NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I have become more and more frustrated at the Americanisms on the website Wikipedia. After several spelling wars between British and American users, for example, the page on so-called "color" has been protected from 'vandalism' to prevent the British from defending their own language.
Surely we have the right to attempt to change words to what we perceive as correct spellings? What do you think?

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

Why is it that people have such a problem with the way different cultures/languages spell different words?

Here's a tip. GET OVER IT!

i agree.

To be honest I don't care what the wikipedophiles do.

No. I just think that we should go the way of the Chinese Wikipedia and have a button that converts 'traditional' to 'simplified', except it's British and American spellings, so you can have the one you prefer. If not, then everything should be American (unfortunately, as I hate Americanisation of British English intensely) as the majority would like, but with UK related articles in British spellings.

Or just a large-scale alteration of as many articles as possible to include the word 'desu'.

No good for the English language, but it entertains me.

Who cares? Everyone knows what the words mean its not like the words change meaning with color and colour. Get the heck over it!

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

Are you serious? Are you that obsessed?

Recently, I have become more and more frustrated at the Americanisms on the website Wikipedia. After several spelling wars between British and American users, for example, the page on so-called "color" has been protected from 'vandalism' to prevent the British from defending their own language.
Surely we have the right to attempt to change words to what we perceive as correct spellings? What do you think?

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

No. Regression is not something we should aim for.

And frankly, it's not that big of a deal. Just have a redirect for "colour" that goes to the same article, and a bit in the article about there being multiple spellings for different dialects.

Why is it that people have such a problem with the way different cultures/languages spell different words?
Because it's a part of my culture and language. It's not much, but something I would like to preserve, a bit of what makes Britain Britain.

Here's a tip. GET OVER IT!
Convincing argument.

Googlefight has spoken (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=colour&word2=color) :(

Because it's a part of my culture and language. It's not much, but something I would like to preserve, a bit of what makes Britain Britain.

Just like spelling it differently is part of my culture and language, a bit of what makes American, American. It does not matter what the spelling is since we all know what the word means.

Convincing argument.

Thanks.

Recently, I have become more and more frustrated at the Americanisms on the website Wikipedia. After several spelling wars between British and American users, for example, the page on so-called "color" has been protected from 'vandalism' to prevent the British from defending their own language.
Surely we have the right to attempt to change words to what we perceive as correct spellings? What do you think?

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

"Its former glory"? How hard is it to understand that British English is not older than American English? They are precisely the same age. One is not older, more established, or better than the other. This seems manifestly obvious.

Just like spelling it differently is part of my culture and language, a bit of what makes American, American. It does not matter what the spelling is since we all know what the word means.
Of course it matters. Not enough to go on a vandalising war on Wikipedia, but it matters enough to at least try and preserve it in suitable contexts.

"Its former glory"? How hard is it to understand that British English is not older than American English? They are precisely the same age. One is not older, more established, or better than the other. This seems manifestly obvious.
Indeed, in some pronunciations American English is actually closer to English spoken at the time of the colonisation of the Americas.

"Its former glory"? How hard is it to understand that British English is not older than American English? They are precisely the same age. One is not older, more established, or better than the other. This seems manifestly obvious.

In fact, American English is closer to the original form than British English is.

Recently, I have become more and more frustrated at the Americanisms on the website Wikipedia. After several spelling wars between British and American users, for example, the page on so-called "color" has been protected from 'vandalism' to prevent the British from defending their own language.
Surely we have the right to attempt to change words to what we perceive as correct spellings? What do you think?

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

Get a sense of humor. :D

Get a sense of humor. :D
Bah-doom tish!

Just like spelling it differently is part of my culture and language, a bit of what makes American, American. It does not matter what the spelling is since we all know what the word means.
But who's language is it anyway?



Thanks.that was probably sarcasm

But who's language is it anyway?

Its speakers.

Wikipedia was started by two Americans, it's an American institution. Ergo, American English is ultimately the way to go.

Not that it's really that big a deal. :rolleyes:

the page on so-called "color" has been protected from 'vandalism' to prevent the British from defending their own language.

Because it takes up room on the server every time you edit. More useless edits=more wasted space=less room for actual content

Surely we have the right to attempt to change words to what we perceive as correct spellings? What do you think?

If you are editing a page and you come across some things that you think are spelled wrong, go ahead. BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE EDITING FOR SOME OTHER REASON! If someone puts teh instead of the, correct it. But not color instead of colour. All of this in outlined in WP's policies.

