Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)/Archive 2

Syrup

I dispute that this is a "common british term" for wig. I have never heard it, and expect that most people in the UK would not know it. We do not want this to contain a lot of dialect or local meanings, which someone might read and assume they could use in the UK -- Chris Q 10:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello ChrisQ - you're from Yorkshire, and I'm from London, so this would seem to indicate there is a regional difference. 'Syrup' is exceedingly common (in both senses) down here. This would make sense as it is 'Cockney' rhyming slang: syrup - syrup of figs - wig. Given rhyming slang is more prevalent around London, I can imagine its usage is not so prevalent in Yorkshire. I would say that it is used in comedy programmes on both national radio (BBC) and national TV (BBC again). I can definitely remember Ronnie Barker using it in his sketches based on extensive use of rhyming slang in 'The Two Ronnies'. I would ask that 'syrup' be retained, possibly with the ote that it is common Estuarine or Southern usage. Perhaps you would care to put an entry in for 'pet'? WLD 13:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's Cockney rhyming slang, not a British English word. It certainly shouldn't be included here. Further proof is that it's not included in a dictionary. violet/riga (t) 13:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree. These should be words that are used or understood in most of Britain. For the same reason I would not enter "pet". We certainly don't want all possible regional UK or US meanings or the list would be massive and useless -- Chris Q 13:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I disagree. There are a number of words on this list that are only used in certain parts of the country. And 'syrup' is not purely a London word anyway - it's passed into standard English usage. I'm not a Londoner, and I understand the word perfectly well, as I do other words and phrases derived from Cockney Rhyming Slang, such as 'having a butcher's'. You'll hear them used quite frequently (in fact, I heard 'syrup' on TV last night, and not used by a Londoner). It definitely deserves to stay. In addition, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Americans don't use the word to refer to the same foodstuff that we do (do Americans have Golden Syrup?), so why delete the whole definition? -- Necrothesp 14:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Violetriga - are you saying Cockney Rhyming Slang isn't British English? What language is it a part of then? Lack of an entry in a dictionary doesn't mean it's not English - unlike the French with their Academie Francaise, dictionaries of English are descriptive, not prescriptive - and lack of an entry means the compilers haven't caught up with current usage. It will definitely be in a dictionary of slang or colloquial usage. Google for "syrup wig", and see there are many entries for that usage. As you might guess, I'm an inclusionist, as "Wikipedia isn't paper". Contrary to ChrisQ's contention, I would say making the list 'massive' by including dialect words would be very useful indeed, as it then becomes a resource that isn't found anywhere else. Without Wikipedia, I would never have been led to discover the difference between US and UK usage of 'loblolly', for example. I haven't included it yet, but I'm minded to do so. If the list becomes too big to handle, we can look at formatting it in a different way - or perhaps starting a Wiktionary-style approach. WLD 15:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there are three issues here. First should the list contain words that are not used in most of Britain. I believe it should not. As I said before, if we included all possible regional variations in the US and the UK we would probably have a very long list. It would also not be so useful, the terms that are likely to be heard in the UK or the US being hidden amongst many others. I cannot see any words in the list that I don't think are used in most of Britain.

The second issue is specifically whether syrup commonly means wig in Britain. I don't believe it does, whereas you obviously believe otherwise. Maybe an informal poll would be the best thing.

Thirdly, is the normal meaning of syrup the same in both countries. Dictionary gives '"A thick, sweet, sticky liquid, consisting of a sugar base, natural or artificial flavourings, and water."'. I believe that this is the same in both countries. Whether specific syrups are available in both countries doesn't really matter. I believe that Americans would recognise Golden Syrup to be a syrup even if it is not available there, and I am sure there are many syrups available in the US but not the UK that we would also recognise. -- Chris Q 15:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we need two lists 'Full list of words having different meanings in British and American English' and 'List of common words having different meanings in British and American English'. - Chris Q 15:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy for there to be two lists. I wouldn't involve myself in the discussions over which list an entry should be in - just so log as en entry were there would satisfy me. Sorry about rushed reply - Wikipedia is running slowly for me at the moment, and has logged me out twice in the middle of editing - which is very irritating. WLD 17:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't support two lists. It's an unnecessary complication and would lead to too many arguments. A note on the list that it isn't used in all parts of the UK would be sufficient. -- Necrothesp 17:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe the list should contain words that are likely to be heard in Britain and on British film and TV. I agree that dialect words only heard in very specific parts of the country shouldn't be included - and that goes for most words and phrases derived from Cockney Rhyming Slang. However, some of these words have spread to the rest of the country, or at least to a large area of it - 'syrup' is one of these. I would also agree with including 'pet', since it is commonly heard in Britain. I think we need to distinguish between dialect words that are only used in small areas (counties or cities), which are not likely to be heard outside those areas, and words that are used commonly across larger regions and urban areas (Scotland, Greater London, Yorkshire etc). The latter need including, since they are frequently heard in a wider context. On the foodstuff issue, I think Golden Syrup is very different from other things recognised as syrup. It's actually the liquid produced during sugar refining, not a liquid based on sugar and water. Different thing altogether. -- Necrothesp 15:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cockney rhyming slang is a mere subset of British English. If we were to include all the colloquialisms I've heard then this list would become huge. I can't say I've heard of "syrup" to mean a wig, and I really think it should remain on the Cockney rhyming slang article - perhaps we could link to that from here. violet/riga (t) 16:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But does you not having heard it really make it invalid? Isn't that what an encyclopaedia is all about, to impart new information? Scottish English is also a 'mere' subset of British English. Does that mean we should also remove words like 'advocate', which have a specialist meaning in Scotland but not the rest of the UK or Commonwealth? 'Mate' isn't used in all areas of the UK - should we also remove that? I really don't see why we need to single out particular groups of regional words and not others. And I don't see who's going to set the criteria for inclusion. -- Necrothesp 17:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with the list being huge? "Wikipedia is not paper." There is no doubt that 'syrup' US common meaning is different from UK (slang) 'syrup'. UK (slang) fag is different to US (slang) fag, but is included, and US slang is definitely included. WLD 17:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. So what if it's huge? The more comprehensive the better in my opinion. If the word is used and is used outside one very specific area then it should be included. -- Necrothesp 17:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can tell you that most people I know wouldn't know it to mean "wig". It's not a commonly used word and, I really can't stress this enough, not a proper British English word. This is an article about the difference between British and American English, not words used in America and Britain – there's a difference. As I said above, linking to the Cockney rhyming slang article from American and British English differences might be appropriate. If we include "syrup" then we may as well import all the rhyming slang words and a ton of other colloquialisms.

As for the list getting huge well I really can't see the point of duplication. Cockney rhyming slang is not at all a common American English thing and we may as well link them to the relevant article to explain why syrup means "wig". violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello violet/riga. I can tell you that most people I know would know it to mean "wig". It's a commonly used word around where I live, and, in the nicest possible way, who are you to say it is not a 'proper' British English word? Perhaps you meant its not 'pukka'? Syrup is certainly English. According to one dictionary it comes from Arabic via Latin to Old French to MiddlEnglish to the modern day, so you could argue it's not 'proper' English - but what is English anyway but an agglomeration of loan-words built upon shaky foundations of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon being an import with immigrants from northern Europe from about the 5th century onwards (The Angles and the Saxons didn't originate in the British Isles). Look here: http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm for a quick history lesson :-) I would agree with your suggestion, probably meant as fanciful, to include other rhyming slang and other colloquialisms - but only where the same word has different meanings in the UK and US versions of our common tongue.

I'm intrigued about your idea of linking to the Cockney rhyming slang article - would you link individual words (how?), or have one link saying "If you can't find the word you are looking for, it's beacuse it is not proper English - look in the Rhyming slang and colloquilism articles instead" - forcing the reader to divert elsewhere when looking for a common (shared rather than frequently used) word with different meanings.

Anyway, I'll go away and cool off for a few days before coming back to this debate. Thanks for reading. WLD 18:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I said it's not a proper British English word I meant with that particular usage. I know the history of the language and I know it's officially part of the English language. My preference is to have a link from the main article (not this one) to the rhyming slang article. If syrup, with that meaning, and other similar words are included I really think that this should be renamed to List of words having different meanings in Britain and the United States, but that excludes other English-speakers. To include "syrup" would imply to me that it's a commonly used word in the UK and accepted and understood by most. I dispute that. violet/riga (t) 18:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I consider the primary use of this particular page is to inform speakers of British or American English of the difference in usage of words in the two countries. If I hear a word in an American film used in a way that I don't understand then I come here to check what it might mean. I would assume that Americans would do the same if they hear an unfamiliar usage in a British film. If a word is used then surely this is the place for it, whether you consider it to be 'proper' usage (and what on earth is 'proper' usage?) or not. 'Syrup' is indeed used in this way by a significant proportion of the population (and has been so used on screen). I really don't understand your objection to including words that are in use. There are many, many words on this list that are slang, both British and American, or only used in certain sections of the country. Should they all be deleted for not being proper usage?

The trouble is, you're taking the extreme view each time. I quote: "If we include "syrup" then we may as well import all the rhyming slang words and a ton of other colloquialisms." Nobody has said that. Most rhyming slang is never heard outside London (and frequently only rarely there) and therefore shouldn't be included, but a few words, and this is one of them, have spread farther afield. I don't come from London, and I've always known that 'syrup' can mean 'wig'. I'm sure many others have too. The fact that you and Chris Q haven't heard it, I would respectfully suggest, is immaterial. I haven't heard of many things in this encyclopaedia - it doesn't mean I think they should all be deleted as being useless. I come here to learn as well as to contribute. -- Necrothesp 19:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To me "syrup" is just as common as "eighty-sixed" – ie. I hear neither and couldn't comment if they're popular or used in modern speak. My objection is that it's not an actual British English word. Yes, it may be used by many people and creep into a few films, but to me this article is about the differences between British and American English, not words (or meanings thereof) used in the respective countries. I understand your argument, but I hope you can see what I'm saying too. violet/riga (t) 23:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't exactly understand what you mean by an "actual British English word". Syrup is an English word; wig is a British usage of it. How does that not make it a British English word? I think to strictly interpret your objection and put it into practice would mean losing many useful definitions from this list - all the slang in fact, which comprises a large part of the list. And what is slang? It is defined in the OED as "considered as below the level of standard educated speech". So this list should only include language used by educated people? Why? Is not slang British English? Many words we now accept as a standard part of the language originated as slang. I find it slightly elitist to suggest that these words don't belong on the list.

Take the word 'pants', for instance. It is now incredibly common in Britain to mean something that's not very good. But it's still slang. That's not its 'official' definition, it couldn't be considered 'proper' usage in your definition of the term, so does it belong here? I would argue that yes, it does. It's common usage, it is likely to be heard, it's entered the British vernacular, it deserves to be defined on this list. It's also been around for a much, much shorter period of time than 'syrup'.

I'm also interested in your comment: "If syrup, with that meaning, and other similar words are included I really think that this should be renamed to List of words having different meanings in Britain and the United States, but that excludes other English-speakers." Are you really saying that there are only two varieties of English: British and American? That is simply not the case. Australians, for instance, use many 'British English' words. They also use some 'American English' words and many that are peculiarly Australian. They don't speak British English or American English, but Australian English. The Wikipedia article on British English defines it as "a collective term for the forms of English spoken in the British Isles." Why should we use a different interpretation here? -- Necrothesp 00:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think there are obvious differences between (for example) the word "fag" and "syrup" using wig. Using the word "fag" for cigarette would be understood by everyone, and people using the word would assume that everyone would understand it. A non-British English speaker could read it from the list and use it as any other word and expect to be understood. This is not the case with "syrup" meaning wig. If someone came to Britain and said this I think they would stand a big chance of not being understood. Also, when I use dialect words, especially in other regions, I have an expectation that someone might misunderstand it and need an explanation. I would expect the other words on the list to be universally understood in Britain. Using the current list someone might say:

"He had a terrible trip coming back from the chemists. He had brought some nappies and a dummy for the baby but the outside lane was at a standstill. By the time he got back he was dead-beat.

