This is a question that has puzzled me for years.

In the UK everyone, whether knowledgeable about aviation or not, always speaks about "Concorde" (flying on Concorde, Concorde was on the news, etc). In the USA it is so often referred to as "The Concorde" (go to London on The Concorde, etc). Where did that extra "The" come from? It doesn't happen with any other word, so is not an English grammar difference between us.

I can't help you on the question on the Concorde , but I do know that there are other words treated similarly. The one that comes to mind is hospital. In the US people say "she's in the hospital" but in the UK people say "she's in hospital."

I'm sure there are other examples of this, so the origin may not be specific to the Concorde.

The space shuttle is simply "shuttle" in NASA-speak.

The Concorde is not a person or an entity. It is a physical object, and therefore needs an article in front.

For example:

I like United Airlines. (entity)

I like the Boeing 747. (physical object)

I like the United Airlines Boeing 747. (physical object with UA as an adjective)

I've always thought that calling it "Concorde" was just being pretentious. Some people, not only in Britain, by the way, seem to think it sounds more sophisticated that way, just as they think a "pant" or a "short" is somehow classier. "QE2" suffers under the same Madison Ave. plague.

[This message has been edited by Track (edited 12-06-2002).]

Without getting into a whole English doctorate discussion ...

To me "The QE2" is correct, because there is only one such ship. However, we built 20 Concordes. If there is only one plane flight in the morning I can say "I am taking the early flight". If there are several of them I would say "I am taking an early flight", because it could be one of several. If I say "the early flight" in this context then the person meeting me will have to ask which one.

I think there is only one way to find the truth:

http://www.britishairways.com/concorde/index.html

It was originally planned to be called Concord but an e was added to satisfy the French

Nigel

Where I come from, a 'pant' is the noise that comes from a dog, and a 'short' is an incomplete circuit. What's classy about that?

True, the Brits refer to those garments that cover the legs as "trousers", but only because we call the smaller garments worn to cover the groin "pants." Go out in just your "pants" and you'll certainlly attract attention, even here in accomodating London. But then, I suspect in New York you'd be quite surprised if a man went out in a "jumper", which is de rigeur in London during the winter. And I'm not talking about kilts.

Implying that the British are aloof and pretentious, however, is not classy, no matter which way you cut it. (well, there is Loyd Grossman, but that's another matter. And isn't he American anyhow?)

So, as the English would say:

"I watched the stewardess pant with anxiety as she fixed the short in Concorde's galley."

I agree with you completely, MC, that talking about pants and shorts in the singular is silly and by no means classy. I also never thought that in Britain anyone with any sense would talk that way, but in the U.S. I see it very often now in clothing advertisements, perhaps mostly in ads by tacky companies trying to be trendy. That's where the Madison Ave. aspect comes in, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up in Britain some day soon. Check in the ads for companies that cater to the yuppie crowd. The pretentious reference, also in Britain, by the way, was to "the," sorry, to "Concorde." On the "QE2" I also heard the boat regularly reffered to as, simply, "QE2."

[This message has been edited by Track (edited 12-08-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Track (edited 12-08-2002).]

I presume this expression "Pant" (which I have indeed noticed in US clothing ads) is softening us up for some airline-style pricing.

"This pant is $50 sir".
"Very good; I'll take a pair"
"A pair; that will be $100 please"

Yeah, but the equivalent here to "the early flight" is "the Concorde." The equivalent to just saying "Concorde" is "early flight."

Would you ever say, "I'm taking early flight?"

Or did I misunderstand you, and are you saying that we should say, "I'm taking a Concorde?"

d

Isn't this just another manifestation of a very old linguistic problem? The one that transformed "the Parliament" into just "Parliament", and "the Congress" into just "Congress".

For that matter, what still grates is when certain political parties gather in the autumn of each year, when they present their ideas "to Conference".