Americanisms and British...isms?

[Camembert]

Um... just because the words are in a different order, doesn't mean the meaning is changed. "You can't have your cake and eat it to(o)" means the same thing as "You can't eat your cake and have it to(o)".

Edit: I agree with the first half of your sentence, though.

Um, no, it doesn't. It's close, but it doesn't mean the same because of timing issues.

You can't have your cake and eat it too - Implies: You can't have your cake then eat it. (A logically false statement, since you can, in fact get a cake, then proceed to eat it.)

No, they mean the same thing. The conjunction 'and' does not indicate a progression in time between the first concept and the second - it simply means one happening and the other happening, whether simultaneously, chronologically, or backwards.

If 'and' is replaced with 'then', then that would be different.

You want a real cultural divide between the US and the UK; expose an American to Cockney rhyming slang. Watch the confusion ensue.

I would sincerely love to see that

 

[YoUnG205]

Football Britian
Soccer American

 

[CrystalShadow]

Um... just because the words are in a different order, doesn't mean the meaning is changed. "You can't have your cake and eat it to(o)" means the same thing as "You can't eat your cake and have it to(o)".

Edit: I agree with the first half of your sentence, though.

Um, no, it doesn't. It's close, but it doesn't mean the same because of timing issues.

You can't have your cake and eat it too - Implies: You can't have your cake then eat it. (A logically false statement, since you can, in fact get a cake, then proceed to eat it.)

No, they mean the same thing. The conjunction 'and' does not indicate a progression in time between the first concept and the second - it simply means one happening and the other happening, whether simultaneously, chronologically, or backwards.

If 'and' is replaced with 'then', then that would be different.

Linguistically, you are probably correct.
Unfortunately, with a saying like this, there's more at work than linguistics.
Intuitively, most people that read a statement like that are going to presume the part before the and comes first.

Language, after all, is sequential, and as a result, there is an implicit sense of time even if by official linguistic rules there isn't.

I got a cake, then ate it, - Is linguistically clear.

Nevertheless, I got a cake and ate it, still implies a time lapse, even if the 'and' doesn't, as such.

This should be obvious if you reverse that one:

I got a cake and ate it.
VS

I ate a cake and got it. - Which simply stops making sense, even if the grammatical implications of it would say otherwise.

 

[PAGEToap44]

Someone has yet to mention Solicitor = Lawyer

Not true, soliciting is a term that refers to any part of law that isn't involved with court proceedings. Yet at the same time they are still called lawyers. Although I suspect they just don't call them solicitors in America.

A solicitor is someone who comes up to you and tries to sell you a product or service or attempts to gain your membership in their organization. I used to sell shit door to door, I'm aware of exactly what a solicitor is here in the states AND where they can put their products.

Oh riiiight... I don't think we even have pricks like those here, maybe a few, but not enough to give them a proper term. We would just call them "door-to-door salesmen". That's odd, it has nothing whatsoever to do with law. Well I was half-right, I think.

 

[Camembert]

Um... just because the words are in a different order, doesn't mean the meaning is changed. "You can't have your cake and eat it to(o)" means the same thing as "You can't eat your cake and have it to(o)".

Edit: I agree with the first half of your sentence, though.

Um, no, it doesn't. It's close, but it doesn't mean the same because of timing issues.

You can't have your cake and eat it too - Implies: You can't have your cake then eat it. (A logically false statement, since you can, in fact get a cake, then proceed to eat it.)

No, they mean the same thing. The conjunction 'and' does not indicate a progression in time between the first concept and the second - it simply means one happening and the other happening, whether simultaneously, chronologically, or backwards.

If 'and' is replaced with 'then', then that would be different.

Linguistically, you are probably correct.
Unfortunately, with a saying like this, there's more at work than linguistics.
Intuitively, most people that read a statement like that are going to presume the part before the and comes first.

Language, after all, is sequential, and as a result, there is an implicit sense of time even if by official linguistic rules there isn't.

I can agree with that, certainly. Perhaps I was being too pedantic.

 

[randomrob]

I know that what we call a cigarette you would call a term I can not type because it is considered a slur.

Edit: Imagine my surprise when I was asked if I wanted one while stationed overseas.

Most British people call them cigarettes, fag is the slang word.

 

[NoSeraph]

American news sources never use the term "row" to describe disturbances or scandals, whereas the usage is quite common in the UK.

American English speakers also will never use the verb "to fancy" to describe something that they like or enjoy.

The term "sketchy" is also used in place of "dodgy" to describe something odd or seemingly illegitimate.

 

[littlelacysurprisepageant]

UK=Lorry US=Truck

 

[Dahni]

Yeah they aren't called Walkers in the USA, they're called Lays.

I wonder where they ARE called Walkers, England excluded.
I live in middle Europe, and we also have Lays.

Scotland, Ireland, Wales...

You do realise that England is not an entirely seperate country, don't you?

 

[Tharwen]

Great, double post.

I think in many ways American and English are like Spanish and Italian - when we speak to eachother we can understand one another, but the subtle differences in spelling, accent, expression, and structure/words means they're different languages.

