Two nations divided

This is NOT a napkin

As an Englishman* who quite often writes for an American publisher I am all too aware of the way we are indeed two nations divided by a common language. To be fair, modern media has weakened this significantly. We all know over here what an American means when she refer to an elevator, and even cope with the confusion over purses, vests, suspenders and pants. Similarly, I gather from articles in the US press, that some quaint English English terms like loo and saying 'cheers' for goodbye have become more familiar that side of the Atlantic. Even so, I do occasionally make a slip.

A while ago, for example, I was referring to the peculiarity of action at a distance. The idea that you can make something happen remotely without anything passing from A to B is a difficulty that underlies some of the confusion caused by quantum theory, and was why Newton got so much stick for his work on gravitation. I said that we expect something to travel from A to B to make something happen. For instance, in a coconut shy, we expect to have to throw a ball at the coconut, rather than just look at it and make it fall off its stand. 'A coconut WHAT???' said my US editor. In the book it ended up as having to throw a stone to knock a can (not a tin, of course) off a wall.

Even those who are experts can get caught out with subtle differences of meaning. I remember being most amused a number of years ago by a book by an American expert on international business. The topic of the book was not making errors by using words and methods that weren't appropriate in a foreign country. He gave the example of an American opening a restaurant chain in England. 'You must make sure,' he said, 'that you call the napkins "serviettes". In England, a napkin is the word for a diaper.'

UK readers will get why this is so wrong. For US readers, we actually call a diaper a 'nappy' over here. Although that word is derived from napkin we would never call a diaper a 'napkin'. In fact in UK English, napkin is the more proper word for a napkin (well, duh) - 'serviette' (the French word) is considered rather common, a bit like saying 'john' or 'can' rather than 'bathroom'.

*I don't know why, but I get a buzz from referring to myself as 'an Englishman.' Perhaps it's something to do with Sting's song, An Englishman in New York.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog