Spelling convention
Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 01:42
I notice that the [wiki]Alps CM[/wiki] page uses both "colour" and "color". I'd correct it, but I'm not sure whether to favour US or UK/Commonwealth English.
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 01:50
As an American, I'd go with UK/Commonwealth, since that's what I tend to use myself.
Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 01:52
Good point. This is what wikipedia has for conventions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... of_English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... of_English
Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 14:41
Did you guys know that American English actually is British English from the 18-19th century?
The English in Britain just developed further (to today's UK English) whereas the US kept their "British" accent.
Anyway, I opt for BE. Altough I lived a couple of years in Vancouver and also my accent derives from that, I favour the British spelling. Just looks better
The English in Britain just developed further (to today's UK English) whereas the US kept their "British" accent.
Anyway, I opt for BE. Altough I lived a couple of years in Vancouver and also my accent derives from that, I favour the British spelling. Just looks better
Re: Spelling convention
Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 16:15
Colour.
If in doubt, Oxford English dictionary.
If in doubt, Oxford English dictionary.
Posted: 15 Nov 2012, 16:38
I use British English because this is mainly a European forum and I think that British English is what most Europeans have been taught in school.
Posted: 16 Nov 2012, 02:37
I mostly use British English but in high school we learned both and could use either in tests and exams if used consistently.
I vote the same as the wikipedia conventions: no preference as long as used consistently within an article. I think a downside of this is that it will be harder to collaborate for some, as you need to take two spellings into consideration, and you may not master one. Also, ideally, when someone browses the wiki, the language experience should be consistent, and then British English seems to be the choice.
But a wiki is a collaboration of different authors from different parts of the world. If British English is enforced, this means a barrier of entrance for someone naturally writing in American English. What should we do? Enforce anyway and get less contributions? Or maybe hope for someone to correct American English into British English, instead of getting a proper life involving obsessing over keyboards?
So I think no enforcing is the only realistic and workable option, although not ideal. The other options are simply less ideal because they either exclude potential contributors over a preference "war" (not much of that here so far), or include tedious correction labo(u)r and maintenance.
I vote the same as the wikipedia conventions: no preference as long as used consistently within an article. I think a downside of this is that it will be harder to collaborate for some, as you need to take two spellings into consideration, and you may not master one. Also, ideally, when someone browses the wiki, the language experience should be consistent, and then British English seems to be the choice.
But a wiki is a collaboration of different authors from different parts of the world. If British English is enforced, this means a barrier of entrance for someone naturally writing in American English. What should we do? Enforce anyway and get less contributions? Or maybe hope for someone to correct American English into British English, instead of getting a proper life involving obsessing over keyboards?
So I think no enforcing is the only realistic and workable option, although not ideal. The other options are simply less ideal because they either exclude potential contributors over a preference "war" (not much of that here so far), or include tedious correction labo(u)r and maintenance.
Posted: 16 Nov 2012, 02:56
Well, from the understanding point of view it doesn't matter if it's colour or color. Or anodise or anodize.
People will understand both.
As webwit said, just be consistent within an article.
Just try to avoid regional words, busboy for example (didn't know that word before...)
People will understand both.
As webwit said, just be consistent within an article.
Just try to avoid regional words, busboy for example (didn't know that word before...)
Posted: 19 Nov 2012, 14:34
As an American, who will almost certainly slip up... I'd say to go for a "neutral" English, but when a choice must be made, default to British English.
This means, in the case of color/colour, use colour, but don't use words that mean different things (for instance, "tabling a motion" has an opposite meaning in en_US from the en_UK definition) in different languages, and don't use words that mean nothing in one language or the other.
And, if you see an inconsistency, fix it.
This means, in the case of color/colour, use colour, but don't use words that mean different things (for instance, "tabling a motion" has an opposite meaning in en_US from the en_UK definition) in different languages, and don't use words that mean nothing in one language or the other.
And, if you see an inconsistency, fix it.
Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 09:31
Pronunciation may have evolved in the UK, but many / most spelling differences resulted from Daniel Webster's rationalization efforts when creating his dictionary.Acanthophis wrote:Did you guys know that American English actually is British English from the 18-19th century?
The English in Britain just developed further (to today's UK English) whereas the US kept their "British" accent.
Anyway, I opt for BE. Altough I lived a couple of years in Vancouver and also my accent derives from that, I favour the British spelling. Just looks better
Posted: 29 Nov 2012, 14:43
It's more complicated than that, although this page doesn't seem to say what I thought it said last time I read it :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences
Posted: 11 Dec 2012, 13:33
Yes. In his own words[1]:Hubbert wrote:Pronunciation may have evolved in the UK, but many / most spelling differences resulted from Daniel Webster's rationalization efforts when creating his dictionary.Acanthophis wrote:Did you guys know that American English actually is British English from the 18-19th century?
