Well, it may have been a euphemism once, but apparently it’s official government terminology now:
Making staff redundant
So it seems the government have elevated the term to “respectability”.
As for subway, hey that’s a pedestrian underpass in the US…
Hey, we didn’t do windscreen v. windshield yet?
I am still waiting for the pudding kerfuffle. We have to do that one first.
That one’s easy. The thing in front of your face that keeps the wind out when you’re driving is the windshield. A windscreen is the framed thing in the back of convertible sports cars which is actually like a window screen and whose purpose is to reduce wind turbulence in the passenger area.
You may never have heard this distinction before because I just made it up, but I declare it to be so. This time the US wins. If any Brits want to argue, remember that I agree with you on fish and chips, but I’ll side with the Americans if you piss me off.
I don’t know what you’re trying to do. Persuade me to like the word? For the purposes of this game it seems to me that a shady origin is fair game for an opinion.
UK: biscuit (sweet) or biscuit (savory)
US: cookie or cracker
I have no problem with the UK usage of biscuit, but the US model is more efficient in terms of ambiguity. It also leaves the word biscuit free to unambiguously refer to a different foodstuff that is apparently unknown in British cuisine.
“Redundant” is one of the UK terms in this thread I object to most for the reasons given. It does indeed sound like they accidentally discovered someone was already doing your job, so sorry.
There are some terms I agree with also, but what’s the fun in posting “me too!” 
UK: car park
US: parking lot
Meh. Slight advantage to US. Because it’s not really a park, is it.
UK: driving license
US: driver’s license
A draw
UK: drink driving
US: drunken driving
Oh, definitely US, maybe even a three-point basket for the US on this one.
UK: chemist
US: pharmacist (old fashioned: druggist)
US. He’s not a chemist
UK: surgery
US: office hours
Are you kidding me? There’s no surgery going on in there. I hope not, anyway.
UK: surgery
US: clinic or examination room
Again, US. A surgery is where a surgeon performs surgery, not where a physician looks down your throat.
UK: in theatre
US: in surgery
Now, see, this is what “surgery” means. Clearly US.
UK: potato chips // potato crisps
US: french fries (french-fried potatoes) // potato chips
Meh, I can’t get worked up about this. Draw.
UK: aubergine
US: eggplant
UK: courgette
US: zucchini squash
UK: braces
US: suspenders
UK: pants // trousers // vest // waistcoat
US: underpants // pants // undershirt // vest
These are all a draw. All just part of the wonderful diversity of life.
UK: candyfloss
US: cotton candy
UK. More fun
UK: jam // jam // jam // marmalade // jelly
US: jelly // jam // preserves // marmalade // gelatin dessert (Jell-O)
Gotta go with the precision of the US model here.
Not at all. There’s nothing dishonest about the word itself, which has a clear and unambiguous meaning and is not at all vague, the most usual sense being that a reorganization or technological change of some kind has made the job no longer necessary. It really does happen. If a company chooses to use the word dishonestly, blame the company, not the language.
I consume a lot of British media content, and I have never encountered it being used in this literal sense. Maybe it sometimes still means that, but that’s not the usage I’m objecting to.
I’m objecting to the usage which I actually see, which is as a synonym for “sacked” or “fired” or “laid off” or “dismissed,” regardless of the reason. And it is in fact the usage that was brought up first in this thread.
Regardless, “redundancy” has a specific legal definition under UK law which carries the meaning that the job is no longer necessary. Corporations definitely love their euphemisms and may indeed use the term in a contrived or dishonest way in casual communication, but if they use it in a legal context they may have to prove that the description is legitimate.
There are a lot of words that have legal or institutional definitions. I don’t see how that’s at all relevant to this discussion. We’re talking about which words we like better. An official definition isn’t a trump card in that—it’s not even a factor.
Official or legal terms aren’t handed down in stone. Someone had to choose them, and we’re talking about preferences here, so in that context there’s zero difference between a word that has a legal definition and one that doesn’t.
Again, I don’t know what you’re trying to do here. Persuade me that my opinion about a word is wrong? Because the government has mandated it? How is that even a thing?
OK, I don’t want to go too far off track on this, but if you’re asking what my point is, it’s that you claimed that you “have never encountered [the word ‘redundancy’] being used in this literal sense”, and I’m saying that under s.139 of the Employment Rights Act, this is the only sense in which the word can legally be used. Which suggests that it’s used in the legitimate sense a lot more often than you may have thought. Because indeed, in the modern workplace, job redundancy happens quite a lot. We shouldn’t stigmatize a useful word just because some have misused it.
