Discussion:
Bizarre change from US English to UK English
(too old to reply)
Paul
2018-02-16 21:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/

Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "

This is referenced in a recent London Review of Books article:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the Atlantic,
‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object?’
END QUOTE

Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?

Paul Epstein
Garrett Wollman
2018-02-16 21:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
LRB's house style apparently says to use the latter spelling, and
their editors do not consider this to be "changing the written text".
It's the same word. They probably change "color" to "colour" too.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Steve Hayes
2018-02-22 03:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
LRB's house style apparently says to use the latter spelling, and their
editors do not consider this to be "changing the written text".
It's the same word. They probably change "color" to "colour" too.
In most house styles it's a no-no in quotations.

It's probably because no one does much proofreading any more.

I recently read a kids' book set in California, but it had a UK
publisher, so was translated into BrE, and I found it distracting -- I
don't think American kids refer to their mother as "Mum". And Harry
Potter was the other way round.
--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
Ken Blake
2018-02-22 19:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read a kids' book set in California, but it had a UK
publisher, so was translated into BrE, and I found it distracting -- I
don't think American kids refer to their mother as "Mum"
Right. I've never said "Mum," or heard anyone else in the US do so.
Young children usually say "Mommy," and then switch to "Mom" when they
get older, sometimes using "Mom" even after they become adults.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-02-23 15:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:36:54 -0000 (UTC), Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
I recently read a kids' book set in California, but it had a UK
publisher, so was translated into BrE, and I found it distracting -- I
don't think American kids refer to their mother as "Mum"
Right. I've never said "Mum," or heard anyone else in the US do so.
Young children usually say "Mommy," and then switch to "Mom" when they
get older, sometimes using "Mom" even after they become adults.
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much
closer to how "Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker
than "Mom(my)" would sound if it were a British English term.
--
athel
Paul Carmichael
2018-02-23 15:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's worth noting that the way American speakers say "Mom(my)" is much closer to how
"Mum(my)" sounds when spoken by a British English speaker than "Mom(my)" would sound if it
were a British English term.
What Americans say sounds more like "marmy" to me.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-16 22:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the Atlantic,
‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object?’
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
Didn't we just do that? (Not with that particular word.)

A more interesting question is why he's spelled that way, when he's pronounced
"Tanahasi," accent on the first and third syllables.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-02-17 00:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the Atlantic,
‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object?’
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
You really have to get out more!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-02-17 10:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
According to
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was
going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for
the Atlantic,‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was
I to object?’
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
No. He _wrote_ "skeptical", but he was _being_ sceptical.
Post by Paul
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
I don't think extracting a single word from a sentence constitutes a
quotation. I would have have written "sceptical" too. You can find
plenty of examples in this group: someones refers to a word used by
someone else and spells it in the way that comes naturally.
--
athel
Neill Massello
2018-02-17 10:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
I don't know, but this kind of thing just makes me sic.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-02-17 10:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-of-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-write
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was ‘sceptical’, he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the Atlantic,
‘but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object?’
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
"skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-17 13:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o
f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going
to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-w
rite
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was 'sceptical', he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the
Atlantic, 'but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to
object?'
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
"skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>

Jan
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-02-17 13:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o
f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going
to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-w
rite
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was 'sceptical', he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the
Atlantic, 'but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to
object?'
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
"skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
Jan
Are you sure about that?