Besides, Wikipedia is based in the States, specifically Florida, so that is the de facto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/de facto) spelling.

There's actually already a system set about that on wiki, you realize?

Get a sense of humor. :D

Wikipedia should give those out to its contributors, I think.

Wikipedia was started by two Americans, it's an American institution. Ergo, American English is ultimately the way to go.

Not that it's really that big a deal. :rolleyes:
I'd say that it's less because of that and more because Americans have a large majority of users that non-UK related articles should be in American English, if we can't go for a dual system.

There's actually already a system set about that on wiki, you realize?
Don't leave us in the dark!:eek:

Don't leave us in the dark!:eek:

If the article is originally written (or a bulk of the info is added, from a stub to a full article) in a particular spelling, it stays that way.

If the article is originally written (or a bulk of the info is added) in a particular spelling, it stays that way.
Fair enough, I suppose.

"Its former glory"? How hard is it to understand that British English is not older than American English? They are precisely the same age. One is not older, more established, or better than the other. This seems manifestly obvious.
well manifestly obviously not, since there's discussion on it. and manifestly obviously not since there was some version of british english in britain well before 1492.

and anyhow, there are examples of americanisms which clearly evolved later, such as whether quotations close a period or not, e.g., "color is the wrong spelling." or "colour is the right spelling". i was taught in america to use the first one, and then learned the second is used everywhere else (i think in that order, forget now...). i've been told this is an artefact of the printing presses in america, but don't really know the story.

Does it really matter all that much? It's the same damn thing!

Does it really matter all that much? It's the same damn thing!

No it does not matter except to the nationalists.

well manifestly obviously not, since there's discussion on it. and manifestly obviously not since there was some version of british english in britain well before 1492.

and anyhow, there are examples of americanisms which clearly evolved later, such as whether quotations close a period or not, e.g., "color is the wrong spelling." or "colour is the right spelling". i was taught in america to use the first one, and then learned the second is used everywhere else (i think in that order, forget now...). i've been told this is an artefact of the printing presses in america, but don't really know the story.

Oy. Let's try the evolutionary metaphor and see if that helps explain how British and American English are the same age.

So, you have a species of birds. Let's call them "A" birds. The "A" birds live on the island of Burble. One group of "A" birds fly away from the island of Burble, and take up residence on the island of Gurble. Many generations pass, during which time both groups of birds change a great deal. Notably, while "A" birds were blue, Burblish birds are all green, while Gurblish birds are all purple. So which bird group is older, the Burblish birds or the Gurblish birds? Which coloration is more traditional, green or purple?

Neither British (Burblish) English nor American (Gurblish) English is Elizabethan English - they are, rather, two separate offspring of the same mother tongue. They are the same age. Make sense?

You do realize that in the end, it really doesn't matter. The content to the article stays the same.

Recently, I have become more and more frustrated at the Americanisms on the website Wikipedia.

The American and British dialects are equally legitimate. I suspect, from your misrepresentations of the issue, you are a troll attempting to stir up trouble, however frustrated you may be.

After several spelling wars between British and American users, for example, the page on so-called "color" has been protected from 'vandalism' to prevent the British from defending their own language.

I believe you are misrepresenting this. I also wonder if you are not one of the trolls involved in the dispute there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Color#Spelling

Surely we have the right to attempt to change words to what we perceive as correct spellings? What do you think?

No, you do not have any such right. Wikimedia Foundation, the owners of the Wikipedia web site, have every right to dictate the content displayed. Which they have done, in regards to spellings, as you can see below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling

National varieties of English

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)

Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people have been taught to use a form of English different from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English; none is more “correct” than any other. However, there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, as listed here. They are roughly in order of importance; guidelines earlier in this list will usually take precedence over guidelines later:

* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
o Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
o If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)
* If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
o Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force.
o Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. For example:
+ American Civil War: American English usage and spelling
+ Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings: British English usage and spelling
+ Uluru (Ayers Rock): Australian English usage and spelling
+ European Union institutions: British, Irish and Maltese English usage and spelling
+ The city of Montreal: Canadian English usage and spelling
+ Taj Mahal: Indian English usage and spelling.
* Try to find words that are common to all.
o In choosing words or expressions (especially article titles) there may be value in selecting one that does not have multiple variant spellings if there are synonyms that are otherwise equally suitable and reasonable. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is acceptable.
o If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make redirect pages to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact.
* Follow the dialect of the first contributor.
o If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

For reference on different dialects, consult Wikipedia articles such as English plural and American and British English differences.

Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

That would legitimately be vandalism and you would be banned. I'd also advise against using this forum to encourage or organise inter-site conflicts.

ConscribedComradeshipBut who's language is it anyway?
Its speakers.

Indee this is the case. And there are more speakers of the American dialect....

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?Or just a large-scale alteration of as many articles as possible to include the word 'desu'.

Do not use this site to advocate vandalism (or vandalizm) of Wikipedia or any other website. Further suggestions along these lines may result in official warnings, forumbans, or deletion of your NationStates accounts.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Wikipedia was started by two Americans, it's an American institution. Ergo, American English is ultimately the way to go.

Not that it's really that big a deal. :rolleyes:
I'm so very tempted to point out the US was started by the English. However it might see some people demanding the return of the 13 colonies to HRH, instead of changing the spelling of colour.

In my opinion,
BECAUSE Wikimedia was founded in the US, and
BECAUSE, it is spelled Wikipedia and NOT Wikipaedia,
The spelling should follow American style.

I, however, use a hybrid and will use both spelling types. I won't use -ise though. :P

Just blame Noah Webster...

Googlefight has spoken (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=colour&word2=color) :(

Aw drat. I have to accept the conclusions of Googlefight.

Afterall, they taught me the plural of 'brainchild' was 'brainchildren'.

Or just a large-scale alteration of as many articles as possible to include the word 'desu'.

No good for the English language, but it entertains me.

nan desu ka?

Here's a better question: Why the fuck do words like "armor" and "colour" need u's in them? :confused:

Here's a better question: Why the fuck do words like "armor" and "colour" need u's in them? :confused:

Because it changes the pronunciation of the second syllable on each of those words.

Without the "u" the "o" sound would(should?) be pronounced much more strongly, in the vein of "bore", whereas with it the "u" changes it to an "err" sound.


On the subject of the discussion, British/Commonwealth/International English is more widely used throughout the English speaking world (when I say widely used, I mean it is used in more countries across the world), whereas American English is pretty much only used in the USA so could it not make sense that it is used?

Does anyone agree International English users should organise some large-scale attack on articles to restore the language to its former glory?

Aye. While I agree there's no proper English (any form of English spoken in everyday speech by a large enougn group of people is perfectly valid), I'd say we should have an English-Language wiki as well as a USian Wiki.

Aye. While I agree there's no proper English (any form of English spoken in everyday speech by a large enougn group of people is perfectly valid), I'd say we should have an English-Language wiki as well as a USian Wiki.

Why when most words that we both use are spelled exactly the same way? That would be very stupid.

USA is being very difficult, do you not know the world uses metric scale and british english!

USA is being very difficult, do you not know the world uses metric scale and british english!

The world is being difficult. Do you not know that most of this country does not care?

The world is being difficult. Do you not know that most of this country does not care?

I just find it extreamely annoying when some one tells me this is 30 feet, and i am trying to find out what is the lenght in meters

And there are more speakers of the American dialect....

I dispute this. Whle the US has a larger population thank any of the invidicual countries, collectively there are more people in the UK, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

And guess what we all speak.

I just find it extreamely annoying when some one tells me this is 30 feet, and i am trying to find out what is the lenght in meters

It's roughly 10 meters. Happy?

I just find it extreamely annoying when some one tells me this is 30 feet, and i am trying to find out what is the lenght in meters

I find it annoying when people tell me things in kilometers and I try to figure it out into miles.

I find it annoying when people tell me things in kilometers and I try to figure it out into miles.

Then you, and Arronax for that matter, need to learn how to convert.

For me, coming from the UK helps, as we use both metric and imperial systems all over the place, so working in both isn't too much of a bother.

Then you, and Arronax for that matter, need to learn how to convert.

For me, coming from the UK helps, as we use both metric and imperial systems all over the place, so working in both isn't too much of a bother.

Actually it is quite simple since I ran cross country. 5k equals about 3 miles. So that makes it easier to actually convert miles into Kilometers to a point for me.

I dispute this. Whle the US has a larger population thank any of the invidicual countries, collectively there are more people in the UK, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

And guess what we all speak.

About 450,000,000 people speak English. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. Advantage: American English.

Actually it is quite simple since I ran cross country. 5k equals about 3 miles. So that makes it easier to actually convert miles into Kilometers to a point for me.

Well, I suppose that's a start :p

Then you, and Arronax for that matter, need to learn how to convert.

For me, coming from the UK helps, as we use both metric and imperial systems all over the place, so working in both isn't too much of a bother.

Why should i learn the imperial system? Only America uses it......

