Idioms
Master of the universe and supreme ruler of all living beings (and I have permission from my wife to be so).
>
> Is this correct phrase, or maybe not?
I think you will find that the common usage is "to know ones onions", as in
"He really knows his onions!" (he knows his trade/subject). The phrase is
especially used a lot in the North of England. I think you will find the
Northern opposite to this phrase must be "He doesn't know his arse from his
elbow." (He hasn't got a clue).
BR MOTU
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
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
---------
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.
Tony Cooper
(John Lawler) wrote:
Top Posting Warning
Hopefully, CyberCypher will read this and understand that not all
stock phrases are idioms.
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
R F
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Richard Chambers wrote:
> 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.
That seems dead wrong to me. "Check out" in a hotel-travel sort of
context refers precisely to the things you give for the British
understanding. You've checked out (AmE) even before you've left the
hotel, and certainly getting into a car and driving away from a hotel
you've checked out of wouldn't be spoken of itself as "checking out".
It's true, and I think this may be what you're on about, that when you
describe a travel itinerary to someone, checking out is important
enough that you might say things like "we check out on Friday and yadda
yadda yadda" in order to explain the itinerary, but the "checking out"
refers specifically to the formal act of checking out of a hotel.
Coop, I'm right, am I not?
R F
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Dio wrote:
> What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
[...]
> 17. Mind the step.
>
> 18. I'll get it straight away.
>
> 19. Mind your head.
These three are strictly Hiberno-British. You might catch a
Hiberno-Britophile like Tony Cooper using them, but otherwise they aren't
used by Americans (this statement is subject to the Truly Donovan
Proviso).
Australian actor Simon Baker of CBS's _The Guardian_ plays an American
character on that show, but not entirely believably because he looks so
Freck and Hiberno-British. (Also, the name "Simon Baker" is probably as
Hiberno-British-sounding as "Brad Friedel" is American-sounding.) On one
episode he actually said "mind your head", which I thought was really
weird since you'd think all the dialogue would have been scripted. I
figure he ad-libbed that line and they just let it go through.
But anyway, yes, this use of "mind" is very non-American-sounding, though
you can imagine an elite American character using it a half-century ago.
There are some fixed phrases in AmE where this survives (e.g. "mind your
manners", "mind your own business"). For "mind your head", an American
would probably say "watch your head". For "mind the step", AmE would have
"watch the step" probably.
For "straight away" (= EstE "strigh' awhy"), Americans will say "right
away". This is confusing, because the grunt-word "right" (EstE "roi'") is
one of the most commonly used words in post-Suez British English.
Didn't Elvis Costello sing "you better watch your step"? Does that sound
non-British? Anyone? Anyone? Lamprhey?
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
<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.
>
R F
Well, the Freck and Manual warns us never to say never in AUE, but I think
that's basically right. "Straightaway" (I'll assume it's one
word) is extremely non-American. I don't think even a
pseudo-Hiberno-Britophile like Tony Cooper, a man who's (= TCE "that's")
been known to say "at university" and even "whilst", would say
"straightaway". If you're right that British speakers are more likely to
say "right away", it's not something that's noticeable.
So, yes, celebrated southern Michiganian linguist John Jacob Lawler is
correct.
My guess is that any use of "right away" in Britain is the result of AmE
influence.
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
Matti Lamprhey
>
> For "straight away" (= EstE "strigh' awhy"), Americans will say "right
> away". This is confusing, because the grunt-word "right" (EstE
> "roi'") is one of the most commonly used words in post-Suez British
> English.
That confirms my thoughts, although I'd write "straightaway". Perhaps
my take on EstE is nonstandard, but your "strigh awhy" comes across more
as Sarf Lunnon / Cockney.
> Didn't Elvis Costello sing "you better watch your step"? Does that
> sound non-British? Anyone? Anyone? Lamprhey?
The 'd' sound in "you'd better" is commonly so lightly stressed that it
might as well not be there, so it *sounds* British except from a speaker
who's particularly punctilious. But most Brits would be careful not to
write it like that, because it looks distinctly American^Wsubstandard.
Song lyrix excepted, as usual, where substandard is invariably a
desideratum.
Matti
R F
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> "R F" <rfon...@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote...
> >
> > For "straight away" (= EstE "strigh' awhy"), Americans will say "right
> > away". This is confusing, because the grunt-word "right" (EstE
> > "roi'") is one of the most commonly used words in post-Suez British
> > English.
>
> That confirms my thoughts, although I'd write "straightaway". Perhaps
> my take on EstE is nonstandard, but your "strigh awhy" comes across more
> as Sarf Lunnon / Cockney.
Could very well be my own steve-hazy understanding of all that. I see all
those London-region accents, excluding stuff like Pre-Suez RP, as points
on a continuum, with Traditional Cockney at its most stereotypical at one
end and the Post-Falklands Estuary-Tainted RP (PFETRP) at the other. But
what do I know, I'm just a trombone player.
mUs1Ka
"R F" <rfon...@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu...
'Watch *your* step' - watch what you do, behave yourself.
m.
CyberCypher
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:44:58 GMT,
> jla...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) wrote:
>
>
> Top Posting Warning
>
> Hopefully, CyberCypher will read this and understand that not all
> stock phrases are idioms.
Prof Lawler was using a restricted definition of "idiom", even
though it is the most frequently used definition. That is not the
only one in existence, and what a thing is called depends entirely
on who is doing the name-calling and what definitions the name-
caller uses. Quirk et al give the following as an example of an
idiom [3.35, p. 132] "to have {breakfast/lunch/dinner}". Does that
seem like an idiom to you? It is a standard way many native
English-speakers say "to eat {breakfast/lunch/dinner}". The
expression in question, "Couldn't tell you", is not sufficiently
semantically clear to be called compositional: it's missing a
subject (a grammatical peculiarity that allows some experts to
call it an idiom), and the use of the past-tense modal "couldn't"
instead of the present-tense modal "can't" makes the meaning of
the expression quite ambiguous. Even "Can't tell you" is unclear.
Both versions of the expression are incomplete and imply any
number of reasons for not being able to answer the questioner;
ignorance is only one of many reasonable assumptions. "Why not?"
is the appropriate response to both forms of that expression for
people who don't already know what it means. The clear and
compositional response to a question that one does not know the
answer to is "I don't know". You have not provided your own
analysis of this or any other piece of discourse in order to argue
your points. You rely on --- now, you grasp at something that you
only partially understand (Prof Lawler's remarks about a list of
expressions that contains some idioms, some metaphors [and
therefore idioms], and some standard compositional expressions).
Had you bothered to take the time and trouble to look up the word,
you'd have discovered that there are multiple classes of idioms
and that some expressions are idioms for reasons other than their
semantic opacity. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing,
especially for a small and narrow mind.
W3NID
Main Entry:idiom
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French idiome, from Late
Latin idioma, from Greek idi*ma peculiarity, peculiarity of style,
idiom, from idiousthai to appropriate, from idios one's own, private,
peculiar * more at IDIOT
2 : an expression established in the usage of a language that is
peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction (as "no, it
wasn't me") or in having a meaning that cannot be derived as a whole
from the conjoined meanings of its elements (as Monday week for *the
Monday a week after next Monday*; many a for *many taken
distributively*; had better for *might better*; how are you? for
*what is the state of your health or feelings?*)
Please note the first explanation and example of the term above:
"an expression established in the usage of a language that is
peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction (as 'no, it
wasn't me')".
AHD4 says:
1. A speech form or an expression of a given language that is
peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the
individual meanings of its elements, as in "keep tabs on".
This is essentially equivalent to W3NID's #2 definition.
"Couldn't tell you" is just such an expression because the expression
lacks a subject, and a requirement for anything other than a command
--- (an imperative with an implied "You" subject), eg, "Believe
nothing you hear and only half of what you read!" --- to be a
technically complete sentence is a subject and a verb; therefore, it
is as grammatically flawed as the sentence with the "me" that should
be "I" in W3NID's example.
This makes it an idiom according to this definition even if Prof
Lawler's definition doesn't cover it. It's easy to figure out the
meaning of "No, it wasn't me" in context. It's the answer to a
question like "Who broke this window? Was it you, John?" "No, it
wasn't me". Even you wouldn't have a problem understanding the
meaning of that exchange, I know.
Despite the prescriptivist demands for subject + predicate, however,
I did point out earlier this week that anything that acts as a
sentence is a sentence. Like this. See?
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
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
Skitt
I'm not Coop, but you are right. Think of the hotel/casino combinations in
Vegas. We usually check out by the check-out time, but then hang around for
a couple more hours, having a lunch at the buffet and spending a few more
dollars at the tables. Only after that is it time to look for
transportation away from the place. Checking out does not necessarily mean
leaving that instant.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
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.
