It's a Canada/US difference. Canada is colour, favourite, etc.

I kind of like it - I think it's "pretty" - Ha!

Suzieque

It's the Canadian way of spelling, the original English way. Americans have dropped the "u" over time.

colour
favourite
humour
neighbour
etc....

Don't forget using "s" instead of "z" in certain words, e.g. personalised, organised, etc.

Grey is supposed to be the Canadian/UK spelling, while gray is used in America. But I've always used grey because I like it better.

I had to argue my case with an editor when this little story of mine appeared online:

Two Grey Cats

Yep, and every time I spell things "correctly" spell check tries to correct.

cheque
catalogue
fiber
litre

I sent a check for the catalog that sells fibre covers for my 2 liter bottle. LOL.

Shelgal, although Canadians would spell 'favor' as 'favour', and so forth, we do not change the spelling in the name or title of something from another country to suit our own traditions. In other words, we would never spell 'Pearl Harbor' as 'Pearl Harbour' even though Canadians spell 'harbor' as 'harbour.'

An exception to Canadians keeping the traditional British spelling, is that most British write 'organise' and 'recognise' and so forth, whereas most Canadians write 'organize' and 'recognize' etc.

One thing that really saddens me is when publishers change a writer's words, assuming that the reader from another country won't understand or won't care to experience the original work as it was written! Unfortunately, Americans did not get to read the original Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling. The American publishers (Scholastic) felt the need to convert every spelling and description that is traditionally used in Britain, to American spelling and 'Americanized' descriptions. I agree with the American writer below, that Scholastic was not giving American readers any credit for being intelligent enough to understand the books, without their 'translations.' It took away the opportunity to learn the different phrases that are used in England for the same things we enjoy here in North America. I'm thankful Canadian publishers did not alter any of J.K. Rowling's words, in the Harry Potter series sold here.
This article appeared in the New York Times (http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_040.htm)
I think it's a great article (written by an American, by the way)

"Harry Potter, Minus a Certain Flavour"
by Peter H. Gleick ("New York Times," July 10, 2000)

BERKELEY, Calif. -- My family, like so many others, was excited about Saturday's release of yet another Harry Potter book. But although there are many legitimate reasons for praising the series -- the exciting plots, the new young readers being drawn to books, the quality of the writing -- I am disappointed about one thing: the decision by Scholastic, publisher of the American edition, to translate the books from "English" into "American." Scholastic even went so far as to change the title of the first Harry Potter book from "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." Why? Were the editors worried that some people wouldn't buy the book because they couldn't understand it in its original language? Were they concerned that some children would be confused by new words for otherwise familiar objects or actions?

I like to think that our society would not collapse if our children started calling their mothers Mum instead of Mom. And I would hate to think that today's children would be frightened away from an otherwise thrilling book by reading that the hero is wearing a jumper instead of a sweater.
Are we afraid that when presented with new vocabulary, children will shrink away? Or that alternative spellings of previously known words will make children (and adults) suddenly start spelling things wrong, sending school test scores falling?

A careful reading of both the English and the American editions of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" reveals three kinds of substitutions. The first are spelling differences: gray for grey, color for colour, flavor for flavour, pajamas for pyjamas, recognize for recognise and the like.
The second are differences in common words or phrases: pitch turns to field, sellotaped to taped, fortnight to two weeks, post to mail, boot of car to trunk of car, lorry to truck.
The third are metamorphoses of truly English experiences or objects into something different, but distinctly American: crumpets to English muffins, for example (a particular odious change, in my opinion).

My two sons didn't have any difficulty understanding the British version of the book sent to them by their aunt in London.
I admit to occasionally offering the meaning of a new word the first time it appeared, but don't we do that with every book we read to our children, or help them read to themselves?
Do we really want children to think that crumpets are the same as English muffins? Frankly, reading about Harry and Hermione eating crumpets during tea is far more interesting to an American than reading about them eating English muffins during a meal.

Are any books immune from this kind of devolution from English to "American" English? Would we sit back and let publishers rewrite Charles Dickens or Shakespeare? I can see it now: "A Christmas Song," "A Story of Two Cities," "The Salesman of Venice."
By protecting our children from an occasional misunderstanding or trip to the dictionary, we are pretending that other cultures are, or should be, the same as ours.
By insisting that everything be Americanized, we dumb down our own society rather than enrich it.
As for Harry Potter's latest adventures, my children and I will wait for the British version coming by mail.

Pickyshopper, I love seeing/hearing how other countries speak.

I learned years ago that a fortnight was 2 weeks, the boot is the trunk of a car etc.

A friend of mine was married to a New Zealander and she picked up some of his phrases. When a clerk asks if she needed any help, she would reply, No thanks, I'm just having a nosy." I think that's so cute, and I say it myself, sometimes.

Canadians have much more knowledge of and exposure to British (and Commonwealth) language and culture than most Americans do. That's easy enough, since most Americans have none. And many also no interest in knowing more.

Use of unfamiliar terms and spelling would have been a risk in the Potter books, why take the chance? I'd bet that the language and spelling changes made for our versions were probably uncontroversial and readily agreed to by both the publisher and the author.

snidely, as a Canadian student, I was taught "World History" which obviously included some history of numerous countries. We did however, cover all aspects of American history, beginning with Columbus and ending with the American soldiers being pulled out of Viet Nam in the early 70's. In contrast, we only covered a brief era of British history and never had any education about the modern U.K. at all.

Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with your assumption that Canadians' knowledge of and exposure to British language and culture is any greater than that of Americans, unless of course we choose to read about it or visit there.

