Talk:British and American English

houseplant

Merriam-Webster's 11th says: houseplant n (1871): a plant grown or kept indoors.

"pot plant" is not listed

under potted adject., they list (2) "planted or grown in a pot"

they don't have "potted plant" as a noun listed separately BUT, if I check my big old 1935 M-W I think i will find it there. Will report....

Make of all that what you will.... Hayford Peirce 18:35, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Update: the big old unabridged doesn't show "potted plant" as a separate entry. BUT, neither does it show "houseplant" at all! Neither as one word, nor two. Which doesn't surprise. I don't think I ever recall hearing it until I was a pretty full-grown adult and then I vaguely recall being surprised. What? A kind of a plant in a house, what does *that* mean? Today, however, it's ubiquitous.... Hayford Peirce 18:41, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

That is extremely confusing. But if it's ubiquitous, it's the correct from to go in under 'American' presumably.

Another thing: I was under the impression that Americans didn't also say 'autumn'. Would you say that 'fall' was more common? If so, it should, of course, precede. Ro Thorpe 18:48, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

I had this discussion with someone else a while ago. As far as I can tell, the two words are absolutely, 100% interchangeable. I didn't know until recently that the Brits didn't do the same thing. Hayford Peirce 19:23, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Housepants?

So if British pants are American underwear, British vests are presumably undervests? I forget what American vests are, waistcoats? And then what is American for underwear (= the whole caboodle)? Ro Thorpe 18:43, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Vests in 'Merka are "vests", "undervests" or "waistcoast", pronounced "weskit" -- and occasionally written that way. If you're really snooty, you might say "undergarments" for the whole schmear. But "undergarments" generally refer to lady's stuff. "Underwear" is for men. When I was a kid, it really mean "underpants", because men wore "undershirts". But that started to change when Clark Gable bared his manly chest bereft of an undershirt. So today, "underwear" really means "jockeys" or "boxers". Hayford Peirce 19:02, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Complicadissimo. I'll leave you to put 'vest' in if and as you wish. Ro Thorpe 19:09, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

No one really wears "vests" in the States except as one essential part of a "three-piece suit". I actually own *one*, which I put on sometimes for excruciatingly fancy (and cold) restos in Tucson and San Fran. and I want to impress a Kutie. Otherwise, only Wall St. lawyers and bankers wear them. Hayford Peirce 19:15, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Underclothing: a lexicon, is perhaps what is required!? Ro Thorpe 19:21, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Eraser johnnies

'Rubber johnny' was the vulgar slang of my schooldays. Perhaps it'd be better as a footnote? Ro Thorpe 19:06, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

I'd remove the condom entry entirely. Hayford Peirce 19:08, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Ah, the family friendly policy, true. But on the other hand, don't you want to protect all those innocent Brits who'll come to the US and be mercilessly bullied by their peers? :) Chris Day (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Naw, not at all. Just because I don't see the distinction. Condom in England is a condom in the USA. Period. Hayford Peirce 19:10, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I guess I was trying to clarify the confusion. No one in the UK would think you were talking about a condom if you said rubber. I'm not sure what people would think if eraser was used? Probably as in a blackboard eraser. I've been away too long to remember specifics. Chris Day (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

The problem is with erasers. Brits go to America & get laughed at/worse. Ro Thorpe 19:13, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Pavement

It was Chris who put in 'pavement'. I've never heard it in American. Ro Thorpe 18:55, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

"Pavement" is used frequently. I think it means the composition of roads in general. "Hayford hit Reaux upside the head with a 2 by 4 and the stunned Brit fell heavily to the pavement." Let's see what M-W the 11th says: 1.) a paved surface 2.)the artificially covered surface of a public thoroughfare 3.)chiefly Brit: sidewalk 4.) the material with which something is paved 5.) plus another long, obscure one.... Hayford Peirce 19:06, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

It was one that confused me when I first came to the states. I might have the exact American usage incorrect but it is definitely different to the UK. Chris Day (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

See the above -- it seems to cover a mulitude of things in the States. Hayford Peirce 19:11, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

rubbers

Okay, let's make this even *more* complicated. When I was a kid, and it was raining, and I was on my way to school, my mother would make sure that I was wearing my "rubbers". These were little black overcoats for my shoes, made, I suppose, of rubber. By the time I was 11, I was aware that "rubber" also meant something unspeakably vulgar. I don't think the word was actually *obscene*, but it was definitely so veddy vulgar that it would *never* be uttered in polite society. I have a feeling that the other use of the word vanished in the 1960s, both as their usage declined and the other meaning of the word became less vulgar. The way "screw" has evolved from roughly the same period. Hayford Peirce 19:21, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Well, that's actually more clear. Ro Thorpe 19:24, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

I suppose today, if one were writing an article (or short story) about an old, set-in-his ways, eccentric gentleman, one might write: "Old Mr. Jones stepped into the vestibule, wrapped his pin-striped raincoat around his scrawny shoulders, laboriously pulled on his old-fashioned rubbers, opened his umbrella, and stepped out into the elements." Short of that, I doubt if you'll ever see the terminology. Hayford Peirce 19:29, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

I am informed that the overboot thingies are now called "galoshes". J. Noel Chiappa 22:02, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Wrong, I fear. Rubbers were small thingees that just barely fit over the entire shoe and were semi-open topped. Think of them as being a rubberized slipper that you pulled over your shoe. Galoshes existed then and, I think, haven't changed. They are/were rubberized boots that fit over your shoes, yes, but ALSO about 8 inches or so up your leg. You could tuck the bottom of your trousers into them. And they had snap clasps on them to tighten them around your leg. Hayford Peirce 23:45, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

More endings

I don't know how to do the phonetic stuff, or I'd have added this one myself; one that I'm always tripping over is 'or/our' endings - harbor, colour, yadda-yadda. And did you list 'ise'/'ize' (I forget which is which now). J. Noel Chiappa 21:33, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Another

In the UK a torch is equivalent to the US flashlight. If I remember correctly the US torch is also a torch in the UK. I suppose the difference between a flaming torch and a battery operated one is pretty obvious in context. But maybe not. Possibly hundreds of British kids burn their sheets at night while reading under the covers? Chris Day (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

Harry Potter

I know this book was Americanized for its audience here. Is that common in literature? Or was this a one off. Is that something of academic interest with respect to the body of the article. Chris Day (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

A good question. I read so little these days that I don't know. I *think* that some of the best-selling Brits of 40 years ago such as Len Deighton might have had *some* of their really Brit-type words americanized but not all -- some just slipped through. With modern bestsellers, I have no idea. With books that are less than bestsellers, I doubt if any publisher takes the expense to change anything. Hayford Peirce 23:49, 19 March 2008 (CDT)