tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post115257252782432593..comments2024-03-28T16:11:36.465+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: double Lslynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-75812246200908073712021-04-30T14:43:59.945+01:002021-04-30T14:43:59.945+01:00Hi Ian, AmE is less fixed about these spellings t...Hi Ian, AmE is less fixed about these spellings than BrE is. At school I learned that both were OK, and both were listed in my school dictionaries (which are more selective than adult dictionaries about what they let in). It's kind of like the ise/ize difference in BrE, where the tradition has been varied and gets more solidified over time. On 'mode*ing', the GloWBE corpus has over 600 hits for two Ls in AmE, but over 3000 for two Ls. When I'm editing for AmE, I do reduce the Ls.<br /><br />The main thing, of course, is just to be consistent in a document. lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-17735879828233565732021-04-30T08:51:48.902+01:002021-04-30T08:51:48.902+01:00In which cases are double Ls such as "modelli...In which cases are double Ls such as "modelling" acceptable in AmE and why? I edit texts regularly for a client who wants AmE, unlike most editing clients in Finland who want BrE, and I am always a little stumped when he writes "modelling" and the American spell checker doesn't mark it as wrong. I know the New Yorker uses it, but is it common otherwise in AmE? Should I change it to "modeling" if he wants a more "standard" AmE, whatever that means? I imagine my client has just learnt BrE in school and doesn't know about some of the finer spelling differences, such as single versus double Ls.Ian Mac Eochagáinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08807587737403861042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-35691756108456769802020-04-27T02:23:01.456+01:002020-04-27T02:23:01.456+01:00Bused was the worst possible example: it's the...<i>Bused</i> was the worst possible example: it's the only one-syllable verb that *doesn't* follow this rule in AmE. Major prescriptive style guides such as the AP and Garner allow only <i>bused</i>, always giving the reason as the collision with the other verb <i>buss</i>. <i>Bused</i> has a strong lead over <i>bussed</i> in American news media, even the New Yorker, where they usually want as many double consonants as possible.<br /><br />So <i>bused</i> is certainly not starred in AmE, quite the reverse. You may have gotten your impression from British media, where <i>bussed</i> has been much more successful. You could probably get a US/UK difference post out of this.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the plural noun <i>the buses</i> is far ahead of <i>the busses</i> on both sides of the Atlantic, dashing Fowler's hope in <i>Modern English Usage</i> (1926): "The plural of <i>bus</i> is usually <i>buses</i> ; this irregularity is explained by the fact that <i>buses</i> is still regarded as an abbreviation of the regular <i>omnibuses</i> ; when that is forgotten (& <i>bus</i> is now more usual than <i>’bus</i>), doubtless <i>buses</i> will become, as it should, <i>busses</i>."<br /><br />I don't know why the noun would behave differently from the verb.ktschwarznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-74047357571930450272018-06-12T16:24:00.512+01:002018-06-12T16:24:00.512+01:00I pronoun e fuel as few-al, and dial as dye-al. Br...I pronoun e fuel as few-al, and dial as dye-al. British Canadian.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09735724575679771743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-2628458451151935052017-09-18T17:42:23.312+01:002017-09-18T17:42:23.312+01:00If I were to speak "more properly", then...If I were to speak "more properly", then I would say dial and fuel as two distinctive syllables (di-ull, rather than dile, for example) and fuel obviously, if only from a poetic sense, did have more than one syllable - see "gathering winter fu-oo-el).<br /><br />Granted, in my normal way of speaking, I would slur those two words into one syllable each.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388234311676611671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-90034257165368620802013-03-30T14:35:36.834+00:002013-03-30T14:35:36.834+00:00David Crystal has some interesting thoughts on thi...David Crystal has some interesting thoughts on this. It's among the archive of old publications he's putting on line.<br /><br />Clicl <a href="http://www.davidcrystal.community.librios.com/?id=-1592&cid=-1592&taxonomyselectid=-1487&report__pageno=5" rel="nofollow">here</a>, then click the dowline button under <b>Single and double 'l'</b>.<br /><br />Echoing Pam Peters, he cites cases where British spellings are inconsistent and at least one American anomaly: <i>crystallized</i>. There are also words with variable spelling — examples given are <i>medal(l)ists, panel(l)ling, towel(l)ling, bejewel(l)ed, carol(l)ling</i> — which Pam Peters (writing from Australia) proposes should be regularised internationally with single L.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-47353025055519889982013-03-13T12:39:06.307+00:002013-03-13T12:39:06.307+00:00Two important problems with English spelling arisi...Two important problems with English spelling arising out of piecemeal attempts at consistency in the past:<br /><br />1. The vowel letters A, E, I (with variant Y), O, U may represent five pairs of sounds, which <br />• <b>once upon a time</b> were <b>long</b> and <b>short</b> pairings <br />• <b>but now</b> represent ten different sounds with no obvious similarity within each pair.