Talk:American and British English differences/Spelled v Spelt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Spelled v Spelt

I reverted the change from "spelled" to "spelt" as:

  • the only "Commonwealth" country listed in the article that significantly favours "spelt" (1,500) over "spelled" (851) is South Africa

chocolateboy 13:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, if we're going by a silly Google search, using merely a simpler criterion, in the UK:
spelled (48 400) vs spelt (58 700) ==> the winner is spelt
A Google search, however, is NOT evidence about usage, since it does not cover published and unpublished written works not available on the Internet; furthermore, many companies in Great Britain are American, and merely copy their American English content to their British websites. Dictionaries state that spelt is a valid preterite and past participle of to spell (except when speaking about alternating, but then that meaning is usually American English anyway); as such, you have no right to change other people's preferred spelling, especially in an article that is not written in American English, and less so in an article dealing with this exact issue. —Sinuhe 14:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Heh heh. While I agree with you about the limitations of Google searches in validating usage, I have one quibble and a basic disagreement. 1) your google search incorrectly included usages such as "spelt flour" and other related agricultural usages unrelated to spelling, so choclateboy's, results are more suggestive; 2) using a similar argument that you used for alternate/alternative: spelt is simply wrong in the U.S., while it is acceptable as an alternative in the U.K., hence spelt should not be used in an article that is equally applicable to both U.K. and U.S. older≠wiser 14:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It also includes usages such as 'the two sentries spelled each other' alongside spelt flour; Chocolateboy's search does not include many other usages of the word – even a basic 'How is this spelt?' is not included in that search. As said, either way, the result is inconclusive and ought not to be borne in mind when deciding upon such issues.
Could you kindly elaborate on why spelt is wrong in the USA? It is given in both WordNet and Webster's dictionary. To quote this very article, As with the "tre" words, the t endings are occasionally found in American texts. This suggests that there is nothing wrong with spelt in an American text; the word alternate to mean alternative, on the other hand, is considered incorrect by Commonwealth English speakers. Besides, spelled looks very much jarring to the eyes.
In addition, it should also be noted that in the first occurrence in the article, the very point of the word spelt is to demonstrate what the sentence is saying: Some words /.../ are spelled one way by Americans but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries. To change even this instance causes a degradation in the intended meaning the sentence conveys.
—Sinuhe 14:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
While Google is not definitive, it can be suggestive and is very much worth consideration--and in this case it clearly indicates that "spelled" is commonly used on UK websites. While "spelt" may "occasionally" appear in American texts, it is very uncommon, and I daresay that most American speakers would view it as either incorrect or possibly as quaintly archaic. The only definition given for spelt at www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn is "hardy wheat grown mostly in Europe for livestock feed". Spelt is very uncommon usage in American English (and besides looks "very much jarring to the eyes"), while "spelled" is evidently at least not uncommon in the U.K. and other commonwealth countries, despite your protestations. However, I really don't care about this enough to bother engaging in an edit war over it. older≠wiser 15:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The web interface to WordNet is somewhat confusing; however, you must have noticed that the keyword 'spelt' gives you the definitions for the verb to spell. In fact, the DICT database gives you the following:
spelt
     See spell
Under spell, it ends in a note "[also: spelt]". See [1] (and also [2] if you are there already).
In any case, it does not really matter whether a given word is often used in the USA – or the UK for the matter –; it is deemed correct by authoritative dictionaries such as the OED and COD (whereas alternate is not). There is simply no reason to change the form from what it was originally, since it was not only correct, but also pertinent (as shown above).
—Sinuhe 15:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it does really matter whether a word is often used--that is the basis of WP's naming convention. An appeal to authority is not decisive in this case (as often noted, there is no official arbiter for usage of the English language)--it is only more evidence to be balanced with other arguments. In this context it is less important, but the reasons that you cite for preferring spelt or alternative are just as applicable in support of spelled or alternate. The words are used differently and apparently are just as jarring to those preferring the other usage. We'll just have to live with that. I very much disagree that alternate is incorrect--every dictionary that I have looked at lists something like "constituting an alternative" as one of the definitions, sometimes marked as a specifically U.S. usage. It is not at all unlike dictionaries listing "spelt" as a variant for spelled. older≠wiser 16:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There is usually no note next to spelt that says it is considered incorrect by many; there is such a note in more than one Oxford dictionary next to alternate. And spelt is not the name of the article, so the naming convention does not apply. —Sinuhe 17:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Spelt" would be "corrected" in nearly every case in American writing (except for deliberately archaic or U.K references). And the usage recommendations by traditionalists for alternative is more complex than has been conveyed so far. Many traditionalists also feel that alternative should ONLY be used in cases where there are exactly two alternatives. So in contexts such as "alternative meanings", the usage is contrary to traditional usage. Alternative is also undesirable in this context because in AmEng it also has the strong connotation of "non-traditional" or "out-of-the-maintstream", which is certainly not what is meant in most cases. Because both alternate and alternative are problematic, perhaps the MoS should recommend using "other meanings" instead. older≠wiser 18:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have protected this page. Please sort it out peacefully; resorting to edit wars is a Bad Thing. James F. (talk) 15:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


