I agree with you that "sidewalk" is more specific than "pavement" in that the whole damn street is a "pavement" unless it's a dirt road, in which case it probably doesn't have sidewalks, either. As for "Seeing Eye Dog," that's a trade name for a company that provided dogs that were specifically trained to help the blind. And that trademark was jealously guarded for many years, because while other companies provided dogs for that purpose, they didn't provide the training that the SED company did. (And it's pretty intricate training ... a teacher of mine who was blind described it to me, and it's fascinating.) Generically, the dogs were referred to as "guide dogs." Of course, now they're all sort of lumped together as "service animals" in a category that can include "emotional support animals." Ah, Canada. The only place in the world where you can take your car to a "tire centre."
Pavement originated because the pavement used to be actually paved - with paving slabs - wheras the road would more likely be cobbles or more recently bitumen (which we in the uk call tarmac)
Short for tarred macadam. Macadam being a road made of crushed gravel, named after the engineer, and large proponent of this type of road, John Loudon McAdam, from Scotland.
That was my point, actually. In the US, it's "tire center" and in the UK it would be "tyre centre," but in Canada it's "tire centre" ... the only place that uses that combination, AFAIK. (About the only places one sees "centre" in the US is in places that are going for the quaint look ... "Town Centre Market," for example. And there's a main street in Baltimore called Centre Street, because it's had that name for over two hundred fifty years, long before the "center" spelling came into use, and nobody feels like changing it now. Right you are. In the US, though, that composition would more commonly be called "asphalt" with the odd exception of airports, where the runways are often referred to as the "tarmac." Maybe because it sounds more romantic, more redolent of World War Two aerodromes in England.
And in Canada we'd call it either tarmac or asphalt, interchangeably... I wonder if Canadians actually have a legitimately larger vocabulary than Americans or Brits, just because we have to learn two different words for so many things...
I imagine that they'd refer to the game that the Canadian Football League plays, which is very similar (but not identical) to the game played by the National Football League in the US plays. The game formats are similar enough that there's some crossover between players. Steve Young, for example, played quarterback for a CFL team before moving to the San Francisco 49ers. And the CFL actually had several teams here in the US for a while. One of them was the Baltimore "CFL Colts" which replaced the original Baltimore Colts when the latter was moved to Indianapolis. (This was before Baltimore acquired its present team, the Ravens.)
I don’t think you should be worrying about you spelling at all unless you’re worrying about spelling something incorrectly. From what you’ve said you’ve gotten feed back from one person who, for all you know, may just be a stickler for grammar and spelling. As an Australian I don’t even notice anymore what way a word is spelt unless it’s spelt incorrectly or there’s a symbol in the word that shouldn’t be there, which has happened. What you need to look out for is cultural differences you may not be aware of in Georgia. I find it easy to spot a writer who’s not Australian who writes things set in Australia. The biggest giveaways are taxis and any customer service person. A tiny turn of phrase can be the biggest neon sign slamming me in the face to tell me the writer is not Australian. It’s the little things like that that will jerk an avid reader out of your story. Not something as innocuous as the spelling of say colour vs color.
Unfortunately, I suspect an agent may have issues with inconsistent spelling—that is, some US and some U.K. Even ignoring the editing time to fix it—and I realize much of that might be search and replace—it could suggest a lack of attention to detail and produce worries about attention to detail in other areas less easy to edit quickly. I could be wrong. I feel for now like I’m not.
Nothing was said about inconsistent spelling, only changing the way a word is spelt based on publication. Obviously it’s stupid of any writer to switch randomly between the spellings throughout a story. My point was that you shouldn’t bother trying to alter the way you spell words based on one person telling you it removes them from the story or based on where you think the book is going to sell best. By doing that you open yourself up to random inconsistencies through habit of the way you were taught to spell a word. Not only that but anyone who reads will be aware of the fact that words are spelt differently based on where you grew up.
The OP isn't proposing a RANDOM switch, but is, at last notice, planning to switch spelling based on where a given scene is set: "I'm leaning towards either an explanation in the forward of the book or American spelling for the American sections. I understand the importance of consistency in language throughout but for me the most important point as an author is maintaining the authenticity of the characters and their language." So... (holy smokes, here's a clear example of passive voice actually being used and actually being problematic!)... it's not clear whether you meant that you said nothing about inconsistent spelling, or that nothing about inconsistent spelling was said by anyone in the thread. Either way, you didn't mention it, but your argument could be easily extrapolated to support the OP's stated approach.
Yeah. There's a difference between spelling things any old which way (inconsistency) and spelling things the way things are normally spelled where the author is writing from. I suppose it will be difficult to write using spellings you're not familiar with, just because of where a story is set, but it might be a good idea to try. If you were an American writing a story set in Victorian England, with only British characters, you might want to study as much as you can about British spellings AND idioms of the period, as well as different words for the same objects, etc. That's research, isn't it? You will be working to achieve linguistic consistency with the period, settings and characters in your story. However, changing spellings so as not to jar the sensibilities of readers—based on where the readers live? I feel that's a step too far. I've certainly read lots of stories containing all manner of regional spelling differences, and never turned a hair. I suppose you can make these changes, if you want to, but that seems a bit over the top, at least to me. You are still likely to run into problems with the actual word differences between countries, anyway. If your story is set in England, is the car your English character drives going to have a hood or a bonnet?
That I meant inconsistent spelling wasn’t mentioned by anyone in the thread except the person who replied to me. That’s quite clear in my statement given the lack of ‘I never said anything about’ before I began my reply. And no, my argument couldn’t be extrapolated to support OP’s statement at all. I clearly state that you shouldn’t change the way you spell words based on the country you expect the book to be published in or on the basis of one persons feedback. The only thing I said on the matter of changing things to suit an audience is in relation to portraying the culture of that setting. Where in this argument can it be said that I support OP’s approach to the matter?
But inconsistent spelling WAS mentioned... it's what the OP plans to do. The sections set in Canada will use Canadian spellings, the sections set in the US will use American spellings. And saying that "I don’t think you should be worrying about you(r) spelling at all," and "It’s the little things like that that will jerk an avid reader out of your story. Not something as innocuous as the spelling of say colour vs color," does seem, to me, to suggest that the OP shouldn't worry about her decision to switch spelling between scenes. Regardless. I've already said I think it would be a mistake for the OP to do that, and this thread isn't about what you did or didn't suggest. So I'm out.
The snark level seems to be rising in this thread so if everyone could calm down that'd be dandy. Lets focus on actually helping the OP, or at least discussing the differences in language, rather than arguing with each other
When you present what I wrote out of context it makes sense what your saying. The wording could be clearer but in context I mean that they shouldn’t worry about the spelling of the word, in the manner OP is, so long as the word is spelt correctly throughout the story. "It’s the little things like that that will jerk an avid reader out of your story. Not something as innocuous as the spelling of say colour vs color," Was written in regard to turn of phrase and cultural differences that people get wrong that will disengage the reader of said culture. It does not, in any way support OP’s suggested fix in regards to spelling. But it points out that the spelling of a word is not what will disengage the average reader. You’ve taken only snippets of what I said into account in your point. You made this conversation into what I did or did not suggest.
You've been told once already - and we mean it. The next person to continue this pointless argument gets a thread ban