Q for North Americans

[Bluegoat]

To me it is about intent. I an probably wrong but to me a sorcerer has at best a neutral intent whereas a philosopher swings more to the benign side. But then I often have feelings about words that are not quite correct.

 

I would think of alchemy as a science not a magic.

 

I wouldn't have said that either philosopher or sorcerer had any implications around intent.

 

But the idea of the alchemist as scientist is interesting, because at the time it was a thing, it was science, and the goals and such worked pretty much like science.  Alchemists were often natural philosophers in the general sense. 

 

But later, alchemy became associated with magic.

 

A lot of people think of science and magic as being far apart, but at the very beginning of the scientific period, they weren't particularly.  Both were often about figuring out the forces of nature, how they worked and could be manipulated. 

 

There was a huge surge in interest in magic in the early modern period, which is one reason that most of the big anti-witch stuff was also from that period, and not the earlier ancient and medieval world as many people assume.  Guys like PIco della mirandola were interested in philosophy, science, alchemy, magic, Kabbalah.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I've seen stats on what American's know about Canada that makes me think it is entirely possible many don't know about Wales.

[luuknam]

I don't think it's outrageous.  These kinds of polls: https://thoughtcatalog.com/nico-lang/2013/10/14-surprising-things-americans-dont-know-according-to-poll-numbers/

 

 

That's not a reliable source. E.g.

 

9. Despite being a constant fixture in school curricula, another 30% of Americans didn’t know what the Holocaust was. Despite being some of the worst devastation in human history, Americans were unable to identify the country responsible: We were. Us. 

 

Um... Americans were not responsible for the Holocaust. 

 

ETA: and, afaict, the author is not German either or anything, so it doesn't seem like I'm misreading this. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by luuknam

[Bluegoat]

That's not a reliable source. E.g.

 

9. Despite being a constant fixture in school curricula, another 30% of Americans didn’t know what the Holocaust was. Despite being some of the worst devastation in human history, Americans were unable to identify the country responsible: We were. Us. 

 

Um... Americans were not responsible for the Holocaust. 

 

ETA: and, afaict, the author is not German either or anything, so it doesn't seem like I'm misreading this. 

 

The author of that article didn't do the survey, though. 

it is a weird comment.  Maybe they mean by not stepping in?

 

 

[Violet Crown]

whereas a philosopher swings more to the benign side.

You should visit Leiter Reports or the comments section of Daily Nous. That would change your opinion quick.

 

ETA: Or hang out with inebriated philosophers after a faculty "dinner" at a bar.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Violet Crown

[luuknam]

The author of that article didn't do the survey, though. 

it is a weird comment.  Maybe they mean by not stepping in?

 

 

Right, but the source they linked to did not say anything about Americans being responsible, so that's even weirder. In fact, the source they linked to didn't say who was responsible for the Holocaust at all, just that nearly 70% of Americans know the answer (and therefore, 30% don't?). So, I'm going to guess the author of the article is one of the 30%. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by luuknam

[Bluegoat]

Right, but the source they linked to did not say anything about Americans being responsible, so that's even weirder. In fact, the source they linked to didn't say who was responsible for the Holocaust at all, just that nearly 70% of Americans know the answer (and therefore, 30% don't?). So, I'm going to guess the author of the article is one of the 30%. 

 

I was thinking the author is part of some other group, who knows what the Holocaust is but not what the difference between an American and German is.

 

Apparently over 70% also think Toronto is the capitol of Canada - I am thinking they are largely the same people.

[luuknam]

Right, but the source they linked to did not say anything about Americans being responsible, so that's even weirder. In fact, the source they linked to didn't say who was responsible for the Holocaust at all, just that nearly 70% of Americans know the answer (and therefore, 30% don't?). So, I'm going to guess the author of the article is one of the 30%. 

 

 

Also, that source is from alternet.org, which I've never heard of but which doesn't scream "reliable source" to me either, and says it's an excerpt from a book by Rick Shenkman. Since I'm not in the possession of that book, I can't check its sources. I know there are plenty of polls out there that show Americans are ignorant in various ways, and I'm not debating that... I'm just weary of this (chain of) source(s). 

