Pedants' Paradise

[oddoneout]

it is all of our duty to stay safe

from someone who is supposedly possesses good speaking skills
(The PM addressing the nation yesterday)

[Pulcinella]

from someone who is supposedly possesses good speaking skills
(The PM addressing the nation yesterday)

Indeed: I hope I've got a bit of duty left over to do other things with.

[kernelbogey]

from someone who is supposedly possesses good speaking skills
(The PM addressing the nation yesterday)

[french frank]

I noticed the Guardian is today writing about $2,000 checks (why) - and no option to comment on this.

[Pulcinella]

I noticed the Guardian is today writing about $2,000 checks (why) - and no option to comment on this.

Because they're American, and that's the spelling they use?

[kernelbogey]

I noticed the Guardian is today writing about $2,000 checks (why) - and no option to comment on this.

Because the Graun now has a substantial staff in the US, mostly, I guess, US citizens, the management seems to have accepted that their filings will use US spellings. While it grates on me slightly I have to accept that the alternative would involve a huge amount of subbing. On balance, the paper's excellent coverage of US politics is IMVHO worth the occasional grating. (And occasionally, they write some US phrase that is incomprehensible to me, though examples elude me atm.)

[french frank]

Because they're American, and that's the spelling they use?

The checks are American? Or Guardian writers? BBC says they're cheques.

kb has replied to the query. :-)

As to the subbing - I was reading the digital copy, so the print copy may be different as it will have been subbed (properly).

[oddoneout]

Oh Gawd - didn't check did I after changing my mind about what I was writing? Ah well.

[Pulcinella]

Because the Graun now has a substantial staff in the US, mostly, I guess, US citizens, the management seems to have accepted that their filings will use US spellings. While it grates on me slightly I have to accept that the alternative would involve a huge amount of subbing. On balance, the paper's excellent coverage of US politics is IMVHO worth the occasional grating. (And occasionally, they write some US phrase that is incomprehensible to me, though examples elude me atm.)

But wouldn't you expect them to write, for example, Department of Defense, since that is what they have over there? Likewise, they write (in both senses!) checks; doesn't grate with me (but then I lived in Canada for six years, so my spelling has now become somewhat mid-Atlantic!).

[kernelbogey]

Oh Gawd - didn't check did I after changing my mind about what I was writing? Ah well.

My was entirely directed at the notion of the PM as having good speaking skills!

[Pulcinella]

The checks are American? Or Guardian writers? BBC says they're cheques.

kb has replied to the query. :-)

As to the subbing - I was reading the digital copy, so the print copy may be different as it will have been subbed (properly).

See my follow-up; yes, the checks are American. The writers may well be too, but that's beside the point (imho!).

PS: They play checkers not chequers, too, I suspect.

[kernelbogey]

But wouldn't you expect them to write, for example, Department of Defense, since that is what they have over there? Likewise, they write (in both senses!) checks; doesn't grate with me (but then I lived in Canada for six years, so my spelling has now become somewhat mid-Atlantic!).

I shall now bring hawk-like observation to my reading of their US content!

[gurnemanz]

Because they're American, and that's the spelling they use?

I've not read the article in question so have no context but isn't FF's point that the Guardian is British and for clarity and consistency should adhere to British spelling? For Americans not only is the spelling different but also the semantics in that a "check" can also mean what we call a "bill".

The British dual spelling "cheque/check" variant seems to me to be preferable in that it is useful for making a distinction.

PS written before reading other subsequent posts

[kernelbogey]

I noticed the Guardian is today writing about $2,000 checks (why) - and no option to comment on this.

FF, if you feel sufficiently strongly about this - if you want to double down on it - there is a Reader's Editor to whom you can comment.

[Pulcinella]

I noticed the Guardian is today writing about $2,000 checks (why) - and no option to comment on this.

Maybe you need to switch to The Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/senate-republicans-bounce-donald-trumps-2-000-covid-relief-cheques-k6sk8wghk?shareToken=1111c659070c753ebdcb5fd799a7635f