Home Β» Forum Β» Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

standadised spelling?

Freyrs_stories 🚫

Just a random thought, but is there any merit to the idea of adopting a standardised spelling scheme. Pretty obvious from my post that I use UK based spelling.

But, I wonder with the internet for the most part being developed out of ARPANET in the USA, is there any advantage in using US standard spelling and grammar, though that may be much more difficult for some to overcome decades of using 'U' where you seem to of forgotten the letter exists sometimes.

I find it hard enough to spell in my local format, not sure if changing to US is a 'good' idea or not. I still constantly break 'languages' on computers by putting the a fore mentioned 'U' in 'colour' where it crops up in use here and there, and watch while the compiler spits the proverbial dummy at my 'syntax'.

I often wonder about Canadians, they're part of North America but also the Commonwealth, some what of a collision of rules so I frequently wonder who's rules they use. As I've not been there nor paid attention to products I know come out of Canada I'm at a loss of sorts.

Feel free to chime in with points of view from within or outside of the USA, but for those who are a little slow on the comprehension spectrum put the 'where' or 'who's' rules you are most comfortable using especially if that differs from your locale.

I'm guessing that this type of thing may slightly cut down on reported spelling 'errors' if we're all reading from the same sheet (dictionary) as it were. Any other views and possibly spellings welcome.

F.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

by putting the a fore mentioned 'U' in 'colour'

Growing up in NYC, I spell "theatre" the British way because that's how they spell it on Broadway.

Webster tried to standardize spelling and look at the mess he created.

Replies:   Freyrs_stories
Freyrs_stories 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Webster tried to standardize spelling and look at the mess he created.

Yes and even the actual English English make a mish-mash of it their own dictionaries though you'd hope to a lesser degree.

My spelling is mostly UK but there's a lot of localised as well as US insertions, much to my own confusion. Newspapers are notorious for this.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

localised

Of course in the U.S. we spell that "localized" which leads to my question.

If Brits use an "s" where we use a "z", why doesn't the Queen spell her name Elisabeth (which is a legit way to spell Elizabeth)?

Michael Loucks 🚫

@Switch Blayde

If Brits use an "s" where we use a "z", why doesn't the Queen spell her name Elisabeth (which is a legit way to spell Elizabeth)?

Maybe because she's German? πŸ€ͺ

helmut_meukel 🚫

@Michael Loucks

If Brits use an "s" where we use a "z", why doesn't the Queen spell her name Elisabeth (which is a legit way to spell Elizabeth)?

Maybe because she's German?

The German spelling of the name is Elisabeth.
The British Royals did some things to distance themselves from their German roots, like the new name for the house of Hanover (Windsor). They probably did the same with Elisabeth's name by spelling it with a "z". When they wanted to name the girl after an ancestor they had to choose between the German spelling with "s" and the 'colonial' spelling with "z".

HM.

richardshagrin 🚫

@Michael Loucks

Maybe because she's German?

She isn't a Germ, man.

solreader50 🚫

@Switch Blayde

why doesn't the Queen spell her name Elisabeth

Because she's German.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel 🚫

@solreader50

why doesn't the Queen spell her name Elisabeth

Because she's German.

As I already wrote in my other post, the German spelling of the name is with a 's' not with a 'z'. AFAIK, the more common British spelling is with a 's', like the German.

The British royals are German from both sides since Victoria:

In 1901, a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (itself a cadet branch of the House of Wettin) succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy with the accession of King Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In 1917, the name of the British royal house was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor because of anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during the First World War.

[Wikipedia]

BTW, for me it's inconsistent that King Edward VII followed his mother Victoria (House of Hanover) in direct line, but his house is named after his father who was only Prince Consort (House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha).
For the renaming to Windsor this doesn't matter, because both houses, Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha are German.

HM.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@helmut_meukel

AFAIK, the more common British spelling is with a 's', like the German.

No. Elizabeth is in the top 100 girls' names (but declining). Elisabeth doesn't make the top 100.

AJ

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

If Brits use an "s" where we use a "z", why doesn't the Queen spell her name Elisabeth (which is a legit way to spell Elizabeth)?

Because she's named after her mother whose name is the same spelling.

tenyari 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

The majority of English speakers actually don't speak either American or British English, but Indian English. If I recall right, even as English is actually NOT the official language of the US, it actually might be of India. At least that's what Indians have told me.

One should also not ignore other dialects, like Jamaican English.

Standardizing though, is as flawed of an idea as that seen in those countries that have 'language authorities' where they try to declare what an allowed word is.

Language evolves, and spelling of words likely will as well.

Trying to enforce spelling in people's stories on a creative writing website will also only have the impact of greatly reducing the number of people who submit stories. Why would one bother if a story could be rejected over such a silly notion?

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@tenyari

The majority of English speakers actually don't speak either American or British English, but Indian English.

While English is one of the official languages of the nation of India; American English is the most common in the world.

American English is the Official global language of Aviation and Air-Traffic-Control. American English is the version most commonly learned in China, and many other nations. Even in India millions of Indian citizens learn American English for their jobs (not just "customer service" phone reps).

Into the 1980's British English was commonly taught in much of Europe and Africa, as well as some places in Asia. However, since at least the 1990's American English is the version most taught globally. In addition, millions of foreign students attend colleges and universities in the USA.

Hollywood is a powerful force of "proselytizing" (or just popularizing) American English. Since at least the 1940's the US Armed Forces, in particular the US Army has helped spread American English (as much by teaching Baseball as anything else; Cuba, South and Central America, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, etc.)

India may well be the nation with the largest number of people who speak English; but China may be in contention.

Replies:   tenyari  Dicrostonyx
tenyari 🚫
Updated:

@Paladin_HGWT

While English is one of the official languages of the nation of India; American English is the most common in the world.

That might be economically true, but demographics wise, 1/4th of the people on the planet speak English they learned in primary school in India, and go on to do it in perfect fluency under an Indian dialect.

In that regard, it is true to say that English is the most common language on the planet - but by a simple quirk of numbers, the people speaking the most of it are doing it as their 'second language' under a system where it has become the only language they have in common with each other inside of their own country. And the formation of that dialect is being shaped by their internal cultural concerns.

These are people who, after primary school, will speak this language more than the language they spoke at home - because it is again their common tongue.

Obviously that's not relevant to a choice for a standard on a website like this. I brought it up only to note that the most common version of English is not the one arrogant Americans or arrogant British think it is.

This was just a side tangent to the topic.

Roughly 1-billion+ people across India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, and other nearby countries is a number that vastly outnumbers the comparatively tiny populations that have full English fluency elsewhere.

Imagine a post-climate collapse near future story. Wars have moved everyone all around the planet and old empires have been replaced by new ones.

I predict that in such a world the most common languages on the world would be a form of English that is mostly based on India with some US/UK merging, then Spanish, then Mandarin.

Mandarin should be first by a tiny margin over India, but NOT over India+ all other English places. And the Chinese are not so good at making friends. They're only slightly better at it than the Americans are. And they easily rival us on the arrogance scale.

