No trouble
meirman
in Baghdad, and at the end of the interview, she thanked him, and he
said "No trouble". Interesting. There are a few people, not me, who
don't like the practice of Americans answering "No problem" to thank
you, instead of you're welcome. It's interesting to see the same
practice by a Brit, and yet with a different word.
Where and when did all this start?
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
Carmen L. Abruzzi
> NPR was speaking to a British correspondent from the Times of London
> in Baghdad, and at the end of the interview, she thanked him,
NPR is "she"?
> and he
> said "No trouble". Interesting. There are a few people, not me, who
> don't like the practice of Americans answering "No problem" to thank
> you, instead of you're welcome.
It makes more sense, doesn't it? It's like "de nada" in
Spanish. "You're welcome"? "Welcome" means "well come",
that is, it's good you're here. Seems a bit presumptious as
an acknowledgement of thanks, donnit? "It's good you're
here to appreciate what I've offered"? And if it's said
over a long-distance communication link, it makes no sense
atall.
John Dean
> NPR was speaking to a British correspondent from the Times of London
> in Baghdad,
This 'Times of London', is it a newspaper?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Andrew Gwilliam
> meirman wrote:
>
>>NPR was speaking to a British correspondent from the Times of London
>>in Baghdad,
>
>
> This 'Times of London', is it a newspaper?
Are you picking up it not being stated as "The Times of London"? Hardly
an offence to try the patience of the gods. If it had been "the London
Times" (or worse, "the "London Times""), well...
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm"
Peter Duncanson
<bottoml...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
>John Dean wrote:
>
>> meirman wrote:
>>
>>>NPR was speaking to a British correspondent from the Times of London
>>>in Baghdad,
>>
>>
>> This 'Times of London', is it a newspaper?
>
>Are you picking up it not being stated as "The Times of London"? Hardly
>an offence to try the patience of the gods. If it had been "the London
>Times" (or worse, "the "London Times""), well...
The paper is called 'The Times', so "'The Times' (of London)" (parentheses
optional) would do to distinguish it from any other 'Times'.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
Andrew Gwilliam
I've never been entirely convinced by the logic that it can only
"properly" be referred to as "The Times". A quick glance at the current
main page of their website just now shows that the site itself is the
"Times Online", and the following are to be found within the text:
"Great prices on the Booker prize long list, and on every book reviewed
by The Sunday Times or Times".
"Pussy-bow blouses, tweed skirts - Jessica Brinton road tests the newly
stylish Mrs T look. Plus: Times Top 100 beauty products".
I'm not saying that I wouldn't follow your suggested usage myself,
though. And their own Style Guide doesn't appear to be being followed
by whoever's responsible for the website [items marked #thus# indicate
italics in the original]:
#The Times# almost always use italics for the name of the newspaper,
except in headlines. But Times Newspapers Ltd (roman), publisher of #The
Times# and #The Sunday Times#, is the operating company of Times
Newspapers Holdings.
In text, in the difficult area of correspondents' and executive titles,
it is permissible to say "the #Times# political correspondent", "the
#Times# wine correspondent" etc, although "political editor of #The
Times#", "wine correspondent of #The Times#" etc are preferable. Also
(in features headlines, etc) The Times Gardener etc is an acceptable
style to avoid a mass of italics and apostrophes. Always say "Editor of
#The Times#", "deputy editor of #The Times#" etc.
It is permissible to say "a #Times# reader", "#Times# readers", but
prefer "readers of #The Times#". Similarly, adjectival uses such as "a
#Times# article", "a #Times# offer" are acceptable. Keep phrases such as
"told #The Times#" to a minimum: #said# is usually preferable.
Also note Times Law Report (without The), but #The Times Crossword# etc.
Again, some flexibility - to avoid a proliferation of italics - can be
used in puff material etc.
John Dean
But it isn't a London newspaper, it's a national newspaper. The Times of
England or The Times of the UK or The Times of GB and NI all describe
it. The Times of London doesn't.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Bill McCray
<carmenl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seems a bit presumptious as an acknowledgement of thanks, donnit?
Interesting. I would have said "duddenit".
Bill
Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address.
