Forum: Author Hangout

You did it right - because there is only one spelling for proper nouns, (almost) always spelt in the way it would be in the country where the name was coined.
***
I go to the extent of pronouncing proper nouns in the way it would be in the country where the name was coined. For example, I pronounce 'Derby' differently for the English Derby and Kentucky Derby.
***
I will accept people are entitled to change the way they prefer their names to be pronounced. For example, I would pronounce the surnames differently when talking about Martina Navratilova and Maria Sharapova than I would if talking about their mothers.
***
It's simply a matter of respect for me.
The Oxford University Style Guide (specifically aimed at its students and employees) states regarding names with prefixes:
Follow the preference of the individual, if known; if not, use lower case for the prefix ... [e.g.]
Dick Van Dyke is a star of daytime TV.
Jan van Eyck painted in the 15th century.

@Ernest Bywater

Or call for a tow truck.

You mean a breakdown lorry?

No, a heavy lift vehicle

So if SB is tired of tyre changes, perhaps he should lay down flat and get some rest.

Or lie down and tell some lies.

There is a variant of English called International English where they recognise both the US and UK spellings as valid. Thus you can US spelling for one word and UK spelling for another, and to be consistent you only need to keep using the one way of spelling a word throughout.

That is all very well for the D.Lit s amongst us but the general populace has never heard of that and wouldn't know if the other of US or British English is spelt correctly. IMHO it is something to avoid.

edited for International English spelling

another edit! Just a thought; Americans seem to say "visit with ..." and South Africans say "go by ...." to mean loosely "have a natter". What other countries use those or other expressions with the same meaning?

another edit! Just a thought; Americans seem to say "visit with ..." and South Africans say "go by ...." to mean loosely "have a natter". What other countries use those or other expressions with the same meaning?

Just so long as they don't start rooting around the place without permission.

sejintenej

have a natter

Not a common phrase in the US. When out of context, some of us might think you meant - Have a tatter. :)

You had me there. At first I thought you were using a slang word I have never seen written but which sounds like tayter (spud or potato). When I looked it up I realised that it is a noun for what we only use in an adjectival clause - "in tatters".

Actually, I was referring to the way some people say tayter.

That is spelled 'tater' as in tater-tots.

That is spelled 'tater' as in tater-tots.

Oh! I had to look that up. You mean croquettes.

This shows how much language can have changed but surprisingly dealing with people in Manhattan, DC, Naples and Miami there was never any sort of lack of understanding like this!
Contrarywise the Portuguese I heard on International Drive, Orlando is identical to that of Rio de Janeiro which alledgedly in incomprehensible to someone from São Paulo, 240 miles away

Based on one (long ago) visit to Portugal (Cascaias, near Lisbon) the Portuguese don't recognize any Brazilian Portuguese as Portuguese.

to mean loosely "have a natter". What other countries use those or other expressions with the same meaning?

The Oxford Dictionary lists "natter" as both a noun and verb, mentioning "British English, informal ... early 19th Century".
I've heard it, perhaps even used it myself, in Australia.

I changed it to "tire" until I found out it was the UK spelling of "tire."

"I'm tired of changing "tyre" to "tire", though "exhausted" works just as well. :)

No, tired is fed up, exhausted is shagged out

I changed it to "tire" until I found out it was the UK spelling of "tire."
"I'm tired of changing "tyre" to "tire", though "exhausted" works just as well. :)

No, tired is fed up, exhausted is shagged out

No, tired is hilarious, (sorry CW) exhausted destroys the joke.

No, tired is hilarious, (sorry CW) exhausted destroys the joke.

Until someone sticks a banana in the tail pipe.

I changed it to "tire" until I found out it was the UK spelling of "tire."

Surely you meant to say: I changed it to "tire" until I found out that was the US spelling of the word "tyre." :-)

People in general, US and elsewhere, know how to spell the words they use. What they don't know is that the spelling of some words differ in certain regions. Therefore, they automatically assume the writer's spelling is wrong.

I hope that readers are not that stupid. Who doesn't know that USA people mix up their s and z compared to Commonwealth people?
Another problem is different concepts; I have just come across the following in a story which illustrates the difference:

I didn't think a drink would be the best for me until I was sure my head was right, but I did enjoy a beer with the others

.
Obviously Americans don't think beer is a drink whereas over here anything with any real alcohol is classified as a drink in such circumstances. (We would refer to "soft drinks" to cover those with no alcohol unless we actually name them)

richard, lets take it back one more step, the plant those opiates comes from is the coca plant. Whether that's where the name of the soft drink - or not so soft if the inclusion of cocaine is true - came from the same source is a question I don't know the answer too.

In the late 1800's drug laws were much more lax than today lots of "patent medicines" were available "over the counter", some were effective, like laudanum, others were pure snake oil. CocaCola was intended to be a patent medicine, so it probably had derivatives of the coca plant in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

Coke had opioids in its formula, which is why there is a street drug called "coke" in powder form that is usually sniffed.

At the time Coke was first developed, the coca plant had just been discovered and everyone was selling products containing cocaine in one form or another. It's never been proven that Coke had actual cocaine in it (they've always refused to release that information), the circumstances strongly support it.

All products made at that from coca leaves would have contained a precursor chemical that now is mostly chemically processed into cocaine (for illegal purposes).
A similar situation existed with laudanum. The contained a raw extract (merely dried into a powdered form) from the opium poppy. That same raw extract is mostly chemically processed into heroin (for illegal purposes).
A significant difference between these types of products was whether it was possible to consume enough of the product containing an addictive chemical for the body to develop a physical tolerance, i.e. could you use enough so that regular use then an abrupt stop would cause withdrawal symptoms.
For laudanum the amount needed to develop a physical tolerance would be measured in millilitres (or fluid ounces) per day, for Coca-Cola and most products containing chemicals originating from the coca plant that level would be measured in litres (or gallons).

