Discussion:
British v. American English
(too old to reply)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 16:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.

http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818

[the page, it says, is currently being renovated, so wait an hour]
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-11 22:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Death is not an experience. :||
Jack Campin
2017-10-11 23:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Ross
2017-10-12 00:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Distinctive American lexicon goes back almost to the earliest English
settlement, certainly in the form of borrowings from the indigenous
languages. I think non-borrowed vocabulary that takes on a distinctive
sense in America begins to be noticed in the late 18th century or thereabouts.
E.g. "calculate" in OED:

7. U.S. colloq. To think, opine, suppose, ‘reckon’; to intend, purpose.
1805 Z. M. Pike Sources Mississippi II. 152 We had reason to calculate,
that they had good guides.

Presumably in this early period colonialisms were negatively viewed by
home-country speakers, and indeed by many Americans. A nice quote from
OED s.v. "Americanism":

1810 in Mem. J. H. Payne (1815) 64 Several persons on the stage
give offence in the pronunciation of the pronoun possessive my—speaking
it in all cases with the full open y... This is a pure Americanism, not practised in any other place where the English language is spoken.

I assume the "offence" is saying [mai] rather than [mI].

But as to when British speakers began to worry about American _influence_
on their own dialect...maybe the new book will have something to say about
that.
Dingbat
2017-10-12 01:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jack Campin
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Distinctive American lexicon goes back almost to the earliest English
settlement, certainly in the form of borrowings from the indigenous
languages. I think non-borrowed vocabulary that takes on a distinctive
sense in America begins to be noticed in the late 18th century or thereabouts.
7. U.S. colloq. To think, opine, suppose, ‘reckon’; to intend, purpose.
1805 Z. M. Pike Sources Mississippi II. 152 We had reason to calculate,
that they had good guides.
Presumably in this early period colonialisms were negatively viewed by
home-country speakers, and indeed by many Americans. A nice quote from
1810 in Mem. J. H. Payne (1815) 64 Several persons on the stage
give offence in the pronunciation of the pronoun possessive my—speaking
it in all cases with the full open y... This is a pure Americanism, not practised in any other place where the English language is spoken.
I assume the "offence" is saying [mai] rather than [mI].
"myself" sometimes has an alternate spelling of "meself". The former is more common. The latter is positively rare, so it must be the deviant variant.
Post by Ross
But as to when British speakers began to worry about American _influence_
on their own dialect...maybe the new book will have something to say about
that.
Ross
2017-10-12 02:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Ross
Post by Jack Campin
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Distinctive American lexicon goes back almost to the earliest English
settlement, certainly in the form of borrowings from the indigenous
languages. I think non-borrowed vocabulary that takes on a distinctive
sense in America begins to be noticed in the late 18th century or thereabouts.
7. U.S. colloq. To think, opine, suppose, ‘reckon’; to intend, purpose.
1805 Z. M. Pike Sources Mississippi II. 152 We had reason to calculate,
that they had good guides.
Presumably in this early period colonialisms were negatively viewed by
home-country speakers, and indeed by many Americans. A nice quote from
1810 in Mem. J. H. Payne (1815) 64 Several persons on the stage
give offence in the pronunciation of the pronoun possessive my—speaking
it in all cases with the full open y... This is a pure Americanism, not practised in any other place where the English language is spoken.
I assume the "offence" is saying [mai] rather than [mI].
"myself" sometimes has an alternate spelling of "meself". The former is more common. The latter is positively rare, so it must be the deviant variant.
I don't know what you mean by "deviant" here.

"Meself" represents an alternative pronunciation, not just alternate spelling.
Middle English /mi:/ develops regularly into modern English /mai/ spelled <my>.
But at least from the 1600s we find the spelling <me> which apparently
represents a weak (unstressed) form ME /mi/. The pronunciation /mI/ was given
in OED as an acceptable alternative as late as 1908. And the above quote
shows that in 1810 some people considered _not_ using it an "offence". It's
still common, but tends to be relegated to "dialect" status.
Lewis
2017-10-12 02:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?
I bet it's in Shakespeare!
--
Reality is a curve. That's not the problem. The problem is that there
isn't as much as there should be. According to some of the more mystical
texts in the stacks of the library of Unseen University - (...) - at
least nine-tenths of all the original reality ever created lies outside
the multiverse, and since the multiverse by definition includes
absolutely everything that is anything, this puts a bit of a strain on
things. --Moving Pictures
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 03:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?
The first sizable study of Americanisms was done by Schele de Vere of the
University of Virginia in the 1870s.
Ross
2017-10-12 00:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
--
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 03:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
--
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
Ross
2017-10-12 05:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
--
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
them.

Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
either sort of person?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
them.
Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
either sort of person?
Because they don't like objective studies that disturb their prejudices.

See e.g. the reaction from certain persons to the simple facts about where people get the accents
they end up settling down with.
Ross
2017-10-12 19:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
them.
Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
either sort of person?
Because they don't like objective studies that disturb their prejudices.
Yes, I have noticed this on both sides.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
See e.g. the reaction from certain persons to the simple facts about where people get the accents
they end up settling down with.
I think they reacted badly to a dogmatic pronouncement from you. Further
discussion led to a much more complex picture of where accents come
from.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 20:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
them.
Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
either sort of person?
Because they don't like objective studies that disturb their prejudices.
Yes, I have noticed this on both sides.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
See e.g. the reaction from certain persons to the simple facts about where people get the accents
they end up settling down with.
I think they reacted badly to a dogmatic pronouncement from you. Further
discussion led to a much more complex picture of where accents come
from.
Which differed only in level of detail.
Dingbat
2017-10-12 03:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
Jack Campin
2017-10-12 09:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership?
In his early work, neither. He began by writing for a series of
paperbacks sold at station bookstalls on the Indian railways,
and the language uses a lot of "hobson-jobson".

I think his first book aimed at a non-Indian audience was "The
Light that Failed" - I don't recall anything un-British about
it, but I wouldn't have been looking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
?

Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing how? -- for sale in, say, London
and New York?

In the 1960s I occasionally saw a copy of Gramophone, the British magazine that filled the same
ecological niche as High Fidelity or Stereo Review. It was quite different.

A few weeks ago, I got sample copies of the Stanley Gibbons Stamp Monthly and Linn's Monthly
Stamp News. Again, very different approaches to the same content.

How would a bi-dialectal magazine work?
Jack Campin
2017-10-12 11:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How would a bi-dialectal magazine work?
Spelling and grammar checkers could sort out most "dialect" problems.
It's less straightforward to tell when your copy mentions somebody
your readership has never heard of. I'd guess most UK news media
had to start their reportage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal by
explaining who he was (I'd never heard of him until a week ago).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:45:59 AM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:

[no, he did not, but falsification of attributions is quite popular these days]
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
How would a bi-dialectal magazine work?
Spelling and grammar checkers could sort out most "dialect" problems.
It's less straightforward to tell when your copy mentions somebody
your readership has never heard of. I'd guess most UK news media
had to start their reportage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal by
explaining who he was (I'd never heard of him until a week ago).
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Jack Campin
2017-10-12 12:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.

Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
be one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Richard Tobin
2017-10-12 12:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I don't think there's a separate UK edition of Scientific American.

-- Richard
RH Draney
2017-10-12 13:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
be one.
Let me add: Wired...I can get both the US and UK editions at the
bricks-and-mortar bookstore, but can subscribe only to the US
version...while they cover many of the same stories, the entire layout
is different....r
Paul Wolff
2017-10-12 15:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
be one.
Let me add: Wired...I can get both the US and UK editions at the
bricks-and-mortar bookstore, but can subscribe only to the US
version...while they cover many of the same stories, the entire layout
is different....r
Different wiring regulations, innit.
--
Paul
Sam Plusnet
2017-10-12 21:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start.  And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
 Vanity Fair.  Cosmopolitan.  Scientific American.  Readers Digest,
when it was still going.  New York Review of Books.  New Yorker.
Time.  Marvel and DC comics.
 Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you.  The Economist would probably
be one.
Let me add: Wired...I can get both the US and UK editions at the
bricks-and-mortar bookstore, but can subscribe only to the US
version...while they cover many of the same stories, the entire layout
is different....r
Different wiring regulations, innit.
Bravo!
--
Sam Plusnet
Janet
2017-10-12 14:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
The Economist, Time.

