You're correct that "o" is US and "ou" is non-US. It'd be considered bad style to switch between them in the same text. Generally, you should just choose one style and use it consistently, and you will be understood. I've heard a rule that if you're writing for a mostly American audience, you should use the American spelling, and otherwise use the international forms, but that may not even be necessary.
One place that mixing styles is allowed is when quoting verbatim from text, or in technical literature where spellings must be retained exactly:
I asked him what colour he wanted, and he said "I'm no good at picking colors".
The color: #ffffff;
property indicates a text colour of white.
Before 1600, the OED gives citations where forty is spelled in various ways, but never with just an "o" vowel:
- feuortig, feortiȝ, fuwerti, uourty (the "u" is really a "v"), fourty, fourthi, fourtie
This might possibly mean that there was some actual diphthong leading to these spellings; since most of these spellings occurred before there was any standardization, it is hard to tell either way.
In 1600, there are three citations, and, interestingly, all of them have just "o":
- 1602 Contention Liberalitie & Prodigalitie i. iv. sig. B2, "Cham sure chaue come, vorty miles and twenty."
- a1642 J. Suckling Poems (1646) 37, "And there did I see comming down Such folks as are not in our Town Vorty at least, in Pairs."
- 1698 J. Fryer New Acct. E.-India & Persia 94, At the end of their Quarentine, which is Forty days.
(We can ignore the "v/f" alternation — something was apparently going with the voicing at the beginning of this word, but it probably has no bearing on the vowel following it.)
Aside from one citation in the 1700s that uses fourty, everything else from then on is written as forty.
One can only guess the reason for this change (at least with the information that I have) — whether it was pronunciation shifting or just orthographic simplification. But I might have an explanation for why this spelling took hold so swiftly in the 1600s: the Bible. The King James edition of the Bible was a major influence on the standards in English spelling. The KJV Bible was published in 1611 (begun in 1604), and (since I happen to have a KJV corpus handy) I see that there are 158 tokens with the spelling forty in KJV and 0 tokens for fourty.
So, even if the spelling of forty was following the whim of a handful of publishers, it got into the King James Bible, and that was that.
Best Answer
Interesting question :) Reading up on this has been a pretty crazy experience. My conclusions are the following:
But, unfortunately, another rule in the AE transition was to preserve the "base" word as much as possible, which is why skill/_skilful in BE became skill/skillful in AE. However, this introduced a cluster of letters in words such as skillfully. To put it mildly, the result of exercise was and remains consistently inconsistent.
A related question on the difference in the AE/BE spellings of propelling covers similar territory. It also points to a WP page detailing the differences between American and British spelling which includes the following section on the madness of doubled consonants:
There's also a note on -ful and -fil: