imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (173 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[British and American English]]''' == | | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ''by [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] and others <small>([[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]], [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]], [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]], [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]], [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]], and [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]])</small>''
| | <small> |
| ----
| | ==Footnotes== |
| Between '''[[British English]] and [[American English]]''' there are numerous differences in the areas of [[lexis|vocabulary]], [[spelling]], and [[phonology]]. This article compares the forms of British and American speech normally studied by foreigners: the former includes the [[Accent (linguistics)|accent]] known as [[Received Pronunciation]], or RP; the latter uses [[Midland American English]], which is normally perceived to be the least marked American [[dialect]]. Actual speech by educated British and American speakers is more varied, and that of uneducated speakers still more. [[Grammar|Grammatical]] and lexical differences between British and American English are, for the most part, common to all dialects, but there are many regional differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, usage and slang, some subtle, some glaring, some rendering a sentence incomprehensible to a speaker of another variant.
| | {{reflist|2}} |
| | | </small> |
| American and British English both diverged from a common ancestor, and the evolution of each language is tied to social and cultural factors in each land. Cultural factors can affect one's understanding and enjoyment of language; consider the effect that [[slang]] and [[double entendre]] have on humour. A joke is simply not funny if the [[pun]] upon which it is based can't be understood because the word, expression or cultural icon upon which it is based does not exist in one's variant of English. Or, a joke may be only partially understood, that is, understood on one level but not on another, as in this exchange from the [[Britcom]] ''[[Dad's Army]]'':
| |
| | |
| Fraser: Did ya hear the story of the old empty barn?
| |
| Mainwaring: Listen, everyone, Fraser's going to tell a story.
| |
| Fraser: The story of the old empty barn: well, there was nothing in it!
| |
| | |
| Americans would 'get' part of the joke, which is that a barn that is empty literally has nothing in it. However, in Commonwealth English, 'there's nothing in it' also means something that is trivial, useless or of no significance.
| |
| | |
| But it is not only humour that is affected. Items of cultural relevance change the way English is expressed locally. A person can say "I was late, so I ''Akii-Bua'd'' (from [[John Akii-Bua]], Ugandan hurdler) and be understood all over East Africa, but receive blank stares in [[Australia]]. Even if the meaning is guessed from context, the nuance is not grasped; there is no resonance of understanding. Then again, because of evolutionary divergence; people can believe that they are speaking of the same thing, or that they understand what has been said, and yet be mistaken. Take adjectives such as 'mean' and 'cheap'. Commonwealth speakers still use 'mean' to mean 'parsemonious', Americans understand this usuage, but their first use of the word 'mean' is 'unkind'. Americans use 'cheap' to mean 'stingy', but while Commonwealth speakers understand this, there is a danger that when used of a person, it can be interpreted as 'disreputable' 'immoral' (my grandmother was so ''cheap''). The verb 'to table' a matter, as in a conference, is generally taken to mean 'to defer', in American English, but as 'to place on the table', i.e. to bring up for discussion, in Commonwealth English.
| |
| | |
| English is a flexible and quickly-evolving language; it simply absorbs and includes words and expressions for which there is no current English equivalent; these become part of the regional English. American English has hundreds of loan words acquired from its [[immigration|immigrants]]: these can eventually find their way into widespread use, (''[[spaghetti]]'', ''mañana''), or they can be restricted to the areas in which immigrant populations live. So there can be variances between the English spoken in [[New York City]], [[Chicago]], and [[San Francisco]]. Thanks to Asian immigration, a working-class [[London|Londoner]] asks for a ''cuppa cha'' and receives the tea he requested. This would probably be understood in [[Kampala]] and [[New Delhi]] as well, but not necessarily in [[Boise]], [[Idaho]].
| |
| | |
| ''[[British and American English|.... (read more)]]''
| |
After decades of failure to slow the rising global consumption of coal, oil and gas,[1] many countries have proceeded as of 2024 to reconsider nuclear power in order to lower the demand for fossil fuels.[2] Wind and solar power alone, without large-scale storage for these intermittent sources, are unlikely to meet the world's needs for reliable energy.[3][4][5] See Figures 1 and 2 on the magnitude of the world energy challenge.
Nuclear power plants that use nuclear reactors to create electricity could provide the abundant, zero-carbon, dispatchable[6] energy needed for a low-carbon future, but not by simply building more of what we already have. New innovative designs for nuclear reactors are needed to avoid the problems of the past.
(CC) Image: Geoff Russell Fig.1 Electricity consumption may soon double, mostly from coal-fired power plants in the developing world.
[7] Issues Confronting the Nuclear Industry
New reactor designers have sought to address issues that have prevented the acceptance of nuclear power, including safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. This article will summarize the questions that have been raised and the criteria that have been established for evaluating these designs. Answers to these questions will be provided by the designers of these reactors in the articles on their designs. Further debate will be provided in the Discussion and the Debate Guide pages of those articles.
- ↑ Global Energy Growth by Our World In Data
- ↑ Countries, organizations, and public figures that have reconsidered their stance on nuclear power are listed on the External Links tab of this article.
- ↑ Pumped storage is currently the most economical way to store electricity, but it requires a large reservoir on a nearby hill or in an abandoned mine. Li-ion battery systems at $500 per KWh are not practical for utility-scale storage. See Energy Storage for a summary of other alternatives.
- ↑ Utilities that include wind and solar power in their grid must have non-intermittent generating capacity (typically fossil fuels) to handle maximum demand for several days. They can save on fuel, but the cost of the plant is the same with or without intermittent sources.
- ↑ Mark Jacobson believes that long-distance transmission lines can provide an alternative to costly storage. See the bibliography for more on this proposal and the critique by Christopher Clack.
- ↑ "Load following" is the term used by utilities, and is important when there is a lot of wind and solar on the grid. Some reactors are not able to do this.
- ↑ Fig.1.3 in Devanney "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop"