OK, if we're going by a silly Google search

Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument :-)

using merely a simpler criterion, in the UK

Hmm, suddenly Google is not so silly! You might like to consider why I used more restrictive search terms than you. Here are a couple of clues:

A Google search, however, is NOT evidence about usage, since it does not cover published and unpublished written works not available on the Internet

And that is supposed to prove that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon [3] b) not searchable through Google Print [4] c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.

furthermore, many companies in Great Britain are American, and merely copy their American English content to their British websites

A minority [5] [6] of British sites use American words such as "color" or "gasoline" just as a minority [7] [8] [9] of American sites use British words such as "colour" or "petrol". So what?

you have no right to change other people's preferred spelling, especially in an article that is not written in American English, and less so in an article dealing with this exact issue.

I have every right as a Wikipedian to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article - particularly in the interests of both internal and global consistency (you seem to have not noticed that prior to my edit the article used both "spelled" and "spelt" in the same sentence: "Some words shared by all English speakers are spelled one way by Americans but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries" [10]). Arrogant frothing about "unsolicited" edits is a convenient way of drawing attention away from the lack of any de jure or de facto support for an archaic usage that has fallen out of favour among the vast majority of English speakers. An article about the differences between British and American usage should steer clear of explicitly advocating an obsolescent regional (South African) spelling when there is a neutral alternative to hand that avoids the appearance of partisanship.

chocolateboy 16:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument :-)

Google searches are always silly.

Hmm, suddenly Google is not so silly! You might like to consider why I used more restrictive search terms than you. Here are a couple of clues:

It is still silly, I was merely showing that a different selection of criteria can yield substantially different results. As mentioned, your search does not take into account the unqualified use of spelt ('How is this spelt?', 'This oughtn't to be spelt thus.' or 'The word cat is spelt as C-A-T.'). Therefore, your search restricts the meaning too much and is rendered irrelevant.

And that is supposed to prove that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon [11] b) not searchable through Google Print [12] c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.

To simply ignore material not available on the Internet makes your 'evidence' very dubious. Stating that spelt is less often used than spelled in the UK based on such a non-scientific approach as a search on Google is nothing short of absurd: this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use, but in no way does it cover enough to qualify you to make such a statement.

I have every right as a Wikipedian to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article

Then you will agree that I have every right to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article as well. Yet this will only result in endless and counter-productive edit wars.

- particularly in the interests of both internal and global consistency (you seem to have not noticed that prior to my edit the article used both "spelled" and "spelt" in the same sentence: "Some words shared by all English speakers are spelled one way by Americans but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries" [13]).

You seem not to have read my replies here, as I have specifically quoted that very sentence to which you object as being conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words. This suggests that I have noticed that usage, doesn't it?

Arrogant frothing about "unsolicited" edits is a convenient way of drawing attention away from the lack of any de jure or de facto support for an archaic usage that has fallen out of favour among the vast majority of English speakers. An article about the differences between British and American usage should steer clear of explicitly advocating an obsolescent regional (South African) spelling when there is a neutral alternative to hand that avoids the appearance of partisanship.

The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral! Nor is it a regional spelling in the way you suggest – certainly you do not expect your Google search to be conclusive demonstration of usage? Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use. It is as much archaic as 'burnt', 'learnt', 'leapt' or 'dealt', all of which are often used forms. To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms. An encyclopaedia should, I believe, strive to be reasonably conservative as regards language.
It is impossible to make this article consistent, since it applies to both US and Commonwealth topics, which make the style guide rules not applicable. Unless, of course, we are going to standardise on the first person to have used a specific form, which means that all spellings should be converted to American English (see the first version of the article). I imagine, however, that quite a few people would be less than pleased about that. As for global consistency: do you intend to say that Wikipedia ought to be written in American English? Sinuhe 17:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sinuhe writes: "It is impossible to make this article consistent...." It's not impossible, just undesirable. The style manual calls for consistency within each particular article. This article should be the exception. The article's accuracy depends on the participation of speakers of American English and speakers of Commonwealth English. Each contributor should write in the style he or she prefers. Resulting inconsistencies will help illuminate the subject of the article. No one's edits should be changed solely to switch from one form to another. JamesMLane 18:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Google searches are always silly.

In that case, you might want to try removing the following appeals to Google's authority from your argument:

  • spelled (48 400) vs spelt (58 700) ==> the winner is spelt ...
  • I was merely showing that a different selection of criteria can yield substantially different results ...
  • your search does not take into account ...

Also you'll want to snip the following inconsistency:

  • Therefore, your search restricts the meaning too much and is rendered irrelevant ...
  • this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use ...

You're right to point out that it's possible to craft Google queries that scrape together a few more votes for "spelt" in the UK (and vice versa). That doesn't change the fact that "spelled" is common in the UK and that "spelt" is uncommon outside of the UK and South Africa.

