got
Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy
b) She has got three sons.
What's the function/meaning of 'got' in b)? In what way is the meaning of b)
different from a)?
Wolf Kirchmeir
If a) and b) are from different dialects, they mean the same.
If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
Women bear them.
Best wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It's all rather confusing really.
(Monty Python)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy
[...]
> If a) and b) are from different dialects, they mean the same.
>
> If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
> then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
> Women bear them.
Quote from my mothers English text book
"Ann has got two sons."
What dialect would that be?
Wolf Kirchmeir
Informal spoken English. Which is increasingly accepted as standard (but my
Uncle winces when he hears it...)
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
You can see a lot by just looking.
(Yogi Berrs, Phil. Em.)
..................................................................
Peter T. Daniels
British, not American.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Keith Calvert Ivey
>Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy wrote:
>> "Ann has got two sons."
>>
>> What dialect would that be?
>
>British, not American.
It's perfectly valid American as long as it's pronounced
"Ann's got two sons."
--
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org>
Washington, DC
michael farris
Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy wrote:
I think a) is much more common in Standard American, b) sounds too British
though I guess that's not bad in and of itself.
On the other hand, one can make a distinction in American which I don't think
comes naturally to British speakers between
a) I have a car. ( I own one)
b) I've got a car. (It's here, we can use it)
Looking back at your first question, I actually think both might occur in
American but again with slightly different meanings.
a) simple statement of fact, no further information forthcoming (or needed)
b) connected to something else, as in "She's got three sons and school starts
next week so she's gotta buy them new clothes."
-mike farris
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> wrote:
> >Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy wrote:
>
> >> "Ann has got two sons."
> >>
> >> What dialect would that be?
> >
> >British, not American.
>
> It's perfectly valid American as long as it's pronounced
> "Ann's got two sons."
But that wasn't the example, was it.
Keith Calvert Ivey
>Keith Calvert Ivey wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>> >Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy wrote:
>>
>> >> "Ann has got two sons."
>> >>
>> >> What dialect would that be?
>> >
>> >British, not American.
>>
>> It's perfectly valid American as long as it's pronounced
>> "Ann's got two sons."
>
>But that wasn't the example, was it.
It depends on your transcription method. Sounds dropped in
speech are often represented in writing anyway. "'T'seat" would
normally be written as "Let's eat", and "Let us eat" would be
silly, but not all cases are black and white. Writing
"'Sgeorge?" as "Where is George?" doesn't seem unreasonable,
though "Where's George?" is probably better.
Caelius
>>a) She has three sons.
>>b) She has got three sons.
>>
>>What's the function/meaning of 'got' in b)? In what way is the meaning of b)
>>different from a)?
>>
>
in emphasis. The second is definitely more colloquial, although it is
usually contracted, e.g., "How many kids does she have? She's got
three sons."
>If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
>then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
>Women bear them.
>
Where are there examples of "get" used in the sense of "beget"?
Caelius
Coby (Jacob) Lubliner
Caelius
>>>If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
>>>then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
>>>Women bear them.
>>>
>>Where are there examples of "get" used in the sense of "beget"?
>>
>In Shakespeare, I think.
>
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
> Venus and Adonis:
> Seeds spring from seeds and beauty breedeth beauty;
> Thou wast begot; to get it is thy duty.
And misconstruing that last clause would be the source of "Did you get
any last night?"
Wolf Kirchmeir
[quoting Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy :]
>> Quote from my mothers English text book
>>
>> "Ann has got two sons."
>>
>> What dialect would that be?
>
>British, not American.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Would you accept Candain as an American dialect? If so, the example is
American, too, since most Canadians would understand it as intended (= Anne
has two sons.)
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:57:37 GMT, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> [quoting Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy :]
> >> Quote from my mothers English text book
> >>
> >> "Ann has got two sons."
> >>
> >> What dialect would that be?
> >
> >British, not American.
> >--
> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Would you accept Candain as an American dialect? If so, the example is
> American, too, since most Canadians would understand it as intended (= Anne
> has two sons.)
Grammatically, Canada often goes with Britain. Pronunciation-wise, with
US. (Even "Canadian raising" occurs SotB.)
Keith Calvert Ivey
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:57:37 GMT, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>[quoting Przemyslaw Wstrzemiezliwy :]
>>> Quote from my mothers English text book
>>>
>>> "Ann has got two sons."
>>>
>>> What dialect would that be?
>>
>>British, not American.
>>--
>>Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
>
>Would you accept Candain as an American dialect? If so, the example is
>American, too, since most Canadians would understand it as intended (= Anne
>has two sons.)
Most US Americans would understand it as intended too, but that
doesn't mean it's part of their dialect, since they would never
produce it -- though they might very well produce "Ann's got two
sons."
--
Caelius
>> > If a) and b) are from different dialects, they mean the same.
>> >
>> > If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
>> > then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
>> > Women bear them.
>>
>> Quote from my mothers English text book
>>
>> "Ann has got two sons."
>>
>> What dialect would that be?
>
>British, not American.
A somewhat hasty conclusion. If emphasis were desired, an American
would very naturally say, "Ann has got two sons."
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
You're kidding, right? Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
up data?
One form of emphasis would be "Ann does so have two sons."
(contradicting a prior statement to the contrary).
You could say "I've got two sons" (and it's not "emphatic"), but not "I
have got two sons"; "Ann's got two sons" might follow that context, but
is less natural than "Ann has two sons."
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>>
>> >> > If a) and b) are from different dialects, they mean the same.
>> >> >
>> >> > If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
>> >> > then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
>> >> > Women bear them.
>> >>
>> >> Quote from my mothers English text book
>> >>
>> >> "Ann has got two sons."
>> >>
>> >> What dialect would that be?
>> >
>> >British, not American.
>>
>> A somewhat hasty conclusion. If emphasis were desired, an American
>> would very naturally say, "Ann has got two sons."
