# Is it different in America?



## Olly Buckle (Mar 22, 2015)

I was reading a speech by Barry Goldwater  on the occasion of his Presidential nomination; the introduction stresses that it was worked on by speech writers for over a week an “... no word was left unmeasured ...”. So why does it say “It is the cause of Republicanism to insure that power remains in the hands of the people ...”?

In my book ‘ensure’ means to make sure; ‘insure’ is a financial arrangement.

Is it different in America? Is the transcription wrong? Did they simply miss it?


"If you think I'd let Barry Goldwater move in next door and marry my daughter ..."
Bob Dylan.


----------



## TJ1985 (Mar 22, 2015)

According to what I've seen, both words mean much the same here. There is a stigma in my opinion with Ensure because we have a nutritional drink named Ensure which tastes like chalk dissolved in dog urine.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Mar 22, 2015)

Thank the internet! 


*As per a google search, this is from Grammarbook.com:

Ensure* is to do or have what is necessary for success.
_*Example:* These blankets ensure that you’ll be warm enough._
*
Insure* is to cover with an insurance policy.
_*Example:* I will insure my home with additional fire and flood policies._

Especially in American English, what you insure is a business transaction. What you ensure results from your personal efforts.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 22, 2015)

That drink sounds completely disgusting!

People tend to misuse them to mean the same here in England as well; but it seemed unlikely when the intro stressed how prepared the speech was. Possibly 'The Penguin book of Modern Speeches' has transcribed it wrongly, but that also seems unlikely, surely in this day and age they copy and paste from the original?


----------



## TJ1985 (Mar 22, 2015)

There is a possibility. It was a speech, and at least in the American dialect, the two words sound stunningly similar. Maybe they wrote whichever word that sounded right and knew that the context would give the listener the right word. 

Or, someone in American Government employ is an idiot. Nah, that's totally impossible.  

And yes, that drink is "Very Nutritional" and over here, very nutritional makes it like medicine, and "medicine must taste bad to work good." I know of no one who benefited from Ensure, but it should work wonderfully! YUCK!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 22, 2015)

So I went and checked the Washinton Post transcript (Hooray for Google) they have 'ensure', naughty naughty Penguin Books.


----------



## TJ1985 (Mar 22, 2015)

Olly Buckle said:


> So I went and checked the Washinton Post transcript (Hooray for Google) they have 'ensure', naughty naughty Penguin Books.



So someone employed for the American Government had a really easy shot at making a dummy error, and *didn't *take it, but a publishing house had the same mistake option, and *did *take it?

It must have been yadnoM or yadseuT, you know, those days when everything works backwards from the way it usually does?


----------



## Riis Marshall (Mar 22, 2015)

Hello Olly

When I was growing up in America - seems like a long time ago, actually it _was_ a long time ago, 'ensured' was preferred but you were free to use 'insured' and it was not considered incorrect.

I'm out and about at the moment, but when I get back I shall check my American dictionary - it was published a long time ago, too - and see what they have to say.

Interesting, this thing we call English: I grew up with 'connections' but I noticed recently that Steinbeck used 'connexions'.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## stevesh (Mar 22, 2015)

I don't know when the Penguin book was published, but it sounds like a typo caused by the bane of proper publishing, the computer spell checker. 'Ensure' is correct.


----------



## dither (Mar 22, 2015)

Most of my postings in here contain words that are underlined in red, ie. misspelled, but they're not.
Anglo/American differences.


----------



## popsprocket (Mar 22, 2015)

I have a dictionary that lists the same definition under both insure and ensure. 'Ensure' will always have my heart.


----------



## Plasticweld (Mar 22, 2015)

*Republicanism* is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic (la. res publica), where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.

