether.

Unfortunately, there are different rules (again!) between OZ punctuation and grammar and US English (for instance, in US English they include items like commas, full stops and semicolons within the quotation marks [a.k.a. inverted commas!] on items that aren't direct speech; in OZ and UK English we don't.

The response you got highlights the procedural part of the problem: it's difficult to do things other than "the American way" when the response if you do doesn't say "that's not how we do it", but leapfrogs past any awareness of valid differences and goes straight to "this is wrong" or "terrible" and ends up at "something we can't publish".

[crich70]

Really? I always thought it was the Romans who coined the term. Though they did steal quite a bit of culture from the Greeks. I might have my versions of the Bible mixed up though I admit. Been quite a while since my last world history class. lol.

Originally Posted by HarryT

"barbarian" is a fun word. It's actually Greek, and means someone who isn't a Greek because, to a Greek ear, they sounded as though they were saying "baa baa" rather than speaking a "proper" language.

The Vulgate bible is written in Latin. The name stems from "versio vulgata" - "commonly used version"; it was written around 400 AD when Latin was the common language.

[Luke King]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Unfortunately, there are different rules (again!) between OZ punctuation and grammar and US English (for instance, in US English they include items like commas, full stops and semicolons within the quotation marks [a.k.a. inverted commas!] on items that aren't direct speech; in OZ and UK English we don't.

The response you got highlights the procedural part of the problem: it's difficult to do things other than "the American way" when the response if you do doesn't say "that's not how we do it", but leapfrogs past any awareness of valid differences and goes straight to "this is wrong" or "terrible" and ends up at "something we can't publish".

Yes, this is pretty much how it goes. I've noticed posters here on MobileRead saying things like I come from GA or PA. I do understand what they mean, but the assumption that everyone, everywhere in the world, understands all the abbreviations for the various US states simply shows a lack of knowledge about the wider world. I'm not going to write Qld or NT without even mentioning the fact that I'm from Australia and expect to be understood.

On the question of inverted commas, I've been taught that punctuation does go inside direct speech, though if it isn't direct speech, it depends on how many words are in the inverted commas. A single word, such as "trashy", would have the punctuation outside the inverted commas.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Unfortunately, there are different rules (again!) between OZ punctuation and grammar and US English (for instance, in US English they include items like commas, full stops and semicolons within the quotation marks [a.k.a. inverted commas!] on items that aren't direct speech; in OZ and UK English we don't.

Now you've got me worried, Bran. I've been taught like this:

“Any special kind?” asked the bartender.
“Give me a Zeunerts, please,” he said.

In the first line, the question mark is obviously part of the text question, and should be inside the quotes. Nonetheless I've been taught to use a small initial letter for the "asked" since the end of the main sentence is not until after "bartender".

As for the second, I can't explain the logic here, unless it is punctuation intended to finish the quoted sentence, and no-one wants to put a full stop - or period if you're american - there. Illogical when the question mark in the line above was the equivalent of a full stop, but then, there's no punctuation mark composed of a question mark and comma!

Sounds like I've been taught at the same school as Luke. My English is (intended to be) UK English btw.

[MacEachaidh]

James, Luke, you've both misread what I said.

The two examples you've given, James, are both direct speech. The convention in English - every variant of English, as far as I'm aware - is to put the punctuation mark ending the quoted direct speech within the inverted commas. Commas, full stops, question and exclamation marks - all the same.

I was making the distinction about things enclosed in inverted commas that aren't direct speech. How that's handled varies between North American English and pretty much every other version. For instance, I might write
What does someone mean when they say it's "just not right"?
whereas in US English (and Canadian too, I believe, though I'm happy to be corrected) the convention would be to write
What does someone mean when they say it's "just not right?"

The North American usage looks weird to me, because my understanding is that the question mark isn't actually part of the phrase that's being quoted, so shouldn't be included within the quotation marks. (The Chicago Manual of Style says that's how it should be, though.) But also because it makes it look like the quoted phrase is a question, when it's not; it's a statement, and the whole sentence is the question.

There's a similar confusion over italicising and bolding. The Oxford and Cambridge style guides say the punctuation mark shouldn't have the attribute applied to it, unless it's an intrinsic part of the phrase that's bolded or italicised; the Chicago manual (up until the latest edition) said that the following punctuation should also have the attribute applied. (That's what MS Word does by default, for instance. I find it very annoying.)

The Chicago Manual caused a bit of a stir with its most recent edition by reversing this position and siding with the Brit publications. Whether publications et al will change their habits to match remains to be seen.

[MacEachaidh]

p.s. Luke, in OZ and UK English, and in situations other than direct speech, it's not how many words are enclosed in the inverted commas that decides whether the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks or not; it's whether the punctuation belongs with the quoted word or phrase, or belongs with the sentence as a whole.

[James_Wilde]

Right, I agree. In the sentence:

What does someone mean when they say it's "just not right"?

the question mark belongs outside the quotes. As you say, it's the main sentence that's a question, not the item in quotes. And I agree with your point about following punctuation, too, and the CMOS - and Word - has it wrong.

[timfrost]

My first Kindle book 'Final Passage' uses British spelling and punctuation including single quotes for direct speech. I had a few complaints, mainly that the Kindle text-reader doesn't recognise the single quotes as speech.

My second novel 'The Abigail Affair' uses US punctuation style with British spelling which seems a reasonable compromise.

I also made a big effort second time around not to use colloquialisms that would jar with my US readers.

Eg, a British reader would have no problem with "Can I bum a fag off you, mate?" but I don't think that works for a US reader.

-Tim

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by timfrost

My first Kindle book 'Final Passage' uses British spelling and punctuation including single quotes for direct speech.

I've been abroad so long I've obviously missed something, Tim. Since when did single quotes replace double quotes for direct speech? I use double quotes for both direct speech and citations, as in the messages above, and have done since schooldays. Admittedly schooldays were 48-61 years ago...

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by timfrost

My first Kindle book 'Final Passage' uses British spelling and punctuation including single quotes for direct speech. I had a few complaints, mainly that the Kindle text-reader doesn't recognise the single quotes as speech.

Hmmm, really? I guess I can understand why the text-to-speech routine would need some conventions in formatting. But it's useful info, so thanks for mentioning it, Tim.

The single quote as default for speech seems to be the go in publishing here in OZ as well, but I believe it's a recent development in style. When I was at school, we were taught to use double quotes first.

Originally Posted by timfrost

a British reader would have no problem with "Can I bum a fag off you, mate?" but I don't think that works for a US reader.

What, US readers don't like to share?