Miss spelled

[mav52]

...mav52: I'm British and I think you have this one the wrong way round. We Brits say al-u-MIN-i-um

I'm not American, but I believe you say al-OOM-i-num

(capitals == emphasis)

 

This is also borne out by Wikipedia:

American and British English spelling differences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

some way down you'll see the spellings as I describe above;

UK aluminium, US aluminum (missing the i)

 

mike

 

Heck I don't know, You right. I know I say 'aloom-i-num'. I guess I'm spoiled from listing to Jeremy Clarkson on Top gear say .. aluminium = aluminum, “The bonnet is made of brushed aluminium.”

 

 

Buns. You know what these are. You're probably sitting on them now. Over 'there', buns are either bread or cake rolls. Asking for a couple of sticky buns in a bakery here will mean Mr Crusty the baker will give you two cake buns with icing (frosting) on the top. If I went into a deli in Manhattan and asked for a couple of sticky buns I'd probably get arrested...

[sandyk]

buns are either bread or cake rolls.

 

In the U.K, Au and N.Z. etc. A "bun in the oven" means that the lady is pregnant.

[Allan F]

I guess I'm spoiled from list[en]ing to Jeremy Clarkson on Top gear say .. aluminium = aluminum, “The bonnet is made of brushed aluminium.”

 

And, in the US or Canada, a "bonnet" is anything but the hood of a car.

 

Buns. You know what these are. You're probably sitting on them now. Over 'there', buns are either bread or cake rolls. Asking for a couple of sticky buns in a bakery here will mean Mr Crusty the baker will give you two cake buns with icing (frosting) on the top. If I went into a deli in Manhattan and asked for a couple of sticky buns I'd probably get arrested...

 

Dunno what to call the language spoken in New York, but if you look up the word "bun" in any American English dictionary, one of the entries you will find is "a roll of bread dough" or similar definition.

[Allan F]

I personally struggle most with two issues in English:

 

1) when expressing myself, whether to use the UK English or American English terms. I've had people in London pubs joking at me when I asked for the restrooms whether I needed a nap, and asking for the loo in Los Angeles didn't get me very far either.

 

The analogous solution to this problem was enunciated many, many years ago: "When in Rome..."

[mav52]

The analogous solution to this problem was enunciated many, many years ago: "When in Rome..."

 

When in Rome, kill the competitors

[Musicophile]

The analogous solution to this problem was enunciated many, many years ago: "When in Rome..."

Sure, but the difficulty is that I need to remember which of all my colloquials I picked up during the years are British and which are American. Don't forget that both are foreign and intrinsically meaningless to me.

[mav52]

Sure, but the difficulty is that I need to remember which of all my colloquials I picked up during the years are British and which are American. Don't forget that both are foreign and intrinsically meaningless to me.

 

You wouldn't have to remember if posters would note where they are located. Rather simple .

 

It's like people are ashamed of where they are from or something.

[thesurfingalien]

Insurance ? Ensurance ? The former. But I don't know because I just don't. But I can guess it and guess what ? Ensure man, ensure. Not insure. If you look it up like in here : assure/ensure/insure

you see that both ensure and insure are allowed for the same thing. Ensurance sadly does not exist (any more ... or anymore).

So you see, a lot is about how to derive it from something we understand, and next we go wrong after all.

 

Can we extend this thread a little to some extent ? Would be great to learn from.

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

Nice topic!

 

 

I have always learnt / learned that ensure has the idea of something you believe to be true and want to convey to others, eg. "I ensure/assure you the Phasure DAC is the best one around". If I would use insure here, it would sound totally awkward (as in wrong) to me.

 

The same for insure... "I want to insure my Phasure DAC for EUR 5.000" sounds fine to me, but assure or ensure would not.

 

Luckily, in Dutch, we use one and the same word: "verzekeren". Makes stuff a lot easier

 

 

Another one of those beauties is "to raise". This verb has more meanings attached to it than any other verb I can come up with quickly, but never have I imagined that "I raise peanuts" is just as correct as "I raise horses". To me, "I raise peanuts" sounds as bizarre as "I grow children". Much less have I ever heard someone say "I reared my son well"; if someone would say that to me, I probably would interpret that as a polite way of saying: "I kicked my son's ass well" or something... However, it means the same as "I raised my son well".

 

Peter

[Paul R]

But you know Jud, you take so many things for granted that you forgot to explain what it is about.

To me, miss exists. Mis does not at all. And it doesn't. But as prefix it does and I can't guess that hence I don't see the reason why. Miss Spelled could exist in my "book". But when I hyphenate that I am wrong, like in miss-spelled. Or maybe not and you are wrong with mis-spelled. To me this looks "ridiculous" because mis does not exist.

 

I see nobody actually answered this for you, so the answer to the Miss vs "mis" question is that Miss (noun) came from the middle english maistresse - which is master (master) with a feminine ending. Miss(verb) came from the old Norse missa or old High German missen. Not sure which.

 

Mistake came from a similar but different lineage - the old Norse "mistaka" -to take in error.