Why should i learn the imperial system? Only America uses it......

Because if you come here to visit, you are going to have to follow it.

About 450,000,000 people speak English. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. Advantage: American English.

My friend.... There are a total of over 1.5 billion english speaking people and only 300 million of them speak American English....

My friend.... There are a total of over 1.5 billion english speaking people and only 300 million of them speak American English....

As their first or second language? That makes a difference.

Because if you come here to visit, you are going to have to follow it.

Okay then tell me, why does America have to be so stubborn, the entire world uses Mertric except for Myammar, Liberia and America

Make the lives of the other 5.7 billion people on earth easier!!!!

As their first or second language? That makes a difference.

Both, and what difference does it make, they are still speaking the same language

Okay then tell me, why does America have to be so stubborn, the entire world uses Mertric except for Myammar, Liberia and America

Make the lives of the other 5.7 billion people on earth easier!!!!

Because this is the United States. We do things a tad differently here. I could ask why doesn't the rest of the world switch to the imperial system but that would be pointless.

The fact remains that we use imperial AND Metric here in the US though we use imperial to drive but we do have kilometers on our spedometers. Why is it so hard for people to actually convert units? Isn't that taught in schools?

Why should i learn the imperial system? Only America uses it......

And the UK, to a certain extent.

Both, and what difference does it make, they are still speaking the same language

Because if it is their second language, that means they speak a primary language that IS NOT English. English is my first language. I speak a smattering of words in other languages. Should I be counted among those who speak French, Italian, German, Spanish, or Japanese because I speak some of their languages?

from Latin color. In the U.S., the Latin spelling, which was widely used in both the U.S. and England in the 1600s and 1700s,
We American are correct. :P

Because it changes the pronunciation of the second syllable on each of those words.

Without the "u" the "o" sound would(should?) be pronounced much more strongly, in the vein of "bore", whereas with it the "u" changes it to an "err" sound.

On the subject of the discussion, British/Commonwealth/International English is more widely used throughout the English speaking world (when I say widely used, I mean it is used in more countries across the world), whereas American English is pretty much only used in the USA so could it not make sense that it is used?
See, I always mock the 'u' as forcing the pronounciation exactly how you claim it would. Also, that happens to be how it is said in French "ku-lour" Furthermore, the 'e' at the end changes the pronounciation of "-or" in color to "-ore" in bore.

Finally, there is no international standard of English. We have no academy like in France and such, which is one of the main reasons for out troubles, including spelling reform.

Because this is the United States. We do things a tad differently here. I could ask why doesn't the rest of the world switch to the imperial system but that would be pointless.

The fact remains that we use imperial AND Metric here in the US though we use imperial to drive but we do have kilometers on our spedometers. Why is it so hard for people to actually convert units? Isn't that taught in schools?

Lets see....my country uses metric....the country next to me uses metric, all but three countries in the world uses the metric. Remind me why i imperial has to be taught in an metric dominant world....

I dispute this. Whle the US has a larger population thank any of the invidicual countries, collectively there are more people in the UK, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

And guess what we all speak.

In India, generally Hindi.

Lets see....my country uses metric....the country next to me uses metric, all but three countries in the world uses the metric. Remind me why i have imperial has to be taught in an metric dominant world....

Because the US accounts for 30%+ of the global economy, and 50%+ of global military spending.

But, generally, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Lets see....my country uses metric....the country next to me uses metric, all but three countries in the world uses the metric. Remind me why i have imperial has to be taught in an metric dominant world....

I told you once. If you come over to visit this country, you have to know how many km are in a mi because we measure things by miles here. You also have to convert feet to meters (which is basic math). That is, if you want to continue using the metric system while in the United States.

Because the US accounts for 30%+ of the global economy, and 50%+ of global military spending.

The military uses a hybrid of both: kilometres are caled kliks i think.

I told you once. If you come over to visit this country, you have to know how many km are in a mi because we measure things by miles here. You also have to convert feet to meters (which is basic math). That is, if you want to continue using the metric system while in the United States.

Aye, when I was in Germany, I was so very polite to convert everything to the local system, mentally.

It's roughly 10 meters. Happy?

Actually just over 9 metres. I use both systems, with metric for preference, Also from reading I have developed the habit of spelliing in the British style.

The military uses a hybrid of both: kilometres are caled kliks i think.

Yep, because the metric system is more efficient. That's why I'd support it, not because "everyone else uses it."

If that's the justification beign used, well, I'll support the Imperial system.