>
>You're kidding, right?
No.
>Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
>up data?
>
What?
>One form of emphasis would be "Ann does so have two sons."
>(contradicting a prior statement to the contrary).
>
True.
>You could say "I've got two sons" (and it's not "emphatic"), but not "I
>have got two sons"; "Ann's got two sons" might follow that context, but
>is less natural than "Ann has two sons."
Partly true.
Take the following dialogue:
"What?!--are you telling me that Anne has two sons?"
"Yes, like I told you before, she has got two sons."
It's a rather easy scenario to imagine, and by and large natural. The
emphasis stems from the speaker's desire to make Anne's possession
absolutely clear, hence the colloquial redundancy of "has" and "got."
Likewise, it would not be unnatural to query, "Has he got any money?"
Perhaps you pronounce the sentence with a different stress pattern
than I, and this is the cause of your disapproval.
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 12:48:26 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Caelius wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > If a) and b) are from different dialects, they mean the same.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If a) and b) are in the same dialect (formal standard English, I presume),
> >> >> > then b) is semantic nonsense, since only men can get sons (or daughters).
> >> >> > Women bear them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Quote from my mothers English text book
> >> >>
> >> >> "Ann has got two sons."
> >> >>
> >> >> What dialect would that be?
> >> >
> >> >British, not American.
> >>
> >> A somewhat hasty conclusion. If emphasis were desired, an American
> >> would very naturally say, "Ann has got two sons."
> >
> >You're kidding, right?
>
> No.
>
> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
> >up data?
> >
> What?
Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
> >One form of emphasis would be "Ann does so have two sons."
> >(contradicting a prior statement to the contrary).
> >
> True.
>
> >You could say "I've got two sons" (and it's not "emphatic"), but not "I
> >have got two sons"; "Ann's got two sons" might follow that context, but
> >is less natural than "Ann has two sons."
>
> Partly true.
>
> Take the following dialogue:
>
> "What?!--are you telling me that Anne has two sons?"
>
> "Yes, like I told you before, she has got two sons."
No. You could stress "she has twó sóns." You could say "yes I am." or
"yes, she does."
> It's a rather easy scenario to imagine, and by and large natural. The
Natural to you, maybe, but not natural to us.
> emphasis stems from the speaker's desire to make Anne's possession
> absolutely clear, hence the colloquial redundancy of "has" and "got."
> Likewise, it would not be unnatural to query, "Has he got any money?"
We just went through this a few weeks ago. The question form is ok. The
answer is "yes he does."
> Perhaps you pronounce the sentence with a different stress pattern
> than I, and this is the cause of your disapproval.
No. We just don't use "got" that way.
Caelius
>> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
>> >up data?
>> >
>> What?
>
>Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
>
registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
criticizing my sense of American English. Third, I did not say that
they are "American forms." I merely corrected your error--that "she
has got two sons" is only to be found in British English.
>> >You could say "I've got two sons" (and it's not "emphatic"), but not "I
>> >have got two sons"; "Ann's got two sons" might follow that context, but
>> >is less natural than "Ann has two sons."
>>
>> Partly true.
>>
>> Take the following dialogue:
>>
>> "What?!--are you telling me that Anne has two sons?"
>>
>> "Yes, like I told you before, she has got two sons."
>
>No. You could stress "she has twó sóns." You could say "yes I am." or
>"yes, she does."
>
True. These alternatives do not disprove what I say, however.
>> It's a rather easy scenario to imagine, and by and large natural. The
>
>Natural to you, maybe, but not natural to us.
>
Ha Ha! You have deemed yourself a representative of all native
speakers of American English, have you? Or does your "us" refer to
some other cadre before whom I should bow?
Surely you jest.
>> emphasis stems from the speaker's desire to make Anne's possession
>> absolutely clear, hence the colloquial redundancy of "has" and "got."
>> Likewise, it would not be unnatural to query, "Has he got any money?"
>
>We just went through this a few weeks ago. The question form is ok. The
>answer is "yes he does."
>
All apologies, I was not privy to that discussion. But surely you did
not conclude that there was only one answer to this question. "Yes,
he does"; "He's got some"; and "he has got some money," will all work.
>> Perhaps you pronounce the sentence with a different stress pattern
>> than I, and this is the cause of your disapproval.
>
>No. We just don't use "got" that way.
No offense, but you're all too dogmatic and pompous to permit any sort
of reasonable or edifying discussion. And it was intolerably rude of
you to work under the assumption that I was British, to scoff at my
school, and to impugn my ear for American English. If you're
unfamiliar with the conversational bit that I created, then you should
listen to America more; for you simply do not seem to register all of
her many tones.
Good day.
Caelius
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>>> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
>>> >up data?
>>> >
>>> What?
>>
>>Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
>>
>First off, if you assumed that I'm English because my system is
>registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
>I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>criticizing my sense of American English.
Are you suggesting that this use of 'off there' (as in 'off there in
Never-never-land') is unusual in U.S. English?
[...]
>>> emphasis stems from the speaker's desire to make Anne's possession
>>> absolutely clear, hence the colloquial redundancy of "has" and "got."
>>> Likewise, it would not be unnatural to query, "Has he got any money?"
>>We just went through this a few weeks ago. The question form is ok. The
>>answer is "yes he does."
>All apologies, I was not privy to that discussion. But surely you did
>not conclude that there was only one answer to this question. "Yes,
>he does"; "He's got some"; and "he has got some money," will all work.
But in my experience the last is rather uncommon in the U.S.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
> >> >up data?
> >> >
> >> What?
> >
> >Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
> >
> First off, if you assumed that I'm English because my system is
> registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
> I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
> criticizing my sense of American English. Third, I did not say that
> they are "American forms." I merely corrected your error--that "she
> has got two sons" is only to be found in British English.
Actually, Latin-looking names tend to belong to Swedes, and it seems as
though British, not American, English is the standard taught in Sweden.