This would be understood by anyone English. If we were to include local words from all large regions, someone could construct a sentence like

"He came down the apples because the bairn was girnin. Aye I'll get some bevvies in he thought when he heard the dog ring."

Nobody would actually speak like that. For this reason I would strongly advise against adding dialect words to this list. If necessary create a separate list for dialect and regional words, but this should be a guide for people who want to know common British usage. -- Chris Q 07:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, nobody would speak like that. But I also think it's highly unlikely that somebody would use Wikipedia in order to construct a sentence. I do think they might use it to find out what someone else is saying. In your example, I think only three words are worth including in any list of non-dialect terms: bairn, aye and bevvies. These have all entered the vernacular and are understood by British people outside their original areas. Of course, they also fall outside the remit of this list, since 'bairn' and 'bevvies' aren't used at all in America (as far as I know) and 'aye' would be understood by most native English speakers. -- Necrothesp 10:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I say "syrup" is not a British English word I am meaning that it's use as "wig" is not the correct, dictionary-accepted use. Also, obviously I know that there are different variations of English around the word (Australian, etc.) and your comment just furthers my point - the article clearly states that this is the difference between British and American English, not the others. My suggestion would be to rename this List of English words with different meanings in different countries - a horrible beast of a name (please suggest something better!) but more accurate to what is being said here.

Back to the point though, I think we should have only correct (OED) dictionary definitions in here (some slang terms are included in such dictionaries). Perhaps we could create a List of English slang words or something similar. My argument is that, to me, "syrup" (meaning wig) is part of Cockney rhyming slang and not British English. violet/riga (t) 09:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we must agree to disagree here. -- Necrothesp 10:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've read through this discussion again, and thought about it. I don't think I can be accused of being precipitate. I'm in agreement with Necrothesp, and I am unable to make sense of violet/riga's position, which is probably a failing on my part. I am minded to re-include 'syrup', but would really like input from some disinterested third parties. WLD 22:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you do I will split the list. There are any number of regional words in the UK and the US. I assume that you will also be adding to List of British English words not used in American English and List of American English words not used in British English, where there are literaly thousand of regional words. I will also split these -- Chris Q 07:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As we have already said several times, it's not a regional word. It indeed originated as one, but it has now spread. Language works like that. Just because two people haven't heard it does not mean it's invalid. An equal number of people have, and while WLD does come from the specific originating region of the term, I do not (in fact, I come from Cornwall, which has about as much in common with London as Yorkshire does). I'd always rather assumed that the purpose of an encyclopaedia was to impart information. I have also already said that I do not consider that words peculiar to very small regions should be included, but only words that have spread to much wider usage, as this has. Why on earth you have such a bee in your bonnet about this one particular word I'm afraid I just cannot fathom. -- Necrothesp 14:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I have said before I dispute that. I believe that someone reading a word on this list would have the reasonable expectation that a large majority of people in Britain would understand it. At lest two here had not heard of it. Imagine someone checking a document sees that in the UK we say "lift" instead of "elevator". They would change it and all would be fine. If they chaged "wig" to "syrup" a lot of people would not usnderstand it -- Chris Q 16:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, you're saying we should include no slang terms at all? Even if we say they're slang terms? Because otherwise someone might change their nice non-slang term to a slang term? Sorry, I think that's ridiculous. Everyday language includes vast amounts of slang. Slang should therefore be listed. And much of this list is already slang. Are you advocating removing anything that could vaguely be classified as a slang term because some poor soul might mistake it (even with a note that it is slang) as something they should use in a formal document? -- Necrothesp 16:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[drop indent]

Just because there are two people arguing against the word being included doesn't mean that we're a minority - there are only two people arguing for it too. Yes I know some people that have heard of it, but most people I know (I would say) do not use it at all or know what it is/means. As said above I really think we should just have a List of English slang article to include "syrup" and such things. And of course back to my main argument that English slang is a different thing to actual British English and "syrup" should either not be included or the scope of this article changed. violet/riga (t) 16:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did anyone say that you were a minority? I don't believe so. Does the fact that it's two against two in some way mean you and Chris Q are automatically right, or indeed that WLD and I are? No, of course not. But threats to split the list if something is added, particularly phrased in the way that Chris Q did, are not helpful and merely sound petulant. Once again, then. Do you really think that all slang expressions should be removed? Do you realise that much of the list is already slang? And most importantly, how would you actually define slang? I quote from the OED definition:

Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense.

Not an easy definition to agree on, is it? All the removal of slang will do is cause us endless arguments about what is and is not slang. -- Necrothesp 17:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I would split the list has been explained, and is not a threat. As the list stands at the moment someone can make a reasonable assumption that if they use the word in Britain they will be understood. If someone says "put the biscuits in the boot", everyone would understand that. If someone said "She had to wear a syrup since her hair fell out" many people would not understand it. I think there is a need to have a list of words that can be used with a reasonable expectation of being understood. There could be another list where other words are given, but people would not have the expectation that using them would sound like standard British (or American) English or be understood. -- Chris Q 07:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To quote you: "Just because two people haven't heard it does not mean it's invalid". That was why I mentioned about two people. While "slang" may be difficult to define exactly I really think that a little sense can be shown as to what is and what isn't classed as slang. As two of the four people here are against the inclusion of "syrup" and, to me, have provided good reasons why it shouldn't be there I think that's a good argument to class it as slang and not to have it here. violet/riga (t) 18:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Violet, you seem to me to be repeating your assertions without developing your argument, and repetition doesn't make them 'better' or more true. Hopefully I can address your points:

1) As two pairs of people seem to be at loggerheads, I have requested, via the village pump, for unprejudiced additional opinions. If you would care to inspect the appeal there, I hope you would agree it is non-partisan.

2) You have already said that 'syrup' is not used within the circles that you move, but admit that at least some of that circle have heard of the usage. In opposite and approximately equal contrast, most people I know would know of it, and even use it in a jocular fashion. I suggest we tie here.

3) I have no objections to an article that is a list of English slang in addition to the current one, although I think a separate Wiktionary would be more appropriate. As Wikipedia is not paper, I would be happy with both.

4) I disagree with your statement that English slang is not British English. You appear to operate under the impression that British English is defined by a 'good' dictionary, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, whereas I think it is imperfectly described by such dictionaries. I once held a view similar to what I beleive is yours, but changed my mind subsequently after much debate with English postgraduate students at the (UK) institution where I studied. I would be interested to understand the criterion or criteria by which you would categorise a word as slang or not.

5) Perhaps a scope change would resolve our differences. Are you saying there is scope for a 'narrow' article for words that appear only in dictionaries without being classified as slang; and a 'broad' article allowing inclusion of well known slang and regional dialect; and finally a 'broadest' article allowing any slang or regional dialect word, no matter how obscure? If so, I would vote for the current article being the 'broad' one, and for others to create the 'narrow' and 'broadest'. Wikipedia is not paper, so that's fine. There may be a minor problem with duplication of entries, but that is not necessarily a big issue.

WLD 17:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I repeated many points (and highlighted it as such) but when those points have not all been discussed then I felt it necessary to mention them again. Right, the points:

1) You could've mentioned it at WP:RFC but not to worry - hopefully someone else will come and give their view of the situation.

2) Perhaps, though I think that argument does have weight.

3/5) Creation of duplicate articles is not what we want if we can help it, my suggestion is to remove all slang words into the other article.

4) When most dictionaries don't include that definition I feel that it could easily be classed as slang.

Sorry for not writing more fully but I'm in a rush. violet/riga (t) 18:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello there, here's my 2 pennies. The issue is the purpose of the page from the POV of a potential user. Are they looking up some word they're confused about? Do they want a shortish list of key pitfalls to avoid? Do they want equivalents that will be readily understood in the other counntry? Do they want regional/slang words explained even some Brits don't know? (If anyone cares, I don't know syrup=wig - never heard it. I do know "butcher's" and a few others.) Probably all of these apply. And all can be accommodated on a single, large page by having suitable sections (Key Pitfalls, Common Words (including common slang), regional/dialect/uncommon slang). This satisfies all users (especially if we expect people looking for specific words to use 'find in page'). (The issue of Cockney rhyming slang remains - if you have it on the page in the (case by case) appropriate section, you duplicate other articles, but if you only have a link the find functionality is impaired. Pick your poison.) Rd232 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Syrup is not "a common British term for a wig". It's a dialect word--cockney rhyming slang--and would tend to raise eyebrows whenever used outside that context. In my opinion, it should be listed alongside a note to that effect, and we'll all be happy because we can get on to arguing about the next item of trivia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since this page will now have to include all cockney rhyme slang, dialect words, etc. it will no longer be useful to find words that are comonly used in the UK. I have therefore restricted the original page to words that would be understood by a majority of native speakers, and created a new page List of words having different meanings in British and American English, including minority usages for all the other words, which as you say would tend to raise eyebrows or just not be understood. -- Chris Q 09:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that will do. You've simply forked the list, creating future maintenance problems as words in common use are added to one or other of the two different lists. I hope you'll reconsider. There really aren't that many dialect words to catalog. A good compromise would be to create a new table on the original page solely for dialect words. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally I liked the way that it was before, with this page containing only words that most people in the UK would understand, and separate pages for Cockney rhyming slang, Scots language, etc. This made sense, as these regional words are as different from stndard British English as US English. Someone wanting to know a regional usage would look at that page. There are so many of these words that I don't think a seperate table in the same page will do. I though we were going to eait for the Wikipedia:Requests for comment before adding this word, but since it was re-added, and there are probably hundreds of other words not understood by the majority, I went with a split. It might be more sensible to have the seperate page listing only the minority words, however. -- Chris Q 09:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was never "that way before". It always contained words that not everyone would understand. It hasn't changed. All you've done is complicated matters because you didn't like the inclusion of a single word. Pretty pointless really. As we have said, this is not a regional word. It has spread beyond being a regional word. Nobody has even suggested the inclusion of every dialect word or regional word. You seem to read selectively, which makes it exceptionally difficult to have a sensible debate on the subject. -- Necrothesp 10:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never said words that not everyone would understand should not be included, I said words that a majority would not understand. I would certainly support removal of any words that are unlikely to be understood by a majority of native British English speakers. As I have said many times before I dispute the assertion that "syrup" is understood by the majority. Though far from enough to be conclusive we now have two people who say they have heard of it vs 3 who have not. If the general consensus is that it is understood by a majority, then I would be willing to have it included (but not if the consensus is that is not widely understood). Instead of waiting for a consensus it has just been re-added, without waiting for any conclusion. -- Chris Q 11:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who are you counting in the two who have heard of it? Count me in too, I'm from the NorthEast of England and I know what "syrup" means from television. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've got a suggestion. Why not just continue as before and people will continue to add words that aren't obviously foreign or frivolous. Then at some point it may appear that there is a problem, and there are substantial numbers of obscure words. At that point split the obscure words off into a separate list of some sort, if you think that will help. Since there isn't currently a problem, and syrup isn't that uncommon, there's no need to go off splitting at the moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh someone mentioned the RfC. Well that's how I got here. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, just leave it in Cockney rhyming slang and link to it from here, surely. violet/riga (t) 11:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with that, have links to the various dialect pages for words that wre not understood by a majority. -- Chris Q 11:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is it not simpler to have a single list of well-used words, with links from those words to other more detailed dialect/slang lists, than to make someone hearing an unfamiliar word search various different articles to find them? Well, that's what we currently have. Why complicate matters? -- Necrothesp 11:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simply because we're having this debate. We can argue the same points over and again and not agree but linking to cockney rhyming slang, I feel, is at least some compromise of it's inclusion. violet/riga (t) 11:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope that with enough debate we can reach an agreed upon solution. Wasn't it Churchill who said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war"? The VfD at present looks to be inclining towards not splitting the article. My position is that we should include the more common slang and dialect terms, simply as they are likely to turn up in media that either non-British English or non-American English speaking people are routinely (commonly?) exposed to. I would expect words like 'brass' (money) and 'syrup' (wig) to appear because the same word does have different meanings in the two dialects (AE & BE) and is liable to cause confusion - it's not immediately apparent that these words are used in regional dialect, as they do not have a different spelling to other commonly used words - so there's no signal for a non-native speaker to recognise that they are dialect and look them up in a slang or regional dialect article or dictionary. My (presumably biased) reading of the extra contributions to this debate solicited via WP:RFC is that there is more support for including common slang and regional dialect words than not. I may not use 'syrup', 'brass' or other such words in my everyday vernacular speech, but I do understand them, and I would posit that a majority of BE-speakers are in a similar position - people tend to recognise more words than they use. I know (t) would not agree on this point for the word 'syrup'. I suppose we are argueing (in the main) over how to determine what is a common (i.e. frequently recognised) term in BE, and I do not believe that the OED (for example) is a sufficiently good touchstone. Whether this view is simply an idiosyncratic view of mine alone, or has sufficient communal support to make it a 'guideline' for this page is a matter or further contribution and debate. Regards WLD 14:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I partly agree with the above. If a word would be understood by most native British English speakers then it should be included. If we include every possible cockney rhyme slang and other word used differently in dialects this would end up being almost as much a "List of words having different meanings in different regions of Britain and America" as a "List of words having different meanings in British and American English ". As well as all the cockney rhyme slang words (there are over 100 in Cockney rhyming slang, there would be words like pot, brass, while, right, were, pin, peg and many more. If the same were applied to the "words appearing only in British English" this would end up almost being a combination of all the dialect pages. I don't think this would be useful.

