icecastles:
Centre versus Center

Some of you were close, none of you were exactly correct.

In the United States, “center” is used exclusively.
In Great Britain it is “centre”.

In Canada, usage is context-dependant. If you are referring the the middle point of a space, it is “centre”. If you are referring to a building such as a mall or recreational complex, it is “center”.

Source: Oxford Canadian English Dictionary.

When I was teaching writing skills and technique for the University of Manitoba, I was continually dumbfounded by how many English teachers and professors -at every level of the education system- simply guessed at what the rules of English were and put them forward to their students as fact, without ever actually checking a legitimate source.

Think of them as the “saw-him-good” crowd of the teaching world.

I don’t mean to disagree with you completely, but I think it is important to note that simply because the OED spells something a certain way does not make it some sort of hard and fast rule. You mention the ‘rules’ of English that some teachers put forward without understanding, and I can’t disagree. On the other hand, many rules in English are stylistic rather than grammatical or spelling ones. For example, there are plenty of instances in Canada where “centre” is used to denote a location, and that is perfectly correct since most dictionaries will simply list both words as interchangeable.

Two examples that I particularly enjoy. What is the plural of octopus? Most people would say Octopi. They would be correct. Others would say octopuses. They would also be correct. Others might say octopodes. They would be MOST correct, since octopus is a Greek word. People use octopi because they assume it is a Latin noun and thus use Latin pluralization. In reality, you can do all three and still be correct.

The other example would be ‘ after words that end in s to add the possessive. Some style manuals suggest that it is only to be used for words that are plural, so “Students’ work was sloppy” would be correct, while “Hans’ work was sloppy” (referring to a child named Hans, not the Solo variety). I do believe the Chicago and MLA both indicate this last time I checked. So in this case, it would be “Hans’s”. This has the benefit of providing clarity for the reader that we are not talking about multiple people named Han (although presumably context in the passage would provide that anyways) On the other hand, the AP manual of style suggests eliminating the s for all words that end in s, regardless of whether they are plural, which would make Hans’ correct.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the ‘rules’ of English are not nearly as clear as some would have us believe, and in all honesty, a guess is often the right answer for these rules. I think the important thing to consider is that explaining the above paragraphs to my students actually does them more harm than good much of the time. It’s helpful to have structure, and then once you start to explore the language, you realize what makes it so good: it is entirely arbitrary, insane, and bizarre, which is part of what makes it so much fun to write in.

“Steve Smith”,

I think that is necessity for any good lawyer. Although it does make me wonder how you survived at The Gateway for so long considering the, shall we say, inconsistent use of style that runs rampant.

And, Icecastles, you are correct, but only in the context of a great set of gams. I don’t have a source for that one though.

Bruce McCurdy: So how does this square with the Yanks being the last damn civilization on Earth that clings to the archaic, obsolete Imperial measurement system? We got the rest of the world figuring 10 * 10 * 10 and they’re still going “12 inches in a foot & 3 feet in a yard and 5½ yards in a rod and 40 rods in a furlong and 8 furlongs in a mile”. You would have thought that War of Independence would have rid them of that shit.

Actually, Imperial is still used primarily because of the close integration with the US supply chain. Of course, imperial units still have some advantages: they are easy units in convenient sizes. cm/mm are too small for most tasks, while metres are too long (measurement wise). Even in the UK they still make a lot of weight measurements in stone. Three feet is easier to ‘guesstimate’ than 0.8m, at least to some people. I am not suggesting we start measuring in furlongs but while metric is good for science, that exactness doesn’t exactly mean it is necessary in day to day life.

I mean, who among us really measures ourselves in kg or metres? For some reason talking about a hockey player with words like “He is 0.2m shorter than average. He’ll never make it in this league” seems even more ridiculous, but that’s just me.

khildahl,

khildahl: I can explain the use of Imperial in one word:Liquor.

Yet a two-six and forty neither contain 26 or 40 ounces. I think we should start calling them twenty-five point three sixers and thirty-eight point five eighters. And another thing. I got a “pint” at a restaurant the other day that was basically a glass of beer. They got away with it by calling it “X restaurant’s pint”. I wonder if that will catch on in other industries. “Lucerne Litre of Milk… 800ml”