In Britain "dodgy" does not mean "sketchy". Dodgy is a word ascribed to something or an action that is morally and/or legally dubious. Sketchy usually means vague or incomplete but never dodgy.
But we're using the American word to translate to British, not the other way around. In America, the way we use sketchy in the same way you use dodgy. The Oxford dictionary probably wouldn't include the American definition of sketchy.
It isn't how we use it but if it was used in US sketchy would mean dodgy, that is the point of the quiz. What does this word mean in USA not what it means here.
I tried iffy, which is similar to dodgy. I also tried questionable, dubious and illegal. Is there only the single correct answer? Nice idea for a quiz.
Haha that's interesting. We Americans don't use sketchy to mean vague or incomplete but that makes sense (like a drawing that's just a sketch). We use sketchy to mean morally questionable or dangerous (like "a sketchy part of town" or "that guy seems pretty sketchy."
Why would it confuse you that Americans don't use stones for measurement. To my knowledge, almost the entire world uses kilos or pounds and not stone aside from the UK. That would be like me being confused (as an American) as to why the rest of the world uses the metric system. I know we are weird but I don't assume that everyone else is wrong just because we choose to be different.
smartcookie17 because we dont like changing things. And also, if we did change it officially, everyone would keep using the metric system anyway, so it would just be a waste of time. To be honest, I'm quite happy standing out from the other 200 and something countries
Except England doesn't really use "English" units. Its called Imperial mostly and we have a weird hybrid of Metric and Imperial units for different things (also depending on age). For example I would measure short distance in cm and meters and never use pounds or stone, yards or gallons; but use Miles per Hour.
We already use metrics in some places - the pharmaceutical industry has used it for a long time, (you don't get a tsp of vaccine in your flu shot,) auto mechanics who also work on foreign cars must have two sets of wrenches, and the FDA requires dual labeling on food and drugs. If they would start having schools use a dual system so students would know both systems, and require both systems printed on new replacements for such things as road signs, it would be much easier to slowly change over in the future without a huge cost of conversion. I think it's a much easier system, but it's my understanding the greatest argument against it is the cost of retooling manufacturing plants and construction businesses. I'm guessing those involved in international trade have already added metrics to their businesses. I hope we someday change.
@sprk. People would start using the metric system if you changed, as this is exactly what happened in places such as Canada and New Zealand when they switched to metric. If the metric system was introduced in America it would be no different.
@Morpioniste The metric system was introduced in the UK in 1965 and youngsters leaving school now will still give their weight in stones and the height in feet and inches. I wouldn't say it is declining very quickly
To answer Samwise, the English system is goofy enough even with the simplified version that Americans use. Makes perfect sense to get rid of some of the intermediary units like drams and stones and only use some like pounds and tons. Would make even more sense to adopt the metric system, but Americans are stubborn sometimes.
I remember back in the late '70s or early '80s there was a big push to change us over to the metric system. We were told we were changing over within a year, and I taught a class on it to our extension club. Those gentle ladies turned into wild, rebellious women. Some moaned, some ranted, but not one said they would accept it, and they didn't even try to learn it. I thought it was a lot easier, personally, but the attempt to switch us over turned into a disaster nationwide, and to my knowledge no one has made the attempt since. (However, the medical field and liquor industry operate on metrics, we are used to hearing about 5K runs, my measuring cups now read with both, so we are slowly being conditioned toward acceptance.)
And I bet if you asked any of those old ladies how many gallons in a container 7 inches by 6 inches by 11 inches, none would have had a clue. They probably would stop and think and correct each other over how many tablespoons in a gallon, even if they measured in the kitchen every day.
It comes down to what you have learnt. Give me a weight in stones, and I can understand what that would roughly relate to, however, if you gave me a weight in kilograms, it means virtually nothing to me! The same as height in feet and inches makes sense to me, but centimetres mean nothing!
Okay, like half of these are wrong...... Don't get me wrong I live in London. We never ever say serviette, that's French. We say napkin or paper towel. I don't know what spanner is, but we say wrench. For us, it's drunk driving and we also say Fat Tuesday. Most of the UK uses kilos, any way.
