Usage Expert Needed - Site or Sight???
 

I can't stand it any more-- I know that I misuse these two words, and since being on this forum causes me to use them a lot, I'm determined to get it right! <BR> <BR>Which word is proper when describing the places one wants to see in a country? <BR> <BR>Which one is a URL? <BR> <BR>(I know which one deals with vision-- got that one down!) <BR> <BR>Are there British/American differences? <BR> <BR>Does anyone else find this topic endlessly fascinating? <BR> <BR>Okay, I'll stop now...

I'm not as interested in this as you, but here is my off the cuff differentiation: A "site", is a location or place; a "sight" is a spectacle or vision. Thus, you can have a sight that is at a site. Or quite a sight at a website. AND a "cite" consists of directions (numbers, names, volumes, etc.) as to how to find a site, so to speak, for reseach purposes.

justtrying is right; a site is a location. Hence a URL (which stands for Universal Resoure Locator) is a website. Some websites are well designed (like, IMO, this one) whereas others are very cluttered, a sight for sore eyes.

Unless the Americans have done with Sight what they have done to Night (Nite) then my interpretation matches the one above. <BR> <BR>Site = location (whether it is a tourist site, a building site or a web site) <BR> <BR>Sight = something to see, a visual attraction <BR> <BR>As just... mentions, a famous tourist site could also be considered to be quite a sight to see... <BR> <BR>When someone says they want to see the sites they could just as well say see the sights. <BR> <BR>But when someone says I want to go to the site where xyz happened, they can't replace that with Sight... <BR> <BR>Does that help or make it worse? <BR> <BR>Kavey

Just to clarify one other often confusing usage, you can go sightseeing at an historic site! (Though you can never go 'siteseeing'. Must say my particular misuse hates are people using "it's" when they mean "its" and "there" when they mean "their". Oh no, just thought of a worse one: "Me and Jenny are going" instead of "Jenny and I are going". Or am I just a saddo?

Just realised I didn't answer the last part of your question: <BR> <BR>You visit historic sites (ie places) but go to see the sights (ie things to see), thus you can have various sights at an historic site.

Kavey - As an American, I must ask - what are you talking about with "Nite"?

Often when I am in the States i see signs and articles using NITE as the spelling for Night, and TONITE and the spelling for tonight. <BR> <BR>It's so yucky. <BR> <BR>Most of the differences in spelling are cool, infact I even read recently that the American spellings of words such as colo*r and favo*r are the original spellings and that English in England changed after the pioneers took it to US to include the additional U <BR> <BR>Don't know if it's true or not <BR> <BR>Kavey

Finally, some clear words about things people whose first language is NOT English/American. I tell you, this board is most helpful in a lot of respects. ;-) <BR> <BR>Vielen Dank, folks! <BR> <BR>

Kavey, <BR> <BR>While it is true that in brand names and signage, American businesses often "abbreviate" words such as "Drive-thru" and "Nite-Lite", we know that these are not the correct spellings and would not use them in any kind of formal document, any more than we would use 'N' for "and" just because of establishments called "In 'N' Out Burger" and "Stop 'N' Go" stores. <BR> <BR>Having said that, neither British nor American English is the same as it was 200 years ago, so I expect that the evolution of the language will continue in this direction of spelling "simplification". <BR> <BR>Cheers.

<BR>As my high school history teacher was prone to say: <BR>On July 1, 2, and 3 of 1863, the battlefield at Gettysburg was quite a sight. Shortly thereafter it became a <BR>historic site. And it is an event that historians cite when discussing the Uncivil War.

Nice post Al! <BR>In studxent papers I get site/cite mixed up all the time. In the assignments I give they are often "siting" when they should be "citing":(

I'm citing a good site that lists European sites with the best sights.

cmt: ... and what is the URL of that site please? ;-)

Hungry? Let's pare a pair of nice pears and settle down to read this site: <BR> <BR>http://www.cooper.com/alan/homonym_list.html

Wonderful post! I find this topic interesting and have noticed that those 2 words are often confused. <BR> <BR>And I'm curious here; Kavey refers to a "tourist site"; but I think that the correct usage is "tourist sight", as in a tourist place that we go to see. A historical site may be a tourist sight. <BR> <BR> Anyone want to chime in with their opinion?

Kavey, <BR> <BR>I don't think you're right about "color" or "favor" being the original spelling, since I believe these words come from the normandy dialect : coulour and favour (as opposed to the parisian dialect which would become the regular french : "couleur" and "faveur").

Of course, several years ago stop and shop merged with A and P and now its called Stop and * <BR>

There's a web SITE in SIGHT!!!

And?

A site is, as someone has already noted, a location. It is somewhere to be, not something to see. <BR>A sight is something you can look at. <BR>So one goes sightseeing, but one might stop at a historical (or if you're British, an historical) site. A site won't be interesting, however, unless you already know something about it or unless it is also a sight. <BR>"On this site in 2000, Marna Bennett and her posse set off an international incident by refusing to take their geese away. The women claimed that they had come to see the sights, not wrangle fowl."

Paule, you have it exactly backwards. The only reason you'd ever write "tourist site" might be, perhaps, if someone had collected some tourists in one location and had them bronzed in honor of all lost tourists! <BR> <BR>And a URL is a site (as in website -- I have yet to see "websight" although I'm sure I will eventually) -- L='Location' and location=site. <BR> <BR>My students get it mixed up, too, and they are journalism students who lose 10 pts. for each misspelling. Unfortunately, journalism is prone to taking shortcuts, esp. in headlines, so I've had some students with a little bit of experience working on a paper argue with me that "nite" "thru" "altho" and "til" are now absolutely correct. <BR> <BR>I like AL Godon's example of how to keep these straight. I'd like to cite another: that one might set up a camera on a site near the Grand Canyon to take a picture of the incredible sight.

Webstersdottir, you need to re-read Paule's post--you're saying the same thing!

All right, enough with this silly stuff. This enquiring mind NEEDS to know: <BR>Advice/advise: I was taught that "advice" was the noun, and "advise" was the verb. On this Forum, and other places, I see "advise" used as a noun. Is this now an accepted alternative spelling for the noun? <BR> <BR>And what is with "impact"? When did that officially become a verb?

I think the "need advise" people are related to the "site-seeing" people. In a way, I like them, because it means someone is a worse speller than I am. Also, are the women who talk about their "fiancee"s all getting married in Vermont? <BR>Just when I thought "impact" as a verb was as bad as things could get, I heard someone say "impactful." <BR>There was a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon about verbing nouns; the final panel declares "Verbing weirds language."

Elvira, You have it right on Advice and Advise. <BR> <BR>I can advise you on how to deal with crazy geece, but you don't have to follow the advice I give you. <BR> <BR>Re Impact. <BR> <BR>I would tend to say it the old fashioned way: "This news has had an adverse impact on my plans." <BR> <BR>I don't personally like the other use: "This news has impacted my plans adversely." <BR> <BR>But then the thing I love about English is that it is a living language and evolves. <BR> <BR>I am all for evolution of language where a new meaning or use of a word achieves something but not where it is just a case of people being too lazy to learn the language proplerly.

I can spell geese but I have been typing about greece a lot recently so my fingers went into auto!!! <BR>

Ah the peculiarities of the English language, where we have bite but not bight and kite but not kight, and then, on the other hand, we have light but not lite and tight but not tite. And then, to confuse matters even more, we have homonyms like sight/site/cite and might/mite.

Oh let's not start with THAT: <BR>goose/geese <BR>mongoose/mongooses <BR>moose/moose <BR>caboose/cabooses <BR> <BR>mouse/mice <BR>louse/lice <BR>house/houses <BR>die/dice <BR> <BR>foot/feet <BR>boot/boots <BR>loot/loot <BR> <BR> <BR>

Webstirdottir, you said that I had the whole site/sight thing backwards, and then go on to say: <BR> "The only reason you'd ever write "tourist site" might be, perhaps, if someone had collected some tourists in one location and had them bronzed in honor of all lost tourists!" <BR> <BR>But I said that I thought "tourist site" was wrong, and that we visit "tourist sights" (ie, a historical site may be a tourist sight). Is this right or wrong?

A "tourist site" is absolutely right! It's a place (site) of interest to tourists. A "tourist sight," on the other hand . . . well, just think pink warmup suit, fanny pack, and sneakers.

Thanks, editor, I guess I need one! I do like your image of the tourist sight, though. <BR> <BR>

Kavey, I thought maybe it was spelled "geece" in the UK :-) <BR> <BR>The one that sets my teeth on edge is "your" when it should be "you're." Aaak! <BR> <BR>

Their you go again.