To simply ignore material not available on the Internet makes your 'evidence' very dubious.

Who ignored it? You invoked it, and I asked you to provide evidence for your theory that Internet usage is "irrelevant" given the overlap between dead tree usage and Internet citation. You've provided no such evidence.

Stating that spelt is less often used than spelled in the UK based on such a non-scientific approach as a search on Google is nothing short of absurd: this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use, but in no way does it cover enough to qualify you to make such a statement.

In contrast, the transition from shrill posturing ("absurd") to concession ("this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use") within the space of a colon is, I take it, perfectly "scientific"?

Then you will agree that I have every right to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article as well.

Of course I agree. I never patronizingly referred to your edits as "unsolicited" (it's hard to imagine a word that bespeaks a smaller grasp of the principles of Wikipedia than that). However, it is not your article; it is our article. I've provided copious evidence for the neutrality of "spelled". You have, so far, provided no evidence for the neutrality of "spelt", which is hardly surprising as it would contradict the clear import of the article: "The forms with -ed are also common in Commonwealth usage."

Yet this will only result in endless and counter-productive edit wars.

Or we could simply vote on it. This isn't the first time your partisan orthography has been corrected. As always, I'm quite happy to acquiesce to consensus. Or would you dismiss democracy as "silly" as well?

You seem not to have read my replies here, as I have specifically quoted that very sentence to which you object as being conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words. This suggests that I have noticed that usage, doesn't it?

I replied to your initial response before reading your second reply. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a threaded discussion? As for the "spelled"/"spelt" joke (which is what that deliberately inconsistent usage is), I like it, and could easily be persuaded to lobby for it to be kept in that sentence. You should expect others to remove the joke, however, in accordance with the customary Wikipedia policies of consistency and humourlessness.

The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral!

An exclamation mark is not a citation. Nor is it an argument.

Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use.

There is no proper preterite according to you: "Dictionaries state that spelt is a valid preterite and past participle of to spell". It is a valid form, not the valid form. "spelt" is not "proper"; it is merely your personal preference. You seem to have forgotten your original objection - i.e. that my edit infringed your personal taste: "preferred spelling" - in your rush to denounce the de facto standard.

To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

"Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side. The majority of the English-speaking world favours "spelled". Among the minority who don't, "spelled" is still considered to be an acceptable alternative whose usage is comparable to that of the obsolescent spelling.

An encyclopaedia should, I believe, strive to be reasonably conservative as regards language.

Which is precisely why it shouldn't impose a minority usage, particularly when that minority, as the article itself points out, is quite comfortable with the dominant spelling.

As for global consistency: do you intend to say that Wikipedia ought to be written in American English?

No. I mean that I prefer title case to sentence case, but Wikipedia prefers sentence case and therefore I and others strive to abide by this de facto standard. The de facto standard on Wikipedia, even for UK-centric articles, is "spelled". See Scotch whisky, List of words having different meanings in British and American English, Literacy, William Davenant, Prime Minister of Australia, Celtic mythology &c.

Unless, of course, we are going to standardise on the first person to have used a specific form, which means that all spellings should be converted to American English [ ... ] I imagine, however, that quite a few people would be less than pleased about that.

Blindly converting the article to "British English" and reverting alleged "Americanisms" (something you've confessed to repeatedly in your edit summaries [14] [15] [16] [17]) is equally displeasing to quite a few people, which is why "spelled" has been reinstated by a number of contributors to the article over the past few months. The "neutrality" of "spelt" would be a little more convincing if you'd taken the trouble to hide your agenda ("traditional" British English is correct; "new" American English is incorrect).

chocolateboy 20:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to try removing the following appeals to Google's authority from your argument:

  • spelled (48 400) vs spelt (58 700) ==> the winner is spelt ...
  • I was merely showing that a different selection of criteria can yield substantially different results ...
  • your search does not take into account ...
If I had not pointed these out, it would be acceding to your use of a search on the Internet as pertinent.

Also you'll want to snip the following inconsistency:

  • Therefore, your search restricts the meaning too much and is rendered irrelevant ...
  • this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use ...

You're right to point out that it's possible to craft Google queries that scrape together a few more votes for "spelt" in the UK (and vice versa). That doesn't change the fact that "spelled" is common in the UK and that "spelt" is uncommon outside of the UK and South Africa.

It is common in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well at the least. And I never have claimed that spelled is not common in the UK. It has no bearing on the issue we are discussing; namely, whether you should change a correct spelling that the original author prefers to another correct spelling that you yourself prefer.

Who ignored it? You invoked it, and I asked you to provide evidence for your theory that Internet usage is "irrelevant" given the overlap between dead tree usage and Internet citation. You've provided no such evidence.

I did not claim Internet usage to be irrelevant; Internet usage alone, that is, without taking into account the usage as appearing in printed and personal communication, however, is quite.
Stating that spelt is less often used than spelled in the UK based on such a non-scientific approach as a search on Google is nothing short of absurd: this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use, but in no way does it cover enough to qualify you to make such a statement.