 

ETA: Especially with how it ended with Americans being responsible for the Holocaust. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by luuknam

[gardenmom5]

And now I'm beginning to wonder how many people here are irked with my pinned posts on the High School board where I constantly refer to "Honours Chemistry", "Honours Biology", and "Honours Physics". :D

 

Ah well. :)

 

most probably haven't even noticed. wouldn't faze me - and I'm one who voted there are times when british english spellings/words bug me.

from the mouth (or pen) of a brit/regarding-a-brit .. . not at all.  (when they're writing an american role .. . . . . :sneaky2: )

[wathe]

 

 

Apparently over 70% also think Toronto is the capitol of Canada - I am thinking they are largely the same people.

 

You must mean capital.  :001_smile:

[heartlikealion]

I went to the movies the other night (in the US). And the door said "theatre." It actually kind of made me happy because it just seems fancier haha.

[scoutingmom]

 

 

if you want to divide north america into two - you have spanish speaking, and english speaking.

I'm sure the French speaking appreciate that

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[Lady Florida.]

Huh? Have they tried to understand a single Welsh sentence???

 

Or read a road sign listing Welsh cities? :)

 

I must be around a different percentage of the American population than you are.  I would be very surprised at anyone who didn't know that Wales and the Welsh existed.

 

It seems odd to me too. I can't imagine anyone I know not knowing that Wales exists. They might not know much about it, but I'm sure they do know there is a Wales.

 

I voted that it doesn't bother me at all. But after reading some responses I agree that context does matter. If it supposed to be taking place in the US and the characters are supposed to be American, it would probably be off-putting if they "sounded" British. But the same would be true for me if a British character in Britain sounded American.

 

This would be the only time it bothers me, and in fact did bother me. In one of the early Jack Reacher novels there is mention of the kerb. I had to look it up and found out that's the British spelling of curb. That though, I think is an editing issue. If Lee Child didn't know there was a spelling difference then at least the editor should have caught it. And the only reason it did bother me is because Jack Reacher is a very American character. I wouldn't expect any British spellings or sayings in those novels, unless a British character was talking.

 

I think it would be very unusual to find someone who didn't know the Welsh existed. It's likely they can't give you the name of a single person from Wales, but they know it's there. Why wouldn't they? If for no other reason they know the puppy dog rhyme.

Or if they can, Catherine Zeta-Jones is the only one they can name.

[Word Nerd]

It wouldn't stop me from buying a book, but putting periods and commas outside of quotation marks makes me crazy (especially when Americans do it).

Edited July 28, 2017 by Word Nerd

[foxbridgeacademy]

No i don't have an issue with it in fact like a PP mentioned it helps with the accents in my head.... but I also watch a lot of British, Australian, and New Zealand TV shows so reading/hearing other English dialects isn't a problem either.

[Bluegoat]

You must mean capital.  :001_smile:

 

I always mix that one up.  I am to the point where I second-guess myself about it about six times, then give up.

[Bluegoat]

No i don't have an issue with it in fact like a PP mentioned it helps with the accents in my head.... but I also watch a lot of British, Australian, and New Zealand TV shows so reading/hearing other English dialects isn't a problem either.

 

Some are harder than others.

 

I watched the Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, on Youtube a few years ago - I had to go back a lot because I couldn't fiigure out what they were saying.  I was much better by the end of the first season, but for someone who watches British tv 90% of the time, it was quite labour intensive.

 

[Violet Crown]

I always mix that one up. I am to the point where I second-guess myself about it about six times, then give up.

I live in our capital, and frequently drive by the Capitol. I remember that the building has a nice round dome.

[happi duck]

Words wouldn't slow me down. A new to me phrase I think I'd catch from context.

 

What would slow me down is temperatures. I would need to look up the conversation. I haven't had enough exposure to c to immediately know "wow, that's hot/cold!"

 

I'd rather look it up than have the book changed.

[Xahm]

The only time I find it off-putting is when American people use British spellings/pronunciations/usage to appear more sophisticated. I am guilty of some reverse snobbery in that area. In America I'm less likely to frequent a movie theatre than a movie theater. When Americans say "quite" in place of "really" as in "I quite like that" instead of "I really like that," I'm less likely to take their opinions or judgement seriously. It always reminds me of the Arrested Development story arc with the special needs British woman.

