Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
From: jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Theatre vs theater (was "presently")
Message-ID: <2751@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 26-Oct-86 22:04:32 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-herm.2751
Posted: Sun Oct 26 22:04:32 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 05:36:36 EST
References: <3489@utcsri.UUCP> <2579@ihlpg.UUCP> <12092@watnot.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22


	The discussion of "presently" reminds me of an argument my girlfriend
and I recently had. I claim that the British spelling of the above word is 
often used by people trying to show off, and that its standard American 
spelling is "theater". For instance, the New York Times has a column every
Sunday headed "Theater"; the Times(*) doesn't need to try to impress. But many
of the theaters advertising in that paper call themselves "Theatre". Do they
think it has more class? I think they do. The Boston subway system has a stop
subheaded "Theatre District" (Boylston St, to oldtimers) and Boston certainly
needs to boost public respect for both its theaters, so it calls them Theatres.
And so forth.

	My SO claims that "theatre" is a perfectly valid alternative spelling
and desn't convey any attempt to say anything in particular, and the diction-
ary supports her, but I still claim there are nuances involved in which 
spelling one uses.

	Any comments?
						--John Purbrick

(*) Yes, there is only one "The Times"--The Times, of London. Who but the
British would title a newspaper like that and assume that everyone knew what
the title referred to?