How do Americans feel about UK spelling?

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

For the most part, it is a myth. See this at Snopes

That's a shame, because it spoils a good story. But thanks for enlightening me.

By the way, I didn't think of it as a "those dumb Yanks" type story (from Snopes); more of an illustration of different cultures. We (Brits) are probably more used to regnal numbers for monarchs; for some reason, you guys stopped that particular folly in the late 18th Century

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

...We (Brits) are probably more used to regnal numbers for monarchs; for some reason, you guys stopped that particular folly in the late 18th Century

Gee, I wonder what that was?

[crich70]

Yes but from what I've learned of history we were lucky. For one thing the total might of the British army couldn't be brought against us as a large part of it was fighting the French and other powers at that time. I mean we couldn't even supply Washington's troops properly because no one trusted our money here. In fact farmers here sold goods to the British troops more than anything because they could trust the value of their coin. Anyway anytime you have a powerful colony building country spreading out there is going to be some change to the speech of the group doing the colonizing I think. I mean up til fairly recently(the last century or so) it was a two month
trip from England to the U.S. for example. Colonies at a distance develop differences from their mother country. A change in the language is just one of them.

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

We (Brits) are probably more used to regnal numbers for monarchs; for some reason, you guys stopped that particular folly in the late 18th Century

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I did hear once that the British film, The Madness of King George III, was released in America as simply, The Madness of King George.

Apparently, there were concerns that the movie-going audience wouldn't watch it because they hadn't seen The Madness of King George I or II

Disclaimer; I have no idea if this is true or an urban myth.

No, the reason was that for Americans, there was only ONE king George worth knowing about, and #3 was him. We simply don't care about the others.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by crich70

Yes but from what I've learned of history we were lucky. For one thing the total might of the British army couldn't be brought against us as a large part of it was fighting the French and other powers at that time. I mean we couldn't even supply Washington's troops properly because no one trusted our money here. In fact farmers here sold goods to the British troops more than anything because they could trust the value of their coin. Anyway anytime you have a powerful colony building country spreading out there is going to be some change to the speech of the group doing the colonizing I think. I mean up til fairly recently(the last century or so) it was a two month
trip from England to the U.S. for example. Colonies at a distance develop differences from their mother country. A change in the language is just one of them.

We were lucky twice; don't forget 1812. We had good cause to go after the English but were foolish to do so. If it hadn't been for Napoleon distracting the English, we would be singing God Save the Queen.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Based on the lack of writing skills of younger people I've worked with recently (including managers), I'm not so sure the publishers have underestimated the intelligence of American children.

Don't confuse glibness with intelligence. I have a son with a learning disability. He will never be able to write worth a damn, and reading for him will always be a struggle. But he is far from stupid.

Our experiences in getting him the education he required has soured me on the opinions of educators.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Don't confuse glibness with intelligence. I have a son with a learning disability. He will never be able to write worth a damn, and reading for him will always be a struggle. But he is far from stupid.

Our experiences in getting him the education he required has soured me on the opinions of educators.

A few might have learning diabilities (heck, I do), but not that many.

[crich70]

Good point. Of course they did have the idea of pulling our sailors off of American ships to serve the British navy (which I assume is what you were referring to) but we really didn't have much of a navy ourselves back then. We also had the bad judgement to try to invade Canada if I recall.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

We were lucky twice; don't forget 1812. We had good cause to go after the English but were foolish to do so. If it hadn't been for Napoleon distracting the English, we would be singing God Save the Queen.

[crich70]

You're not alone Lady Fitzgerald. I also have some learning disabilities along with speech impediment and other things. I always enjoyed reading though. Mom got me my 1st library card when I was 3. I was still too young to read myself back then but I've not pulled my head out of the world of books since.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

A few might have learning diabilities (heck, I do), but not that many.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

What dictionary are you using? According to a couple of mine, the past tense of lead (as in opposite of follow and pronounced leed) is lead (pronounced led). The word led doesn't even appear since LED (light emitting diode) is an abbreviation, not a word (they are older dictionaries).

Oxford. As Harry says, it is the standard spelling in Britain and has been for centuries.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

When I first heard that there were two versions of the Harry Potter books- one with the original UK phrasing and one that was "Americanized," I was sort of insulted. Yes, it's sort of geared towards a younger set (to some extent), but surely it would have broadened their horizons a bit to read something with different words used!

Especially the first book, which referred to "the Philosopher's Stone". The argument from the US publishers for changing it to "Sorcerer's Stone" was that most US readers in the target age group wouldn't know what a "philosopher" was (which I find incredible, but okay) - except it completely, utterly missed the point. The Philosopher's Stone was itself a famous object in the theory and history of alchemy; anyone could have found out what it was in Wikipedia, for gosh sakes. So the whole thing was a case of what we in Australia call "nannyism" - unwarranted over-protection from perceived problems that may not be a real issue.

[Freeshadow]

As if it d' hurt someone to actually do a lookup on the term.
I still remember youth adventure books having informational footnotes about facts referenced to in the story.

[R. Reed]

American publishers often "translate" British spellings into American ones. However I have read enough British books with the original spellings that I know most of them. However I recently tried to read an indie book by a Brit that was so thick with working class terms that I had trouble getting through it. If a book is set in England or Australia I expect it to sound like it, but if an English or Australian author sets a book in America, I would expect American spellings.

[Luke King]

I am now trying to write a book set in America (under a different name) and I am coming up against problems. Do people in America always say "lighted", as in, "He lighted the fire", or can I say "He lit the fire"?

Is "dreamt" the past tense of the verb "to dream", or do I have to say, "He dreamed"?

I've just recently read an online novel where the author uses "drug" as the past tense of the verb "to drag". E.g. He drug him through the doorway. That, surely, cannot be correct.

[dreams]

Originally Posted by Luke King

I am now trying to write a book set in America (under a different name) and I am coming up against problems. Do people in America always say "lighted", as in, "He lighted the fire", or can I say "He lit the fire"?

Is "dreamt" the past tense of the verb "to dream", or do I have to say, "He dreamed"?

I've just recently read an online novel where the author uses "drug" as the past tense of the verb "to drag". E.g. He drug him through the doorway. That, surely, cannot be correct.

It depends on which "American English" the character will be speaking. East coast, West Coast, Deep South, Bayou, etc and which part of those areas?..

Sometimes the word used is a clue to the area someone grew up in or lives.

He lit the fire. He dreamed of winning the lottery. Those I have heard most often, also I have heard 'He lighted the fire' and 'dreamt' used.

I have heard both drug and dragged used.

I found this for drag as verb: the correct conjugation is “drag/dragged/dragged”; “drug” as past tense is substandard.

I guess, the word usage you choose will depend on the character and setting.

Good luck and have fun.