Idioms
Dio
1. Sorry? I beg your pardon? I didn't quite catch that.
2. She thought I was making fun of her.
3. I really put my foot in it.
4. That has nothing to do with it.
5. You've got the wrong end of the stick.
6. We need something along these lines.
7. Well, if that's the way you feel about it.....
9. I'll take your word for it.
10. I checked in yesterday.
11. I'm checking out tomorrow.
12. We pride ourselves on our service.
13. It leaves much to be desired!
14. Who runs this hotel?
15. I need it right away.
16. I'll do it at once.
17. Mind the step.
18. I'll get it straight away.
19. Mind your head.
20. Keep out.
bye bye
Einde O'Callaghan
> What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
>
>
> 1. Sorry? I beg your pardon? I didn't quite catch that.
>
> 2. She thought I was making fun of her.
>
> 3. I really put my foot in it.
>
> 4. That has nothing to do with it.
>
> 5. You've got the wrong end of the stick.
>
> 6. We need something along these lines.
>
> 7. Well, if that's the way you feel about it.....
>
> 9. I'll take your word for it.
>
> 10. I checked in yesterday.
>
> 11. I'm checking out tomorrow.
>
> 12. We pride ourselves on our service.
>
> 13. It leaves much to be desired!
>
> 14. Who runs this hotel?
>
> 15. I need it right away.
>
> 16. I'll do it at once.
>
> 17. Mind the step.
>
> 18. I'll get it straight away.
>
> 19. Mind your head.
>
> 20. Keep out.
>
All of these idioms are currently in use in standard English.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Dio
Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Thank you.
And what about these?
1. Keep it under your hat.
2. We've got to get to the bottom of this.
3. I can't figure it out.
4. I've been racking my brains.
5. I think I've hit on a solution.
6. That'll do the trick.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Thanks a lot Einde
bye
Franco
the Omrud
> What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
>
All of those are in use in current English.
--
the Omrud
---------
the Omrud
>
> Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
> CUT
>
> Thank you.
> And what about these?
>
Yes, those are all OK as well.
--
the Omrud
---------
Dio
the Omrud ha scritto nel messaggio ...
What's another way of saying those expressions?
Let me know please.
Thank you
bye
Franco
John Lawler
>What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
Most of these are not idioms.
An idiom is a phrase that is not compositional.
"Compositional" means you can figure out the meaning by
putting together the meanings of the individual words.
Most of these are compositional, though some of them
are metaphoric and others are fixed phrases with specific
uses and senses in specific contexts.
>1. Sorry? I beg your pardon? I didn't quite catch that.
These are fixed phrases, and the whole thing is a fixed repair request.
The last part is a metaphor ("catch" means "understand").
>2. She thought I was making fun of her.
"Make fun of" is a very mild idiom; it means "tease",
and it's pretty clear. Only the "of" is unclear, but it's
just there to hook the object onto.
>3. I really put my foot in it.
This is a metaphor -- "put one's foot in it" (where "it" means something you
don't want to put your foot into) means to say something embarrassing or
wrong or insulting or all of the above.
>4. That has nothing to do with it.
"To do with" means "related to". That is an idiom,
but only because "do" has so little meaning that
its constructions are always vague.
"Have nothing to do with" means "be unrelated to".
>5. You've got the wrong end of the stick.
Another metaphor. Think of picking up a shovel by
the flat metal part.
>6. We need something along these lines.
An idiom, meaning "similar to this".
>7. Well, if that's the way you feel about it.....
A fixed phrase to indicate grudging acceptance of
someone's attitude. Can be used as a challenge or
to change the subject, depending on context and
tone of voice. Be careful what you follow this phrase with.
>9. I'll take your word for it.
"Give one's word" means to promise;
"take one's word" means to accept as true.
Words have to do with meaning. Not all that idiomatic;
again, pro-verbs like "give" and "take", "do", "make", etc.
figure in lots of fixed phrases.
>10. I checked in yesterday.
A phrasal verb, most of which are technically idioms,
because the particle usually doesn't contribute to
the meaning. This means to register at a hotel, or,
informally, to visit ("drop in").
>11. I'm checking out tomorrow.
To leave a hotel and pay one's bill, or, informally,
to die (another metaphor).
