It seems that the plural(past preterite, I don't know why I said plural, thanks jheem) of the word cancel should be cancelled, however canceled seems to be prevalent. It isn't as clear here as with p's, because you almost always double p's.

Dictionary.com lists both canceled can cancelled, with the former coming first. The same is true of swiveled and sviwelled. I'd imagine the same answer will hold for canceling and cancelling. In the definition, a single L is used for canceled and canceling, but two L's in cancellation.

The etymology is no help. "[Middle English cancellen, from Old French canceller, from Latin cancellre, to cross out, from cancellus, lattice, diminutive of cancer, lattice.]" This seems to imply that both L's are proper, but we dropped an L to get cancel.

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

This is an American vs The Rest Of Us difference. In American spelling the inflected double -ll- is reduced to single -l-:

cancelled, canceled
cancelling, canceling
travelled, traveled
traveller, traveler

The reduction of two consonants to one also occurs with a couple of -pp- words:

kidnapping, kidnaping
kidnapper, kidnaper
worshipped, worshiped

It's only these two letters where the variation is American/Other. There is also variation with some others but it's more idiosyncratic, personal choice:

biased, biassed
focusing, focussing
wainscoting, wainscotting

I've never seen "kidnaping" before, and if it hadn't been next to kidnapping, I would have pronounced it kidnape-ing. The same is true of kidnaper. I don't have that problem with worshiped, because normally a y would be in that, like worshyped.

Funny, I never seen biassed or focussing and I look at both those words and think "typo" almost immediately.

Wainscoting? I haven't even heard that word before.

It seems that the plural of the word cancel should be cancelled

It's the past (preterite) tense of the verb to cancel.

wainscoting

Another blasted denominal verb?! (AKA a verbified noun.) Wainscot(t)ing is what holds up the beer aficionado in a public house and keeps him from sliding to the floor in a heap and tripping the other patrons.

Funny, I spell them "cancelled" or "travelled" and "kidnapping" and worshipping," but "biased" and "focusing." I haven't had the occasion of using "wainscoting." I don't think all Americans reduce the double consonant, aput.

We aren't all that different, you see!

I don't think all Americans reduce the double consonant

Only those of us who've had the "rule" drilled into us by Miss Grundy and assorted editors over the years. The geminate consonant makes no difference in the pronunciation.

The series that I notice particularly is dial/dialled/dialler v dial/dialed/dialer. The Microsoft Windows OS uses the American spelling even in the so-called British English version.

quote:

---

Funny, I spell them "cancelled" or "travelled" and "kidnapping" and worshipping," but "biased" and "focusing." I haven't had the occasion of using "wainscoting."

---

From my experience, this is similar to what most Americans do. Honestly, biassed sounds like a creature with 2 buts. And focussing sounds like slang. "Why did they send you home from school so early?", to which the response is "Fo cussing". Wow, I don't know which of those was worse.

Only those of us who've had the "rule" drilled into us by Miss Grundy and assorted editors over the years.

So, is there an accepted spelling? If so, does that mean that I am misspelling those words? Is it now being taught not to add the second consonant? If so, why are Americans doing this without other English-speaking countries? Who makes these decisions? I just don't get the change! However, if I recall, Word changes my "traveller" to "traveler" and "cancelled" to canceled," though I am not 100% sure.

Seanahan, I am LOL with the thought of "biassing" meaning have 2 butts!

Word does indeed say that "Traveller" is incorrect. However, it doesn't mind "Cancelled". It complains about "Focussing" and "Biassed".

Word allows both "Worshiping" and "Worshipping", but doesn't allow "kidnapping", only "kidnaping" is acceptable. That just seems like poor planning. I'll look into it some more.

For more strange behavior,

Microsoft Word(2003 Professional Edition) says the correct words are "wainscoting" and "rotting", and both "wainscotting" and "roting" are incorrect.

Both wainscot and rot come from Middle English, the former via Dutch and the latter via Old English, so it seems whichever way is chosen should be consistent.

Quote "...Word allows both "Worshiping" and "Worshipping", but doesn't allow "kidnapping", only "kidnaping" is acceptable. That just seems like poor planning. I'll look into it some more...."

That depends on whether you have the spellchecker set of US English (the default) or UK English. If the latter then it accepts all EXCEPT"kidnapping".

Quote "... If so, why are Americans doing this without other English-speaking countries?..."

The Americans? Going their own sweet way without any regard whatsoever for what the rest of the world agrees to do? Surely not!