Agreed about the napkin which is much more widely used in Britain than serviette. I would always say napkin. I've never heard anyone say wrench in the UK - we do not use it as standard, it's almost universally spanner in any garage I've ever been to as well as the DIY shops. It's also typically drink driving, but maybe "drunk driver".
The British English text books we have at the polytechnic I've been teaching at use "spanner," designated as UK English, and specifies "wrench" as American English. My British coworkers measure their own weight in stone. I've also heard them say "drink driving." Maybe you live in the American section of London? Though American culture is ubiquitous so Americanisms will start seeping in no matter where you live.
Usually in UK a person gives their weight in Stones & Pound eg '9stone 3pounds'. I think most of the scales that people weigh themselves on are marked in Stones & Pounds and its easier to remember than break it down to 129 pounds etc.
dude, we use both words for most of these. pants are "panties or kninkers" we say dunk driving far more than drink driving because of grammar, we ONLY ever call it a serviette if we are out somewhere super posh, otherwise, its a napkin or tissue. and dodgy and sketchy are the same word, we use them both. i have never even heard of zee or zed, we have trucks and lorrys, changing depending on the size (smaller ones are trucks big ones are lorrys) we call our garbage trash as well as rubbish and we also call it a wrench as well as a spanner, a cookie and a biscuit are too different things, cookies are delectably soft and yummy where biscuits are hard and crunchy. lift is just slang for elevator. 14 pounds is the equivalent of 1 stone but we still use pounds. for example 2 stones and 5 pounds. we are measured in pounds as babys. another word for trousers is simply bottoms as we don't care for call them all different things.
this is coming from a born and bred Brit from Leicester.
omgitsolivia1, I live in Leicester and am very surprised by your use of language: lift is most certainly not slang, lorry is British, truck has crept in from the US. How can you not know about zed? I feel this makes you more than a little unreliable in terms of language.
No, we DO say serviette, as I've just explained. Also we don't say Fat Tuesday, we say Shrove Tuesday (or occasionally Mardi Gras). In Northern Ireland people say wrench, but on the mainland it is a spanner.
The great thing about Australia is we're such culture importers that we generally use both American and British terms, which make these kind of quizzes pretty easy. And then you get the red herrings here and there.
I'm Canadian. It is us Canadians with a French and British history that use Serviette more than our American counterparts. So saw that, and agreed it is not a British thing
I'm going to have to disagree with you there on spanner and Shrove Tuesday... never ever ever heard "Fat Tuesday" before coming to this website. No one anywhere in the UK I've ever lived or visited has called it "Fat" Tuesday, and never heard a Brit call a spanner a wrench either. I've heard spanner used as slang like plonker, though
Never heard Fat Tuesday, except as a translation of the French "Mardi Gras". Shrove Tuesday is and remains the usual English word. "Serviette" is certainly used in England, but is looked down upon as a "non-U" word. Most English people I know, including me, still give their weight in stone, but that might be an age thing.
@Lilyrose You say you live in London but you definitely do not sound like you listen to those who have been raised in the UK if you have not heard of the word spanner. Wrench is rarely used outside of a garage or workshop, Fat Tuesday has never been used by anyone I know and it is most definitely drink driving not drunk driving
Not at all. There is absolutely no basis for calling the dialect British English "proper English." Though English is a living dynamic language and thus it is completely erroneous to assume that newer forms are more degenerate or less pure, if we make that assumption, then American English has changed far less over the last four hundred years than British English has. There are 5x more people in the USA than there are in the UK, and all over the world most people learning English prefer learning American English over British English, as American is the preferred standard. Also, the entire reason that English remains relevant today and is considered the international language is certainly not because of England. If not for the USA we would no doubt be communicating in German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish or Mandarin right now. Though how we would be doing so without the American-invented Internet is a mystery.
I think that it's a broad assumption to say that people "prefer to learn American English"! In Australia we use all the same words you have here for "English", except "Lorry". We also use English spelling (eg.colour, labour etc.). I think in countries where English is not the main language they may learn English from, or be influenced by, American movies, television and other media, which would explain the Americanisms. I notice little kids here often use Americanisms but they usually grow out of it as they get older. Oh, and before we adopted the metric system, we also used "Stone" as a form of weight. Most of us in our 40s and over still say our weight in Stone, and baby birth weights are still often spoken about in pounds.