>12. We pride ourselves on our service.
An old expression; "pride oneself on" means "take pride in", or "be proud
of", which you'd probably also consider idioms. There's "take" again.
>13. It leaves much to be desired!
A fixed phrase. It's an understatement, and means it's awful.
This does come apart OK -- if it leaves much to be desired,
then one must still desire much of it, which means it
is undesirable as it is. So this shouldn't be that hard to
understand, since it's compositional; and it's a fixed phrase,
so you can just memorize it. Leave out the bang at the end, though.
>14. Who runs this hotel?
"To run" an enterprise means to manage it.
>15. I need it right away.
"Right away" is a very common phrase meaning "immediately".
>16. I'll do it at once.
Ditto "at once".
>17. Mind the step.
An old verb use; "to mind" means "to bring to mind, to pay attention to".
"Mind the step/gap" means "watch out for it"
>18. I'll get it straight away.
"Straight away" is a British usage for "right away".
>19. Mind your head.
"Watch out for your head", i.e, don't hit it on that thing hanging down.
>20. Keep out.
Another phrasal verb; with "out", "keep" means "stay".
I.e, don't come in.
>bye bye
Another fixed phrase, which I guess you understand OK.
Look, practically everything in English usage is a fixed or
semifixed phrase, and you just have to learn a lot of them.
Sorry, that's the price you pay for a simple morphology.
Read a lot, watch TV, and pick up the phrases. These are
all very simple ones.
You might find something useful at
http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
-John Lawler -- http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/ -- UM Linguistics Dept
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Academic integrity still plagues campus" -- Headline, University of
Michigan Daily 11/12/02
Richard Chambers
"Dio" <dada...@tin.it> wrote
All of these expressions are up to date in Britain.
(1) is too wordy, though. The shorter "Sorry, I didn't quite catch that"
would be better.
(10) and (11) have a distinctly American feel to them. However, it is an
Americanism that has now become common in Britain too. The British usually
say "I arrived yesterday" and "I shall leave tomorrow". BrE Register = AmE
check in. BrE check out = AmE check out, but the British mean only the
paying of the bill, handing back the keys, and signing any paperwork. The
Americans mean everything to do with the departure, even as far as getting
into their car and driving away.
(14) is sometimes used, but usually in a rude and argumentative context. It
is most likely to be asked sarcastically by a dissatisfied customer who is
asserting that the hotel is badly managed and chaotic. It may also be used
sarcastically by hotel staff who are tired of being told every detail of how
to do their jobs by an unreasonable and overbearing customer.
If you genuinely want a factual answer to your question, it is better to ask
"Which Group operates this hotel?" If you want to speak to the manager, say
"Can I speak to the manager, please?"
(20) is acceptable for a notice, but abrupt and rude if spoken. Say instead
"Please don't go in there".
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Richard Chambers
"John Lawler" <jla...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote
>
> >18. I'll get it straight away.
>
> "Straight away" is a British usage for "right away".
>
I thought that "straight away" was American usage for "right away". Am I
mistaken? We do use "straight away" in Britain, but less commonly than
"right away". Are you saying that "straight away" is not used at all in
America?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Matti Lamprhey
Hmm. I'm British, and "straightaway" (one word) is the one I find more
commonly used. In fact, "right away" sounds a teensy bit American to
me, as John implies.
Matti
Dave Swindell
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
Dave Swindell
In article <KgkCb.84054$AX1.3...@news1.tin.it>, Dio
<dada...@tin.it> writes
--
Dave Swindell
<jla...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> writes
>
>>5. You've got the wrong end of the stick.
>
>Another metaphor. Think of picking up a shovel by
>the flat metal part.
>
Einde O'Callaghan
> Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
> CUT
>
> Thank you.
> And what about these?
>
> 1. Keep it under your hat.
>
> 2. We've got to get to the bottom of this.
>
> 3. I can't figure it out.
>
> 4. I've been racking my brains.
>
> 5. I think I've hit on a solution.
>
> 6. That'll do the trick.
>
Regards, Einde
John Lawler
>"Richard Chambers" <richard....@NOSPAMntlworld.com> writes...
