듣는 것이 많았다 or 들은 것이 많다?

I am currently reading the Korean idiom book on the left each morning while drinking my morning cup of coffee. It averages a little less than two idiom explanations per page, so it is the kind of book you can pick up and read for only five minutes a day and still benefit from. I usually spend about thirty minutes or more on it each morning.

I like the book, but I often get the feeling that the person explaining the Korean idioms has tried to write the explanations in an English style of Korean rather than a traditional Korean style. Several of the explanations seem awkward, at best. I am confused because the three people who collaborated on the book seem to be qualified, except that the person who actually wrote the explanations was an English Literature major rather than a Korean language major, which might explain the awkwardness.

Anyway, today I came across the following example sentence in the book that made me stop short:

견문이 넓은 그와 동무해서 일을 하다보니 듣는 것이 많았다.

Is 듣는 것이 많았다 correct? Shouldn't it be 들은 것이 많다? Doesn't it look like the writer was trying to write the Korean version of the English present perfect continuous or something?

Anyway, if I had written the sentence, I would have done it as follows:

• 견문이 넓은 그와 동무해서 일을 하다보니 들은 것이 많다.
  He is well-informed, and I have heard many things after becoming acquainted and working with him.

Does 빠지다 mean "to fall into a trap" or "to escape"?

It think it can mean both. Consider the following examples.

• 함정에 빠지다.
  Fall into a trap.
• 함정에서 빠지다.
  Escape from a trap.

Koreans may not actually say 함정에서 빠지다, but they do say 함정에서 빠져나오다 and 함정에서 빠져나가다, which suggests that 함정에서 빠지다 should also be possible. Besides, my dictionary says that 빠지다 also means "escape" (탈출하다). The only difference between "falling into a trap" and "escaping from a trap" would, therefore, be whether one uses the preposition 에 (in) for "falling into a trap" or the preposition 에서 (from) for "escaping from a trap."

I started thinking about this question after reading an explanation for the Korean expression 독 안에 들다.

'독'은 입구가 바닥보다 넓고 배가 볼록하며 양옆에 손잡이가 달린 오지그릇이나 질그릇을 말한다. 주로 장을 담그는 데 쓰인다. '독 안에 든 쥐'라는 말이 있다. 쥐가 실수로 독 안에 빠지면 그곳에서 빠져나올 수 없다. 이와 마찬가지로 '어떤 포위망이나 함정 따위에서 아무리 벗어나려 해도 벗어날 수 없는, 영락없이 붙잡히게 된 처지'를 일컬을 때 이 말을 한다.

As you can see in the above Korean explanation, 빠져나올 수 없다 was used with the meaning of being "unable to escape," which means 빠져나오다 was used with the meaning of "to escape." Moreover, notice that 벗어나다 was also used to mean "escape."

What is the difference between 빠져나오다 and 벗어나다? My guess is that 빠져나오다 is used when one has a "narrow escape" from a near capture while 벗어나다 is used when one escapes after having already been captured. Or is it the other way around or neither? I do not know, so I hope that some of the native Koreans that read this blog will give me their opinions.

빠지다 is a verb that deserves more explanation, but my 10-year-old son is bugging me to take him out to lunch, so I have to stop here.

Is this baby cying 닭똥 같은 눈물?

In the caption of the video, the mother describes her baby's crying as pretty, but then goes on to describe her tears as 닭똥 같은 눈물, which means "tears like chicken shit." Some people may think "chicken-shit tears" are pretty, but is that baby really crying chicken-shit tears?



닭똥 같은 눈물 are tears that form around the edges of the eyes into big teardrops that eventually succumb to gravity and fall to the ground, supposedly like droppings from a chicken's butt. However, as anyone who has ever watched a chicken poop knows, a person crying chicken-shit tears would need to have his or her head bowed so that the tears drop directly from the eyes to the ground rather than run down the face. Therefore, since the baby in the video is crying while lying on her back, those tears cannot be "chicken-shit tears."

What does 눈이 보이지 않다 mean?

보다 means "to see," and its passive is, 보이다, which means "to be visible." The negative form of 보이다 is 보이지 않다, which means "is not visible." If you wanted to say, "The mountain is not visible," you would say, 산이 보이지 않다." Therefore, wouldn't 눈이 보이지 않다 mean "(Someone's) eyes are not visible"?

My dictionary says that 눈이 보이지 않다 means "to be blind," but if that is the case, then how do you say, "(Someone's) eyes are not visible" because of long hair, a veil, sunglasses or whatever? What's the deal?

My theory is as follows:

눈이 보이지 않다" can mean both "eyes are not visible" and "blind," depending on which 보이다 is used.

There are actually two 보이다s. One is the passive 보이다, which means "to be visible," and the other is the causative 보이다, which means "to show." The passive 보이다 is used when you want to say someone's "eyes are not visible," and the causative 보이다 is used when you want to say someone "is blind."

The causative 보이다 is a transitive verb. That means it can be used with an object. When Koreans say 눈이 보이지 않다 to mean "blind," however, they have omitted the object and are literally just saying, "Eyes do not show." However, the implied meaning is, "The eyes do not show anything," which would be "눈이 아무것도 보이지 않다." A blind person's eyes do not show anything.

Since the sentences for "eyes are not visible" and "blind" are written the same, the only way to distinguish between them would be to look at the surrounding sentences. However, since 눈이 멀다 also means "to be blind," why not use it to mean "blind," and save 눈이 보이지 않다 to mean "eyes are not visible"?

Words and expressions related to "eyesight"

What does 넉살이 좋다 mean?

My dictionary defines 넉살 as follows:

• shamlessness; impudence; cheekiness; brazen-facedness; sauciness; sassiness

It defines 넉살이 좋다 as follows:

• behave shamelessly [saucily]; act brazenly [audaciously]

If a foreign student of Korean were to look at just the above definitions, he might assume that 넉살이 좋다 could substitute for 뻔뻔하다, but he would be wrong because 넉살이 좋다 has a positive connotation while 뻔뻔하다 has a negative one.

넉살이 좋다 is used to refer to thick-skinned people who are not easily embarrassed or offended. Such people would probably laugh off an insult and ask questions that some may consider to be too bold or too personal.

Based on my understanding of the expression, I think I have met many Koreans who I would describe as 넉살이 좋다. For example, I would use it to describe the curious Korean taxi driver who asks questions that some might consider to be too bold or too personal. I would also use it to describe the Korean student who comes up to me on the street and asks if he or she can practice English with me. Some foreigners may be annoyed by such people and consider them to be 뻔뻔하다, but I am somewhat impressed by the boldness and straightforwardness of such people and would, therefore, probably consider them to be only 넉살이 좋다.

I am not sure of the orgin of 넉살, but I remember it by translating it as "four skins," which implies "thick skin." A thick-skinned person is someone who is "not easily offended."

Here is a Korean explanation: '넉살'과 '언죽전죽'

같지않다 is not the opposite of 같다?

같다 is an adjective that has several meanings, including the following:

1. the same; identical (with)
2. equal (to); uniform; equivalent (to)
3. like; alike; as
4. seem; appear
5. worthy of; becoming

One might expect that 같지않다, abbreviated to 같잖다, would be the negative of 같다 and mean something like "not the same," but 같잖다 is defined as follows:

1. foolish; silly; absurd; improper; bothersome
2. trifle; trivial; small; slight; insignificant

Here are some example sentences using 같잖다:

• 같잖은 물건
  a worthless object
• 같잖은 녀석
  a good-for-nothing fellow
• 같잖은 일로 화를 내다
  get angry at trifles
• 같잖은 소리를 하다
  talk impudently (to); give (a person) cheek (some lip)

So, my question is this: If I were to say, 이것과 그것이 같잖다, would I be saying, "This and that are worthless," or "This and that are not the same"?

Why do Koreans say 같은 양의 물 instead of 같은 양인 물?

I was doing some research and came across the expression 같은 양의 물, which means "the same amount of water." For some reason, it got me wondering why Koreans say 같은 양의 물 instead of 같은 양인 물. They say 같은 양이다 (the same amount), so why not 같은 양인 물? I searched Google for "같은 양인 물," but got not even one hit. Even when I tried searching on 양이 같은 물, I got only one hit. What's the deal?

Whenever I see the possessive marker 의 in a phrase, it makes me think it might be a Koreanized form of a Japanese or English phrase, and I try to change it into what I think would be a more traditional style of Korean by removing the 의. For example, if I saw the phrase 같은 나이의 사람, I would want to change it to 같은 나이인 사람 or 나이 같은 사람, but according to Google, 같은 나이의 사람 is more popular with Koreans. What's the deal?

I think more and more Koreans are using 의 phrases because more and more Koreans are studying English, and 의 phrases seem to be a more direct translation of English "of" phrases. For example, 같은 양의 물 is a word-for-word translation of the English phrase," the same amount of water": 같은(the same) 양(amount) 의(of) 물(water).

I am not sure, but it seems like 의 is killing off traditional Korean expressions, like a weed kills off flowers in a garden. Maybe phrases like 같은 양의 물 (the same amount of water) and 같은 수의 물건 (the same number of items) are correct, but there is something about 의 that makes me dislike them.

The difference between 벗어지다 & 벗겨지다?

벗다 and 벗기다 can both mean "to take off" or "remove" articles of clothing, but the difference is that 벗다 is used to refer to taking off "one's own clothing" while 벗기다 is used to refer to taking off "another person's clothing." See the examples:

• 여자가 외투을 벗었다.
  She took off her overcoat.


• 남자가 그 여자 외투을 벗겼다.
  He helped her take off her overcoat.

벗기다 can also be used to refer to removing a covering from an object. See the examples:

• 감자 껍질을 벗기다.
  Peel potatoes.


• 오란지 껍질을 벗기다.
  Peel oranges.


• 콩깍지를 벗기다.
  Shell beans.


• 담요를 벗기다.
  Remove a blanket.


• 녹을 벗기다.
  Remove rust.


• 인디언들이 개척자 머리 껍질을 벗겼다.
  Indians scalped the settlers.

벗다 and 벗기다 were used as transitive verbs above since they referred to someone removing "an object." However, if you add the passive ending "~어지다" to 벗다 and 벗기다, they become the intransitive verbs 벗어지다 and 벗겨지다.

벗어지다 is used when objects fall off without outside force while 벗겨지다 is used when objects fall out with outside force. See the examples:

• 치마가 느슨해서 자꾸 벗어진다.
  My skirt is loose, so it keeps slipping off.
• 치마가 못에 걸려서 벗겨졌다.
  My skirt caught on a nail and was pulled off.
• 이른 나이에 머리가 벗어졌다.
  I have gone bald prematurely.
• 교통 사고로 머리 가죽이 벗겨졌다.
  His scalp was peeled off in the car accident.

Some Koreans mistakenly say 머리가 벗겨진다 to refer to balding, but the correct way to say it is 머리가 벗어진다 since balding refers to hair falling out without outside force. Maybe the reason that Koreans mistakenly say 머리가 벗겨진다 is that 벗기다 is also the passive of 벗다. Therefore, 머리가 벗긴다, without the ~어지다 ending, should also mean "to go bald," but my Google search could not find any examples of it.

What does 깡통(을) 차다 mean?

깡통 refers to an "empty can." 차다 can mean either "to kick" or "to attach." If you use 차다 with the meaning "to kick," then 깡통을 차다 means "to kick a can," but if you use 차다 to mean "to attach," then it refers to "begging with a tin can." To avoid confusion, it would probably be better to say "발로 깡통을 차다" when you want to say "kick a can" since 발로 means "with one's foot."

Korean beggars used to beg with dried, hollowed out goard halves, but during the Korean War and for somethime afterwards, beggers used empty tin cans (깡통) that were apparently attached (차다) to themselves in some way. Therefore, the expression 깡통을 차다 triggers images of a time during and after the Korean war rather than a time before the war.

Today, 깡통(을) 차다 is used idiomatically to mean the following:

• to be reduced to begging
• to go bankrupt
• to go bust
• to go to pot

By the way, if 깡통 means "empty can," why do Koreans call a "can opener" a 깡통 따개? Wouldn't an "empty can" already be opened? Likewise, 깡통 맥주 (can beer) does not make sense, either, since it literally means, "empty can beer."

Who is John Frankl?

Do not believe THE CLAIM that foreign adults cannot master the Korean language. The video link below is evidence that they can.