Andrew Gwilliam
The farther you get from London, the less "national" the national
newspapers seem. But that aside, it's conventional to describe
newspapers in terms of where they're published. And finally, there are
no doubt other "Times" newspapers around the UK, and so "The Times of
the UK" or one of your other suggestions would be an inaccurate description.
meirman
<john...@frag.lineone.net> posted:
That's what it was called on the radio. If "the" was capitalized, I
do not know.
Daniel James
wrote:
> There are a few people, not me, who don't like the practice of
> Americans answering "No problem" to thank you, instead of you're
> welcome. It's interesting to see the same practice by a Brit, and
> yet with a different word.
It always used to be "it was nothing" in BrE, but you'll hear "no
problem" or "no trouble" more often nowadays -- or the Australian form
"no worries". New Zealanders often say "good as" (short for "good as
gold" which seems to be a general term of approval or acquiescence in
that fair and distant land).
It's not a new thing. I recall an occasion on which a friend who'd
been to a convention (in the UK) reported on his return "The hotel
staff were great: the only time they used the word 'no' was when they
followed it with 'problem'" - that was in 1993 and it didn't sound
strange then.
Cheers,
Daniel.
John Dean
I don't know of any other "The Times" in the UK. The other 'Times' all
seem to differentiate themselves naturally - like our own, dear Oxford
Times or the Financial Times (or the Radio Times). I don't know this
convention of describing newspapers in terms of 'where they're
published'. What represents 'publishing' - editorial? printing?
distribution?
If I make reference to a paper here and consider some subscribers might
not be clear as to what I mean, I add some description. So I will refer
to "the UK Guardian". That's not a naming convention, it's a
clarification. Like saying "Manchester (in NW England)".
Many newspapers include their geographical location in their title. But
national newspapers don't and I think any attempt to pin them down
geographically should reflect their national nature. 'The Times of
London' sounds as if there's a newspaper either *called* 'The Times of
London' or published specifically for the population of London. Ditto
'The London Times'.
Anyway, must dash - my local newsagent stocks a few copies of the Paris
Figaro but they sell out quickly.
--
John Dean
Oxford
meirman
In alt.english.usage on Wed, 1 Sep 2004 01:24:22 +0100 "John Dean"
<john...@frag.lineone.net> posted:
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
That's what it was called on the radio. If "the" was capitalized, I
do not know.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
That is logical. However, I believe that it is customary to refer to "The
Times of London" to distinguish it from other Timeses.
I wonder how Times' reporters introduce themselves when outside the UK?
raymond o'hara
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:1k2aj0t9rpejs18ih...@4ax.com...
Were there other papers with the name Times when it was first published?
Maybe it's like The Country Club located in Brookline Massachusetts, when it
was first organized there were no other country clubs and it had no need to
differentiate itself.
Now when people see the name is just The Country Club they think it is being
pretentious.
Peter Duncanson
>
>"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
>news:1k2aj0t9rpejs18ih...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:14:59 +0100, Andrew Gwilliam
>> <bottoml...@southernskies.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >John Dean wrote:
>> >
>> >> meirman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>NPR was speaking to a British correspondent from the Times of London
>> >>>in Baghdad,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This 'Times of London', is it a newspaper?
>> >
>> >Are you picking up it not being stated as "The Times of London"? Hardly
>> >an offence to try the patience of the gods. If it had been "the London
>> >Times" (or worse, "the "London Times""), well...
>>
>> The paper is called 'The Times', so "'The Times' (of London)" (parentheses
>> optional) would do to distinguish it from any other 'Times'.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Duncanson
>> UK
>> (posting from a.e.u)
>
>
> Were there other papers with the name Times when it was first published?
Not that I'm aware of.
>Maybe it's like The Country Club located in Brookline Massachusetts, when it
>was first organized there were no other country clubs and it had no need to
>differentiate itself.
>Now when people see the name is just The Country Club they think it is being
>pretentious.
It seems to be the custom for UK national newspapers to not have any
geographical ID in their names:
The Guardian
The Independent
The Times
Daily Telegraph
The Financial Times
The Sun
etc.
I see that the concise atlas of the world is published in the UK as "The
Times Concise Atlas of the World", but in the U.S. as "The Times of London
Concise Atlas of the World".
This and other books by The Times and its writers are listed on amazon.com
variously attributed to:
Times of London
The London Times
The London Sunday Times
Daniel James
> That is logical. However, I believe that it is customary to refer to "The
> Times of London" to distinguish it from other Timeses.
