Linguistics

[resonant]

I'm compiling an American-to-British phrasebook (because reasons Sherlock). You can find decent dictionaries online (nappy, lorry, etc., etc.) but I'm not so much finding speech patterns -- word choices, syntax, where an American says 'on' and a Brit says 'in,' that kind of thing.

Oddly enough, most of what I've got here (that didn't come from Arctic Monkeys songs) came to my attention because I'd be reading a story in a fandom with an American canon, and I'd hit a phrase that made me go, "This author must be British." (The drawback of this is that some of it might be Australian or something.)

Anybody want to offer input? Here's what I've got (American on the left, British on the right).

Brits use a lot of 'got,' but I can't quite formulate a rule.

to see if you had my number -----> to see if you'd got my number

(also Americans say 'gotten')

Brits don't like to let helping verbs hang out alone.

"You'd eat a horse." "I have." ---> "You'd eat a horse." "I have done."

"That joke gets old." "It must." ---> "That joke gets old." "It must do."

The two dialects handle prepositions differently.

"in the hospital" ---> "in hospital"

"lives on Baker Street" ---> "lives in Baker Street"

Different vocabulary.

"we went to college together" ---> "we went to uni together"

"toss it" or "throw it away" ---> "bin it"

There are a number of things that Brits treat as plural that Americans treat as singular.

"the band wasn't very good" ---> "the band weren't very good"

"I'm no good at math" ---> "I'm rubbish at maths"

"the jury wasn't paying attention" ---> "the jury weren't paying attention"

Comments

[arduinna]

Would Americans say 'a three-egg omelette'?

This American would! And I'd cook it in an eight-inch pan. I think it falls under the measurement rule, somehow. Well, the thing that in my head is a measurement rule, like this from Merriam-Webster:

—plural foot used between a number and a noun —plural feet or foot used between a number and an adjective <6 feet tall>

It seems to apply fairly consistently for measurements, so...

[aunty_marion]

(Good thing I got the email notification to this as plain text, or I'd have been going ??? - the [a 10-foot pole] bit vanished because of angle brackets!)

Yes, in general, though I recently knitted a 6-foot long scarf; so, there, is the 'long' a redundancy within the rule? Because I probably wouldn't say "I knitted a 6-foot scarf" OR "I knitted a 6-feet long scarf".

[arduinna]

Whoops, apologies! I was posting while very tired, and forgot to preview.

though I recently knitted a 6-foot long scarf; so, there, is the 'long' a redundancy within the rule? Because I probably wouldn't say "I knitted a 6-foot scarf" OR "I knitted a 6-feet long scarf".

I don't think it's a redundancy, just an intensifier; really you knitted a "6-foot-long scarf", so the long functions as part of the measurement that's modifying the noun. I think even if "long scarf" was one concept (as opposed to a short scarf), it would still work, as that would be a single noun compound modified by the measurement.