My original dispute was that "syrup" was not a common British word understood by the majority, as I have said before I am happy for it to be included if most people feel that it is. I am not happy with this page becoming a list of all possible regional meanings. -- Chris Q 14:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In this, I do not believe you will have much opposition. It's not what we've been arguing for. Most Cockney Rhyming Slang, for instance, is very specific to a small area and therefore not appropriate for this list. There is a difference between dialect, which should not be included unless it has spread into a wider consciousness, and slang. -- Necrothesp 15:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here from RfC. I do understand the usage, but it is exceedingly rare in my experience. I wouldn't expect to hear it in everyday speech, and if I did hear it, I would understand it as being used for comic effect. (Over the last few years I've worked in Stevenage, Portsmouth, Solihull, Farnborough (Hants) and Swansea, so I get about a bit.) In my (original) neck of the woods, you might expect to hear "I took my bit of crackling for some snap, duck", but I wouldn't expect to see any of those terms in this article because they are about as specialized a usage as 'syrup' for wig. They would belong in an article on slang or dialect, and not in this article. Noisy | Talk 00:12, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

This is the STUPIDEST argument I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I am aghast that anyone thinks that syrup should be on this list and I speak as someome who would be inclined to use the word myself. The plain fact of the matter is in ordinary everyday usage very few people in the UK would use the word "syrup" in preference to the word wig even if they are familiar with its use. The word's primary meaning to the vast majority of people in Britain is the same as in the US i.e. Golden syrup and maple syrup etc.. IVoteTurkey 01:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? Does this list only include words in "ordinary everyday usage"? Where does it say that? The primary meaning of "bird" isn't a prison sentence either (or even a girl, especially not these days). It's a feathery, winged animal. Does that mean it shouldn't be on the list? -- Necrothesp 11:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Necrothesp - By far the most common meaning for "Bird" as a British slang word (or as the Americans would say "Britishism") is woman/girlfriend, this usage is very common (like "dame" used to to be in the US), "bird" as slang for being in prison is much less common. In fact you may not realise it but it is itself Cockney Rhyming Slang i.e. Bird lime = doing time. It makes sense to include bird on this list for the former reason and consequently to include a passing reference to the latter. IVoteTurkey

Of course it does. But by far the most common British usage of "bird" is still for the animal. I was merely refuting your apparent claim that since one usage is more common than the other it should be the only one included. -- Necrothesp 13:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well - the point is that "Bird" in the context of girlfriend is understood throught much of the UK, and it is therefore understood by Americans to be a Britishism, which qualifies it to be listed here. "Syrup" on the other hand is far far less common, it is regional. Someone above mentions "duck" - this is regional slang in the midlands that is used in a similar fashion to the words "pal" or "mate" or "luv". It is extremely uncommon outside of this region. If you heard it in London you would either be confused by its use in this context, because this usage would be unfamiliar to you and you would be trying to resolve its conventional meaning into the context in which it was spoken, or if you recognised it, you would recognise it as an alien construction from outside your region. I think that the same applies to "syrup". I speak as someone who has received sideways glances from a number of people here in the UK when I've used the word "syrup" by those unfamiliar the CRS meaning. IVoteTurkey 13:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fear we are just going round in circles here, but I will make one point. "Duck", as a term of endearment, is also used in Yorkshire, not just in the Midlands - a pretty big area. I was brought up in Cornwall, a long, long way away from either area (and in which, incidentally, the equivalent term is "my lover", used indiscriminately and with no sexual connotation). When I was eighteen (many years ago) I arrived in Sheffield to begin university and I have to say that I wasn't in the least confused by being called "duck" (or rather "dook") by every middle-aged woman I encountered. Even at that age I already knew that it was a Northern equivalent of "love". In Britain, one would have had to have resided in a sealed box all one's life not to. So I really don't think your argument on that point stands up and I do think it belongs on the list. -- Necrothesp 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well as I said this is a stupid argument. The ultimate purpose of this encyclopaedia is to provide enlightenment to the reader and not entertainment to the writers. The basic question surrounding inclusion/exclusion on this page should be the usefulness of the information. To include "syrup" on this page is to give the impression that it is widely understood in Britain and that is clearly a falsehood. That should be the bottom line. There is a place for "syrup" on the Cockney Rhyming Slang page along with "sweaty" and "septic". The word "syrup" has not become as commonplace as a word such as "berk" (to the extent that few people realise what that word actually refers to) or "barnet" or some of the other words in common usage in Britain that have their origin in CRS. This is that last I have to say on the matter. IVoteTurkey 22:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opinion is not automatically "the bottom line"! Indeed the purpose is to provide enlightenment to the reader, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. -- Necrothesp 01:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but your opinion is not automatically "the bottom line"! Indeed - no-one argues that it is. You seem to have mis-interpreted my comment and taken offence. I was merely announcing my withdrawl from the debate (aside from this additional coda) which has, as yourself said, become circular. IVoteTurkey 10:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The inclusion of "syrup" is wrong for a very simple reason. Syrup only means wig in specific circumstances. If you saw an obviously bald man in a ginger wig you might whisper to your friends "pssst.. check out the syrup". i.e. it is used for 'comedic effect' and almost exclusively in reference to mens' wigs. You would never hear a woman saying "shall I wear a my blond or red syrup tonight" - to suggest that you would (by putting it on this list) is just silly. Jooler

And you could say that about almost every word on the list. Context is always important. Should we not include vulgar or obscene terms because they might be used inappropriately? Funnily enough, it is possible to record notes on usage like this on the list. As is already done. -- Necrothesp 15:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that what you say is correct. Give me an example, of a usage that is restricted to "comic effect" and is also highly regional like "syrup"? Jooler 18:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The claim that it's always used for "comic effect" is untrue. It can be, but not always. The claim that it's "highly regional" has been endlessly disputed already above. -- Necrothesp 21:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is true that it is almost always used for comic effect. If you truly beleive the opposite I wonder why you said "And you could say that about almost every word on the list." in response ot my mention of its usage. I would imagine that when most people think of its use they would think either in terms of the example I gave above or in an episode of Only Fools And Horses etc.. And it is highly regional, exposure outside of the CRS catchment area is almost certainly due to programmes like the above mentioned OFAH. Jooler 22:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

As an American not proficient in British English, I am in no position to comment on how common this meaning of "syrup" is.

But there are multiple issues here, and I think that is the first one, and posssibly the only one, to be decided. What I'd like to suggest is getting wider input specifically from British English users as to how well they would understand this meaning. I think there is a UK regional noticeboard. You also might ask at the linguistics pages and the British English page, or run a poll. Maurreen 16:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I come from an interesting perspective on this debate: I don't and have never lived in Britain, but I speak and write British English, and so do many people I encounter in daily life. "British English" isn't exclusively British, you must understand: if it were called something that didn't contain "British", like "ISO-Standard English", the controversy would go away (well, so long as the ISO endorsed it). Just because British English originated in Britain and some British group uses a particular bit of slang doesn't make that slang "British English". It makes it British slang. I don't think Brits (or Aussies, New Zealanders, Europeans who've learned English in Britain, etc) would care to have slang from my part of the world incorporated into "British English" either, eh?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:51, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Saxifrage - sounds like you speak Commonwealth English - though I've had Canucks berate me for telling them that "Eggplant" is an Americanism!

Why has "cronky" and "cronked out" been removed? Where are my "undies"! I live in Yorkshire, and these are perfectly everyday words. (What the chuff is a "ginger group"!).

I think this debate includes the whole issue of what this part of WP is for... and the issue of rethinking how these pages are divided; about what 'is' British' English and what isn't; about what 'is' a word, and what 'isn't'.

There seems to be real inconsistency here - those who wanted to split up the page in the current unsatisfactory way seem to want to include regional dialect (which I support, with caveats), it looks like it's going to fill up with a lot of slang, regionalisms and swear words anyway. Necrothesp shares my view about slang being perfectly valid as "British English", I also have a view that just because a word is a homophone and a homograph, it does not make it the same word - especially in two dialects.

My point is that all words must be included regardless of whether they have an American homonym or are a regional dialectal word - with the caveat that this fact is mentioned. The pages need to be unified in terms of which dialect group they fall into, and broken up into alphabetical pages (A, B, C, ...). Where's the concensus?!

It takes one to know one 09:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Consolidation of articles?

Hmm, I'm confused. There seems to be three separate articles in WP that serve the purpose of explaining American/British differences. I added a bunch to one of them this morning, without really thinking about where they should go, because only that one page happened to be on my watchlist. Someone later kindly reorganised them. However, given a word or phrase, it's hard to know which page they should go on. More importantly, anyone coming to WP as a reference for these differences has to either look in all three places, or else might miss one or more of them. Maybe the three articles should be consolidated into one, so that's what I'm proposing. I think the form on this page is the most useful, with three columns rather than two. However, there should be two tables - one for British words and one for American words. They can appear one above the other. By consolidating the tables under one article heading, I think the ambiguity can be avoided and the page become much more useful. What do others think? Graham 04:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe these were previously separated due to size. I think the categories are quite clear, especially as there are links to the other articles. -- Chris Q 07:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "size" is ever a good reason alone to split an article - no other articles do this, no matter how large they get. WP is not paper, so you don't find History of England (part 1) and History of England (part 2) etc. I disagree that the categories are clear, it was my confusion that led me to this proposal in the first place. Graham 00:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is just size, though this can be a problem for people with slow connections. I think the split is logical. -- Chris Q 07:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but I think size is a reasonable reason to split articles, as long as the split is logical, and people can easily find one from another. Maurreen 16:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the word "logical" is being misused here: it's 'convenient' for users with a slow connection to have the article split into 'pages'; the issue is perhaps 'how' to do that split. I think it's more logical to build the unified tables, and break them up into 'A-L' and 'M-Z' (or more if necessary). It takes one to know one 16:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Differentiate between Standard, non-standard and "slang". Ken Mair 18 Dec 2004

Rare word

Can someone who knows what "undepilated" means replace it with something more intelligible? (under beaver) Thanks. 212.159.61.65 15:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, so undepilated is a bit of a rara avis linguistically speaking. I was surprised to see only 'about 35' matches in Google, and 8,310 matches for 'depilated'. Anyway, pilus is the Latin noun for 'a hair', and pilare is the Latin verb meaning 'to remove or strip of hair'. Depilate is an English verb, meaning to remove hair, formed from the Latin noun root - hence depilatory creams for removing hair. Undepilated is therefore something that hasn't been depilated i.e. hasn't had the hair removed. A possible alternative might be 'unshaven', although not strictly correct as there are ways of removing hair other than shaving - the use of depilatory creams that dissolve the hair is one, singeing is another. WLD 16:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bollocks

(Haven't you always wanted to post that as a heading?)

