Program vs. Programme

117 thoughts on “Program vs. Programme”

1. Guest1, from England, makes valid points about such word usage as programing vs. programming. I admit his/her comments rather fell apart for me when he used “your” instead of “you’re” further down as follows. His sentence is: “AMERICA the rest of the world already thinks your stupid.” He is trying to say “you are” and not the possessive. I believe this is true in England as well.

   (lol I am American born and bred, and I was merely amused by Guest 1’s partisanship for his/her country. In fact, my own loyalty to America is for its accomplishments, but that doesn’t mean I would negate our British heritage. And certainly today they are far better writers (of published work, not necessarily the person on the street 😉 ). Their overall educational system is, in my rarely humble opinion, superior to ours.

   I was taught to use “programming” in elementary school myself, and like it. And yes, the “rule” here is to double the consonent when adding the participle endings (-ed, -ing) if the accent is on the last syllable and is a consonant, but actually, the rule ALSO points out doubling the last letter if the word ends in a consonant rather than a vowel, regardless of the syllable emphasis.

   I don’t think Guest 1 is rude; there will always be, I think, competition of a family sort among countrys formerly a part of the British Empire and whose own language is English.

2. ooops I myself made a stupid mistake. The plural of “country” is “countries.” Writing comments will show flaws like this… self-editing is the toughest aspect of writing.

3. P.S. A case in point is the word, “bus.” I am uncomfortable with “busses,” (it is rather like the archaic verb, “to buss,” meaning to kiss)… so I arbitrarily write “buses” when I mean several of them.

4. Jensita from a couple of years ago did a nice job of explaining the use of “program” as a verb, and makes sense. But, sadly, she committed, in my training, a mortal sin… she split her infinitive…

   She says: “to automatically start the coffee making process…” How much better to have written, “to start the automatic coffee-making process.” And, yes, a hyphen does belong between “coffee” and “making.”

   Infinitives in all vernaculars of English are the root of the verb. The word “to” (itself of many different uses, including as a preposition; context prevails) is inextricably connected to the root word and no adverb should ever be inserted between them.

   An example might be from the grand-daddy of all Romance Languages which is Latin (such as languages like French, Italian, Spanish, and, yes, English, although English is liberally sprinkled with Germanic forms going as far back as the Anglo-Saxon era). The verb “amare” in Latin is also the basis of single words in the other Romance Languages. In English it is “to love.” Treat it as a single word, also.

   English appears to be an exception with the particle “to” signaling the infinitive it adjoins. It isn’t an exception in any vernacular of English. “To be,” “to love,” “to fight,” and all the others should never be split. To do so advertises inadequate education in grammar. In actuality, I believe it destroys the cadence of our language, which is a pity.

5. Hijime…you say: “Full stops always go outside the quotation mark unless you’ve included it in your quote (i.e. copied and pasted). ”

   If you are still reading this thread, and if you define a period as a “full stop” you are incorrect.

   The period always is placed inside the quotation mark. No exceptions. Now for the reason. Although an exlamation or question mark following your personal use of a word or phrase in quotation marks can go outside your quotes, a period, or, for that matter a comma, never does.

   Why? It comes from type-setting tradition. If those minuscule symbols were put outside the heavier fonts of quotation marks they were invariably lost to the manuscript. Apparently the leaded font pieces suppressed the tiny period font in some way. A printer schooled in pre-technology type-setting could probably explain it better than I am.

   The result, Hijame and Scotsman, is that today it just looks peculiar not to continue the tradition. I hope you don’t think me too “opinionated.” LOL.. there is an example for you!

6. ok… another misspelling on my part… “exclamation”! May I blame my sluggish keyboard? hmmm more likely my sluggish brain. My fintertips do the thinking; they’re too fast.

   By now, perhaps those still reading these comments might figure out that I am an English teacher in America. lol… a maverick these days. Slang comes and goes; it’s sometimes creative, more often it’s lazy. But always it is transient.

   And so I stand by good grammar. Perhaps some of you may disagree, but I think that over the centuries, classic English usage, regardless of vernacular differences attributable to location on this planet, has developed what I call a visual cadence.

