🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2751@mit-hermes.ARPA> jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) writes:
>	The discussion of "presently" reminds me of an argument my girlfriend
>and I recently had. I claim that the British spelling of the above word is 
>often used by people trying to show off, and that its standard American 
>spelling is "theater". For instance, the New York Times has a column every
>Sunday headed "Theater"; the Times(*) doesn't need to try to impress. But many
>of the theaters advertising in that paper call themselves "Theatre". Do they
>think it has more class? I think they do. The Boston subway system has a stop
>subheaded "Theatre District" (Boylston St, to oldtimers) and Boston certainly
>needs to boost public respect for both its theaters, so it calls them Theatres.
>	My SO claims that "theatre" is a perfectly valid alternative spelling
>and desn't convey any attempt to say anything in particular, and the diction-
>ary supports her, but I still claim there are nuances involved in which 
>spelling one uses.
>

Maybe there are a lot of anglophiles in Boston?
"Theatre" on a subway sign isn't unique -- the town of Rockville Centre,
New York, uses the British spelling for its name, for some reason.
Another possibility is that an organization using "theatre" has been
around for a long time, since the days when British spellings were
commoner in the States than they are now.  Or wants people to think
that it has been around long enough to be an Institution.

>(*) Yes, there is only one "The Times"--The Times, of London. Who but the
>British would title a newspaper like that and assume that everyone knew what
>the title referred to?

When The Times was founded, there only was one Times.  A hundred years
later, a newspaper was founded in the growing town of New York, and its
proprietor called it the New York Times to distinguish it from the
original one.