I heard a British native use the word specialty, and he pronounced it with five syllables: spe-si-AL-i-ty. We in the US give it three syllables: SPESH-al-ty.

Is the five-syllable version universal in the UK? If not, how "specialized" is it? (or should I say "specialised"? )

Another tiny pronunciation difference that I have noticed is iss-yu vs ish-oo

quote:

Is the five-syllable version universal in the UK?

Pretty well, I think, yes.

It's funny. Shu and I disagree about English accents. I always think they smoosh syllables together more than we do (as in "military"), while Shu thinks the opposite as in "specialty."

It's not just a pronunciation matter: the dictionaries show that in the UK, the word is written "speciality" (though "specialty" is sometimes used in medical parlance).

In the training world (and maybe elsewhere) the word "specialism" is often used to denote the area in which you have expertise.

quote:

the word is written "speciality" (though "specialty" is sometimes used in medical parlance).

I'd never noticed before you pointed it out that the US spells this word differently! The missing letters in words like "honor" and "dialed" are obvious to our eyes, but the "i", presumably because it's a small letter, isn't spotted so easily. However, the "aluminum/aluminium" difference is similar, but more noticeable.

How many syllables are there in "special"?

Two, in the US, unless one is referring to species.

quote:

How many syllables are there in "special"?

Two in the UK as well.

Mind you, we say "aluminium" with five syllables, as agreed by The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

quote:

Two in the UK as well.

Three in my pronunciation: SPESH-I-AL.

quote:

Three in my pronunciation: SPESH-I-AL.

Hmm. I reckon you're a "Sarf Lunnuner" and you say "Spesh-awh"

quote:

Mind you, we say "aluminium" with five syllables, as agreed by The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)

I think we can all agree that aluminium is pronounced with five syllables, and that aluminum is pronounced with four.

quote:

aluminium is pronounced with five syllables, and that aluminum is pronounced with four.

One of the many reasons the UK version of the language torments ESL students.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

It's not just a pronunciation matter: the dictionaries show that in the UK, the word is written "speciality"

Really??? I surely hadn't known that. Now it all makes sense, though we in the U.S. only pronounce special with 2 syllables, arnie.

Arnie, what is the other spelling for dialed?

quote:

what is the other spelling for dialed?

I think they throw in an extra "l" just for the 'L of it.

quote:

One of the many reasons the UK version of the language torments ESL students

Although this might often be true, in the case of aluminium it is not the UK that is out of step with the rest of the world, but the USA.

Aluminium follows the spelling form of other metals such as potassium, sodium and magnesium (which are not, so far as I'm aware, spelt potassum, sodum and magnesum in UK English). Here's what Michael Quinion has to say: "...The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially standardised on aluminium in 1990, though this has done nothing, of course, to change the way people in the US spell it for day to day purposes..."

My former father-in-law could not wrap his tongue around either spelling. It always came out, "a-looney-um."

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English: Here's what Michael Quinion has to say: ...

You cite the part of Quinion where he notes that (as to the element aluminum/aluminium) IUPAC prefers the British spelling over the American. I'll add something you omitted: the same Quinion article notes that (as to the element sulfur/sulphur) IUPAC prefers the US spelling over the British. Personally, I don't think IUPAC has any qualifications as lexicographers.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English, re aluminum/aluminium:
it is not the UK that is out of step with the rest of the world, but the USA.

I'd disagree. I believe Canada follows US practice (see here; other examples are easily found). Checking the press for just the last three days in September (a longer period would give thousands of US hits to wade through), I found the US spelling used in quite a few other English-speaking countries (Australia, the UK, Singapore, New Zealand, India, Jamaica, and Nigeria) as well as non-English speaking ones (I'll mention only the China Daily). Of course, I don't doubt that the UK spelling could be found there too.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

quote:

I think they throw in an extra "l" just for the 'L of it.

But why just with "dialed?" Don't the British often use two "l"s when we'd use one?

quote:

Don't the British often use two "l"s when we'd use one?