I wish that today we had an administration that actually understood the meaning of the word "Republicanism"  if you go back over what the focus of the government has been for the last 6 years it has treated us like subjects.  From the current rift over whether the president needs congressional approval to create a treaty with Iran to Obama care which mandates that you buy a product.  Sorry digress while you guys see only a typo with the word "Ensure"  I see only the word "Republicanism" which somehow also got lost not in the translation but the intent of government.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 22, 2015)

> So why does it say “It is the cause of Republicanism to insure that power remains in the hands of the people ...”?


   I think 'insure' was on purpose. It's a code word (related to money) to ensure (or reassure) that the oligarchy understand their interests are foremost with the Republican Party. As with both parties (Democrat/Republican) the rest is just to get votes/lead the sheep in their direction.

Is it different in the U.K.?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Mar 22, 2015)

It's possible that insure was the way it was referred to at that time. In recent years at least it would probably now be spelled ensure. I notice newspaper headlines before that the 1970s that used the word indorse as opposed as endorse which is used today. I would guess insure and ensure would be the same way. The spelling depended on the period the word was used I think.


----------



## dither (Mar 22, 2015)

Well, i'm in England and, for insure, and ensure, for me,  there IS a very slight but very real difference in the definitions.
And then again, maybe not so slight.
I mean, you don't buy life ensurance, do you?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 22, 2015)

I stick with my original, ensure is to make sure, insure is a financial arrangement, like insuring your car; you can't buy 'ensurance'.


----------



## dither (Mar 22, 2015)

I'll go along with that Mr.Buckle.


----------



## Sonata (Mar 22, 2015)

TJ1985 said:


> And yes, that drink is "Very Nutritional" and over here, very nutritional makes it like medicine, and "medicine must taste bad to work good." I know of no one who benefited from Ensure, but it should work wonderfully! YUCK!



I was stuck with it for a while during a time when I was unable to swallow anything solid, and it really is not _too_ bad.  The chocolate and vanilla flavours were OK but I was not keen on the strawberry flavoured one - understandable as I do not really like strawberries!

You get used to it when it is all you can have, especially when the alternative was unflavoured Jevity or Jevity Plus.   Those really did taste of chalk. ukel:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 22, 2015)

I will try to _ensure_ that I don't get ill that way. I wonder if I could get _insurance_ that would pay out if I did. That would ensure I could afford a more palatable alternative.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Mar 22, 2015)

Hello Olly

As promised earlier today: according to my American dictionary - _Webster's New World Dictionary_, copyright 1952/printed 1957:

*en-sure* to insure

*in-sure* 1. to make sure; ensure; guarantee. 2. to get as a certainty; secure. 3. to make safe; guard against injury, damage; protect. 4. to assure against loss; contract to be paid or to pay money in the case of...

None of this helps very much, does it?

I have always used 'ensure' in the context of #1 and #2 and #3, and 'insure' for #4, but there's nothing to suggest the speechwriters were using the word incorrectly.

Perhaps it's regional: in Western Pennsylvania we were encouraged to use 'ensure' while maybe in other parts of the country 'insure' was the standard.

One never knows, do one?

Perhaps now that's settled we can discuss 'connexion' versus 'connection' and 'swap' versus 'swop'.

I'm glad we've had this little chat.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Mar 22, 2015)

Not surprising- assure / ensure / insure are listed on page 17 of the book _Common Errors in English Usage_ by Paul Brians


----------



## ppsage (Mar 22, 2015)

Well, Republicans are into getting stuff financed so maybe it was a subtle hint that the premiums were coming due.


----------



## robertdonnell (Jun 3, 2015)

For sure a typographical error.


----------



## BobtailCon (Jun 8, 2015)

For myself, there is a difference between the words, but there are many (too many) people in America too illiterate to realize the difference.


