User talk:JackLumber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The user talk formerly known as User talk:JackLumber presents

a1 a2 This user is going to leave Wikipedia. Any message on this talk page will be deleted without being read. This page will self-destruct in 5 seconds, so you better get out of here.

Contents

[edit] Discussion on your user page

Hey Jack. I saw the discussion on your user page. May I ask where you copied it from? I wrote a comment, but I'm not sure where to post it :-). Cheers, SalaSkan 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bum & Eh

I'm sure you're well meaning, Jack, but you obviously have idea about the usage of some words - these two included. Both are in common usage throughout the English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations, and have exactly the same meaning everywhere, and always have. This is a matter of historical fact, and does not need to be cross referenced, supported, nor require citation. The inference that 'bum' is seen as offensive in Britain and Australia, or that 'bum' is used in a childish manner in Canada is laughable; that does not need 'citation' but removing. 18th Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.253.188 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about bum does smell like original research indeed. As for eh, it is not used throughout the English-speaking Commonwealth of Nations, at least not in the way it's used by Canadian speakers, with respect to its role and its frequency in conversation---there's a lot of literature on this topic. Eh is not unknown in the U.S. either, for that matter; but five or six authoritative dictionaries recognize at least one meaning of eh as Canadian. (This, of course, doesn't mean that all Canadians use eh this way.) Jack(Lumber) 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong Jack. No offence, but perhaps you ought to get out from behind your desk and visit some English-speaking Commonwealth nations. The sentence about 'bum' is not remotely "original research" - it's simply the result of knowing how the language is used, and has been for centuries. American english is a completely different animal, the dictionaries aren't remotely as precise, and generally write as though the language revolved around the usage of the language in the U.S. The only dictionary seen as a true authority is the Oxford English dictionary.
You can go in any street, shop, pub in Britain and hear someone use eh exactly as used in Canada, ditto the rest of the countries. Short sentences using eh' abound in regular speech: 'Good game last night, eh?' - 'It's cold, eh?', etc. No-one is suggesting ALL Canadians use the word in any sense, if at all, or that it is unknown in the U.S., nor that any dictionary may give a specific term as being "Canadian". But the fact is that it IS in regular use as I previously intimated, and should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.253.188 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you misunderstood the "that sentence is original research" bit---it was about the *original* sentence in the article, not *your* sentence, which indeed sounded more reasonable to me.
However, just because a word or usage originated in England or in Britain doesn't mean it's used the same way across the English-speaking Commonwealth. For example, the colloquialisms bloody and mate acquired distinctive connotations in Australia (as opposed to their usage in England) as early as the late 19th century. U.S. English is not a completely different animal---at least not with respect to Canadian English---and to the extent that it constantly influences pretty much all of the other varieties of English. As for eh, I'd rather go with the literature than with your remarks, which truly qualify as original research in comparison. Jack(Lumber) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) oops, didn't read your post properly. Anyways, in the examples you give eh is used as an interrogative particle; but what is truly Canadian is precisely the extremely frequent use of eh in *narrative* contexts as an *affirmative* interjection, like a meaningless filler (e.g. So I stepped out of the car, eh, and she walked up to me.), as if the speaker wants to make sure that his/her interlocutor is actively listening. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary marks this usage a Canadianism, and a lot of literature backs it up. Furthermore, in your examples eh substitutes for a tag question (It's cold, eh? = It's cold, isn't it?); but this is not necessarily the case in Canadian English (e.g. How you doing, eh?)
The OED doesn't recognize affirmative eh, nor does it suggest that eh has anything to do with Canadian English---but that's just because the 2nd edition of the OED basically doesn't give a damn about Canada. For instance, many (if not most) of the words that are labeled U.S. in the OED2 are used in Canada as well. Jack(Lumber) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quintius