In the Good Old Days before Rupert Murdoch it used to be sufficient to
refer to it as "the Times newspaper" to achieve that end.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> It seems to be the custom for UK national newspapers to not have any
> geographical ID in their names:
>
> The Guardian
.. which always used to be "The Manchester Guardian", so if anything
the tendency is to *drop* geographical identification, not to acquire
it needlessly.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Peter Duncanson
Possibly, although "Manchester" was dropped when the paper moved from
Manchester to London.
John Dean
Sadly for that theory, the Manchester was dropped in August 1959 while
the paper was still produced exclusively in Manchester. Printing in
London didn't begin until September 1961 in parallel with printing in
Manchester. The editorial staff moved from Manchester to London in 1964.
The paper still has a major office in Manchester.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>Peter Duncanson wrote:
Thanks for the correction. I was living in Manchester at the time but was
not a regular Guardian reader.
Daniel James
> Printing in London didn't begin until September 1961 in parallel
> with printing in Manchester.
That's interesting - how similar were the London and Manchester
editions? (I was only five, and only saw the London edition, if that -
ours was a Times and News Chronicle household.) It must have been some
feat to print the same newspaper at presses a couple of hundred miles
apart in those days ... the articles must have been telephoned
(telexed? surely fax was not yet widespread) between offices.
I wonder whether the Grauniad's reputation stems in part from the
difficulties of having to set everything twice?
Cheers,
Daniel.
M. J. Powell
<waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> writes
>In article news:<ch881o$632$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Dean wrote:
>> Printing in London didn't begin until September 1961 in parallel
>> with printing in Manchester.
>
>That's interesting - how similar were the London and Manchester
>editions? (I was only five, and only saw the London edition, if that -
>ours was a Times and News Chronicle household.) It must have been some
>feat to print the same newspaper at presses a couple of hundred miles
>apart in those days ... the articles must have been telephoned
>(telexed? surely fax was not yet widespread) between offices.
Pictures were being sent by reporters by telephone before WW II.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Peter Duncanson
<waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote:
>In article news:<ch881o$632$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Dean wrote:
>> Printing in London didn't begin until September 1961 in parallel
>> with printing in Manchester.
>
>That's interesting - how similar were the London and Manchester
>editions? (I was only five, and only saw the London edition, if that -
>ours was a Times and News Chronicle household.) It must have been some
>feat to print the same newspaper at presses a couple of hundred miles
>apart in those days
It was not unusual. The Daily Express was established in London in 1900 and
opened an office (editorial and printing facilities) in Manchester in 1939.
Building of the Manchester place started in 1936, so sometime in the few
years before that the proprietors must have decided that the available
technology would make printing in two locations feasible.
>... the articles must have been telephoned
>(telexed? surely fax was not yet widespread) between offices.
>
I don't know what technology was used, but the fact that fax was not
widespread does not rule it out as a possibility.
Fax had been invented in 1929. It did not use today's data transmission
protocols which rely on computer technology.
An early facsimile technology was used for "wiring" pictures from press
photographers. I remember that these were instantly recognisable by their
lininess. I think the lines were horizontal.
>I wonder whether the Grauniad's reputation stems in part from the
>difficulties of having to set everything twice?
>
Nice thought!
I don't think that everything would need to be set twice. Much of the
content of a paper could be typeset a day in advance and plates sent to both
printing places.
In fact I think you would find that today the various sections of
multisection papers are not printed at the same locations. The less urgent
sections, Travel, Property, Fashion, TV/Radio, Magazine, etc. are likely to
be printed in bulk at one place, then distributed by road/air to the several
offices where the news sections are printed, the sections are brought
together and the complete papers put in the local distribution systems.
John Dean
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:22:26 +0100, Daniel James
> <waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote:
>
>> In article news:<ch881o$632$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Dean wrote:
>>> Printing in London didn't begin until September 1961 in parallel
>>> with printing in Manchester.