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/?s=sceptic
J. J. Lodder
2018-02-17 22:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Paul
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-fol
ly-o
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Paul
f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going
to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what
-i-w
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Paul
rite
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was 'sceptical', he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the
Atlantic, 'but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to
object?'
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
"skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
Jan
Are you sure about that?
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/?s=sceptic
Seems like a misprint to me, or an editing error.
It doesn't repeat,

Jan
Whiskers
2018-02-23 15:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o
f-sober-minded-cynicism/273686/
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going
to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n04/pankaj-mishra/why-do-white-people-like-what-i-w
rite
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul
which says BEGIN QUOTE
He, too, was 'sceptical', he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the
Atlantic, 'but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to
object?'
END QUOTE
Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
Paul Epstein
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
"skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
Jan
I seem to remember a time when 'sceptic' was the usual BrE word for the
concept, but pronounced to sound like 'septic', which was an annoying
confusion. So I was quite pleased to discover that 'skeptic' was an
alternative and more helpful spelling and pronunciation. I think this
led to at least one class-room discussion.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
musika
2018-02-23 15:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by J. J. Lodder
Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
<https://www.skeptic.org.uk/>
I seem to remember a time when 'sceptic' was the usual BrE word for the
concept, but pronounced to sound like 'septic', which was an annoying
confusion. So I was quite pleased to discover that 'skeptic' was an
alternative and more helpful spelling and pronunciation. I think this
led to at least one class-room discussion.
Besides, he's wrong.


About ‘The Skeptic’

The Skeptic is the UK’s only regular magazine to take a sceptical look
at pseudoscience and claims of the paranormal.
--
Ray
UK
John Dunlop
2018-02-17 14:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a
BrE reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar
with the AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we
don't see "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without
noticing. Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that
they might wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of
"sceptical" or a different word or whether is wordplay that has them
whooshed.
Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is
which without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember;
"gr[ae]y" and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.
--
John
Peter T. Daniels
2018-02-17 14:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Dunlop
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a
BrE reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar
with the AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we
don't see "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without
noticing. Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that
they might wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of
"sceptical" or a different word or whether is wordplay that has them
whooshed.
Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is
which without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember;
"gr[ae]y" and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.
Just think of Lady Jane Grey. (We can refer to The Blue and the Gray.) I knew
a fellow -- an immigrant -- who was incensed when I once spelled his surname
Stuart (not having seen it written before) -- he claimed that was English
meddling with the only proper form, Stewart. (I don't think art historians
are going to switch to Tudor-Stewart any time soon, though.)
charles
2018-02-17 15:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a
BrE reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar
with the AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we
don't see "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without
noticing. Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that
they might wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of
"sceptical" or a different word or whether is wordplay that has them
whooshed.
Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is which
without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember; "gr[ae]y"
and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.
Just think of Lady Jane Grey. (We can refer to The Blue and the Gray.) I
knew a fellow -- an immigrant -- who was incensed when I once spelled
his surname Stuart (not having seen it written before) -- he claimed
that was English meddling with the only proper form, Stewart. (I don't
think art historians are going to switch to Tudor-Stewart any time soon,
though.)
Stuart is the FRENCH spelling. It arrive when Mary, Queen of Scots,
returned from France. Stewart or even Steward, is the 14th Century original
version of the Scottish monarchy.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
HVS
2018-02-17 15:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:28 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be
distracting to a
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
BrE reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar
with the AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we
don't see "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without
noticing. Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that
spelling that
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
they might wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of
"sceptical" or a different word or whether is wordplay that has them
whooshed.
Others of us are familiar enough with it to have no idea which is which
without looking it up. "Color" and "center" I can remember; "gr[ae]y"
and "s[ck]eptical" I can't.
Just think of Lady Jane Grey. (We can refer to The Blue and the Gray.) I
knew a fellow -- an immigrant -- who was incensed when I once spelled
his surname Stuart (not having seen it written before) -- he
claimed
Post by charles
Post by Peter T. Daniels
that was English meddling with the only proper form, Stewart. (I don't
think art historians are going to switch to Tudor-Stewart any time soon,
though.)
Stuart is the FRENCH spelling. It arrive when Mary, Queen of Scots,
returned from France. Stewart or even Steward, is the 14th Century original
version of the Scottish monarchy.
Founded by a royal steward who moved from Lancashire to Renfrew, IIRC
(from a topographical summary I prepared about Renfrew some years
ago).
Loading...