Funny that you should quote a prolific (blatant) copyright violator (User:Quintius Quintius = WP:'T) on your userpage. I don't think that helps the progress we were making. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Quintius Quintius was your friend Primetime. He has a point though. Yesterday Robert Ullmann blocked me for no reason whatsoever; I only tried to correct a horrible mistake, but he preferred a POV, false, speculative, sneaky note added by wiktionary:User:BrianD1. What else should I think? ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible (correct) usage note:

The late Anglo-French colour, which is the standard UK spelling, has been the usual spelling in Britain since the 14th century and was chosen by Dr. Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755) along with other Anglo-French spellings such as favour, honour, etc. The Latin spelling color was occasionally used from the 15th century onward, mainly due to Latin influence; it was lemmatized by Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), along with favor, honor, etc., and is currently the standard U.S. spelling. References: The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (1989), s.v. colour, color, n.1; Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961; repr. 2002), p. 24a; Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004), p. 397.

---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I checked my Wiktionary block log and I noticed that you blocked me on May 22, 2007. Personal attacks? Did you mean this one? That was deadpan humor, as implied by the use of nonstandard English, the jocular misspelling of your name, and the phrase "Connel English" which is actually yours. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to be solved

I have taken the "List of Companies" problem (what to do with an entire class of articles that get repeatedly submitted for deletion en mass?) for debate to two different places. This really needs to be solved once and for all (we can't keep debating the same stuff for eternity). Would you take a look at either the discussion on the Village Pump or the relevant wikiproject? Aditya Kabir 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for all your work on the spelling differences article and on its talk page. It's a really great, very clear and useful article. J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And you ain't seen nothing yet! ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving

How long will you be keeping the "This user is going to leave Wikipedia" notice on top of your talk page? Melsaran (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Until I have left Wikipedia, of course. The notice will then be replaced by a new notice, namely, "This user has left Wikipedia." ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 15:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And approximately when will you leave Wikipedia? Melsaran (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sooner or later. Hopefully, before I go crazy. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

just noticed that you'd had troubles with violetriga on "sophomore" as well. thanks for fighting. it's nice to know i'm not alone here -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Sophomore_usage_.28again.29 . Bouncehoper 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the instances of "sophomore" that Violetriga so zealously edited out were actually the work of non-native speakers of English (mostly from continental Europe, Sweden, Holland, Germany and the like) as well as a few British contributors; therefore, I thought this usage was understood outside of the U.S. It seemed fair to me to leave in the s-word in U.S.-related articles at least. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
hi, i agree; i think violet's a dumbass, but that's beside the point. i STILL don't see why it couldn't at least be used on US pages. for me, it was frustrating at first to think that the word just needed to be wiped out because a few people here and there didn't know it. which is still the case. it's just that violet's kinda nutty, and i don't feel like getting all whipped up into shape about this crap again and try to explain reason to him/her. he/she just won't get it, no matter what approach i take, so fine. piss on them.
lol, oops. didn't mean to get so negative. it's just been a REAL pain in the ass defending myself to this person over and over ad nauseum. when i saw how well you defended yourself i figured i should go say hi. so hi, again, and thanks, again, for kicking ass. if this gets me warned again about "wiki's not a battleground blah blah", i don't give a fuck. whoever said we couldn't speak our mind here?
Bouncehoper 06:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah. I'm gonna hold my tongue on this one. I don't want to sound... sophomoric. ;-) Jack(Lumber)
Yeah, I'm slow. But thanks dude. Bouncehoper 09:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey Jack - I just wanted to throw in that you shouldn't leave Wikipedia. While we have disagreed in the past I really do think that you're an extremely amazing editor - and a conflict with one user shouldn't be enough to push you off. If you do decide to stay and there is anything I can do to help - please feel free to contact me on my talk page.--danielfolsom 23:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Danielfolsom... sure, the yogurt guy. Uh, actually my plan to leave Wikipedia is on the back burner right now. (See above post.) But the notice on top of the page scares people away, so I guess it's fine. I think I'm gonna go take a walk. I'm a little confused. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So there's only two dialects of english then?

I'm intrigued. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of dialects of English out there. For example (the following list is by no means exhaustive):
English English
Southern English English
Midland English English
Northern English English
Scottish English
Welsh English
Northern Irish English and Southern Irish English (NOT coterminous with Northern Ireland / Republic of Ireland)
North American English
U.S. English
African American Vernacular English
Southern U.S. English
Canadian English
Newfoundland English
Maritime English
Caribbean English
and various creoles
South African English
West African English*
(a lot of regional differences, e.g. Ghana, Nigeria, Liberia)
East African English*
South Asian English*
Indian English*
(with some notable variations in pronunciation and usage)
Pakistan*, Sri Lanka*, Bangladesh*
Southeast Asian English*
Singaporean English*, Malaysian English*
Philippine English*
Austral English
Australian English
New Zealand English

(* = mostly non-native varieties)

...but only two dialects can be regarded as international standards: British English and American English (Orin Hargraves, Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions, Oxford University Press)

...There are many varieties of English other than British... and American... .All of those other varieties are intrinsically just as worth of study and use as British and American. But these two varieties are the ones spoken by most native speakers and studied by most foreign learners. They have a special status... simply because there is more material available in them than in any other variety. (John Algeo, British or American English?, Cambridge University Press)

If you are interested in International English and its many varieties then Trudgill and Hannah, International English, Arnold, ISBN 0-340-80834-9 is a good introductory wee book. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from now. I don't think it's ideal, but I suppose it's the best solution. Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

Jack...must you be so condescending when messaging someone? First of all, let me clear up a few things. Whether Canadian English is similar to the American variety or not...that's not really my concern. Bravo to you for mentioning the differences between US and CAN English...I'm sure that if you had not done so, someone else would have. I have read and examined several articles on the "Englishes" spoken throughout the world, and most of them do have a list of common vocabulary words that are either distinct to the country in question, or that are widely used in those countries. You mention the word "kerfuffle", without really knowing that it's a word said by millions of Canadians, and is listed in several dictionaries as a "canadian lexical term", though its origins are British. Secondly, several words that you removed from the site are listed by serveral Canadian and American linguistics research organisations as being "dominant in Canada". Although, every person who contributes to Wikipedia does try to avoid information doubling (putting the same info in two sections of an article), this still does happen from time to time, and I'm sure that as time goes by, someone will correct the stylistic error. You do not need to be so condescending about it. Finally, I do not want to be rude or toffie-nosed about this, but apart from being a language teacher, I work for a linguistics reserach group at a university in Eastern Canada, and I think that with a B.A. and M.A. in comparative linguistics, that I would know a tiny bit about what I am speaking. I would suggest that you reference certain works of English linguistics (i.e. works by T. Gordon, P. Marquis, etc..) that do put Canadian English into perspective. Words like kerfuffle, anglophone, francophone, etc. do have more usage in Canada (for social, political, legal, and cultural reasons) than they do in other English-speaking countries. Finally, everyone makes typing errors, I'm sure that in your infinate widsom, you do as well. Btw...glamourous is an accepted spelling. Trust me, it is. =) If you'd like, I can include many references to it being spelled in that manner. Have a wonderous day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshubr (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

If I do add something to the site, I will of course add a citation. And thanks for including the note about being "humorous" (though its is humouroua)..haha. =) And, I do agree, the article on American English is really good. Bravo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshubr (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter in translation

My personal opinion is that it is ridiculous to term the changes made in the American edition "translation". Nonetheless, this is a topic that comes up again and again, and so requires clarification. Even the publisher referred to these changes as "translation", and there was a (failed) bid on Wikipedia to add the Harry Potter books to a (deleted) Category: "British books with American English translations". In other words, I understand perfectly where you are coming from, but I think the article should include examples and a detailed, balanced explanation of the issue. --woggly 19:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me---as long as "Sorcerer's stone" is not dubbed as American English for Philosopher's stone... Jack(Lumber) 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoS reversions