Here's a curiosity. The UK/Ireland has Bollocks. I always though this was unknown in the US until I watched Chisum and John Wayne said to someone "Don't make a bollocks of it", or rather "Don't make a bollix of it" as I later found out (meaning don't mess it up). I was shocked, I can tell you. Then I found most (but not all) Americans I met were unfamilar with the UK meaning. I assume the words come from the same (ahem) seed, but have arrived at different places, with different spelling. A way to handle it? Icundell 21:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neither "bollix" or "bollocks" are common in the USA. It's possible that it had been common but has fallen into disuse. Maurreen 05:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That use of "bollix" (as in to mess something up) is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary and not as being peculiarly American (although some of the examples of usage given are American, so it certainly has been used over there). It's in common use in the British Army and I've heard it in civvie street in Britain as well (although not so commonly). So not actually a word with different meanings in British and American English. According to the OED, it is the verb derived from "bollocks", so you "bollix something up" but "make a bollocks of it"! "It's bollixed" is also used in the Army to mean "it's broken". -- Necrothesp 11:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm, the point I was making was that we have a wider range of meanings but that, strictly, they are different words, though phonetically identical (near as dammit). Americans don't use it in its anatomical sense, nor in the 'load of bollocks' sense. Many will be familiar with the use you describe (thanks to John Wayne :=>), but be surprised at the UK spelling. I have never seen the x version used in UK English, and think most Brits would be surprised at that version. So which version to use (for alphabetising purposes) in the listing? Icundell 23:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing with your point. I was merely providing further information. I haven't seen the 'x' version used in written UK English either (except in the OED), but then neither have I ever seen it used in US English. -- Necrothesp 01:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Webster's Fourth New World College Dictionary lists both spelling, but says "bollocks" is chiefly British. It also gives similar definitions for both, including "testicles." But outside of a John Wayne movie, I'd be surprised to hear either from an American. Maurreen 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just wactched a snippet of the "100 greatest cartoons" on Channel 4, and they has a clip from The Flintstones in which Wilma said "bollix". Jooler 00:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Wilma said it then they are clearly different words! A cartoon aimed at children in Britain would not have any character say bollocks, at least not in the era in which the Flintstones was made. In my experience the word in British English is always intended to be either at least slightly offensive or anatomically descriptive, neither of which fit Wilma's character. :-) --Kjwhitefoot 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually Kjwhitefoot, I have also seen the channel 4 program and the clip definitely shows Wilma saying "bollocksed it up". I can't think why she as a cartoon character would be using that language, but they definitely made a big deal of it on channel 4. 86.142.69.254

Hood

What's the American term for the hood on a convertible? Donald, 4.19 a.m., 19th December 2004 (GMT)

A hood is always a hood, regardless of the car type. Maybe you mean "trunk", the area in back for storage? Maurreen 04:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the fabric hood on a convertible is very different to the hard roof of a closed car. Surely there is a different term for it? Donald, 7.54 a.m., 19th December 2004 (GMT)

Now I see what you mean, but I'm not sure of the answer. The "hood" is always the front area where the engine normally is. Maurreen 14:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think we just call it the "top" or "roof". Maurreen 05:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or Tonneau cover which is its proper name? Or is it? On reflection i wonder if that refers to a flat cover such as used on pickups and utes...? Graham 05:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know Tonneau cover is used for certain pickup bed covers.

Donald, maybe a car page can give you a more-informed answer than we can. Maurreen 05:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A tonneau cover is a cover for a tonneau, of course. Tonneau meaning a type of barrel in French. A tonneau, properly, is an open car with a rounded "barrel-like" rear with a rear door. It was a car body style popular only in the Veteran (pre-1905) and possibly Edwardian (pre-1919) periods. A tonneau cover, naturally, is a cover for such a car to prevent water getting in on rainy days that clips over the open car back.

A more modern somewhat-correct usage of it is a cover that clips over the open area of a roadster or convertible car, generally with press studs or something to attach it around the edge. Often these allow the area over the driver's seat to be unbuttoned/unzipped so that the car can be driven with the cover (largely) in place. You'll see classic British sports cars with these fitted sometimes; my ex boss had an Aston Martin DB5, I think, that he fitted one of these to. Sometimes the term was also used for a cover for the rear seat space of a 4-seater convertible to make it appear a 2-seater; Ford sold these for the Thunderbird convertible in the US during the early 1960s.

In more modern usage, tonneau cover has degraded into a fancy term for a cover over the open cargo space of a hatchback, estate car (station wagon), SUV or the like. This term generally applies to a fabric cover for this area, often one that rolls up like a roller blind. The point is, I believe, to hide your belongings so that they aren't as temptingly displayed for the rovingly criminal.

The term is also sometimes used for pickup truck bed covers, yes.

As for the folding top on a convertible car, this is generally "convertible top" in US English. —Morven 16:41, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

This meaning of "hood" now added, with "convertible top" as the U.S. version. Thanks for your input, chaps. Donald, 21.15, 21 December '04 (GMT)

Which reminds me of another one: aren't "chaps" also something that cowboys wear?

Chaps are leg coverings worn over pants (trousers, not underpants). I don't know why they're worn, but I know that chaps is a short form of another word. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 21:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Chaps are also used by motorcyclists. They are worn to protect the rider (of the bike or horse) in case of a spill. --Trweiss 00:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, interestingly, the covering my father, an American, puts over his convertible top when it is retracted is called, by him, a "boot", which, as I understand it, is the British word for what to us is a trunk. Aratuk 15:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The boot, on a convertible in the US, is a covering which you put over the retracted roof. This is for aesthetics and, presumably, to reduce wind resistance. --Trweiss 00:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pop: Geographic distribution of soft drink term

I dispute the purported geographic distribution of the term "pop" for soft drink in the U.S. It is not used so much in the South (where Coke is the generic term), as it is used in parts of the Upper Midwest, Great Plains, and Pacific Northwest. See this link: http://www.popvssoda.com/.

solicitor - us meaning?

Doesn't solicitor also mean a telephone sales-person in the US? (My wife from Texas uses it this way though she doesn't know id it is just a regional usage)

It can also be one who sells "door to door". Mga 17:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It certainly means door to door selling in Raleigh, N.C. Lots of buildings have notices on the doors saying 'No soliciting' which always makes me smile because I'm British and soliciting in British English is short for 'soliciting for immoral purposes', that is, attempting to pick up a prostitute on the street. --Kjwhitefoot 23:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Period

I'm not going to continue reverting this, because I've got better things to do and have no particular wish to be insulted by people such as User:Jooler who cannot accept that they don't know everything (and refer to those who disagree as "stupid" and "ignorant"), but I would like to point out that just because certain people haven't heard a usage DOES NOT mean it does not exist. "Period" IS used as an end of sentence emphasis in British English as an alternative to "full stop", although it apparently won't continue to appear in the table. It is not an Americanism, but a residual usage of a term that was once commonly used in Britain. It is no longer, however, used for the punctuation mark itself. -- Necrothesp 10:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Keep your syrup on, period" Jooler 11:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jooler that the use of the word "period" as a term of emphasis has enjoyed a small vogue in the UK as a result of imported television programs and movies. Most people who use it in this way are probably conscious that they are adopting an imported usage; in time it may become part of the British idiom, as may the use of the word "period" to describe punctuation, but currently they are not. I agree that Jooler could have been more diplomatic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it is not an Americanism, but a usage that has never left us. You are aware that the British used "period" for "full stop" at one time, are you? We don't do that any more, but the emphasis meaning has remained. And the Americans, as in many aspects of their language, have retained an old meaning, not invented a new one. Language works in these mysterious ways. Interesting you use the American spelling of "program", incidentally. -- Necrothesp 11:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you can provide a reference for the claim that period was used in British English for emphasis some time before World War II then you'll have established that it British English rather than a minor crossover term.

I seldom use British English in any written text, but I'm intimately familiar with the language. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any specific references before WWII, but it was used in the Proceedings of the British Academy (not the sort of publication in which you'd expect Americanisms, particularly not then) by the English philosopher of language J. L. Austin in 1956 (OED reference). And there are plenty of references to its use to refer to the punctuation mark in Britain before the 20th century.

In addition, the OED definition of "period" is as follows: "The point or character that marks the end of a complete sentence; a full stop (.). Also added to a statement to emphasize a place where there is or should be a full stop, freq. (colloq.) with the implication ‘and that is all there is to say about it’, ‘and it is as simple as that’." There is no reference to it's being an Americanism, which would always be highlighted in the OED if it were the case ("chiefly U.S." is the phrase they use). If the OED does not consider it an Americanism then that's good enough for me. -- Necrothesp 12:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The point is, that you are claiming that it is regularly used in British English as emphasis. This is just not true. Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus what the word 'period' means and I very much doubt he is going to say it means emphasis or a full stop unless he qualifies it as an Americanism. The supposed emphasis comes from its use in American English where its vocalisation means "full stop, end of discussion". Its rare use in modern Britain (usually by adolescents in my experience) is solely based upon its usage in American English and the seepage that is all too common from American TV and films. Jooler 13:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "in your experience" does not constitute good evidence. There are many millions of people in the UK - they do not all necessarily use English as you do, nor have you encountered more than a tiny fraction of them. I completely reject your allegation that its use stems merely from seepage from US TV and films, a claim for which incidentally you have provided no evidence except your own opinion. I've provided some evidence for my opinion. Now kindly do the same. You may be interested to learn that your opinion carries no more weight than mine unless backed up by something more concrete. Oh, and I didn't say it was commonly used to mean a full stop in this country (although it once was) - that is an Americanism in everyday speech. -- Necrothesp 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

blah blah blah... the bottom line is that verbalizing the punctuation sign and using the word "period" is an Americanism, it is not British English, full stop. Jooler 14:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's merely your bottom line (which is an Americanism, incidentally) and your opinion. My bottom line is that it isn't an Americanism, period or full stop (the choice is yours)! -- Necrothesp 15:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...I think the point is that it has faded out of use to such an extent that it can no longer be considered a Britishism. If that sounds like an oxymoron, take "real good" - we'd think of that as an Americanism; a little research might reveal that Shakespeare may have used vernacular such as that. I still regard "draft" as an Americanism, and insist upon using "draught". The good news is, that it's not all one-way traffic, and Midwest Americans are starting to "whinge" as well as any little Englander! It takes one to know one 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Draft" is most certainly an Americanism unless you're talking about an early copy of a document, a money order, or a new consignment of troops, which are usually spelt that way even in British English. -- Necrothesp 18:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

(or a cold wind; a piece from a board game...) ...You mean you haven't noticed it creeping in? My old university welfare officer e-mailed me about a letter she was helping me with just to correct me writing "draught" (as in a first draught); I explained to her she was using an Americanism... imagine the shame of it a prim and plummy southern rose, being corrected by rougharse northerner! It takes one to know one 09:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, she was right. "First draft" is correct in both British and American English; "first draught", while not entirely incorrect in British English, is odd usage and is certainly not an Americanism. The word has two different spellings in British English, valid for different meanings, but only one in American English. -- Necrothesp 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my (tardy) jumping in, but I guess it's pretty safe to assume that this long-time spat is over once and for all thanks to the new notation we devised for the new version of this article. Just take a gander if you got the time... --JackLumber 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Medical Doctors

In the USA, medical doctors and surgeons are both M.D.'s (as in Jane Jones, M.D.) and both are addressed as "Doctor." I have the impression, from reading English novels, that in England surgeons are referred to as Mr. (and Miss/Mrs.?), and that this conveys a higher status than Dr. Can someone clarify this?