Travelled, Cancelled, Dialled. It has been estimated that the ink saved by not including the extraneous "l", as in these words, and "i", as in "aluminimuminium", would lighten UK printed books an average of four pounds each.

quote: "four pounds"

To achieve that, would they have to be less humourous and less colourful?

What if they wrote it "£4 each"? That could add up to enough to pay off the National Debt !!

quote:

I'd disagree. I believe Canada follows US practice (see here; other examples are easily found). Checking the press for just the last three days in September (a longer period would give thousands of US hits to wade through), I found the US spelling used in quite a few other English-speaking countries (Australia, the UK, Singapore, New Zealand, India, Jamaica, and Nigeria) as well as non-English speaking ones (I'll mention only the China Daily). Of course, I don't doubt that the UK spelling could be found there too.

It's not a question of UK versus US spelling; it's a question of US spelling versus the spelling agreed by the international organisation whose job it is to determine the names and spellings of elements and compounds.

I am quite sure that there will be many places where the US spelling is used - that doesn't make it correct; it simply makes it a common error.

quote:

Travelled, Cancelled, Dialled. It has been estimated that the ink saved by not including the extraneous "l", as in these words, and "i", as in "aluminimuminium", would lighten UK printed books an average of four pounds each.

Come now - April Fools Day is still six months away.

The elements, platinum, molybdenum, and tantalum, do not end in -ium. The British chemist Humphry Davy, who coined the word, first called the element alumium, and later aluminum. Webster (in his 1828 dictionary) lists the word a aluminium. More at Wikipedia (link).

I don't dispute the etymology. I am simply saying that the responsible international body has decreed that the element is called alumimium. But there are many international agreements that some countries choose to ignore; the spelling of aluminium is just one of them.

I was just commenting on the history and the etymology of the word, and not on the politics of nation states, nationalistic pride, or other irrelevant issues. Much funnier was the huge bug tussle between the USA, USSR/Russian Federation, Germany, and the IUPAC in naming of the elements 104–109 (link). If Gilbert and Sullivan were still alive, they could write a wonderful comic opera on that controversy. Chemists in the USA should simply follow the rulings of IUPAC. Why they choose not is anybody's guess. This whole thing is reminiscent of the furor of Pluto's not being a planet anymore. Such a lot of heat over something so very cold and far away.

quote: the responsible international body has decreed that the element is called alumimium. But there are many international agreements that some countries choose to ignore …

Two errors here:
Name of the element: Sure, it's "called aluminium" by some – and its "called aluminum" by others. IUPAC has recognized (not "decreed") that both names are in use. It accepts either version in its publications from contributing authors (they appear there a ~59%/41% ratio). Sometimes it even uses both versions in its own publications, as here.

There's no "decree" by "the" responsible international body":
You make it sound like USn are violating some "decree" and some "international agreement".
. . .IUPAC doesn't even purport to be making a "decree" or order. It simply states which of two commonly-used names it prefers. Everyone is entitled to their own preference, and IUPAC makes no objection to those whose preference differs.
. . .(Of course, even if IUPAC purported to issue a "decree," it lacks any such power. There is no "international agreement" to follow IUPAC preferences.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

Instead of "aluminum" or "aluminium", why not call it "Bauxite-plus" or "Superbauxite"?

No, that won't work. The Americans will call it "Bauxte" and the British will make it "Bauxiite."

From the Wikipedia article zmježd cited :

quote:

In 1926, the American Chemical Society officially decided to use aluminum in its publications; American dictionaries typically label the spelling aluminium as a British variant.

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990, but three years later recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant. Hence their periodic table includes both, but places aluminium first. IUPAC officially prefers the use of aluminium in its internal publications, although several IUPAC publications use the spelling aluminum.

It seems that either name is acceptable to the IUPAC but not to Richard. It's obvious we should do what Richard says since Richard is always right.