It's broad but it's not an assumption. I've worked as an English teacher all over the world and apart from some Commonwealth countries like Australia and most countries in Western Europe, American English is preferred. The number of those in the former category is falling all the time. Why do people learn English? Because they want to do business with American companies, they want to attend American schools, they enjoy American popular culture, and so on. The reasons don't matter that much. The end result is the same. The majority of informed linguists will back up what I said above. There is no standard or "proper" English dialect but if there were one American English has a stronger case for being it than British English does.
Having lived all over Africa, I can attest to the fact that we (Except the Liberians) prefer British English to "American English". Oh and British English is English English i.e Proper English. My 2c
Amm...much as I hate to say it, being both British and Australian, the British way of spelling many words is arguably less 'correct' than the American way. For example, words ending in -or in American and -our in British generally come from the Latin, in which they were spelled (or spelt, if you prefer) -or. When those words were put through the Norman filter they attracted the (superfluous) 'u', so in fact the American spelling is closer to the original. The same is often true of words containing double vowels, such as oesophagus, archaeology and leukaemia, though the reason for this is more complicated and involves the transition from Greek diphthongs to Latin monophthongs and, frankly, I'm beginning to bore myself...
Lcfr: yes that's what I said. France being in Western Europe.
AfroChick: ignorant and wrong
lam: common but laughably erroneous misconception you are propping up there. The World Wide Web is not the Internet. The Internet absolutely is an American invention.
kdc: I understand both. I hope you're responding to Connor. He's the insufferable dingbat asserting (incorrectly) that the funny degenerate dialect he speaks is "proper" English.
Pirellyn: no, absolutely not. Not even close. Read about it sometime.
I think that Amm and AfroChick are making very reasonable points based on their knowledge and experience, just as you are making points based on your knowledge and experience. Calling them wrong, without having an actual reason for doing so seems very petty to me.
Also the reason English is still spoken widely is not just to do with the USA as you and many others like to suggest. The reason English is spoken widely at all is because of the British Empire and the spread of the English language, which brought English to America in the first place. It continues to be widely spoken today, not just because of the USA, but also because of the UK, Canada, Australia and many other countries where English is a commonly spoken language. Also why, exactly, would those of us in the UK be speaking a language other than English, if not for the USA. I would appreciate some clarification on this statement.
In addition to this you assert that it is a good thing that there are many languages worldwide and that they continue to be spoken, because it keeps the culture alive. I completely agree with this and think that the same applies to different versions of English.
It is interesting to consider why English is used so much as a lingua franca nowadays. To say it is mainly because of the USA would imply that without the USA it wouldn't be. Had the USA never existed at all (say if they just never declared independence from the British Empire) I think it is impossible to say how history might have played out. At first it seems an advantage to the British Empire - which might still be the most powerful country today in some possible outcomes. It is relatively clear that Canada and Australia would still be speaking English regardless of what happened to the USA - but their populations are comparatively pretty small. Who invented the Internet and the World Wide Web are relevant for the lingua franca of the Internet to a certain extent, but I doubt that if Hungarians had invented it first I would be typing this in Hungarian. I see the World Wide Web as a more significant invention though, as the Internet is just the ability of computers to communicate.
CaoMaur: it is impossible that AfroChick has experience that led to her discovering that British English is "Proper English" because that is simply flat out wrong. No amount of experience could make it otherwise. She is being ignorant by asserting this. As to her experience living all over Africa, I doubt that, but I'm sure many of the British Commonwealth countries there still use British English. And that's a good chunk of them.
The British Empire existed, yes, but then there was stuff that happened after that, you realize, right? If not for the USA the dominant superpower in the world would not be English-speaking. We would be speaking some other language because the British Empire would have long ago been overrun or rendered obsolete by the Nazis, the Soviets, the Imperial Japanese, or the Chinese. Or if none of that would have happened Spanish or Arabic or Hindi may have become more relevant. Take America out of the picture and history and the world would be very different
TWM: Before the World Wide Web was invented at CERN (Switzerland) in the 1990s, the Internet had already existed for decades in America. It was being used to conduct important research. We already had Internet domains, html, Internet pages (later came to be known as web pages), e-mail, Internet bulletin boards, usenet, news servers, Internet chat rooms, Internet dating, online gaming, and consumer Internet services like Prodigy, Compuserv, and America OnLine.