A hospital specialist or surgeon would be called "Mister" and this would usually rank him above MDs in a hospital. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Britain, very few doctors are MDs. Most are MBChB (Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery) - a course which takes as long as the American MD but gives a different qualification. They are still entitled to the courtesy title of "Doctor", however. Only the most highly qualified actually hold an MD. Only qualified surgeons (i.e. Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons - FRCS), not specialists (except gynaecologists, who traditionally also hold the title), are entitled to be called Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms. This does not technically confer higher status - the hospital ranks in all specialties, surgical and otherwise, are House Officer/Senior House Officer/Registrar/Consultant and most consultants are not actually surgeons (a consultant physician is just as senior as a consultant surgeon). -- Necrothesp 01:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The title "Mister" dates to the 18th Century, when British physicians did have MD degrees but barber-surgeons did not; see Surgery#Development_of_modern_surgery. Joestynes 01:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All physicians in Britain normally use the title "Dr", and surgeons "Mr", whether or not they have a doctoral degree, although I have noticed some general dental practitioners recently using the term "Dr" - maybe under US influence. Mark O'Sullivan 09:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

People are confusing two meanings of the word 'doctor'. As far as I can make out the D in MD in US usage now actually means medical doctor whereas the D in M.D. in British English usage is an academic degree (Bachelor, Master, Doctor). --Kjwhitefoot 23:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

twat

Current definition (part): "alternative to twit (a largely inoffensive term for someone who is a bit silly, although some consider 'twat' to be offensive)"

I was surprised and saddened to see that it is considered that "twat" is equivalent to "twit". I would argue that most Britons consider "twat" to be as vulgar as "fuck", and very few Britons would say that "twat" and "twit" are interchangeable. "Twit" is so weak as to be considered a child's word. "Twat" is similar in strength to "moron".

To my mind twat is slang for vagina. I tend to agree with you, but possibly there's a regional variation on how strong it is considered. Jooler 01:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, most British people would definitely not regard "twat" as anywhere near as vulgar as "fuck" (or as strong as "moron"), and many wouldn't even be aware of its sexual context (the mild insult usage being much more common than the anatomical usage in the UK). It is indeed often used as an alternative to "twit". I'm not sure why you're saddened - it's not being used here in its sexual sense. That's the beauty of language - different meanings are, well, different, even if they come from the same source. -- Necrothesp 12:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Twat" comes from "twatchel" which is a literal word for tunnel - hence its use to describe the vagina specifically, and female sexual organs in general. In terms of it being vulgar or benign, this comes down to context, class and the regional regard for female genitals. "Fucking twat" shouted at a soccer match might be quite offensive and lead to fisticuffs, though "you're a twat sometimes" might be an almost endearing jibe to a friend on another occaision. An An 10:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a vulgar term with or without its sexual connotations and the people I know certainly wouldn't compare it to "twit"! I've reworked the entry. violet/riga (t) 10:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I live in the north of England, and it's perfectly common for one's wife to "twat her husband on the head, if they're being a silly twat, for crawling back home twatted after a night out chasing twat." Pardon me, I'm sure! ; ) It takes one to know one 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If she called someone else's husband a twat it might raise one or two eyebrows though. Certainly regarded as vulgar in the south. However, I suspect that many are unaware of the anatomical meaning. Also don't forget that the UK is still, or perhaps increasingly, a class conscious society and words that are common within one group can be almost wholly unused possibly even unknown to another group living in the same geographical area. --Kjwhitefoot 23:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

To add my ha'pence, I am aware of "twat" with both connotations (twit and vagina) but find that the meaning is largely contextual - "show me your twat" isn't too ambiguous nor is "you silly old twat" - it should be possible for both definitions to peacefully co-exist. This word is similar in its social acceptance to "slut" which in some circles means "untidy" or "messy" in others means "whore" - its use by some who are familiar with the tamer meaning can, and does shock the other, but context can go a lot of the way to habilitate its use DavidP 15:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

soda

"(UK: fizzy drink or colloquially (fizzy) pop)"

The terms "fizzy drink" and "pop" are equally colloquial. The formal term is "(carbonated) soft drink". (When I was young they were called "minerals".)

An intresting site to view on this and related words is: http://popvssoda.com. Dalf | Talk 20:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

dirt

Where I'm from, Cheshire, "dirt" is often used to mean "soil", "earth", and I'm sure this is true of some other parts of Britain too.

Certaainly true of the south west. Please sign with four tildes ~~~~ so that we know who we are talking to. --Kjwhitefoot

fanny

The word "fanny" (BrEng) may be vulgar, but it is not obscene.

I agree! Though I did suffer a fit of embarrassment when walking down an Australian street with an American friend and he loudly remarked that I should put something or other on my fanny (he meant bottom) ... its not as obscene as "cunt" for example, and is a word which might be said to a child ("wash your Fanny Adams"). Its also a woman's name. An An 10:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I were to make a table of female genitalia (one of my first celestial projects upon my arrival in heaven) I would go for (from least offensive to most offensive): Vulva/Volvo, Vagina, Aunt Mary, Front Bottom, Camel's Toe, Badge(r), Bald man in a Boat, Hairy Pie, Bargain Bucket, Kipper, Cathedral, Mapatasi, Clown's Pocket, Furry Bicycle, Beard, Bearded Clam, Cabbage, Califlower (<- C18th), (Pink) Lettuce, Fish Mitten, Chuff, Haddock Pastie, Furry Cup, Hairy Goblet, Circle (<- Shakespearean), Muff, Cod Cove, Fish Box, Lab Kebab, Vertical Bacon Butty, Bear-trapper's Hat, Blart, Bliff, Flange, Padge, Boris, Gertie, Buttered Bun, Clodge, Butcher's Window, Fur/Bikini Burger, Captain's Pie, Fanny, Fadge, Snatch, Box (of assorted creams), Minge, Crack, Twat, Cunt, Gash, War/Axe wound,

(and many, many, more...)

...Now don't get me started on willies! :0 It takes one to know one 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

homely

I'm British, and I understand a woman described as "homely" to be plain.

You were as of 1994 in the minority; see SARA (intermittent link) for the British National Corpus. Americanisms do tend to become naturalized. Joestynes 04:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where on that page is your justification? I've just looked and what I saw were mostly literary references of little relavance to everyday English usage. Or are you taking plain to mean ugly? --Kjwhitefoot 23:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

alternately plastered professor

I removed plastered because it is definitely used all the time in America in just the same sense (that is, being right bollocksed, I think, which isn't), and professor because although I believe the portion of those considered professors is greater at American universities, there are plain lecturers, instructors, writers-in-residence or whatever else as well. The distinction made wasn't quite correct; a full professor with tenure (sometimes called just "tenured Professor" or at Harvard "University Professor") in America is equally the highest academic rank, below which there is Associate Professor, and so on. In America the precise title is somewhat inconsistent between universities but it refers to the same position as in Britain. The greater proportion of professors among a faculty is bound to result from the distinction being easier to attain in the US than in the UK, but the word itself refers to the same thing. Aratuk 15:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that any academic in a US university with "professor" in their title (including associate and assistant professors) is usually addressed simply as "professor". Is this incorrect? I have certainly heard American students refer to any member of academic staff in this way, which would not be done in Britain. If it is correct, then the bit you removed was actually accurate. -- Necrothesp 00:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that bit should go back in, with a concise explanation. I'd do it myself, but I don't feel clear enough on the subject. Also, I don't think alternately means alternatively in America. I'm an American and I've certainly never heard that sense used, and I would think anyone a fool who tried. Aratuk 18:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge International Dictionary definitely think that "alternate" = "alternative" in the US. Merriam-Webster and Encarta give the two as being synonyms without any national indicators. Any other Americans like to comment? -- Necrothesp 20:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's strange. I guess that's a case of a word usage being incorrect for so long and so broadly that it becomes true. (Like factoid, which refers to a false piece of information believed by many to be true because of common repetition, being ironically believed by many to mean a small, cute, perfectly true baby fact [which will often carry the true meaning unintentionally].) I don't like it, and I guess that if I have heard it before I've just been thinking I've met a lot of fools, and so haven't remembered. Incidentally, I think I see what you mean now with professor. In terms of direct address, I don't think people in America call one another "Professor" very usually, but "Dr." or "Mr./Ms./Mrs./Señor/&c." instead. In reference to someone you might say "Professor so-and-so" or "Associate Professor so-and-so", but to be correct you would make the distinction between a full professor and one who isn't. Admittedly, though, I'd be more comfortable if someone would corroborate this. Aratuk 02:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, in the U.S., everyone who teaches at a college or university, with the exception of TAs, are addressed by students as "professor so-and-so" or just plain "professor". Other professors almost always address and refer to each other by their first name, as is the case with pretty much every profession in the U.S. This includes full professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lecturers. At least this was at Cornell University and I believe this usage is fairly widespread.

Occasionally, professors will refer to each other as "professor so-and-so" in front of students, but this is a pretty pedantic usage and risks being interpreted as condesceding or rude. In my experience, with the exception of use by children, any sort of "Mr./Mrs./Dr." usage as a form of address is generally considered so formal as to be distancing or condescending or sarcastic. Nohat 06:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Britain, any academic who wasn't actually a professor would simply be addressed by their degree or lack of (Dr/Mr/Mrs etc). Although Britain is (oddly) a much less formal country than the United States, and many students are on first name terms with their lecturers/tutors. -- Necrothesp 10:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One or eleven

ace: "a one or eleven in a suit of playing cards"

Does this mean that over there, you also call the jack the "ace"? Or what? -- Smjg 10:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a reference to blackjack. Are there other card games where an ace is worth 11? Joestynes 10:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of. The definition as it stands is nothing but misleading, and should be reverted if nobody has a better explanation. -- Smjg 11:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should be reverted. -- Necrothesp 11:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree that it should be reverted. WLD 07:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band

I removed this term as there isn't any difference in meaning in British English or American English, or at least not in the two meanings previously given. Obviously band meaning musical group is very common in the United States. If indeed band is not used in British English to mean a wedding ring, there is a different list for that sort of thing. -Acjelen 15:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(moved from my talk page)

What are the differences between the British and American uses of the word band? -Acjelen 21:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

American usage includes the meaning of "ring"

Band has such a wide variety of meanings: it hardly seems accurate to state that the British use the word to mean "musical group" while Americans use it to mean "wedding ring". When Americans use band to mean wedding ring, they are using it both figuratively and literarly (that is, a band is something that binds you and all rings are bands). -Acjelen 15:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, I have ammended the entry to use (none special) which seems to be the way that common meanings are indicated -- Chris Q 06:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"None special" is not very helpful. It would be better to indicate that some Americans sometimes refer to wedding rings as wedding bands, but that in all other ways, the use of the word band is the same among all english speakers and that most Americans most of the time use wedding ring to refer to wedding rings. Otherwise, it appears that Americans do not use the term wedding ring and that it may be that folks in the UK may have a different term for rubber bands, such as rubber ring.

"Wedding band" is used in Britain. Nowhere is it as common as "weding ring." ProhibitOnions 10:58:56, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Meaning (none special)

There are a number of items that are listed as having a meaning of '(none special)'. If this is the case the surely they don't belong on this page but rather on List of British English words not used in American English or List of American English words not used in British English Jooler 08:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not that there are no meanings there, it's that there are none specific to that region not also used by the other region. If meaning X is uk-specific and meanings Y and Z are common to both, some entries state UK:X, US:none-special; other entries state UK:X (+US meanings), US:Y,Z. This is of course inconsistent, but not in the way you suggest. Some day this inelegant page will be a Template or Category in Wiktionary. Some day. Joestynes 09:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was done by Lysdexia a while back - see archived discussion. It's just plain silly to me - we should work on putting back the common meanings, complete with "(+UK meaning)" and "(+US meaning)" as appropriate. -- Smjg 15:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"(none special)" is handy where there are lots of shared meanings e.g. band, ring. Broadening the discussion, there is also a problem of homonyms being grouped, e.g. sic is not one word with 2 different meanings, it's 2 words, one an Americanism, the other a Latinism. I think the 3-way distinction "different meanings"/"British only"/"American only" falls between two stools of comprehensive distinction and simple blanket listing, and imposes an artificial rigid structure on a continuum of degrees of overlap. This means there are also frequent cases of words being shifted from one page to another, or duplicated on two pages. Pending Wiktionarification, I would prefer all these vocabulary differences to be on a single page, enumerating only non-shared meanings, with (none) or (others shared) where appropriate. Saying "comforter" means "quilted bedspread" is useful; saying it means "one who comforts" is pretty tedious. Joestynes 07:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aside from what's already been said (did you actually read the archived discussion?), a list of dialectal differences in the meanings of the same words is a useful resource in itself and should be kept. Mixing it with words that only exist in one dialect would clutter it up quite a bit. Moreover, is it that difficult to check for and clear out duplicates between this, List of British English words not used in American English and List of American English words not used in British English? -- Smjg 09:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the case of wedding band, that usage of the term band is an American slang usage or colloquillism as the term wedding ring is far more prevalent in America. As Americans also refer to a group of wedding musicians as a wedding band, wedding band is not a word having different meanings in British and American English, but one where Americans sometimes provide an extra meaning evidently believed by some to be not used much outside America.