<br /><br />2. The six letters A, E, I (with variant Y), O, U, Y may also represent different sounds again when they're i unstressed syllables. This is especially true of E.<br /><br />British spelling convention addresses Problem 1 and ignores Problem 2. The Webster reform (US spelling) addressed primarily Problem 2.<br /><br />British spelling isn't 'right', but it isn't dumb either. It just has a different priority.<br /><br />The value of the British priority seems diminished by the special case of E — and further diminished when the consonant letter is L. But for the other vowels there are examples where a single consonant usefully signals a <b>long</b> vowel.<br />• For O and I <br />—there are contrasting pairs such as <i>holy~holly~wily, Willy</i><br />• For A and U, despite conventions for different sounds represented by <i>all</i> and <i>ull</i> spellings, <br />— the convention remains that they represent the <b>long</b> variants before single consonant as in <i>whaling, ruling</i><br />— the convention that they represent the <b>short</b> variants before double consonants does operate in part, helping us to recognise such words as <i>rally, gully</i><br /><br /><br />Even letter E provides some examples where the British convention helps to recognise words.<br />• The <b>short e</b> before double consonants is widely used as in <i>smelling</i>. Indeed, the convention is usually extended to word-final as in <i>smell</i>. Still, there's an approximate pair in <i>gel~jelly</i>.<br />• The <b>long e</b> convention is occasionally useful. English speakers in countries without a place called <i>Ely</i> or who haven't heard of Sir Peter <i>Lely</i><br /><br />We British as school children explicitly learn or implicitly absorb a simple rule which helps us to recognise a great many many words spelled with A, I/Y, O, U followed by L or LL. It's less useful for recognising words spelled with E followed by L or LL, but it does no had and is occasionally helpful. The merits of the rule are:<br />1. It's extremely simple.<br />2. <b>You don't have to think about it</b><br /><br />Like all simple rules, it will let you down some of the time. But we think the merits outweigh the more <b>intelligent</b> Webster rule which involves a bit of thought.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-57849492459483258132013-03-13T01:05:57.777+00:002013-03-13T01:05:57.777+00:00I don't see what's so simple about single ...I don't see what's so simple about single L.<br /><br />We Brits double our consonants before a vowel without having to think about it. Stress isn't a consideration.<br /><br />The downside is that we have to learn as exceptions such spellings as <i>edited, abandoned, severed</i>.<br /><br />Both systems have regularities and exceptions.<br /><br />As I've said on another thread, the argument that <i>traveling</i> signals a rhyme with <i>stealing</i> is just a joke. All the words with that rhyme are spelling with <i>ealing</i> or <i>eeling</i>. But we do have woods with spellings like <i>gambol(l)ing</i> where the <i>-oling</i> spelling signals a <b>long o</b>. There's <i>poling</i> and <i>doling</i> and, no doubt, others.<br /><br />Of course I'm not saying that British spelling is easier or more logical in every way. But it is easy and logical in a couple of ways: <br />• We don't have to pay any attention to stress. Why is this a good thing? It means we don't have to <b>start</b> by recognising pronunciation when we read. It means we don't have to analyse the stress of the word when we write.<br />• It doesn't conflict with the rule that identifies a single consonant as a pointer to a preceding <b>long</b> vowel.<br /><br />The Webster reform is fine for words which the reader knows and recognises. But if the word is unfamiliar, or if it doesn't immediately spring to the reader's inner ear, then stress is still to be discovered.<br /><br />If I fail to recognise the word and piece together the spoken word fragments <b>TRA-VELL-ER</b>, I'm pretty certain to recognise <i>travel(l)er</i>. But If I piece together <b>TRA-VEEL-ER</b> then it might take a little longer.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-57299357489380055442012-08-18T19:11:03.239+01:002012-08-18T19:11:03.239+01:00This British former physics teacher and one-time p...This British former physics teacher and one-time photographic judge finds 'focussed' and 'focussing' sets her teeth on edge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-58463807998693187392010-06-03T11:43:46.197+01:002010-06-03T11:43:46.197+01:00I agree with Sean, if I see "canceled" I...I agree with Sean, if I see "canceled" I want to pronounce it so that it would be almost the same as "concealed" (except for the first vowel, obviously).<br /><br />And while a rule might be more rigorously applied in AE, I'm not sure that necessarily helps with spelling. When teaching in America I saw a lot of kids using single l's when a double is required even in AE, e.g. "rebeled". A mistake you'd never get in BE (though "editted", etc are more common there). So it "making more sense" if you look at syllable stress and vowel length in various contexts seems irrelevant when everyday users of the written language are making effectively the same mistakes (just reversed) with both systems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8272194290193922412010-04-16T08:25:33.201+01:002010-04-16T08:25:33.201+01:00OK, perhaps the spelled: can-suh-LAY-shun. Then ca...OK, perhaps the spelled: can-suh-LAY-shun. Then cancellation makes sence. Though, still formatted and CANcellate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-40308960115381656982009-12-16T09:12:33.362+00:002009-12-16T09:12:33.362+00:00oh man. i laughed so hard at this, thanks for it.