I told you once. If you come over to visit this country, you have to know how many km are in a mi because we measure things by miles here. You also have to convert feet to meters (which is basic math). That is, if you want to continue using the metric system while in the United States.

Then im just saying, why come the damn goverment of usa start metrication on america and make the lives of the other inhabitants of this planets life easier!!!

I think this applies:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

Forget who said that. Regardless, who gives a damn how a word is spelled? Languages change constantly. It's a good thing.

Then im just saying, why come the damn goverment of usa start metrication on america and make the lives of the other inhabitants of this planets life easier!!!

I could ask the same question of the rest of the world but change it to start imperializing on the world. It still won't change the fact that some of us prefer the imperial system over the metric and vice versa. Some of us also do conversions between the two systems. Why is it difficult for you to accept that fact?

Now I am off to bed. I want my 8hrs worth of sleep before church tomorrow morning.

Actually just over 9 metres. I use both systems, with metric for preference, Also from reading I have developed the habit of spelliing in the British style.

Yes the metric system is easier!

I mean
10mm to 1cm
100cm to 1 meter
1000 meters to 1km units to the power of 10 is easier

than.....

12 inches in a feet
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile

Makes no sense at all.....

I could ask the same question of the rest of the world but change it to start imperializing on the world.

Because the world just used the last century to turn into metric!

12 inches in a feet
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile

Makes no sense at all.....

It makes perfect sense if you grew up with it.

Because it's a part of my culture and language. It's not much, but something I would like to preserve, a bit of what makes Britain Britain.
You sound like an American trying to say that we shouldn’t have signs in Spanish.

Yes the metric system is easier!

I mean
10mm to 1cm
100cm to 1 meter
1000 meters to 1km units to the power of 10 is easier

than.....

12 inches in a feet
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile

Makes no sense at all.....

In daily calculations you don't need to know that 1760 yards = 1 mile. you need to know 5280 feet = 1 mile.

3 numbers to memorize for distance. 16oz = 1lb. One number for weight. And we use metric for volume.

Then im just saying, why come the damn goverment of usa start metrication on america and make the lives of the other inhabitants of this planets life easier!!!

Because the duty of the US Government (in theory) is to make the lives of US residents easier, not the rest of the world's residents.

In daily calculations you don't need to know that 1760 yards = 1 mile. you need to know 5280 feet = 1 mile.

Oh yes, it makes thing much.....easier

Oh yes, it makes thing much.....easier

You do realize that in most American schools, Metrics (and the related conversions) are taught right alongside the Imperial system.

Right?

Golly, we already let the Brits drive on the wrong side of the road. And there's an old saying, "To the victor belongs the spoils". And there are more of us.

I wonder if the Spanish argue with all the Latin American countries about such things? If these countries wanted to keep control of their languages, they shouldn't have colonized. The Italians, for example, don't have this problem.

Oh yes, it makes thing much.....easier

do you have a difficulty memorizing 3 numbers that you are taught from early age?

The Italians, for example, don't have this problem.

Well, back in the day, they colonised fairly plentifully, and Latin kept quite standard.

do you have a difficulty memorizing 3 numbers that you are taught from early age?

It was never taught from an early age.....no imperial system in this country

Well, back in the day, they colonised fairly plentifully, and Latin kept quite standard.

Ah, the good ole days of Rome. Fond memories, they are.

Ah, the good ole days of Rome. Fond memories, they are.

Yar....when slaves were slaves, women were slaves, and the poor were slaves, while the rich complained in the Senate but achieved little, and Germans ended up ruling Europe at the end of it all.

Much more fun that way.

Yar....when slaves were slaves, women were slaves, and the poor were slaves, while the rich complained in the Senate but achieved little, and Germans ended up ruling Europe at the end of it all.

Much more fun that way.

It was. I spend many a fond day in the bathhouses watching naked men. And more hours in the scriptorium marking little letters on papyrus. And those cool, silent nights at the Villi. On especially quiet nights, you can even hear the slaves being flogged.

Ah, the days of yore.

Yes the metric system is easier!

I mean
10mm to 1cm
100cm to 1 meter
1000 meters to 1km units to the power of 10 is easier

than.....

12 inches in a feet
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile

Makes no sense at all.....
Getting a bit metaphysical for a wee moment....

I can conceive in my mind (and judge accurately by eye) the length of a millimeter, centimeter and meter . I understand the concept of a kilometer, a thousand meters, but I find it hard to conceive or judge them.

For example, on a bus journey I could give you good estimations of the width of the bus seats in centimeters and the length of the bus in meters, but I couldn’t tell you with any certainty how many kilometers I had traveled. Instead, I could give you a far guess at how many miles I had come.