" 19 Puzzling Differences Between "Time" Magazine U.S. And
International Covers

There may be a reason why Americans don't know very much about
international news. The U.S. editions of Time magazine are often a
little...different from the ones that go out to the rest of the world. "

examples

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/19insert-word-here-differences-
between-time-magazine-us-and?utm_term=.iglzdmlldq#.pgPNZqrrZD

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 15:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
The Economist, Time.
" 19 Puzzling Differences Between "Time" Magazine U.S. And
International Covers
There may be a reason why Americans don't know very much about
international news. The U.S. editions of Time magazine are often a
little...different from the ones that go out to the rest of the world. "
examples
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/19insert-word-here-differences-
between-time-magazine-us-and?utm_term=.iglzdmlldq#.pgPNZqrrZD
Magazines Over Here can be printed with different covers on the same issue.
Sometimes it's for mailed vs. newsstand purchases. Sometimes it's for test-
marketing. Sometimes it's to quadruple sales to collectors (that goes for
TV Guide. I wonder whether they still do it.).
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 14:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
be one.
I'm pretty sure /The Economist/ doesn't Americanize anything in copies
sent to America.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 15:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
be one.
I have occasionally looked at The Economist and seen nothing to suggest that it
had been altered from the original edition.

Do the "UK editions" differ in anything but the advertising?
John Dunlop
2017-10-12 16:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have occasionally looked at The Economist and seen nothing to
suggest that it had been altered from the original edition.
Do the "UK editions" differ in anything but the advertising?
According to this source at The Economist, the order of presentation is
different and the covers are sometimes different, but the content is the
same, with the exception of a few extra pages of British stories in the
UK edition:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-different-regional-editions-of-The-Economist-Electronic-and-print

http://tinyurl.com/ybos6a3t
--
John
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 21:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have occasionally looked at The Economist and seen nothing to
suggest that it had been altered from the original edition.
Do the "UK editions" differ in anything but the advertising?
According to this source at The Economist, the order of presentation is
different and the covers are sometimes different, but the content is the
same, with the exception of a few extra pages of British stories in the
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-different-regional-editions-of-The-Economist-Electronic-and-print
http://tinyurl.com/ybos6a3t
Okay, I reckon (as the /Economist/ writers say) I was wrong.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-12 16:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
Some magazines may have different content in US and UK (and other)
editions.
I've just looked at the September 2000 UK printed edition of Scientific
American and compared it with the online edition. The contents lists are
identical except for the page numbers. Adverts are not present in the
online version, but their absence is deducible from the pages not
included. The contents list puts the "End Point" cartoon [1] on page 92
in the UK print edition and on page 112 in the online (US) version.

[1] Two men are walking away from a building marked "Think Tank". One
says to the other "Perhaps, Hatten, you'd be happier at a guess tank."
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
GordonD
2017-10-12 17:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that
published a single edition for both markets?
Are there magazines that have two different editions --
differing how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side
of the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the
sport is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.
DC Comics doesn't publish British editions. There are comics published
by Titan Books in the UK which reprint the stories but they're
effectively completely different otherwise.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 14:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-12 16:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:58:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
"remorseless and scientific efficiency". So much like your own dear
President.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 21:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:58:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
"remorseless and scientific efficiency". So much like your own dear
President.
One out of three.
--
Jerry Friedman
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-12 18:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However,
the authors might well have extended their comparison farther into
the past than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler &
Fowler complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by
Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was
the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published a single
edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
In any case, Kipling is probably not a good starting-point for such an
inquiry, in that he was exceptionally aware of American English, and he
lived -- and wrote -- in Vermont for several years. In _Captains
Courageous_ he does his best to reproduce the various dialects of the
Americans & others on the boat. And in "How the Whale Got His Throat",
the whale's announcement before disgorging his passenger (in Britain!)
is that of the conductor on Kipling's train from Brattleboro to Boston.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Sharpen your mind to serve society, and your knife to serve :||
||: a pig. :||
Ken Blake
2017-10-12 19:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
In any case, Kipling is probably not a good starting-point for such an
inquiry, in that he was exceptionally aware of American English, and he
lived -- and wrote -- in Vermont for several years. In _Captains
Courageous_ he does his best to reproduce the various dialects of the
Americans & others on the boat. And in "How the Whale Got His Throat",
the whale's announcement before disgorging his passenger (in Britain!)
is that of the conductor on Kipling's train from Brattleboro to Boston.
I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:

Do you like Kipling?