They'll be using an eccentric date system next - with the month first :-)

I phrased my original answer as 'the inflected double -ll- is reduced to single -l-', whereas logic suggests it's a single -l- being doubled in some places. I was assuming this was a deliberate choice of spelling simplification by Webster, as almost all the American variants are. (Whereas word choices like 'fall'/'autumn' are usually mere regional variations.)

The consonant is always doubled after a short stressed vowel: lopped, batted. I don't think anyone writes 'gallopped'; as the -o- is completely unstressed it's always 'galloped'. I think the secondary stress is what causes the doubling in: kidnapped, worshipped, hiccupped(?).

This makes me wonder about the -el words. Were they formerely stressed on the end, like rebel ~ rebelled?

quote:

---

They'll be using an eccentric date system next - with the month first

---

Like my 20 year old foreign friend whose birthday is on October 2 and whose passport says born on 2/10/83, which is good enough to get him into bars. : )

quote:

---

I think the secondary stress is what causes the doubling in: kidnapped, worshipped, hiccupped(?).

---

That makes sense, since kidnaped looks like it should be pronounced kid-naped rhyming with videotaped. Taped and Tapped are clearly two different words. I'm quite confused on this one.

As for the -el words, I don't think I've ever seen rebeled, only rebelled. It is interesting here, the way I say them, and the way I heard them said, rebel rhymes with treble, but rebelled rhymes with held. Same with rebellion, which rhymes with hellion(is that a word?).

Quote "...Like my 20 year old foreign friend whose birthday is on October 2 and whose passport says born on 2/10/83, which is good enough to get him into bars. : )..."

Though of course, where has was born (I assume the UK) he would have been allowed to go into bars for year and buy alcohol for the past three of them.

quote:

---

Though of course, where has was born (I assume the UK) he would have been allowed to go into bars for year and buy alcohol for the past three of them.

---

Timely article in the New York Times

Yes. This has been a hot topic recently. The licensed trade has been lobbying very hard to stop the liberalisation of dinking hours since londer hours will of course, increase staffing costs. The same campaign was in evidence around 20 years ago when compulsory afternoon closing was in effect. Now pubs are open all afternoon and there has been no evidence whatsoever of increased afternoon drunkenness.

In spite of Michael Marmot's comment "The evidence suggests that the longer the opening hours and the easier it is to have access to alcohol, the higher the consumption." - there is in fact no such evidence. Many studies over the years have found that longer hours simply lead to more spread out drinking, not higher consumption.

It is notoceable, too, that Italy, Germany and France - which do not have statutory closing times, have a lower incidence of binge drinking. Finland and Sweden, the other two countries cited are not a fair comparison since drinking is very heavily regulated and drink is hard to get and expensive.

The biggest reason for excessive consumption in England is the obligatory closing of all the pubs at 2300. Note the picture associated with the article entitled "Revelers in Birmingham on a Saturday night. Sometimes partying goes too far, angering the neighbors"

Saturday NIGHT you'll notice - after the pubs have chucked out. When "last orders" is called everyone orders extra drinks, whether they want them of not, and has to force them down in the permitted 20 minutes drinking up time. Then they leave, taking with them a bottle or two to cover the journey home.

Unrestricted hours = unregulated drinking = drinking at the pace the customer wants and not the pace that the Government dictates.

Richard Caborn's comment sums it up very nicely: "..."As tourism minister, I'm out there saying: 'Come and visit this great country of ours. Oh, by the way, you can't have a drink after 11 o'clock.' That's crazy."..."

Interesting article, Jerry. BTW, for those of you, like me, who couldn't access it, you just need to register. It's free.

I am not sure if it is, as Richard says, due to the limited hours or not, but I will say that I saw an awful lot more drinking in the U.K. than in the U.S. It is much more a way of life there. That is fine for people who don't have addictive behaviors, but I can see where it can be a problem. Furthermore, even though people can't drink after 1100, they begin drinking much earlier in the day than we do. It surely isn't uncommon to see people start drinking at noon.

They'll be using an eccentric date system next - with the month first :-)

Haven't we discussed this, at length, somewhere else on this site?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
They'll be using an eccentric date system next - with the month first :-)

Haven't we discussed this, at length, somewhere else on this site?

---

Not that I can recall. Maybe it came up during a discussion regarding the superiority of American beer.

quote:

---

Though of course, where has was born (I assume the UK) he would have been allowed to go into bars for year and buy alcohol for the past three of them.

