NHacker Next
- new
- past
- show
- ask
- show
- jobs
- submit
login
Due to my somewhat international career, I had to learn to code-switch between American and British English. My default is American but can do British as needed. Spelling, vocabulary, dialect to some extent, etc.
For a global audience, I find American is the best default. Nonetheless, actual Americans barely notice if you use British English-isms in American contexts. They may notice but no one cares. Everyone knows what you mean. Using British dialect may confuse them occasionally but even then no one cares. Canadians should do what is natural for Canadians.
It boggles my mind that someone from a Commonwealth country using British spelling would even warrant a news article. Why is anyone talking about this?
But to me, who cares, there was a time ages ago people spelt a word the way they wanted and no one cared. Just look at old documents from the 18th century in the US.
Even decades later, once in a great while, I end up using colour instead of color :)
Pointed out to me by a Kiwi, that Americans take silence after a statement to mean general agreement, but in Britain silence implicitly asks, "Are you _really sure_ you want to be doing that?"
A "news" article was written, doesn't mean any real people actually care.
Try this in rural communities with people who dropped out of college.
Saying "note" instead of "bill" will be noticed.
Same with "petrol" instead of "gas".
Probably a whole list of others.
– not understood outside the UK even across the Commonwealth.
I feel like Canada is of two minds, awkwardly and indecisively straddling North American English and British English. It wasn’t until I worked overseas that I realized North America has a very distinctive English that imprints on people, even if they lived there a few years. As in Londoners who spent a few years in North America as toddlers have obvious North American tonality, which is baffling to me.
I have native relatives in Canada and the UK and I find the language dynamics across the anglosphere fascinating.
Does Canadian English still use "gotten"? IIRC, that's a vestige of British English that's been lost in Britain.
Edit: It appears my conjecture was correct: https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/on-the-use-of-the-word-gotten/
I see it from time to time online, and immediately assume they're a non-native speaker who doesn't understand the nonsensical nuances of the language.
Eg people will say something like "I've 3 apples", which is just "I have 3 apples", which is perfectly gramattical. But, for some reason, we use "I've got 3 apples". But I think we'd also say "I have 3 apples" and not "I have got 3 apples".
Language is weird.
or it's got it's own dialect, which has inherited features from both british and american english but is now evolving on its own.
Some parts of Canada inexplicably used "gaol" for "jail" until fairly recently. For example, the "Headingley Gaol" near Winnipeg. The jail has been renamed to Headingley Correctional Center, but the road to it is still Gaol Road, preserving the linguistic curiosity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headingley_Correctional_Instit... [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gaol+Rd,+Headingley,+MB,+C...
Why is that inexplicable? It would have originally been called that with that spelling.
Fellow Winnipeger here! I remember driving by that sign as a kid and being baffled by that word.
This being said, I would suspect the english word gaol comes from the french word geôle.
But I also agree with GP that many words like this are chosen just to sound more impressive, in the same way that people say 'at this time' instead of 'now.'
The words are typically used in two different contexts, one more professional (utilize) and one more casual (use). The words can be chosen to hint at which context we’re in or shift the context locally if needed.
For example, a story about a group of drunk guys could say that one of them utilized a flat stone to dig, to add humour since we’re clearly not in that professional context.
Personally, anytime I see the word "utilize" it makes me think the writer is just trying to sound smart or "put on airs." For me it has the opposite effect that the writer is trying to achieve.
But «utilise» is almost always interchangeable with «employ», which almost always has the same meaning.
As a native spanish speaker, the "utiliZe" spelling makes it easier for us to learn the word, as it's almost the same as the spanish version "utilizar"
I use American spellings wherever they make sense and don't gratuitously mess with the Latin roots.
Such as "behavior", "neighbor".
But: "centre" and not "center" (it's from Latin "centrum": the R goes after the T, and there is no need whatsoever to revise that.)