Richard Chambers
"R F" <rfon...@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote
What I am trying to say, rightly or wrongly, is that the American mind seems
to focus on the check out procedure as the significant act on the day of
departure. The British mind considers this a mere sub-procedure, little
worthy of mention, and focuses instead upon the act of getting into the car
and driving away. If perchance you and I were staying in the same hotel
tonight, you might be thinking about checking out tomorrow. I would be
thinking about my departure tomorrow, or leaving tomorrow, rather than about
checking out.
Let us think about everything you need to do to leave a hotel. Pack your
case, pay the bill, hand in your keys, put the suitcase into the boot/trunk,
and drive away. The general term I would use to describe this entire
procedure would be my "departure", reserving the word "check out" for the
specific sub-procedure of paying the bill. I believe that an American would
often use the term "check out" to describe the full procedure. If I am
right, the Americans have generalised the check out, while the Brits have
generalised the act of driving off, in order to describe the full procedure.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
R F
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Richard Chambers wrote:
> What I am trying to say, rightly or wrongly, is that the American mind seems
> to focus on the check out procedure as the significant act on the day of
> departure. The British mind considers this a mere sub-procedure, little
> worthy of mention, and focuses instead upon the act of getting into the car
> and driving away. If perchance you and I were staying in the same hotel
> tonight, you might be thinking about checking out tomorrow. I would be
> thinking about my departure tomorrow, or leaving tomorrow, rather than about
> checking out.
Okay, so you're saying wrongly. Checking out is a sort of
mechanical/bureaucratic procedure. It is becoming increasingly common for
hotels to provide "express checkout" procedures to make checking out as
painless and as quick as possible.
> Let us think about everything you need to do to leave a hotel. Pack your
> case
That's a British expression. The Baytles used it in "Back in the
U.S.S.R." (well, it was "unpack my case").
Americans wouldn't generally shorten "suitcase" to "case".
>, pay the bill, hand in your keys, put the suitcase into the boot/trunk,
> and drive away. The general term I would use to describe this entire
> procedure would be my "departure", reserving the word "check out" for the
> specific sub-procedure of paying the bill. I believe that an American would
> often use the term "check out" to describe the full procedure.
That's just completely dead wrong. "Check out" refers only to the
formalities involved in leaving the hotel with respect to the hotel
management -- basically, paying the bill, returning the keys, etc.
> If I am
> right, the Americans have generalised the check out, while the Brits have
> generalised the act of driving off, in order to describe the full procedure.
Do you have any actual evidence of this American generalization of "check
out"?
Richard Chambers
"R F" <rfon...@alumni.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu...
>
This is my own observation. In effect, I am simply trying to make sense of
what I often see and hear. I sometimes find myself in hotels with American
guests, and have noticed that your compatriots use the term "check out" much
more frequently than do the British. I don't really know why this should be
so, and have proposed the above theory to try to account for it. But if you
are telling me that I am misinterpreting American language, I shall have to
accept that as a fact, as I believe that you know what you are talking about
better than I do on the subject of AmE.
An alternative possible explanation for why Americans use the term "check
out" more than the British might be this:- On the day of departure, you
will go to the Reception Desk and "check out". I will go to the same desk
and "pay the bill". Would you regard this as a credible explanation for why
we say "check out" less frequently than the Americans do?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Jerry Friedman
> Einde O'Callaghan ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>
> 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
R F
By Joey, I think you may have got it. While checking out of a hotel,
especially in its traditional version, might involve paying the hotel
bill, I don't think Americans tend to speak of this as "paying the bill"
since "checking out" includes all that. (My own feeling about this is
that it's also because you're sort of being charged from the get-go anyway
-- I've always thought of checking out as mainly involving returning the
key. In "express checkout" procedures you typically leave the key in your
room, and the hotel (which probably slipped an invoice under your door)
just charges your credit card and everyone lives happily ever after.)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Richard Chambers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>That seems dead wrong to me. "Check out" in a hotel-travel sort of
>context refers precisely to the things you give for the British
>understanding. You've checked out (AmE) even before you've left the
>hotel, and certainly getting into a car and driving away from a hotel
>you've checked out of wouldn't be spoken of itself as "checking out".