The video is an interview with 42-year-old, American John Frankl, who is an Associate Professor of Asian Literature at the Underwood International College (UIC) at Yonsei University. He started studying Korean in 1987 while majoring in English Literature at UC Berkley. He came to Korea as an exchange student in 1988 and studied for one year at Yonsei University. When he finished his undergraduate program at Berkley, he came back to Yonsei and started a Master's course in Korean Literature. He got his Master's in 1993 and then went to Harvard University, where he got his Ph.D. in 2003. He became a professor at UIC in 2005. He is not only fluent in Korean, he also has a black belt in Jiu Jitsu. Information on John Frankl

Video of Korean Interview with John Frankl

"Is the Korean Language Scientific?"

It is often said that Hangeul (한글) is one of the most scientific alphabets in the world, but I do not think I have ever heard that the Korean language, itself, is one of the world's most scientific languages. Nevertheless, in a Korea Times article, columnist Jon Huer asked the question, "Is the Korean language scientific?" His conclusion was essentially "No." Read the article HERE.

Jon Huer wrote the following:

In truly scientific systems, there are no inner and outer circles. But the Korean language is generally considered the most secretly-guarded code system among the world's major languages. There is no way an "outsider," who is not born into this circle, can crack the code of the Korean language, no matter how long one devotes oneself to its mastery. Its grammar and syntax are capable of so much situational variation and impromptu adaptation that only the native can get the feel of the language. Anyone who is encouraged by the scientific claim and tries to learn the language soon finds that he is merely scratching the surface after years of devoted study.

Koreans used to say quite often that the Korean language was too difficult for "foreigners" (outsiders) to learn, much less master, just as Mr. Huer has said in the above quote, but I never believed that and still do not believe it. Yes, the Korean language has been difficult for me to learn, but I think the main reason for that was that most of my Korean teachers did not know how to teach the language to foreigners and did not really expect me to learn it, anyway. Plus, I was a slow learner.

You cannot expect foreigners to "crack the (Korean) code" when Koreans, themselves, are still trying to crack it. When I started learning Korean, there were not many good books explaining the language to foreigners, teaching techniques were poor, and Korean teachers, themselves, did not really seem to know enough about their language to explain the problems foreigners were having. Moreover, it seemed that Korean teachers had low expectations for foreigners' learning Korean and seemed to teach accordingly. I often got the feeling that I was being taught as if I were a young child.

My very first Korean language lesson started with the Korean instructor pointing a pointer at animals on a chart and pronouncing their names in Korean. I do not remember their being anything written under the pictures, and even if there was Korean written under the pictures, we had not yet learned to read it. We were just supposed to memorize the names of the animals by repeating them one or two times after he pronounced them. The teacher taught with little or no enthusiasm, and discouraged questions. We were just supposed to follow his instructions. Children may be able to learn that way, but not me, nor many other adults, I would think.

When I first started speaking Korean, Koreans tended not to correct me. They would just smile, nod their head, and say in English, "You speak Korean very well," even if I had only said, "Annyeonghaseyo?" With such low expectations for foreigners, is it any wonder that so few of us ever became fluent in Korean?

These days things have changed a lot. Good books are starting to come out, Koreans are learning how to teach Korean to foreigners, and Koreans are expecting more from non-native Korean speakers and are correcting them when they make mistakes.

There is nothing especially difficult about the Korean language. Foreigners can learn the language if they and their teachers are motivated and have the right teaching and learning materials. In regard to Jon Huer's claim that foreigners are incapable of mastering the Korean language, I think Mr. Huer will be eating his words in a few years.

What does 궤도(軌道) mean?

Here are the meanings of 궤도 (軌道) in my dictionary:

1. an orbit; a circle
2. a (railroad) track
3. a track (in the figurative sense)

The Chinese character 軌(궤) originally referred to the distance between the wheels of a cart, which could have been determined by measuring the distance between the tracks it left on a road. The character 軌(궤) is made up of the characters 車(cart) and 九(nine). Nine was a number that the Chinese also used to mean "many." The combination of the two characters, therefore, literally meant "many carts." Many carts following the same tracks would have left a fixed set of tracks on a road, which would have been hard to deviate from, especially if they were deep tracks. Since the character 道 (도) means "road," 궤도 essentially means a "tracked road."

I assume that the idea of "orbit" developed from the fact that the tracks on a road are equal distance from each other, just as an orbiting object in space would be from the surface of the earth.

Here are the expressions my dictionary gave for 궤도.