Literally all the world wide web did was to accelerate the commercialization of technology that had already long since existed. That's it. The biggest contribution that those who developed it made to the Internet was the invention of the hypertext link (which was significant, yes, but saying that this was more significant than the invention of the Internet itself is like giving credit to the guy who invented seat belts for inventing the automobile). Your smartphone today uses the Internet. It doesn't use the world wide web
And, though this is all fairly silly hypothetical, when I am talking about history without America what I am imagining is if all of the land mass that would become America simply up and vanished in 1776. Britain would have ceased getting anything from them, even the benefits of trade, and they would have no impact on the course of world events afterward. WW1 and WW2 would have played out differently. The Soviets would have had no significant rival. No Hollywood. No silicone valley. No New York City. No Detroit. No Apollo. No Manhattan Project. The innovations made there would have been made somewhere else if at all, and the center of gravity in the worldwide economy would have been in Russia or China or Germany.
If, on the other hand, the British Empire was able to somehow retain control over their colonies there instead of having them declare independence, that would be different.
final note: of course without the British Empire there would have been no USA. And it was the British Empire that started turning English into the lingua franca of the world. Still, one comes after the other. add emphasis on "started."
I can agree with most of what you are saying here, but you seem to missing my main point, which is that English is widely spoken today because of other English-speaking countries, their culture, and their influence, as well as the USA. These include the UK, Canada, Australia, and also many countries where English is an important lingua franca. People do not learn English just because they want to move to America, enjoy American culture and work for American companies. They learn it because they want to interact with people from other English-speaking countries as well.
As a side note I think it is also worth remembering that a very big part of the British Empire's decline after WW2 was due to the USA demanding that the UK pay back debt owed immediately after the war. This was the reason why the UK was on rationing until 1955. I'm not trying to suggest that empire is a good thing, but if the USA was not involved, it is actually quite likely the British Empire would still be a superpower today and it is certainly not true to suggest that the UK would have been overrun by Nazis, or the Soviets. To be sure, English likely would not have the worldwide prevalence it does today, but it would certainly still be a very important world language.
CaoMaru: To your first comment, I don't think it would be that way without America, though. Young men in India would be learning Chinese, Russian, German or Japanese. English would become a relic of their past the same way that Spanish is in the Philippines. The Spanish Empire colonized the Philippines and for hundreds of years Spanish was an official language there, but now, nobody speaks it anymore.
You honestly think that Britain would have won WW1 and WW2 without the US's involvement? You think they would have been able to beat Hitler and keep the Japanese from taking over India and Australia at the same time without Midway? And then been able to go toe to toe with the Soviets after that? I know that Europeans love to downplay the significance of what Americans meant for the final outcomes of those wars, but, really?
The Internet was invented in the United States of America. Full stop. It's not even ambiguous. Credit where credit is due. Read about it.
Well, firstly, I can see that another language - Chinese, German, Japanese, Spanish - might very well be a lingua franca in the way English is today if not for the USA, but I don't think English would decrease in importance that much either. True, Spanish is no longer spoken in the Philippines, but Portuguese is widely spoken as a lingua franca in Angola and Mozambique - former Portuguese colonies - despite the fact that Portugal is not a world power today. In the same way, I think that if the USA was not in the picture, English would still be spoken in former British possessions such as India. After all, even if the UK was the world's only English speaking country, it is far more influential in the world today than Portugal, so this seems a reasonable assumption.
As for the wars, we know that the UK would not have been beaten by Hitler because he tried and failed before the USA joined in with the war effort. So no, I really do not think that the UK itself would have been invaded if it were not for America.
Having said that it is true that Japan would almost certainly have controlled India and Australia without America's involvement. I am not trying to downplay America's significance in the war, but the truth is that the UK survived before America joined in, and it is also the truth that America demanded repayments for this involvement, meaning that the UK was on rationing longer than any other country.