Provided in any climate collapse that the people of India make it 'out' (given that India is likely to be the first part of the planet that will be uninhabitable - a fact that could come about as soon as this decade, this is not a sure thing) and are among the survivors, their culture would have massive influence by shear numbers alone, even if someone else is completely in charge.

StarFleet Carl 🚫

@tenyari

they easily rival us on the arrogance scale

You're giving us too much credit - from the Chinese perspective. They are way up HERE ... and everyone, even Americans, are way down THERE.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@tenyari

And the Chinese are not so good at making friends. They're only slightly better at it than the Americans are. And they easily rival us on the arrogance scale.

The Chinese are currently rewriting their history books to remove references to Hong Kong once being a British colony. As far as I'm aware, there's been no such denial by Americans about parts of their country once being British colonies. Quite the opposite: booting out the British is an ongoing source of national pride ;-)

AJ

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

The Chinese are currently rewriting their history books to remove references to Hong Kong once being a British colony. As far as I'm aware, there's been no such denial by Americans about parts of their country once being British colonies. Quite the opposite: booting out the British is an ongoing source of national pride ;-)

There in is a critical difference. We kicked the British out.

With China/Hong Kong:

Hong Kong didn't kick the British out. It was turned over to China pursuant to an old treaty. I'd lay odds that a majority of the Hong Kong population would have rather stuck with the British.

Replies:   mauidreamer
mauidreamer 🚫

@Dominions Son

The 1898 treaty only applied to the "New Territories". The original territory (Hong Kong Is) was ceded in perpetuity following the 1st Opium War (1849), as was the Kowloon territory after 2nd Opium War (1860). But as there was no significant difference between the three areas by 1980, rather than split the colony, the UK govt decided to treat all three as one ... and return all territories in 1997.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@mauidreamer

You've provided additional detail that is interesting, but not contradictory to what I said.

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@awnlee jawking

As far as I'm aware, there's been no such denial by Americans about parts of their country once being British colonies.

True, but plenty of rewriting of history about many other aspects of the US history is going on, especially in regards to slavery, the civil war, and the civil rights activities of the 1960s.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@tenyari

the most common version of English is not the one arrogant Americans or arrogant British think it is.

I base my opinion that the USA version of English is most common on a number of statistics, as well as personal experience. I have travelled to some 80 nations, as well as many regions with a different language from the official language of a particular nation. I can be Missunderstood in more than 20 Languages (and can "ape" dialects of several of those languages).

As a generalization British English was the most common version of English from the 1820's to the 1960's (prior to that French, or Latin was the dominant international language; or rather any version of English was not "common" before then). (Prior to ~1830 there was minimal if any difference between British and USA English.)

The "Sun Began To Set" upon the British Empire during World War Two and it accelerated during the 1950's & 60's. The USA began its ascendence during the "Great War" (World War One) {although in terms of population, industrialization and trade the rise began in the 1850's and 1860's; US flagged ships surpassed the UK in the 1850's but plummeted during the ACW 1861-1865); Isolationism reduced the international influence during the 1920's & 30's. World War Two made clear the ascendance of the USA over the British Empire.

NATO and the presence of the US Army (and other elements of the US armed forces) in Europe, and many other places in the world, contributed to even the nations of Europe starting to teach the USA version of English, over the British version. US international power and prestige is the primary factor.

Hollywood has been a major influence of the dominance/popularity of "American English" Aviation & Air Traffic Control are another reason why the USA's version of English is more common. International Maritime communications are also mostly in English. China, Japan, the Philippines, and Latin America have always used the USA version of English much more than the British version.

Colleges and Universities in the USA have been open to foreign students for more than 150 years. In the UK colleges & universities were mostly for "elites" in the USA since the 1790's colleges and universities are more numerous and have been more accessible by "the masses"

More than 20 people I know are working or have worked as instructors of American English in dozens of countries (many of them have worked in more than one nation) {It is a great opportunity for veterans who have even minimal training in foreign languages; because NCOs and many who served in SOCOM are trained to be instructors. Government recruiters from several nations have told me they have a preference for veterans as English instructors. Among them, Japan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Thailand, Taiwan, and Egypt. Interestingly, the Japanese official I encountered at a Japanese Cultural Attache at a display of Japanese Art on loan to a local museum. I was talking to her about the art, and the museums in Japan they came from. She asked if I was interest in visiting Japan as a tourist. I mentioned that while I could get there "Space A" but I could not afford to a long enough visit to be worthwhile. She recognized my reference to flying USAF AMC, and asked if I was a veteran. hen I confirmed that, she asked if I would be interested in teaching English in Japan for 1 to 3 years and immediately had me fill out the paperwork to become a language instructor. She told me veterans and recent college graduates were preferred instructors.} I was in the "pipeline" to go overseas to teach American English then Covid-19 happened. In many, if not most cases, they want English language speakers from other nations to teach the USA version of English too.

Perhaps the thing that could change the "dominance" of USA English internationally is if Hollywood continues to push a narrow social agenda too strongly. "Bollywood" has been producing more and more movies with an international appeal. Budgets and special effects are not up to the standard of Hollywood. China, Japan, and South Korea all have robust and technically proficient film industries; however, they tend to be very nationalistic reducing their international appeal. "Bollywood" may have the best chance to surpass Hollywood for international appeal; if that happens, Then the Indian version of English may become the most dominant.

Dicrostonyx 🚫

@Paladin_HGWT

I believe this depend on whether you're talking about idioms or spelling. American slang is certainly well spread due to the influence of Hollywood, but last I read British spellings were far more common in general use, especially among English as a Second Language speakers, for the simple reason that it is cheaper to ship textbooks to Europe, Asia, and Africa from Britain than from the US.

US textbooks and learning aids are most common in the Americas.

solreader50 🚫

@tenyari

One should also not ignore other dialects, like Jamaican English.

I so agree. But please don't attempt to use a "foreign" dialect unless you can (nearly) master it and be a rankin rasta.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Canadians speak Canadian! 8-P

Not completely a joke. Canadian English seems to be a mix of American English and British English. Most Canadians are at least bi-lingual (although now that may be more English {of some form} and Cantonese Chinese) traditionally Canadian English and QuΓ©bΓ©cois. {French people insist that QuΓ©bΓ©cois is NOT French, it's more like Cajun patois or Hattian patois.)

Then there are Australians...

Sir Winston Churchill, one of the masters of the English language (and an (Anglo-American) said it best: "The English Speaking People are Separated By a Common Tongue!"

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Neither American English nor British English themselves have standardised spelling. They're filled with all sorts of quirks and exceptions.

AJ

happytechguy15 🚫

@awnlee jawking

"They're filled with all sorts of quirks and exceptions."

I could agree to a world wide standard if we could get rid of all those quirks and exceptions! "ph" "gh" "ie" "ei" "qu" and so many more! I'm laughing too hard, I gotta stop!