Drum roll...
Percival P. Cassidy
2017-10-13 01:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
In any case, Kipling is probably not a good starting-point for such an
inquiry, in that he was exceptionally aware of American English, and he
lived -- and wrote -- in Vermont for several years. In _Captains
Courageous_ he does his best to reproduce the various dialects of the
Americans & others on the boat. And in "How the Whale Got His Throat",
the whale's announcement before disgorging his passenger (in Britain!)
is that of the conductor on Kipling's train from Brattleboro to Boston.
Do you like Kipling?
Drum roll...
I've never once kipled in my whole life.

Perce
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-13 21:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Ken Blake
Do you like Kipling?
Drum roll...
I've never once kipled in my whole life.
IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Where fools congregate, the wise keep their distance. :||
Percival P. Cassidy
2017-10-14 00:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Ken Blake
Do you like Kipling?
Drum roll...
I've never once kipled in my whole life.
IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.

Perce
Mark Brader
2017-10-14 01:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Ken Blake
Do you like Kipling?
Drum roll...
I've never once kipled in my whole life.
IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.
Well, the *definitive* version is Donald McGill's:

Loading Image...

where the addition of "you naughty boy" fixes the correct tone.
McGill created over 12,000 postcards from 1904 until he died in
1962, and I haven't been able to find a date for this one.

According to:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/category/donald-mcgill/

the basic joke of an unsophisticated person mistaking "Kipling"
for a verb goes back to 1907. They don't mention any publication
in "Punch", but they do mention a *different* joke also based on
misinterpreting "Kipling", which appeared in "Puck" (not "Punch")
in 1892:

Loading Image...

And in 1891 there was a poem by James Kenneth Stephen that played
on two authors' names:

When the Rudyards cease from Kipling
And the Haggards ride no more.
--
Mark Brader | "Define 'irritating'."
Toronto | "Well, no, you look it up, Mr. Encyclopedia."
***@vex.net | "Well, I think you mean 'Mr. Dictionary'."
--Paul Gross, DUE SOUTH
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Dingbat
2017-10-14 10:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Ken Blake
Do you like Kipling?
Drum roll...
I've never once kipled in my whole life.
IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.
http://bound4escape.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/9-16-2013-10-32-47-am.png
where the addition of "you naughty boy" fixes the correct tone.
McGill created over 12,000 postcards from 1904 until he died in
1962, and I haven't been able to find a date for this one.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/category/donald-mcgill/
the basic joke of an unsophisticated person mistaking "Kipling"
for a verb goes back to 1907. They don't mention any publication
in "Punch", but they do mention a *different* joke also based on
misinterpreting "Kipling", which appeared in "Puck" (not "Punch")
http://quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Puck-Kipling-041.jpg
And in 1891 there was a poem by James Kenneth Stephen that played
When the Rudyards cease from Kipling
And the Haggards ride no more.
Punning on "hagride" reminds me of a pun on "bedridden".

A reporter interviewing a centenarian asked, "Have you ever been bedridden?"
The centenarian replied, "Well, yes, but don't put that in your paper."

P.S. I don't remember whether the reader was encouraged to believe that this interview really happened.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 03:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Ken Blake
Do you like Kipling?
Drum roll...
I've never once kipled in my whole life.
IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
My first classical music article in the Chicago student newspaper's arts supplement
was my interview with Elly Ameling ....

(She was utterly charming, and at her recital she was at the height of her
powers. I regretted not also speaking with Dalton Baldwin, her accompanist.)
Ross
2017-10-14 02:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
--
Jerry Friedman
Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE", I finally found
my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
from Kipling, and italicize three words therein for deploration:

honey-coloured
shrimp-pink
waddled

"...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
novelist:"

???So what is it about these words?