The English in Britain just developed further (to today's UK English) whereas the US kept their "British" accent.
Anyway, I opt for BE. Altough I lived a couple of years in Vancouver and also my accent derives from that, I favour the British spelling. Just looks better
Some of his other changes:It has been observed by all writers, on the English language, that the orthography or spelling of words is very irregular; the same letters often representing different sounds, and the same sounds often expressed by different letters...
The question now occurs; ought the Americans to retain these faults which produce innumerable inconveniencies in the acquisition and use of the language, or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN TONGUE?...
Would [my proposed alterations] produce any inconvenience, any embarrassment or expense? By no means. On the other hand, it would lessen the trouble of writing, and much more, of learning the language; it would reduce the true pronunciation to a certainty; and while it would assist foreigners and our own children in acquiring the language, it would render the pronunciation uniform, in different parts of the country, and almost prevent the possibility of changes.
Although I understand his position, and even may have agreed with it at one time, I've come to view it as the equivelent of burning down the Eiffel Tower, say, or a centuries-old church because it would be more convenient to put a shopping mall there. Yes, it would be easier to just say "bred" (never mind that there will be new confusion with the past-tense of "breed"), but doing that destroys the history behind "bread", and its slow evolution toward the word we know today.... bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend... by putting ee instead of ea or ie, the words mean, near, speak grieve, zeal, would become meen, neer, speek, greev, zeel... ch in French derivatives should be changed into sh; machine, chaise, chevalier, should be written masheen, shaze, shevaleer; and pique, tour, oblique, should be written peek, toor, obleek...
After (slowly) learning German, I've been having particular fun picking out the "Englishisms" that were once "Germanisms", and feeling the full weight behind what is really a rather remarkable language, historically speaking. English, like every other language and culture, should be proud of its heritage, both good and bad.
Now, all that said, and back on topic, I think the article should only be consistent. If you're editing an article, I would suggest adhering to the style and form of the article's original creator. If you're starting a new article, just write in the style with which you're most comfortable. At the end of the day, content is what matters most.
[1] http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/n ... nguage.htm
Posted: 11 Dec 2012, 13:57
I can't help it, reading Webster"s arguments reminds me of this humorous text which was widely propagated quite a few years ago in the EU’s language-related industry:
The European Union commissioners have announced that an agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications rather than German which was the other possibility.
During the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that the problems associated with spelling in the English language left some room for improvement. The Government has accepted The European Union Commission's five year plan to correct these problems. The corrections will be phased in during the implementation for what will be known as Euro English (Euro for short).
In the first year, s will be used instead of the soft c . Sertainly, sivil servants will reseive this news with joy. Also, the hard c will be replased with k . Not only will this klear up konfusion, but the typewriter keyboards kan now have one less kharakter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasim in the sekond year when the troublesome ph will be replased by the f. This will make words like 'fotograf' 20% shorter.
In the third year, publik akkeptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. The Government will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterant to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre, that the horible mes of the silent e in the languag is disgrasful, and it will also go.
During the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing th with the more popular z and ze w by ze v.
Zen in ze fifz year, ze unesesary o kan be dropd from vords kontaining ou and similar changes vil of kurs be aplied to ozer kombinations of leters.
After ze fifz year, ve vil hav a realy sensibl styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrvun vil find it easy to understand each ozr.
Ze dream vil finaly kom tru.
Re: Spelling convention
Posted: 11 Dec 2012, 23:40
Brilliant.
Posted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:12
Hahahahaha! When I first scanned that quote, my initial reaction was that I don't recognise the language at the bottom. It took some focused reading for me to realise it was English!kbdfr wrote:I can't help it, reading Webster"s arguments reminds me of this humorous text which was widely propagated quite a few years ago in the EU’s language-related industry:
The European Union commissioners have announced that an agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications rather than German which was the other possibility.
During the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that the problems associated with spelling in the English language left some room for improvement. The Government has accepted The European Union Commission's five year plan to correct these problems. The corrections will be phased in during the implementation for what will be known as Euro English (Euro for short).
In the first year, s will be used instead of the soft c . Sertainly, sivil servants will reseive this news with joy. Also, the hard c will be replased with k . Not only will this klear up konfusion, but the typewriter keyboards kan now have one less kharakter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasim in the sekond year when the troublesome ph will be replased by the f. This will make words like 'fotograf' 20% shorter.
In the third year, publik akkeptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. The Government will enkourage the removal of double letters which have always ben a deterant to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre, that the horible mes of the silent e in the languag is disgrasful, and it will also go.
During the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing th with the more popular z and ze w by ze v.
Zen in ze fifz year, ze unesesary o kan be dropd from vords kontaining ou and similar changes vil of kurs be aplied to ozer kombinations of leters.
After ze fifz year, ve vil hav a realy sensibl styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrvun vil find it easy to understand each ozr.
Ze dream vil finaly kom tru.