The shift to Z in the -ise Latin-derived suffix is not just in American English. European languages are split about it. For instance, let's look at "to synthesize"
German: synthetisieren
French: synthétiser
Dutch: syntetisere
But:
Polish: syntetyzować
Hungarian: szintetizálni
Italian: sintetizzare
Romanian: sintetiza
I think the sound is Z in all of them? It's partly a question of whether the orthography of the language uses S for a Z sound or not. If they don't have that feature in their orthography then they don't have the choice of retaining an S spelling with a Z sound.
Why does it matter how it was spelled in Latin? English is not Latin.
In the era of ubiquitous access to dictionaries, I'm not sure the benefits of having spelling reflect etymology rather than pronunciation outweigh the cost.
French: centre
Italian: centro
Czech: centrum # identical to Latin!
Swedish: centrum
[... numerous others ...]
The "TR" order of the letters in the "centrum" cognate is still alive in modern languages and their orthography, and so is even the "centrum" word itself.
The second part of my argument is that some contemporary dialects of English itself, like British and Canadian, use "centre"; using the "centre" spelling is a contemporary practice, and not a retrogression toward Latin.
The third part of my my argument is that changing "centre" to "center" is a gratuitous change that brings no benefit; it has no redeeming value.
I see no value spelling it centre. That some other languages spell the word doesn't matter as they're pronouncing it without a vowel between the t and r which is rather different than English.
In French it's pronounced santr. In Italian it's sen-tro. In Czech it's tsen-troom. In Swedish it's sen-trum.
Languages that, like English, pronounce it with a vowel between the t and r? They spell it that way.
In Albanian it's qendër pronounced very close to rhotic English sen-ter.
In Norweigian it's senter (sen-ta) which is pretty close to non-rhotic English.
In Croation, it's centar (sen-tar).
In Lombard it's center.
In Swedish, the other word for center (meaning a center (place) or sports position) is spelled... center.
And even Czech, which spells it centrum, changes the spelling to center in the genitive plural, to match the pronunciation.
So even if we're going to choose spelling based on other languages, there's plenty that spell it similarly to center to argue for it in English - though I would still argue that other people are doing it isn't a compelling argument.
Quote:
The spelling with -re was popularized in Britain by Johnson's dictionary (following Bailey's), though -er is older and was used by Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope.
At the same time, it Etymonline traces the origin to Old French (14th century) which had it as centre.
Just because Milton, Pope and Shakespeare wrote "center" doesn't mean it was a good idea. The latter couldn't spell his own name the same way twice!
Only English has this insanity driven by people who simply don't like change, like the aesthetics of older spellings, or because they're a closet francophiles/latinophiles like Johnson, but try to justify it with nonsense about etymology because how weak the personal preference argument is.
I'm confused here. What you call "the Z sound" in "synthetisieren" or "synthétiser" does not sound the same as "the Z sound" in "sintetizzare", for instance. The letters Z and S both exist in those languages, but they pronounced differently.
This is more manufactured outrage. I wish the media was not incentivized to amplify nonsense all the time.
Canada was supposed to have British Culture, French Cuisine and American Technology. Instead we ended with British Cuisine, American Culture and French Technology.
Not collectively waste time on the useless debates on how to spell things.
I was a fun bit of trolling that most people didn't notice, could still stay on topic ... but man it triggered some folks.
A bit touchy, aren't we?
There are much better things to be proud about than using "z" instead of "s" in a few words.
Reading this, I wonder how this became an issue to become big enough to have an article written about it.
Then hearing the justifications about why it might be, in turn, pitting a few characters in text on the canadianness of a politician, or not.
If you can imagine a word processor somewhere writing this, maybe it didn't have it's language set to English (Canada)?
Some folks here have said sometimes it can feel like there might be folks trying to grasp at straws.
Put another way, neither Carney nor Freeland has a post-high school degree of any kind from a Canadian school.
So it wasn't overnight, but it was a case of just the right person at just the right time.