"The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."

I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
criticism.

Oh, "honey-coloured" even gets a footnote:

"Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."

So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.

Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 03:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE", I finally found
my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
honey-coloured
shrimp-pink
waddled
"...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
novelist:"
???So what is it about these words?
"The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
criticism.
"Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
Does Anton look at other people's threads? But no, he's mired in the century
before the Fowlers.
CDB
2017-10-14 06:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE"
Did it become clear? A local reference.
Post by Ross
I finally found
my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
honey-coloured
shrimp-pink
waddled
"...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
novelist:"
???So what is it about these words?
"The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
criticism.
"Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
In the old days we said "white as snow, pink as a shrimp". None of your
R&SE.
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-14 18:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress.  However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s.  In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
   (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both
markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American.  I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market.  He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE"
Did it become clear?  A local reference.
Post by Ross
I finally found
my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
honey-coloured
shrimp-pink
waddled
"...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
novelist:"
???So what is it about these words?
"The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
criticism.
"Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that
results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
In the old days we said "white as snow, pink as a shrimp".  None of your
R&SE.
And though you Commonwealthers (or Imperial subjects) might have
occasionally allowed yourselves a "honey-coloured", you didn't write
every such phrase as briefly as possible like an industrial engineer
remorselessly minimizing therbligs.

Such things don't startle us now. But I still don't get
"exhaustiveness". And I'm probably missing some nuances.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ross
2017-10-14 23:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Ross
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress.  However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s.  In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was
the first popular
   (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both
markets?
The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American.  I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market.  He just liked R&SE.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE"
Did it become clear?  A local reference.
Post by Ross
I finally found
my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
honey-coloured
shrimp-pink
waddled
"...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
novelist:"
???So what is it about these words?
"The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
criticism.
"Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that
results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
In the old days we said "white as snow, pink as a shrimp".  None of your
R&SE.
And though you Commonwealthers (or Imperial subjects) might have
occasionally allowed yourselves a "honey-coloured", you didn't write
every such phrase as briefly as possible like an industrial engineer
remorselessly minimizing therbligs.
Such things don't startle us now. But I still don't get
"exhaustiveness". And I'm probably missing some nuances.
--
Jerry Friedman
Thanks, Jerry. So nuances. Style. Meh.

After they've finished with Kipling, they do go on to list some actual
lexical items that they can brand as Americanisms and deplore, and hope
their English readers never use.
occam
2017-10-17 20:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
Peter Moylan
2017-10-18 02:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2017-10-18 13:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
||:  Death is not an experience.  :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.
I have a theory that when you die, you retain all your memories of your
previous life right up until the moment you first draw breath in the
next life...which means that if you're destined to be reincarnated as a
giraffe, you have just enough time as you emerge from the birth canal
and see the ground six feet away rushing at you to think "Oh my god, I'm
a giraffe!" before everything goes blank....r
Mack A. Damia
2017-10-18 14:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
||:  Death is not an experience.  :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.
I have a theory that when you die, you retain all your memories of your
previous life right up until the moment you first draw breath in the
next life...which means that if you're destined to be reincarnated as a
giraffe, you have just enough time as you emerge from the birth canal
and see the ground six feet away rushing at you to think "Oh my god, I'm
a giraffe!" before everything goes blank....r
Giraffe twins: "And here they come, neck and neck."
Sam Plusnet
2017-10-19 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
||:  Death is not an experience.  :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.
I have a theory that when you die, you retain all your memories of your
previous life right up until the moment you first draw breath in the
next life...which means that if you're destined to be reincarnated as a
giraffe, you have just enough time as you emerge from the birth canal
and see the ground six feet away rushing at you to think "Oh my god, I'm
a giraffe!" before everything goes blank....r
So that's what happened to the whale and the bowl of petunias in Douglas
Adams' HHGTTG.
--
Sam Plusnet
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-18 21:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
I thought I had taken it from _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_, by
Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a skeptic like me. However, it turns out I
had misremembered it:

6.4311 Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: "We need to talk" means "You need to listen". :||
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-19 03:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by occam
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
||: Death is not an experience. :||
Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
I thought I had taken it from _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_, by
Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a skeptic like me. However, it turns out I
Maybe you learned it in a different translation, or in the original.
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
6.4311 Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through.
occam
2017-10-19 10:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
||: "We need to talk" means "You need to listen". :||
OK, here we agree.
I bet this is not of Wittgenstein's.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 10:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I thought I had taken it from _Tractatus Logico-
Philosophicus_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a
skeptic like me.
ObAUE: I perceive the last clause as saying that
Wittgenstein was same species of skeptic that you
are. I think it is not what you meant, and suggest:
"who was a skeptic, as I am." Excuse me in advance.

Is skeptisicm not orthogonal to ateism?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 10:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I perceive the last clause as saying that Wittgen-
stein was same species of skeptic that you are.
*the* same.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 09:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
However, the authors might well have extended their
comparison farther into the past than the 1930s.
In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "american-
ized" -- by Kipling!
Little wonder, for the American Nation was born long
before that.

Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) condemns
many fallacies introduced in AmE:

Build for Make. "Build a fire." "Build a canal."
Even "build a tunnel" is not unknown, and proba-
bly if the wood-chuck is skilled in the American
tongue he speaks of building a hole.

Got Married for Married. If this is correct we
should say, also, "got dead" for died; one ex-
pression is as good as the other.

Have Got for Have. "I have got a good horse" directs
attention rather to the act of getting than to
the state of having, and represents the capture
as recently completed.

That reminded me of Jack London's short story "To
Build a Fire":

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2429/2429-h/2429-h.htm#page47
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-19 11:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton Shepelev
Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) condemns
One has to wonder what you think "fallacy" means.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Have Got for Have. "I have got a good horse" directs
attention rather to the act of getting than to
the state of having, and represents the capture
as recently completed.
So there he prefers the American to the British usage.

This booklet of Bierce had no influence in its day and is utterly forgotten now.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 21:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) con-
[...]
One has to wonder what you think "fallacy" means.
Fallacy -- error, false conception, wrong belief,
&c.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
This booklet of Bierce had no influence in its
day ->
How can that be important? The popularity of any
work of man is unconnected with its true value.

The great Soviet writer Chingiz Aitmatov considered
the dwindling of his audience a natural result of
his progress from popular entertainment fiction (Red
Scarf, The Camel's Eye) to deeply philosophical work
(The White Stemboat, Longer than a Cent'ry lasts a
Day, Spotted Dog that Runs along the Shore). For
the same reason he took it for granted that writing
was increasingly harder for him because of the re-
finement of his work.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
-> and is utterly forgotten now.
Not utterly, for you and I remember him. And,
again, it what conclusion am I supposed to make of
it?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-19 21:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) con-
[...]
One has to wonder what you think "fallacy" means.
Fallacy -- error, false conception, wrong belief,
&c.
No, that's not what "fallacy" means.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter T. Daniels
This booklet of Bierce had no influence in its
day ->
How can that be important? The popularity of any
work of man is unconnected with its true value.
The great Soviet writer Chingiz Aitmatov considered
the dwindling of his audience a natural result of
his progress from popular entertainment fiction (Red
Scarf, The Camel's Eye) to deeply philosophical work
(The White Stemboat, Longer than a Cent'ry lasts a
Day, Spotted Dog that Runs along the Shore). For
the same reason he took it for granted that writing
was increasingly harder for him because of the re-
finement of his work.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
-> and is utterly forgotten now.
Not utterly, for you and I remember him. And,
again, it what conclusion am I supposed to make of
it?
I know _him_. I do not know (let alone remember) this booklet you love so much.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of his Civil War writings
-- the first half reportage, the second half fiction. All the short stories are
variations on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally as a
*Twilight Zone* episode.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-25 20:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
reportage, the second half fiction. All the short
stories are variations on "Occurrence at Owl Creek
Bridge," which I met originally as a *Twilight
Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the
usage of "shall" and "will" while re-reading:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-26 15:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton Shepelev
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
reportage, the second half fiction. All the short
stories are variations on "Occurrence at Owl Creek
Bridge," which I met originally as a *Twilight
Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and I'm CERTAINLY
not going to waste time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-26 20:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton Shepelev
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a lit-
tle book of his Civil War writings -- the
first half reportage, the second half fiction.
All the short stories are variations on "Oc-
currence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met
originally as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a varia-
tion on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay
heed to the usage of "shall" and "will" while
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
I do not know whether that story is included in
the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
You would have saved even more time (and breath) if
you had abstained from expressing your unfounded
opinion.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-27 03:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Anton Shepelev
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a lit-
tle book of his Civil War writings -- the
first half reportage, the second half fiction.
All the short stories are variations on "Oc-
currence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met
originally as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a varia-
tion on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay
heed to the usage of "shall" and "will" while
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
I do not know whether that story is included in
the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
You would have saved even more time (and breath) if
you had abstained from expressing your unfounded
opinion.
What opinion is that?