>
>It's true, and I think this may be what you're on about, that when you
>describe a travel itinerary to someone, checking out is important
>enough that you might say things like "we check out on Friday and yadda
>yadda yadda" in order to explain the itinerary, but the "checking out"
>refers specifically to the formal act of checking out of a hotel.
>
>Coop, I'm right, am I not?
>
As far as I'm personally concerned, "checking out" is exactly what
Chambers says is the British concept. I have no idea what he's
talking about as far as "everything to do with departure". Checking
out begins and ends at the hotel desk.
Tony Cooper
Obviously, you have picked this up from some American(s) you have met.
It's a strange concept to me, though, and I've stayed in a lot of
hotels.
I might tell my wife "Let's get ready to check-out" as a way of saying
pack the bags, but the check-out is done at the desk. I know I
wouldn't tell her "Let's get ready for departure".
Tony Cooper
<cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
(Opening chapters snipped)
>. You have not provided your own
>analysis of this or any other piece of discourse in order to argue
>your points.
Yeah, I did. In an earlier post. In the thread where I first used
"stock phrase". There's no need to repeat it. Look it up.
A much (understatement approaching) briefer analysis*, but sufficient.
No one quarreled with it. You must have been out giving your wits a
much needed sharpening and missed it.
(Closing chapters snipped)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Dio wrote:
>
>> What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
>[...]
>
>> 17. Mind the step.
>>
>> 18. I'll get it straight away.
>>
>> 19. Mind your head.
>
>These three are strictly Hiberno-British. You might catch a
>Hiberno-Britophile like Tony Cooper using them, but otherwise they aren't
>used by Americans (this statement is subject to the Truly Donovan
>Proviso).
Nah. Us real Hibernowhatevers say:
17. Mind the step, fuckwit, or ye'll be arse over teakettle.
18. Me get it straight away? It's your feckin' call, isn't it now.
19. Mind that great, thick head of yours, ye eejit.
We talk that way around our house all the time.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Richard Chambers wrote:
>
>> An alternative possible explanation for why Americans use the term "check
>> out" more than the British might be this:- On the day of departure, you
>> will go to the Reception Desk and "check out". I will go to the same desk
>> and "pay the bill". Would you regard this as a credible explanation for why
>> we say "check out" less frequently than the Americans do?
>
You don't "check out" the babes?
Richard Maurer
An alternative possible explanation for why Americans use the term "check
out" more than the British might be this:- On the day of departure, you
will go to the Reception Desk and "check out". I will go to the same desk
and "pay the bill". Would you regard this as a credible explanation for why
we say "check out" less frequently than the Americans do?
Yes. "Pay the bill" is quite familiar too, but factor in the fact
that we often pay the bill while checking in. Thus checking out can
become a quick matter of tossing the key on the counter and leaving.
If the actual stay does not match the expected number of days,
or if phone charges or other charges were incurred,
then there are adjustments done while checking out.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
R J Valentine
} On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Dio wrote:
}
}> What about these idioms? Are them in fashion or out of fashion?
} [...]
}
}> 17. Mind the step.
}>
}> 18. I'll get it straight away.
}>
}> 19. Mind your head.
}
} These three are strictly Hiberno-British. You might catch a
} Hiberno-Britophile like Tony Cooper using them, but otherwise they aren't
} used by Americans (this statement is subject to the Truly Donovan
} Proviso).
"Mind the door" has been attested on alt.usage.english a few times by an
American. Doubters can google it.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R J Valentine
How about "Mind the gap"? Do you say "Mind the gap"?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:ar...@wicked.smart.net>
Genealogical discourse incorporated by reference.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
My wife would when advising my daughter to check the sale ads in the
newspaper. Herself (distinctly Hibernowhatever) is a bit mature for
the styles offered by Gap.
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
Ross Howard
>
>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?
"Tell anyone and die".
--
Ross Howard
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
R J Valentine
...
} My wife would when advising my daughter to check the sale ads in the
} newspaper. Herself (distinctly Hibernowhatever) is a bit mature for
} the styles offered by Gap.
ObLawler: They must have some sedate grey three skirts.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Amore
John Lawler ha scritto nel messaggio ...
>"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.
"
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.
--
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
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
Donna Richoux
> 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
Absolutely standard in Dutch. I run most of my errands in the afternoon,
and "Goede middag" is what is said by and said to every shopkeeper,
cashier, agent, etc. Followed by the usual exchanges of "Here you are,
thank you, here you are, thank you," etc.