As for after the war, I doubt that the Cold War would have taken place. In 1940 the majority of the British public trusted Russia more than America, and even during the Cold War anti-Russian sentiment was not nearly as high in the UK as in the US. I think that at some point Germany would have realised it could not beat Russia, and a peace treaty would have been agreed between the UK, Russia, and Germany. This would have probably led to Germany withdrawing from parts of Europe, but remaining as a great power. I would predict that there would then be several great powers, all of around equal strength. These would be Germany, Japan, Russia, the UK, and later on, India and China. Without the USA involved, Brazil would likely be a major world player as well.
Of course this is all hypothetical, but my main point is still the same. People learn English for many different reasons, and a large number of those people interact with UK companies and people, or want to study or live in the UK. Therefore, I do not believe that American English has a stronger case than British English for being a standard dialect. I also do not think that American English has a poor case - the above statements are certainly true of America as well. Rather, I think that having different variations of English - across internal regions as well as internationally - makes life interesting and helps keep culture alive, as do the many other languages and variations of them around the world.
I think something both kalbahamut and CaoMaru are not realizing is that the Soviet Union would have beaten Germany with or without the US and the UK's help. It was only a matter of time: i.e., the war would have gone on longer, but it would have ended the same way. Nazi Germany certainly would not have made a peace treaty with Russia, they would have gone down in flames as in our timeline. People continuously underestimate how fanatical and irrational Germany's leadership was. They would not have attempted to conquer the Soviet Union in the first place if it were otherwise. Also, probably no "West Germany" vs "East Germany" business. Germany would have become a full communist country, and its occupation post-war would have been 100x more brutal since without the US and UK's tempering hand, Stalin would have subjected the German people to a terror that made the Great Purges look tame. (Another reason why Germany would never have surrendered until the bitter end, because they knew this)
If you also make reference to "Scottish English" and "Irish English" then that seems reasonable. If you're using "English English" as another way of saying "proper English" through reduplication, then that's not accurate.
I'm a translator! That means I not only need to check differences between American usage and British usage, but between English usage and Scottish usage.
You aren't comparing UK words to UK words. In the US sketchy does mean dishonest or just on the edge of being illegal, so it seems that dodgy would be the UK equivalent.
You're reading the quiz wrong. You need to compare the American meaning of 'sketchy", i.e. disreputable, dishonest, almost illegal - and find a British word for the same thing, i.e. "dodgy".
About 'napkin' and 'serviette'. One is supposed to be posher than the other, but I can never remember which is which, so I use NAPKIN for the cloth ones and SERVIETTE for the paper ones. The cloth ones are really nice!
leonora is correct - napkins are made of cloth and serviettes are made of paper. You would never get serviettes in a reputable restaurant, and you don't get napkins in a greasy spoon. There's another classic English phrase for you!
Yeah, I tried pants first too, but being an American I think get what Quizmaster (who's also American I'm pretty sure) was going for. In America, panties is a word we only use for female underwear (unless we're trying to be funny). Is that the case for knickers? Pants is the more general term for anybody's undergarments. We just call that underwear
GUYS!!! At the top of the quiz under the instructions, the quiz maker clearly said that "this does NOT suggest that all British people use these words 100% of the time." Please don't get angry!
I have never heard anyone ever say serviette! we say handkercheif or tissue.
although we may use dodgy in replace for sketchy sometimes but there is far too many other words we use instead of that so I would really not include that.