In contrast, the transition from shrill posturing ("absurd") to concession ("this is perhaps a tiny bit of real use") within the space of a colon is, I take it, perfectly "scientific"?

Using a colon or any other punctuation mark has no bearing on the method used, which may or may not be scientific.
It appears that you do not understand the sentence. Allow me to rephrase it:
A search on Google shows only a small portion of how a word is used, and to support your entire argument on such grounds is absurd.
Then you will agree that I have every right to correct what I regard as an infelicity in the article as well.

Of course I agree. I never patronizingly referred to your edits as "unsolicited" (it's hard to imagine a word that bespeaks a smaller grasp of the principles of Wikipedia than that). However, it is not your article; it is our article. I've provided copious evidence for the neutrality of "spelled". You have, so far, provided no evidence for the neutrality of "spelt", which is hardly surprising as it would contradict the clear import of the article: "The forms with -ed are also common in Commonwealth usage."

Of course edits are welcome; reverts such as the one you made, however, are not, not least because they break the Manual of Style's suggestion that the original spellings should be used if consensus hasn't been reached (which you will agree is the case).
Exactly what do you consider to be 'copious evidence'? Again, a Google search?
To quote Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, 1999): 'Spelt is on the whole the preferred British form /.../'.
I should believe this is evidence of at least the calibre of a Google search to show that the -t spelling is favoured – and is, therefore, also more neutral – in British English. British English spelling is perfectly permissible in this article.

Or we could simply vote on it. This isn't the first time your partisan orthography has been corrected. As always, I'm quite happy to acqueisce to consensus. Or would you dismiss democracy as "silly" as well?

I do not reckon a debate concerning political philosophy is appropriate at this point. How shall we organise the voting?
You seem not to have read my replies here, as I have specifically quoted that very sentence to which you object as being conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words. This suggests that I have noticed that usage, doesn't it?

I replied to your initial response before reading your second reply. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of a threaded discussion? As for the "spelled"/"spelt" joke (which is what that deliberately inconsistent usage is), I like it, and could easily be persuaded to lobby for it to be kept in that sentence. You should expect others to remove the joke, however, in accordance with the customary Wikipedia policies of consistency and humourlessness.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of acquainting yourself with the subject (particularly if it is in the same thread) before posting?
I do not believe the sentence to have been meant as a joke; good prose requires not only clarity, coherence and organisation, but also an appropriate style, thereby, hopefully, attracting the reader to assume a more active part in reading. The sentence introduces in itself the topic it hopes to address.
The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral!

An exclamation mark is not a citation. Nor is it an argument.

It would indeed be difficult for a punctuation mark to bear all this burden that you apparently wish upon it. Other sentences surrounding this one should have illuminated why it is only just neutral.
Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use.

There is no proper preterite according to you: "Dictionaries state that spelt is a valid preterite and past participle of to spell". It is a valid form, not the valid form. "spelt" is not "proper"; it is merely your personal preference. You seem to have forgotten your original objection - i.e. that my edit infringed your personal taste: "preferred spelling" - in your rush to denounce the de facto standard.

Spelt is the traditional, if you will, spelling. And while both spelt and spelled are permissible variants, I believe spelt is the older one. And yes, everyone has his or her preferred spelling, considering that he or she can choose from the two forms.
To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

"Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side. The majority of the English-speaking world favours "spelled". Among the minority who don't, "spelled" is still considered to be an acceptable alternative whose usage is comparable to that of the obsolescent spelling.

What exactly has this spelling to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc? There are more powerful arguments against the use of such laden terms; there is no such argument against the spelling of spelt. Because tradition is used in some cases for an ignoble cause, how does it disqualify it from being an argument in an entirely unconnected case?
How can you tell whether this is an obsolescent spelling or not? It seems to be used very often, and many terms co-exist without any one disappearing from usage (while and whilst, for example).
Even if it is (now) a minority spelling, it is a spelling that is correct, and as such, it should not be changed into another spelling. The reason being exactly the same as to why Wikipedia allows both Commonwealth and American English in its articles.
Unless, of course, we are going to standardise on the first person to have used a specific form, which means that all spellings should be converted to American English [ ... ] I imagine, however, that quite a few people would be less than pleased about that.

Blindly converting the article to "British English" and reverting alleged "Americanisms" (something you've confessed to repeatedly in your edit summaries [18] [19] [20] [21]) is equally displeasing to quite a few people, which is why "spelled" has been reinstated by a number of contributors to the article over the past few months. The "neutrality" of "spelt" would be a little more convincing if you'd taken the trouble to hide your agenda ("traditional" British English is correct; "new" American English is incorrect).