Freyrs_stories 🚫

@happytechguy15

I think this could be the point where a constructed 'English' could come in. there's WAY too many rules, exceptions and other quirks in both Englishes, though American may scrape ahead. A truly International English. sure it would be a few years of hard graft but decedents would be better off. Though that may of been the original plan in the 1820's?

awnlee jawking 🚫

@happytechguy15

One that's currently causing me problems is when adding 'able' to a verb ending in 'e'. Sometimes you're supposed to cull the 'e', other times you're supposed to include it and sometimes either form is acceptable :-(

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@awnlee jawking

problems is when adding 'able' to a verb ending in 'e'. Sometimes you're supposed

Turn the words "evident" and "accident" into "ly" adverbs. If it's "evidently" why isn't it "accidently"? (It's not. It's "accidentally".)

Replies:   DBActive  awnlee jawking
DBActive 🚫

@Switch Blayde

From Merriam-Webster

accidently adverb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
ac·​ci·​dent·​ly | ˌak-sΙ™-ˈdent-lΔ“ , ˈak-sΙ™-dΙ™nt-, ˈak-sΙ™-ˌdent-
Definition of accidently
: ACCIDENTALLY
Law enforcement officials said that an unattended candle accidently lit her living room couch on fire.
β€” Paul Chi
He was turning out of the gateway when he accidently stumbled against a tall man wrapped in a cloak, who was at that moment coming out of the inn door.
β€” Charles Dickens
Usage of Accidently
The adverb accidently has been in use since the 18th century. It continues to appear regularly in published writing, but it is far less common than accidentally, and it is sometimes cited as an error.

First Known Use of accidently
15th century, in the meaning defined above

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@DBActive

and it is sometimes cited as an error.

I used to always write "accidently" and then Word flagged it as an error and changed it to "accidentally." By the way, this browser (Safari) flagged "accidently" here wrong.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Switch Blayde

My guess would be that 'evident' is an adjective thus evidently, whereas 'accident' is a noun, adjective 'accidental' thus 'accidentally'.

AJ

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@awnlee jawking

My guess would be that 'evident' is an adjective thus evidently, whereas 'accident' is a noun, adjective 'accidental' thus 'accidentally'.

That actually makes sense.

solreader50 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Neither American English nor British English themselves have standardised spelling. They're filled with all sorts of quirks and exceptions.

Come to the Thames Valley where people eat Brea 'n B'tta with their char. Or Glasgow for some fush 'n chups.

Freyrs_stories 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

will also only have the impact of greatly reducing the number of people who submit stories.

I disagree that a standard spelling reduces input. I base that on the ease of changing spelling rules in most word processors. Though I do not 100% say that this is the complete truth. people will write if they want to write. If they write to US English regardless of where they're from I'm saying that, that habit may make things a little easier on the statistically 'normal' reader. Also US English is the default setting on most computers that I come across, and as a result the word processor. I know a Canadian teacher who would wind himself into knots each time his PC reset itself to 'US'. He wasn't computer illiterate by any stretch but it was always funny to hear him ranting about the horror of being 'forced' into 'US' mode. It turns out his work's IT department was just too lazy to set the SOE to the local setting so it was left as US and that was why the issues kept resurfacing.

The majority of English speakers actually don't speak either American or British English

I have to agree here. also there are English speaking Chinese. I don't know what flavor they use but there would be nearly as many Chinese English users as Indian. From memory the therm in International English, which is probably some bastard child of many dialects with unique localisations dependent on many factors. also people who learn International English tend to use those funky characters that denote which sound it meant to be used with each word.

Those would of made learning English much easier for me in school, but I'm pretty sure that would of been beyond the scope of a rural school in a catchment bigger than 'Washington DC', I know there's a Washington state too but with a regional population of less than 4 maybe 5,000. Spread that over dozens of 'local' lower level schools before everyone being funneled into one of only two high schools and the resources at the time I was being educated, teachers wouldn't of had any idea what the characters meant, meaning they couldn't of taught me for love nor money.

From memory the American spelling 'reforms' date from the 1820's, the reasons for the reforms varying from 'simplification' and differentiating from the actual English who were still on the nose from that little ~1776 kerfuffle. Just to think of it, it won't be that long before people who were born 200 years after that date come up on the reform date. I'm neither American nor British though of Scots decent and don't really like the English that much. The only English I like is also called 'screw' and is used playing pool.

But what 'if' there was another option besides the fractured mess that is English. There are plenty of 'constructed' languages, perhaps using one of those would quite down those cheese eating surrender monkeys who insist that French is the official language of 'earth'. See the Olympics and the gold disk on a certain spacecraft that passed the heliopause and shock.

But I digress, if I had learnt International English before school, then school would of been much easier. I mean, I did understand English, My parents spoke it after all but it was not the day to day language in the house. There were a few of those depending when exactly you refer to but for some reason I didn't understand that other people who looked like me couldn't speak the languages I did. Most of the people I'd met in my early years spoke at least two if not three languages and only fell back to English late in the evening when everyone else had gone to bed, only sometimes including me. I've always had trouble falling asleep and going to bed early was some form of torture as I'd lay there for hours waiting for that sleep thing to happen.

Now expecting great swaths of the population to learn a language that is not their 'native' tongue is not really feasible. I'm an anomaly, if you count programming languages and spoken and 'other' I'm up well over a dozen in my handful of decades. Don't let anyone tell you that learning a programming language is different from a conventional one. it's just that most of them use US English as the core of the syntax, which as I said elsewhere is where I constantly come unstuck.

Does anyone here know what the basis of International English is, US/British I'd be keen to know. I had other relatives that learnt International English but I didn't really talk to them about the fine details of that Vs the local 'flavour' when they too transferred to a local school for their high school years. The internet hadn't really taken off here just then so US English would of really stood out, I feel a little sorry for them in their timing of changing 'systems' though by then US spellings were starting to intrude on our systems so it may have been less of a 'shock'. I still argue with people how to spell Gaol, even my local spell checker flags it.

But I'll let you all get back to your days, this is just meant to be a 'talk' about how a return to a 'single' English standard might ease some things. Change may not always be fore the better and it may take longer for some of the reasons for those negatives to fall out.

F.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

I still argue with people how to spell Gaol, even my local spell checker flags it.

I had to type it into Wiktionary to find it:

Noun
gaol (countable and uncountable, plural gaols)

(Commonwealth of Nations) Dated spelling of jail.
Usage notes
Gaol was the more common spelling between about 1760 and 1830, and is still preferred in proper names in some regions. Most Australian newspapers use jail rather than gaol, citing either narrower print width or the possibility of transposing letters in gaol to produce goal. By far the most common spelling in Canada is jail, but a handful of legal writers use gaol;

HM.

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

There are 38 variants of English with a National Name, and there is also one called Universal English which is combination of US and UK English but I've not seen a built-in dictionary for a word processor for it.

The advantage of using the version of English you grew up with is you instinctively spell that way so it's easier to write in. The advantage of choosing US or UK English is all word processing programs have built-in dictionaries for them both so you can choose either and have it help you write.

