Wow, this thread wasn't here when I looked yesterday! A lot of interesting discussions.
As far as quaint goes, whether it's a good thing or not, I think it all depends on the tone of voice. For instance, a tourist in Holland (Michigan) might see some clog dancers and exclaim "How quaint!" in glee and interest. Conversely, Lois might be stranded somewhere, and see an old-style phone without a dial (where you press the handle a few times to get the operator) and mutter "How quaint" in disgust. However, "quite" and "quaint" together keeps bringing to mind an episode of Tiny Toons, when Babs and Buster were saying in snooty voices, "How quaint. Quite. Quite quaint" or something along those lines.
"Clark got angry" vs "Clark had got/gotten angry" -- The other day on IRC we had a discussion on past tense, and past perfect tense. The first phrase would be used in the past tense, as in most of the stories here. The second phrase would be used when relating something in the story that had happened previously, as in a memory. The rest is up to US/UK differences.
"For whom" is grammatically correct, but not socially correct. If you say "whom" in a normal conversation, at least in the US, people will look at you oddly. This can go with eether/ayther when pronouncing either, also. I've trained myself to say ayther instead of eether because I thought it sounded better, and my boss has ragged me about it a few times.
I've heard solicitor to mean lawyer, but that was usually only in UK terms. To me, a solicitor is annoying people who try to sell you stuff. "Who was that at the door?" "Gah, just another stupid solicitor." Though, even then, I think I'd use salesman, but both will work.
I think I've read so many US, UK, and older stories, that my mind tends to translate idioms on the fly. Either that, or my brain isn't picking up all the words, and just going by context. It's only when it's really different that I get thrown.