So if I were going to try to figure out what you are, my first guess
would be a Swedish student attending university in England.
Who is "you all"? If you're not addressing others as well as me (and no
one else has taken you on), then your use of the explicit plural pronoun
is simply ungrammatical, making it look as though you're trying to sound
"American," in the guise of "Southern."
> of reasonable or edifying discussion. And it was intolerably rude of
> you to work under the assumption that I was British, to scoff at my
> school, and to impugn my ear for American English. If you're
"Scoff at your school"???
> unfamiliar with the conversational bit that I created, then you should
> listen to America more; for you simply do not seem to register all of
> her many tones.
So you even admit you "created" it, and didn't register it through
listening to Americans!
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>>
>> >> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
>> >> >up data?
>> >> >
>> >> What?
>> >
>> >Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
>> >
>> First off, if you assumed that I'm English because my system is
>> registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
>> I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>> criticizing my sense of American English. Third, I did not say that
>> they are "American forms." I merely corrected your error--that "she
>> has got two sons" is only to be found in British English.
>
>Actually, Latin-looking names tend to belong to Swedes, and it seems as
>though British, not American, English is the standard taught in Sweden.
>So if I were going to try to figure out what you are, my first guess
>would be a Swedish student attending university in England.
>
I cherish the way you ignore my second and third points. "Caelius" is
not my real name, genius. It is not a "Latin-looking" name: it is a
Latin name.
What? Can you read? I wrote "you're all," which is the equivalent of
"you are all," the all being an adverb modifying "too." The pronoun is
singular.
>> of reasonable or edifying discussion. And it was intolerably rude of
>> you to work under the assumption that I was British, to scoff at my
>> school, and to impugn my ear for American English. If you're
>
>"Scoff at your school"???
>
Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
learn to control your language.
>> unfamiliar with the conversational bit that I created, then you should
>> listen to America more; for you simply do not seem to register all of
>> her many tones.
>
>So you even admit you "created" it, and didn't register it through
>listening to Americans!
Come on, don't be an idiot. Either respond to all of my arguments
with some substance or kill this thread already.
Caelius
Caelius
Scott) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:12:05 GMT, thelon...@hotmail.com (Caelius)
>wrote:
>
>>>> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
>>>> >up data?
>>>> >
>>>> What?
>>>
>>>Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
>>>
>>First off, if you assumed that I'm English because my system is
>>registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
>>I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>>criticizing my sense of American English.
>
>Are you suggesting that this use of 'off there' (as in 'off there in
>Never-never-land') is unusual in U.S. English?
>
Most definitely. It sounds peculiar to my ear, and I was giving him
the benefit of the doubt by understanding an error of some sort. "Out
there in Never-never-never land," or "Way off...ibid.," sound fine,
but not "off there." It sounds fine to your ear does it? Might I ask
where you're from?
>
>
>>>> emphasis stems from the speaker's desire to make Anne's possession
>>>> absolutely clear, hence the colloquial redundancy of "has" and "got."
>>>> Likewise, it would not be unnatural to query, "Has he got any money?"
>
>>>We just went through this a few weeks ago. The question form is ok. The
>>>answer is "yes he does."
>
>>All apologies, I was not privy to that discussion. But surely you did
>>not conclude that there was only one answer to this question. "Yes,
>>he does"; "He's got some"; and "he has got some money," will all work.
>
>But in my experience the last is rather uncommon in the U.S.
>
I'm not arguing that it's common.
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:26:05 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Caelius wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
> >> >> >up data?
> >> >> >
> >> >> What?
> >> >
> >> >Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
> >> >
> >> First off, if you assumed that I'm English because my system is
> >> registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
> >> I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
> >> criticizing my sense of American English. Third, I did not say that
> >> they are "American forms." I merely corrected your error--that "she
> >> has got two sons" is only to be found in British English.
> >
> >Actually, Latin-looking names tend to belong to Swedes, and it seems as
> >though British, not American, English is the standard taught in Sweden.
> >So if I were going to try to figure out what you are, my first guess
> >would be a Swedish student attending university in England.
> >
> I cherish the way you ignore my second and third points. "Caelius" is
> not my real name, genius. It is not a "Latin-looking" name: it is a
> Latin name.
Ok, I won't bother trying to be amusing in responding to you.
As for "off there," where's your reply to Brian?
As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
said it's not American.
That wasn't the parsing that first came to eye!
> >> of reasonable or edifying discussion. And it was intolerably rude of
> >> you to work under the assumption that I was British, to scoff at my
> >> school, and to impugn my ear for American English. If you're
> >
> >"Scoff at your school"???
> >
> Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
> learn to control your language.
Once again, your intuitions(?) about American fail you.
> >> unfamiliar with the conversational bit that I created, then you should
> >> listen to America more; for you simply do not seem to register all of
> >> her many tones.
> >
> >So you even admit you "created" it, and didn't register it through
> >listening to Americans!
>
> Come on, don't be an idiot. Either respond to all of my arguments
> with some substance or kill this thread already.
What "arguments"? You have merely continued to assert a counterfactual,
which both Brian and I say does not cohere with our native speaker
intuitions.
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:26:05 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Caelius wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >Off there in "Oxford University, England" making
>> >> >> >up data?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> What?
>> >> >
>> >> >Your assertion that these are American forms is incorrect.
>> >> >
>> >> First off, if you assumed that I'm English because my system is
>> >> registered on an Oxford network, you're wrong. I'm from LA. Second,
>> >> I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>> >> criticizing my sense of American English. Third, I did not say that
>> >> they are "American forms." I merely corrected your error--that "she
>> >> has got two sons" is only to be found in British English.
>> >
>> >Actually, Latin-looking names tend to belong to Swedes, and it seems as
>> >though British, not American, English is the standard taught in Sweden.