>> "John Lawler" <jla...@umich.edu> writes
>> > >18. I'll get it straight away.
>> > "Straight away" is a British usage for "right away".
>> I thought that "straight away" was American usage for "right away". Am
>> I mistaken? We do use "straight away" in Britain, but less commonly
>> than "right away". Are you saying that "straight away" is not used at
>> all in America?
>Hmm. I'm British, and "straightaway" (one word) is the one I find more
>commonly used. In fact, "right away" sounds a teensy bit American to
>me, as John implies.
In the US, using "straight away" is marked as British.
Everybody understands it, mind you; we're familiar with
many British usages. But we tend not to use it.
-John Lawler www.umich.edu/~jlawler Univ of Michigan Linguistics Dept
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I conceive that words are like money, not the worse for being common,
but that it is the stamp of custom alone that gives them circulation
or value." -- William Hazlitt 'On Familiar Style' (1821)
Simon R. Hughes
> "Richard Chambers" <richard....@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote...
>> "John Lawler" <jla...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote
>>>
>>> >18. I'll get it straight away.
>>>
>>> "Straight away" is a British usage for "right away".
>>>
>>
>> I thought that "straight away" was American usage for "right away". Am
>> I mistaken? We do use "straight away" in Britain, but less commonly
>> than "right away". Are you saying that "straight away" is not used at
>> all in America?
>
> Hmm. I'm British, and "straightaway" (one word) is the one I find more
> commonly used.
Unfortunately, "straightway" dies the death some time over the
last couple of hundred years. I used it most lately today, but
the text I used it in is a couple of hundred years old.
> In fact, "right away" sounds a teensy bit American to
> me, as John implies.
He didn't say anything about you.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Dio
Dave Swindell ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>All perfectly OK on the right side of the pond.
>
What's the right said of the pond?:) UK Or US?:)
Let me know
bye Dave
Franco
Dio
Richard Chambers ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Thanks a lot Richard
Bye
Franco
Dio
John Lawler ha scritto nel messaggio ...
CUT
Thank you John
bye
Franco
Einde O'Callaghan
<snip>
>
> What's the right said of the pond?:) UK Or US?:)
>
> Let me know
>
The right side of the pond is the one on right when you look at a map.
The other side is known as the left side - not the wrong side. ;-)
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Dave Swindell
<dada...@tin.it> writes
>
>Dave Swindell ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>>All perfectly OK on the right side of the pond.
>>
>
>
>What's the right said of the pond?:) UK Or US?:)
>
>Let me know
>
when you're driving on roads, when the right side is the left side and
the right one is the wrong one, but even our fellow Europeans have been
lured away to the wrong side. What a wonder it is to be the only ones
in step ;-)
Enrico C
uk.culture.language.english,alt.usage.english,it.cultura.linguistica.
inglese
in <news:KvkCb.309$o32....@news.itd.umich.edu>
> Dio <dada...@tin.it> writes:
>
>>What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
>
> Most of these are not idioms.
Hi everybody!
Please note that the original poster ("Dio") did quite a weird
crosspost on both English and Italian newsgroups (*)
As the "Idioms" thread seems to be an English speaking one, I would
advise everyone to follow Einde's wise suggestion and follow-up to
uk.culture.language.english , or to the sole English newsgroups at
least, when replying to that message.
Thank you and sorry for my OT post!
* = it.cultura.linguistica.inglese is an Italian NG where the English
language and culture are discussed, and there are posts in both
Italian and English.
--
Enrico C
Pat Durkin
"Dave Swindell" <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oG+WugA4Me2$Mw...@tcp.co.uk...
> In article <KvkCb.309$o32....@news.itd.umich.edu>, John Lawler
> <jla...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> writes
> >
> >>5. You've got the wrong end of the stick.
> >
> >Another metaphor. Think of picking up a shovel by
> >the flat metal part.
> >
> There is also a far less savoury purported origin.
>
Yes, you have that "sweet violets" meaning in UK, also.
I think Lawler was being tactful, just in case someone prints his reply out
for students, etc.
Dio
Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>Dio wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> What's the right said of the pond?:) UK Or US?:)
>>
>> Let me know
>>
>The right side of the pond is the one on right when you look at a map.