• 궤도 기중기 -- a gantry (crane)
• 궤도면 -- a plane of orbit
• 궤도를 벗어나다 -- go out of orbit
• 궤도 부설 -- track construction
• 궤도 비행 -- an orbital flight
• 궤도 속도 -- an orbital velocity
• 궤도 운동 -- an orbital motion
• 궤도에 오르다 -- be started along the right lines
• 궤도에 올라 있다 -- be well under way
• 궤도에 올리다 -- set (a business corporation) on its way
• 궤도 체류 연수 -- orbital life
• 궤도축 -- the axis of an orbit
• 궤도 표시기 -- a track indicator
• 극궤도 -- a polar orbit
• 단선 궤도 -- a single track
• 달 궤도 -- a lunar orbit
• 대기 궤도 -- a parking orbit
• 복선 궤도 -- a double railroad track
• 위성을 궤도에 올려놓다 -- put a satellite into orbit
• 위성의 궤도를 수정하다 -- adjust the orbit of a satellite
• 원궤도 -- circular orbit
• 인공 위성이 궤도에 올랐다 -- The satellite has gone into orbit.
• 전기 궤도 -- an electric tramway
• 전위 궤도 -- transfer orbit
• 정지 궤도 -- a geostationary orbit
• 주기 궤도 -- a synchronous orbit
• 지구 궤도 -- the earth's orbit
• 타원 궤도 -- the elliptic orbit
• 편심 궤도 -- an eccentric orbit

값없다 -- Priceless or worthless?

"Priceless" refers to something that is so rare or unique that people would not sell it for any price. "Worthless," on the other hand, refers to something so common or something of so poor quality that people would not pay anything for it. Therefore, priceless and worthless have completely opposite meanings. However, in Korean, the adjective 값없다 is used for both words, so to figure out which meaning is being used, you have to look at the rest of the sentence.

• 너무 귀해서 값없다.
  It is so rare that it is priceless.
• 너무 흔해서 값없다.
  It is so common that it is worthless.

Also, 값없다 is an adjective, not a verb, so when you use it in front of a noun, shouldn't it be written as 값없은 instead of 값없는? If you do a Google search on 값없은 and 값없는, you will find that both forms are being used. Which is the correct form? The example sentence in my Korean dictionary is 값없는 물건 (a worthless object), but shouldn't it be 값없은 물건 since 값없다 is an adjective?

The opposite of 없다 (to not exist) is 있다 (to exist), but 있다 is a verb while 없다 is an adjective. Why? Even though 없다 is an adjective, my dictionary and many Koreans write 없는 instead of 없은. Again, why?

Why? Why? Why? Why is Korean so inscrutable, sometimes?

By the way, 값없다 is pronounced as /갑업따/, which is actually pronounced as /가법따/.

What's the difference between 할 때 & 했을 때?

I was reading an explanation of the Korean expression "끽 소리도 못하다" and came across the following sentence:

"끽"은 놀라거나 당황했을 때 힘을 다하여 내지르는 외마디소리를 나타내는 부사이다.

The adverb "ggik" is a short scream that is made when one is surprised or in a panic.

Notice that the Korean says 당황했을 때 instead of 당황할 때. Why?

Shouldn't it be 당황할 때 since 나타내는 implies that Koreans still use the scream? If 끽 were a scream that Koreans used in the past but no longer use, then 당황했을 때 would make sense to me, but since Koreans still scream 끽 when they are surprised, I think 당황할 때 would be more appropriate. Am I missing something here?

The expression came from a book entitled "우리말 숙어 1000 가지."

Is 살다 a verb or an adjective?

살다 means "to live," in both the sense of "to be alive" and in the sense of "to reside (somewhere)." It is an intransitive verb (자동사), not an adjective, so why do Koreans seem to use it as if it were an adjective (형용사)? Even my dictionary does it. What is the deal?

My dictionary gives the following example for the verb 살다 (to be alive).

산 짐승을 함부로 죽이면 안 된다.
You should not indiscriminately kill live animals

In the sentence, 산 짐승 is used to mean "live animals," but this is not following the rules for using verbs to modify nouns.

In Korean, there are 동작동사 (action verbs) and 상태동사 (static verbs). Even though both names use the word "verb," 상태동사 (static verbs) are referring to what we would generally call "adjectives" in English. Therefore, 가다 (to go) would be a 동작동사, and 예쁘다 (pretty) would be a 상태동사.