>> >So if I were going to try to figure out what you are, my first guess
>> >would be a Swedish student attending university in England.
>> >
>> I cherish the way you ignore my second and third points. "Caelius" is
>> not my real name, genius. It is not a "Latin-looking" name: it is a
>> Latin name.
>
>Ok, I won't bother trying to be amusing in responding to you.
>
Simply do a better job.
>As for "off there," where's your reply to Brian?
>
I've responded to his message.
>As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
>that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
>said it's not American.
>
Would you care to offer any proof? I would say that the onus is on
your part, as what I'm suggesting is in no way ungrammatical, or
demonstrably poor English. Colloquial and uncommon, to be sure--but
that hardly makes it not American.
>> >> No offense, but you're all too dogmatic and pompous to permit any sort
>> >
>> >Who is "you all"? If you're not addressing others as well as me (and no
>> >one else has taken you on), then your use of the explicit plural pronoun
>> >is simply ungrammatical, making it look as though you're trying to sound
>> >"American," in the guise of "Southern."
>> >
>> What? Can you read? I wrote "you're all," which is the equivalent of
>> "you are all," the all being an adverb modifying "too." The pronoun is
>> singular.
>
>That wasn't the parsing that first came to eye!
>
Perhaps you should be more careful before you set out on attack then.
>> Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
>> learn to control your language.
>
>Once again, your intuitions(?) about American fail you.
>
Ha! Then tell me--what was the tone?
> You have merely continued to assert a counterfactual,
>which both Brian and I say does not cohere with our native speaker
>intuitions.
Seeing as how I too am a native speaker, that does not go very far.
You have this sense of what is "natural" when using the word "got"
that requires more justification before it is to be accepted.
Caelius
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:15:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@att.net> wrote:
[...]
>>As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
>>that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
>>said it's not American.
>Would you care to offer any proof? I would say that the onus is on
>your part, as what I'm suggesting is in no way ungrammatical, or
>demonstrably poor English. Colloquial and uncommon, to be sure--but
>that hardly makes it not American.
Understandable, yes; uncommon but occasionally heard, yes; but *not*
colloquial in the U.S., in my experience. To me it immediately
suggests familiarity with Rightpondian usage. (This familiarity can
come as well from reading as from exposure to the spoken language.)
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:53:32 GMT, sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 20:12:05 GMT, thelon...@hotmail.com (Caelius)
>>wrote:
[...]
>>> Second,
>>>I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>>>criticizing my sense of American English.
>>Are you suggesting that this use of 'off there' (as in 'off there in
>>Never-never-land') is unusual in U.S. English?
>Most definitely. It sounds peculiar to my ear, and I was giving him
>the benefit of the doubt by understanding an error of some sort. "Out
>there in Never-never-never land," or "Way off...ibid.," sound fine,
>but not "off there." It sounds fine to your ear does it? Might I ask
>where you're from?
Cleveland, Ohio, for the last quarter-century, but I grew up all over:
Oregon, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Wisconsin
just by the time I was 17. My parents are from the Pacific Northwest,
and I grew up reading voraciously.
It doesn't sound at all peculiar to my ear.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Caelius
>>>> Second,
>>>>I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>>>>criticizing my sense of American English.
>
>>>Are you suggesting that this use of 'off there' (as in 'off there in
>>>Never-never-land') is unusual in U.S. English?
>
>>Most definitely. It sounds peculiar to my ear, and I was giving him
>>the benefit of the doubt by understanding an error of some sort. "Out
>>there in Never-never-never land," or "Way off...ibid.," sound fine,
>>but not "off there." It sounds fine to your ear does it? Might I ask
>>where you're from?
>
>Cleveland, Ohio, for the last quarter-century, but I grew up all over:
>Oregon, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Wisconsin
>just by the time I was 17. My parents are from the Pacific Northwest,
>and I grew up reading voraciously.
>
>It doesn't sound at all peculiar to my ear.
>
Do you hear the phrase in everday conversation?
Caelius
Steve Whittet
>>>>I do not see where anyone who uses the phrase "off there" gets off
>>>>criticizing my sense of American English.
>
>>>Are you suggesting that this use of 'off there' (as in 'off there in
>>>Never-never-land') is unusual in U.S. English?
>It doesn't sound at all peculiar to my ear.
What is it's etymology as a phrase?
I would expect something more like "it's out there in Never-never land."
Refering to "it's way out Man".
To my ear that phrase sounds a bit off, like a British corruption of
American slang. There may be some legitimate usages, but not in the
sense that has been suggested. Brian generally phrases things in a way
that makes me wonder where he get's off, but I'm pretty sure not even he
get's off there.
>
>[...]
>
>Brian M. Scott
steve
Peter T. Daniels
> >As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
> >that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
> >said it's not American.
> >
> Would you care to offer any proof? I would say that the onus is on
> your part, as what I'm suggesting is in no way ungrammatical, or
> demonstrably poor English. Colloquial and uncommon, to be sure--but
> that hardly makes it not American.
Proof that it doesn't occur? What would that consist of?
It is not ungrammatical; it is not poor (though certainly odd-sounding
to the American ear); it is not colloquial; it certainly is uncommon, to
say the least.
> >> >> No offense, but you're all too dogmatic and pompous to permit any sort
> >> >
> >> >Who is "you all"? If you're not addressing others as well as me (and no
> >> >one else has taken you on), then your use of the explicit plural pronoun
> >> >is simply ungrammatical, making it look as though you're trying to sound
> >> >"American," in the guise of "Southern."
> >> >
> >> What? Can you read? I wrote "you're all," which is the equivalent of
> >> "you are all," the all being an adverb modifying "too." The pronoun is
> >> singular.
> >
> >That wasn't the parsing that first came to eye!
> >
> Perhaps you should be more careful before you set out on attack then.
Perhaps you should take a moment to craft your prose more clearly.
> >> Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
> >> learn to control your language.