I mean, obviously I could work out roughly how many kilometers I had traveled by converting from miles to kilometers, but the conception of the distance in kilometers would be almost meaningless in my imagination.

It was never taught from an early age.....no imperial system in this country

so why are you questioning how easy it is when you don't have experience with it to begin with?

Yes the metric system is easier!

I mean
10mm to 1cm
100cm to 1 meter
1000 meters to 1km units to the power of 10 is easier

than.....

12 inches in a feet
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile

Makes no sense at all.....

Yes, it is blank-slate easier and more logical...

...but, when someone has been acquainted with something for the entirety of their lives, it's pretty tough to make them change.

Yes, it is blank-slate easier and more logical...

...but, when someone has been acquainted with something for the entirety of their lives, it's pretty tough to make them change.
Actually it is really easy. You just tell them they have to. We did it in Australia in the 60's, and NZ did it in the 80's. Old people bitch and learn both, and the new generation bitches about the old generation bitching, and the new new generation laughs at all of the bitching, then goes and bitches when people use the old system. Theoretically, the new new new generation won't have anyone to laugh at, or bitch about.

...but, when someone has been acquainted with something for the entirety of their lives, it's pretty tough to make them change.

though they all stopped using horses as the main form of transport eventually

Aye. While I agree there's no proper English (any form of English spoken in everyday speech by a large enougn group of people is perfectly valid), I'd say we should have an English-Language wiki as well as a USian Wiki.

Why? The Wiki for USAian already exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAian&redirect=no

I dispute this. Whle the US has a larger population thank any of the invidicual countries, collectively there are more people in the UK, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

And guess what we all speak.

British English, Indian English, Australian Standard English, New Zealand English, etc., respectively.


About 450,000,000 people speak English. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. Advantage: American English.
My friend.... There are a total of over 1.5 billion english speaking people and only 300 million of them speak American English....

And only 55 million of them speak British English.

As their first or second language? That makes a difference.

Indeed.


Both, and what difference does it make, they are still speaking the same language
Because if it is their second language, that means they speak a primary language that IS NOT English. English is my first language. I speak a smattering of words in other languages. Should I be counted among those who speak French, Italian, German, Spanish, or Japanese because I speak some of their languages?

Exactly so. I'd also like to point out that many of those who do not speak speak the American dialect also do not speak the British dialect. Also, a majority of those who learn English as a second or as a foreign language do so primarily in the American dialect.

In India, generally Hindi.

:D

I use both systems, with metric for preference, Also from reading I have developed the habit of spelliing in the British style.

Having grown up during one of the pushes for the metric system, and seeing as I have lived in a metric standard country for over 15 years, I am quite used to it. Similarly, long exposure to various dialects (as I work and live in an international community), my spoken English has gradualy become somewhat neutralised. When home in the US, people often comment that my English sounds British, while native speakers of other dialects here iun Japan often note that I don't sound American (and certainly not Texan :().

I wonder if the Spanish argue with all the Latin American countries about such things? If these countries wanted to keep control of their languages, they shouldn't have colonized. The Italians, for example, don't have this problem.

I do know there are significant dialect differences throught the Spanish speaking world.

Actually it is really easy. You just tell them they have to. We did it in Australia in the 60's, and NZ did it in the 80's. Old people bitch and learn both, and the new generation bitches about the old generation bitching, and the new new generation laughs at all of the bitching, then goes and bitches when people use the old system. Theoretically, the new new new generation won't have anyone to laugh at, or bitch about.

Hahaha! The US has been trying to legislate use of the metric system for donkey's years. The US signed the Convention du Mètre, in 1878. http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/member_states/us/

I must say that metric has continued creeping into everyday use in the US. I notice it more and more each time I go home.

Hahaha! The US has been trying to legislate use of the metric system for donkey's years

Is a donkey's year a metric or imperial measurement? :p

Is a donkey's year a metric or imperial measurement? :p

Seeing as the idiom comes from the UK and not Franxce, I'd have to go with imperial. ;)

Hahaha! The US has been trying to legislate use of the metric system for donkey's years. The US signed the Convention du Mètre, in 1878. http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/member_states/us/

I must say that metric has continued creeping into everyday use in the US. I notice it more and more each time I go home.

And the funniest thing about people resistance to using the metric system is the claim that its too complicated. Fact is, Americans are just too damn lazy to want to engage the three brain cells it takes to figure out a decimal system.