Serviette isn't used in place of handkerchief or tissue, it is what is placed on your lap in a restaurant or nowadays under your coffee cup or a pile on the counter in a café. I saw a lady giving a lecture to a group of young women on classy speech and she said not to use 'Serviette' but that 'Napkin' was now considered the approved term in upper circles. (for right or wrong)
Bit of trivia for you: the "cookie/biscuit" thing isn't as straightforward as biscuit meaning cookie. A cookie is actually a type of biscuit. Biscuits can be of any shape (most commonly round or rectangular), and usually hard in texture, whereas cookies are more crumbly, and always round, and usually contain chocolate chips or a similar filling. So a bourbon biscuit or a custard cream isn't a cookie, but a Maryland chocolate chip cookie is :)
Cookies aren't always round - there are bar cookies, ball cookies, and Christmas cookies are any shape the cutter makes - stars, Christmas trees, etc.There are tons of different recipes for cookies - peanut butter, jam print, thin mints, macaroons, oatmeal raisin, shortbread, ginger snaps, snickerdoodles,'nilla wafers, sugar cookies, sandwich cookies with filling (think Oreos), etc. Only chocolate chip cookies contain chocolate chips. I think our cookies are usually sweeter than your biscuits. Cookies can be hard, crisp, or they can be removed from the oven sooner and made chewy. They can be frosted or sprinkled with sugar and/or cinnamon or eaten plain. That's all up to personal preference. But I agree with you, biscuits and cookies don't exactly mean the same thing.
Got them all but I agree that carryout should be accepted because that is what they say in Scotland. I would also take issue about napkins because we use that term in UK too. It is considered 'more correct' than serviette - got to love the British class system!
The British have made every attempt to ruin the language. Most of the American words on the list are better--shorter or clearer--than the British equivalent. I'll take lift, nappy, Shrove Tuesday, dodgy and bin as better than the American equivalents. Car park is silly since other things than cars can park in a lot. A motorway is too generic. Maths has a needless extra letter. Rubber gives no clue as to the use, unlike eraser. Surname requires knowing what "sur" means. Serviette is taken from the French. Not all pavements are sidewalks. Panties and knickers are both unworthy terms that should be pushed to the side. Drink driving is just poor grammar. Lorry reminds me of the old actor. A torch is a long piece of burning wood held in your hand. A wrench doesn't span anything--it grips the edge of something.
Actually English was spoken in the UK before it was spoken in America, hence it's name. ENGLISH. I'm not saying that either version is better, but to suggest it was the British that have made every attempt to ruin it is somewhat misguided.
So a language must be completely literal and transparent, and words cannot be used to refer to more than one thing (e.g. torch in your list). How do you cope with metaphors, words with a whole range of possible usages (are you unable to use context?), and turns of phrase? Life must be one long struggle for you.
I agree. I think that Scottish English and English English are definitely different enough to be separated if Australian and New Zealand English are separated.
I don't know about all of Britain but the bit that I am from, people use the word spanner to mean idiot, usually preceded by the f-word it must be said...
No one says "serviette" other than rich people (in the UK they're called "middle class" or "posh"); 90% of people in the UK say "napkin". And Americans say "dodgy" as well, I don't think that's a British thing.
Rich people do not say serviette - napkin is the word used by the toffs. Look up "U and non-U" on Wikipedia for a list of different words used by different classes in 20th century Britain (although it was much criticised).
To add to this sketchy/dodgy debate. I'm British and grew up in the South West but now live in London, and in my usage of both words I would say they mean the exact same thing. I've only ever used the word sketchy to mean dodgy (unsafe, a bit weird etc). I've never heard of sketchy being used to refer to vague ever.
Also, Shrove Tuesday = Pancake Day, not Pancake Tuesday.
i have only heard sketchy meaning vague.. it was my choice before i hit Give Up.......the witness gave a very sketchy description of the robber.... have lived in the UK and Aus, and never heard it used to mean dodgy
I'm american, and the only two reasons I know these are 1, from my username, you can probably tell that I read and watch Harry Potter constantly, and 2 I have relatives who are British.
I'm Australian and we use most of these words as well; except for 'Lorry' and 'Knickers'. Some other differences I know of: the English have 'duvets' and we have 'doonahs'. They also call 'capsicums' 'peppers', and 'zucchinis' they call 'courgettes'. The 'sidewalk' or 'pavement' is called a 'footpath' here. I also have absolutely no idea what 'Fat Tuesday' or 'Shrove Tuesday' is.
Interesting comment. I'm Irish too but say lift, never elevator. Maybe it's an age thing. There's no doubt that the huge spread of American culture since the 1960s and beyond has increased the use of American English in the UK and Ireland. Most persons under 35 (and some much older) speak like they've just walked off the set of Friends.....