I have done no such thing as convert the article to British English. These were all reverts; I do not oppose, nor have changed (to the best of my knowledge), any of the spellings that are originally American or Commonwealth in the article. Reverts in the other direction happen just the same. See, for example, [22]. However, this is entirely beside the point: if I have edited the article in the past so as to keep spellings as they originally were, it certainly has no bearing on neutrality. I have personally nothing to do with neutrality; the concept per se implies disconnectedness from any one person. —Sinuhe 22:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I had not pointed these out, it would be acceding to your use of a search on the Internet as pertinent.

Fine. Let's see how consistently you manage to avoid citing "silly" Google.

It is common in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well at the least.

Oof. That didn't take long. Apparently Google is now God when it serves your argument and "silly" when it serves mine. Didn't we cover this already ("Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument")?

It has no bearing on the issue we are discussing; namely, whether you should change a correct spelling that the original author prefers to another correct spelling that you yourself prefer.

You're not the "original author" any more than I am. You didn't contribute a single one of those "spelled"s or "spelt"s. You're no more empowered to protect the article than I am to tweak it.

I did not claim Internet usage to be irrelevant; Internet usage alone, that is, without taking into account the usage as appearing in printed and personal communication, however, is quite.

And that is supposed to prove that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon [23] b) not searchable through Google Print [24] c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.

As for "personal communication", if you have a better reference than Usenet (searchable, again, via Google) I'd love to see it.

To quote Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, 1999): 'Spelt is on the whole the preferred British form /.../'.

No-one disputes that this is the prescribed British usage. It seems that we do dispute the described British usage. And clearly we dispute the relevance of exclusively British usage ("proper preterite") to an article on "American and British English differences".

I should believe this is evidence of at least the calibre of a Google search

Which presumably makes Partridge's recommendation "at least" "silly"...

How shall we organise the voting?

See below.

British English spelling is perfectly permissible in this article.

So is American English, Canadian English, Irish English &c: "both spelt and spelled are permissible variants".

I do not believe the sentence to have been meant as a joke

It's an obscure foray into self-reflexive wit, which is why it keeps getting reverted by conscientious Wikipedians wrong-footed by its inconsistency.

What exactly has this spelling to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc?

Nothing, if you choose to wilfully gambol from the discussion. Everything if you cast your mind back to your contention that a new usage is less neutral than a traditional one. Here it is again:

To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

And here's my response again:

"Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side.
How can you tell whether this is an obsolescent spelling or not?

'Tis the way of all irregular forms that are not already indelibly ingrained in the language.

Reverts in the other direction happen just the same. See, for example, [25]

Hardly the best example for you to cite as a) you didn't answer his question and b) his edit (which uses "spelled" in a context in which it applies to American usage) is compliant with the Manual of Style.

I have done no such thing as convert the article to British English. These were all reverts; I do not oppose, nor have changed (to the best of my knowledge), any of the spellings that are originally American or Commonwealth in the article.

You have a) reverted an edit which uses "spelled" in an indisputably American context b) reverted consistency edits without advocating or expounding a bipartisan policy c) argued that "Commonwealth British English" is more "neutral" than "American British English" and d) rejected an even-handed solution (both "spelled" and "spelt") with the following edit summary: "'spelt' should not be changed into the more American 'spelled' (we're not talking about taking turns, after all)".

chocolateboy 04:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Let's see how consistently you manage to avoid citing "silly" Google.

It is common in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland as well at the least.

Oof. That didn't take long. Apparently Google is now God when it serves your argument and "silly" when it serves mine. Didn't we cover this already ("Google searches are always silly when they refute your argument")?

If we compare usage, it should be done using the same method, irrespective of what it is. In addition, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have all been members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and use Commonwealth English as a result, meaning that it is reasonable to assume they use spelt often (it does not matter if they use spelled more often, either).
It has no bearing on the issue we are discussing; namely, whether you should change a correct spelling that the original author prefers to another correct spelling that you yourself prefer.

You're not the "original author" any more than I am. You didn't contribute a single one of those "spelled"s or "spelt"s. You're no more empowered to protect the article than I am to tweak it.

I beg to differ: [26] (and I am also the author of [27], which was changed later to passive because 'British' was replaced by 'international'). You should note that arguments which are not true can seriously diminish your persuasiveness. And the original authors made up their minds when they submitted their edits using one form or the other.
I did not claim Internet usage to be irrelevant; Internet usage alone, that is, without taking into account the usage as appearing in printed and personal communication, however, is quite.

And that is supposed to prove that it is "not evidence"? Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are a) not searchable through Amazon [28] b) not searchable through Google Print [29] c) not in the public domain or available on Project Gutenberg and d) never quoted anywhere online in accordance with the principle of fair use.

Most publications are no available on the Internet. Perhaps some excerpts are, but for the most part, to assess usage in printed work requires a different approach.
Oxford University Press does have a very large corpus of material: considering that they base their dictionaries on it, and that their dictionaries say spelt is often used, I am inclined to say that they are right. Or have you any sensible reservations as to why this isn't so?

As for "personal communication", if you have a better reference than Usenet (searchable, again, via Google) I'd love to see it.