Incidentally, isn't "based out of" mostly an American idiom? I usually use "based on" or "based in" and find "based out of" and "based off" conjure images of poorly constructed buildings. (Don't get me started on "based off of".)
I think "based out of" refers to the work communication going "out of" where the person is "based in". But still, it is far cry from the natural "in".
This assumes your company doesn't have an official policy on the matter.
Whos face is on the Canadian 20 dollar note?
But... this is just the next chapter in Canadian media (ha! it mostly belongs to the southern dictatorship) having a go at non-Trumpish politicians.
Life continues.
This is a nothing burger.
British spelling, USA spelling... just pick one and move on.
Ideally all English-speaking countries would go for something more phonetic, but economic power and inertia trumps simplicity.
Carney is the most popular politician Canada has had in decades. The opposition party is starting to fall apart (two members defected, which means Carney's party is one seat away from a majority).
Whole thing sounds like an attempt to manufacture an 'Obama beige suit' moment.
> Canadian English has been the standard in government communications for decades. But eagle-eyed linguists and editors have spotted British spellings — like "globalisation" and "catalyse" — in documents from the Carney government, including the budget.
My assumption is that any instances of British spelling in the document(s) were accidental.
The petition, otoh, implies that Carney's office has adopted a policy of using British spelling.
The 'new policy' explanation is more surprising than mine.
It makes a difference.
If the conventional explanation is the right one, then this fuss is over a few minor spelling mistakes, as opposed to Carney exercising poor judgment.
In popular writing, the s forms dominate - I've not heard the MS Word explanation before, but the most popular UK-produced word processors and spellcheckers in the 1980s (eg. Locoscript/Locospell, Protext/Prospell, 1st Word) tended to come from companies in the Cambridge area or which were founded by Cambridge grads, so would naturally have used the s spellings by default.
'z' forms are generally used for writing for an international audience, it hasn't really caught on more generally than that.
In Britain, aeroplanes are made of aluminium and they have tyres. The Ministry of Defence sends them out on manoeuvres in theatres of combat, where the pilots have generally excelled due to regular practice.
In America, airplanes are made of aluminum and they have tires. The Department of Defense sends them out on maneuvers in theaters of combat, where the pilots have generally exceled due to regular practise.
In Canada, airplanes are made of aluminum and they have tires. The Department of National Defence sends them out on manoeuvres in theatres of combat, where the pilots have generally excelled due to regular practice.
I've been here for more than a decade and can never figure out the formatting syntax.
See Formatting Options: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc
"Period" tends to be used in day-to-day speech when referring to the punctuation; you'll hear "full stop" if it's meant to emphasize a previous statement (though not universally), like with "you'll do the dishes, full stop."
Generally, the correct spelling of a word is determined by those that use it. Canadians have used 'colour' for a long time. If enough people start using 'color', that will eventually be the correct spelling in Canada.
You set the thermometer in C (usually), and cook in F. You can measure in cm or inches.
Also, with respect to the metric/imperial systems of measurement… officially the government is all metric, but due to the history of it all there will be a bunch of regulations that say things like “the toilet must be at least 228.6mm away from the wall” because the pre-metric standard was 9 inches.
And a final one for the prairies: in the 1800s there was the Dominion Land Survey, which carved us up into 1 mile x 1 mile squares. They did a truly impressive job of it. However, the edges of these squares is where the road allowances are, which means that despite the speed limit being in km/h, you are almost certainly going to be travelling N miles down the highway to get to your destination.
Oh! Didn't know! Is there regional variation in that?
I was forced to unlearn centre when we moved to America in my second grade. But everyone–from Virginia to New Jersey to California–was cool with me keeping analyse and defence.
This is as stupid as starting a war over cracking the big end or little end of an egg. Or, using whatever book was about that subject as a spelling style guide.
Ludicrous! Absolutely ludicrous! :)
(Yeah, but somebody doesn’t know that.)
Bro don't even joke about that
1: https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/is-pierre...
Conservatives have had best showing at a federal election in decades. 41.3% of the popular vote. Over 3.1 million CPC voters in Ontario alone.
I'd never heard about that until now. Crazy what gets attention. Who cares what color his suit is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_tan_suit_controve...
So they complained about Obama "destroying presidential norms"
All thanks to Trump's silly tariffs. There's a silver lining to everything. I hope that the association makes protectionism politically taboo for decades to come.
I thought it already was, before Trump. I still can't believe they ended de minimus and tariffed everything.
Not in the US, at least. Every administration since at least Bush jr slapped tariffs on a few things here and there, and mostly kept the previous admin's ad hoc tariffs in place.
In more practical places, like Singapore where I live, you'd be right: tariffs are by and large unthinkable.
The tariffs were just half of it, the attacks on national sovereignty were the other, and Pierre being his usual shallow and despicable self on the campaign trail were the third.
If Carney (or almost anyone but PP, really) were the head of the CPC, they'd have had a majority today. But looking at where the party's going, it's doubtful that the CPC will ever again elect a leader who can both read and write.
That is waaaay too black and white. Trump's actions != protectionism, Trump's actions ⊂ protectionism (and have been stupid). Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital). Protectionism is important, it just needs to be conducted in a smarter way (instead of indiscriminately tariffing everyone all the sudden)
Globalization benefits capital in rich countries and labor in poor countries. As someone who is from a poor and corrupt country, I have seen many people around me come out of poverty due to globalization.
I can agree that globalization can be bad for labor in rich countries.
Edit: Ironically your comment is also waaaay too black and white.
This is definitely true and Phil Knight of Nike fame even said that without the opportunity to join his slave workforce in Vietnam, those people would be worse off.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic here. But without Amazon many people in my country will be worse off, however bad the working conditions maybe.
Globalization is about benefiting capital in rich countries, any benefits to people poor countries is an unintended side-effect.
> I can agree that globalization can be bad for labor in rich countries.
It may seem that way if you restrict your view to say, China, but it's more complicated than that, and there's more to the world than the "developed world" than Asia.
For instance: IIRC, Africa has had problems with local producers getting run out of business by Chinese knock-offs (e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/how-nigeria-lost-its-textile-market-to...), without the "benefit" of foreign sweatshop employment you've seen in Asia.
My understanding is protectionism would probably be better for Africa, as cheap imports block development of local industry and agriculture, trapping it a low level of development.
Edit: And maybe the problem is worse than I understood: https://www.semafor.com/article/11/13/2025/chinas-everything...:
> China is now competing head-on not just against other advanced economies but the most vulnerable ones. In effect, it is blocking the ladder to prosperity for countries in the Global South.
> Indonesia lost 250,000 jobs in its backbone textile industry between 2022 and 2024 because of a deluge of Chinese imports, according to the Indonesia Fiber and Filament Yarn Producer Association — and another half-million may now be at risk....
> In Thailand, the Chinese export tsunami has precipitated a crisis among smaller firms making car parts, electrical equipment, and consumer goods, stoking fears of deindustrialization. Village-based cottage industries are particularly at risk; for example, makers of hand-painted ceramic “rooster” bowls have been idled en masse by Chinese fakes that sell for one fifth of the price.
> China’s exports to Southeast Asia are now larger than those to the US. Malaysia’s semiconductor industry, a key growth-engine, is feeling the pressure. Electronics manufacturers in the Philippines are struggling. Vietnam has erected tariff barriers to Chinese hot-rolled coil steel products....
> Yet China keeps piling on the trade pressure. Africa is the new hotspot for Chinese exports: In September, Chinese shipments to the continent surged 56% year-on-year. In the same month, shipments to Latin America were up 15.2%. Some of China’s exports to emerging economies, particularly in Asia, are being rerouted to the US to get around US tariffs, but they also compete with local manufacturers in those firms’ home markets, while displacing their overseas sales.