   I want to see it maintained. Good grammar flows well, even beautifully. Let’s keep it that way.

7. @Guest, re 21 January 2011:

   Hajime’s use of the term ‘full stop’ rather than ‘period’ should have been a clue, if their identification as Australian didn’t give it away already; full stops and their kin do indeed *always* go outside of quotation marks in British, Australian and (as far as I’m aware) other Commonwealth Englishes. The only exception is if the mark is part of the original quotation.

   Hajime, you’re in the right mate.

8. @Michael

   Canada, in this case, is again an exception from the other Commonwealth countries. Commas and periods are always placed inside quotations in Canada, as is done in the U.S.

9. @Albert D.

   Perhaps we should just take it as read that Canada is…er… exceptional. 😉

10. @Michael

    Haha, yes, I think that’s a fair statement. I’ve heard Australia is a very exceptional country too. I’ll have to visit sometime…and will definitely try to avoid being hit by a “ute.” 😉

11. I often have this dillemma being British born, resident in Canada for 40 years and English/French bilingual. So I have adopted the rule that “program” is for computers and computer/technolgy contexts, and “programme” is for everything else. My rationale is that in a French/English speaking country, if there is a choice or ambiguity of spelling, I use the French originated spelling so that we at least have some symetry between the two official languages – similarly: centre, cigarette, theatre. It just seems to make good sense and economy of spelling.

12. … plus I meant to point out to Guest – in Canada the folks here get quite irritated by reference to “America”. In the Canada the position is that there is no country called America – it is a continent. The correct reference is “the United States” ” the US” or “the USA”. However the residents of the country are correctly termed “Americans” . Any of our First Nations/Native persons in Canada are quaintly referred to by American legal types as “American Indians”. Confusing isnt it? I always find it quite odd now to hear Brits say “America” – after all my years in Canada it really jars.

13. You mean English English. I am English, from England as it is a country, and I speak English which is where the English language orginated from.

    I’m not a great fan of calling of “British English”, either (you’re right, it’s just plain English), on the latter point you may be interested to know that earlier residents of your island often dated events by years “since the English came”…bringing with them their language…from somewhere in the vicinity of modern Denmark…

    Both British and American English are used internationally, though the latter is more common.

    I beg to differ. All of the English-speaking world except for the US, and to some extent Canada, and AFAIK all countries where English isn’t the main language, except for Japan, use a form of British English. Something less than 10% of the world’s population live in places where American English would be what they would learn if they learned English (most of them never will, of course). How is that “more common”?

14. Thank you to all who have contributed to this stream of linguistic learning. We should not worry about minor typographical errors, but consider the message instead.
    I am from New Zealand and we often have a unique view on the world, being early adopters of change, small and innovative, and viewing USA, Canadian (not American!), English (who we call POMS), and Australian from an objective viewpoint.
    Note: like the Canadians being broad-brushed with United States folk, lumping NZ’ers Australians is anathema to us.
    My view is that we should forget about where we have come from and think more about where we are going to in linguistic terms.
    In other words, and being a somewhat lazy writer, I try to shorten and simplify words, as long as the communication of the message is not compromised. I therefore use program, simply because it is shorter. Logic should prevail. My time is too important to write or type in extra letters. I would go a great deal further and suggest many words should be revamped. e.g. thought should be thort, rough should be ruf, cough should be cof. Consider the confusing pronunciations of bough, rough, through, though, thought. I have been using short words for many years with no detriment to recipients understanding of my messages. I agree with Lizzie – English language is like a blob that absorbs many influences and is constantly changing. Just wanted to mention that not all ideas are sourced from the USA or England! Another note is that our educators has approved the use of USA spelling and text speak within schools. I don’t agree with all of that but it does highlight the rapidity of change. A bit of a ruf note, but those r thorts do u c? l8r.

15. Wayne: Firstly, I hope any and all friends and family in Christchurch are doing well. I’m an Australian with strong Kiwi family connexions.

    That said (and I really do hope you’re well too!), I wouldn’t exactly call the NZ perspective on Australia (or anywhere else) ‘objective’, but I know what you’re driving at.

    By your logic you would, I presume, also spell ‘prologue’, ‘analogue’, etc. in the American fashion ‘prolog’, etc.?