Looking back, though, I ran across the following exchange:

• Posted December 07, 2002 9:00 AM by CJ Strolin
  
  A sidenote to all: R.E. says "aluminium," I say "aluminum." He's British, I'm American, and we're both correct, so no knock-down brawls over this point, thank you very much.
  
  
• Posted December 08, 2002 2:54 AM by Richard English
  
  "...R.E. says "aluminium," I say "aluminum." He's British, I'm American, and we're both correct..."
  
  I have never disputed accepted differences in spelling or pronunciation; my arguments have always been about grammatical errors.
  
  Check back if you don't believe me!
  
  Richard English

edited to add link

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
The Americans will call it "Bauxte" and the British will make it "Bauxiite."

Baux, humbug!

Bite, bedbug!

quote:

Come now - April Fools Day is still six months away.

That's Amateur Day. We Professionals take a holiday on April 1.

quote:

It seems that either name is acceptable to the IUPAC but not to Richard. It's obvious we should do what Richard says since Richard is always right.

The IUPC prefers aluminium; it is the responsible body. I prefer to use the preferred spelling of the responsible body.

Americans, like many other nations, prefer to use their own variations of words and styles, even when there is agreement by international bodies. It matters little when it is simply a difference in spelling; it can matter a great deal when it is a difference in expression that can lead to misunderstandings - which is why international standards have been agreed. I adhere to them; I believe others should as well.

“Al-u-min-i-um, I know it well,
Cause I made it; and now let me tell
Those who will say al-u-min-um,”
Said God, “That that’s doomin’ em
To an eternity learning to spell.”

(A picture of the Deity, beard and all, will be found in the post above this one.)

quote: I prefer to use the preferred spelling of the responsible body.
international standards have been agreed. I adhere to them
Oh? Then I trust that (in defiance of UK convention) you use "sulfur" rather than "sulphur"?

quote: there is agreement by international bodies. ... the US spelling is ... common error.
Not so. The IUPAC's position is that either spelling is acceptable.

I recently suggested (some say “facetiously”) that a substantial amount of ink could be saved if UK spellers eliminated unnecessary letters from some of their words. As examples, I pointed out the doubled ‘l’ in words like cancelled and the extra ‘i’ in aluminium. But my idea that the ink saved by removing them would reduce the poundage of British-printed books significantly was derided as an April Fool’s joke.

My soul was crushed by that criticism.

As I pondered where I could have gone wrong in my calculations, it suddenly occurred to me that I had actually forgotten another British idiosyncracy: adding a superfluous ‘u’ in words like colour. It was only then that I realized the amount of ink wasted (in an increasingly environmentally-conscious world) by UK printers was astonishing. Entire Arab oil fields are straining beyond their capacity to produce enough petroleum to supply the British printing industry with ‘i’s and ‘u’s and ‘l’s. The sheer weight of these millions of barrels of oil - our most precious resource - is actually lowering their island at the rate of three millimeters (or is it Euros - I get mixed up here) a year. By 2050, people will be water-skiing in downtown London, and Hadrian’s Wall will be protecting seaside resorts - all because the British are hogging vowels. Did you know that if this excessive verbiage was expunged, the OED would become a pamphlet?

Worse yet, while scientists have been unable to verify the theory (and Republicans would reject it even if it was verified), the combined weight of ink, oil, and redundant vowels and doubled consonants is creating an imbalance in the Earth’s rotation, which some say is directly contributing to global warming.

So, for the good of mankind, we issue a call for all UK dwellers to reduce their overly-abundant output of vowellular accretions. Help us save the world!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

quote:

overly-abundant output of vowellular accretions.

Of course, people could also refrain from using phrases like that one.

quote:

quote:
overly-abundant output of vowellular accretions.

Of course, people could also refrain from using phrases like that one.

My point, exactly, Arnie, and as a Londoner, I hope you are giving thought to taking either swimming or water-skiing lessons.

quote:

But my idea that the ink saved by removing them would reduce the poundage of British-printed books significantly

That's not what you said. You wrote: "...Travelled, Cancelled, Dialled. It has been estimated that the ink saved by not including the extraneous "l", as in these words, and "i", as in "aluminimuminium", would lighten UK printed books an average of four pounds each..."