----------



## musichal (Jun 8, 2015)

I'm just a typical Southern redneck, but I often use some British spellings.  I prefer grey for the colour, for instance.  I see grey passes, but colour is underlined in red.  Insure for the financial-type meaning, and ensure for others makes sense to me, but I missed the British-ism in that.  I still like flat for apartment - I've always wondered if it was restricted to describe a single-floor dwelling versus a town-house type arrangement, though.  Here seems a good place to ask.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 8, 2015)

We use a word from India for  single storey dwelling, bungalow; a flat is usually one storey, or part  of a storey, of a taller building.So a three storey house might be converted into three flats, or a block of flats might be built with sixteen storeys and four flats on each floor.


----------



## LeeC (Jun 8, 2015)

One thing I encountered coming out east is your three story house being called a triple decker. They're the preponderance in Boston's Southie.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2015)

> Boston's Southie.


 A narrow demographic, no?


----------



## LeeC (Jun 9, 2015)

Kevin said:


> A narrow demographic, no?


Is there a shade of green irascibility in that 




> As per Wikipedia:
> During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, tens of thousands of triple-deckers were constructed, mostly in the New England region of the United States, as an economical means of housing the thousands of newly arrived immigrant workers who filled the factories of the area. The triple-decker apartment house was seen as an alternative to the row-housing built in other Northeastern cities of United States during this period, such as in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.




Actually, triple-deckers are found throughout Boston and other Taxachusetts communities, as per example:






_Triple-decker apartment building in Cambridge, Massachusetts built in 1916._


From my long ago structural engineering days a tidbit comes to mind that I wonder how many know. Why aren't wood frame buildings like such built higher than three stories?


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2015)

> green irascibility


'Southie' as I have read, was (is?) a separate place from other parts of Boston, different culture, accent, etc. Wasn't sure if 'triple-decker' was only local. We don't use it out here, although we would get the meaning. 'Tri-level' occasionally  or 'two floors and a basement'... building codes and earthquakes... basements reserved for apartment underground parking, or hillside mansions.   



> Why aren't wood frame buildings like such built higher than three stories?


 Fire codes? Too high to jump from? The ladders didn't reach... (don't know)


----------



## musichal (Jun 9, 2015)

I was also about to guess fire codes.  But also wondered about weight/support?


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Jun 9, 2015)

I believe it's structural integrity? 

Certain materials at larger scales can't support their own weight. Maybe wooden buildings will fall apart if they're any larger... 

And, for the same reason, insects can never become giant. They would be crushed under their own exoskeleton.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2015)

> We use a word from India for  single storey dwelling, bungalow;


 Yes, we use that here. Like cottage it is or was popularized by realtors (agents?) as a way to add enthusiasm or respectability to something deemed,  uhm... smallish.


----------



## LeeC (Jun 9, 2015)

Kevin said:


> 'Southie' as I have read, was (is?) a separate place from other parts of Boston, different culture, accent, etc. Wasn't sure if 'triple-decker' was only local. We don't use it out here, although we would get the meaning. 'Tri-level' occasionally or 'two floors and a basement'... building codes and earthquakes... basements reserved for apartment underground parking, or hillside mansions.





Kevin said:


> Fire codes? Too high to jump from? The ladders didn't reach... (don't know)




Yes, from my experience when I used to get down that way, Southie was and to some degree still is a culturally distinct place. But then so are other parts of Boston (and other large cities) like the North End. Very different atmospheres ;-) Of course the consideration of earthquakes and hillside building is much less out east. I remember long ago, a transplanted engineering colleague said the west coast took a different approach to what he termed Californicating  

Give me the Yellowstone Caldera where my people lived for ten thousand years in sync with Mother Nature's rhythms before the now predominate culture arrived. When she blows the whole world will know it


----------



## LeeC (Jun 9, 2015)

musichal said:


> I was also about to guess fire codes.  But also wondered about weight/support?



Getting warm.



Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> I believe it's structural integrity?
> 
> Certain materials at larger scales can't support their own weight. Maybe wooden buildings will fall apart if they're any larger...
> 
> And, for the same reason, insects can never become giant. They would be crushed under their own exoskeleton.



You've got the essence of it Crowley, you get the brass ring.


----------