Please explain why you think it is acceptable to revert edits that make an article conform to the Manual of Style. violet/riga (t) 23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As acceptable as your attitude. Jack(Lumber) 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You have no reason? Fair enough. violet/riga (t) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, man, what's wrong with you? WP articles on British topics are riddled with single (as opposed to double) quotation marks, which are against WP policy. Yet you don't seem very concerned about that. Jack(Lumber) 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If I saw any I would fix them too. You say there are lots of them, well point a few out and I'll sort them. violet/riga (t) 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh no. That's so your gig, Mr. crusader. Jack(Lumber) 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? Hmm, well I'd be interested in seeing some these non-conforming articles of which you speak because I can't remember ever coming across any, ever. Now, you still haven't given any reason why you are reverting MoS changes other than the fact that it's personal. Edit warring and breaking 3RR (by spirit at time of writing) against a good faith change that makes an article conform to our own guidelines isn't very beneficial to the project. violet/riga (t) 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither is your WP:POINTy attitude, Mr. Crusader. Everybody understands the word sophomore---everybody but you. Jack(Lumber) 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to argue with the uninformed, and it's a shame that some people edit war and insult people because of grudges. Your opinion on "sophomore" was not supported and you should move on. violet/riga (t) 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It sure was supported, see this very talk page, section 7 "hello". That aside, you should know that the Manual of Style ...is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Jack(Lumber) 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It should, yes, yet there is simply no reason for an exception here. If the quotation marks themselves were illustrative and part of the AmE/BE differences then yes it would be wrong to change them, but they are not. I simply can't see how you can think that the change was such a violation of the integrity of that article that you just had to revert it. violet/riga (t) 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(<-) The quotation marks demonstrate how punctuation is used in American English. Note that American and British English differences does not use a unified spelling system. As for single quotes on Wikipedia, check out, for example, Labor Party (UK) Labour Party (UK) (retrieved on purpose) and Cattell Culture Fair III (retrieved through the "random article" feature.) Jack(Lumber) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR we try to use the spelling system that is most closely tied to the subject matter. In English comparison articles we can't do that so it's a more difficult situation. However, we use set grammatical rules for quotation marks for all articles and there should never really be any exceptions there. I've fixed the two articles you found, and will do so with any others you inform me of. violet/riga (t) 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Do as you please, I don't care that much about that article---a couple weeks and it will be gone altogether. Gotta go now. You ain't gonna get away with it that easy next time, man. Jack(Lumber) 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] indice

Hi.

indice is synonymous with index. This backformation is quite common and can easily be found on numerous websites (try searching for "an indice" or "one indice"). And you can also find several prescriptivists even discussing the "error" of using indice instead of index. Since the word is so common, it hardly needs a citation to "prove" its existence and since it co-exists with index it obviously (at least obvious to prescriptivists) is a backformed word.

If you absolutely need a citation for whatever reason, then you can refer to a noticing of indice in Ronald Reagan's speech in one of his new conferences (1982 Sep 27) in:

  • Slotkin, Alan R. (1983). Media watch. American Speech, 58 (2), 192.

peace. – ishwar  (speak) 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. By and large, I tend to be a descriptivist. But some so-called words really piss me off. I did google "the indice," but most of the results were either gobbledygook or non-native English. By the way, I was wondering if we really need to list all of the possible back-formations. It would make more sense to list only the most common ones.
(This means that indice would have to go out the window, of course ;)
Since when is the speech of U.S. Presidents a reliable source?
I hope it was clear that the asshole line was a self-reference.
God bless us all and save us from back-formations, Jack(Lumber) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International English

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article International English, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of International English

An editor has nominated International English, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International English and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low-back merger in Canadian English