 

Sounds the same, spelled in similar ways, but have very different meanings. And are typed the same, if the stupid spelling checker will leave them alone!

[Jud]

I see nobody actually answered this for you, so the answer to the Miss vs "mis" question is that Miss (noun) came from the middle english maistresse - which is master (master) with a feminine ending. Miss(verb) came from the old Norse missa or old High German missen. Not sure which.

 

Mistake came from a similar but different lineage - the old Norse "mistaka" -to take in error.

 

Sounds the same, spelled in similar ways, but have very different meanings. And are typed the same, if the stupid spelling checker will leave them alone!

 

But wait, there's more...

 

"Mistaka" in turn is constructed from "mis-" and "taka." "Mis-" as a prefix meaning bad/ly or in error goes all the way back to Old English (c. 400-1066 CE). And *it* in turn comes from the Proto-Germanic "missa-," a prefix meaning divergent or astray.

 

Edit: I'll leave the subject with a double entendre lyric from the inimitable pen of Little Feat's Lowell George: "And they call her Miss Demeanor...."

[PeterSt]

Thanks you both missies. But this is still not the explanation of where such things go wrong (with undoubtedly not only me). Point is : you can not go to dictionaries and find the origin of words in order to explain them - instead it is how they are wrong (as it seems to me) and from there put you on the wrong track. So what I do when reading is that I translate the words per syllable when needed. This is how mistake is a good example;

 

the old Norse "mistaka" -to take in error.

 

Sadly first translated to your own language as a whole, that "take in error". So no, the only thing I can do is look at mis and take. What do I see ? something like miss-grab. The grab is clear (to you) of course (ehm, I hope because I wonder(ed !)), but the miss apparently not because again a dictionary is needed. For me this is from "missing it" like in "failed to". So it is soooo easy, ... failed to grab. Sadly this does not lead to misstake or miss-take but to mistake which for the second part 100% sure exist (to take) which leads to the first part not existing - or what it is about : me writing it wrongly - misstake.

 

And so it is my conclusion that this is just a failed noun.

 

But if you see me writing about this in this fashion, then you can also see that it is nowhere in your mind that someone like me *has* to think like this and actually because he does he makes the mistake (which btw hardly feels like a noun when I write this last sentence).

 

[PeterSt]

So what I do when reading is that I translate the words per syllable when needed.

 

This is a bit of a weak example, but is the "that" here required or not ?

I am not sure, but I feel that American use less of such "that's" than the British.

 

The example is not the best, but since I didn't have it in myself at first and added it later, I thus even wonder about this one.

[PeterSt]

the old Norse "mistaka"

 

Norwegian ?

[PeterSt]

The green house example is actually also an interesting one, at least for Dutch (but I expect for more).

No matter Eloise made the mistake by accident, for us it needs more thinking, but for other examples;

 

We would say horseshit while in English it would rather be horse shit (maybe this is again not the best example, but it is about how in Dutch separate words are concatenated because they are a noun on their own).

 

This is exactly how I read the "green house" as greenhouse" in the first place and it took the reply of Allan to understand what was really going on. Of course in aftermath I understand it, but no way I saw it as a colored house at first.

This now of course is because I first have to think that other way around, because our greenhouse would be a glasshouse. Not in English, there it should be glass house.

 

Because of this upside down thinking I would automatically write green house while thinking greenhouse, not seeing that I changed the whole idea of the message; goes too unnoticed.

 

That I, meanwhile, by now very often make the mistake in Dutch to tear apart words which normally are concatenated is a bit sad. But obviously this is about how you can't keep on thinking about each and every word you write.

 

For Dutch, the other day I read something about coffeecup being allowed (and it sure is written concatenated) while teacup (not rejected by the spelling checker ) is not. A bit hard to explain, but first a tea cup doesn't really exist and secondly it is merely about "a cup of tea" which of course includes the tea so is a bit about something else.

So really, when teacup does not exist, how am I able to write teacup in English ? Does teacup really exist for you ? Very maybe a tea glass exists in Dutch, but we still wouldn't say it. And FYI, tea can sure be drunken from a cup (ask the Brits !).

 

Bzzz

[Jud]

This is a bit of a weak example, but is the "that" here required or not ?

I am not sure, but I feel that American use less of such "that's" than the British.

 

The example is not the best, but since I didn't have it in myself at first and added it later, I thus even wonder about this one.

 

"That" is optional in the sentence (that) you wrote above. Your choice, considering clarity, flow of the sentence for the reader, economy (not using more words than required) - i.e., style.

[Jud]

In (at least American) English, teacup and tea cup are both used, the concatenation probably more. I've never seen "coffeecup" that I recall.

 

This is a little odd, since coffee is far more popular here than tea, so you'd think the one-word form would have become common. Perhaps from British English where tea's the thing?

[Jud]

Norwegian ?

 

The old Norse (Germanic) tribes gave their name to Norway, as the old Germanic Angles (Anglo-) did to England, and the Saxons did to the state of Saxony, whilst playing their Saxophones.