Being lifelong neighbours to the U.S.A. probably explains our much stronger knowledge of your country, than to the nation we achieved independence from, 147 years ago. While we are still members of the Commonwealth, it has no real influence on our everyday lives, and there is probably a similar ratio of Canadians who are or aren't interested in anything to do with Britain, as there is in the States.

Canadians use the same vocabulary and expressions as Americans. With regard to the Harry Potter books, although the different spelling (by only one letter) of some words is the same as our Canadian spelling, none of the English vocabulary or expressions used in the books are ever used in Canada. We had to look them up if we couldn't guess at the meaning, yet this in no way decreased our enjoyment of the books. In fact, my children thought it was fun to learn some different words or phrases not spoken in Canada.

You are probably correct about the publisher and the author mutually deciding to alter the books for Americans. I simply agree with the author of the N.Y. Times article, who was insulted that the original writing was deemed too difficult for Americans to handle. I strongly doubt that Americans are any less capable of looking up a word or expression than we Canadians are, so I disagree with your feeling that it would have been a 'risk' to allow them the opportunity to read the original works of J.K. Rowling, that my fellow Canadians got to read. Knowledge of other cultures is interesting or amusing to me, but never risky.

pickyshopper, my experiences with the many Canadians I've known in the US, together with my many visits to Canada (most recently a 2 week trip a few months ago) lead me to a different view than yours. I don't know why, but a common opinion among most Canadians I've known is how well they think they know the US and how similar they think things are in Canada. It's funny to me, I don't agree with that assessment at all. To my perspective, Canada is a foreign country, its culture is similar in some respects to ours but things beyond obvious and superficial differences remain very distinct in many ways.

I've been to the UK many dozen times and I see many similarities in daily culture and life in Canada.

Most Americans know little of world history or current events elsewhere (unless it involves US persons or military), don't care about it either, and that's nothing new. No disrespect intended, but Canada population-wise is a small country living in the shadow of a big, ham-handed neighbor. Most Canadians live, what, within 150 miles of the border and probably couldn't ignore the US if they tried. In return, I think other than those living near the border on the southern side (which I don't), I think most Americans know little of Canada.

If things were the same, why have so many "cultural protection" rules been enacted in the last 50 years, limiting US content in Canadian media (for instance).

The risk I was talking about was the market risk that sales could be adversely affected if the books had the reputation of being hard to understand because of word usage.

We can disagree, that's always ok in my book.

snidely, my comment was not that Canadians know everything that an American would know about their country, but that we know much more about the U.S. than we do about Britain, because we learned American History from A to Z, but did not do so for British history. I have no doubt you've run across Canadians in your visits here who do not know all the intricacies of gov't or health care, for example, in the States. I spend the winter months in your beautiful country every year, and know that many Americans know little about how things are run here, as well. I'm sure most of us are far too busy keeping up with our own country's current events to follow or care about another country's as much.

But my point was with reference to the Harry Potter books being 'translated into American' so to speak. I understood the risk you referred to was regarding the sales aspect. I just don't believe that the odd British spelled word like 'favourite' needed to be changed to 'favorite' or the expression 'she's gone mad' had to be changed to 'she's gone crazy' and 'timetables' had to be changed to 'schedules' to be understood by Americans, but I guess that's not for me to say. Thank you for your response. We'll just agree to disagree, that's ok in my book too.

I like the "u" too. I much prefer catalogue to catalog also.

Hahaha, I love when Americans can't get over the fact that our milk comes in plastic bags!!! LOL.

I do wish we'd adopt the idea of having butter in quarters. I cut the lb of butter into 1/4 cup slices all the time, but it would be nice if ours came like yours.

Not only a difference in spelling, but totally different words with the same meaning, ie. purse and pocketbook. Canadians call a small softcover book - a pocketbook! I'm left wondering how "purse" turned into "pocketbook"????

Justlinda, I've never heard a small softcover book called a pocketbook. I've only heard (and I call it) a paperback.

To me, a pocketbook is a purse. Another case of British usage, that our language derived from.

justlinda, I'm the same as jasdip, in that I've never heard a Canadian call a softcover book a pocketbook. I've also only heard them referred to as a paperback or softcover book.

I personally call the accessory I carry with me for keys/wallet/etc. my purse, but I know they're usually referred to as handbags in stores or online. My grandmother used to call hers a pocketbook though, and that's what they were called in my childhood Nancy Drew books, too!

Oh well, ho hum, I read pocketbooks and carry a purse. I dance to a different tune, I guess.

Picky, I too don't know anyone who calls purses a pocketbook (except in books). I carry a purse and read paperbacks and hardcovers. :-)

"Pocket Books" was a publishing brand name (like Random House). It was one of the first companies to produce paperback (soft-cover) books. The company logo was a kangaroo reading a book. I think the visual suggestion for its innovative new product line was that the animal kept the smaller and lighter books in its pouch.

Thanks for explanation snidely. Sort of like calling all nose tissues "Kleenex". And, yes, some days I even do feel like a kangaroo!

snidely, thanks for the info. I definitely recall Pocket Books, now, once you described the kangaroo logo.

justinda, after reading what snidely posted, now I understand where the connection to a softcover book being called a pocketbook comes from! I just hadn't heard anyone refer to them by that name. (I'm from Ontario)

Thanks Snidely. Me too, Pickyshopper. (on both counts)

Hi picky....my life road wanders across Canada....Montreal, Que. to Ottawa, Ont. and finally Vancouver Island, BC.