And now, we return you to our regularly scheduled Brit vs. American silliness. 
To return to your original comment…
I’m not sure why you are applying a narrow sense of “duplicative of someone else’s job”. The word redundant can just mean “not needed”, and that’s what it means in reference to employment too. If you are made redundant it just means (literally, not euphemistically or dishonestly) that your role is not needed, and the company will no longer employ anyone to do your job.
See here, for example (a UK site, obviously):
https://www.totaljobs.com/careers-advice/redundant/what-is-redundancy
So I think you are mistaken in thinking there is any euphemism or semantic dishonesty in the word.
What it cannot mean is that they are firing you and replacing you with someone else. But that would go beyond euphemism, it would be blatant deception, and probably a violation of employment law, as wolfpup says.
Brit: left turn
US: right turn
Now, you put your left foot in the stirrup first, a bicycle has its chain on the right so you get on it from the left, a man mounts his wife from the left side, why would you get in the driver’s seat from the right-hand side? Clearly the US, with the support of most of the rest of the world wins this one. Compare the British usage of “inside lane”, which is the exact same side of the road as in the US, which obviously means the Brits recognize the truth of their error.
I beg your pardon. :eek:
Brit: Philosopher’s Stone
US: Sorcerer’s Stone
Result: US, probably by several hundred millions in the box office.
Brit: tube
US: subway
Result: British. So many things could come to your mind from the word.
Brit: fighter jet
US: jet / fighter
Result: British (removes confusion and the need for a catchy name like eagle or tomcat)
Brit: lift
US: elevator
Result: British. No contest.
This was previously addressed, leading Ludovic to suggest “Plus then you can have the elevator company “Schindler’s Lifts”.”, which is clearly wrong, because Oskar Schindler’s specialty was not mechanics: the company would have been manufacturing shoes for the likes of Vern Troyer.
Which brings us to,
Brit: speciality
US: specialty
What the hell is this weird dichotomy? First the Brits go and add unnecessary syllables to words that have no use for them, and then they just drop them (“Leicester”) because they are too much trouble to utter. Several points for the American language.
With rail matters having been revived, in the above post: being a railfan, I’ll add some remarks / additional UK / US differences in this field.
We in the UK use “coach” alternatively to “carriage” as above, for passenger stock.
The person who does the driving – of a separate locomotive, anyway – is:
UK driver
US engineer (I believe, anyway)
I’ll tend to get into archaic rail stuff henceforth (confess, in this hobby, to liking old times more than the present day).
Employee who travels in the make-up of the train and ensures as best possible that all is going right: in former times, this bod was – on both passenger and freight trains:
UK guard
US conductor
(“conductor” has in more recent times, come widely into use for this job in the UK).
(In the days of steam locomotives, there was a term used in common on both sides of the Atlantic: the guy who looked after the loco’s fuel supply and kept its fire burning appropriately, and assisted the driver / engineer, was – in both places – the fireman.)
The vehicle placed, in former times, at the end of every freight train, in which the guard / conductor travelled (virtually always a four-wheeled vehicle in UK, usually a bogie one in US):
UK brake van / guard’s van / some lines in the south of England weirdly called it a “road van”
US caboose
UK diesel railcar
US rail diesel car
Getting into the subject of “the place where you get on to and off trains”: there is in Britain the “train station / railway station” debate – “train station”, getting increasingly widespread in use in the UK, is seen as an Americanism. Some of the more pedantic British railfans get furiously angry about the use of “train station” – I prefer “railway station”, but don’t see the issue as worth spilling blood over.
I have the impression that in former times in the US – not any longer, it seems – railroad “depot” was often used, interchangeably with “station”. Also in former times, if I’m right – both terms, I believe, fallen into disuse: the chief employee at a station, in command there, was
UK stationmaster
US station agent
One can dispute over whether the UK word “railway” or US “railroad”, is preferable; but I find it interesting that the English language seems to be unique or at least an outlier, in its “rail” reference in its words for this mode of transport. In the equivalent expressions in all European languages of which I have any knowledge, the word for “rail” doesn’t feature – in most cases, the word / expression for “railway”, equates to “iron road” or “iron way”.
But there is a lift manufacturer called Schindler. It was just a joke to call them Schindler’s Lifts after the movie came out.