As to what the readership likes, I've written stories in both US English and UK English and had no complaints about using either. I do tend to have US characters using US English in their dialogue and stories with all US characters are written in US English. Otherwise I use UK English for my non-US characters and my narrator.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

There are 38 variants of English with a National Name

Thee dozen countries divided by a common language. :)

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

I once had one of the best spell books ever, but I sold it as all the good spells needed bat's wings and I couldn't get any.

DBActive 🚫
Updated:

@Freyrs_stories

standadised spelling

Is that really how they spell standardize in the UK?

But nobody had a problem knowing what the thread was about. This is a non-issue, especially since both forms of the words - especially - our/-or words - were in use centuries before Webster.

And it is the Brits who changed the original -ize ending to -ise to conform to the French in the late 1600s-early 1700s.

irvmull 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Who "would of" expected to find so many instances of "would of" in a thread about the English language?

I would have thought that would've would've been better.

richardshagrin 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Let's not tell governments about sin taxes. Even if you spell it syntax.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@richardshagrin

Let's not tell governments about sin taxes. Even if you spell it syntax.

Welcome to a day late and a dollar short.

Dicrostonyx 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Canada has its own dictionaries just like other countries do. The best known is probably the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, currently in the 2nd edition which was released in 1998.

The short version is that Canada still mostly uses -re suffixes rather than -er (eg, community centre) and uses the -our rather than -or as in colour or neighbour, but -ise has mostly migrated to -ize as in realize.

There's a lot more to it, of course, which is why there are dictionaries, but that covers the common words.

Personally, I wouldn't change spelling to fit a theoretical audience. Remember, you're not writing for the average American, you're writing for the small subset of people who go out of their way to read. The most recent figures I've seen suggest that only about 20% of the population are leisure readers. It's not like you're aiming at the lowest common denominator the way network TV does.

Now, if you were a published author and your agent/ publisher wanted to adapt your book for a different market, that would be a different story. Terry Pratchett had long battles with his publishers on this subject regarding the US editions of his works.

Pratchett's position was that for his adult novels there should be minimal changes on the assumption that readers understood that different places have different words for things. So if a character says biscuit instead of cookie that just adds style to the text. For his kids' books that changes, though, since some words have drastically different meanings. If Sally is "skipping down the pavement," it's important to make clear that this is the side-walk, not the road surface.

Replies:   Dominions Son  DBActive
Dominions Son 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

The short version is that Canada still mostly uses -re suffixes rather than -er (eg, community centre) and uses the -our rather than -or as in colour or neighbour, but -ise has mostly migrated to -ize as in realize.

Personally, I would question whether those are "suffixes" as you don't get a word with a related meaning when you remove the "suffix"

A suffix is added to create a derivative of the original word. The derivative necessarily has a meaning that is related to the meaning of the original word.

Replies:   richardshagrin  DBActive
richardshagrin 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

"suffixes"

Stuff fixes fix stuff.

DBActive 🚫

@Dominions Son

They're called "derivational suffixes".

DBActive 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

The short version is that Canada still mostly uses -re suffixes rather than -er (eg, community centre) and uses the -our rather than -or as in colour or neighbour, but -ise has mostly migrated to -ize as in realize.

It's actually inaccurate to say that Canada "still uses" those forms. It implies that the -re and -our endings are older that the -er, -or endings. They're not. For example Shakespeare used -or and -er more often than the other endings.

The reason for the difference is that dictionary makers (Johnson and Webster) simply selected different versions of the word, both of which were in common use.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@DBActive

For example Shakespeare used -or and -er more often than the other endings.

How would you know that? It's my understanding the only sample of Shakespeare's writing we have today are 3 signatures.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I didn't think he used Shakespeaer ;)

AJ

Replies:   zebra69347
zebra69347 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Think there are actual variations of the spelling in the documents from the era.
There are certainly errors in the church court records of his application for a marriage licence. The files are held in the Worcestershire Archives. https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/entry-bishops-register-concerning-marriage-william-shakespeare-and-anne-hathaway

DBActive 🚫

@DBActive

The original publication of the works more commonly used the "American" spellings.

Dicrostonyx 🚫

@DBActive

It implies that the -re and -our endings are older that the -er, -or endings.

I meant still uses in the sense that Canada started off using standard (for the time) British spellings but has, over time, shifted towards American spellings in some areas for the simple reason that they are our closest neighbour. Getting into which-came-first arguments is generally useless for the simple reason that standardization is newer than both forms.

DBActive 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

There's a wikipedia entry listing all the different variations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_of_Shakespeare%27s_name#:~:text=The%20standard%20spelling%20of%20the,in%20his%20own%20handwritten%20signatures.

The fact is that there were multiple acceptable variations of spelling at that time for the dictionary makers and printers to use. Some selected one, others selected another. It doesn't mean that one is "correct" or "original", just different.

solreader50 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

For heaven's sake, no. Spell how you want in the context of your story. I can't imagine an L.A. Detective saying "Colour". Nor a Brit saying "trunk" unless referring to a small shipping container. But please, please, please don't say, "We're going over their." or "There going to see her" under any circumstances.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel 🚫

@solreader50

I can't imagine an L.A. Detective saying "Colour".

Is the pronunciation different between "colour" and "color", "honour" and "honor"?
If the writer/narrator is a Brit, would he know the spelling the L. A. Detective would use if writing instead of saying "colo(u)r"?

It's another thing with "trunk" and some other words.

One of the differences is the use of floor numbers. Most(?) native British speakers will assume first floor is above ground floor (same as in German [Erdgeschoss, 1. Stock] and most other European languages).

HM.

Replies:   Keet  Dicrostonyx
Keet 🚫

@helmut_meukel

One of the differences is the use of floor numbers. Most(?) native British speakers will assume first floor is above ground floor (same as in German [Erdgeschoss, 1. Stock] and most other European languages).

We Europeans know to start at 0 (ground floor), it's an important number in math which the Americans apparently still have to figure out :)

DBActive 🚫

@Keet

Starting at 0 would make sense if there was nothing there. But then you would just fall through to the basement.

Replies:   solreader50
solreader50 🚫

@DBActive

Starting at 0 would make sense if there was nothing there. But then you would just fall through to the basement.

Byt that means in the US you go from floor 1 to floor -1 without a zero floor. Which is fairly illogical and unmathematical.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@solreader50

Byt that means in the US you go from floor 1 to floor -1 without a zero floor.

Nope, because we don't use negative numbers for basement levels.

The same reasoning would apply to the Gregorian calendar not having a year zero.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel 🚫

@Dominions Son

The same reasoning would apply to the Gregorian calendar not having a year zero.

Sorry, but what's usually called Gregorian calendar is just a slightly modified Julian calendar. This modification concerns only the adaption of the year's length to the then better known astronomical facts.
The base of the calendar, it's starting point, was left untouched by Pope Gregor. Therefore it contains the same erroneous assumptions by the creators of the Julian calendar. (e.g. actual year of Jesus' birth).