[Laura Corin]

The only time I find it off-putting is when American people use British spellings/pronunciations/usage to appear more sophisticated. I am guilty of some reverse snobbery in that area. In America I'm less likely to frequent a movie theatre than a movie theater. When Americans say "quite" in place of "really" as in "I quite like that" instead of "I really like that," I'm less likely to take their opinions or judgement seriously. It always reminds me of the Arrested Development story arc with the special needs British woman.

They would be wrong too. 'quite' in current UK usage means 'somewhat' used that way.

[Word Nerd]

I don't think of "quite" as a British word at all. :confused:

[happi duck]

I don't think of "quite" as a British word at all. :confused:

I was thinking the same thing!

[Daria]

I chose the last option because at work, where I often teach very beginning readers, I do sometimes find unfamiliar colloquialisms to be challenging. My pey peeve as a special educator is when restaurants try to be cute and label bathrooms in ways that are challenging for adults with ID to interpret. If it's something I'm reading then I have no issues.

 

I will also say that when my family moved from the U.S. to Canada when I was in high school I had many bad experiences with teachers almosy anytime I accidentally used an American spelling or didn't know some Canadian fact, so I don't think that this is a specifically American thing.

[maize]

It wouldn't stop me from buying a book, but putting periods and commas outside of quotation marks makes me crazy (especially when Americans do it).

I'm American and I do this all the time, the British punctuation is so much more logical to me.

[regentrude]

 When Americans say "quite" in place of "really" as in "I quite like that" instead of "I really like that," I'm less likely to take their opinions or judgement seriously.

 

But "really" and "quite"  do not really carry the same meaning.

"I quite like that" means "I rather like that" (but not enough to burst into superlative)

Something that's "quite good" is not, actually really good - it's only fairly good.

Edited July 30, 2017 by regentrude

[Xahm]

In my, albeit limited, experience, Americans tend to overstate and Brits to understate. An American saying "I really like that" is about the same enthusiasm level as a Brit's "I quite like that."

But "really" and "quite" do not really carry the same meaning.

"I quite like that" means "I rather like that" (but not enough to burst into superlative)

Something that's "quite good" is not, actually really good - it's only fairly good.

[KungFuPanda]

I've seen stats on what American's know about Canada that makes me think it is entirely possible many don't know about Wales.

I think the average American knows more about the U.K. than they do about Canada. We get years of European history in school. I can't remember specifically studying Canada EVER, so unless you just have a personal interest, or live near that border, it wouldn't be unusual to know very little about Canada. Mexico gets covered, but Canada is largely ignored.

[Laura Corin]

In my, albeit limited, experience, Americans tend to overstate and Brits to understate. An American saying "I really like that" is about the same enthusiasm level as a Brit's "I quite like that."

 

I'm not sure. When I, as a Brit, use 'quite', there is often a 'but' implied. "I quite like milk chocolate (but I actually prefer plain chocolate)."

 

My husband is American, and it took me years not to be mildly offended when he said he quite liked a dish I had cooked.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Laura Corin

[gardenmom5]

 

I will also say that when my family moved from the U.S. to Canada when I was in high school I had many bad experiences with teachers almosy anytime I accidentally used an American spelling or didn't know some Canadian fact, so I don't think that this is a specifically American thing.

 

I have some friends who were in england when their kids were young.  the teacher was unkind to a seven year old girl because she didn't know what "trainers" were.   so, most definitely not an "american" thing.

[Xahm]

Maybe this is why I get mildly irked by the way I've heard/seen Some Americans use it. Where I live, it's an affectation when someone uses"quite"as a modifier, and they generally lack nuance in how they use it.

 

 

I'm not sure. When I, as a Brit, use 'quite', there is often a 'but' implied. "I quite like milk chocolate (but I actually prefer plain chocolate)."

 

My husband is American, and it took me years not to be mildly offended when he said he quite liked a dish I had cooked.

[mathmarm]

Do you find British spelling off-putting? Yes.

 

Your publishers seem to think so. Are they right, or being overprotective? :laugh:

I'm sure it happens a lot, but I never think about it.

 

For things like -ise/ize or the extra 'u' in words like color, etc., I prefer the US spelling. It is familiar to me and it allows me to stay 'in' the story instead of being distracted by the spelling and having my train of thought disrupted.

 

 

To me, it makes sense to adapt media to its audiences expected comprehension. Especially for a word-based media such as books.

 

Most Americans don't watch telly, wear trainers or ride on lifts.

So if a character watches TV, wears sneakers and takes an elevator, I don't see what the big deal is.

[Caroline]

Anyone who follows soccer knows about Wales. Gareth Bale is Welsh and therefore he plays on the Wales National Team as opposed the the England National Team.

 

The actor Christian Bale was also born in Wales, although Wikipedia refers to him as an English actor.

 

As for spelling, I don't care. It doesn't distract me one way or the other. I am not a great speller, so that might be why.

[Violet Crown]

How has there been so much discussion of Welsh icons with no mention of Tom Jones?

 

What's new, pussycat

Whoa - o - o - a...

[Lady Florida.]

Most Americans don't watch telly, wear trainers or ride on lifts.

So if a character watches TV, wears sneakers and takes an elevator, I don't see what the big deal is.

 

But a character who is British would do the former, not the latter. To me the changes would 1. make the British character less British, and 2. insult my intelligence.

[KungFuPanda]

Until this thread I never knew that we used "quite" differently. Americans use it more like "absolutely" to emphasize how very much something is. So if it's quite a long way, it's a substantial walk and if you quite like something, you like it completely.

 

This is sneakier than the Sprite/Lemonade misunderstanding!

[gardenmom5]

But a character who is British would do the former, not the latter. To me the changes would 1. make the British character less British, and 2. insult my intelligence.

 

I believe she was referring to a british author having an american character watching the telly, wearing trainers, and riding a lift.

 

the one's that make me the craziest are when that american character is supposed to be in the US doing those things. 

 

and turning on the fire.. . .

please do, tell me more.  I know there are gas fireplaces where you would "turn on the fire" (which we americans would refer to as "turning on the gas") - but I don't think that was to what the author was referring . . . . .

Edited July 30, 2017 by gardenmom5

[Laura Corin]

Now I'm confused. Are we talking about speech or description? An American and a Brit should not sound the same, and an author should use an editor if necessary to get that right.

 

But does a British author need to use American idiom for description if the characters venture to the US? Because that could fit poorly into the author's native style, using 'gotten' rather than 'got', for example. Or should the idiom switch based on the nationality of the character?

[Lady Florida.]

I believe she was referring to a british author having an american character watching the telly, wearing trainers, and riding a lift.

 

 

Okay, that makes sense then.

 

 

Now I'm confused. Are we talking about speech or description? An American and a Brit should not sound the same, and an author should use an editor if necessary to get that right.

 

But does a British author need to use American idiom for description if the characters venture to the US? Because that could fit poorly into the author's native style, using 'gotten' rather than 'got', for example. Or should the idiom switch based on the nationality of the character?

 

No, definitely not. At least I don't think that's what anyone is saying. However if an author from one side of the pond is writing a character from the other side, it's on the author to learn the correct idioms. The example I used is a British author (Lee Child) writing an American character (Jack Reacher) but it goes both ways. Somerset Maugham said it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to do. He said Henry James lived in England for years and still didn't get his British characters quite right, though he gave him props for trying.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Laura Corin]

No, definitely not. At least I don't think that's what anyone is saying. However if an author from one side of the pond is writing a character from the other side, it's on the author to learn the correct idioms. The example I used is a British author (Lee Child) writing an American character (Jack Reacher) but it goes both ways. Somerset Maugham said it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to do. He said Henry James lived in England for years and still didn't get his British characters quite right, though he gave him props for trying.

Okay. Because a pp's discussion of turning on a fire/gas sounded more like description than speech, but I might have misinterpreted.

[Xahm]

I think a good American edition of a British novel would try to preserve as much of the original phrasing as possible but changing any thing that would hinder understanding. "Trainers" can probably be understood easily from context without confusion. "Pants" or "vest" can be easily misunderstood since they are still clothes, just very different clothes. "Quite" is apparently another confusing word.

[wintermom]

Thank goodness for the ability to watch British and International TV to hear and see these objects to get a clear picture of their real meaning (e.g., trainers). I thought knickers were old-fashion bloomers for the longest time - and I could never ever use that term myself. Just seems too funny sounding. I think I could live in the UK for a life time and never call my underwear knickers. ;)

 

However, I would still have to look on-line for correct meanings of lots of off-colour language. Things like "wanker" have no precise meaning for me, though I understand that it's something negative. And when does one choose "twit," "twat" or "tosser?"  :laugh:  

[Melissa in Australia]

Wait, don't you ever say to someone "don't get your knickers in a knot"?

