Talk:Formal written English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Formal written English article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Separate languages?

"Some English speakers may go so far as to imply that these variations do represent separate languages. This exaggeration is easily forgiven when one takes into account the intense interest that many native English speakers feel for something that is part of the deepest essence of their being. But for the other 5.7 billion inhabitants of this planet the variations in the forms of English spoken in different parts of the world, while often quite distinctive, can be regarded as no more than differences in style." --- Who the hell says that? Seperate languages? I've never heard of such a thing. I think this whole paragraph needs to be removed. Anyone have any objections? --Bri 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pavement

Although footpath is the term for a "sidewalk", doesn't pavement also mean so in an Australian context? I've not heard it used here to mean the asphalt of a road, as I assume "pavement" means in the US, nor do my dictionaries say so. One doesn’t say to a child “get off the pavement!”, do they? Perhaps it’s not necessary to list AU for pavement at all, given it isn’t much used.-- Cyberjunkie TALK 11:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you've identified a grey area which the tables don't yet cater for. Here's a suggestion about how to deal with cases like this. Let me know what you think. The test would be, if someone in Australia read a sentence they knew was written by another Australian (but with no other context) that said: "The pavement was made of concrete," what would be their reaction? Would they have no idea what "pavement" meant, would they understand it to mean the sidewalk or would they understand it to mean the road surface? If they didn't recognise the word, then perhaps AU should be left out of the table. But if they do know the word, then AU would go in the appropriate column. But because they normally wouldn't use the word, even though they understood it (like the British with "sidewalk") the AU could be followed by an asterisk. This would refer to a note below that said, "Understood with this meaning but not the usual term for this expression and rarely used."
(By the way, nice improvement to the tables - I didn't know you could do that!) Adrian Robson 13:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Using an asterisk (with an accompanying note/legend) to demarcate usage is indeed a good idea. It is my belief that an Australian would take "the pavement was made of concrete" to mean the footpath (i.e. "sidewalk") was made of concrete. They would not take pavement to mean a roadway, as in the US sense. However, this is narrowly defining a word that actually has quite a broad meaning. To me, pavement has at least three meanings: a) a footpath; b) the covering of a street, floor, driveway and so on, usually with pavers (bricks, etc); and c) a roadway - not that this sense would be understood by other Australians. My point was that, in the present table, I would expect to see AU listed alongside GB and CA as opposed to US. My posting was really just see what Axel's opinion was (as it was he who changed back my shifting it). Actually, it seems that perhaps the US is wrongly described; all Anglophones understand the b) definition, while it is also used by Britons to mean pædestrian path and Americans for a roadway. Oh, and it was AxSkov, not I, who re-formatted the tables. All you need do is add the {{prettytable}} template. Great work by the way. Thanks, -- Cyberjunkie TALK 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, was the thanks aimed at Adrian Robson?
Well, yeah, because he wrote the article. But thanks to you also, for improving upon it ;P. (I usually end comments that way anyhow - sort of like "cheers" I guess).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
That's cool, it just seemed a bit ambiguous that's all ;) – AxSkov (T) 15:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I have never used "pavement" to mean "footpath", and I have only ever come across this meaning from foreigners or Australians who have been influenced by Britons. Pavement to me actually means a road surface – not a footpath as used by Britons – so whenever it is used I immediately think of a road surface. As far as I know Americans use "pavement" to mean a road surface – not a roadway (see here under pavement) – much in the same sense that it means to me. The Asterisk does sound like a good idea. – AxSkov (T) 07:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I am the opposite to you, and I've not been influenced by the Brits. Perhaps then its meaning is a regional difference in Australian English. Adelaide has traditionally been more Anglo-Saxon than Queensland, but then, people I have questioned from the NSW/QLD area understand "pavement" as footpath as well. As far as US usage goes, OED lists it as "a roadway", but I suppose that could mean the surface thereof. Pavement as footpath is the still the common understanding in Adelaide nonetheless.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

