51–60 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is a bit controversial because 'Burma' was changed to 'Myanmar' by the military dictatorship.
Why would that be controversial? State changed it's official name and newspaper started to call it by its new name.
Even wikipedia still calls the country Burma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They updated their style guide.
Are the style guides updated to reflect the public use of these words? If so, I imagine if we were to graph the change in use over time in the public would be a much more gradual and organic one?
Style guides generally update to represent the editorial team's preferences, to reflect changes in the wider world (e.g. see the comment in this thread about "Constaninople"→"Istanbul", or to make a point (see the New Yorker's continued use of diaresis in coöperation etc.[1])
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaeresis_%28diacritic%29#Engl...
The word "It" has never appeared in the NY Times. http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=it
I was just puzzling about this the other day. I live in the USA and I've always spelled the word as theatre. Only recently, I've noticed that spellcheck is balking at this. It's somewhat comforting to know that my way of spelling the word isn't wrong and I don't really mind that my country wants to spell it differently.
> It's somewhat comforting to know that my way of spelling the word isn't wrong It might even be more comforting to know that your way is actually more correct, in a traditionalist sense: the Anglo-French theatre comes directly from Greek théatron (through Latin thĕātrum ). Somehow "your country" is bent on morphing the word for whatever reason, similarly to what they are doing to center / centre .
The word "It" has never appeared in the NY Times. http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=it