Communication in an electronic medium is different from that written for other purposes. Again, we could refer to Oxford dictionaries. Perhaps you would be interested to read this, since it states that, in addition to learn, other verbs are irregular, including spell, and are either -t or -ed. Spelt is mostly used on the rest of the website, too.
To quote Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, 1999): 'Spelt is on the whole the preferred British form /.../'.

No-one disputes that this is the prescribed British usage. It seems that we do dispute the described British usage. And clearly we dispute the relevance of exclusively British usage ("proper preterite") to an article on "American and British English differences".

Is it not you who claimed to wish to base your usage prescription ('Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are') on a Google search?
A British spelling is ENTIRELY relevant in this article, since it demonstrates use first-hand.
I should believe this is evidence of at least the calibre of a Google search

Which presumably makes Partridge's recommendation "at least" "silly"...

No, at least (but in fact I am tempted to say much more so) as useful to the discussion, considering that it is something generally recognised.
British English spelling is perfectly permissible in this article.

So is American English, Canadian English, Irish English &c: "both spelt and spelled are permissible variants".

Exactly. This means that you oughtn't to change a spelling that is perfectly normal in British English simply because your preference is another (also common) spelling.
What exactly has this spelling to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc?

Nothing, if you choose to wilfully gambol from the discussion. Everything if you cast your mind back to your contention that a new usage is less neutral than a traditional one. Here it is again:

To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.

And here's my response again:

"Neutral" refers to what is done, not what was done. There are any number of racist, sexist, homophobic &c. terms that are deprecated on Wikipedia despite having the pseudo-authority of "tradition" on their side.
Neutral formal writing relies heavily on the traditional rules of spelling and grammar. Would you be so kind as to explicitely state which terms are deprecated? Certainly those terms are not neutral any more. Perceptions and society change, and certain traditional rules of language (we are not talking about tradition per se) may not be socially acceptable at a later time. This, however, is not the case with spelt. The inflexion has no additional connotations, and is at the same time the form long favoured by dignified writers. It is hard to believe that one would take offence upon seeing it. And since there is nothing in the way of its use, and it is the traditional form, it can only be concluded that it is a neutral form.
Spelled is a simplification of the traditional preterite, and using it implies one's acceptance of some sort of spelling reform. (Come to think about it, however, spelt implies one's rejection of it, so neither is neutral.)
How can you tell whether this is an obsolescent spelling or not?

'Tis the way of all irregular forms that are not already indelibly ingrained in the language.

The article – an interesting read, by the way: thank you for the link – states even in the last paragraph that sneak - snuck came about only a century ago. This would imply that irregular verbs are all but disappearing! The article can well be read in a way to support spelt ...
Reverts in the other direction happen just the same. See, for example, [30]

Hardly the best example for you to cite as a) you didn't answer his question and b) his edit (which uses "spelled" in a context in which it applies to American usage) is compliant with the Manual of Style.

It was not I who changed spelled to spelt then, so why should I have answered the question (which was, I thought, rather rhetorical anyway)?
And in what way is spelt not compliant with the style guide?
I have done no such thing as convert the article to British English. These were all reverts; I do not oppose, nor have changed (to the best of my knowledge), any of the spellings that are originally American or Commonwealth in the article.

You have a) reverted an edit which uses "spelled" in an indisputably American context b) reverted consistency edits without advocating or expounding a bipartisan policy c) argued that "Commonwealth British" is more "neutral" than "American British" and d) rejected an even-handed solution (both "spelled" and "spelt") with the following edit summary: "'spelt' should not be changed into the more American 'spelled' (we're not talking about taking turns, after all)".

a) The context is American and British English differences. I do not see any American context in any of the changes:
but are spelt differently in other English speaking countries
it is usually spelt with an -e at the end in the Commonwealth
whereas tire, a verb, in the sense of losing energy, is spelt so everywhere
the word lieutenant is spelt the same in both countries
Where do you see an indisputably American context?
b) If we're going for consistency, we might as well use spelt everywhere. But, as noted by others, inconsistency in this article is a good thing because it gives further examples of the differences.
c) When have I argued that? (I have, mind you, never even heard of Commonwealth and American British, but I shall assume you meant 'English')
d) Excuse me? I have changed spelled back into what it was originally, because there was no reason to change it into spelled in the first place. If the sentence was about taking turns (They spelled each other), then the change to spelled would have been justified; however, with that not being the case, it was not. Both spelled and spelt are used in the article, so I do believe the article in its present form (as protected) is entirely even-handed.
What has any of this got to do with what we are discussing, however? You are not (or should not be) attacking me, but the arguments which may resolve the dispute.

—Sinuhe 08:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If we compare usage, it should be done using the same method, irrespective of what it is.

Relying on evidence you have repeatedly dismissed as "silly" discredits your argument and exposes its inconsistency.

In addition, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland have all been members of the Commonwealth of Nations, and use Commonwealth English as a result, meaning that it is reasonable to assume they use spelt often

So has Canada, which doesn't. Also let's please try to stick to facts rather than assumptions.