> >
> >Once again, your intuitions(?) about American fail you.
> >
> Ha! Then tell me--what was the tone?
Neutral.
But it was also meant to call attention to the absurdity of qualifying
"Oxford University" with ", England"; if it were Cambridge, I would know
for sure that the formal name is University of Cambridge, so it's only a
guess that a more suitable expression in the equivalent of a letterhead
would be "University of Oxford."
> > You have merely continued to assert a counterfactual,
> >which both Brian and I say does not cohere with our native speaker
> >intuitions.
>
> Seeing as how I too am a native speaker, that does not go very far.
> You have this sense of what is "natural" when using the word "got"
> that requires more justification before it is to be accepted.
You haven't said what you're a native speaker of; you said, I think,
that you were born in California, but not where you grew up or how old
you are, or where you speak now. As I mentioned in another thread
recently, your speech is influenced by the surrounding community whether
you realize it or not.
michael farris
Steve Whittet wrote:
Well I have no idea where he "get's" off, but "off there" sounds mighty
weird to me.
"over there"
"off over there" (maybe, but probably okay)
"way over there"
all sound okay to me, but "off there" doesn't sound very American to me (but
then I completely missed the point that someone was earlier asking about the
difference between
'she's got two sons' which is okay American if not the most commonly
encountered form and
'she has got two sons' (which sounds just icky to me, if I ever say that
please pick up something large and heavy and hit me in the head with it)
so, what do I know?
-mike farris
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>
>> >As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
>> >that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
>> >said it's not American.
>> >
>> Would you care to offer any proof? I would say that the onus is on
>> your part, as what I'm suggesting is in no way ungrammatical, or
>> demonstrably poor English. Colloquial and uncommon, to be sure--but
>> that hardly makes it not American.
>
>Proof that it doesn't occur? What would that consist of?
>
Hardly my reponsibility: you're the one who claims it's not American.
I've already given you a sample dialogue in which it could very easily
occur.
>It is not ungrammatical; it is not poor (though certainly odd-sounding
>to the American ear); it is not colloquial; it certainly is uncommon, to
>say the least.
>
Here's what I do not understand: if you have no problem with "She's
got two sons," it strikes me as queer that you would forbid "she has
got two sons," when the latter is merely an emphatic expansion of the
former contract. We find this in American English all the time: "I
do not have the time" (depending on the context, of course) is more
emphatic than "I don't have the time." Given that I say "She has got
two sons" is emphatic, it only make sense that it would be less
common, as only particular contexts would require the emphasis; and
there are, moreover, many other ways of expressing the idea.
>> >> >> No offense, but you're all too dogmatic and pompous to permit any sort
>> >> >
>> >> >Who is "you all"? If you're not addressing others as well as me (and no
>> >> >one else has taken you on), then your use of the explicit plural pronoun
>> >> >is simply ungrammatical, making it look as though you're trying to sound
>> >> >"American," in the guise of "Southern."
>> >> >
>> >> What? Can you read? I wrote "you're all," which is the equivalent of
>> >> "you are all," the all being an adverb modifying "too." The pronoun is
>> >> singular.
>> >
>> >That wasn't the parsing that first came to eye!
>> >
>> Perhaps you should be more careful before you set out on attack then.
>
>Perhaps you should take a moment to craft your prose more clearly.
>
What? The difference between "you're all too" and "you are all too"
is hardly a matter of prose style. It is a question of vision, and
you're hardly in the right to criticize my prose on account of your
error.
>> >> Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
>> >> learn to control your language.
>> >
>> >Once again, your intuitions(?) about American fail you.
>> >
>> Ha! Then tell me--what was the tone?
>
>Neutral.
>
>But it was also meant to call attention to the absurdity of qualifying
>"Oxford University" with ", England"; if it were Cambridge, I would know
>for sure that the formal name is University of Cambridge, so it's only a
>guess that a more suitable expression in the equivalent of a letterhead
>would be "University of Oxford."
>
Look, I have no access to the server ids, so I have no control over
the way my receipts look (with few exceptions). If you would like, I
can put you in touch with the university's IT department, and you can
offer your suggestion to them.
I have heard that there are cities in Ohio and Florida that go by the
name Oxford; whether or not they have universities there I know not.
But perhaps the administrators here just want to forestall possible
confusion.
What's the point in bringing up Cambridge? And what do you mean
"formal name"?
>> > You have merely continued to assert a counterfactual,
>> >which both Brian and I say does not cohere with our native speaker
>> >intuitions.
>>
>> Seeing as how I too am a native speaker, that does not go very far.
>> You have this sense of what is "natural" when using the word "got"
>> that requires more justification before it is to be accepted.
>
>You haven't said what you're a native speaker of; you said, I think,
>that you were born in California, but not where you grew up or how old
>you are, or where you speak now. As I mentioned in another thread
>recently, your speech is influenced by the surrounding community whether
>you realize it or not.
The last part need hardly be said. I have nearly all of my life in
various parts of America--LA, SF, Boston, Dallas, and NYC. I do not
currently reside in America. As for my age, well, I'd imagine that
part of this discussion has been exacerbated by what one might call a
generation gap, as I would guess that I'm younger than most here.
That is purely guesswork, however.
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:39:11 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Caelius wrote:
> >
> >> >As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
> >> >that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
> >> >said it's not American.
> >> >
> >> Would you care to offer any proof? I would say that the onus is on
> >> your part, as what I'm suggesting is in no way ungrammatical, or
> >> demonstrably poor English. Colloquial and uncommon, to be sure--but
> >> that hardly makes it not American.
> >
> >Proof that it doesn't occur? What would that consist of?
> >
> Hardly my reponsibility: you're the one who claims it's not American.
> I've already given you a sample dialogue in which it could very easily
> occur.
No; you invented a dialog. That is not data about usage, it's data about
your feeling about usage.