And the funniest thing about people resistance to using the metric system is the claim that its too complicated. Fact is, Americans are just too damn lazy to want to engage the three brain cells it takes to figure out a decimal system.

Yeah! how hard is it to move a dot?

Yeah! how hard is it to move a dot?

In America? Apparently impossible. (Remember who crashed that mars explorer, and why. And those were our scientists.:eek: )

In America? Apparently impossible. (Remember who crashed that mars explorer, and why. And those were our scientists.:eek: )

Indeed, this is the case. Personally, I am of the opinion that the government's attempts to cram it down the people's throats is a significant contributing factor to the American resistance to the metric system.

Yes the metric system is easier!

I mean
10mm to 1cm
100cm to 1 meter
1000 meters to 1km units to the power of 10 is easier

than.....

12 inches in a feet
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile

Makes no sense at all.....

Or 5,280 ft in a mile as most of us actually use. LOL.

And it may be easier for you because you use it alot just like the imperial system is easier for us Americans because we use it.

Now what is wrong with converting between the units?

It makes perfect sense if you grew up with it.

BINGO!

*hands The South Islands a cookie*

You do realize that in most American schools, Metrics (and the related conversions) are taught right alongside the Imperial system.

Right?

And with that, how to convert between metric and imperial units as well. I do not think he gets that.

Getting a bit metaphysical for a wee moment....

I can conceive in my mind (and judge accurately by eye) the length of a millimeter, centimeter and meter . I understand the concept of a kilometer, a thousand meters, but I find it hard to conceive or judge them.

For example, on a bus journey I could give you good estimations of the width of the bus seats in centimeters and the length of the bus in meters, but I couldn’t tell you with any certainty how many kilometers I had traveled. Instead, I could give you a far guess at how many miles I had come.

I mean, obviously I could work out roughly how many kilometers I had traveled by converting from miles to kilometers, but the conception of the distance in kilometers would be almost meaningless in my imagination.

Best way to estimate kilometers with miles is to calculate that 1 mile is approximately 1600 meters.

Best way to estimate kilometers with miles is to calculate that 1 mile is approximately 1600 meters.

In other words, 1.6 kilometers? Like, you know, always?

In other words, 1.6 kilometers? Like, you know, always?

Yep. Some of us can actually do conversions in our heads. Like a cross country course is 3 miles which is 4.8 km.

Yep. Some of us can actually do conversions in our heads. Like a cross country course is 3 miles which is 4.8 km.

Wait, I don't get your meaning. Are you implying I can't do conversions in my head?

Its nice to see another thread that has completely jumped off its oringinal point and into something else

Wait, I don't get your meaning. Are you implying I can't do conversions in my head?

Not implying it at all. Just stating out there for everyone that alot of us convert units on a daily basis between metric and imperial.

Its nice to see another thread that has completely jumped off its oringinal point and into something else

The original point was well pointless. LOL

my dialect and measurement system has a bigger penis than your dialect and measurement system.

my dialect and measurement system has a bigger penis than your dialect and measurement system.

Actually, by creating a measuring system that worked slightly differently, your penis might actually be measured in such a way as to increase it's size, relatively speaking.

I thought that this was a debate on how to spell 'Wikipedia'! It's got one 'a' not two!

I hate how spelling has become. It's fine when you're writing a text message and don't want to spend extra money by going over the word limit, but online? You completely shatter other people's understanding of you and you make yourself sound idiotic and uneducated. I hope to teach English in the future; I just really hope that the students will have basic spelling.

Having been a regular contributor to Wikipedia for several years now, I can tell you what Wikipedia policy is, in a nutshell.

For articles concerning or primarily of interest to the Anglican English-speaking world, Anglican English speakers, the Anglican spelling convention is used.

For articles concerning or primarily of interest to American English-speaking world, the American spelling convention is used.

For articles of general interest or of no especial interest to speakers of any particular form of English, the spelling convention of the original author of the article is used.

This is to eliminate the silly arguments you are referring to.

So, in the case of the article on "Color", since it is not of especial interest to speakers of any particular form of English, then if the original author used the American spellings, then the American spellings are to be used in that article, period, end of story, non-debatable. If he used Anglican spellings, then the Anglican spellings are to be used. Whichever it is, anyone who tries to change it to the other is wrong and will be reverted.

Having been a regular contributor to Wikipedia for several years now, I can tell you what Wikipedia policy is, in a nutshell.

For articles concerning or primarily of interest to the Anglican English-speaking world, Anglican English speakers, the Anglican spelling convention is used.