...oh man. i laughed so hard at this, thanks for it.<br /><br /><br />how about Fourty and Forty? if so, then why not Forteen? (it's Fourteen isn't it?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-24165351334268583952009-06-05T00:47:05.141+01:002009-06-05T00:47:05.141+01:00I came here searching this blog for double Ls, but...I came here searching this blog for double Ls, but I was thinking of another context: words like skil(l)ful and wil(l)ful. It seems that BrE drops the l, while AmE keeps it — but would you know if this rule is recent? I'm reading an old American book (published in 1925) which uses AmE spellings everywhere (honor, etc.) but also uses wilful and skilful (also, fulfilment). I wonder if spelling rules changed in AmE since then?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-4453968005557994152008-07-24T23:59:00.000+01:002008-07-24T23:59:00.000+01:00Some dyslexics deal as well with irregular spellin...Some dyslexics deal as well with irregular spellings as with regular, because they can't sound things out and therefore have to memori{s/z}e spellings, while others can't memori{s/z}e spellings and need phonetic renderings. The former type is nearly non-existent for Chinese, the latter type for Spanish. English gets the worst of it because our spelling system has elements of regularity and irregularity. The term 'dyslexia' is a cover-all term that doesn't distinguish among the many ways of reading that are 'dyslexic'. <BR/><BR/>But, still, there's a problem with the 'you should be able to spell it any way you like' strategy in that what works for you won't necessarily work for the person who's reading your work. So, if an American were writing to a BrE speaker (or even a Texan to a New Yorker), the vowels they might tend to use when attempting a 'spell it like it sounds' system would probably be very different. I know that I've had to think much harder about 'phonetic' spellings from BrE speakers than from AmE speakers--in particular because of what they do with 'r's--with BrE speakers often using them in places where they want to indicate a long vowel, rather than an 'r' sound. (But that's a topic that's come up here a few times.)<BR/><BR/>The nice thing about standardi{s/z}ation is that people are using the same system, no matter how they pronounce the words, and so we can all communicate. What's more, we can read work written by people from different times when things were pronounced differently. There was a big reform of the writing system in Japan in the 20th century, and people who have grown up in the new system report that they can't read the letters their grandparents wrote. How sad!lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29404545307980162502008-07-24T23:46:00.000+01:002008-07-24T23:46:00.000+01:00It strikes me none of these rules were invented by...It strikes me none of these rules were invented by people with dyslexia. <BR/>To all scrabble players:<BR/>I hate standardised spellings <BR/><BR/>Maybe it's all right for the purpose of a game; like chess or something with emphasis on logic and obscure rules, but in real life, if it works (if it's possible to understand what it means) it should be allowed.<BR/>Except, possibly, in the case of homophones and things like that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14794569119884437316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-58073348211851418002008-07-19T19:04:00.000+01:002008-07-19T19:04:00.000+01:00for me, there's never an 'e' in fuel(l)ing: it's /...for me, there's never an 'e' in fuel(l)ing: it's /fjuliN/.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60758167802728612332008-07-19T17:43:00.000+01:002008-07-19T17:43:00.000+01:00It seems to me that even for speakers for "dial" a...It seems to me that even for speakers for "dial" and "fuel" have one long vowel, "dialling" and "fuelling" are always "di-alling" and "fu-elling". Am I mistaken?<BR/><BR/>I think the British rules are based on the resulting words themselves, not on how the root verbs were :)<BR/><BR/>[Thus, as journaller and journalist are pronounced differently... Of course, I'm not from a Anglophone country so it's possible that what I hear is spelling pronunciation :)]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-55622584337709055932008-06-10T18:31:00.000+01:002008-06-10T18:31:00.000+01:00That's not an exception, Brendan, it's a different...That's not an exception, Brendan, it's a different set of rules. In the rule we were discussing, it's whether or not to add an 'l'. Looking at <I>original+ly</I>, there is an 'l' in the suffix, and thus there are two 'l's not because of an 'l'-adding rule, but because there's no such thing as an 'l'-deleting rule.<BR/><BR/>Also note that the ones we've discussed here are all verbs. So, <I>originally</I> falls outside the discussion. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the post!lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-39529579030332865192008-06-10T15:24:00.000+01:002008-06-10T15:24:00.000+01:00AmE also has its exceptions, if you look hard enou...AmE also has its exceptions, if you look hard enough e.g. "originally".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-84163965844191473622008-03-05T00:54:00.000+00:002008-03-05T00:54:00.000+00:00That's funny Sean, I find myself wanting to pronou...That's funny Sean, I find myself wanting to pronounce cancelled can-<I>celled</I> because I know the rule is supposed to be based on syllable stressing, like lynneguist said.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369177908110621050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-20400851073439553222007-04-30T14:06:00.000+01:002007-04-30T14:06:00.000+01:00The problem that I find with the single L in words...The problem that I find with the single L in words such as 'canceled' and 'traveled' is that when I attended primary school not so many years ago I was always taught the use of the 'magic E', (i.e. the 'a' in 'rat' changing its pronunciation when an 'e' is added at the end to make it 'rate' etc). My mind applies this to 'canceled' to the point where to me it looks like it should be pronounced 'canceeled'. A bit of a strange comment I realise but i wonder if this applies to anybody else? <BR/>I also believe that BrE tries to be more standardised in some respects with the LL ending being applied most commonly. AmE distinguishes between the L and LL with words such as 'excelling' and 'signaling' whereas BrE would use the LL for both. I wonder if the difference between the two is necessary to be pointed out since a 'standard' of LL in BrE would appear to be more simple. I'm not saying that I believe AmE to be wrong in any sense, variety is the spice of life after all, but it is just a thought...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-50536712470003868352007-01-10T23:40:00.000+00:002007-01-10T23:40:00.000+00:00What about "format"? I emphasize the first syllabl...What about "format"? I emphasize the first syllable, yet it seems "formatted, formatting, and formatter" are correct...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10640358155634732549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70695188991666077532007-01-09T03:48:00.000+00:002007-01-09T03:48:00.000+00:00Everything else pales before the random use of -ou...Everything else pales before the random use of <i>-our</i> and <i>-or</i> on the one hand, and <i>-er</i> and <i>-re</i> on the other. Particularly in derived words: why <i>honour</i> and <i>honourable</i> but <i>honorary</i>, with occasional outbreaks of <i>honourary</i>?John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-1162745774708383412006-11-05T16:56:00.000+00:002006-11-05T16:56:00.000+00:00I've been learning English over 6 years now and th...I've been learning English over 6 years now and the moment I started to realize the differences between AmE & its British counterpart was when I went to college. Now I personally use AmE (and know the rules about spelling and other aspects of the "two languages"), but a few years ago if I had been asked which one I used I'd propably have had no idea... :I<BR/>btw does anybody know any interesting websites on American Pronunciation??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-1162368311243908322006-11-01T08:05:00.000+00:002006-11-01T08:05:00.000+00:00As far as I can tell, BrE instalment because the v...As far as I can tell, BrE <I>instalment</I> because the verb in BrE is spelt <I>instal</I> (though Oxford prefers <I>install</I> now). Similarly with BrE <I>fulfil/fulfilment</I> versus AmE <I>fulfill/fulfillment</I>. However <I>installing</I> and <I>fulfilling</I> are spelt with two Ls in BrE (like AmE), following the rules discussed in the post. It stays one L before the <I>ment</I> suffix because the L is only doubled before a vowel. (See this later post's comments for more on the 'rules' for removing Ls before consonant-initial suffixes.<BR/><BR/>Why does BrE spell some verbs with one L, while AmE spells them with two? No idea. The double-L version has more connection to the origins of the verbs: Old English <I>fullfyllan</I> and Latin <I>installar</I>. <I>Instil</I> is another example. Notice that similar one-syllable verbs are spelt with two Ls in BrE, like AmE: <I>full, stall, still</I>. <BR/><BR/>As for <I>triallist</I>, I can find no evidence of this in AmE, so you'd have to show me some examples to convince me. Where I've found AmE examples, they refer to lists of trials not people who take part in trials. <BR/><BR/>My Concise Oxford gives no double-L variation for trialist, though COD does include other US single/double-L variations. I'm not finding it in US dictionaries. Chambers, makers of <I>Official Scrabble Words</I> lists both. Neither spelling is listed as American, and neither is in the American <I>Official Scrabble Players Dictionary</I>.<BR/><BR/>Why does <I>trialist</I> break the mo(u)ld regarding BrE double L's? It's unlike the other examples in that it's not derived from a verb. (And to be technical, it involves a derivational, rather than inflectional suffix--see <A HREF="http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_1998/ling001/morphology2.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> for definitions.) It's the noun <I>trial</I> plus <I>-ist</I>.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.com