Return to Answer

The poster does not make clear whether he wishes to write the phrase as a consciously reference to a non-British English term, or as a foreign expression that is entering or has entered British English. I argue that in either case second portion should be spelled “check” primarily because British English customarily adopts foreign spellings, but also because the spelling “check” as a general term for a counterfoil has long been in use in Britain.

I’m British too, but I am unsure in what context the poster wishes to use the expression — as recognized non-British expression, or on the supposition that the expression has entered or is entering the British English canon. I shall consider both possibilities, although the wording of recent offers of alternatives to refunds for cancelled airline flights shows no evidence of the latter.

In this case I argue that if one follows what is customary in British writing, a British person should spell the American expression exactly as it is spelled in the US — “rain check” (or raincheck).

What is the evidence for this practice. Consider the British English spelling of “labour” (US and Australian — “labor”). Whereas US newspapers (e.g. the New York Times) refer to the “British Labour Party” as the “British Labor Party”, British newspapers (e.g. The Times) refer to the “Australian Labor Party” with the modern Australian spelling.

Likewise the spelling of “centre” (US “center”), The Financial Times (London) refers to the “World Trade Center”, although if they referred to its location in Manhattan in the same article they would use the spelling centre.

If one considers that the US expression has entered or is entering British English, then the argument for the spelling “rain cheque” depends on the idea that the spelling “check” is not British in the sense of a voucher or receipt, and that in order to be assimilated into the language the spelling should be changed to “cheque”. However this argument is based on a false assumption that such a use of “check” is not British English. Although in this context the spelling “cheque” is older than that of “check”, OED has the following:

I find the idea of a spelling “rain cheque” seems bizarre. The use of this spelling in my experience is exclusively for financial cheques. It is ironic that someone should want to use a spelling found only in something that is rapidly disappearing. Is it for a wish to preserve a historic word or is the poster is too young to know what a cheque actually is.

The poster does not make clear whether he wishes to write the phrase as a consciously reference to a non-British English term, or as a foreign expression that is entering or has entered British English. I argue that in either case it should be spelled “check” primarily because British English customarily adopts foreign spellings, but also because the spelling “check” as a general term for a counterfoil has long been in use in Britain.

I’m British too, but I am unsure in what context the poster wishes to use the expression — as a recognized non-British expression, or on the supposition that the expression has entered or is entering the British English canon. I shall consider both possibilities, although the wording of recent offers of alternatives to refunds for cancelled airline flights shows no evidence of the latter.

(Others have given the definition, so I will assume it is known.)

In this case I argue that if one follows what is customary in British writing, a British person ‘should’ spell the American expression exactly as it is spelled in the US — “rain check” (or raincheck).

What is the evidence for what I say is customary practice? Consider the word “labour” (British spelling) or “labor” (US and Australian spelling). Whereas US newspapers (e.g. the New York Times) refer to the “British Labour Party” as the “British Labor Party”, British newspapers (e.g. The Times) refer to the “Australian Labor Party” with the modern Australian spelling.

Likewise the spelling of “centre” (US “center”). The Financial Times (London) refers to the “World Trade Center”, although if they referred to its location in Manhattan in the same article they would use the spelling centre.

If one considers, however, that the US expression has entered or is entering British English, then the argument for the spelling “rain cheque” depends on the idea that the spelling “check” is not British in the sense of a voucher or receipt, and that in order to be assimilated into the language the spelling should be changed to “cheque”.

However, this argument is based on the false assumption that such a use of “check” is not British English. Although in this context the spelling “cheque” is older than that of “check”, OED has the following:

I find the idea of a spelling “rain cheque” quite bizarre. The modern use of this spelling in Britain is, in my experience, exclusively for financial cheques. It is ironic that someone should want to adopt a spelling found only in something that is rapidly disappearing. Is it for a wish to preserve a word from extinction, or is the poster is too young to know what a cheque actually is?

As a Briton, I would say that the answer is quite simple if the question is how a British person should spell the American expression “rain check”. One should spell it exactly as in the original, because one is quoting a word from another language. One cannot use it as an British English word because it has not entered common usage in Britain.

It is long British custom not to transpose US spelling when referring to US institutions, in contrast to the reciprocal American practice. Thus, whereas US newspapers refer to the “British Labour Party” as the “British Labor Party”, British newspapers refer to the “World Trade Center”, although they might write that it was in the centre of Manhattan.