>The other side is known as the left side - not the wrong side. ;-)
>
>
That's very funny:)
Dio
Enrico C <17wtrmdfvcsg2$.d...@news.lillathedog.net>...
>Please note that the original poster ("Dio") did quite a weird
>crosspost on both English and Italian newsgroups (*)
You are that Muslim chap who pretend to be Italian.
You're very dangerous. Italians are very glad to talk with English people.
Jerry Friedman
> Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
> CUT
>
> Thank you.
> And what about these?
>
> 1. Keep it under your hat.
"Keep it secret." This sounds obsolete to me, an American.
> 2. We've got to get to the bottom of this.
"We've got to understand why this strange thing is happening." This
sounds old-fashioned to me--I'd expect to hear it in a parody of a
detective story.
> 3. I can't figure it out.
"I can't understand it."
> 4. I've been racking my brains.
"I've been thinking so hard about it that the effort was painful."
> 5. I think I've hit on a solution.
"I think I've found a solution." There's a tinge of modesty about
this, as if finding the solution were an accident.
> 6. That'll do the trick.
"That will accomplish what I need to accomplish."
> You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
...
"You're treating something as much more important than it is."
--
Jerry Friedman
Dio
Jerry Friedman ha scritto nel messaggio
>> 1. Keep it under your hat.
>
>"Keep it secret." This sounds obsolete to me, an American.
What's another way of saying that in American English?
>
>> 2. We've got to get to the bottom of this.
>
>"We've got to understand why this strange thing is happening." This
>sounds old-fashioned to me--I'd expect to hear it in a parody of a
>detective story.
What's another way of saying that? I mean an in fashion way:)
Bye Jerry
Franco
John Hall
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> writes:
>"Dio" <dada...@tin.it> wrote in message news:<KgkCb.84054$AX1.3486277@
>news1.tin.it>...
>> Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>> CUT
>>
>> Thank you.
>> And what about these?
>>
>> 1. Keep it under your hat.
>
>"Keep it secret." This sounds obsolete to me, an American.
In the UK, it might be obsolescent, but it's certainly not yet obsolete.
>
>> 2. We've got to get to the bottom of this.
>
>"We've got to understand why this strange thing is happening." This
>sounds old-fashioned to me--I'd expect to hear it in a parody of a
>detective story.
The expression is still commonly used in the UK.
I suppose these two examples indicate that idioms in American English
and in British English often differ.
<remainder snipped>
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Dio
John Hall ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>>> 1. Keep it under your hat.
>>
>>"Keep it secret." This sounds obsolete to me, an American.
>
>In the UK, it might be obsolescent, but it's certainly not yet obsolete.
What do you mean exactly?
Do you still use it?
Let me know
bye John
Franco
Tony Cooper
It would be "What do you mean, exactly?" It's a request for
additional information or clarification about the meaning of what has
been said or written.
Yes, we still use it. Commonly, by some.
John Hall
Dio <dada...@tin.it> writes:
>
>John Hall ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>
>>>> 1. Keep it under your hat.
>>>
>>>"Keep it secret." This sounds obsolete to me, an American.
>>
>>In the UK, it might be obsolescent, but it's certainly not yet obsolete.
>
>
>
>What do you mean exactly?
"Obsolete" means no longer used, whereas "obsolescent" means becoming
less used as time goes by but not yet obsolete, though expected to
become obsolete eventually.
>
>Do you still use it?
Yes.
--
John Hall
"Think wrongly if you please,
but in all cases think for yourself."
Doris Lessing
Amore
John Lawler ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>Dio <dada...@tin.it> writes:
>
>>What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
>
>Most of these are not idioms.
>An idiom is a phrase that is not compositional.
>"Compositional" means you can figure out the meaning by
>putting together the meanings of the individual words.
I think that an idiom is a form of expression peculiar to a language, which
cannot be translated word for word into another language.
Many idiomatic expression are so strange that you couldn't possibily
understand their meaning by looking at the individual words which make them
up. Others, though readily understood, sound rather queer in your own
language.
You feel that you yourself would never dream of putting together in such odd
ways. Take the espression "It's raining cats and dogs". If you took this
literally, you would expect to see cats and dogs falling from the sky -
which would obviously be nonsensical - but the actual idiomatic meaning of
the expression is : "It's raining very hard; it's pouring."
