Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Briticisms
Message-ID: <760@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 17:28:30 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.760
Posted: Mon Dec 16 17:28:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Dec-85 07:47:23 EST
References: <2586@sunybcs.UUCP> <7300045@inmet.UUCP> <974@lsuc.UUCP>
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 23

In article <974@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes:
>When I go to Britain I don't ask for the elevator, but the lift; I don't
>ask for the subway (which means something else), but the underground.

What does "subway" mean in Britain, then?

Also, I noticed this weekend, whilst listening to the BBC news describing
the ski-lift accident, that they used the word "ill" to refer to people
who had been injured in that accident. The context was in a phrase like
"the most seriously ill were taken by helicopter to Denver", or the
like. I believe that a USA-English-speaker would never use "ill" to refer
to people who had been injured, but use that term only if they were sick
from disease. "Hurt" or "injured" would be used instead.

Of course, there are many such usages which we have grown to expect --
the dropping of "the" so that people "go to hospital" instead of "going to
the hospital", and the reference to companies as plural ("Meridian have
come out with a new version of their compact disc player") which help us
distinguish British English from USA English. But I had never heard that
usage of "ill" before, so I thought I'd mention it. Any other "unusual"
Briticisms netlanders want to mention?

Will