Articles in British vs American English - Page 2

What Rusty says is certainly true for me: I've never heard "burgle" from the mouth of a fellow North American native.

I often wonder how these differences come about. I assume that if the word has existed long enough to have been exported along with an English-speaking population to the USA, it is kind of strange that the word doesn't exist there.

I find that the noun burglary is first attested in 1532, burglar is first attested in 1541, from OFr burgier, pillage. But the verb to burgle only appears as late as 1872, a back-formation of burglar. The AmE burglarize is however attested in 1871.

So whereas the root noun was exported to the USA, the verbs where invented differently and simultaneously, although the AmE has the edge!

I confess that I find this quite interesting. :)

Back to the North American English term to hospitalize. I am sure I have heard the Spanish equivalent hospitalizar and hospitalizado. Is the term international or New York Spanish?

Also a British English question: Do butlers butle?

The OED does not list it as a verb, but I knew someone in the UK who used to be a butler, and he used it regularly in things like "I butled for the Duke of ... for 10 years". I imagine it would be buttled, if written.

According to the etymology in one dictionary, "butler" entered into Middle English from Old French "bouteillier" = bottle-bearer, from "bouteille", "botele" = bottle. Which makes sense given that traditionally a butler is a head servant in charge of food service, care for the silverware, and the deportment of other servants...

No, they buttle. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buttle includes a few citations.

As a similar back-formation, ushers may be said to ush, although that seems to be less established in literature.

I am sure that to ush is wrong and it almost sounds like a pun, because the verb to usher is the valid term.

They are common words here, but mainly in a formal language, e.g., in the news. I a standard conversation people would say "X ha estado en el hospital una semana" rather than "X ha estado hospitalizado una semana".

YES! What they said. The number of native English speakers who have an extremely poor understanding of the language is appallingly high, especially online. Your best bet is to learn grammar, syntax, and correct conjugation here or another trustworthy site.

'To usher' is correct. I used to volunteer as an usher at a theatre near where I live.

I suspect the differences between British English and American English came about partially as a result of the language being affected by different forces in each place, and partially because Americans came up with their own spellings and grammar when those things were starting to be standardized, because America is a free spirit and independent, not bound by anyone else's rules and regulations! ;D Seriously, I do think Americans deciding to come up with their own rules and spellings was an important factor. I don't think distance from England had much of a role because English in Australia and New Zealand is very similar to British English, despite the two countries being much farther from England and harder to reach than America.

Mmm...
Yeah, no wukkas, mate.

(Just kidding, probably you are right, although the Aussies, South Africans... and Injuns, etc. have their "peculiarities" too!)

Actually in many cases what's happened is that en-us has kept 18th century spellings and en-gb has evolved. A few spelling differences are due to Webster, but he was far less effective in breaking away from the English standards than he would have liked to be.

Interestingly enough, in the Spanish side, (semantically speaking) some of the 17th or 18th century terms are the ones that are used nowadays colloquially, such as "platicar". (In Spain, "platicar" sounds archaic, while in México is the common term...)

What surprises me is how little the language has changed in the last two hundred years on either side of the Atlantic (or "dewn undah" for that matter) Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is completely readable today, in fact I think easier to read than some modern writers. This is amazing considering it's over 200 years old... Compare this to the tremendous linguistic changes in, for example, the Phillipines.

The stabilty probably is the result of the advent of the written word. Although English has been written for centuries, I assume it wasn't read by the masses until the last few centuries when technology and politics permitted it. I am sure that literacy is a great stabilizing force for language. Additionaly in the past eighty years the recording of the spoken word came to be. Sound recording is obviously another stabilizing factor.

That is an interesting theory, and not an unreasonable one, however I also think linguistic change is strongly correlated with political incursion. For example, the Norman Invasion drastically changed the language spoken in England and was probably the primary factor in the profound transition from old English - which is almost entirely germanic in character and vocabulary - to Elizabethan English, which is a true melding of germanic and romantic roots.

You actually meant "romantic" or "Romanic" (i.e. "Romance")?

(I take the second, rigth?

romance 8. Also, Romanic. Also called Romance languages. the group of Italic Indo-European languages descended since A.D.800 from Latin, as French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Rumanian, Provençal, Catalan, Rhaeto-Romanic, Sardinian, and Ladino.

Yes. I believe that should have been capitalized (I didn't intend the sense of a "romantic movie"). I wouldn't say I'm always 100% accurate with my capitalization:) I think as long as it is capitalized it means "derived from Latin", however you're right it may be safer to say "germanic and Romance roots". Hmm. Not sure......[after some research] Okay, it appears that this is a matter which is hotly contested. There are those who claim that it is not correct to use the word romantic (capitalized or not) to refer to Latin derived languages, and others who claim it is. Here is someone in "my" camp who claims that romantic can be used in this way:

Cambyses
03-11-2009, 12:34

Latin based languages are correctly referred to in English as "romantic". ie French, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, Italian and Romanian? (not 100% on the last one). I can assure you of this as a professional editor. Of course, this being the internet, everyone is free to disbelieve me.
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archiv.../t-114233.html

I would say, if you want to be safe and stick with the official dictionary opinions the word "romance" would be better, though there are certainly many people who do use the word romantic in this sense.

And I am certain this is just wrong. As a subgroup of Italic languages, they have always been known as Romance languages, or Romanic. Never Romantic. Romance was a Vulgar Latin dialect from which these languages developed. :)

Dictionaries compile prevailing usage patterns and offer suitable definitions, they don't create the language. As the editor indicated there are people who use 'Romantic' to mean 'Romance' or 'Romanic', which isn't to say it's "right" but it's certainly in use. I have no investment in the issue per se, however, I would point out that at some point in the future it's certainly possible that enough people will use 'Romantic' in this sense to push it into official standard use.

No doubt, but that use is I suspect merely ignorance of an established use. I guess a lot of language change is attributable to the same reason.