Yes, I read the proposal. Why wasn't it implemented? Joestynes 00:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean the proposal to have three columns of meanings? I guess partly because none of us got round to it, and partly because we hadn't decided what to do with the likes of "(+ US meaning as an Americanism)" and meanings that are on both sides but rare on one. If we can come to a decision, I'd be happy to do it and tidy up things in the process. -- Smjg 10:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I meant. To avoid repeating myself ad nauseam, I'll just say, I would hate to see other Wikipedians putting effort here into an imperfect categorization with information that is more appropriate to Wiktionary. I would be interested in any work that improves each project's ability to cross-pollinate the other, but not in duplicating work. I fear that if a would-be editor feels they have to add all 9 shared meanings of some word when they want to mention the one distinct meaning, they may just not bother adding it at all. Of course, they might add the one distinct and leave the drudgery of adding the other 9 to good citizens like Smjg. Better would be: add it to Wiktionary with some kind of categorization tag, and have some link in Wikipedia to the list of all such tagged items. Joestynes 10:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Amber

The British meaning properly refers to the colour (actually an orangey yellow) rather than to the traffic light, though the traffic light is indeed by far the most common occurrence of this colour by this name. Only children who don't know better would even tend to describe the colour simply as "yellow". In the US, is the light more a plain yellow, or is it the same colour but you just call it "yellow"? -- Smjg 10:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Flapjack / Pancake

I was interested to see that "flapjack" (UK) = "pancake" (US) and went to find out what the American word for what British people call a "pancake" was, but was disappointed to find it missing. Does anyone know the answer? In Britain, pancakes are traditionally eaten on Shrove Tuesday (also known as Pancake Tuesday!) and are similar to French crepes. Tina Morrell 14:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No, the list states that "flapjack" (UK) = "granola bar" (US) and "flapjack" (US) = "pancake" (UK). Not the other way round as you're claiming. And most of us Brits call it Pancake Day rather than Pancake Tuesday. -- Smjg 09:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

this is dangerous territory, abandon hope all that enter for here be monsters, well to be precise "muffins" "biscuits" "drop scones" "cookies" "blinis" all with different meanings - and that is even before you get down to how to pronounce "scone". DavidP

Rewrite in progress

I've started on the aforementioned rewrite with three columns of meanings. I hope that this will end up as something that is tidier and more maintainable than the current article. I've also improved some of the definitions there.

List of words having different meanings in British and American English/rewrite

Please discuss issues relating to this rewrite on its talk page.

-- Smjg 16:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thunder Storm

American's call it a "lightning storm" is that right? I reckon that's coz it's rare to actually see the lightning in this country haha! Could someone add this I'm weary of messing up the tables... (ricjl)

I'm from Massachusetts, and we've always called them thunderstorms. -- Beland 21:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jam/Jelly

It's my understanding that in both the UK and the US the "correct" usage (by which I mean the usage universal among anyone who cares about the distinction between the two) is that jam contains pieces of fruit and jelly does not. The difference is that somehow in BrE the "generic" term is jam and in AmE it's jelly. I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that this is because the "default" preserve in the UK (as found in standard supermarket doughnuts) is strorbry jam and the "default" preserve in the US (as found in regular store donuts) is straabeary jelly. (In addition, jelly in the UK preferentially means Jell-O out of context, as mentioned in the article.)

The article doesn't currently correctly reflect this usage in the UK, but I'm not sure how to fill in the boxes to do so in a reasonably clear way.—Blotwell 29 June 2005 14:01 (UTC)

In the UK "jelly" most often refers to the wobbly self supporting fruit flavoured gelatine desert that kids have at parties with custard or cream, I believe its called "Jello" in the US. Jam on the other hand is a fruit based spread used for sandwiches that is thickened with pectin - the red sugar that is put in doughnuts is classed along with it, but probably never saw any fruit. some seedless jams are sometimes refered to as jelly on the label but this is perhaps due to the other meaning that includes most elastic highly viscous substances including fats (as found in pork pies) and gels such as carageen. DavidP

apartment/condo/flat

My understanding is that US usage is that an apartment is rented and a condo is bought (with a service charge), where UK usage has flat for any residence that is part of a building.

--Po8crg 7 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

It's only a flat if it is flat, that is, only one floor. At least that used to be the definition. --Kjwhitefoot 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

knock up

I guess that using "knock up" to mean "remind to vote" is political jargon rather than a Britishism. I'd used it in conversation with Americans and confused them, so assumed it was normal British usage.

--Po8crg 7 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

To Knock up is an unplanned pregnancy, IE "She got knocked up." at least in US slang.

holiday

UK: any time off from work or school, including the period between school terms (US: break, vacation); recreational trip away from home (US: vacation) -- US: (none special)

Surely the subtly-different American sense that should be shown here is that of a traditional (religious?) festival and its associated public holiday, eg Christmas/Channukah, for which it sometimes seems to be a deliberately denominationally-neutral term. "Happy holiday(s)" doesn't really mean much in the UK but would (I suggest) be taken as an exhortation to have a nice "vacation", whereas in fact it would be a good (US) English translation of French bonnes fêtes, for which nothing springs to mind in British English. There's plenty of scope for confusion here: for example, what would "holiday weather" or "holiday activities" imply in the different cultures? Is "holiday" perhaps roughly equivalent to the British use of "festive" to mean "Christmassy"? Flapdragon 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The differences were indeed shown here until somebody took it upon themselves to remove a lot of useful info and replace it with the rather pointless 'None special' (and in many other definitions too). These are slowly being readded, but feel free to do so. -- Necrothesp 01:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Would be good too hear some opinions from native speakers of US English to confirm I'm on the right lines. Flapdragon 17:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

oops, I hope I didnt step on any toes. I figured the article entry is comparing Holiday (UK) and Vacation (US). ohwell --Kvuo 23:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

float

We need an entry for "float" here, in the sense of admitting a private company to the Stock Exchange; but I don't know what the US verb would be (the noun would be IPO, I suppose) Mark O'Sullivan 09:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Cookie

Should cookie be added? We Brits say biscuit for most forms of the snack but I've never heard anyone say chocolate chip biscuit, over here cookie usually means only the chocolate chip varitie (and variations on it, like double choc-chip or white choc-chip etc) and no other. I.E. when a Brit says cookie they mean choc-chip cookie not rich tea or digestive biscuit.

True to an extent. But the 'cookie' of which choc-chip is the usual sort has other varieties as well - raisin cookie, M&Ms cookie.... -- Smjg 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah the're all biscuits with, er... bits? (can't think of how to put it) in them like chips of chocolate, M&Ms e.t.c

Cookie here is used as an Americanism. Chocolate chip cookies are American, hence we use the American term. It's still not a word commonly used in British English outside that particular reference. -- Necrothesp 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I say "chocky bicky" - or "sticky chocky bicky" on a hot day :) It takes one to know one

interesting aside, maybe. the british producers of 'Jaffa Cakes' were faced with legal action over the description of their product as it was marketed as a biscuit in the uk - after extensive research they arrived at a definition of what the difference between a cake and a biscuit was:

• A biscuit softens as it gets stale whereas a cake hardens.

DavidP

More car parts

I thought I was pretty smart for knowing that boot=trunk and bonnet=hood, but I ran across another one: facia (UK) = dashboard (US), it seems. Can somebody who knows British English better than me confirm that facia = the big flat thing in the front of a car that the steering wheel sticks out of? Thanks! (And is it spelled "facia" or "fascia"? My dictionary prefers "fascia", but a South African review I just read spells it "facia". Of course, if South African English and British English use different spellings for a common word I didn't know existed, my head will explode.)

While I'm at here, are there any other car parts that are differently named?  :-)

Fascia is used for dashboard in the UK, but usually only by car dealers. Most people in the UK call it a dashboard, as elsewhere. -- Necrothesp 10:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the last part of your question: yes, there are probably hundreds of car parts that are differently named. I think there might be a case for starting a separate page for transatlantic automotive terminological differences (but preferably with a snappier name than that). It would be useful for technical writers like me, and would avoid bloating the main page with obscure terminology. I volunteer to start the page. I'm sure I can think of a dozen or more terms to begin with. --Heron 10:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I would not favour starting a separate page. I think they are better off here. -- Necrothesp 11:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, why not unify all the lists of differences then?

For what it's worth "facia" is likely to be a typo - I check copy for a large media organisation; don't think for a minute that most journalists, copytakers and sub-editors can spell or follow grammatical rules correctly!

It takes one to know one 2K5/SEP/GMT

While Necrothesp is correct that this is an auto industry term only, more confusing is that the US auto industry and trade rags now use 'fascia' to refer to a car's frontal appearance - its 'face'. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bloody vs. wicked

I removed the bit about bloody being roughly equivalent to the new england term "wicked." Wicked usually means something cool, and is a substitute for "quite a X", as in "I had a wicked time" or "that's a wicked car." This is not at all the same thing as the British use of "bloody" which is usually just a term of exasperation.

O

Maybe this has already been debated, but many Americans use O as the "pronunciation of zero used in strings of numbers such as phone numbers," and most (if not all) will recognize its use in this way if they don't use it themselves. I don't really understand why it's on this list. android79 00:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you, ProhibitOnions. android79 01:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing. I just wish "XXX are somewhat more likely to say yyy" hadn't led to so many things being added to this and similar lists. ProhibitOnions 10:55:04, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Confusion about what this table is meant to show

The second column is headed "more common British meaning", but it is not clear whether it really DOES mean "more common British meaning", or whether it means "common British meaning(s) that are not used in AmE". Ditto for the second column, vice versa. I think this needs sorting out because at the moment it's very confusing.

There's already a massive sorting-out operation in progress if you hadn't cared to notice. See #Rewrite in progress. -- Smjg 19:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to put a reference to this on the main page.

---

Further to the comment above, what is the status of the rewrite of this page? I have done a bit of work on that and made a small start adding the remaining letters in the new format. I don't mind completing that as and when I get time, but I'm not going to do it if someone is then just going to come along and say "don't like that" and revert it. It's too much work. So, is there agreement that the rewrite should be completed and should replace this page? Either we should do that, or we should wipe the rewrite page, because at the moment it's a mess and you don't know which page you should be adding new stuff to.

Preferably add new stuff to the rewrite - it's already more up to date in a number of places. But if you want to add it to the live version, then the rewrite will eventually be updated. Each time I carry on with the rewrite, I merge recent stuff in from the live page. -- Smjg 20:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of including a column for "meanings common to AmE and BrE" (as on the rewrite page) because I think by default any meaning not listed is in that column, and it means that for every new entry you potentially have to copy out all the "standard" meanings (of which there may be many) from a dictionary. However, I understand that has been discussed and the formate of the "rewrite" page "agreed" in some sense or other.

I also suggest merging the information in the "List of British English words not used in American English" and "List of American English words not used in British English" into this one table. The other column could read "not used in American English" or "not used in British English", or some suitable form of words, or could just be left blank.

Thoughts?

I've got a thought for you... I totally agree... if "row", "row", "row", "row", "row", "row", and although it's pronounced differently, "row" are not the same word, then does an article like this make any sense?

Surely "fanny" and "fanny", "bum" and "bum", "check" and "check" are simply different words, rather than the same word with different meanings? Just because something is spelt the same in two dialects, it doesn't make it the same does it? "die" in English is nothing like "die" in German, and an Englishman in Prague might get confused whether he was the "host" or the "host". Even in Britain "doubting" and "minding" are so totally different activities on either side of the Scottish-English border that they have to be considered separate words.