There is no year 0?
The Romans back then had no concept of Zero in mathematics.
But even if they had, our calendar starts with the assumed birth year of Jesus Christ as its first year. A.D. (= the year of the Lord). For any dates before they just continued to use the old roman calendar. For pre-Roman dates they probably used the old Greek system.
The counting back by using negative values came much later and is prone to errors caused by the old methods of dating "in the eighth year of Pharao Ramses rule". Nobody today knows exactly how they back then treated dates in years when new rulers ascended (last year or first year or both or restart the year, so no partial first year but a partial last year?).
Was it different through the centuries and in different countries?

HM.

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@Keet

We Europeans know to start at 0 (ground floor), it's an important number in math which the Americans apparently still have to figure out :)

No, we just disagree with you about where zero is. floor zero is the primary basement. floor -1 is the first sub-basement.

If you are not going to number basement levels with negative numbers, there is no logical requirement for a floor zero.

If you Europeans know to start at zero, why is there no year zero in the Gregorian calendar(designed by a European)?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Dominions Son

A point to consider to mess this sub-thread up further is how do you deal with the buildings built on a slope. I've been in stores where it has two ground level entrances due to one being on the low side of the slope and another being on the upside of the slope. because we start at Ground level here in Australia in the case mentions one was listed as the Lower Ground Level and the other was the Upper Ground Level so how do they do this in the US as neither is below ground?

DBActive 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Depends on which is the primary entrance/exit.
If it's the lower one - number them from 1 on up. If it's the upper one, that's the first floor and the lower ones are LL1, LL2 etc..

Dominions Son 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

I've been in stores where it has two ground level entrances due to one being on the low side of the slope and another being on the upside of the slope.

so how do they do this in the US as neither is below ground?

This is the exact situation I had described.

With the building on a slope, the lower level with an entrance is necessarily partially below ground. This would normally be the "ground floor" the upper level with an entrance would be the 1st floor.

It may also depend on which entrance the building is address to, or if pedestrian traffic flows make one entrance or the other primary.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Dominions Son

It may also depend on which entrance the building is address to, or if pedestrian traffic flows make one entrance or the other primary.

In the case I know of the large department store took up the end of the block and had entrances on three sides with a street address of the side in the middle. It was real weird, but when I asked about it I was told the street address is the side street as it's a more prestigious street name and that street had an entrance onto each level about a quarter of the way in from each of the other streets.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

A former friend of mine lived in a house overlooking a small river. The house was built on a steep bank. The front entrance was at road level and gave admittance to the ground floor. The rear of the property gave admittance to the rear garden but it was via the floor below the ground floor. I believe she called it the lower floor the basement.

AJ

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Keet

We Europeans know to start at 0 (ground floor), it's an important number in math which the Americans apparently still have to figure out

Indeed. If the floor number is less than zero, it means you have to walk downstairs from the entrance level. If the floor level is above zero, it means you have to walk up stairs from the entrance level.

Note to Americans - stairs are the way you used to move between floors before you evolved to become too obese to negotiate them manually ;-)

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Note to Europeans. When you enter a multi-floor building, the floor you enter on is the first floor of the building you are in.

Also note: we don't generally number basement levels with negative numbers. IF there is only one basement level it's usually labeled "B", if there is more than one basement level: B1, B2, B3...

We do occasionally see a ground floor and a first floor in US buildings. This generally occurs where the building is built on a slope and there are outside entrances on two different levels, one on the "Ground" floor which is partially underground and one on the first floor.

Replies:   Keet  awnlee jawking
Keet 🚫

@Dominions Son

Note to Europeans. When you enter a multi-floor building, the floor you enter on is the first floor of the building you are in.

Also note: we don't generally number basement levels with negative numbers. IF there is only one basement level it's usually labeled "B", if there is more than one basement level: B1, B2, B3...

There's a reason basement floors are not labeled as -1, -2 etc. because that would disqualify the 'logic' that the ground floor is floor 1: going 1 down = -1, going one up is... uh... 2? Makes no sense :)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Keet

because that would disqualify the 'logic' that the ground floor is floor 1: going 1 down = -1, going one up is... uh... 2? Makes no sense :

1. 1 + 1 = 2, makes perfect sense.

2. Tell that to the guy who designed the Gregorian Calendar. Year 1BC->Year 1AD, no Year zero.

Replies:   Dicrostonyx  Keet
Dicrostonyx 🚫

@Dominions Son

The Gregorian Calendar argument doesn't really apply here, though, since it is based on an instantaneous event. There are things that happened before the event and things that happen after the event, but nothing exists the same time as the event.

Applying that logic to buildings means that the ground floor / first floor does not exist, no one can enter it or leave it, and all those nice desks and potted plants are imaginary.

Keet 🚫

@Dominions Son

1. 1 + 1 = 2, makes perfect sense.

2. Tell that to the guy who designed the Gregorian Calendar. Year 1BC->Year 1AD, no Year zero.

1. 0+1 = 1 makes just as much sense ;)

2. There's a difference between physical locations and time. The first year starts at point 0 seconds.

See, it can't get any more logical :)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Keet

1. 0+1 = 1 makes just as much sense ;)

But the 0th floor of a building does not.

2. There's a difference between physical locations and time. The first year starts at point 0 seconds.

Every year starts at .0 seconds. We are talking about counting years not seconds.

And did they even have seconds when the Gregorian Calendar was designed?

Total logic fail.

Replies:   Keet
Keet 🚫

@Dominions Son

But the 0th floor of a building does not.

That's why it usually called 'ground floor'. 1/first is a level of elevation.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Keet

1/first is a level of elevation.

Nope. 1/first is the first floor of the building that you enter.

Replies:   Keet
Keet 🚫

@Dominions Son

Nope. 1/first is the first floor of the building that you enter.

You have to accept that 'first floor' doesn't have the same meaning globally. In the US it's the ground floor, in Europe it's not.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Keet

You have to accept that 'first floor' doesn't have the same meaning globally.

I didn't start this and I alone can't keep it going.

So I say to you: Pot->Kettle.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

Note to Europeans. When you enter a multi-floor building, the floor you enter on is the first floor of the building you are in.

So whereas we Brits have a saying 'hit the ground running', the USA equivalent must be 'hit the first running' ;-)

AJ

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

So whereas we Brits have a saying 'hit the ground running', the USA equivalent must be 'hit the first running' ;-)

In the US, running indoors is generally frowned (excludes gyms and other purpose built indoor running tracks) on. You don't "hit the ground running" until you are outside. :)

ETA: If you are in a building with a single basement level, on the ground/first floor, the ground is another 10-12 feet down under the basement slab. You can't "hit the ground" until you are either outside or on the lowest basement level.

ETA2: Ground/First floor are treated differently in areas of the US where the majority of buildings do not have basement levels due to local conditions. New Orleans for example.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

In the US, running indoors is generally frowned (excludes gyms and other purpose built indoor running tracks) on. You don't "hit the ground running" until you are outside. :)

Exploding bombs in buildings is also (hopefully) frowned upon but, when it happens, presumably the centre of the blast is 'first zero' in the US ;-)

AJ

Replies:   mauidreamer
mauidreamer 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Bad AJ ... loss of 10 status points for attempting to cause confusion by bringing in alternate meaning of term "zero" ...

