← Back to context

Comment by kennysoona

1 day ago

Kind of funny the animus the author has against US spellings. It's nothing but shade to refer to US spellings as 'simplified' and UK spellings as 'traditional', regardless of the merit of the argument for doing so.

I can't imagine anyone will really need to use this, but it seems to have let the author work out some issues.

14 comments

kennysoona

Reply
_nivlac_  1 day ago

I think it's a play on the Chinese language having Traditional/ Simplified versions. I'm choosing to take this repo as tongue-in-cheek, which is hard to really determine online...

  • kennysoona  1 day ago

    I want to see it as tongue-in-cheek as well, but, I feel like that's a stretch...what would be the humor in that? But even if it doesn't make sense to me, I prefer your interpretation of motive.

    • ccppurcell  1 day ago

      Look as a Brit let me reassure that it is a joke. No one thinks American English is simpler than British English.

jasonjei  1 day ago

The funny thing about references to Traditional Chinese (HK and Taiwan) and Simplified Chinese is that there’s even more shade in Chinese…

簡體字（简体字）Simplified characters

繁體字（繁体字）Complicated characters

gizajob  1 day ago

I second that animus.

An example I had to endure in Britain recently was bus adverts for an Apple movie starring Brad Pitt and George Clooney called “WOLFS”. At first I thought I must not be seeing an apostrophe… but then… the horror.

For speakers of English (simplified) who can’t understand, the plural of wolf is wolves.