Sharing about English Lesson

The noun phrase a elephant in the cartoon above (19 November 2010) looks like an error arising out of ignorance. However, a more plausible explanation is that the cartoonist had merely been very careless. As an amateur calligrapher myself I know all too well how easy it is to misspell even the simplest of words � and even one�s own name! � when writing (and typesetting) a piece very slowly and deliberately by hand, especially in capital letters.

Can you, at a glance, tell whether each abstract (from Kazuo Ishiguro�s When We Were Orphans) is from a British or an American publisher?

The answer is that (a) is from an American publisher (Alfred A. Knopf, 2000) and (b), from a British publisher (Faber & Faber, 2000).

Quotation marks are usually the most obvious clue: Americans prefer double quotes, whereas the British prefer single quotes: compare �interrogating� and �interrogating�, for instance.

A second difference is the placement of the full-stop: compare �such an odd bird at school.� with �such an odd bird at school�.  American practice always has the punctuation inside the quotes, even if a fragment is being quoted (as here), whereas in British practice it depends on whether the punctuation was part of the original quote, a grammatically complete sentence, and so on.

A third clue to (a) being American is the full-stop in St. Dunstan�s: American editorial practice generally uses full-stops in abbreviations; by contrast, modern British practice has largely dispensed with them altogether.  In older British practice, however, full-stops were used in all abbreviations except contractions, i.e. the first and last letters of the full word were retained.  Hence, Dr for doctor but Prof. for Professor.  (However, to avoid confusion, St. was used for street and St for saint.)

Surprisingly, the word judgement in the US edition retains the British spelling, with the e as underlined � perhaps to keep the British identity of the protagonist.  In British English, judgement is used in non-legal contexts, and judgment in legal ones.  Hence, In my judgement, this judge is not qualified to pass judgment on this case (but judgment in both instances in American English).

A rather unusual typo here: the headline (Independent on Sunday website, 29 November 2009) should have read The war was illegal, with was rather than war underlined for emphasis.  The typo was no doubt due to the superficial similarity of the two words.  (And no, in case you�re wondering, it was not a hyperlink.)

As the first paragraph of the article shows, the issue at hand was the legality of the war:

�Tony Blair will be quizzed over a devastating official memo warning him that war on Iraq would be illegal eight months before he sent troops into Baghdad, it was claimed last night.�

While it would be possible to stress the word war, the effect would be to contrast it with something else, for example occupation.  This is known as contrastive stress.  But as we can see from the article, there was no such intended contrast.

Colons

Colons may be used to introduce main clauses (i.e. clauses that are grammatically complete and can stand on their own), as in the two examples above (Straits Times, 12 November 2009).  But does one use a small or capital letter after the colon?  Interestingly, in North America, the preference is for a capital letter, whereas British English prefers a small letter.  As can be seen from the above, however, Straits Times (and, by extension, Singaporean?) practice is inconsistent.

The headline (Straits Times, 21 November 2009) is wrong: make it Sleight of hand.  The expression means �skilful movements of [the] hand that other people cannot see� (Oxford) � in this case the France striker Thierry Henry�s main de Dieu (�hand of God�), which cost Ireland its place in next year�s football World Cup.

Slight and sleight are pronounced alike, so the misspelling � assuming it was not a weak attempt at a pun � is perhaps understandable.  The formal equivalent of sleight of hand is the French leger de main.

�ise vs �ize

Are criticize, analyze and televize American spellings?

Some quick answers: criticize is also possible in British English (BrE); analyze is found only in American English (AmE); and televize is possible in neither.

There is a widespread misconception that �ize is AmE and �ise, BrE.  It is worth remembering, however, that �ize has been in the English language since the 16th century � long before the founding of the United States of America as we know it.

While �ize is standard in AmE, it is also used by many BrE writers.  Reputable British publishers such as the Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Longman and Macmillan, and newspapers such The Times, prefer �ize on the grounds that it is closer to the Greek root �izo (whereas �ise is French).

There are many words, however, which cannot, for etymological reasons, be spelt with �ize: advertise, advise, arise, circumcise, compromise, excise, exercise, improvise, incise, merchandise, premise, promise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise and televise, to name a few.

Another point to note is that words ending in �yse cannot be spelt �yze in BrE, even by writers who prefer �ize: for example, analyse, catalyse, and paralyse.  (These spellings retain the s from the noun forms analysis, catalysis, and paralysis.)  In AmE, however, only �yze is used: analyze, catalyze, paralyze.

Hence, �yze is the only true AmE-only spelling, whereas �ize, though used chiefly in AmE, is hardly an American spelling since it has been in continuous use in BrE for the past five centuries.