It's called pop where I live now (I guess short for soda pop).

Or the sound that's made when you open a sealed container with it inside. (or what the lid would sometimes do, back in the day of the glass containers)

Onomatopoeia is still a thing that's out there. However it came to be, it's all speculation at this point.

That could cause problems in some families, to ask for pop and end up still thirsty because your grandfather is called over.

Typo fixed for you. It's worse in other ways. "A pop" can also be a reference to a punch. "I popped him a fast one one, right square on the nose." I encountered this one while in boot camp when somebody asked for "a pop" and someone else nearby asked why he was wanting to be punched.

Over here we don't use the word "soda" except when referring specifically to Soda Water. Generally we would refer to soft drinks by name - Ginger Beer or Fanta for example or generically as soft drinks.

There actually are numerous studies on the phenomenon of soda/pop/coke/soda pop/etc here in the US, depending on where you are, you'll get different answers from the locals. Of course, with social mobility being what it is these days, some regions have a great deal of variety as to which answer you may get from a local. In some cases, even the same person may use different forms of the term depending on mood, where they are, or any number of other things.

I ultimately settled on "soda" for myself when I'm being generic, as all "fizzy drinks" are essentially a flavored derivative of soda water. Considering that the main ingredient is normally carbonated water, by whatever means that carbonation is introduced. If I'm being specific, then I'll use the brand name for the drink for the specific drink I'm wanting.

I also found that asking for "soda" doesn't confuse as many people, and tends to avoid more smart-ass or even violent reactions you may get when asking for "a pop." (Which in some regions can be interpreted as a punch to the face)

REP: I agree with you but the question is "why the difference between French, Italian, Portuguese kids and those in the UK and (evidently) the USA".
In France kids are allowed wine at home and in 18 years I only SAW one person drunk. A neighbour also had

In my home state, and I imagine this is the case in many others as well. A child can legally consume alcoholic beverages,

1) So long as they are at a private residence.
2) They have parental consent.(Their parents, not the parents @ the residence in question)
3) They remain at that residence until they are no longer "under the influence."

If they leave the property, they can then be prosecuted for underage consumption, and the adults involved can likewise be subjected to prosecution.

I think there also is a small carve-out for other "religious observances," but as those typically involve only very small servings. The child should be below the legal limit anyhow, so prosecution wouldn't get very far.

In France kids are allowed wine at home and in 18 years I only SAW one person drunk. A neighbour also had

I accept your point about cultural differences, but you would have seen many people drunk, but merely not noticed they were.
I did some of my best programming for an Australian government department when over the DUI limit, AND stoned on hashish to a level beyond what most regular users of marijuana (alone) would think was enough for their "needs".
It took a lot of "practice" to get there. :-)
I can assure many people can return to work after lunch with the smell of hard liquour on their breath and their coworkers will be oblivious to whether they had one or ten shots for lunch.

I accept your point about cultural differences, but you would have seen many people drunk, but merely not noticed they were.

Higher tolerances built up over time, plus availability of transportation options that didn't require them to drive themselves around probably helps a lot in that regard. The United States itself has its share of "high functioning" drunks, but that doesn't make them safe behind the wheel of an automobile. Their reflexes and reaction times are still rather sketchy at best.

Higher tolerances built up over time, plus availability of transportation options that didn't require them to drive themselves around probably helps a lot in that regard. The United States itself has its share of "high functioning" drunks, but that doesn't make them safe behind the wheel of an automobile. Their reflexes and reaction times are still rather sketchy at best.

What you said is absolutely correct, but the end point when someone develops EXTREMELY high tolerance levels is far more frightening for the community than that.
My second DUI was 0.26% after a one person crash after less than half a mile from my start point.
I THOUGHT I had learned my lesson from the first DUI, that I would always use some other transport option when over the legal limit. At levels of 0.05% (the local limit) up to about 0.20% I would always do so.
My experience was that "high functioning" drunks can develop tolerance levels so they can still do SOME functions, but not all functions.
I could still walk (stumble) and find a car at 0.30% (and death is quite common at levels of 0.40%), but the self-preservation instinct function of my brain became nonfunctional at a level somewhere between 0.20 and 0.25%. Beyond that I could forget I was incompetent to drive, but capable and determined to try.
I would point out that the way my metabolism processes alcohol is quite unusual. It appears that only about 10-15% of people are ever capable of developing such high tolerances.
***
I am grateful that the CERTAINTY of months in jail for another DUI similar to first two was the motivation I needed to have remained totally abstinent for approaching 30 years.

@Not_a_ID
Higher tolerances built up over time

@REP
It is not the tolerance of alcohol that increases. What happens is the person learns how to behave in a sober manner, while drunk on their ass.

NOT MY EXPERIENCE
At age 20, I could not get beyond 0.20% without vomiting and going to sleep/falling into unconciousness.
At age 30, I could walk and find my car beyond 0.30%.
I practiced a lot in the decade in between. :-)

@Ross at Play
What would you replace the question marks with in the above sentence?

@CrumblyWrite
I'd still use quotation marks, though, to differentiate the speech, you might employ italics, though that requires informing the reader of the convention (you can generally introduce it by folding it into the conversation (ex: Bill and Bob answered in unison)).

Funnily enough, I sent the writer an explanation yesterday explaining they could introduce almost anything (e.g. acronyms, nicknames), provided it was explained adequately to readers the first time it was done. :-)