Living in London is wonderful.

I realize more and more that the opening line to my History of London course was correct: “London is not and has never been a British city; London is and will always be an international city.” I am surrounded by foreigners! At work, there are Canadians, Argentinians, Greek Cypriotes, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, South Africans, Zimbabweans, Seychellois, Mauritians, Filipinos, … While I have an advantage over some by speaking (American) English as my native tongue, I really enjoy my conversations about learning to “talk British”. Things I’ve not yet thought about are pointed out and we (usually) band together in an ad hoc that’s-weird! gang. Of course the weirdness is the newness of the difference, and it leads to an investigation (or at least an inquiry) of the origin of certain phrases.

In the spirit of learning, here are a some I’ve learnt recently:

• Sod’s Law:  If you’re American reading this, think Murphy. It’s the same.  And, it seems the Brits have just about as much clue of who Sod is as we do of who Murphy is.  Also, I looked it up on Wikipedia and found my new favourite: Muphry’s Law, that if you write anything criticising editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in your own writing.
• Revision: The first time I heard someone in my college courses talk about revising their notes, I thought, what a horrible idea!  As an American, I think of revision as change.  It’s used that way here, too, but in the studying sense, it’s just going over your notes again. It has been a common theme through my education in British speech that the British way of saying something is closer to the root, especially if the root is French or Latin.  In this case, revise comes from the frequentative revisere, “look at again”.  Revise as in change first came about around 30 years later (1590s).
• Maths: Quite simply, math has an S in British English. However, math precedes maths, etymologically.
• Nice:  Food is not good. Food is nice, in England.  I have no idea where this one comes from. It just is.

The first time I heard this in the UK I was taken aback. Did I look disheveled, tired, lost? It took a couple of awkward encounters before I realised that this is just a way to greet someone here.

Phrases common in Britain but not in the US find themselves on a continuum
between “I can totally pull that off, NBD” and “that will be a challenge to have roll off my tongue”. This one is a bit right of centre. It’s not an uncommon thing to say in the States, but i’ve rarely if not never heard it with such connotation. I get nervous that I’m offending the recipient, that the recipient is thinking “do I look disheveled, tired, lost?”

The phrases are getting to be more and more common. Here are some more:

• Cheers! (in the thanks or bye sense; as a toast is easy)
• Rubbish
• I can’t be bothered to…
• Keen and keen bean

It’s likely that there are more. I’ll edit this post or post another when they come up.

Something I knew coming into my time in London is still a bit quirky to me.  Apparently, you can’t prepare for grammatical awkwardness.

Throughout my studies at university, I have been corrected when writing “The company are.”  Truthfully, I never put those words on paper, but I would refer to a company (in analyses or case studies) as “they.”  In American English, a company, a group, or any other multiple-member noun is considered the unit.  That is, it is singular.  ”Wal-mart is a successful”, “The team practices on Tuesdays”, etc.   In British English, however, the group-noun is considered the sum of its members.  That is, Wal-mart are successful, The team practise* on Tuesdays, etc.

This distinction is a bit easier to understand when written (although it was difficult for me to write the British way for this post).  When speaking, I find myself holding back a smirk.  The history of correction has conditioned me to perk up when I hear it wrong from an American perspective.  However, when in Rome…

*I’m excited to write about the -ise/-ice differences and noun/verb differences in British English soon—as soon as I have a better grasp on it. 

A bit more about literally.  Apparently it’s also used for “just” or “merely.” Hmm.

So, call it bending the rules, breaking the rules, or defining the rules.  I’m not sure if this post is any of those, but it does have to do with vocabulary, of sorts.  Or better put, it’s about word choice.  Consider the following exchange:

Person 1: “Where did you put my keys?”
Person 2: “They are on the end of the counter.”
Person 1: “I cannot find them! Where are they?”

Now, here we have a split.  If Person 2 is American, he or she would most likely say, “They are right on the end counter!” or “They are seriously right on the end of the counter.”  If Person 2 is British, however, he or she would likely say “They are literally on the end of the counter.”  I heard an exchange similar to this at my induction for my new job.  It sounded so foreign to me, but I asked a couple of Britons and they all agree it’s common.

Also, I’m still grasping the whole connotation of the word strictly in British English. I understand it, but I’m not sure exactly when to use it. There is a sign in my hotel, “Strictly no access.” Here, I think I would say “Absolutely no access.”  Also, there’s the TV show, “Strictly come dancing.”  I’m not sure how I would write this in American English, something like “Just come to dance.”  

I’m excited to hear these words again and again.  One day I’ll make sense of them.

A typically British sign:

A typically American sign:

One of the differences I noticed when I was studying in 2007 in London was the signs. Signs in England are usually written in the passive voice.  For those of you who do not know what I mean, here’s a quick grammar lesson.

Passive voice is a grammatical construction that makes the object of an action the subject of the sentence.  This can usually be understood through inversion.  For example:

Active: Joe gave me the letter.
Passive: The letter was given to me by Joe. 

There are a lot of misinformation about passive voice.  It all boils down to to be + past participle = passive voice.  Passive voice isn’t always bad, despite what you might have heard.  The passive voice is generally used for two reasons: to emphasize the object or to de-emphasize the actor. Consider you’re telling a story about a nice letter Joe gave to you and a postcard Susie wrote to you.  Your audience is confused about who gave you what.  You could say, “The letter was given to me by Joe.”  

De-emphasis of an actor could occur when the audience does not need to know who the actor is or at least does not need to focus on the actor.  You might have seen “This elevator has been inspected by the ____.”  Here, not many riders care who inspected the elevator.  All the rider notices is that the elevator has, in fact, been inspected.

Due to their nature, sentences in passive voice are usually longer than in active voice.  Generally, I’ve used, and seen others use, the active voice when I want to be succinct, quick, and clear.  So, why are signs in England in the passive voice?  I’m not sure.  Of course, there are active signs in Britain and passive signs in the United States. 

I’m interested to know what you think about this and future posts.  Tumblr is a bit awkward in that it doesn’t allow comments by default.  There is something about the tumbleblog concept …….. (I got bored reading about it.) Anyway, I’ll try my best to end posts with a witty, thought-provoking, or otherwise appropriate question.  Otherwise, I’ll have a trailing ? at the end of my posts to allow me to enable responses.  Ignore the ? but remember to write me back.  I’m interested in what you have to say.

Do you feel better about obeying a sign that is written in the passive voice?