[Musicophile]

whilst playing their Saxophones.

Not ok to take away the credit from the only major contribution Belgium ever gave to Music (ok, there's also Jacques Brel).

 

You American's already took away their fries and called them French.

[mav52]

Not ok to take away the credit from the only major contribution Belgium ever gave to Music (ok, there's also Jacques Brel).

 

You American's already took away their fries and called them French.

 

Hey , what about the waffles

 

and lets not forget about the great contribution Adolphe Sax made.

[Jud]

 

You American's already took away their fries and called them French.

 

I can tell you that I greatly enjoyed the pomme frites at Spa. How odd, though, they didn't have ketchup. (Just kidding!)

[Paul R]

This is a bit of a weak example, but is the "that" here required or not ?

I am not sure, but I feel that American use less of such "that's" than the British.

 

The example is not the best, but since I didn't have it in myself at first and added it later, I thus even wonder about this one.

 

The original sentence is written in a passive voice. That is probably why it bothers you a little bit. Wording it to be more in the active voice is clearer and more precise, but can be perceived as less polite. It usually is not really any more or less polite.

 

"I translate each syllable when I am reading, if I do not know the word."

or

"If I do not know the word, I translate each syllable as I read it."

 

By the way, most native English speakers do the same thing. Partly as a result of how we were taught to read. I can read any word, even if I do not know what it means. If I break it down into syllables, I can probably understand at least a bit of it. So can you. In fact, you are probably better at it than most native English speakers.

 

That technique does not always succeed in English, and it does not work at all in some other languages. In some languages, if you do not know the written form of a word, you can not read it.

 

Paul

 

P.S. I do the same thing in French, German, Swedish, etc.

[Paul R]

Hey , what about the waffles

 

and lets not forget about the great contribution Adolphe Sax made.

 

Yesterday was the 200th anniversary of the invention of the Sax, wasn't it? Miltary bands the world over are eternally grateful.

[Jud]

 

You American's already took away their fries and called them French.

 

By the way, I have been meaning to mention great confusers of both native and non-native English speakers: Pluralization, possession, and contraction.

 

Pluralization: In many cases, stick an -s on the end of a word. Thus, "Americans" (no apostrophe).

 

Possession: For singular possessive, in many cases, stick an apostrophe -s on the end of a word. Thus, "The American's French fries had been eaten." Confuser: For plural possessive, the -s and the apostrophe are in reverse order. "Americans' tastes for French fries are changing."

 

Contraction: Insert an apostrophe in place of a letter. So, instead of "it is," insert an apostrophe in place of the "i" in "is:" "It's [it is] nearly twelve."

 

*But*: Possessive pronouns take an -s *without* an apostrophe. Thus, "The cat licked its fur." It is [it's] just the same with "hers," "his," or "yours." The only time there is an apostrophe in "it's" is when it can be replaced by "it is." You didn't intend to say "The cat licked it is​ fur," so no apostrophe.

 

Edit: Further confusers: Contractions that are homonyms (sound-alikes) of possessives. So you get "There's no apostrophe in 'theirs'," or "You're not supposed to put an apostrophe in 'your' or 'yours.'"

[Musicophile]

Yesterday was the 200th anniversary of the invention of the Sax, wasn't it? Miltary bands the world over are eternally grateful.

Sorry for the further OT: My first association wouldn't be military bands, but Coltrane, Getz, Henderson, Adderley, etc.

 

Just imagine all those guys playing on a clarinet... We'd still be all listening to Benny Goodman.

[Musicophile]

By the way, I have been meaning to mention great confusers of both native and non-native English speakers: Pluralization, possession, and contraction.

 

Pluralization: In many cases, stick an -s on the end of a word. Thus, "Americans" (no apostrophe).

 

Possession: For singular possessive, in many cases, stick an apostrophe -s on the end of a word. Thus, "The American's French fries had been eaten." Confuser: For plural possessive, the -s and the apostrophe are in reverse order. "Americans' tastes for French fries are changing."

 

Contraction: Insert an apostrophe in place of a letter. So, instead of "it is," insert an apostrophe in place of the "i" in "is:" "It's [it is] nearly twelve."

 

*But*: Possessive pronouns take an -s *without* an apostrophe. Thus, "The cat licked its fur." It is [it's] just the same with "hers," "his," or "yours." The only time there is an apostrophe in "it's" is when it can be replaced by "it is." You didn't intend to say "The cat licked it is​ fur," so no apostrophe.

 

Edit: Further confusers: Contractions that are homonyms (sound-alikes) of possessives. So you get "There's no apostrophe in 'theirs'," or "You're not supposed to put an apostrophe in 'your' or 'yours.'"

Back (more or less) to topic:

 

The possessive apostrophe has made its way into German as well (I nearly wrote "it's way" then reconsidered, thanks Jud).

 

It shouldn't be there in the first place if you follow German grammar. Some believe we have to blame McDonald's for that (or maybe Kellogg's).

 

It is being used sometimes even in pluralization. It is now even referred to as the "Idiotenapostroph" or "Apostrophitis".