Note: open season declared for snipers ... ;)

richardshagrin 🚫

@mauidreamer

"zero"

Zeuro

awnlee jawking 🚫

@mauidreamer

Bad AJ ... loss of 10 status points for attempting to cause confusion by bringing in alternate meaning of term "zero" ...

That was accidental, honest. I was looking for alternative meanings of ground ;-)

AJ

Switch Blayde 🚫

@awnlee jawking

'hit the ground running',

But you don't say "hit the ground floor running."

"Hit the ground running" is something different.

Replies:   solreader50
solreader50 🚫

@Switch Blayde

"Hit the ground running" is something different.

A strange phrase, however you measure it. Speaking personally, whenever I hit the ground it is usually after a "one Tequila, two Tequila, three Tequila, FLOOR!" event and running is the last thing on my mind.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Keet

We Europeans know to start at 0 (ground floor)

A hotel room is made up of the floor + room number so 101 is Room 1 on the 1st floor and 201 is Room 1 on the 2nd floor.

In a one-level motel that has 25 rooms, the rooms are numbered 1–25 (no floor number). But if the motel is 2 floors, the bottom level (what you're calling the ground level) is numbered 101–125 while the upper level is numbered 201–225 hence your ground floor is the first floor and your first floor is the second floor.

When the first floor is one floor up, the ground floor is usually an "L" in the elevator for Lobby (not a "G" for Ground).

Keet 🚫

@Switch Blayde

floor and 201 is Room 1 on the 2nd floor.

I'll just leave this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storey#Numbering

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@Switch Blayde

When the first floor is one floor up, the ground floor is usually an "L" in the elevator for Lobby (not a "G" for Ground).

One of the not for profit organizations I volunteer with has their offices on the third floor of a marina complex. They don't have a First or Ground Floor, nor a "zero" floor; instead it is D for Dock. There are no offices, there are mooring slips for yachts and motor launches.

It is an interesting place, with reasonable rent and a quite good view. Some weekends a "Pirate Ship" sails by on the Ship Canal... The Seafair Pirates ☠ are a local charity, and have "cruises" to raise money for their charitable works.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin 🚫

@Paladin_HGWT

One of the not for profit organizations I volunteer with has their offices on the third floor of a marina complex

That is the way floors work at Nickerson Marina in Seattle on the Ship Canal. A gaming group I belong to used to be on the second floor but were moved from 201B to 301 upstairs. Although Metro Seattle Gamers take the elevator from the Dock floor to get higher. I always wonder how they can tell Marina has Knickers on. The sign says she does but how can they tell?

awnlee jawking 🚫
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

In a one-level motel that has 25 rooms, the rooms are numbered 1–25 (no floor number). But if the motel is 2 floors, the bottom level (what you're calling the ground level) is numbered 101–125 while the upper level is numbered 201–225

That's illogical. If you start with a single level motel then add another storey on top, you'd have to change all the existing room numbers even though the rooms themselves haven't moved.

I suspect a US architect designed a tower block one floor short of the owner's specification, bumped up the floor numbers by one to hide their error and the practice stuck ;-)

AJ

Dominions Son 🚫

@Switch Blayde

When the first floor is one floor up, the ground floor is usually an "L" in the elevator for Lobby (not a "G" for Ground).

For a very large building with multiple elevator banks that would not apply to an elevator bank that doesn't open on the lobby.

Dicrostonyx 🚫

@helmut_meukel

Is the pronunciation different between "colour" and "color", "honour" and "honor"?

No, but Terry Pratchett did once comment that if you listen to the way that John Wayne says "Mister," it's clear that he's not saying "Mr."

The comment was really just a joking way to say that dialogue should always be written out in full, not use abbreviations or short forms, so that the reader can look at the text and know how the dialogue sounds rather than just understanding the meaning.

My bugbear on this is regnal names. Sure, we all know that "Queen Elizabeth II" is read as "Queen Elizabeth the Second," an English speaker from another culture could easily read that as "Queen Elizabeth eye eye". By writing "the Second," the author describes what the character is actually saying, not simply the meaning.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

just a joking way to say that dialogue should always be written out in full

Depends on the style guide.

If the dialogue is, "Will you get my ball, mister?" it's spelled out.

But if the dialogue is, "Will you get my ball, Mr. Jones?" it's not.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

But if the dialogue is, "Will you get my ball, Mr. Jones?" it's not.

Dialogue in fiction is supposed to be the words and letters to reproduce the sounds being said. In dialogue the the letters 'mr' would be used to represent the sounds m and r sort of like a cat purring but with an 'm' to start it. Thus that phrase typed would be best represented as 'Will you get my Ball, mer Jones?"

The style manuals for newspapers and academic papers are different. However, it's been mi experience that many US authors follow the style rules for writing academic papers and newspapers instead of the fiction writing conventions. I've seen many US authors who us Lt instead of Lieutenant in dialogue, the same with Sgt instead of Sergeant, and many other title abbreviations - and it often causes confusion for non-US readers where they don't come across those abbreviations elsewhere.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Dialogue in fiction is supposed to be the words and letters to reproduce the sounds being said

Look at any traditionally published novel and scan for Mr. or Dr. and you'll see they are not spelled out when used as part of the name.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Look at any traditionally published novel and scan for Mr. or Dr. and you'll see they are not spelled out when used as part of the name.

Look at any US printed book and you will likely see that in the dialogue, but I've lots of the non-US published books where the dialogue does not use the abbreviated forms. I never said it wasn't OK in narrative, it's in the dialogue that's the issue.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Dialogue in fiction is supposed to be the words and letters to reproduce the sounds being said.

Numerals for numbers in dialogue are also sometimes used instead of spelling the number out. As I said earlier, follow what the style guide you use says. The Chicago Manual of Style says:

Q. In a work of fiction, should all numbers be spelled out in dialogue?

A. Spell out numbers in dialogue whenever it can be done without awkwardness. Years, for example, are better rendered as numerals. For more guidance, see CMOS 13.44.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

The Chicago Manual of Style says:

Which is a style manual for academic works, which is what i said earlier. The problem is that too many USA authors follow the style manuals for academic works or newspapers and they have never been the same as for fiction writing. However, with the way many US publishers have been forcing their ways of doing things on others we are seeing changes that are not good as they will result in everything reading like dry academic books.

Dominions Son 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

The problem is that too many USA authors follow the style manuals for academic works or newspapers and they have never been the same as for fiction writing.

The problem isn't the authors. The problem is the traditional publishers in the US decided to opt for those style guides and required all of their authors to follow them.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@Dominions Son

The problem is the traditional publishers in the US decided to opt for those style guides and required all of their authors to follow them.

Why is it a problem that they chose that style guide? Any kind of publishing requires a style guide for constancy and that one seems to be the industry standard. And they don't require authors to follow it. The publisher is looking for a good manuscript, not one print-ready. They have copy editors who will make those changes. But when the Acquisition Editor is reading your manuscript, following their preferred style guide will bring less "bad" attention to it.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

Why is it a problem that they chose that style guide? Any kind of publishing requires a style guide for constancy and that one seems to be the industry standard.