 

 

Not that I call underwear knickers, I just call them undies.

[Xahm]

Funny story: when I was living in Russia, my American flatmate (a very useful British I have adopted) and I were invited to dinner by a group of British girls. My flatmate wanted to know the dress expectations for the evening's activities, but the girls were unsure how to respond. My flatmate then asked "well, are you all going to be wearing pants or...?" The girls were horrified, but said "yes, wear pants." Our Scottish friend clarified their reaction before dissolving into fits of giggles at my flatmate's expense. The girls took "pants" to mean "underwear" and wondered what kind of evening we thought this was.

[SquirrellyMama]

Funny story: when I was living in Russia, my American flatmate (a very useful British I have adopted) and I were invited to dinner by a group of British girls. My flatmate wanted to know the dress expectations for the evening's activities, but the girls were unsure how to respond. My flatmate then asked "well, are you all going to be wearing pants or...?" The girls were horrified, but said "yes, wear pants." Our Scottish friend clarified their reaction before dissolving into fits of giggles at my flatmate's expense. The girls took "pants" to mean "underwear" and wondered what kind of evening we thought this was.

😂

 

I learned that one on here years ago, but forgot. Must remember the diffrrence!

 

Kelly

[Jean in Newcastle]

Wait, don't you ever say to someone "don't get your knickers in a knot"?

 

 

Not that I call underwear knickers, I just call them undies.

I say "don't get your panties in a twist ".

[Daria]

I say "don't get your panties in a twist ".

Are knickers unisex? To me the expression " don't get your panties in a twist" has a slightly sexist connotation.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Are knickers unisex? To me the expression " don't get your panties in a twist" has a slightly sexist connotation.

 

While I do think of panties as being a feminine garment, I don't see the word as putting down females (which is what I think of when I think of the word "sexist").  I also don't think of the phrase as being literal.  I say it to men as well as women.  Everyone giggles and gets the point.  (I do not use the phrase as a weapon.)

[KungFuPanda]

Are knickers unisex? To me the expression " don't get your panties in a twist" has a slightly sexist connotation.

Men wear manties.

[gardenmom5]

Now I'm confused. Are we talking about speech or description? An American and a Brit should not sound the same, and an author should use an editor if necessary to get that right.

 

But does a British author need to use American idiom for description if the characters venture to the US? Because that could fit poorly into the author's native style, using 'gotten' rather than 'got', for example. Or should the idiom switch based on the nationality of the character?

 

mostly it's been speech - but descriptions people have encountered have been brought up. and there are a lot of descriptions . . . .

 

I don't think anyone has an issue with a british character speaking like a brit.  especially if they're in the UK.  the complaints seem to be about american characters using british speech patterns/idiom and vocabulary - especially when they're in the US.

 

we don't have "lounges/loungrooms".  we don't "get a fright". etc. 

and it's far far more common to drink coffee than tea - and we don't call a meal "tea". 

 

there have been times I've wanted to yell at british authors to get an american editor . . . 

 

Okay. Because a pp's discussion of turning on a fire/gas sounded more like description than speech, but I might have misinterpreted.

 

 

I'm the one who brought up a british author writing an american character IN the US "turning on the fire".   and expressing I can only guess what it means in the context in which it was used.

 

which I did encounter in an extremely annoying piece by a british author with an american character in the US.

I think a good American edition of a British novel would try to preserve as much of the original phrasing as possible but changing any thing that would hinder understanding. "Trainers" can probably be understood easily from context without confusion. "Pants" or "vest" can be easily misunderstood since they are still clothes, just very different clothes. "Quite" is apparently another confusing word.

jumper is also *very* different.   here, it's a woman's sleeveless dress meant to be worn over a blouse. british usage is a pullover sweater worn by men or women.

I still have to force myself to remember that when I encounter it.

 

Wait, don't you ever say to someone "don't get your knickers in a knot"?

 

 

Not that I call underwear knickers, I just call them undies.

 

as jean said - don't get  your panties in a twist