Inside (and) outside.

[Dr Peter Young]

I picked up part of the interval talk during the radio relay from the
Met Opera of New York yesterday. One of the contributors, talking
about a singer in the role of Richard Strauss's Elektra, said, "She
know the role inside and out". In BrE, this would normally be "She
knows the role inside out". Is the construction with "and" normal AmE,
or just the speaker's idiosyncrasy?

Thanks in advance,

With best wishes,

Peter (mildly curious).

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:16:12 GMT, Dr Peter Young
<pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

>I picked up part of the interval talk during the radio relay from the
>Met Opera of New York yesterday. One of the contributors, talking
>about a singer in the role of Richard Strauss's Elektra, said, "She
>know the role inside and out". In BrE, this would normally be "She
>knows the role inside out". Is the construction with "and" normal AmE,
>or just the speaker's idiosyncrasy?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>With best wishes,
>
>Peter (mildly curious).

I think I would use "inside out", but I certainly don't find "inside
and out" remarkable or even barely noticeable.

The problem with this type of question is that we really don't pay
attention to all uses of an expression like this to see if it fits our
own norm. It has to be jarringly different for us to notice. This,
to me, isn't.

Written usages are a bit different from spoken usages. We tend to
think a bit more about what we say when we write. The person who
writes "inside out" may speak "inside and out" because they aren't
thinking about the construction.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[mm]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:49:57 -0500, tony cooper
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:16:12 GMT, Dr Peter Young
><pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I picked up part of the interval talk during the radio relay from the
>>Met Opera of New York yesterday. One of the contributors, talking
>>about a singer in the role of Richard Strauss's Elektra, said, "She
>>know the role inside and out". In BrE, this would normally be "She
>>knows the role inside out". Is the construction with "and" normal AmE,
>>or just the speaker's idiosyncrasy?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>With best wishes,
>>
>>Peter (mildly curious).
>
>I think I would use "inside out", but I certainly don't find "inside
>and out" remarkable or even barely noticeable.
>
>The problem with this type of question is that we really don't pay
>attention to all uses of an expression like this to see if it fits our
>own norm. It has to be jarringly different for us to notice. This,
>to me, isn't.

Right on all points.

I think I've heard both, and didnt' really consider them two forms of
the same thing. I believe to the extent I thought about it, I thought
they were two separate expressions.

"Inside and out" means thoroughly.

"Inside out" means thoroughly also I guess, but more importantly knows
all the weird unexpected parts of something.

"Inside and out" makes more sense, if you ask me, but that's of
limited importance because making sense is not the goal of idiomatic
expressions.

>Written usages are a bit different from spoken usages. We tend to
>think a bit more about what we say when we write. The person who
>writes "inside out" may speak "inside and out" because they aren't
>thinking about the construction.

--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:16:12 GMT, Dr Peter Young wrote:
>know the role inside and out". In BrE, this would normally be "She
>knows the role inside out". Is the construction with "and" normal AmE,
>or just the speaker's idiosyncrasy?

Just pedantry. The speaker took an informal, idiomatic, and graphically
metaphorical expression and altered it to make it formal, logical, and
dull.

�R "I love Blip just because it's the absolute opposite of fun"
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/travelog/19990710.html --Kibo

[BMCT2010]

The construction with "and" is the speaker's idiosyncrasy, and is not
normal AmE.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2009-12-14 05:53:23 +0100, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> said:

> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:49:57 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:16:12 GMT, Dr Peter Young
>> <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I picked up part of the interval talk during the radio relay from the
>>> Met Opera of New York yesterday. One of the contributors, talking
>>> about a singer in the role of Richard Strauss's Elektra, said, "She
>>> know the role inside and out". In BrE, this would normally be "She
>>> knows the role inside out". Is the construction with "and" normal AmE,
>>> or just the speaker's idiosyncrasy?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>> With best wishes,
>>>
>>> Peter (mildly curious).
>>
>> I think I would use "inside out", but I certainly don't find "inside
>> and out" remarkable or even barely noticeable.
>>
>> The problem with this type of question is that we really don't pay
>> attention to all uses of an expression like this to see if it fits our
>> own norm. It has to be jarringly different for us to notice. This,
>> to me, isn't.
>
> Right on all points.

Agreed.

--
athel