I use British terminology when talking to Brits, American when talking to Americans (but phrases like "taking the piss" do slip in here and there). Although I've been here for over four-and-a-half years, all my editorial clients are American, so I write, edit and spell in the American way). When I first started talking to Andrew, before we met, I'd jokingly ask him, "What's with the Brits and the unnecessary "u" in words such as "humor/humour," "color/colour," etc.?"
I read somewhere that a lot of the changes from queen's English to American English evolved as Americans decided to spell words more phonetically, as they sounded in speech ("center" vs. "centre," or "organization" vs. "organisation," for example).
I love British novels for their eloquence. But when it comes to periodicals, there's unwarranted wordiness in them. In (U.S.) university journalism classes--both print and broadcast--the instructors stress brevity, brevity, brevity, and using the active vs. passive voice (that is, avoiding forms of "to be"--it's preferable to write "A dog bit him" rather than "He was bitten by a dog"). That all has to do with clarity, as well as saving space in printed material, and time in broadcast material. Brits will say, "in a week's time" vs. "in a week," when either will do. Or "In order to earn money, one is obliged to work," instead of "You must work to earn money," or "He is a man who enjoys beer" vs. "He enjoys beer," etc. Wordiness sticks out like a sore thumb, not just here but also in the States.
Anyway, I do believe that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," but I haven't had to "do as the Romans do" when it comes to writing and editing. That would be hard, as a lot of the British vs. American usage rules are opposites (whether punctuation marks should be inside or outside of quotation marks, for example).
This would be great blind-date subject matter, eh? NOT!
"I'll show you MY grammar book if you show me YOURS..." "Would you like to come upstairs and see how I conjugate verbs?"