> >It is not ungrammatical; it is not poor (though certainly odd-sounding
> >to the American ear); it is not colloquial; it certainly is uncommon, to
> >say the least.
> >
> Here's what I do not understand: if you have no problem with "She's
> got two sons," it strikes me as queer that you would forbid "she has
This usage of "queer" is also an Anglicism. You clearly have been there
long enough for your intuitions about who says what to have become
damaged.
> got two sons," when the latter is merely an emphatic expansion of the
I do not "forbid" it; I observe that it does not occur.
> former contract. We find this in American English all the time: "I
> do not have the time" (depending on the context, of course) is more
> emphatic than "I don't have the time." Given that I say "She has got
> two sons" is emphatic, it only make sense that it would be less
> common, as only particular contexts would require the emphasis; and
> there are, moreover, many other ways of expressing the idea.
Emphasis is provided by the use of "do," not by the resolution of the
contraction.
> >> >> >> No offense, but you're all too dogmatic and pompous to permit any sort
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Who is "you all"? If you're not addressing others as well as me (and no
> >> >> >one else has taken you on), then your use of the explicit plural pronoun
> >> >> >is simply ungrammatical, making it look as though you're trying to sound
> >> >> >"American," in the guise of "Southern."
> >> >> >
> >> >> What? Can you read? I wrote "you're all," which is the equivalent of
> >> >> "you are all," the all being an adverb modifying "too." The pronoun is
> >> >> singular.
> >> >
> >> >That wasn't the parsing that first came to eye!
> >> >
> >> Perhaps you should be more careful before you set out on attack then.
> >
> >Perhaps you should take a moment to craft your prose more clearly.
> >
> What? The difference between "you're all too" and "you are all too"
> is hardly a matter of prose style. It is a question of vision, and
> you're hardly in the right to criticize my prose on account of your
> error.
In "you are all too," I still parse the "all" as going with the "you."
> >> >> Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
> >> >> learn to control your language.
> >> >
> >> >Once again, your intuitions(?) about American fail you.
> >> >
> >> Ha! Then tell me--what was the tone?
> >
> >Neutral.
> >
> >But it was also meant to call attention to the absurdity of qualifying
> >"Oxford University" with ", England"; if it were Cambridge, I would know
> >for sure that the formal name is University of Cambridge, so it's only a
> >guess that a more suitable expression in the equivalent of a letterhead
> >would be "University of Oxford."
> >
> Look, I have no access to the server ids, so I have no control over
> the way my receipts look (with few exceptions). If you would like, I
> can put you in touch with the university's IT department, and you can
> offer your suggestion to them.
>
> I have heard that there are cities in Ohio and Florida that go by the
> name Oxford; whether or not they have universities there I know not.
> But perhaps the administrators here just want to forestall possible
> confusion.
I have heard of Oxford, Mississippi, seat of the University of
Mississippi (and William Faulkner); I believe a major paper companiy is
in Oxford, Ohio.
> What's the point in bringing up Cambridge? And what do you mean
> "formal name"?
Oh, don't be dense.
> >> > You have merely continued to assert a counterfactual,
> >> >which both Brian and I say does not cohere with our native speaker
> >> >intuitions.
> >>
> >> Seeing as how I too am a native speaker, that does not go very far.
> >> You have this sense of what is "natural" when using the word "got"
> >> that requires more justification before it is to be accepted.
> >
> >You haven't said what you're a native speaker of; you said, I think,
> >that you were born in California, but not where you grew up or how old
> >you are, or where you speak now. As I mentioned in another thread
> >recently, your speech is influenced by the surrounding community whether
> >you realize it or not.
>
> The last part need hardly be said. I have nearly all of my life in
> various parts of America--LA, SF, Boston, Dallas, and NYC. I do not
> currently reside in America. As for my age, well, I'd imagine that
> part of this discussion has been exacerbated by what one might call a
> generation gap, as I would guess that I'm younger than most here.
> That is purely guesswork, however.
Ok, don't tell us.
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:39:11 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Caelius wrote:
>> >
>> >> >As for your third point, I didn't say it's only British (I don't know
>> >> >that it's not South Asian or Ozzie or Kiwi or South African); I only
>> >> >said it's not American.
>> >> >
>> >> Would you care to offer any proof? I would say that the onus is on
>> >> your part, as what I'm suggesting is in no way ungrammatical, or
>> >> demonstrably poor English. Colloquial and uncommon, to be sure--but
>> >> that hardly makes it not American.
>> >
>> >Proof that it doesn't occur? What would that consist of?
>> >
>> Hardly my reponsibility: you're the one who claims it's not American.
>> I've already given you a sample dialogue in which it could very easily
>> occur.
>
>No; you invented a dialog. That is not data about usage, it's data about
>your feeling about usage.
>
Yes, but seeing how what I wrote is neither grammatically nor
syntactically out of line, and makes good sense, there's no reason to
reject it. And the only one you seem to be offering is that it
violates your subjective opinion of American English.
>> >It is not ungrammatical; it is not poor (though certainly odd-sounding
>> >to the American ear); it is not colloquial; it certainly is uncommon, to
>> >say the least.
>> >
>> Here's what I do not understand: if you have no problem with "She's
>> got two sons," it strikes me as queer that you would forbid "she has
>
>This usage of "queer" is also an Anglicism. You clearly have been there
>long enough for your intuitions about who says what to have become
>damaged.
>
No, it is not--unless it is used as slang for a homosexual, it has a
rather archaic ring to it; but this hardly makes it an Anglicism.
Even in England that word strikes people as odd: my guess is because
the other connotations of the word violate ever-so-fashionable
political correctness.
Damaged? Come on, you're loading your terms. You should spend less
time trying to cast aspersion on my sense of English. It simply won't
work. There's just not enough information for you to work with to say
anything worthwhile.
>> got two sons," when the latter is merely an emphatic expansion of the
>
>I do not "forbid" it; I observe that it does not occur.