For articles concerning or primarily of interest to American English-speaking world, the American spelling convention is used.

For articles of general interest or of no especial interest to speakers of any particular form of English, the spelling convention of the original author of the article is used.

This is to eliminate the silly arguments you are referring to.

So, in the case of the article on "Color", since it is not of especial interest to speakers of any particular form of English, then if the original author used the American spellings, then the American spellings are to be used in that article, period, end of story, non-debatable. If he used Anglican spellings, then the Anglican spellings are to be used. Whichever it is, anyone who tries to change it to the other is wrong and will be reverted.

Well said Linus and Lucy.

I do know there are significant dialect differences throught the Spanish speaking world.

And the bitching was often from the American countries to the Real Academia Española in Spain, because they would not accept American terms or spelling. It has improved in the last decade or so, but it still keeps a marked Spanish bias in its definitions.

Other countries have opted to fund their own Academias to document the use of language in their own regions.

*snip*
Neither British (Burblish) English nor American (Gurblish) English is Elizabethan English - they are, rather, two separate offspring of the same mother tongue. They are the same age. Make sense?
no, not really. i got lost in your burblish and gurblish. but i assume you from your last sentence that both populations have evolved, so i can argue on this stance.

using evolution as your metaphor is self-defeating since it does not take time into account. as long as both languages began to mutate at exactly the same time, and exactly the same rate, then yes, they are the same age. I think it more likely that American English preserved a number of conventions that were lost in Britain because of mixing with French, German, Italian, Russian, and so on. While British English was changing quite quickly by this time, American English would have been like a snapshot, with fewer external influences.

Further, your metaphor presupposes evolution occurs in both populations: at the social level, there is plenty of evidence of populations of humans that have been cut off from civilization and maintained a lifestyle more or less unchanged for a thousand years or more. In Greece, examples would be monastic life and some northern villages that still revere Alexander the Great. Nor is social evolution required as an example, since there are many biological 'living fossils'.

no, not really. i got lost in your burblish and gurblish. but i assume you from your last sentence that both populations have evolved, so i can argue on this stance.

using evolution as your metaphor is self-defeating since it does not take time into account. as long as both languages began to mutate at exactly the same time, and exactly the same rate, then yes, they are the same age. I think it more likely that American English preserved a number of conventions that were lost in Britain because of mixing with French, German, Italian, Russian, and so on. While British English was changing quite quickly by this time, American English would have been like a snapshot, with fewer external influences.

Further, your metaphor presupposes evolution occurs in both populations: at the social level, there is plenty of evidence of populations of humans that have been cut off from civilization and maintained a lifestyle more or less unchanged for a thousand years or more. In Greece, examples would be monastic life and some northern villages that still revere Alexander the Great. Nor is social evolution required as an example, since there are many biological 'living fossils'.

An analogy cannot exactly "presuppose" when it's based on events that have already occurred. ;) Both British and American English have changed significantly since Elizabethan times, when the split occurred. Neither British nor American English could plausibly be considered to be the same dialect as any form of Elizabethan English. Thus, it is very silly to argue that British English is older or has more tradition behind it. It doesn't.

(Out of curiosity, how did you come up with the idea that the "melting pot" of America received less outside influence from other languages? This is false. American English does contain several words which modern Brits find archaic (for example, the use of the older "faucet" rather than "tap"), but it's also stolen from other languages at least as widely as British English has. English as a whole is a language of thieves - whenever we hear something we like, we steal it and make it ours. :) )

(Out of curiosity, how did you come up with the idea that the "melting pot" of America received less outside influence from other languages? This is false. American English does contain several words which modern Brits find archaic (for example, the use of the older "faucet" rather than "tap"), but it's also stolen from other languages at least as widely as British English has. English as a whole is a language of thieves - whenever we hear something we like, we steal it and make it ours. :) )
well true enough, that's why i like English more than other languages. But I made the opinionated assumption, that after the original divergence of the languages with the formation of the colonies, there was more interaction between Britain and the outside world on a standard basis, than between America and the outside world. I am under the impression that immigration to the American melting pot took place in massive waves, with the majority of that occurring in the 19th and 20th centuries. Except possibly for areas like New Amsterdam, the 13 colonies were staunchly English at the time when the language would have been diverging most rapidly, in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The correct application of an analogy 'presupposes' that the two situations are parallel, but in this case they are not. On the other hand, I'm arguing this from an analytical point of view... presupposing that the processes I am invoking occurred in history. Since I don't know much about the evolution of English, that's all I can do!