Okay, yes, in Britain, a biscuit and a cookie are two distinctly different things, but what British people would call a biscuit, American people would call a cookie.
oh dear, here we go again - this was covered higher up in the comments. Elevator is American, just because we understand American words it doesn't make them British. The British term is 'lift'.
Wrench is an adjustable spanner. Fat Tuesday I've never heard before and we use serviette but most of the English language is derived from European languages. We need to accept our differences tho, not bicker!
Sketchy is too broad a term, I would suggest changing it, or atleast accept more meanings. Like shady and iffy. It is like asking for pretty, the synonyms can be beautiful, nice, gorgeous, handsome, fabulous, goodlooking etc. Just accepting one of those and not the others would not be fair/correct.
I'm British and I say cookie (biscuits and cookies are different), last name and surname, truck and lorry, spanners and wrenches are different, napkin, and dodgy and sketchy mean different things
For all of your hot air, neither American English nor British English (including its variants) have any justifiable claim to be any more 'correct' than the other. Anyone who knows anything about the history of English will tell you that lexicographers on both sides of the pond, including Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson have laid claim to the 'better' orthography and 'more logical' ways of spelling.Neither has 'won', because the language changes in different ways in different parts of the world. Not only that but different parts of the countries. No words are more or less correct than others just because some internet bully says they are. Language is language; it ebbs and flows, and it mutates constantly. There is one incontrovertible English phrase that underlines this notion, and it goes like this: "Vive la différence".
American: That guy that i met in the alley was pretty sketchy.
British: That bloke i met in the alley was a dodgy fellow.
I would say they are about the same.
English units
So it needs a weird hybrid system.
this is coming from a born and bred Brit from Leicester.
Kilos - yes (in younger age groups).
Wrench - no, but have heard it a small handful of times.
"Fat Tuesday" - absolutely not (this one I've literally never heard used!).
Lcfr: yes that's what I said. France being in Western Europe.
AfroChick: ignorant and wrong
lam: common but laughably erroneous misconception you are propping up there. The World Wide Web is not the Internet. The Internet absolutely is an American invention.
kdc: I understand both. I hope you're responding to Connor. He's the insufferable dingbat asserting (incorrectly) that the funny degenerate dialect he speaks is "proper" English.
Pirellyn: no, absolutely not. Not even close. Read about it sometime.
The British Empire existed, yes, but then there was stuff that happened after that, you realize, right? If not for the USA the dominant superpower in the world would not be English-speaking. We would be speaking some other language because the British Empire would have long ago been overrun or rendered obsolete by the Nazis, the Soviets, the Imperial Japanese, or the Chinese. Or if none of that would have happened Spanish or Arabic or Hindi may have become more relevant. Take America out of the picture and history and the world would be very different
Literally all the world wide web did was to accelerate the commercialization of technology that had already long since existed. That's it. The biggest contribution that those who developed it made to the Internet was the invention of the hypertext link (which was significant, yes, but saying that this was more significant than the invention of the Internet itself is like giving credit to the guy who invented seat belts for inventing the automobile). Your smartphone today uses the Internet. It doesn't use the world wide web
If, on the other hand, the British Empire was able to somehow retain control over their colonies there instead of having them declare independence, that would be different.
You honestly think that Britain would have won WW1 and WW2 without the US's involvement? You think they would have been able to beat Hitler and keep the Japanese from taking over India and Australia at the same time without Midway? And then been able to go toe to toe with the Soviets after that? I know that Europeans love to downplay the significance of what Americans meant for the final outcomes of those wars, but, really?
The Internet was invented in the United States of America. Full stop. It's not even ambiguous. Credit where credit is due. Read about it.
Having said that it is true that Japan would almost certainly have controlled India and Australia without America's involvement. I am not trying to downplay America's significance in the war, but the truth is that the UK survived before America joined in, and it is also the truth that America demanded repayments for this involvement, meaning that the UK was on rationing longer than any other country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasy_spoon
although we may use dodgy in replace for sketchy sometimes but there is far too many other words we use instead of that so I would really not include that.
half decent attempt
Also, Shrove Tuesday = Pancake Day, not Pancake Tuesday.
There was another fun synonym for it I heard the other day, but I forgot..