(oops! I don't know why I brought up Queensland - for some reason I thought AxSkov was from there.)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I wasn't too hurt at being called a Queenslander :p – AxSkov (T) 14:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this is a regional difference. If that's the case, I'd suggest adding it under both columns, with an asterisk (as described above) in both cases. But if, as you're both Australians, you can agree that one of the meanings is the primary one, then maybe it can be listed under just one column. The question is not really what you understand yourselves but what you, as observers, believe the average Australian understands. (And the answer may still be that there's a regional difference.) What do your grandparents or parents understand by this? Better still, as a way of deciding which way to go, is there an authoritative Australian dictionary that could be used as the source for the decision? Over to you! Adrian Robson 12:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps AU should be removed altogether from the "pavement" row as Cyberjunkie suggested. A British "pavement" (or American "sidewalk") is known as a footpath by most Australians. But I do concede that a majority of Australians do understand that pavement means a footpath, while a minority – of which I am part of – understands that it means a road surface. – AxSkov (T) 13:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Row? It's not really that is it? Anyways, I agree, it's not necessary to list.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say row as in "quarrel", I said row as in "columns and rows". OK, so lets not list it. – AxSkov (T) 13:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry. I misread your comment.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Pavement" has "CA" listed beside it but that's not the definition of pavement I know - I understand it in the US sense. What is described is, to me, a sidewalk, which is usually not made of ashphalt or whatever else pavement is made of (and if it is, it's not a sidewalk, but...I don't know, something else). Adam Bishop 04:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to change it if you think CA is in the wrong column. I think you're saying it doesn't mean "sidewalk" in Canada but I wasn't quite sure! Adrian Robson 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, that was written kind of bizarrely, wasn't it. That is what I'm saying, but maybe I shouldn't change it...maybe it does mean "sidewalk" in Canada, and I am just strange. I'm not really sure. Adam Bishop 17:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

hi all buddy i have seen too much discussion about pavement but this is goood word to explore about the meaning some body say about sidewalk area sombody say footpath but we got new word in our vacbalary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.255.244 (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stroller

"stroller (noun) Someone who strolls (AU, GB, NZ) A wheeled conveyance to carry small children (CA, US)" Probably better to use a different example. I'm from New Zealand, and I have never heard 'stroller' in the sense listed as NZ, but always as a pram. --Mahogany h00r (7th of Oct, 2005)

Perhaps you understand that a stroller can also mean a perambulator (pram), but would you ever use it in place of pram? No New Zealanders I know ever would. Do you understand stoll as meaning a leisurely walk? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I would, but I've never used 'stroller' it in the sense of 'someone who strolls'. I don't know anyone who does. You can go 'strolling down to the park', or you can 'go for a stroll', but you wouldn't be called a 'stroller' if you walked around. You'd be called a pedestrian or something ^^ --Mahogany h00r (9th of Oct, 2005)
True, it isn't used often. But I think the point here is that the natural meaning of "stroller" to somebody from Australasia or the British Isles is "someone who strolls", even though most wouldn't use it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I would disagree with that statement too. If some axe-weilding maniac came up to me and said 'what's "stroller" mean! answer me now!', I would probably say ‘A pusher, those things you put babies in so you don't have to carry them’. If I saw it in context, it wouldn't matter; stroller as someone who strolls is completely transparent (much as I could comprehend 'chatter' as being one who chats, even though I don't think I've ever seen the word used like that), and as pusher is a word I'm familiar-enough with. I certainly was completely unaware that 'stroller' was an 'Americanism' till I saw lists like these. I vote for remove (AU) from that row, even if we don't add it to the other. (fwiw, 'pram' strikes me as british-sounding, but I do unthinkingly produce it, whereas I wouldn't say 'stroller'. Obviously my normal word for the device is a 'pusher'.) In any case, 'stroller' is used much more often to mean pusher by Australians (IME) than 'farther' is (too mean 'further', rather than an uncourt spelling mistake four 'father'), and I don't think anyone's trying to say that 'farther' isn't a word in Australian English (well, except for me, but that's another story ;) —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
My (Australian) view on this stroller is something you carry young children in, although I agree with Cassowary that the other meaning is understandable. In fact, for me a pram is something that you push a baby in while they are lying down, and a stroller is one in which they sit, although that distinction is possibly becoming less relevant. JPD 11:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Mahogany has highlighted a useful point. On looking into American dictionaries I've found that they tend to list the 17th century use (one who strolls) first and the contemporary use (a wheeled baby carrier) second or third. So actually there's no difference in meaning (as distinct from usage) from one continent to another. Everyone can deduce that a stroller might mean "someone who strolls" though the word seems to be hardly used at all nowadays in that sense. And probably most people (or at least those under around 50) know it means a baby carriage but only the Americans use it as a preferred word for this type of baby carrier. So I'd be inclined to drop it from the list as an example of a word with different meanings. It doesn't seem to have different meanings, only different usage. Adrian Robson 08:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] have done

I'm not sure what you would formally call this difference, but in some writing that came out of Britain I've seen constructions like the following:

"Did he go to the store?" "He can't have done, he was at home with me"

Where in America I would say "He can't have" instead of "He can't have done". Someone may want to put this more clearly and stick it in the article.

For this particular article, the question is whether an example like this has different meanings in different countries, or whether it is just a difference of style. That's to say, if an American read the words "He can't have done" would it have a different meaning from "He can't have"? I think it's probably the case that in many other English speaking countries the two phrases have the same meaning and can be used interchangeably. However, if the meaning is the same, but there's a difference in usage then it could be added to one of the articles on style and usage such as American and British English differences. Since this article is primarily aimed at non-native users of English, only actual differences in meaning are listed. Adrian Robson 08:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It is the case, however, that use of "he can't have done" instead of "he can't have" (or "he can't have done so") marks a writer as British as opposed to American. It is hard to imagine an American using "done" in this way, and it would be instantly recognized as out of the ordinary by an American reader. While this may be no more than a difference in style, it does call into question the claim made by this article:
The differences in formal writing that occur in the various parts of the English-speaking world are so slight that many dozens of pages of formal English can be read without the reader coming across any clues as to the origin of the writer, far less any difficulties of comprehension.
In fact, I find it hard to believe that a reader would be able to read "dozens of pages" of formal English without being able to tell whether the writer was, for example, British or American. See American and British English Differences. Furthermore, more informal, entertainment-oriented writing is much quicker to reveal its country of origin than academic writing.
--Bob99 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Bob99


Actually, based on spelling differences alone, one can immediately tell from at most a few pages if the writer is British or American. It is in fact very unlikely not to find for example an -ise/-ize, -our/-or, -re/-er,-ce/-se, or -ll-/-l- word after reading a couple of pages in any newspaper or magazine. Furthermore, particular choices of vocabulary/idioms will also most likely reveal the writer's origin. 200.177.3.249 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

'storey (AU, GB, IN, ZA) / story - meaning the level of a building (CA, US)'

'vice - meaning a tool (AU, GB, IN, ZA) / vise (CA, US)'


This I was a little bit confused about, I don't think I agree entirely. Living in Canada (Scarborough), I've never seen 'story' to mean the level of a buiding. The spelling 'story', as far as I know, has only ever referred to works of fiction. I have always found and spelt 'storey' in Canada.

I'd also appreciate it if someone would shed light on how 'vice' is spelt in Canada. I'm not quite sure about the spelling, but I've always known the word to pe pronounced 'vice' as opposed to 'vise'. Would anyone agree with me if I said that Canadians also sometimes spell 'programme'? Thanks a lot! Kioku 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about in Canada, but I've never seen the spelling "vise" here in the U.S.
Powerlord 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Being an American, I've never seen the spelling of "vise" in the US as well. I've always spelled the tool (as well as personal flaw or bad habit) as "vice" (also "device"), while using "vise" in constructs like "advise" and "revise." However, when I check some online dictionaries, it lists "vise" as correct with "vice" only as a variant (they made no mentions of regional differences in spelling either). Interesting. Also interesting, growing up I was always taught to spell words with "ize" and never "ise," however the words above do not look right being spelt "advize" and "revize." Neither do they look right being spelt "advise" and "revise." And what is with this "spelt" vs "spelled" thing anyway? I ramble...
No offense, but you may wish to reconsider your position. For example, take a look at the tool section at amazon.com, where a search for "vice" will identify products described in the blurbs as "vises." Also, I may be wrong, but I believe "-ize" is primarily used instead of "-ise" only for those words that are derived from Greek suffix "-izein" and would not be applicable to your examples.
--Bob99 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Bob 99
I'm dubious of this for Canada as well. I would use "vice", personally. Google results for pages in Canada also places it ahead, 150k to 30k. I do see prominently the Vise-Grip product. Then again, Canadians, tend to use both American and English variations, so that could simply be it. - BalthCat 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It may simply be that it's wrong for Canadian spelling, and I note that the article has been changed since this was originally posted in the discussion section. A brief check of an American dictionary, however, will show that it's right for the U.S.
--Bob99 19:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Bob99