Hello. You've written a good deal at Talk:Canadian English and I thought you might be able to answer this question. I'm from Montreal, and I definitely have the same vowel in words like cot and caught, and it has a fair degree of lip rounding. In "foreign" words like Mazda, pasta, Vietnam, etc., I guess I'm among the minority of Canadians who do not pronounce them with the vowel of hat. The vowel I use is more like the typical American pronunciation of cot or hot, and not like my own pronunciation of those words. In fact, pasta pronounced posta, with lip rounding, would sound quite strange to me. I was wondering if you know of any academic sources that talk about this. Joeldl (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Which vowel do you have in father, spa, balm, calm? Jack(Lumber) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In father, balm and calm I have the same rounded vowel as in cot/caught. In spa I have an unrounded vowel, probably the same one most Americans have. Joeldl (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems like you have an additional phoneme, since the occurrence of your back "a" is not determined by the phonetic environment. Canadian English as a whole is an under-described variety of English... and Montreal English is even more so, because English is not the majority language there; furthermore, linguists have traditionally focused on lexical quirks like depanneur rather than on phonology, which is mostly the same throughout Canada anyway. I'm gonna have to check the archives! Jack(Lumber) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought of it as a "foreign a". Maybe it's no more an additional phoneme than is /ɑ̃/ in sang froid, except it's much more common, and I do honestly think of the words as being more native than sang froid.Joeldl (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
They sure are; if they really were "foreign" words it would just be a foreign sound, like those that we try to articulate when pronouncing certain Spanish, German, French etc. names. But pasta has been around for 150 years or so, not to mention spa and drama--you have that vowel in drama too, right? And how about bra? Jack(Lumber) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both of those. Joeldl (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama... Jack(Lumber) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian English and French Fries

Actually, I thought specifying the "fish and chips" exemption did add to the article (as there may be people in this world who are not familiar with that particular set phrase, and therefore the potential exemption), although I can understand if the way I rephrased it wasn't great. (As a side question, one probably arising out of my own ignorance, if it doesn't add anything while in the article, then what does it add as a note to editors? It just strikes me as something that should be either added into the article or removed entirely.)--RAult (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point. Anyway, the embedded comment was supposed to prevent editors from adding the sentence into the article, its information content being zero. Jack(Lumber) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, although the note should probably be clarified so that someone else doesn't "pull a RAult". :-)--RAult (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I actually have put the note back in, stripped to its bare bones. Jack(Lumber) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand English

The page may well need cleanup, but it would be helpful if you could add a message to the talk page explaining what you think the deficiencies are, or use a more specific tag. I usually only see {{cleanup}} applied to articles which have much more obvious problems.-gadfium 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Jack(Lumber) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Can you tell me what's going on here please, Jack? ScarianCall me Pat! 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a humorous note about this edit; I didn't want to be too hard on him. However, he has been just trolling around ever since. Jack(Lumber) 22:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just thought I'd troll around here...

My comment on the Harry Potter page wasn't trolling. It was a serious point. I really want to address the issue - the books were "translated" from BE to AE, but would the same thing happen in reverse? We watch American films and TV series etc. without any kind of translation. Why should they get translations of our stuff?

It's a serious question and it isn't trolling. I daren't put it back in case you ban me or something, but I hope you understand. Thanks!

EDIT: I've also made a few decent edits, too, such as fixing grammar mistakes...

90.205.80.229 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling or not, ..bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. (from WP:NOT). Jack(Lumber) 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: 90.205.80.229 / 90.208.215.240 / Avengah

Same dude. Vandal, troll, abuser of sock-puppets. —SlamDiego←T 00:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ain't gonna be so humorous next time. Jack(Lumber) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello! How are you today? I admit that I am 90.205.80.229 but where did the other one come from...? Just because it starts with 90?!?
Incidentally, re: idea-smoothing, I regularly watch Smallville, and I can confirm that Tom Welling (Clark Kent) says /aI'di:@/ but John Schneider (Jonathan Kent) says /aI'dI@/, so I don't think you can say that Americans don't have idea-smoothing. It's only like "eye dear" without the R on the end. Listen out for it. (I hope I did that right...) Personally, I prefer /aI'dI:/ myself - the same as I say beer, fear, deer etc. - /bI:/ /fI:/ /dI:/ ... Also, the word "dreamt" has come up on Smallville more than once. Avengah (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You might ask the question (concerning 90.208.215.240) of me, as I made the assertion. It came from the shared pattern of edits from two Easynet IP numbers. Indeed, it's amusing that you now draw his attention to Smallville, as three of your nine edits as 90.208.215.240 concerned Kryptonite; five of the remainder involved your edit war (first with .240 and then with .229) to place a “silent R” in “Sade”. (history of “Sade Adu”, history of talk page for “Sade Adu”, history of “Sade (band)”) Jack surely remembers the remaining edit.
Don't mess-around here, Avengah. You were unblocked after promising to reform; this insinuation casts doubt on that promise. —SlamDiego←T 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not messing around. If you have bothered checking my recent edits, most of them involve fixing punctuation etc. and are not destructive. Anyway, no-one answered my question about idea-smoothing! Avengah (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Insinuating that you were not 90.208.215.240 was plainly messing around. Expectations about your future behavior are based upon more that just your edits to articles. —SlamDiego←T 04:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I hope that unblock was cool. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's cool. I'm not doing anything wrong, mostly just fixing a bit of unsightly bad punctuation here and there, and a few other random changes. No vandalism or trolling any more! Avengah (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] “dreamed”/“dreamt”

Do you have stats for these two? —SlamDiego←T 16:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Cambridge Corpus of American English, dreamed outnumbers dreamt by 20:1. Dreamt is mainly found in speech and fiction, and virtually never found in newspapers, edited writing, etc. However, the ratio is 8.3:1 in the BYU Corpus, so maybe that paragraph can be tweaked a little bit. Jack(Lumber) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I was curious because I generally use “dreamt”, but I'm very definitely American. —SlamDiego←T 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, "spelt" is another one. I'm sure I've seen American users of www.gamefaqs.com using "spelt", not "spelled". That's why I think it's not strictly British. Avengah (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Americans only use “spelt” and “learnt” in a couple of cases:
  1. In a few rural dialects, people say /spelt/ and /lɜːrnt/ or /lɜːnt/, and semi-literate folk will thus write “spelt” and “lernt” or “learnt”.
  2. Some Americans write in deliberate imitation of British convention. (Usually, they do a poor job of this.)
The problem with the first case is that we aren't so much observing people writing American English as they are attempting to write American English (much as is a child who spells “yacht” as “yot”). The problem with the second case is that we have Americans writing English (or attempting to do so), but not Americans attempting to write American English. —SlamDiego←T 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm supposed to butt in here, and you probably already know this, but... It's worth remembering both spellings are always acceptable in both places, it's just there are strong preferences in each place. The word 'dreamed' often sounds strange to my ears, as I imagine 'dreamt' sounds strange to others, but it doesn't distinguish anyone as either British or American. I think I only ever use 'dreamt', but I feel I might change my preference between 'learnt' and 'learned' depending on the situation, but I can put my finger on a rule. Potahto (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe it varies from region to region and even from speaker to speaker--and, of course, from verb to verb. The British National Corpus has 731 instances of dreamed and 272 of dreamt. In the Cambridge International Corpus, the ratio dreamed:dreamt is 2:1 in British texts and almost 13:1 in American texts, dreamt being chiefly a spoken variant in AmE. Learned too is preferred in British texts by about 2:1 in all corpora, but learnt is extremely rare in American texts. Jack(Lumber) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's interesting. I've been looking around online so see if it's possible to to how usage has changed, say, over the last century, but the corpora I found start around the 80s-90s. Potahto (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hong Kong English

"British English and American English can only be "used" by the British and the Americans, respectively."

LOL, that's a good one XD

Well, that's just the definition ;-) Jack(Lumber) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)