1. The "problem" is with EB's claim about US authors using CMOS. The use it only because it became an industry standard driven by the publishing companies.

2. It wasn't the industry standard at the time that US publishers first adopted it.

3. The sections in CMOS that explicitly cover fiction were added after the US publishing industry adopted it, not before.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Dominions Son

The use it only because it became an industry standard driven by the publishing companies.

Again, it doesn't matter why. It is.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Again, it doesn't matter why. It is.

How and why always matter.

Freyrs_stories 🚫

@Dominions Son

Now that was more confusing than it needed to be.

US authors using CMOS

Whenever I see that, it automatically brings to mind Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor.
I was wondering what that had to do with spelling ;D.
But just an example of expectations colouring the writers intentions.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

I'd never heard of it before it was mentioned at my Writers' Group as being something Americans use.

Not that we Brits have much to gloat over - Modern English Usage has gone downhill and Oxford English Dictionary has gone woke.

AJ

Dominions Son 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

US authors using CMOS

Whenever I see that, it automatically brings to mind Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor.

Chicago Manual Of Style.

A style guide produced by the University of Chicago Press.

Replies:   Freyrs_stories
Freyrs_stories 🚫

@Dominions Son

Chicago Manual Of Style.

Yer, I'd read that and I am aware of the standard.It's just that 99% of the time someone mentions CMOS to me it's in regards to the computer term and thus my expectation.

Anyone else find um interesting preconceived interpretations causing problems when you read write?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫
Updated:

@Freyrs_stories

Yer, I'd read that and I am aware of the standard.It's just that 99% of the time someone mentions CMOS to me it's in regards to the computer term and thus my expectation.

The first time I heard some mention CMoS to me I thought they were talking about seeing some lichen.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

What happened to Carrie-Anne Moss? Has she been in anything worth watching since the Matrix trilogy?

AJ

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@awnlee jawking

What happened to Carrie-Anne Moss? Has she been in anything worth watching since the Matrix trilogy?

Who is that and what is she doing stuck in a matrix? Also, what sort of matrix was she stuck in, steel, fibre, plastic, cement?

Dicrostonyx 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Actually, she has, but she tends to do the sort of indie drama/ comedies that never get much attention. Fireflies in the Garden (2008), The Chumscrubber (2005), and Mini's First Time (2006) are all enjoyable, and Disturbia (2007) is fun if you can handle the fact that it's basically a retread of Rear Window starring Shia LaBeouf.

For TV, she played a major character in Netflix's Jessica Jones (2015) and was a regular in season 2 of BBC's Humans (2015).

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Which is a style manual for academic works,

You keep saying that, and maybe it was originally written for that, but most (if not all) publishers of fiction use some form of Chicago Manual of Style as their style guide.

That's why I use it. I started when I was trying to get traditionally published and wanted my manuscript to look professional. Now I use it so that my novels look like the ones people buy from those publishers. One, because that's what they're accustomed to reading. And, two, because β€” why not? If I want my novels to be consistent, I need to follow a style guide. Why not use the same one the publishers do?

Dominions Son 🚫

@Switch Blayde

You keep saying that, and maybe it was originally written for that, but most (if not all) publishers of fiction use some form of Chicago Manual of Style as their style guide.

An CMOS added secions on fiction because of that, not the other way around.

The likely truth is that few US publishers deal only in fiction and they likely didn't want to bother with a separate style guide for their fiction operations.

CMOS in it's original conception as a style guide for academic publishing is a decent choice of style guide for non-academic non-fiction.

Switch Blayde 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

An CMOS added secions on fiction because of that, not the other way around.

Chicken or egg. It doesn't matter how, only that it is.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

The likely truth is that few US publishers deal only in fiction and they likely didn't want to bother with a separate style guide for their fiction operations.

Really? We've been round this loop before. I looked at the major fiction publishers and most seemed to have their own style guides, although were very secretive about its contents.

AJ

Switch Blayde 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I looked at the major fiction publishers and most seemed to have their own style guides

True, just like the New York Times has its own style guide but it's aligned with the AP Style Guide since it's a newspaper. From what I know, each publisher has it's own style guide, but the U.S. publishers (all or most?) are aligned with CMOS.

To bring this thread back, I believe the US publishers follow CMOS while the UK publishers follow the Oxford Guide to Style (I think that's what it's called). The CMOS recommends Webster as the dictionary to use while Oxford recommends the Oxford dictionary. Thus the different spellings like color (CMOS) and colour (Oxford).

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

I looked at the major fiction publishers and most seemed to have their own style guides, although were very secretive about its contents.

I've seen claims and not just here by SB that the US publishers all use CMOS.

I don't know that's true from personal knowledge, but I have no particular reason to doubt it. I would certainly be interested in evidence that it isn't true. Can you cite anything to back your claim?

Or are you mostly referring to UK and or EU publishers?

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

I can't remember the details I posted but I believe most were US publishers - they've pretty mush bought up all the major UK publishers.

I'm not going to do the research again - it took quite a while searching the publishers' websites.

AJ

Freyrs_stories 🚫

@Dominions Son

I'd be interested in reading word by word the UK and US Harry Potter books. Ignoring that they changed the name of the first one because of image of the word 'Philosopher' I'm sure it would be interesting to see the other differences. If only because it is a modern example where there in theory be clear differences between the two books.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@Freyrs_stories

Ignoring that they changed the name of the first one because of image of the word 'Philosopher' I'm sure it would be interesting to see the other differences.

That's something I hadn't heard before.

ETA: According to this, other than the title of the first book, the differences are just minor word changes for US terminology vs UK terminology.

As to the title change:
https://screenrant.com/harry-potter-philosophers-sorcerers-stone-us-title-change-reason/

Arthur Levine, the man behind Scholastic's Harry Potter publication, had reservations about the book's title, more specifically with the word "philosopher." He was worried that the word was too old-fashioned for young readers. "Philosopher" was not a commonly used term and it was believed that the book would be overlooked if not for a title change. Scholastic suggested "Harry Potter and the School of Magic" as the new title but Rowling later picked Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The word "sorcerer" had a clear connotation to magic, something that wouldn't confuse readers.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

Arthur Levine is an uneducated idiot. The existence of a Philiosopher's Stone and the search for it is a reasonably common trope pervading alchemical mythology.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Arthur Levine is an uneducated idiot. The existence of a Philiosopher's Stone and the search for it is a reasonably common trope pervading alchemical mythology.

You are correct on the mythology of the Philiosopher's Stone.

That doesn't necessarily make Levine wrong in his concern that modern American youth wouldn't be aware of it.

Replies:   Freyrs_stories
Freyrs_stories 🚫

@Dominions Son

I'm pretty sure J.K. was banking on the children reading her book not to know about it based on the way it was reviled through the pages of the story. Harry certainly doesn't know what it is, though that just may because he's a muggle, but Hermione she's like uber-nerd reading everything.