---

India, actually. I'm not sure of the alcohol laws there. Am I reading this correctly that you can buy alcohol in Britain at 18 and can't get into bars until 20?

quote:

---

The biggest reason for excessive consumption in England is the obligatory closing of all the pubs at 2300

---

Not a big bar person, but at least in my experience, bars tend to close much later, around 0200 on weekends. What is the reason for the early closing of bars in England? Do British people start the day earlier? I can see if they worked from 7-3, that people would go to bed around 11ish, and want to close the bars early.

quote:

---

I will say that I saw an awful lot more drinking in the U.K. than in the U.S. It is much more a way of life there.

---

I'm in college, so perhaps I have a skewed opinion, but there is a ton of drinking going on in the college town, from freshman all the way up to PhD students. The people I know out of college also tend to drink a lot. Maybe it is because I know mostly people 18-25, but I would imagine the people who were drinking it Britain weren't too much older than that.

The original reason for the introduction of the licensing laws in the UK was the First World War. The Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, a staunch Nonconformist, was worried about the possible effect on the war effort of over-indulgence in drink by munitions workers.

Pubs were only allowed to open for a few hours at lunchtime and in the evening had to close by 11.00 pm at the latest. In some areas the closing time was 10.30 or even 10.00. The laws have been relaxed somewhat and pubs can now stay open all day if they wish, as Richard has mentioned. Not all have opted to take advantage, however; in some cases the pattern of trade means it's not worth staying open.

I can't really comment on Kalleh's remark about drinking being more a way of life over here, but I would say that the "pub culture" possibly means that the pub is a more welcoming place than the American bar. I get the impression (only an impression, mind you) that bars in America are looked upon solely as place to go to get drunk and/or pick up the opposite sex. Pubs are much more social places, where people go to meet friends, chat, and only incidentally have a few drinks. There are, alas, quite a few American-style bars over here nowadays, but they don't have the "homey" atmosphere of a pub.

It seems to be the younger Brits who indulge in the "binge-drinking" that gets the papers in such a flap. They are the type to prefer the American bar to the British pub.

Several interesting points here.

1. "I saw an awful lot more drinking in the U.K. than in the U.S. It is much more a way of life there"

We do drink more per person than do Americans but we are not the greatest beer drinkers in Europe. My own theory is that we drink more beer than many because our beer is better than most. We also watch more TV than many other countries and some suggest that the reason for this is the same.

2. "Am I reading this correctly that you can buy alcohol in Britain at 18 and can't get into bars until 20?"

No. The laws have changed and children are now allowed into certain areas in pubs, subject to the Landlord's permission. Hitherto young people of 14 and over were allowed in bars but couldn't buy alcohol; at 16 they could buy cider (strangely in the UK a stronger drink than beer); at 18 they can buy whatever they wish. So in England your friend would have been allowed into a bar at 14 and could have been drinking whisky from 18.

3. "What is the reason for the early closing of bars in England? "

It is the Law. In 1916 the then Prime Minister (a lifelong teetotaller and lifelong adulterer) was persuaded that the munitions workers were going out at lunchtime and getting drunk and therefore not making the numbers of shells needed to kill thousands on the Western Front. So he decreed that all pubs had to shut in the afternoon. That was the Defence of the Realm Act and it is the last remaining vestiges of that Act that allow the Government to tell pubs when they are allowed to open. All pubs in England must close at 2300 - that's the Law and the penalties for breaking it are very severe. I have a theory that, had Lloyd George been a boozer rather than a womaniser it would have been the brothels that were forced to close, not the pubs!

4. "The people I know out of college also tend to drink a lot. Maybe it is because I know mostly people 18-25, but I would imagine the people who were drinking it Britain weren't too much older than that."

I agree. The difference is that, in the USA they are breaking the law!

I can't really comment on Kalleh's remark about drinking being more a way of life over here, but I would say that the "pub culture" possibly means that the pub is a more welcoming place than the American bar. I get the impression (only an impression, mind you) that bars in America are looked upon solely as place to go to get drunk and/or pick up the opposite sex.

No, bars are social places here too. Yet, while I have only been in England twice (though I was in a lot of pubs! ), I do think you are right, arnie, that pubs are more welcoming in England.

Seanahan's comment about college drinking made me reconsider my previous comment about England having more of a problem with too much drinking than we do. I am probably wrong. Today I was in an airport in New Hampshire, and during the afternoon there were plenty of people drinking in what they called a "Pub." We probably aren't that much different after all.

Now, binge drinking is taking it to a whole different level, and that can be very dangerous...in fact deadly. I think both countries are seeing more of that, and we should do something about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
In 1916 the then Prime Minister (a lifelong teetotaller and lifelong adulterer) was persuaded that the munitions workers were going out at lunchtime and getting drunk...

---

Strange to consider how British law might have evolved had the Prime Minister enacted laws based on that second quality you mention instead of just the first.