Live data from Hacker News

“Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

meta.bitfilter.net

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#61
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first of these is still spelled æsthetic in some places. The general convention in US spelling of replacing æ and œ with e seems more jarring to me than other differences in orthography between US and commonwealth English I can't run the nytlabs thing because a) windows phone, and b) when I try to enter æ I get another character... (potentially see (a))

It's typically spelled aesthetic in American English nowadays (without the ligature). In that one the NYT was a hold-out in the other direction: esthetic never overtook aesthetic in general American usage, though for a period in the 20th century it looked like it might ( encyclopedia did definitively displace encyclopaedia ). It looks like the NYT wholesale made the ae->e switch around 1920, and then in the case of a…

I have no idea how general this is, but in my experience the split appears to be on philosophy (aesthetics) vs beauty salon (esthetician) lines. I've seen the ae spelling used for the latter but not the e spelling for the former.

I love this stuff. One thing I miss about no longer working at Microsoft is the site license for OED

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#62

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.

To the Burmese, the word "Myanmar" represents the oppressive and insane dictator who overthrew a democratic society to institute a communism that nobody wanted, keeping Burma in the dark ages for decades. One of the dictatorial general's feats as he rose to power was quashing civil unrest and rival communist movements among the minority tribes of Burma, and "Myanmar" is the name of the majority ethnicity. You can understand that people remain a little sore about the name change.

"Burma" is an English corruption of the Yangonese word for "Myanmar", but to the Burmese democratic movement--and the many minority tribes--the word represents an ethnicity-neutral name for the entire country.

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#63
Corea and Korea

http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=korea.corea.korean.cor...

Some history: "Corea" was more common in the English speaking world for the territory we call Korea today. At some point during the Japanese colonial period, as Japan solidified its ownership of the territory, the preferred spelling in English speaking countries became "Korea". ("Corea" is still used in many other languages and neither the Koreans nor the Japanese use Korea or Corea when talking about the peninsula).

There's a conspiracy theory that one of the cultural suppression activities the Japanese colonial government took part in (along with forcible language conversion and various geomanctic engineering efforts like driving thousands of iron poles into the ground at traditional seats of Korean power and moving entrance gates to palaces to break the flow of Chi) was broadcasting out to the world that "Korea" was the preferred spelling since it put Korea after Japan in alphabetized lists of countries in English speaking territories.

More pragmatically, both spellings were used up until the 20th century. But Korea was relatively unknown in the West outside of mild curiosity. The actual popularization of one spelling over the other seems to be the result of writings on Korea by the U.S. missionary and later consul general at the time, Horace Newton Allen, who exclusively used "Korea" when writing about the country.

This spelling was picked up and at the World's Columbian Exhibition in Chicago in 1893, the exhibit listed both spellings as correct, but people were generally told that "Korea" was the preferred spelling. Allen was heavily involved in the planning of the exhibit.

On the graph here, you can see that Korea wasn't a topic at all in the NYTs reporting until directly after the exhibition, which seems to have been successful in bringing attention to the country. But the more familiar "Corea" was used until 1897, when it was pretty much dropped in favor or "Korea".

Interest stayed low until the Korean war after which the amount of reporting on the country steadily increased.

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like US English was bussy replacing German umlaut characters ä, ö, ü (transcribed in ascii as ae, oe, ue) with americanized version.

These words aren't German borrowings, so that isn't related at all. The ae in this class of words is from Latin æ (ultimately from Greek αι). The ae->e shift was an attempt at spelling simplification, to remove some vestigial Latinisms, but only partially succeeded.

Confusingly, though, German does render Latin æ, œ as ä, ö (ästhetisch, ökonomisch)

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#68
post #41

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 .

It's not really accurate to say the US is the one doing the morphing. Before the early 19th century, both spellings of most of these words were acceptable in the UK and the US, because these words came into English both from French and from Latin. It's more accurate to say that the UK and the US, when each settled on one of the two spellings as standard, chose to settle differently.

This standardization in the US was greatly influenced by Noah Webster and his dictionary. He tended to go with the spelling variant that fit more with how the word was pronounced. His dictionary was influential enough to make those spellings dominant in the US. Those spellings then came to be seen as Americanisms in the UK (even though they had long been acceptable UK spellings...), and so the UK standardized on the other spellings.

Webster was also an advocate of spelling simplification, and was responsible for dropping the 'k' from 'musick' and 'publick', and those were picked up in the UK.

See: http://www.livescience.com/33844-british-american-word-spell...

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#69
Another difference in usage between British English and American English: In the US, you go to a movie theater to see a film. Or you go to the theater to see a play.

In the UK, you go to a cinema to see a film. Going to the theatre is understood to mean going to see a play/musical/performing arts.

Re: “Theater” vs. “Theatre”: The Great New York Times Language Swap

#70
post #23

Funny, how years get born and then forgotten over time: http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=2010.2000.1990.1980.19... There is a little anticipation in the preceding years, then a big explosion in the year itself and then slow decline in the following years.

The secondary peaks 2-4 years out are interesting. Or perhaps it's better conceptualized as troughs the year after. Wonder what the reason is for that?

I was thinking about these too. I did not came up with an idea what it could be. Maybe just noise and we interpret something into it?
Post reply on HN