While I'm at it, though, I might as well take the opportunity to say that I think a comparison like this is flawed. Spanish and Italian are two different languages (an Italian with no knowledge of Spanish would be unable to understand a conversation in Spanish), whereas American English and British/Canadian/Australian/whatever English are the same language, and easily mutually intelligible, with some very slight variations. The line between dialect and language can sometimes be very fine, but in this instance that is not the case.

Can Spaniards and Italians understand each other? I thought they were entirely different languages.

 

[Camembert]

Can Spaniards and Italians understand each other? I thought they were entirely different languages.

That's what I just said. They can't understand eachother.

Yeah they aren't called Walkers in the USA, they're called Lays.

I wonder where they ARE called Walkers, England excluded.
I live in middle Europe, and we also have Lays.

Scotland, Ireland, Wales...

You do realise that England is not an entirely seperate country, don't you?

??? Yes it is.

 

[Fraught]

Yeah they aren't called Walkers in the USA, they're called Lays.

I wonder where they ARE called Walkers, England excluded.
I live in middle Europe, and we also have Lays.

Scotland, Ireland, Wales...

You do realise that England is not an entirely seperate country, don't you?

Uhh, so? I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[Dahni]

-snip-

Still, I can't think of any examples right now, but I know everyday, conotative speech is VASTLY different. I've hung out with someone from Scotland once, and it was like I could make out everything they were saying, but almost every word was different than American.

I do love being Scottish. Even when I speak to non-Scottish people, the vocabulary I use is vastly different to theirs. Though I tend to only slip into using Scots when I'm speaking in real life, as opposed to on here. Hence why most of you can understand what I type.

I think in many ways American and English are like Spanish and Italian - when we speak to eachother we can understand one another, but the subtle differences in spelling, accent, expression, and structure/words means they're different languages.

Oh, fun fact: who has the most "pure form" of English: America or England?

The answer: America. The reason is because America's english is more strictly based off of older 1600-1700 english. It hasn't changed much accept for minor spelling changes and the addition of the letter J (or I, I don't remember). In England, during the early 1800's, there was a very strong movement to look "proper"; birthed from a desire to have a strong culture. Where did England get their cultural inspiration from? Why France of course! the English began dressing like the french, talking with a more french accent, and even spelling like the french. As an example, this is why America and England spell certain words like "color" (vs. colour) differently. America has what you might call the "Standard English" version, while England has the "Franco-English" version.

Interesting, huh?

This actually blew my mind a little bit. I'm going to use this against my English friends when they tell me to speak properly. Thank you for telling us this. This has made my day.

 

[Camembert]

This actually blew my mind a little bit. I'm going to use this against my English friends when they tell me to speak properly. Thank you for telling us this. This has made my day.

Do these English friends tell you to speak properly when you speak with a Scottish dialect? If so, then they are sadly rather stupid.

 

[Dahni]

Yeah they aren't called Walkers in the USA, they're called Lays.

I wonder where they ARE called Walkers, England excluded.
I live in middle Europe, and we also have Lays.

Scotland, Ireland, Wales...

You do realise that England is not an entirely seperate country, don't you?

Uhh, so? I never said anything to the contrary.

You said "I wonder where they ARE called Walkers, England excluded."
Which would imply it's a totally seperate country from the rest of the country of the United Kingdom.

it isn't just in England that they're called Walkers, it's in the rest of the UK too, because, y'know, England is part of the UK and Walkers is a UK-based comapny. Just saying.

 

[Beardon65]

I think most of them have already been covered, but I've got a (kind of) rare one.

Americans call Shotgun ammunition Shells. In the UK the proper name for them is cartridges instead.

I have no idea why though, as shells are explosive munitions, like artillery rounds for example.

Well yes you could say that, but then again, a magazine could contain either text or ammunition. Also, normally it is the uneducated that call them "shotgun shells" when there are two types of the ammunition; buckshot and slugs. I normally just call them "buckshot rounds" and the same with slugs.

Even then, they don't call them "shells" but rather "shotgun shells" to be more specific.

 

[Dahni]

This actually blew my mind a little bit. I'm going to use this against my English friends when they tell me to speak properly. Thank you for telling us this. This has made my day.

Do these English friends tell you to speak properly when you speak with a Scottish dialect? If so, then they are sadly rather stupid.

They don't mean it in a spiteful way, it's a joke they tend to make about me though. When I speak to them, I start to talk with increasingly more Scottish words and, therefore, become increasingly harder to understand. If I don't want to stop to explain what a word means every two seconds, I need to concentrate harder on what I'm saying and speak as "properly" as possible, using English words. It's a bit annoying, because even when I do explain what a Scottish word means, they don't bother to remember what I tell them and, because I assume they have a vague idea of what it means, I use it again and have to re-explain it.

 

[Knight of Cydonia]

Canteen in the UK=Cafe

Canteen in USA=Bottle

 

[Gorog2]

Curtains=Drapes