>>
>> That's interesting - how similar were the London and Manchester
>> editions? (I was only five, and only saw the London edition, if that
>> - ours was a Times and News Chronicle household.) It must have been
>> some feat to print the same newspaper at presses a couple of hundred
>> miles apart in those days
>
> It was not unusual. The Daily Express was established in London in
> 1900 and opened an office (editorial and printing facilities) in
> Manchester in 1939. Building of the Manchester place started in 1936,
> so sometime in the few years before that the proprietors must have
> decided that the available technology would make printing in two
> locations feasible.
Indeed. Here's a piccie of that handsome erection. For several years I
worked in offices close by on Great Ancoats St.
>
>> ... the articles must have been telephoned
>> (telexed? surely fax was not yet widespread) between offices.
>>
> I don't know what technology was used, but the fact that fax was not
> widespread does not rule it out as a possibility.
>
> Fax had been invented in 1929. It did not use today's data
> transmission protocols which rely on computer technology.
The fax machine was invented in 1843. A commercially viable machine was
in use in France by 1856. The first faxed photograph went from Munich to
Berlin in 1907. By 1934 AP were routinely transmitting wire photos.
There was a global telex service by the 1920s
>
> An early facsimile technology was used for "wiring" pictures from
> press photographers. I remember that these were instantly
> recognisable by their lininess. I think the lines were horizontal.
>
>> I wonder whether the Grauniad's reputation stems in part from the
>> difficulties of having to set everything twice?
>>
The Guardian's own on-line history of itself says coyly:
"1961 To enable swifter delivery of the Guardian to southern England the
newspaper begins printing in London as well as Manchester on 11
September 1961. Difficulties with the printing system earn the newspaper
the nickname 'The Grauniad'."
--
John "Iguana Rd came later" Dean
Oxford
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>> Fax had been invented in 1929. It did not use today's data
>> transmission protocols which rely on computer technology.
>
>The fax machine was invented in 1843. A commercially viable machine was
>in use in France by 1856. The first faxed photograph went from Munich to
>Berlin in 1907. By 1934 AP were routinely transmitting wire photos.
>There was a global telex service by the 1920s
I'll have to check my source of information, and probably arrange not to use
it again.
meirman
Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> posted:
In 1953 and years on either side of that, we would have to leave our
small city and go to an even smaller place, Mahoningtown, to catch the
train to Indiana, to see my grandparents, etc.
Every year, days before Sunday, parts of the Pittsburgh Press Sunday
edition were sitting on the platform. The color funnies were very
recognizable, but I think there were non-color sections too. They
were wrapped in newspapers, and either there were a lot of
coincidences between when they were delivered by train, and when I
left, or they sat there in the weather for a long time. I have a
vague recollection that it was lightly raining once. But we got the
Sunday Pittsburgh paper ourselves, and it never had water damage. On
weekdays and Saturday, there was a paper published in our little city.
Daniel James
> Fax had been invented in 1929. It did not use today's data transmission
> protocols which rely on computer technology.
>
> An early facsimile technology was used for "wiring" pictures from press
> photographers. I remember that these were instantly recognisable by their
> lininess. I think the lines were horizontal.
Yes, of course. I'd heard of "wiring" pictures -- and I'd forgotten about
telex, which John Dean mentioned.
I had it in mind that the fax machine had been anticipated by Jules Verne
in his /Paris in the Twentieth Century/ - but googling for "jules verne
fax" find this site http://jv.gilead.org.il/FAQ/ which states - in
agreement with John Dean - that the fax was patented by a Scot named
Alexander Bain in 1843.
You learn something every day.
> >I wonder whether the Grauniad's reputation stems in part from the
> >difficulties of having to set everything twice?
>
> Nice thought!
I was amazed we'd all been politely calling it "The Guardian" for so many
posts ...
> I don't think that everything would need to be set twice. Much of the
> content of a paper could be typeset a day in advance and plates sent
> to both printing places.
>
> In fact I think you would find that today ...
You are right, of course ... though the amount of the paper that was
actually news (and therefore could not be printed long in advance) must
still have made the problems of simultaneous printing in two cities
considerable.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Alan Jones
Recently some UK newspapers that were traditionally broadsheets have been
re-designed as tabloids (sorry - "compact editions"). A minor annoyance in
the new-style Independent is that the fold is not central: the rear half is
about a centimetre narrower than the front. I see that the same is true of
the new-style edition of The Times, but not of the old-established tabloids
such as the Mail and Mirror. Does anyone know why this is so?
Alan Jones