I beg to differ: [31] (and I am also the author of [32], which was changed later to passive because 'British' was replaced by 'international').

You are right about the first one, which I overlooked. The second edit adds neither "spelled" nor "spelt" to the article, so I fail to see its relevance.

You should note that arguments which are not true can seriously diminish your persuasiveness.

If you are going to assume bad faith, you might want to correct your second link before flinging accusations of mendacity. Either way, this dig is irrelevant to the underlying point: "You're no more empowered to protect the article than I am to tweak it." Your appeal to the intentions of the original authors is no more authoritative than my appeal (and the appeal of numerous other editors you've reverted without discussion) to felicity or consistency.

Oxford University Press does have a very large corpus of material: considering that they base their dictionaries on it, and that their dictionaries say spelt is often used, I am inclined to say that they are right. Or have you any sensible reservations as to why this isn't so?

Of course not. I've made no attempt to deny that "spelt" is commonly used in the UK. In fact, I've provided evidence to support the contention that it is common. The point I've repeatedly made, and which you seem hell-bent on ignoring, is that "spelled" is also common in the UK. This is one of the three reasons I suggest it should be used in the article ("spelt" appears to be incorrect to a large number of English speakers whereas "spelled" does not). The others are consistency and felicity.

Communication in an electronic medium is different from that written for other purposes.

I don't deny that text messages are different to other forms of written communication. I don't see how that refutes the relevance of Usenet to a discussion of usage in personal communications. If you have evidence suggesting that Usenet is indeed "irrelevant" then please provide it.

Again, we could refer to Oxford dictionaries. Perhaps you would be interested to read this ...

No, since the use of "spelt" in the UK (along with "spelled") has never been in dispute. The link is totally unrelated to our discussion.

Is it not you who claimed to wish to base your usage prescription ('Please cite the corpus of dead tree scholarship that proves Internet usage is irrelevant and that all usage prescriptions must be based on materials that are') on a Google search?

I suggest you reread that paragraph. I was clearly asking you to justify your dismissal of the Internet as a source of "evidence", which ran as follows: "A Google search, however, is NOT evidence about usage, since it does not cover published and unpublished written works not available on the Internet."

A British spelling is ENTIRELY relevant in this article, since it demonstrates use first-hand.

I'll repeat the point since (again) you appear to have overlooked it:

... clearly we dispute the relevance of exclusively British usage ("proper preterite") to an article on "American and British English differences".

And elsewhere:

As for the "spelled"/"spelt" joke (which is what that deliberately inconsistent usage is), I like it, and could easily be persuaded to lobby for it to be kept in that sentence.
---
This means that you oughtn't to change a spelling that is perfectly normal in British English simply because your preference is another (also common) spelling.

Again, this article belongs to all of its contributors and editors. You are not its custodian. There have been several attempts to make the article consistent in its use of "spelled" and "spelt". Those edits (which you've systematically reverted) are every bit as valid as your attempts to maintain the current mixed usage. Moreover, according to your argument, you are entitled (at best) to revert changes of your "spelt" into "spelled". You have not been elected as the spokesperson for all other contributors, many of whom were anonymous, and some of whom no longer contibute to the site.

Would you be so kind as to explicitely state which terms are deprecated?

See for instance here or here.

... The inflexion has no additional connotations, and is at the same time the form long favoured by dignified writers.

Which I take it is a bizarre attempt to insinuate the indignity of American, Canadian &c. writers?

an interesting read, by the way: thank you for the link

You're welcome.

The article can well be read in a way to support spelt ...

How?

... in what way is spelt not compliant with the style guide?

It is non-compliant if used to revert an equally valid spelling that is used by all English-speaking nations (a distinction which "spelt" does not hold).

Where do you see an indisputably American context?

I don't. I see an indisputably global context. If you're advocating "form follows function" then the last two should be "spelled" rather than "spelt" as they refer to "everywhere" rather than the "Commonwealth". "spelt" is specific to the "Commonwealth" and even there plays a minor role in at least one country (Canada). Whereas "spelled" is used everywhere:

Tyre in Commonwealth English refers to the noun, a rubber ring on a wheel of a vehicle, whereas tire, a verb, in the sense of losing energy, is spelt so everywhere.

"spelt" isn't used everywhere. Form does not follow function ("conducive with its style to its meaning as expressed in words").

In addition to these, the word lieutenant is spelt the same in both countries

"spelt" isn't used in both countries. Form does not follow function.

If we're going for consistency, we might as well use spelt everywhere.

If we're going for consistency, we should use "spelled", which is used everywhere, in contrast to "spelt", which is not.

But, as noted by others, inconsistency in this article is a good thing because it gives further examples of the differences.

I might agree if this policy were a) formalized (hitherto it has not extended beyond the scope of an edit summary) and b) equitable. At the moment, there are at least two places (listed above) where the regional spelling is applied to a description of global usage. This is inequitable as the opposite is not true.

