Why the OU, UKer's?

Wikipedia can explain it so much better than I can, right here.

Fwiw, I was educated in Australia where we also used the "ou" spellings. Now it just looks weird to me.

It's the same in Canada. It's because we're smart.

It's OU because we invented the language. Anything else is just a modification of the original

Are you referring to the long s which used to look like an f? Ie missing would look like miffing?In which case it was still pronounced like an s.

Darklite said:

It's OU because we invented the language. Anything else is just a modification of the original

Click to expand...

Sure, and the Ferrari is just a modification of the Model T, but guess which one I'd rather have.

Well, you know us English: forever dotting the I's and crossing those T's, only someone slipped and went 'ou' with their pen. To polite to say anything, they just passed it off as normal with a 'shush, you ain't seen this, right?'

We spell things correctly because we're better than you, yo.

aadams73 said:

Wikipedia can explain it so much better than I can, right here.

Click to expand...

I love this article because of:

Canadians are somewhat more tolerant of foreign forms.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are.

And because of:

Most words ending in an unstressed -our in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Australia and most other English-speaking countries (e.g., colour, flavour, honour, neighbour, rumour, labour) end in -or in the United States (e.g., color, flavor, honor, neighbor, rumor, labor). Wherever the vowel is unreduced in pronunciation, this does not occur: contour, velour, paramour, troubadour, are spelled thus the same everywhere.

Click to expand...

Which shows that only the US does this, all because of Webster and a scary thing called "spelling reform". *shudders*

In Canadian newspapers, you'll find many of those US spellings, however, because newspaper content is laid out in columns, which makes space a premium. Removing a letter helps maximize space.

American English is the only version on English that doesn't use OU. Therefore, I think we're wrong and the rest of the English-speaking world is correct. Yes, that's an appeal to majority, and therefore a logical fallacy, but it makes sense to me. I often find myself sneaking in OUs. I suspect this is because I grew up reading a lot of British fiction and the Queen's grammar patterns imprinted on me early.

Jamesaritchie said:

Sure, and the Ferrari is just a modification of the Model T, but guess which one I'd rather have.

Click to expand...

Yep, the Model T for me too ;-)

I clicked on this expecting a discussion about the Open University. Ho hum. Guess I'll toddle off again...

And there was me, thinking someone was asking about the Open University. LOL!

JustLooking said:

I clicked on this expecting a discussion about the Open University. Ho hum. Guess I'll toddle off again...

Click to expand...

Terie said:

And there was me, thinking someone was asking about the Open University. LOL!

Click to expand...

Me too!

And it's because we can spell.

Jeepers. It's 'wood' - not 'would'. Can't you spell?

I can't resist...

asking why, if Webster had American English simplified and tidied up so that the so called unnecessary extras were abolished, do we have:

US
across from
at back of
off of
outside of


UK/Commonwealth
opposite
behind
off
outside

In fact of seems added to a lot of verbs in American English.

There are quite a few examples where the simplified American version seems to mean using two or three words instead of one.

Darklite said:

Are you referring to the long s which used to look like an f? Ie missing would look like miffing?In which case it was still pronounced like an s.

Click to expand...

It's "mifing". The single "f" is a double s ("ss"). They still have it in German. "ß"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ß

I'm against the whole American English project simply because I'm for standardisation of languages. Most English speakers (I think) use UK spelling. Not just in the countries, but around the world. Swedish students who learn English have to learn UK spelling.

If US English was bigger than UK English (Internationally) I'd switch in an instant. Somehow I don't think US English wins. Personally I don't care which one ends up winning. My only focus is on being as well understood as possible by my audience.

So if "schedule" is "shedule", why isn't "school" "shool"?

Libbie said:

American English is the only version on English that doesn't use OU. Therefore, I think we're wrong and the rest of the English-speaking world is correct. Yes, that's an appeal to majority, and therefore a logical fallacy, but it makes sense to me. I often find myself sneaking in OUs. I suspect this is because I grew up reading a lot of British fiction and the Queen's grammar patterns imprinted on me early.

Click to expand...

It's not a logical fallacy, since majority usage is what is the question. Its only a logical fallacy when its irrelevant, like "Manchester is a better than Leeds at football because that's what most people in this room thinks." That would be a fallacious appeal to the majority.

Do Americans actually pronounced color the way they spell it? Seems to me that if you want to be phonetic, it should probably be spelt culler.

CaroGirl said:

In Canadian newspapers, you'll find many of those US spellings, however, because newspaper content is laid out in columns, which makes space a premium. Removing a letter helps maximize space.

Click to expand...

Now that is truly shocking. And it can have nothing to do with 'space premium' or the rest of the OUers would follow suit.

This is worthy of a thread itself - Is Canada culturally kowtowing to the US by the back door? or something.


Stirred, not shaken.

Paul said:

Now that is truly shocking. And it can have nothing to do with 'space premium' or the rest of the OUers would follow suit.

This is worthy of a thread itself - Is Canada culturally kowtowing to the US by the back door? or something.


Stirred, not shaken.

Click to expand...

How on earth is this shocking? And my answer is: no.

ETA: Can you, Paul, tell me via PM the next time you're going to port my words directly into another, contentious, thread, please.