There are words in the "British words not used in America" list (that I've been attempting to expand recently) that are made up of words that have to appear here - like bog (in this article), and bog-roll (in that). There exist disparities like the noun "go" as in "a turn" in the UK non-US page - is this an acknowledgment that the noun "go" is a different word to the verb "go"?

The current situation seems neither convenient, useful, or meaningful. I think it deisguises the true extent of the difference between the two dialects.

Can objecters please make themselves know and explain their objections?

Likewise can supporters of a change (a unified table of all differences between "us" and "them") make themselves heard too please!

Promsan 2K5/SEP/15:12

Where would you draw the line between a meaning and a word? How many words is "sound"? What about "call"? Even "set"? Trying to bring in this complication just makes it even more unmaintainable than people are already trying to make it. And trying to merge all BrE and AmE differences into one table would make both a huge article and too much clutter for it to be useful. Anyway, everyone, please read this and this before commenting further on this issue. -- Smjg 20:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Read, and understood. Please define "unmaintainable", "too much", and "useful" in this context?

I like your table in principle, except I don't see the need to actually list the common meanings; a simple statement that common meanings exist would surely suffice. Not having them would save space and thus make the page/s more accessible (for those not of us not blessed with super duper computers or connections). You may retort that not having common meanings renders it useless as a reference tool; my response: send people to Wiktionary; thus:

That seems like its job. The term homonym does not mean homologue (the same word) any more than heterograph does. "Sound" looks like a homologue AFAIK; "Call" looks like a homonym for several homologues and some heterologues; "Set" follows the same pattern as "Call".

I do not propose we list all homologues - that's Wiktionary's remit. We perhaps ought to focus on homonyms (words that look the same, but have different meanings) e.g.: "Fanny and Fanny; and heterologues (words that people do not use in each dialect) like "rappel" and "lorry".

I'd also like to see "rarely used terms that we associate with a dialect" (strictly speaking, "dialogues" = words specific to a dialect) (similar to ethnolect), that would include things like "Autumn/Fall" "Queue/Line" etc...

This page's title looks so unweidly as well, we should call it something like UK/US_homonyms, or in the unification solution, name column headings thus. I don't know how much you know, but I include some links of relevence and use for convenience:

List_of_English_homographs

List_of_commonly_confused_homonyms

Word_(linguistics)

Incidentally, I do not want to see an article so long that it would take a day to scroll down it: the obvious solution is to alphabetise it and do pages by letter(s) (A, B, C...). I debate over the structure. It seems useful to see how expressions consist of homonyms that exist in both dialects: that makes it a useful reference resource, in my view.It takes one to know one 10:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Unmaintainable: practically impossible to maintain, as the average person won't be able to figure out what should be added and what shouldn't.

Too much: more than is compatible with the desired aim.

Useful: able to be used for what people want to use it for.

If there are just one or two common meanings, it would seem silly not to give them there and then. But if there are several common meanings, we could give the most common one or two and link to Wiktionary for the others. But then again, that opens even wider the question of what to do with the meanings that are rare or regional on one side....

We seem to agree to a point on this aspect. Indeed, both versions are above the 32K mark ... but if we're going to split it up, how many pages should we split it into?

We already have lists of heterologues - List of American English words not used in British English and List of British English words not used in American English. But there are words on those pages that, according to the title, shouldn't be. Preserving the distinctionis sensible - a list of words that change meaning when you take them across the pond is of interest in itself - that's why the article was created in the first place. I once started trying to compile such a list myself before I discovered this. -- Smjg 12:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from breaking up my text with your comments, I don't like it. Put them at the end like everyone else.

2. Your elaborations on those words in the context appear insufficient. They seem rather subjective. Your assessment of maintainability appears entirely subjective. Surely the aim is to create a database of information that gives readers a comprehensive overview of the differences between the two dialects. Surely readers want to use this to conveniently view the full extent of difference, including aspects of similarity, due to different terms containing similar elements; currently these articles do not do this; they don't appear to be entirely useful.

3. It seems inconsistent to include a small number of homologues, and not a large number. There seems no logical reason to do so: they belong in the Wictionary, hence they can be linked. Meanings that are rare can have a note attached something like this: "US:rare"; and regional ones like this: "US:NY".

4. I reckon 20 pages: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, JK, L, M, N, O, PQ, R, S, T, UVW, XYZ.

5. I can see the interest in changes of meaning as you say, but that should not inhibit the creation of a comprehensive list. I bet many people will want British swear words, regionalisms, and slang (like Cockney rhyming..) to have specific pages... or rather, sub-pages, perhaps. Perhaps also, this is a bigger subject on which to create an article. There really is a lot of difference, and it all needs organising in a logical way - alphabetically and in categories, not in endless appendices (and clearly those page names are stupidly long, and no conducive to typing into the search box.)It takes one to know one 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

1. "Everyone else" doesn't follow any particular pattern. On the contrary, some of us come from a Usenet background, where inserting reply comments where they fit within the original text is the correct practice. Besides, if you've tried, you'll see how difficult it sometimes is to reply to specific parts of a message without interleaving.

2. I don't see how anybody can call it easily maintainable if we did some of the things people are suggesting. Would you care to elaborate? The aim of this article is to cover one specific aspect of AmE and BrE differences: words that have different meanings on opposite sides of the Atlantic. If you want American and British English differences, you know where to find it. Trying to consolidate the lot into one page would make it too long. And what do you mean by "different terms containing similar elements", and can you give examples of how the current set of pages doesn't do it justice?

5. Yes, whether, where and how regionalisms and slang should be included is another matter of debate. On one hand, people have complained that they seem to clutter up the main list; on the other hand, it would seem incomplete without such gems as "boob tube". Anyway, do you have any good ideas for what to name the pages? -- Smjg 11:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Most people seem to not cut up others' comments - either way, it's hardly worth arguing about. Thanks for not doing it. : ). (I never heard of Usenet until this week, and I've been on the internet for the last decade! ...I still don't know exactly what it is, but it doesn't sound like a worthwhile investment of one's time.)
• 2. From what I read a noticeable number of people ask about the same thing: "consolidation"; the policy seems to be to (virtually!) take them to one side and explain to them how wrong they are, and that an enigmatic 2nd person plural has reached a consensus.

Yes I can read the title, and understand your specific desire that it does what it says on the tin. The problem I have, is that the title is flawed:

Let's look at some universally intelligible words: "Bit" and "Bit", "Chip" and "Chip". These are homonyms: written and pronounced the same way, but they are not the same word, because they mean different things. In the same way, "fanny" and "fanny" are also two different words, they are homonyms, which means they are both homographs, and (more or less) homophones. the difference is that they exist in two different varieties, or more accurately, two very closely related dialects.

In the same way "color" in Spanish is not the same word as "color" in Catalan or in American-English, they are simply homophones. Further, a words that are spelt differently, yet have the same meaning, are also not the same word. "Color" in American English is not the same word as Colour in British English, any more than it is in Spanish or any other dialect or language. They are different words for the same thing, just as "shoku" and "se" in Japanese and Chinese respectively are, despite the fact that they can be written in exactly the same way: 色 and 色.

The page you mention is not a glossary, a dictionary, or a comprehensive list; it's a rough guide and summary. I agree it may be too long if everything was consolidated on one page, but if pages (or sub-pages) were based on letters of the alphabet; and on some categories - like a list of taboo words, regional lists of slang (I've actually started one on Yorkshireisms), with a main "contents" page, that might work well. I think the point is that some of us want to see a list of all the different words, with explanations of them, and connections between them, perhaps something like this:

UK & I En->US En Homonym	US En->UK & I En Homonym	UK & I En->US En Heterologue	US En->UK & I En Heterologue
(n/a)	(n/a)	[to]abseil	[to]rappel
n/a	n/a	Rocket	arugula
ace (adj.) = good, OK, excellent (colloq.).	ace (n.) = someone who is very good at something.	(n/a)	(n/a)

An example of words, which are split: "bog roll", has to appear on one page, and "(the) bog", on another, doesn't it? "holidaymaker" and "holiday"? I haven't gathered a list of them (yet).

• 5. (see 4.) Appendices of glossaries of taboo words; slang by region; and maybe by class (in every sense) may be helpful. It takes one to know one 11:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW my view remains that the table should have three columns: Word, BrE meanings not used in AmE, and AmE meanings not used in BrE. I also still believe that the "AmE words not used in BrE" and "BrE words not used in AmE" pages should be merged into this one table. None of the debate either here or on the other talk page has convinced me otherwise. However, I am not going to change anything unilaterally.

We don't have to change anything unilaterally; we can multilaterally agree to create an article that does what we want (something else) - which is clearly distinct in purpose from this/these one/s, which doesn't/don't appear to be based on well-established and accepted linguistic definitions of what a word actually is (i.e. that homonyms are different words, rather than different usages or different meanings of the same word); the title of the article should probably be homonyms_in_British_and_American_English. However, the lists include not just homonyms, but other words: slang, profanity and all kinds of class-specific (in the taxonomic sense) nouns and verbs; and turns of phrase as well - groups of words, in other words.

I've seen User:ProhibitOnions apparently deleting words without any explanation or justification. Articles have to be based on evidence as well as consensus; there seems to be some consensus among some of the editors here, but not a right lot of evidence backing up decisions, and no clear and consistent criteria (despite the title) for what goes where and why. It takes one to know one 10:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all very well, but this page has always been about common usage and not about learned linguistic debate. The differences between homonyms, homographs, homophones etc are fairly irrelevant to somebody who is simply coming to this page to find out what the hell somebody is talking about. The title of this page suggests that it is in no way scientific - it is merely useful! You, Promsan, seem to be trying to complicate it and make it in some way 'linguistically correct'. I've never regarded this page and its related pages as being for that purpose. What does everyone else think? -- Necrothesp 13:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, Necrothesp. Some of Promsan's assertions, such as '"Color" in American English is not the same word as Colour in British English' sound like original research to me. We have plenty of pages on Wikipedia dealing with linguistics. Although it's always good to ask how we could improve the way the information here is presented, deciding what is a homonym and what is a heterologue (or heterolog, presumably "not the same word"), leaves it open to endless hairspliting. ProhibitOnions 10:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Prom

While I accept that it might not be the main meaning of the word prom here in the UK, I added "+ US meaning" to the 'prom' section because it is used and understood in that context here in the UK. However, it's been reverted on the grounds of it being a "pure Americanism". Americanism it may be, but its usage in that context is still understood and used here in the UK. Certainly, we had a prom at my school and we all knew what it meant, and that was five years ago! They'd been having proms at that school since at least 1990 as far as I'm aware, and I'm certain many, if not most, schools in the UK have them these days, so I dont see what's wrong with adding the "+ US meaning". Anyway, rather than become involved in some sort of edit war, I thought I'd raise the issue here. Angmering 00:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's understood, yes, but I'd heavily dispute that it's commonly used. Most people on hearing it would assume it was an Americanism and would probably be rather surpised at it being used in that context over here. I'm sure it is used in some schools, but only as a loan word from the USA because of the painful and rather tragic desire of some British people to use Americanisms because they think it gives them some sort of street cred. It's still not a word commonly used in the British vernacular, and therefore I don't believe it belongs here. Many American words are understood and occasionally used in the UK - it doesn't mean they're British usages. The OED, for example, lists it as an American usage only. -- Necrothesp 00:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I suppose I can only speak from my own personal perspective and experience, which differs somewhat from this, but I'm no great linguistic expert so I shall bow to your superior judgement on this one. Angmering 00:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither of my schools had such a thing, but the college I went to from 1996 to 1999 had a 'prom' in that sense and by that name. Though it was in mid-May rather than actually at the end of the academic year, and held for everyone rather than just those who are about to leave the college. -- Smjg 09:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To call for

I just noticed the phrase 'called for' in an American news report (Rita comes ashore), where it seems to mean 'to predict'. In British English 'to call for' means 'to demand'. I'm not sure whether to add this to the article, because:

1. Not being American, I don't know whether the usage in the article report is standard American usage, and
2. I'm not sure that phrasal verbs belong on this page. Do we need a new 'Phrasal verbs' section?