Are you claiming I didn't read the book I read?
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-27 19:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels:
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
reportage, the second half fiction. All the
short stories are variations on "Occurrence at
Owl Creek Bridge,"

Anton Shepelev:
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation
on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"?

Peter T. Daniels:
I do not know whether that story is included in
the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
time by looking at, let alone reading, it.

Anton Shepelev:
You would have saved even more time (and breath)
if you had abstained from expressing your un-
founded opinion.

Peter T. Daniels:
What opinion is that?

The one about the similarity of Bierce's Civil War
stories in that book. Will you define that similar-
ty for me? For it you won't, of what worth is your
opinion to me and to other readers?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you claiming I didn't read the book I read?
No, although I suspect it of the "Shall and Will"
chapter in "King's English."
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-27 21:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anton Shepelev
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
reportage, the second half fiction. All the
short stories are variations on "Occurrence at
Owl Creek Bridge,"
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation
on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"?
I do not know whether that story is included in
the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
You would have saved even more time (and breath)
if you had abstained from expressing your un-
founded opinion.
What opinion is that?
The one about the similarity of Bierce's Civil War
stories in that book. Will you define that similar-
ty for me? For it you won't, of what worth is your
opinion to me and to other readers?
Soldier is in dangerous situation. Soldier imagines close call and narrow
escape. Soldier dies -- it was a vision after the fatal bullet struck. Or
trapdoor opened. Or whatever.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you claiming I didn't read the book I read?
No, although I suspect it of the "Shall and Will"
chapter in "King's English."
I've never read that one through. I use MEU from time to time, because HWF was
usually quite judicious in his recommendations. But he did make a few boners.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-28 14:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of his
Civil War writings -- the first half reportage, the second half
fiction. All the short stories are variations on "Occurrence at
Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally as a *Twilight
Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on "Occurrence
at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the usage of "shall" and "will"
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
Thank you. I hadn't read it, and the portrayal of conditions and
attitudes at that time and place was very interesting.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and I'm
CERTAINLY not going to waste time by looking at, let alone reading,
it.
It is.
How do you know what book I have? If you can inform me as to its present
whereabouts in my house, I might look at it.
CDB
2017-10-31 10:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of
his Civil War writings -- the first half reportage, the
second half fiction. All the short stories are variations on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally
as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the usage of
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
Thank you. I hadn't read it, and the portrayal of conditions and
attitudes at that time and place was very interesting.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and
I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste time by looking at, let alone
reading, it.
It is.
How do you know what book I have? If you can inform me as to its
present whereabouts in my house, I might look at it.
It's in the text you get to if you follow the link.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-31 13:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of
his Civil War writings -- the first half reportage, the
second half fiction. All the short stories are variations on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally
as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the usage of
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
Thank you. I hadn't read it, and the portrayal of conditions and
attitudes at that time and place was very interesting.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and
I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste time by looking at, let alone
reading, it.
It is.
How do you know what book I have? If you can inform me as to its
present whereabouts in my house, I might look at it.
It's in the text you get to if you follow the link.
Nor does the link know what book I own.

It is not, in fact, any volume at all of the Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce.
Loading...