It's getting harder and harder to write a semi-unique story these days. J.k. came along at the perfect time with parents who were readers of children who weren't. Look at the title of each book, the 'subject' of the title isn't 'revealed' until the last few chapters, though HBP a bit more drawn out. And Deathly Hallows is probably the shortest run to the point and then more of a search for their meaning.

This is 'good' story telling, feed the reader bread crumbs till finally the big reveal at the end. This method not necessarily the world building, though that is of great import is what makes the H.P. books so well received around the world and adored by both children and parents alike.

I'm not saying J.K. doesn't have her faults, there are plenty but poor world craft is not one of them. Regardless of what the title of the book is and why it was changed, I think that the idioms of each language edition could be worth a study for anyone who want's to see how the two languages have split apart in a couple hundred years. I'm not sure about the smattering of Latin in the stories as I never studied it to know how loose J.K. was with it. I only know one person my age who did Latin and I've not talked to them since '93 so am well out of touch with them.

But regardless of the language or even dialect you use there needs to be an up front agreed set of rules and styles that you will follow. Otherwise regardless of how 'good' a writer you are there will be inconsistencies across your work especially if it done over a longer time scale.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

I'm not saying J.K. doesn't have her faults, there are plenty but poor world craft is not one of them.

She created an inconsistent universe. Several rules of magic, relied on in the later novels, were freely violated in the first book.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Examples?

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

You keep saying that, and maybe it was originally written for that, but most (if not all) publishers of fiction use some form of Chicago Manual of Style as their style guide.

The CMoS was created to standardise the printing of Academic books in Chicago, it was then used to standardise the writing of academic and thesis papers. That's in their own history records.

The reason it leaked into other uses was due solely to the people who had used it in college and university continuing to use the CMoS in fields it was not designed to be used for.

In recent times some effort was made to justify it's use in fiction writing because some publishing houses were insisting on it's use in all they published, fiction and otherwise. Sadly, in doing so they've taken action to introduce changes to fiction writing to bring it in line with academic writing and thus destroy part of the differences between the two, to the detriment of fiction writing.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the use of the CMoS or the AAP Style Guide or any other style guide, they are not the definitive and only way to write fiction. Yet, the proponents of those guides insist they are the only way to write anything, which is the major problem with them.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Yet, the proponents of those guides insist they are the only way to write anything, which is the major problem with them.

This is where I disagree. CMOS isn't insisting anything. They are defining the rules for their style guide. They aren't saying you have to follow their guide but, if you do, these are the rules. That's the whole purpose of the guide.

As to publishers, all companies have a style guide for writing reports, proposals, and other forms of communication. Each company insists their employees or anyone writing something for them follow their guide. That's the purpose of the guide.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

CMOS isn't insisting anything.

Switch, please go back and look at the third word in the text of mine you quote 'proponents' - it's the people using it that's the major problem, not the style guide writers.

I don't know if you remember the issue I had, about 5 or 6 years ago, with a certain person who used to be a prolific poster here. He kept insisting that the CMoS was the greatest and only way to write anything and I ended up refusing to respond to his posts and emails due to how vitriolic he was getting about it.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

He kept insisting that the CMoS was the greatest and only way to write anything

I hope I never did that. As to CMOS, all I ever said was that I followed it (or my flavor of it) because that's what US publishers follow. All I ever insisted was that an author should be consistent and to be consistent he needs to follow a style guide. It could be a store-bought one, his own, or a combination of the two, which is what I believe the publishers do. Maybe the small publishers use the store-bought one off the shelf, but my experience with large companies is they want do do it their way. But since all the novels I read seem to follow the same style, my guess is CMOS is followed somewhat religiously.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I hope I never did that.

No, it wasn't you.

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Why not use the same one the publishers do?

Because not all publishers use the CMoS. It's use seems to be limited to some US publishers.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

Because not all publishers use the CMoS. It's use seems to be limited to some US publishers.

I'd say it's the defacto standard for U.S. publishers.

Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

The last time I looked at the CMoS they wouldn't let me access it unless I bought a subscription, which I didn't do. Thus I don't know if they still say the same thing about certain aspects as they used to say some years ago. If you have a recent copy can you tell us if the CMoS still says that present tense is wrong to use in writing?

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde 🚫

@Ernest Bywater

If you have a recent copy can you tell us if the CMoS still says that present tense is wrong to use in writing?

I don't have a copy. I never heard they said present tense was wrong. In fact, I'd be surprised if they had since there are many traditionally published present tense novels.

When I say I follow a form of CMOS, I mean when I research something and it gives various choices, I choose the one it says CMOS recommends.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I never heard they said present tense was wrong.

The last copy of CMoS I actually looked at a full copy of was well over a decade ago and it was before they started the fiction writing inclusions. However, it heavily pushed writing in the past tense in everything you wrote. It also had several comments on how present tense was not an approved way to write. From my past experiences with academic and government writing I can readily agree with that approach for those usages. I just wondered if they'd tempered it since they started including stuff for fiction writing.

solreader50 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

Sure, we all know that "Queen Elizabeth II" is read as "Queen Elizabeth the Second,"

Except she is only QE2 in England and Wales. In Scotland she is QE1, except our colonial master told us to forget it.

madnige 🚫

@Dicrostonyx

could easily read that as "Queen Elizabeth eye eye

is that a reference to her ocular capacity?

sherlockx 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Usage and Grammar

Q. Chicago recommends using the present tense when discussing the actions of characters in literature

https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Usage/faq0187.html

Replies:   Dicrostonyx
Dicrostonyx 🚫

@sherlockx

Again, this is an academic standard. Not saying the style isn't used outside of academia, just that's where the style is from. In the Humanities the work is always discussed in the first person.

Justin Case 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

"Standardized"

I would begin with a good spell checker.

(that is all)

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@Justin Case

You appear to have a Murican spellchecker.

Whether that's good or not is a matter of opinion.

AJ

Replies:   helmut_meukel
helmut_meukel 🚫

@awnlee jawking

You appear to have a Murican spellchecker.

Murican or Imperial doesn't matter, both types should have flagged the missing 'r'.

HM.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@helmut_meukel

Justin Case's post:

"Standardized"

I would begin with a good spell checker.

I don't see a missing 'r'.

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I don't see a missing 'r'.

Check the title of the OP

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Check the title of the OP

Why?

I was commenting on Justin Case's post.

ETA: Since Muricans seem to spell 'crayfish' as 'crawdad', should I be worried that standadised is the Murican spelling of 'starfishised'?

Webster's Murican dictionary:

Starfishized (adj) an octopus with three legs removed.

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR 🚫

@awnlee jawking

You did say you couldn't see the missing 'r'…

Thus my pointing the location where it is missing.

You're welcome

:)

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking 🚫

@joyR

QED.

You're welcome

:)

AJ

Justin Case 🚫

@Freyrs_stories

Yes, I was jacking with the OP a little.
I have a sick sense of humor like that.

Back to Top

 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


Log In