In Korean, 동작동사 (action verbs) and 상태동사 (static verbs) can both be used to modify nouns, but the forms are different. The forms for action verbs are more complicated, so let's start with the forms for static verbs, which are simpler.

To modify a noun with a 상태동사 (static verb), just add ㄴ or 은 to the static verb stem. If the verb ends in a vowel, add ㄴ; and if it ends in a consonant, add 은:

• 예쁜 여자
  pretty girl
  .
• 작은 집
  small house

Static verbs (상태동사) generally do not change with time. Though a pretty girl may age, in the short term, her beauty does not change. For example, if she was pretty yesterday, she will be pretty now, and she will be pretty tomorrow. Also, if a house was small yesterday, it will be small now, and it will be small tomorrow. Therefore, when using static verbs, there is usually no need to use different forms to distinguish verb tense. However, when using action verbs to modify nouns, there is a time distinction.

When using action verbs (동작동사) to modify nouns, Koreans add 는 to the verb stem when the action is ongoing, ㄴ/은 when the action is completed, and ㄹ/을 when the action is in the future.

• 가는 사람
  the man that is going
  .
• 간 사람
  the man that went
  .
• 갈 사람
  the man that will go

Now, since 살다 (to live) is an action verb, it should follow the same rules as 가다 (to go) and distinguish verb tenses. Therefore, 살다 examples should be as follows:

• 사는 동물
  an animal that is living
  .
• 산 동물
  an animal that lived (in the past)
  .
• 살 동물
  an animal that will live (in the future)

Now, let's look again at my dictionary's example sentence for 살다:

산 짐승을 함부로 죽이면 안 된다.
You should not indiscriminately kill live animals

If we consider the rules for using action verbs to modify nouns, then wouldn't 산 동물 be referring to animals that used to live but are no longer alive? How can someone kill an animal that is no longer living?

Why are Korean dictionaries using 살다 as an adjective when it is listed as a verb?

Likewise, why do Koreans say "산오징어" instead of "사는 오징어" to refer to "live squid"?

Is this what "머리에 쥐가 나다" means?

How is it different from a headache?



머리에 쥐가 나다 is used when one has a problem that weighs on one's mind. It does not refer to physical head pain. I think it could be translated as, "I have a problem that is bothering me."

How many different ways can rice be described?

Can you fill in the blank?

• 밥이 _______________.

Suggested Answers

1. 밥이 질다.
   The rice is mushy.
2. 밥이 꼬들꼬들하다"
   The rice is hard and dry. (Thanks Surfyam.)
3. .

Can you read handwritten Hangeul?

Do Koreans really say things like this?

This is the beginning of a list of expressions I come across that seem a little strange to me and that I am a little suspicious of. As I get answers, I will write "Solved" and what I have learned under each expression. Please feel free to comment.

• 발에 땀이 나도록 뛰다 -- Run until your feet sweat.
  .
  SOLVED: I thought this expression was strange because we do not have to run very far for our feet to start sweating. I have learned that this expression probably came from 개발에 땀나다, which means "sweat on a dog's foot." Dogs do not really sweat except for places like around their ears and on the pads of their paws, but a dog would have to run pretty hard before one would notice the pads of its paws sweating, so Koreans use 개발에 땀나다 to emphasize that someone is doing something, such as working or running, especially hard. The following is an example of how it can be used:
  
  * 개발에 땀나겠다. 좀 쉬어가면서 해라.
  A dog's paw would sweat. Do it while taking some breaks.
  ..
• 머리에 쥐가 나도록 뛰다 -- Run until your head cramps.
  
  SOLVED: 쥐 means "cramp" or "charley horse," so the above expression seemed strange since I had never heard of someone getting a cramp in their head. However, I have been told, and one of our commenters has confirmed, that 머리에 쥐가 나다 does not refer to a physcial cramp, but to a mental cramp. In other words, it is used when someone has a perplexing problem weighing on his or her mind. Therefore, I think 머리에 쥐가 나다 could be translated as, "I have a problem that is bothering me," which suggests that it was used inappropriately in the above sentence.
  
  Apparently, even some Koreans are confused by the expression, judging from comments HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Are you a Super Expatriate Man?

This is a little off topic, but I love it.

By the way, in Texas, we also use the Canadian spelling.