>
>> former contract. We find this in American English all the time: "I
>> do not have the time" (depending on the context, of course) is more
>> emphatic than "I don't have the time." Given that I say "She has got
>> two sons" is emphatic, it only make sense that it would be less
>> common, as only particular contexts would require the emphasis; and
>> there are, moreover, many other ways of expressing the idea.
>
>Emphasis is provided by the use of "do," not by the resolution of the
>contraction.
>
And how is do produced? By the resolution of the contraction.
>> >> >> >> No offense, but you're all too dogmatic and pompous to permit any sort
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Who is "you all"? If you're not addressing others as well as me (and no
>> >> >> >one else has taken you on), then your use of the explicit plural pronoun
>> >> >> >is simply ungrammatical, making it look as though you're trying to sound
>> >> >> >"American," in the guise of "Southern."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> What? Can you read? I wrote "you're all," which is the equivalent of
>> >> >> "you are all," the all being an adverb modifying "too." The pronoun is
>> >> >> singular.
>> >> >
>> >> >That wasn't the parsing that first came to eye!
>> >> >
>> >> Perhaps you should be more careful before you set out on attack then.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should take a moment to craft your prose more clearly.
>> >
>> What? The difference between "you're all too" and "you are all too"
>> is hardly a matter of prose style. It is a question of vision, and
>> you're hardly in the right to criticize my prose on account of your
>> error.
>
>In "you are all too," I still parse the "all" as going with the "you."
>
But why would you do that when there's a verb seperating them? That
would be absurd, especially when it's plain as day that "all" is an
adverb modifying "too." I've good reason to doubt English is your
first language.
>> >> >> Yes, the "off" clearly carried a derisive tone. If not, you need to
>> >> >> learn to control your language.
>> >> >
>> >> >Once again, your intuitions(?) about American fail you.
>> >> >
>> >> Ha! Then tell me--what was the tone?
>> >
>> >Neutral.
>> >
>> >But it was also meant to call attention to the absurdity of qualifying
>> >"Oxford University" with ", England"; if it were Cambridge, I would know
>> >for sure that the formal name is University of Cambridge, so it's only a
>> >guess that a more suitable expression in the equivalent of a letterhead
>> >would be "University of Oxford."
>> >
>> Look, I have no access to the server ids, so I have no control over
>> the way my receipts look (with few exceptions). If you would like, I
>> can put you in touch with the university's IT department, and you can
>> offer your suggestion to them.
>>
>> I have heard that there are cities in Ohio and Florida that go by the
>> name Oxford; whether or not they have universities there I know not.
>> But perhaps the administrators here just want to forestall possible
>> confusion.
>
>I have heard of Oxford, Mississippi, seat of the University of
>Mississippi (and William Faulkner); I believe a major paper companiy is
>in Oxford, Ohio.
>
OK, good to know.
>> What's the point in bringing up Cambridge? And what do you mean
>> "formal name"?
>
>Oh, don't be dense.
>
I'm not. That point about "formal name" makes no sense, especially
since the "formal name" (and I honestly have no idea what in god's
name you mean by this phrase) of Cambridge is "Univ. Cantabrig."
>> >> > You have merely continued to assert a counterfactual,
>> >> >which both Brian and I say does not cohere with our native speaker
>> >> >intuitions.
>> >>
>> >> Seeing as how I too am a native speaker, that does not go very far.
>> >> You have this sense of what is "natural" when using the word "got"
>> >> that requires more justification before it is to be accepted.
>> >
>> >You haven't said what you're a native speaker of; you said, I think,
>> >that you were born in California, but not where you grew up or how old
>> >you are, or where you speak now. As I mentioned in another thread
>> >recently, your speech is influenced by the surrounding community whether
>> >you realize it or not.
>>
>> The last part need hardly be said. I have nearly all of my life in
>> various parts of America--LA, SF, Boston, Dallas, and NYC. I do not
>> currently reside in America. As for my age, well, I'd imagine that
>> part of this discussion has been exacerbated by what one might call a
>> generation gap, as I would guess that I'm younger than most here.
>> That is purely guesswork, however.
>
>Ok, don't tell us.
It's irrelevant.
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
> It's irrelevant.
Learn some linguistics. Everything you wrote in the last message shows
you have not done so.
In particular, sociolingustics and dialectology; the specific
information you declined to give, viz. age and location, are immensely
relevant to your present idiolect.
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>
>> It's irrelevant.
>
>Learn some linguistics. Everything you wrote in the last message shows
>you have not done so.
>
An unbelievably suave recovery! When backed into a corner, ignore
everything the interlocutor says, and then criticize his learning.
As for the suggestion, thanks but no thanks. In return, I offer you
the suggestion to improve your ability to read English.
>In particular, sociolingustics and dialectology; the specific
>information you declined to give, viz. age and location, are immensely
>relevant to your present idiolect.
That's bullshit pure and simple. The only thing that matters here is
the idea of contract and emphasis. You've been pussyfooting around
the problem so long you've nothing left but to obfuscate the whole
problem.
Caelius
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
Probably not. But then that's a different question, isn't it?
Brian M. Scott
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
[...]
>> I have heard that there are cities in Ohio and Florida that go by the
>> name Oxford; whether or not they have universities there I know not.
>> But perhaps the administrators here just want to forestall possible
>> confusion.
>I have heard of Oxford, Mississippi, seat of the University of
>Mississippi (and William Faulkner); I believe a major paper companiy is
>in Oxford, Ohio.
I don't know about that, but Miami University is definitely in Oxford,
Ohio.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Caelius
It would possibly explain why it could strike one's ear as peculiar.
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
Fer cryin' out loud, now you're sounding so dumb maybe you belong at
Cambridge instead of Oxford (I know the reputations the two places used
to have).
