You know the story. It starts with a bloke in New York checking his tyres before filling his auto with petrol. He pays with a few odd denomination notes. Later, one of his mates will try it on with some silly prank. What an arse!

This drives me nuts, especially when the story is otherwise well written. Using terms that are not appropriate to the setting is probably unavoidable at times. Heck, even some pros do it, especially in their earliest works. I have no doubt that people from other English speaking countries encounter the same thing when Americans write using their countries or characters. It can be ignored to some extent, but can often be an immersion/SOD breaker.

There still exists a very small segment of the US population, especially in the North, who emulate a vaguely British accent as an indicator of class. That has become increasingly rare and is often ridiculed for a lack of authenticity in modern times. It definitely breaks SOD when a lower class driver from New Jersey keeps going on about tyres and petrol.

It also doesn't help that some of the misplaced language is mainly incorrect as a matter of pronunciation as well as spelling. That makes it easier to make an error. Arse and ass are very close in pronunciation and have the same meaning, though they are definitely different.

To some people it won't matter at all. To others, it matters but is easily ignored. I fall in a category that can disregard the departures until they become COMMON in a story.

Maybe we can help each other out? Share some terms that may help make characters and settings more true to life? Below I list some of the most common errors in terminology:

Notes = Bills
Petrol = Gas
Tram = Train
Mates = Buddies/Pals

Those are just a few. Any others to share, from any side? Advice on how I might personally avoid mistakes when using an English protagonist?

You're always going to be strongest with the voice in your head. As a Brit, I lean into it, and probably preference British characters as a result. But most people in the world are familiar with US vernacular to at least pass, if not nail it.

Then again, I'm always surprised at some of the more subtle US UK differences that come up when talking to american friends or travelling there. How I'm spelling 'travelling' for example. Another good subtle one is that in the UK we say "by accident" rather than the US's "on accident". Took me a while to realise I wasn't just mishearing people with that one.

"On accident" is actually just bad grammar, both in the US and UK. "By accident" is correct for both countries. Another common grammar error is using "they" to describe a single person of indeterminate gender. Anyone who paid attention in even grade school level English classes would know this.

EDIT: Not intended to sound insulting.

I think that this is a completely invisible issue for a lot of RRL writers and readers. A lot of us aren't native English speakers/writers.
My advice is to just avoid using any non standard expressions at all if possible.
More often than not it doesn't even add to the story.

'Ryan Durnell' pid='830471' dateline='1511742025' Wrote: Another common grammar error is using "they" to describe a single person of indeterminate gender. Anyone who paid attention in even grade school level English classes would know this.

Some of us consider the Chicago Manual of Style a better authority than their grade school teacher.

'Ryan Durnell' pid='830471' dateline='1511742025' Wrote: "On accident" is actually just bad grammar, both in the US and UK. "By accident" is correct for both countries. Another common grammar error is using "they" to describe a single person of indeterminate gender. Anyone who paid attention in even grade school level English classes would know this.

EDIT: Not intended to sound insulting.

So how do you address a singular unknown gendered person then?
In Norwegian we do use the plural indeterminate form (De) instead of the singular determinate (Du). We have done so for hundreds of years.
In the olden days, they also used plural indeterminate (De) and determinate (dem) as a matter of politeness to a stranger as well.
Wikipedia makes a decent case for "They" being a correct gender neutral way of addressing someone in my eyes. 
It's simply an evolutionary step away from gender biased methods of addressing others, to a more gender neutral one. Something that is a logical development as gender identity has become a more delicate and complex topic.

"They," while incorrect usage, was often used in the vernacular in certain circles. It's like using "ain't" instead of "isn't" or "is not." It is not appropriate for writing unless it's a character talking.

"He"/"His"/"Him" is the proper gender-neutral expression for a person of indeterminate gender. I imagine, as time rolled on, that our newest generations are less comfortable using it. To my mind, resistance to using the male forms as neutral forms is an expression of gender struggle. I remember arguments in the 80s that eventually added a new formal title for women into common usage: Ms. instead of Miss. I also remember ridiculous circumlocutions to get around using the male forms: textbooks filled with "he or she" or "he, she or it." That was not incorrect, but it was very clumsy, especially when it was used repeatedly. Using "they" is probably fruit of the same tree.

Nevertheless, using a plural form to describe a single person has never been correct in English. I'm probably showing my age here, but it is something I have hard time ignoring. I certainly understand the intent, and it won't put me off a story that is otherwise well written...it just isn't proper writing.

Who knows? Maybe it will be adopted as technically correct usage in the near future. Languages change. For me, I like the SubGenius way: she/he/its. Read properly, it sums up the entire situation.

---

'SJ Reaver' pid='830488' dateline='1511801733' Wrote:

'Ryan Durnell' pid='830471' dateline='1511742025' Wrote: Another common grammar error is using "they" to describe a single person of indeterminate gender. Anyone who paid attention in even grade school level English classes would know this.

Some of us consider the Chicago Manual of Style a better authority than their grade school teacher.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago style, but the U.S. government's GPO Styles Manual was my bread and butter before I retired. That and the Navy Correspondence Manual. In addition to other duties, I wrote for a living for 22 years. Not fiction writing, to be sure, but the rules are the same.

I found someone older than me. Wooo!.
I don't disagree with newer ways of writing feeling off when you are used to the old ways.
I have quite a few issues with the new pronunciations that has cropped up in my own language in regard to certain 2 letter syllables myself. Changed spelling is right behind that again as a readjustment to keep the spelling close to the phonetic parts.

My grandparents had big issues with my generation for dropping the plural courtesy forms. although that process started with my parents generation.  So this isn't something new in that regards. I guess we just get left behind as languages evolve over time.
We are in a new gender identity war tho, so humouring the need for some groups to dictate how we address them, is a cheap price to pay for some golden silence on the issue. I for one is just adapting. It makes English fit better with my primary, so it's a 0 cost adaptation.