It's not like protectionism and the government directing economies hasn't been tried in Africa..
> That is waaaay too black and white.
We're talking about Trump here: of course it's black and white.
> Free trade and globalization has failed most of the world in pretty serious ways (though it's been great for the much of the elite, floating on top of big piles of capital).
I don't know: extreme poverty has been driven down quite effectively AFAICT:
* https://www.gapminder.org/questions/gms1-3/
* https://www.gapminder.org/data/documentation/epovrate/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China
Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); nothing said it couldn't have been kept down (say, if Reagan was not elected). There's nothing inherent to free trade and globalization that should lead to it if are willing to redistribution (e.g., through taxation and social programs).
Trump might portrait things that way, but that doesn't mean we need to analyse anything involving him that way.
> Wealth inequality dropped after the Gilded Age and post-WW2 until the 1970s (in the US); [...]
Well, if you take on a more global perspective: global inequality absolutely skyrocketed until the 1970s and has only gradually been climbing down since then. Numerically, the biggest contributor was Mao strangling the Chinese economy (and people) until his death, and then Deng Xiaoping took over and relaxed the grip around their throats. But outsourcing and container shipping and lower tariffs helped a lot, too. Not just in relation with China, but for everyone on the globe.
I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith.
Probably because pre-WW2 and globalization most people on the planet were equally poor.
> I'm sick of portraying the era until the 1970s as some kind of golden age. It was the nadir for most people on the globe in terms of equality, not the zenith.
The 1970s were mostly the zenith of recent technological advancement: certainly personal computing and the Internet came after, but there really hasn't been any major invention.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...
Post-1970s technology has become more equally distributed (à la Gibson), and that has been through globalization.
Liberals didn't win majority and it was a close race, I'm not sure where you are getting your data from.
TRUMP managed to change the election results but it was close.
That's just blatantly untrue?
Jean Chrétien is the most recent Canadian Prime Minister that I remember a wide spectrum of Canadians liking (and by 2000, not as much). Justin Trudeau appealed many American journalists, but only to some Canadians.
If I missed an obvious politician, I will happily concede.
https://angusreid.org/prime-minister-mark-carney-first-month...
It is worth noting, polls aside, that the Carney election both finished off the NDP, and resulted in Conservative Poilievre losing his seat. And recently, Conservatives have started crossing the floor to join Carney. Justin Trudeau was popular with Liberals. Carney is generally popular.
Much like the rest of the g7, we have an aging population and a mega generational class divide. Our youth unemployment rate is high, jobs have dried up, it's a shitshow, and Carney hasn't tried to address this much.
So whether he's popular or not needs more context. He'd certainly be most popular with the richest and most populated generation ever, and potentially business owners, but we'll see.
The timing of the last election was perfect for Carney when there was a window where the whole country was going WTF with Trump and PP was still railing against various "woke" grievances and mentioning Trudeau by name. The fact that he wasn't turfed after not only losing the election that was his to win, but also losing his seat, is everything wrong with the myopic federal Conservative Party (whose core members refuse to "compromise" with the rest of the country).
There is a real generational tilt happening and young Canadians no longer defaulting to left leaning ways of thinking (not that they ever were as much as people thought).
Carney will (hopefully) have to reckon with those in the coming year, while Pierre seriously missed a (the?) boat. It does feel like something big is shifting slowly.
> There is a real generational tilt happening and young Canadians no longer defaulting to left leaning ways of thinking (not that they ever were as much as people thought).
It's my impression that the balance between economic prosperity and social good needs to be constantly curated and revered as an inherent virtue of a democracy with strong social safety nets. It's much easier to get working age people to compensate for the ails of generations past if there's no doubt in their mind they'll have a roof over their head next year.
Progressive, often barely tangible issues, necessarily become internalized as luxurious if the people who could support them can't even pay for food.