British -> American "Translation": my perspective

[Simon Biber]

No: HPFGUIDX 11308

Here in Australia we have two usages for many of these points. Generally the
older generation is more British, but American culture is rapidly flooding
the population, getting especially the young who watch American TV shows,
cartoons and movies. This age effect is evident even between me and my
younger brother (I'm 18 and he's 13).

Everyone please be aware that below is just my experience with local
grammar. I'm not trying to say anyone else is wrong.

Simon.

> Period after abbreviations           no period        period
>    such as Mr and Mrs

The word "period" is NEVER used for the '.', it's always called "full stop",
or in Internet addresses, "dot". For periods after abbreviations such as Mr
and Mrs, I lean towards no full stop. For eg., etc. and ie. I would use a
full stop.

> Quotation marks (first level)       single quote    double quote

I can read either style and not mind, but I tend towards double quotes. When
learning to program (note, not programme) it was required that you quote
exact strings, and this led me not to put punctuation inside. It still looks
wrong to me to say "Hello Simon," rather than "Hello Simon.".

That's another difference you didn't include -- dialogue, catalogue,
programme. I remember the command on an Apple II to get a catalogue of a
disk's contents was CATALOG, and the command to change colours was COLOR=nn.
These really annoyed me when I was 7 years old and learning to program in
BASIC.

> Use of commas                       more commas     fewer commas

I'm a dreadful commaholic. More, more, more!

> Capitalization after ellipsis       capitalised    not capitalized
>    in quotations

This really depends on whether it's a new sentence or not... I think
non-capitalisation is more common. (Ha! I avoided the issue by using an
always-capitalised word.)

> Spelling: -ise vs. -ize                   -ise           -ize

-ise

> Spelling: -our vs. -or (e.g., colour)     -our           -or

-our

> Spelling: defence vs. defense             defence       defense

Defence looks more natural, although they are allmost equal.

> Spelling: the day before                 Hallowe'en    Halloween
>    All Saints Day

I only ever see the word in an American context, so no apostrophe. We don't
celebrate Halloween or Guy Fawkes Day or any of that.

> Past participle of "to get"             [had] got    [had] gotten
>    (Note:  Webster's 9th Collegiate
>    Dictionary [American] lists both
>    got and gotten without preference.)

Gotten is common, but not correct.

> Collective nouns, singular vs. plural     plural       singular
>    (Another member has noted that the
>    plural usage is associated with
>    British sports broadcasts, and that
>    collectives may be used as singular
>    in other venues.)

Say "Slitherin are on the offensive", not "The Slitherins are on the
offensive".

> OT Digression #1:
> One thing that is noticeable on certain BBC programs that are
> rebroadcast over here is the omission of the article adjective
> in phrases such as "at table" and "to hospital." Americans would
> say "at the table" and "to the hospital." The BBC usage sounds
> posh and pedantic to my ears, so I'd like to ask any Brits or
> Aussies who've read down this far: are "at table" etc. in
> everyday use?  Does this usage vary by dialect area?
> I haven't seen any examples in the HP books, so if anyone sees
> one please let me know and I'll add it to the list, which may
> become part of the International Editions FAQ.

"He is at table" sounds silly and a little stuck-up. "Go to hospital" is
normal usage.

> OT Digression #2:
> One of the stranger things that I have done all my life is
> comparing the translations of John 3:16 in different languages
> when I'm in a hotel room that has a Gideon Bible.  I remember
> that there were several pairs that were remarkably similar,
> but which were given as separate languages (e.g.,
> Danish/Norwegian and Dutch/Afrikaans, as I remember). But
> there was only *one* English language. I guess that being part
> of this group has turned me into an Anglophile, because for
> some reason, I really like the fact that British and American
> (and Canadian, and Australian, and New Zealand...) English
> are considered to be the same language.  <Waves Union Jack>
> [Did I mention that this was a digression?]

I'm interested in languages too, and I've compared them in multi-language
instruction manuals for computer parts rather than the bible. LOL

> Just my 2d (0.8333 new pence)

2d? Oh you mean from denarii, sesterces and librae? <g>

Simon.