Since few British books even weigh as much as 4 pounds avoirdupois, a reduction of the amount you suggest means that most of them would be lighter than air. Whole libraries would have the roofs removed by flying books; schoolchildren walking with their cases full of books would be in grave danger of floating into the wild blue yonder.

And if that's not worth an April Fool event then I don't know what is.

quote:

Not so. The IUPAC's position is that either spelling is acceptable.

But that aluminium is preferred - according to Michael Quinion, I accept - I haven't waded through the publication myself.

quote:

a reduction of the amount you suggest means that most of them would be lighter than air.

That, and the reduction in oil/ink consumption, would eventually allow Britain to cease sinking and not only remain stable but rise to an eminent height not seen since the days of Queen Victoria. And Richard wouldn't have to be concerned about his trips to the pub requiring him to slosh through Sussex seas.

If I were still teaching English to speakers of other languages I would continue to tell my students that their spelling will surely be labeled WRONG if they write "aluminium, dialled, travelled, labelled, favour, flavour, and honour" when their intended readers are users of American English. It's worthwhile to know and to recognize those strange variant spellings, but not to use them in writing.

quote:

It's worthwhile to know and to recognize those strange variant spellings, but not to use them in writing

But, Jerry, who has the variant spelling? Richard's ancestors were using the language many centuries before we began to deface and debase it.

Yeah, but as soon as they started preferring such francophonic ideas as -our, -ise, and leaving off the pronunciation of final consonants in words, I think they, by default, have relinquished control of the language. Next thing you know, Richard will be heading down to the pub for a 0.473 litre and then where will we be?

quote:

My point, exactly, Arnie, and as a Londoner, I hope you are giving thought to taking either swimming or water-skiing lessons.

This, of course, is not news. As early as 1969, the rock group Shango (a group nobody remembers, myself included--I had to look up the name) put out a calypso number titled "Day After Day" that contained the immortal lyrics:

Where can we go when there's no San Francisco?
Ssh! Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho.

Of course, it wasn't global warming they were talking about but the entire west coast of the U.S. falling into the Pacific following a massive earthquake. They just don't write 'em like that any more!


P.S. And proofreader? I like your avatar!

quote:

Richard will be heading down to the pub for a 0.473 litre and then where will we be?

I will certainly never do that and for two very good reasons.

1. 0.473L is the metric equivalent of the emasculated US pint - not the (significantly larger) Imperial pint. It is illegal in the UK to sell draught beer in any quantity except exact multiples or fractions of an Imperial pint - a third, a half or (usually in my case) a pint.

2. It has been decreed by our Government that metric measures will never be used for draught beer, so a pint will always be a pint and never 0.568L.

There has been a move by bottled beer brewers to eliminate the pint bottle and move to the 0.500L size, which is not too far off a proper measure.

This is true at the moment but the forces of darkness are loose in the land. Sinister conspiracies are being whispered behind closed doors. Our very way of life is being threatened by evil faceless men in hidden corridors in the name of "progress" and "choice."

See here.

quote:

a move by bottled beer brewers to eliminate the pint bottle and move to the 0.500L size

Which, of course, enables them to sell a smaller measure, but almost certainly at the same price as the one pint bottle.

quote:

This is true at the moment but the forces of darkness are loose in the land.

I saw this report but thought it was just a bit of journalistic hype. Since it's always been legal to serve a third of a pint, then why is it such a big deal to serve two thirds of a pint - even if it's now to be called two-thirds? So long as the measure is clear - and it can only be clear if special brim-measure glasses or (more likely) lined glasses are used.

As you know, the Great British Beer Festival has supplied glasses lined at one third, half and full pint levels for the past couple of years. A further mark at the two-thirds level would be no big deal.

If anything, it would improve the beer-drinker's lot since present brim-measure glasses will always give short measure (grossly short in areas where drinkers insist on a big head).