A rain check is not an institution, but I would think the same principle holds. A rather special example of this might be the adoption of the US spelling “program” in the context of computing. This is curious as it is now treated as a separate word. For example, I would write “The programme of the meeting includes a session on computer programs”.

Summary

The poster does not make clear whether he wishes to write the phrase as a consciously reference to a non-British English term, or as a foreign expression that is entering or has entered British English. I argue that in either case second portion should be spelled “check” primarily because British English customarily adopts foreign spellings, but also because the spelling “check” as a general term for a counterfoil has long been in use in Britain.

Two Possible interpretations of the Poster’s Question

I’m British too, but I am unsure in what context the poster wishes to use the expression — as recognized non-British expression, or on the supposition that the expression has entered or is entering the British English canon. I shall consider both possibilities, although the wording of recent offers of alternatives to refunds for cancelled airline flights shows no evidence of the latter.

1. ‘Rain check’ as an exclusively US English expression

This is the position supported by dictionaries I have consulted. For example, the Chambers Dictionary (iPhone edition) has:

raincheck noun (US)…

and the Cambridge dictionary on line has:

rain check noun US

In this case I argue that if one follows what is customary in British writing, a British person should spell the American expression exactly as it is spelled in the US — “rain check” (or raincheck).

What is the evidence for this practice. Consider the British English spelling of “labour” (US and Australian — “labor”). Whereas US newspapers (e.g. the New York Times) refer to the “British Labour Party” as the “British Labor Party”, British newspapers (e.g. The Times) refer to the “Australian Labor Party” with the modern Australian spelling.

Likewise the spelling of “centre” (US “center”), The Financial Times (London) refers to the “World Trade Center”, although if they referred to its location in Manhattan in the same article they would use the spelling centre.

2. ‘Rain check’ as a British English expression

If one considers that the US expression has entered or is entering British English, then the argument for the spelling “rain cheque” depends on the idea that the spelling “check” is not British in the sense of a voucher or receipt, and that in order to be assimilated into the language the spelling should be changed to “cheque”. However this argument is based on a false assumption that such a use of “check” is not British English. Although in this context the spelling “cheque” is older than that of “check”, OED has the following:

check (noun) 14

b. A token, usually a memorandum of receipt, a ticket, a piece of metal duly stamped or numbered, used for the purpose of identification, or as evidence of ownership or title: given, e.g. to the owner of luggage on the railway…

with an early example quoted:

1847 Illustr. Lond. News 4 Sept. 146/1 They will deny the receipt of a check, and exact the fare again.

As a footnote one might reiterate the catholic attitude of the British to the spelling of imported words by mentioning the adoption of the US spelling “program” in the context of computing, even though one would write about the “programme” of a meeting on the topic.

One final check

I find the idea of a spelling “rain cheque” seems bizarre. The use of this spelling in my experience is exclusively for financial cheques. It is ironic that someone should want to use a spelling found only in something that is rapidly disappearing. Is it for a wish to preserve a historic word or is the poster is too young to know what a cheque actually is.

As a Briton, I would say that the answer is quite simple if the question is how a British person should spell the American expression “rain check”. One should spell it exactly as in the original, because one is quoting a word from another language. One cannot use it as an British English word because it has not entered common usage in Britain.

It is long British custom not to transpose US spelling when referring to US institutions, in contrast to the reciprocal American practice. Thus, whereas US newspapers refer to the “British Labour Party” as the “British Labor Party”, British newspapers refer to the “World Trade Center”, although they might write (incorrectly) that it was in the centre of Manhattan.

A rain check is not an institution, but I would think the same principle holds. A rather special example of this might be the adoption of the US spelling “program” in the context of computing. This is curious as it is now treated as a separate word. For example, I would write “The programme of the meeting includes a session on computer programs”.

As a Briton, I would say that the answer is quite simple if the question is how a British person should spell the American expression “rain check”. One should spell it exactly as in the original, because one is quoting a word from another language. One cannot use it as an British English word because it has not entered common usage in Britain.

It is long British custom not to transpose US spelling when referring to US institutions, in contrast to the reciprocal American practice. Thus, whereas US newspapers refer to the “British Labour Party” as the “British Labor Party”, British newspapers refer to the “World Trade Center”, although they might write that it was in the centre of Manhattan.

A rain check is not an institution, but I would think the same principle holds. A rather special example of this might be the adoption of the US spelling “program” in the context of computing. This is curious as it is now treated as a separate word. For example, I would write “The programme of the meeting includes a session on computer programs”.