    You are also liable to cause some confusion if you attempt to spell ‘thought’ as ‘thort’—especially for many of our North American, Scots and Irish friends; not to mention a few folks from Southland! This is the chief problem with attempts to rationalize the spelling of English; few spellings would suit the host of pronunciations that exist now or in the future. (N.B. American spelling is *not* a rationalization for the simple reason that it is little more consistent than British spelling.) Indeed, words like ‘thought’ may well have been pronounced as they are written at some stage, but spelling and articulation move at different paces.

    Personally, I detest ‘text message’ spelling, but understand why it’s used. Use it with your mates, by all means (if they tolerate it), but you won’t get very far if you try it on in any remotely formal correspondence. Note that ‘programme’ is still standard NZ English, so you’re free to spell it the American way but you might want to reconsider if you’re writing professionally.

    I wasn’t aware that NZ schools had actually approved American English, only that they were thinking about it. It sounds about as smart as ditching basic grammar, which both Aussie and Kiwi schools had by the seventies; handicapping my generation.

16. Micheal, Thanx for your thorts. I checked last night and all family and friends families I know who live in Christchurch are all safe and well. This was an extremely violent quake. As a student of architecture, Chch had the best old stone buildings in the country with a lovely cathedral. The shocking loss of life dwarfs any bricks and mortar problems.
    Those people will be suffering from a great deal of stress from earthquates going back to last September. Wellington has the rep for quakes, so we are waiting for our turn next.
    All Kiwis really appreciate the help coming from Australia, and our friendly rivalries are quickly put aside with the efforts to save people still trapped under tons of rubble.
    Here’s hoping they survive.

17. Wayne: Kiwis and Aussie are whanau mate. Good luck.

18. “But in proper English it does have two ‘l’s, and the US form looks like it should be pronounced “traVELing” (not “traVEELing”). I’ve never heard or read anyone trying to explicitly state the rule for this, but there clearly is a rule which I’ve just absorbed by osmosis, which the US spelling breaks.”

    Peter: In American English the rule for words that end in EL or OL at least, is that the final consonant is doubled when adding a suffix ONLY when the the stress is on that syllable. So TRAVEL= TRAVELING, MODEL=MODELING, PATROL= PATROLLING, CONTROL= CONTROLLING. On my American spellchecker, modelling or travelling will get red-lined every time.

19. It seems like this is being overly-complicated. In American, there is no such word as programme. So I guess it’s easy here. It appears, from the outside reading this, like in British it’s program for computers and programme for all else? Is that it? In the commonwealth it’s all messy and confused, but isn’t that the norm? I mean that good-naturedly, but really isn’t that usually true? It seems hard to find any “standard” for Canadian or NZ, isn’t it?

20. You only see “program” in Canada. The only time I see it spelled differently is if the writer is non-North American.

21. Venqax,

    It’s really no more ‘overly complicated’ than this: There coexist different standards of English. The two dominant ones are US and British, though other countries in the anglosphere have their own, complete with their preferred usage. Within each standard there are accepted variants. US English has ‘prologue’ and ‘prolog’, for instance, and I’m told that ‘thru’ is listed in one of your dictionaries as an acceptable variant of ‘through’.

    The language has always been messy, most languages are, but for a host of historical and political-economic reasons, English is now a lot more standardized. Indeed, given how widespread the language is, it’s a wonder that we understand one another at all.

    Albert,

    We’ve had this conversation old mate; ‘programme’ is perfectly acceptable in Canadian English, just not preferred.

    I think we all need to relax a little and allow a some messiness. After all, we don’t want to become as uptight as the French. 😉

22. Yes, M. I’m all for different standards of English. I guess in this case we Americans get off easy because there is no confusion. Your initial posting seemed to lie and lay the whole thing to rest. But, a lass, it was knot too bee.

    Interesting points. Some revisions like catalog and analog have become practically preferred in General American. But I don’t think I’ve seen prolog, or dialog in “formal” print. You do see THRU on road signs in the US, e.g. No Thru Street. And in informal writing all the time, along with tho, altho, nite. Don’t think I’ve seen them in anything formal or “official” tho. …there.