Take something very elementary. Is "good morning" and idiom?
The Italian says yes, of course it is, because in his own language he says
"Buongiorno" - Good day- not "Buon mattino ." The German, on the other hand,
who says "Guten Morgen, " finds nothing idiomatic whatever in "Good morning.
"
The Italian, who says in his lnaguage "Prendersi cura di qualcuno, " will
claim that "to take care of somebody is not necessarily idiomatic. But a
Russian, who has no such expression in his language, will say at once that
it is completely illogical, and hence extremely idiomatic.
Why take care? he will ask. What in fact you do is "give care". You give
your care to a person - you don't take it from him.
So it is certainly difficult for different nationalities to agree on whether
a given expression is idiomatic or not.
Bye bye John
Franco
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> 1. Keep it under your hat.
> >
> >"Keep it secret." This sounds obsolete to me, an American.
>
>
>
> What's another way of saying that in American English?
There are many. "Keep quiet about this." "This is a secret, okay?"
"Don't tell anyone."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> 2. We've got to get to the bottom of this.
> >
> >"We've got to understand why this strange thing is happening." This
> >sounds old-fashioned to me--I'd expect to hear it in a parody of a
> >detective story.
>
>
> What's another way of saying that? I mean an in fashion way:)
"We've got to figure out what's going on here."
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
> John Lawler ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>
>>Dio <dada...@tin.it> writes:
>>
>>
>>>What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
>>
>>Most of these are not idioms.
>>An idiom is a phrase that is not compositional.
>>"Compositional" means you can figure out the meaning by
>>putting together the meanings of the individual words.
>
> CUT
>
> I think that an idiom is a form of expression peculiar to a language, which
> cannot be translated word for word into another language.
>
> Many idiomatic expression are so strange that you couldn't possibily
> understand their meaning by looking at the individual words which make them
> up. Others, though readily understood, sound rather queer in your own
> language.
>
> You feel that you yourself would never dream of putting together in such odd
> ways. Take the espression "It's raining cats and dogs". If you took this
> literally, you would expect to see cats and dogs falling from the sky -
> which would obviously be nonsensical - but the actual idiomatic meaning of
> the expression is : "It's raining very hard; it's pouring."
>
> Take something very elementary. Is "good morning" and idiom?
>
> The Italian says yes, of course it is, because in his own language he says
> "Buongiorno" - Good day- not "Buon mattino ." The German, on the other hand,
> who says "Guten Morgen, " finds nothing idiomatic whatever in "Good morning.
> "
I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
--
Rob Bannister
Dave Swindell
<rob...@it.net.au> writes
>
>I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
>"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
>think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
>know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>
trigger for a friendly smile over here.
Tony Mountifield
Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
> I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
> "Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
> think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
> know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
I would not have thought "Good afternoon" was any more old-fashoined
in English than "Good morning" or "Good evening", as each would be used
in the same polite or formal context depending on the time of day.
Unlike in French or German, "Good day" *is* old-fashioned, and in fact
I have heard it used more often as an archaic way of saying goodbye than
hello. Sometimes to cut short an undesired conversation.
Cheers,
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
Apex
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> In fact, come to
> think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
> know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>
"Good afternoon" wouldn't be considered old-fashioned in NZ. It is used
frequently (along with "good morning") in business telephoning, as well as
in general conversation.
--
Peg
Robert Bannister
> In article <brli64$n7i$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>
>>I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
>>"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
>>think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
>>know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>>
>
> Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
> trigger for a friendly smile over here.
>
Yeah, you get overprecise people doing that over here too, but few of us
say "Good afternoon" anymore: it's "G'day". I wasn't saying that "Good
afternoon" was dead, but I think it's only used by certain people; ie I
know "Good day" is rarely used in Britain, but I can't imagine an East
Ender saying "Good afternoon" either.
Talking about East Enders: on another thread, there was mention of the
Queen's "orf" pronunciation of "off". It seems to me, that although the
vowels are not identical, "orf" is alive and well in the East End of
London, as is "yer" for "year" (another Queenism).
--
Rob Bannister
Dave Swindell
<rob...@it.net.au> writes
>Dave Swindell wrote:
>
>> In article <brli64$n7i$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>
>>>I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
>>>"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
>>>think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
>>>know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>>>
>>
>> Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
>> trigger for a friendly smile over here.
>>
>Yeah, you get overprecise people doing that over here too, but few of us
>say "Good afternoon" anymore: it's "G'day". I wasn't saying that "Good
>afternoon" was dead, but I think it's only used by certain people; ie I
>know "Good day" is rarely used in Britain, but I can't imagine an East
>Ender saying "Good afternoon" either.
>
Matthew Huntbach
> Talking about East Enders: on another thread, there was mention of the
> Queen's "orf" pronunciation of "off". It seems to me, that although the
> vowels are not identical, "orf" is alive and well in the East End of
> London, as is "yer" for "year" (another Queenism).
Only amongst people of a certain age. I couldn't imagine a young East
Ender saing "orf".
Matthew Huntbach
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come
> to think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages
> (that I know)
When I studied Spanish twenty-odd years ago, "Buenas tardes" was
common. I don't know if it still is, but with 48,000 Spanish Google
hits, it can't be all that uncommon.
> and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
It seems pretty standard here in California. In fact, if someone says
"Good morning", and realizes that it is, in fact, just after noon,
they will often correct themselves to "Good afternoon".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to
|zero, but when you look in
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |detail....
(650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison
Robert Bannister
> In article <bro592$qgq$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>
>>Dave Swindell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <brli64$n7i$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
>>><rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
>>>>"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
>>>>think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
>>>>know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
>>>trigger for a friendly smile over here.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, you get overprecise people doing that over here too, but few of us
>>say "Good afternoon" anymore: it's "G'day". I wasn't saying that "Good
>>afternoon" was dead, but I think it's only used by certain people; ie I
>>know "Good day" is rarely used in Britain, but I can't imagine an East
>>Ender saying "Good afternoon" either.
>>
>
> No, they would simply say 'ar'ernoon with glottal stops on the '
>
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Stevens
> In article <bro592$qgq$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>> Dave Swindell wrote:
>>
>>> In article <brli64$n7i$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
>>> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>>
>>>> I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a
>>>> joke - "Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In
>>>> fact, come to think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most
>>>> languages (that I know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in
>>>> English.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
>>> trigger for a friendly smile over here.
>>>
>> Yeah, you get overprecise people doing that over here too, but few
>> of us say "Good afternoon" anymore: it's "G'day". I wasn't saying
>> that "Good afternoon" was dead, but I think it's only used by
>> certain people; ie I know "Good day" is rarely used in Britain, but
>> I can't imagine an East Ender saying "Good afternoon" either.
>>
> No, they would simply say 'ar'ernoon with glottal stops on the '
That is if they didn't say "wotcher", which I'd consider much more
likely. Mind you, nowadays they'd be just as likely to say something
like "hi" or "yo".
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Mike Stevens
My late grandmother (born in the 19th century) used to say "orf". She
was a South Londoner rather than an East. In her day there were a
number of similarities between the demotic speech of London and the
hyperlect of the aristocratic classes. "Huntin', shootin'; and fishin'"
is another classic example. Now most of those things (including "orf")
have disappeared from demotic London speech, and the aristocratic
hyperlect is much rarer. The Queen's version of it has become much
weaker than it use to be. Prince Philip still exhibits a good example
of it, and Price Charles a lesser one, but still stronger than his
mother's.
"Yer" for "year", however, is very common in London (and possibly
elsewhere but I pass on that), but does to some extent depend on the
stress pattern of the sentence in which it appears. I, for example,
would probably say "in two yeers, time" but "a couple of yers ago".
Mike Stevens
> It seems pretty standard here in California. In fact, if someone says
> "Good morning", and realizes that it is, in fact, just after noon,
> they will often correct themselves to "Good afternoon".
Yeagh! A nasty usage (far too prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic).
Just because it is after noon, that does not prevent it from being
morning. There are two quite separate ways of dividing the day. On the
one hand there's the distinction between the forenoon and the afternoon
(which is self-explanatory). "Forenoon" is now pretty well obsolete
except in the maritime phrase "the forenoon watch", which itself is
decidedly antiquated.