>(that I
> know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
Richoux) said:
> 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
> Absolutely standard in Dutch. I run most of my errands in the afternoon,
> and "Goede middag" is what is said by and said to every shopkeeper,
> cashier, agent, etc. Followed by the usual exchanges of "Here you are,
> thank you, here you are, thank you," etc.
It's hard to believe that "Goede middag" doesn't mean "Good
midday" rather than "Good afternoon".
Bob Cunningham
In fact, in Peter M Bergman's _The Concise Dictionary of 26
Languages_, English "noon" is Dutch "middag", and English
"afternoon" is Dutch "namiddag".
In that same dictionary I see the following words for
English "afternoon" in some Germanic languages:
German Nachmittag
Dutch namiddag
Swedish eftermiddag
Danish eftermiddag
Norwegian eftermiddag
Yiddish nochmitag
The _Britannica Seven Language Dictionary_ confirms the
above for German and Swedish. It's a little different for
Yiddish: "nokmittik".
The "after midday" idea for "afternoon" appears to be
discernible in French: "après-midi".
Donna Richoux
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:12:51 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> <exw...@earthlink.net> said:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:29:05 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna
> > Richoux) said:
>
> > > 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
>
> > > Absolutely standard in Dutch. I run most of my errands in the afternoon,
> > > and "Goede middag" is what is said by and said to every shopkeeper,
> > > cashier, agent, etc. Followed by the usual exchanges of "Here you are,
> > > thank you, here you are, thank you," etc.
>
> > It's hard to believe that "Goede middag" doesn't mean "Good
> > midday" rather than "Good afternoon".
>
> In fact, in Peter M Bergman's _The Concise Dictionary of 26
> Languages_, English "noon" is Dutch "middag", and English
> "afternoon" is Dutch "namiddag".
Well, "middag" does mean "afternoon." The time between 12.00 and 18.00.
"Vanmiddag" means "this afternoon."
The current Van Dale ("dictionary of present-day Nederlands") does have
an entry for "namiddag" which it defines as "middag." My daughter says
that the few times she has heard "namiddag," it has meant "late
afternoon."
She says that "middag" can also mean "noon," but she doesn't remember
this moment-in-time being confused with the period-of-time.
I don't have any etymological information. Quite likely "namiddag" is
the older name for the period, and was shortened to the current
"middag."
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
Opus the Penguin
> 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.
The character Fez on _That '70s Show_ is famous for saying "Good day"
to end a conversation. His interlocutor will invariably try to continue
speaking and Fez will snap, "I said, 'Good day'!"
Fez is of unknown nationality. (Even the name "Fez" is simply a
pronunciation of the intialism from "Foreign Exchange Student". He
mentioned his real name once, but unfortunately a school bell rang at
exactly the wrong moment.) He sounds of Central or South American
extraction, though something middle eastern or Indian subcontinent-y
isn't out of the question. It's understood that his use of the phrase
"Good day" is part of his foreign peculiarity.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
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
Robert Bannister
> 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
>
>
> Absolutely standard in Dutch. I run most of my errands in the afternoon,
> and "Goede middag"
Strange: that looks as though it ought to mean "Good noon". I don't
think I've ever heard "Guten Nachmittag" in German; the standard seems
to be that the second time you meet people in the morning or if you meet
later in the day, you say "Guten Tag". Now I'm wondering whether I ever
heard "Guten Vormittag".
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> Donna Richoux 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
>>
>> Absolutely standard in Dutch. I run most of my errands in the
>> afternoon, and "Goede middag"
>
> Strange: that looks as though it ought to mean "Good noon". I don't
> think I've ever heard "Guten Nachmittag" in German; the standard seems
> to be that the second time you meet people in the morning or if you
> meet later in the day, you say "Guten Tag". Now I'm wondering whether
> I ever heard "Guten Vormittag".
I wouldn't think so. "Guten Abend" is used for the evening, though, and
"Guten Morgen" for the morning.
Latvian follows the same convention.
In English I use "Good morning", "Good afternoon", and "Good evening", but
never "Good day" or any abbreviated form of that.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Charles Riggs
<dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <brli64$n7i$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
><rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>
>>I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
>>"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
>>think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
>>know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>>
>Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
>trigger for a friendly smile over here.