23. V,

    Not so hasty. Merriam-Webster lists ‘prolog’ as an acceptable variant of ‘prologue’, whereas The New Oxford American Dictionary indicates that ‘prolog’ is only acceptable in reference to a computing language. ‘Thru’ is listed as a variant of ‘through’ in M-W, but relegated to a mere informality in the NOAD. I humbly submit that these examples demonstrate that AmE is no less confusing than British, Irish or any of the various Commonwealth Englishes.

24. Oh no Michael! I would never say Am is any less confusing than British. If anything, the opposite. It often seems to me like Brit is more consistent (or I should say RP is more consistent, you have more regional variation than we do), than GA (General American) is. Our problems just aren’t programatic (chuckle). Take the -ILE endings as a case in point: Americans always say MISS’L. But on fragile, juvenile, virile, hostile- we don’t seem able to make up our minds, even tho we are SUPPOSED to say them all alike. OTOH, we get off easy on PRACTICE, too with a universal C. The Commonwealth, tho, does seem especially vexed to me, with the exception of Australian. I think the “other GA”, General Australian, is pretty well established.

    As for the MW stuff, I only meant that I haven’t SEEN prolog (but I don’t read computer stuff at all) and the only place I’VE ever seen thru is on signs and in web-post/email stuff. That’s where I use it all the time. But there are whole genres I’m not famliar with. I do think MW is particularly DEscriptive and “liberal” in what it lists, too, which is why I thought their taking a stand on FebRuary was an even stronger argument for it. They, after all, do list nukyular and irregardless. Not with regard to the fact the latter is not ununsupportable and the former is an amobniation.

25. I disagree about always using the spelling “Program” when used with computers.
    As a Computing graduate, I would say a “Program” is an item of software run on a computer but to write the code is to “Programme” it. Don’t care if the people who make dictionaries agree or not, that is just how it is! Simples.

26. Wow – can anyone say any more after all those comments? I am sure we will get a few more comments in the years to come 😉

27. The New Oxford American Dictionary indicates that ‘prolog’ is only acceptable in reference to a computing language.

    Surely not…that would be “Prolog”, with a capital P — it’s the name of a language, not a variant spelling of “prologue”.

28. So If you are on an apprenticeship, are you on an apprenticeship program or apprenticeship programme?

29. Always wondered – thank you. Not sure about your use of…

    “… here’s some examples of how…”. Shouldn’t that be.. ” Here ARE…”

30. so you program a computer, but do you:

    a) program a computer program
    or
    b) program a computer programme?

31. Program a computer program. Why do you guys complicate these things? Defense, among, practice…:)

32. Yes, you do program a computer to perform tasks or calculations. I will program my computer to find prime numbers, for instance. This is the dictionary entry for the verb “to program”: Provide (a computer or other machine) with coded instructions for the automatic performance of a particular task.

33. One thing i am glad about is the apparent universal dropping of gaol for jail, as an Australian I spell program as program, and not programme it looks wrong to me, also, colour is colour, not color centre is center i pronounce derby as DER-be not DAR-be, travelling and not travelling, follows other travel words like traveller, even when using the short message system from mobile phones (sms) i try not to abbreviate like luv, str8 m8, 2day, and the like, however, words such a live (as in to live) and live (as in live brodast) can be confusing to the reader, so i think that language needs to evolve some more, so the confusing is not confusing,

    However, is it not the purpose of writing something down, is so the writer can convey his idea to the reader? Does it really matter what form of the written word takes if this objective is met?

34. Many interesting comments here. I think it’s good to be flexible and adapt to whatever spelling the locals prefer. In my own writings I prefer using the original Latin or Greek spelling, if possible, and never the French spelling. Generally that means I spell American English, tho’ I like poetic license.

    Some of us in the USA dream of a future version of the English language with phonetic spelling (as in Italian).

    BTW, the word British also refers to the original inhabitants of the British Isles and their descendants (ref Michael Wood the historian).

35. Sorry, but a coffee maker is not a computer in the sense this article is using.

36. The word “programme” is made up of two Greek words.
    Pro (προς) = towards or in favour of.
    gramme (γραμμή) = line or path.
    When using “programme” as a verb, please keep the above in mind.