With regard to "storey"/"story," isn't it noteworthy that the "a ten-storey building" means "an eleven-story building," because British usage counts the storey above the ground floor as number one, while American usage counts the ground floor as number one. Also, I American usage seems to prefer to refer to the "floors" of a building in all senses except to explain its height. Maybe this is true in British English, as well. I do not know. --Bob99 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Bob 99

[edit] Article name

The artice's name is nonstandard, too long, and seemingly inappropriate. Why not rename it just "formal written English"? Also, perhaps the article should be split into a shorter overview article (possibly merged with "standard written English?) and several separate articles on more specific topics. Note that there are already articles on British-American spelling differences, etc.. Jorge Stolfi 15:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Regional differences in formal written English as a stop-gap measure; a new name may still be needed. I have no comments on the article's structure or necessity at this stage.--cj | talk 16:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Jorge Stolfi that it could just be named "Formal written English". The emphasis in the article is more to do with how little formal writing varies around the world - the differences seem to be relatively few and perhaps don't need to be referred to in the title. Adrian Robson 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Shorten name and drop the lists which are already better done in other articles. Rmhermen 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to reading this article, but the title "Formal Written English" led me to expect an article that discussed formal English versus informal English. Instead, the article focuses on variations on formal English around the world. Is there a different article that discusses phrasing that is acceptable in conversation or informal writing but cannot be used in formal writing? If not, I think there needs to be some indication in the title of the page that this page is concerned solely with regional differences and not formal/informal differences. Podkayne 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not do a merger with Standard Written English? ~Inkstersco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.85.54 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] analogue/analog

Both of these spellings are used in Canada, but with different meanings. Analogue means that one thing is analagous to another thing. Analog is used for the type of clock/watch. Should the meaning of the words be added to that entry?? Mike.lifeguard 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regional differences in formal written English are NOT restricted to spelling only

There are also differences in vocabulary (like pavement/sidewalk, underground/subway, petrol/gas, faucet/tap, etc.) and several major differences in usage and syntax. In American English for example, it is perfectly acceptable, even in formal writing (e.g. NY Times articles) to "protest a decision" whereas in Britain one would always "protest against a decision". Likewise, whereas in the US a museum may be open "on weekends", a museum in the UK opens, if I'm not mistaken, "at weekends". Similarly, British kids stay "at school" or "at home", not "in school" or "home". Furthermore, when they are sick, Britons "are in hospital", not "in the hospital". BTW, in British English one also cannot "hurt" as it is possible to say in American English. Many American readers would also be surprised to know that several American idioms that are used every day in U.S magazines and newspapers, like e.g. "to run for office" or "to gun down a suspect", are actually considered substandard language in British English.

Just to illustrate the point that are now two distinct, albeit fairly close standards for formal written English, US readers might want to check this page[1] from The Economist's Manual of Style warning about "Americanisms" that should be avoided in the magazine's articles. 200.177.16.241 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing a style manual with a rule book. 83.70.161.187 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Having lived and worked in both the UK and North America, and being involved in peer-review of scientific publications from around the world, I would definitely agree with that assessment. Of course British and American written English are almost always intercomprehensible and are rather closer than the spoken variants, but it is certainly not true that an informed reader can't tell which they are reading. Even if the writing avoids differences of vocabulary (which is easier said than done!), choices of tense and prepositions give the game away very quickly! 89.240.176.168 10:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)