When have I argued that? (I have, mind you, never even heard of Commonwealth and American British, but I shall assume you meant 'English'

(Yes, I meant "English"). As for your question (when have I argued that "Commonwealth English" is more "neutral" than "American English"). Here:

The spelling spelled is scarcely neutral [ ... ] Spelt is the proper preterite as dictated by years of use. [ ... ] To use the relatively new simplification to a regular suffix is certainly less neutral than using the traditional version of the preterite and past participle forms.
----
What has any of this got to do with what we are discussing, however? You are not (or should not be) attacking me, but the arguments which may resolve the dispute.

All four points were criticisms of your arguments, not personal attacks. As for your suggestion, I'm not convinced that "attacking" is the ultimate way to resolve anything, which is why I conceded that the mixed solution might be workable (above). I would urge you to avoid misrepresenting my motives. If your case is valid (as I'm prepared to believe it is) it should stand on its own merits.

chocolateboy 13:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I can jump in here with a suggestion, how about we start an informal poll? Since language is something that occurs by itself and must be described by native speakers according to usage (and only usage, not weird ideas of what "should" be used), it would probably be constructive to get the input of as many AE and BE speakers and decide based on that. From a linguistic and statistical standpoint, relying on Google for data of this kind is not really a good idea and can prove neither viewpoint. I study linguistics, and the only way to resolve this sort of stuff is by soliciting speakers. Since it's not really an orthographic question, but a phonological one (/spɛld/ vs /spɛlt/), I think that a poll of speakers is essential. Jeeves 20:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea; however, the problem we are having, is, I believe, not so much what is used commonly – though I should certainly be pleased to know that –, but rather whether spelt is in fact such a minority spelling that it should be replaced with spelled regardless of the original author's preference in an article that talks precisely about such differences in the name of consistency. Obviously, the way I've set the problem may be somewhat biased, seeing that I am involved in the argument, so it might be best for someone neutral to judge what the issue is.
But to answer the question, I say (and it will come as no surprise) /spɛlt/ (IPA) and write spelt. —Sinuhe 22:08, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing out the vagueness in my phrasing. What I meant to suggest was that we poll as many speakers of Commonwealth English as possible and see which form they use. American English always uses "spelled", I believe. However, something interesting about the comments above has occurred to me: even if "spelled" is becoming standard and "spelt" is "a minority usage", this becomes an orthographic distinction since the pronunciation by BE speakers is surely not changing. That makes this whole business a bit less interesting IMO (who cares about petty spelling distinctions?), but it would still be interesting to find out if "spelt" is really on the way out. I doubt it myself, but then again new technology has definitely been changing how some linguistic processes operate. Jeeves 22:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If I can jump in here with a suggestion, how about we start an informal poll?

That's what I said diddle I? ("Or we could simply vote on it" :-)

What I meant to suggest was that we poll as many speakers of Commonwealth English as possible and see which form they use.

Let's poll American English speakers/writers as well - given the subject of the article. And I don't think it would hurt to expand this beyond the readership of this talk page...

chocolateboy 04:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not whether "spelt" is the spelling used most, it is whether it is the normal British spelling or a mistake. If it is the normal British spelling then even if a much larger number of US readers use another form, because the policy is that the spelling used by the original author should be used. BTW I am British and use "spelt". -- Chris Q 06:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What a surprise after being gone for a week to find all this discussion! Sheesh! I liked the original text with "spelled" and "spelt" in the same sentence but in reference to the different language styles. As a writer & editor in the U.S., we correct all "spelt" to be "spelled." But I have noticed that in British publications, "spelt" seems to be acceptable. I don't see why we can't just leave the whole page as it originally was, with its mixture, since some British English cultures seem to accept spelt and some don't, and this is an article about the differences, so it's not primarily British or primarily American, and get on to something more important. IMHO. Elf | Talk 16:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I concur. I think the original text with the mixed spellings is amusing and makes its point. Quill 23:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree as well. This article should be the mixmaster of variant spellings! = ) Jeeves 00:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just leave the whole page as it originally was, with its mixture [ ... ] and get on to something more important. IMHO.

I concur. I think the original text with the mixed spellings is amusing and makes its point.

I agree as well. This article should be the mixmaster of variant spellings!

---

:-)

Fair enough. Please lift the protection and restore the mixed usage. I still think this article and the equally embattled World War II article ("theater" v "theatre") should (somehow - a template?) make it clear that their usage is deliberately mixed, otherwise they invite consistency edits and usage wars.

Perhaps a HTML comment would be a good start e.g.

The mixture of Commonwealth and American usage on this page is deliberate.
Please see Wikipedia:Be consistent#Exceptions for further details.

chocolateboy 00:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, chocolateboy, this is a very constructive response. While I'm thanking you, I'll add that one of your comments in this dicussion led me to learn about "title case" and "sentence case," terms I hadn't heard before. JamesMLane 01:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected, as requested. James F. (talk) 14:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)