37. All this banter about different national styles/spellings could be avoided if people were to consult relevant style guides. Most nations (and most organisations / corporations) have a style guide (or three).

    Major national style guides include:
    UK: The Oxford Guide to Style
    US: The Chicago Manual of Style
    AU: The Cambridge Australian English Style Guide
    AU: The Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers.

    Many institutions that have no internal style guide use an appropriate national or professional (e.g. medicine, law) style guide — and often add their own specific in-house requirements to those external basics.

    Reputable style guides are far more useful than mere dictionaries when one seeks orthographical guidance.

    And to those inflexible prescriptivists who can’t let go of the over-simplified “rules” they were taught in primary school (and thereby demonstrate their limited understanding of the language), note this: there are very few rules but many conventions.

    Settle on your style/s and conventions, then be consistent in their application throughout a document or series of documents. Inconsistency is both sloppy and unprofessional.

    Re paralleling English and Latin: Don’t bother! English is not a Romance language; it is primarily Germanic in origin, though it is probably the world’s most mongrelised tongue, an inveterate borrower and importer of other languages’ words.
    ________
    Verbivore (philologist and author of numerous in-house style guides) from Oz

38. Ian Jones & Connor: I understand your sentiments, but I think the important thing to note it that there are standards. One thing all the guides agree on is that regardless of the “style” you adopt, you must be consistent. Picking and choosing your spelling, for example, based on what you “like” is really not acceptable. If you are Australian, you should use General Australian in any formal writing. There is such a thing. What it dictates in the cases you cite, I don’t know. I know that in General American, for instance, there is a rule that says final Ls are doubled when adding suffixes if the stress of the root word is not on the final syllable, but NOT if it is. So travel to traveling, model to modeling, but control to contrlling, patrol to patrolling. Likewise “preferring” one spelling over another really doesn’t cut it. Poetic license is for poetry. We’re not usually writing poetry.

    I agree about gaol for one reason in particular: It violates the otherwise pretty strong rule that Gs before As are hard, as in GAME or GALL. According to English’s own rules, gaol should homonymous with gale or else pronounced gay-ole. Similar problems exist the British spelling of sceptic (instead of skeptic) and pronouncing Celtic as if it were spelled Keltic. No good reason for violating what rules we do have.

39. Put it this way as far as “different” spelling is concerned. If you are writing for a British audience, then write using British grammar and spelling.

    If your audience is American…well, must I say more?

    Puff, tough, bough, now, know, sew, new,queue, blue, through.

40. In some contexts I agree. But generally I would say if YOU are American, write in American. If YOU are British then write in British. If you try to write in a dialect other than your own you’ll probably muck it up and communicate less clearly than if you wrote naturally.

41. POLITICAL INCORRECT COMMENT ALERT!!!

    Australian English has changed dramatically since the 1960s, merely reflecting the winds of change on Australia itself. Factors influencing Australian English include the relative decline of UK power and its joining the EEC, an all-pervasive US culture, the democratisation of university places, an influx of non-English speaking migration, and the quiet, awkward emergence of class difference. In this time, the Australian English dictionary of record has even shifted from the venerable Oxford to the home-grown Macquarie, published first as recently as 1981. The Macquarie Dictionary makes program official.

    The truth is more subtle. Usage of the word is a class marker. Anglo-Australian old families always use programme. For every ten new Australian graduates without even a year of grammar education behind them, for every ten uneducated Australians immersed in US-style, reality TV, for every ten migrants to Australia who struggle with poorly-funded English As A Second Language courses, you will find one old-family Australian of English heritage who uses programme because it’s really the only way. Fowler’s reigns supreme in these knowing houses without any self-consciousness or affectation. It’s just natural.

42. Fowler Man: I’m not sure what conclusion you are reaching with your post. After 200 years, shouldn’t Australian English be emerged already as a national standard of its own? E.g., shouldn’t the program/programme issue be determined by Australian-specific criteria, as opposed to what British (or American, for that matter) authorities would dictate? This reluctance is strange, I think. Is it the Commonwealth thing? The gray (American here) tone of semi-independent politics keep this vestigial cultural umbilical cord connected still?