On the other hand there's the division into "morning" and "evening" as
in "And the morning and the evening was the first day" in the Authorised
version (for leftpondians, that's the King James Version) of the Bible.
Here the division between the two was the main meal of the day, whose
customary timing has varied a lot with place and century. Once the main
meal, "dinner", had migrated to relatively late in the day, a secondary
meal "lunch" or "luncheon" was introduced earlier in the day. Somebody
(I think it was a character in one of Thomas Love Peacock's novels) in
the early nineteenth century said something like "I like to take
luncheon at around noon, thus giving two long divisions of the morning",
which is evidence of how the word "morning" was used at that time -
clearly it included the period between luncheon and dinner.
Enrico C
uk.culture.language.english,alt.usage.english,it.cultura.linguistica.
inglese
in <news:brr22p$6qpbu$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems pretty standard here in California. In fact, if someone says
>> "Good morning", and realizes that it is, in fact, just after noon,
>> they will often correct themselves to "Good afternoon".
>
> Yeagh! A nasty usage (far too prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic).
> Just because it is after noon, that does not prevent it from being
> morning.
Agreed. I don't like that either.
Yet, it depends on what meaning you give to the word "morning".
According to the Oxford Advanced Lerner's Dictionary, "morning" is
"the early part of the day from the time when people wake up until
midday or before lunch"
I go with the "lunch" meaning, and to me "lunch time" is usually about
1 pm or later :)
--
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
Enrico C
uk.culture.language.english,alt.usage.english,it.cultura.linguistica.
inglese
in <news:brr10p$6ju8g$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>
> Matthew Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In uk.culture.language.english Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Talking about East Enders: on another thread, there was mention of
>>> the Queen's "orf" pronunciation of "off". It seems to me, that
>>> although the vowels are not identical, "orf" is alive and well in
>>> the East End of London, as is "yer" for "year" (another Queenism).
Someone (FB on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese, an Italian newsgroup
about the English language) noticed that the Queen speaks as though
she had a face-lift :)) and that to speak as she does "you have to
move your lips as less as possible"!
Then, he noticed her unusal way of saying words such as "So", "Over",
"Hat", "House", "Issue" or "Tissue".
Would you agree with him?
>> Only amongst people of a certain age. I couldn't imagine a young East
>> Ender saing "orf".
>
> My late grandmother (born in the 19th century) used to say "orf". She
> was a South Londoner rather than an East. In her day there were a
> number of similarities between the demotic speech of London and the
> hyperlect of the aristocratic classes.
Why was that?
> "Huntin', shootin'; and fishin'"
> is another classic example. Now most of those things (including "orf")
> have disappeared from demotic London speech, and the aristocratic
> hyperlect is much rarer. The Queen's version of it has become much
> weaker than it use to be. Prince Philip still exhibits a good example
> of it, and Price Charles a lesser one, but still stronger than his
> mother's.
Do Diana's children, William and Harry, speak that way too?
>
> "Yer" for "year", however, is very common in London (and possibly
> elsewhere but I pass on that), but does to some extent depend on the
> stress pattern of the sentence in which it appears. I, for example,
> would probably say "in two yeers, time" but "a couple of yers ago".
Very interesting :)
Enrico C
uk.culture.language.english,alt.usage.english,it.cultura.linguistica.
inglese
in <news:brr0b8$6kurb$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>
> Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <bro592$qgq$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>> Dave Swindell wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <brli64$n7i$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
>>>> <rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>>>
>>>>> I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a
>>>>> joke - "Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In
>>>>> fact, come to think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most
>>>>> languages (that I know)
Yep! "Buon pomeriggio" sounds weird in Italian as well :)
>>>>> and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in
>>>>> English.
>>>>
>>>> Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
>>>> trigger for a friendly smile over here.
>>>>
>>> Yeah, you get overprecise people doing that over here too, but few
>>> of us say "Good afternoon" anymore: it's "G'day". I wasn't saying
In the UK?
I thought that "Good day" was mostly used in Australian.
>>> that "Good afternoon" was dead, but I think it's only used by
>>> certain people; ie I know "Good day" is rarely used in Britain, but
>>> I can't imagine an East Ender saying "Good afternoon" either.
>>>
>> No, they would simply say 'ar'ernoon with glottal stops on the '
>
> That is if they didn't say "wotcher", which I'd consider much more
> likely.
Just a few online dictionaries list it!
wotcher
interjection
U.K. hello: hello (slang)
[Late 19th century. A contraction of "what cheer."]
[Encarta]
wotcha, wotcher
exclamation UK INFORMAL
used as an informal greeting, especially between friends:
Wotcha, mate!
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
> Mind you, nowadays they'd be just as likely to say something
> like "hi" or "yo".
--
Apex
"Mike Stevens" <mike...@which.net> wrote in message >
> Yeagh! A nasty usage (far too prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic).
> Just because it is after noon, that does not prevent it from being
> morning. There are two quite separate ways of dividing the day. On the
> one hand there's the distinction between the forenoon and the afternoon
> (which is self-explanatory). "Forenoon" is now pretty well obsolete
> except in the maritime phrase "the forenoon watch", which itself is
> decidedly antiquated.
>
> On the other hand there's the division into "morning" and "evening" as
> in "And the morning and the evening was the first day" in the Authorised
> version (for leftpondians, that's the King James Version) of the Bible.
> Here the division between the two was the main meal of the day, whose
> customary timing has varied a lot with place and century. Once the main
> meal, "dinner", had migrated to relatively late in the day, a secondary
> meal "lunch" or "luncheon" was introduced earlier in the day. Somebody
> (I think it was a character in one of Thomas Love Peacock's novels) in
> the early nineteenth century said something like "I like to take
> luncheon at around noon, thus giving two long divisions of the morning",
> which is evidence of how the word "morning" was used at that time -
> clearly it included the period between luncheon and dinner.
>
>
I'm not disputing your historical account of "morning", which differs from
today's common assumptions and usage. Your post is very interesting.
However, the Authorized Version, in the account of the genesis creation,
speaks of "the evening and the morning" being the first day, second day,
etc - not "the morning and the evening".
This is in tune with the Hebrew cultural perception of the day commencing in
the evening (about which time exactly there can be great dispute but it is
around sunset). Thus Jewish people and other "seventh dayers" commence their
seventh day observation on Friday evening at around sunset.
The evening of the Bible, therefore, has little to do with traditional
English customs of meals and divisions of day.
--
Peg
Mike Stevens
>> as in "And the morning and the evening was the first day" in the
>> Authorised version (for leftpondians, that's the King James Version)
>> of the Bible. Here the division between the two was the main meal of
>> the day, whose customary timing has varied a lot with place and
>> century. Once the main meal, "dinner", had migrated to relatively
>> late in the day, a secondary meal "lunch" or "luncheon" was
>> introduced earlier in the day. Somebody (I think it was a character
>> in one of Thomas Love Peacock's novels) in the early nineteenth
>> century said something like "I like to take luncheon at around noon,
>> thus giving two long divisions of the morning", which is evidence of
>> how the word "morning" was used at that time - clearly it included
>> the period between luncheon and dinner.
>>
>>
> I'm not disputing your historical account of "morning", which differs
> from today's common assumptions and usage. Your post is very
> interesting.
>
> However, the Authorized Version, in the account of the genesis
> creation, speaks of "the evening and the morning" being the first
> day, second day, etc - not "the morning and the evening".
My fault for not checking the quote before I posted.
>
> This is in tune with the Hebrew cultural perception of the day
> commencing in the evening (about which time exactly there can be
> great dispute but it is around sunset). Thus Jewish people and other
> "seventh dayers" commence their seventh day observation on Friday
> evening at around sunset.
>
> The evening of the Bible, therefore, has little to do with traditional
> English customs of meals and divisions of day.
But it came to us through translators who would, of course, have thought
in the terms common in the England of their day. But my point was that,
however defined, the morning and the evening made up a complete day,
with no gap between them.
Robert Bannister
In the days when I could still read Russian without too much trouble, I
seem to remember being puzzled at finding 'zavtrak' (breakfast) being
taken about noon, with 'obyed' (dinner) being served about midnight.
Those old aristocrats lived a different life - almost like a student.
--
Rob Bannister