I don't know if "Good afternoon" is old-fashioned or if it simply
never was in fashion in much of the English-speaking world. We rarely
hear it in Ireland; it is rare in the parts of America I've lived in.
There are many ways of greeting a person, so there are alternatives to
a friendly "Good morning" in the early afternoon hours, but it remains
a possibility in Ireland and elsewhere: in Maine, where I last lived
in the US, for example. If I hadn't read Alec's post, I'd have said
that only stuffy people say "Good afternoon".
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggsŚatŚeircomŚdotŚnet
Dave Swindell
<rob...@it.net.au> writes
>Dave Swindell wrote:
>
>> In article <brli64$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$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Robert Bannister
>>><rob...@it.net.au> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a Macedonian friend who often says "Dobro popladne" as a joke -
>>>>"Good afternoon" is simply not said in the language. In fact, come to
>>>>think of it, "Good afternoon" is pretty rare in most languages (that I
>>>>know) and is becoming fairly old-fashioned in English.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not in UK English. Saying "Good morning" after 12 noon is a nice
>>>trigger for a friendly smile over here.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, you get overprecise people doing that over here too, but few of us
>>say "Good afternoon" anymore: it's "G'day". I wasn't saying that "Good
>>afternoon" was dead, but I think it's only used by certain people; ie I
>>know "Good day" is rarely used in Britain, but I can't imagine an East
>>Ender saying "Good afternoon" either.
>>
>
> No, they would simply say 'ar'ernoon with glottal stops on the '
>
--
Rob Bannister
Dr Robin Bignall
"Good day" is very Australian. The nearest I can get to illustrating how
they pronounce it is "G'die".
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Mike Stevens
> In article <bro592$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
> 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.
>
> Why was that?
I don't really know, but I have half a memory of reading somewhere that
both ends of the social spectrum were untouched by a whole batch of
changes in pronunciation that affected the Middle Classes sometime in
the 19th century. Sorry I can't be more specific about the source -
which might possibly be John Honey.
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.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Mike Stevens wrote:
-snip-
>> "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.
In public speaking, most definitely. A couple of years ago, though, I
heard her speaking privately -- we were showing her around an
exhibition at a formal reception -- and was quqite startled to hear
just how strangulated she sounded. (I distinctly recall thinking "Hold
on: you're not supposed to sound like that -- it's your *son* who
talks like that.....")
>>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?
William certainly seems to -- not quite as pronounced as his father,
but clearly cut from the same cloth.
That's hardly surprising, though: they weren't just "Diana's
children", y'know.... (I believe they're said to be very close to their
father.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Louisa Hennessy
>>>
>> 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".
I live 40 miles east of London (on the Thames Estuary) and I suppose I speak a
posh version of Estuary English. I would certainly differentiate between
morning, afternoon and evening in greetings, but would miss out the "good"
part. So I would say "afternoon" after midday, but would pronounce all the
letters.
As far as definitions of times of the day go, pity the poor Victorian traveller
to Turkey:
"The time will be given in Turkish fashion, which begins to count at sundown,
and goes on for the whole twenty-four hours, so in the middle of the afternoon
one may be told it is exactly 17 o' clock. Then as the sun does not have the
politeness to set every day at the same time, it is necessary to carry an
almanack in one' s head to reduce the Turkish time to English. (Barkley,
Bulgaria, 181.)"
--
Louisa
Essex, England, Europe
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
Yusuf B Gursey
> >>> 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".
>
> I live 40 miles east of London (on the Thames Estuary) and I suppose I speak a
> posh version of Estuary English. I would certainly differentiate between
> morning, afternoon and evening in greetings, but would miss out the "good"
> part. So I would say "afternoon" after midday, but would pronounce all the
> letters.
>
> As far as definitions of times of the day go, pity the poor Victorian >traveller
> to Turkey:
the islamic religious day starts at sundown. at least during the
ottoman empire this was formalized as a day that starts at sundown.
the day would not be 24 hours, one had to adjust clocks according to
the seasonal day. gradually the european system came to be used, and
one specified "alaturka" (from the italian "Turkish style") or
"alafranga" ("Frankish" - i.e. European - style). with the "Young
Turk" revolution in 1908 "European style" became official and was
consolidated with the 24 hour notation during the Republic.
conservative oriented turkish almanacs sometimes still give old style
times for prayer times alongside the standard ones.
the "seasonal hours" have their own names in turkish and arabic.