43. As a Masters degree educated Englishman who has US and Australian citizenship and has lived in all three countries and worked extensively at an executive level, particularly around the IT domain, may I suggest the following:

    Program refers to a program of work which may be managed by a Program Manager
    Programme refers to a set of computer code which may be manipulated by a Computer Programmer

44. As an American with a doctoral degree, may I suggest: May for may I suggest it, but Mayye for the month before June. And degree for an academic award, but degriee for temperature. Academic for having to do with academicis, but academicke for one who pursues it. And work for a completed project, but workke for the process of doing it. WHY IS THIS SO HARD!?! It it program. Period. The end. If you are American. There is NO REASON for variation. If, as a non-American, you feel some strange, OCD compulsion to have 2 different forms of the word, the difference between which you can’t even agree on among yourselves, then suggest it to yourselves. See: among, while, defense, license, practice, etc. etc.

45. Important is that you decide for your own which spelling you prefer – the british or the american or the australian. And then stick to it – be coherant. Beeing more attached to the british language I use programme. Hey – and in german its Programm. Anyway – don’t make it complicated, we do understand each other either way “m” or “me” …

46. Well, im English and I use programme, because that was what i was taught at school. But basically it really doesn’t matter, another example is dispatch or despatch, both are correct. You still get the point across.

    If you want to get really picky then technically PROGRAM is correct because that is what we English used back in the day. so stop the English/American debate that occurs on every site on the internet and blame the French 😀

47. After all these discussion, I actually learn a lot.
    But, my question is why the UN’s global development network
    United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is not spelled as
    United Nations Development Program ?
    same thing like United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
    is not spelled as United Nations Environment Program?
    Any comment would be highly apperciated.

48. @Dee: There are different contexts, or *levels* if you will, of correctness. Program and programme are each correct but in their respective dialects.* Programme* is not correct in American English. In British English it is correct. Likewise color/colour, meter/metre, curb/kerb, traveler/traveller, etc. Other times, tho, there are alternative spellings of a word within a dialect. In American English, e.g., advisor/adviser, ax/axe, buses/busses. I’m not sure of hand if the spellings dispatch and dispatch are both acceptable in American. Maybe they are in British.

    @Homer: Because the UN likes French, which says programme. And failing that, it likes British which mimmicks programme. The UN does not like American. Anything American, except of course American money. It likes that a lot. Its linguistic preferences are a reflection of its political attitudes generally, flicking the finger at the USA without being TOO unsubtle. And it is not consistent. While all of its centers are centres, as you’d expect, most of its organizations are organizations. Of course some would argue the Z is more accurate for British as well. Can you believe politics would infect an institution like the UN? Unbelievable.

49. A major problem in this area is the following:
    British, Irish, and other foreign jounalists and writers, putting “programme” into articles and other works that are intended to be published in the United States of America and in Canada!

    Not only do those writers do it incorrectly, but their editors are too intellectually lazy to make the corrections and to teach their writers. An editor is supposed to be an experienced man or woman, and he / she should KNOW about the things like the differences between British English and the English of North America.
    That is not an insuperable task — and the reason that it doesn’t get done is that they do not even try.
    D.A.W.

50. Speaking of the United Nations, did you know that there is a rotation system for choosing the Secretary General from the various continents, but North America is not included?

    Since this rotation got started, we have had Secretaries General from Sweden, Austria, Egypt, Ghana, Burma, South Korea (the present one), and Colombia. It looks like South America is next one the list.

    The Secretary General is never chosen from one of the Big Five permanent members of the Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia (USSR formerly), or China.

    This excludes most of the population of North America, leaving only Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, and the small countries and islands of Central America and the Caribbean Sea. Pierre Trudeau of Canada would have made a fine Secretary General, but he never had the chance. Probably, he was too busy with important problems in Canada, anyway. I don’t think that the other countries that I mentioned have produced a man or woman with the prominence in international relations that is required.
    It is hard to imagine a Secretary General from Cuba, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, the Bahamas, etc., because their populations are so small, and their colleges are so small, too. It is hard for someone to get the necessary experience there.
    D.A.W.