Any opinions? --Heron 10:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable addition, if it's used (being English, I don't know either). No reason that phrasal verbs shouldn't be on the list (and some already are). -- Necrothesp 11:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A casual hunt for similar examples yeilds none. Either this is esoteric usage, a typo or other mistake or my search skills are not up to scratch. Jooler 11:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That might be jocular rather than an Americanism. [1] -- Smjg 12:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

From the evidence so far, including that last reference, I would classify it as a solecism confined to American weather reporters (just as "begs the question" is popular with UK journalists), so probably not worth mentioning in this article. I found two more examples, both American: "WSI Energycast Outlook Calls for Warm Period in East, Cool in Northwest" [2] and, from NOAA, "The National Weather Service (NWS) forecast called for thunderstorm development over the Black Hills" [3]. --Heron 15:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, "to call for" can mean "to expect" which would embrace all the examples mentioned here, including the weather reports. ProhibitOnions 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a check of the Oxford English Dictionary confirms this usage as an Americanism. "To indicate or anticipate on the basis of present conditions or trends; to predict". -- Necrothesp 15:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Market

I've heard Americans say they are going to the market , meaning the supermarket. It's not something that I've heard from anyone in the UK.I'd expect a market to be a street or covered market with stalls. Should 'market' be added to the list of words?

Probably. I was unaware that UK residents do not use market as short for "supermarket" like us Americans. --Coolcaesar 22:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly true that we in the UK would never use "market" as a shortening of supermarket. -- Necrothesp 20:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

roger

This is one I encountered recently. I do not know if it belongs though as urbandictionary lists the diffrence as "old british" (though not in all the definitions). roger at the urban dictionary.

Still used and understood, although usually jocularly. -- Necrothesp 10:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Several words

I have several words that would appear to have different meanings in Britian as opposed to the US. However, as I am not current on my US meanings or my UK meanings I did not want to enter them.

• Brace as used by the BBC in sports to refer to a pair. As in "Shefki Kuqi's brace for Blackburn..." (he scored two goals). I've never heared it used in that fashion in North America.
• Travellers as used by the BBC to refer to what I would call tinkers or travelling people. This was a difficult one to decipher as I first assumed they were talking about people on holiday rather than people without homes who travelled about the country.
• Grooming when refering to persuading someone to have sex or preparing them for sex.
• Suspicious is my favourite because it supplied me with a good chuckle. The BBC reported that the police had found a decomposed, headless body. The police said they "...did not find it suspicious...". Which of course left me wondering how many headless bodies the police had to find before they did become suspicious. It really is just the UK way of saying that "Foul play is not suspected". But it really looked funny the first time I saw it.

Nobody I know has heard of these words being used in this way but as I live in a small Canadian Arctic town that may just be a lack of communication. However, we have both satellite TV and internet and have not heard them used in this fashion. CambridgeBayWeather 11:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"Brace" would be considered quite archaic by most British people, I suspect (I would associate it with a "brace of partridge" or a "brace of pistols", not phrases you usually hear in modern speech). The article on child grooming appears to have been written by an American, by the American spellings used, so I'm not sure whether that is peculiar to Britain. "Traveller" used in this sense probably is a Britishicism - it's a relatively recent usage. I don't know about "suspicious" - don't the North American media talk about "suspicious deaths"? -- Necrothesp 12:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The usage of brace (and the quote) turned up yesterday from the BBC football results on my Palm. The quote is here Blackburn Rovers. I wasa surprised to see it as I too thought of it as archaic. I don't really remember it being in use even 30 years ago when I left Britain. Although I do not travel much to southern Canada I did check the other words out with people who do and none of them had heard the words used in those senses at all. The grooming one was the hardest one to figure out. In the end I had to call my 75 year-old dad in England to get it explained. Really wish I hadn't bothered. CambridgeBayWeather 13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I listen to BBC Radio 5's sports coverage quite a lot, and "brace" turns up very often indeed when describing a player having scored two goals. I've often seen it written in newspaper sports reports, too, so I would dispute its status as archaic. Angmering 10:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside Lane

In the U.S. definition of Outside Lane, there is a comment: note that in both cases the term applies to the rightmost lane in the direction concerned. Is this a fact about the word usage, or is it a coincidence brought about by the dual reversals of word use and traffic? To test this question, we should consider the case of a person from the U.S. visiting the U.K. Would he continue to refer to the "outside lane" as the one on the right? I doubt it. I sure wouldn't. Similarly, a person from the U.K. would almost certainly continue to refer to the fast lane as the outside lane if he were transplanted to the U.S. For this reason, although the comment points out an interesting oddity, it's not really about the definition or usage of the expression outside lane. Furthermore, the comment might mislead a person to think that outside lane always means right lane to all speakers.—GraemeMcRae^talk 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
(sorry--forgot to sign this earlier)

Factorise

Upon reading the entry for pressure I realized that factor is similar in a way. As a result of helping math (or maths, in the U.K.) students, I realize that in the U.S. we say "to factor" (and its variants) as in "the trinomial x^2+x+1 can't be factored". In the U.K., one would say "the trinomial x^2+x+1" can't be factorised". Perhaps there are other words like this. It might be the case that in the U.S. we verb nouns without changing them, but in the U.K. they more often "verbise" their nouns.—GraemeMcRae^talk 17:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, burgle/burglarize is an example of the opposite case. Nohat 20:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tap

The U.S. definition includes this:

selected/chosen/requested/asked, especially to be publically selected for a special honor from one's peers as in the (possibly apocryphal) American Indian ceremony (e.g. "She was tapped for the position of CEO")

Can I suggest that the reference to the American Indian ceremony be either wikified (i.e. linked to the relevant articles that explain the reference) or else deleted. For the latter, I propose:

selected/chosen/requested/asked, especially to be publically selected for a special honor from one's peers (e.g. "She was tapped for the position of CEO")

—GraemeMcRae^talk 19:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Words with U.S. senses the same as U.K. senses

"bum" also means in the U.S. to cadge something off somebody else (e.g. "can I bum a cigarette off you?") (slang) Yet, that meaning is missing from the U.S. side of "bum".

"burn" also means in the U.S. wound caused by chemical agents

"closet" also means in the U.S. secret (as an adjective; e.g. "he was a closet socialist")

[to] cop has all the same meanings in both countries except one. This is British only: to be blamed for, be caught (e.g. "he'll cop it!") (slang)

In the U.S., "corn" also means horny swelling on the foot
—GraemeMcRae^talk 01:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. senses described here that are either regarded as Britishisms or not used at all

In the U.S., "copper" meaning police officer should add: (regarded as a Britishism)

This is not one of the meanings of "joint" in the U.S.: all or some of the limb of a meat animal, before or after cooking
—GraemeMcRae^talk 01:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Other changes that I suggest

The following are changes that I would suggest, but I think there should be some discussion first:

in U.S., hire means "to recruit and employ for wages"

add to U.S. meaning of railroad: to do something, especially convict someone of a crime, with undue haste or without due consideration

root: change "Following" to "Upon"

To semi-trailer, add (UK: articulated lorry)

table: unlink "suspend", and delete from the U.S. side: ("to put it back on the table after having picked it up"), as it doesn't illustrate this sense of table.

fix "trillion" to be of the same style as "billion"...

on the UK side: million million (10¹²)
traditionally million million million (10¹⁸) (US and modern UK: quintillion), which is still often meant;

on the US side: million million (10¹²)
(traditional UK: billion, which is now rare)

• Hearing no objection, I implemented this change today—GraemeMcRae^talk 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

trim: US: add (+ UK meaning)
—GraemeMcRae^talk 01:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hearing no objection to adding this meaning of "trim", I will implement this today, reverting unexplained blanking of the whole row of the table.—GraemeMcRae^talk 03:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization I'm not sure about

I'm not so sure about the capitalization of Member of Parliment. Is this a title that deserves a capital "M" and capital "P"? I'm also not sure about the capitalization of Detective Constable, Detective Inspector, Police Constable. If these are titles, and not used any other way, then they should be capitalized, but not otherwise.
—GraemeMcRae^talk 01:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a fully paid up member of the Committee for the Abolition of Redundant Capitalisation and other Stylistic Fripperies: if the police ranks are directly attached to a named individual (ie a proper noun) they should normally be capitalised (eg Detective Inspector John Smith); if not, not (eg John Smith is a detective inspector in the Metropolitan Police). Many of these, of course, would rarely be spelt out in full (eg PC Jim Smith). This is also the case with MP (Edna Smith, MP). Parliament, of course, is always capped when refering to the UK Parliament. So I suspect Member of Parliament should be capped if only because member of Parliament looks odd. Hope that helps. Icundell 12:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. So Member of Parliment stays as is, but the others become detective constable, detective inspector, and police constable.—GraemeMcRae^talk 18:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems eminently sensible to me. Icundell 13:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The merge proposal

I see somebody's added a merge proposal to this piece. I disagree:

• This article is long enough already without the clutter that that page seems to be aiming for.
• That page is nowhere near finished.
• If the structure of that page is meant to be that that was suggested above, then it doesn't really make sense. Why have four columns if only the first two or only the last two are going to be filled in any row?
• Attention seems to have been diverted away from the rewrite that was already in progress.
• It doesn't solve some of the problems that the pre-existing rewrite was made to address; moreover, from what I can see at the moment it adds ambiguity of its own.

-- Smjg 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge. Ewlyahoocom 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Refuse

When pronouced as "Reh-fuse", it means rubbish (that you dispose of) in British English, but it's not on the list.

geckokid82.39.41.172 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be. The list is only for differences. The word "refuse" as a noun carries the same meaning (garbage or rubbish) in both American English and British English. Therefore there is no difference. --Coolcaesar 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Napkin

Is this entry back to front? I have never heard "napkin" used to mean "sanitory towel" in 50 years of living in the UK. I have always understood a napkin and a serviette to be the same thing, the only difference being that "serviette" is often seen as a lower class word.

Agree. I also have never heard "napkin" used to mean "sanitory towel". It is either the wrong way round or completely incorrect. I will remove it for now, as I am not sure of the US meaning. -- Chris Q 07:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed (at least my me) on List of words having different meanings in British and American English/rewrite, which is were the powers-that-be want the editing to be done, this page being deprecated. For what it's worth, however, where do you think "nappy" came from? (Answer: back-formation from that sense of napkin). I'm willing to admit (subject to further research) that the sanitary use of napkin is old-fashioned now in Britain. -- Gnetwerker 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

I would suggest that it is about time to archive again. Objections? - Gnetwerker 09:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tout / scalper

I recently moved the article tout to ticket resale, because it seemed to me that both the terms "scalper" and "tout" are pretty regionally-marked. I had never even heard of "tout" until I searched for ticket scalping and got redirected to that article. Anyhow, I'd do it myself but the format of this page is a little more opaque than I feel like figuring out myself, but someone should add "tout" and "scalp" to this list, giving the "ticket resale" definitions. Nohat 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that "tout" has a whole bunch of meanings, some of which were totally unknown to me. I'm fixing to add it to the rewrite, along with "scalp."--JackLumber 12:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramp / speed bump

Does ramp (UK) / speed bump (US) qualify here? LuiKhuntek 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a British ramp is, but I'm guessing it's not at all the same as a U.S. ramp. Bump too apparently has different interpretations. So, they qualify here, you might think. Nope they dont. They qualify HERE. Anymore this page has gone down the drain. So long. --JackLumber 13:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A ramp is, generally, an inclined section of path or road that connects two levels. It can also mean a bump in the road to slow traffic down, but that usage is usually qualified as "speed ramp"; the synonym "speed bump" is sometimes used over here too. We wouldn't use the "motorway slip road" meaning over here, and the "steps up to an aeroplane" meaning is new to me either way.... -- Smjg 15:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page still here and not the rewrite?

Why keep this page here when the rewrite has been rewritten? Or are there words on this page which are not in the rewrite, even though it has been in progress since May 2005? Keeping the "proper" editable version in a secret location seems to suggest that newbies and other mere mortals are not supposed to edit it :-) Saint|swithin 10:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We've been talking about it on and off on the rewrite talk page, and it will probably be finally moved across in the next few days. Please see Talk:List of words having different meanings in British and American English/rewrite#Perspective Additions (Reminder). -- Smjg 12:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)