It has nothing to do with "contract and emphasis" (or even contrast),
but in what parts of the world people talk how.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:52:04 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Caelius wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I have heard that there are cities in Ohio and Florida that go by the
> >> name Oxford; whether or not they have universities there I know not.
> >> But perhaps the administrators here just want to forestall possible
> >> confusion.
>
> >I have heard of Oxford, Mississippi, seat of the University of
> >in Oxford, Ohio.
>
> I don't know about that, but Miami University is definitely in Oxford,
> Ohio.
Is "Miami University of Ohio" just an explanatory nickname? How about
"Indiana University of Pennsylvania"? (There's also a Wyoming Valley in
Pa., which I think the state is named for, but I don't think it has a
university name.)
Anyway, neither of these college towns can be taken as an explanation
for why someone thought it was necessary to write "Oxford University,
England" in their header.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 13:52:04 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
[...]
>> >I have heard of Oxford, Mississippi, seat of the University of
>> >Mississippi (and William Faulkner); I believe a major paper company is
>> >in Oxford, Ohio.
>>
>> I don't know about that, but Miami University is definitely in Oxford,
>> Ohio.
>
>Is "Miami University of Ohio" just an explanatory nickname?
I think so. To the best of my knowledge the actual name is just
'Miami University'. (Might just be the best school in the Ohio
system, too.)
> How about
>"Indiana University of Pennsylvania"?
I think that 'of Pennsylvania' is part of the name in this case.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 18:15:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Caelius wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Learn some linguistics. Everything you wrote in the last message shows
>> >you have not done so.
>> >
>> An unbelievably suave recovery! When backed into a corner, ignore
>> everything the interlocutor says, and then criticize his learning.
>>
>> As for the suggestion, thanks but no thanks. In return, I offer you
>> the suggestion to improve your ability to read English.
>>
>> >In particular, sociolingustics and dialectology; the specific
>> >information you declined to give, viz. age and location, are immensely
>> >relevant to your present idiolect.
>>
>> That's bullshit pure and simple. The only thing that matters here is
>> the idea of contract and emphasis. You've been pussyfooting around
>> the problem so long you've nothing left but to obfuscate the whole
>> problem.
>
>Fer cryin' out loud, now you're sounding so dumb maybe you belong at
>Cambridge instead of Oxford (I know the reputations the two places used
>to have).
>
More recourse to ad hominem arguments: I love it! Whatever point you
were attempting to make with your so-called knowledge of the
reputations Cambridge and Oxford is vague and silly.
>It has nothing to do with "contract and emphasis" (or even contrast),
>but in what parts of the world people talk how.
Only in part. If we admit your idea, we must rely on subjective
opinion to too great an extent to make this discussion profitable.
Caelius
Caelius
>Anyway, neither of these college towns can be taken as an explanation
>for why someone thought it was necessary to write "Oxford University,
>England" in their header.
Your obsession with this title is peculiar indeed; perhaps you were
not admitted to a top college as a young student?
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
> >It has nothing to do with "contract and emphasis" (or even contrast),
> >but in what parts of the world people talk how.
>
> Only in part. If we admit your idea, we must rely on subjective
> opinion to too great an extent to make this discussion profitable.
Once again, your ignorance of linguistics betrays you. The field of
"corpus linguistics" allows perfectly objective answers to the question
of who says what where; one would simply search a corpus of millions of
words of text and check out the proveniences of the occurrences of the
"has got" construction.
Or, one could check whether dialectological investigations from the past
100 years happened to include that item. It's probably relevant that the
*Dictionary of American Regional English* s.v. "get" has not got a
single example of "have got" -- except in a 1970 quotation from
*American Speech* (a journal) glossing a Hawaiian Creole usage -- i.e.,
a hyperformal form.
Peter T. Daniels
Do you not consider Cornell University a "top college"? (Another
Anglicism, popularized in the US by *1066 and All That*, which upon
trying to reread this summer I discovered isn't nearly so clever as it
was in high school.)
Steve Whittet
>*Dictionary of American Regional English* s.v. "get" has not got a
>single example of "have got" -- except in a 1970 quotation from
>*American Speech* (a journal) glossing a Hawaiian Creole usage -- i.e.,
>a hyperformal form.
Thank you for looking that up Peter.
Clearly, we have got to write more dictionaries.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels
regards,
steve
Caelius
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Caelius wrote:
>
>> >It has nothing to do with "contract and emphasis" (or even contrast),
>> >but in what parts of the world people talk how.
>>
>> Only in part. If we admit your idea, we must rely on subjective
>> opinion to too great an extent to make this discussion profitable.
>
>Once again, your ignorance of linguistics betrays you. The field of
>"corpus linguistics" allows perfectly objective answers to the question
>of who says what where; one would simply search a corpus of millions of
>words of text and check out the proveniences of the occurrences of the
>"has got" construction.
>
I agree completely with this and has nothing to do with my remark
above. Earlier you argued for a most bizarre idea--that my identity
had to be known to make this discussion possible--and now you're
saying the exactl opposite, that all one need do is look the answer up
essentially.
For you sake, you really should knock off the linguistic argot. One
sees no point in making common sense sound august and silly.
Caelius
Caelius
You don't read English as carefully as you should. I neither said
that you were admitted to a top college, nor did I say that the
college you actually attended was a sub-par. I merely posed a query
to explain this bizarre obsession you have with the server receipt.
As for the part about "top college" being an Anglicism--if you believe
that, I can't see how you could ever claim for yourself any knowledge
of linguistics.
Caelius
Rob Bannister
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
Can't be an anglicism: a college is only part of a university in Britain.
No-one would refer to a whole university as a college. However, I thought
that in the States, college was equivalent to high school/upper secondary
school, so it would seem this in not an americanism either.
-- Rob Bannister
Perth, Western Australia.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
No, a U.S. college is what comes after high school (at about age 18).
The traditional difference between a college and a university in the
U.S. is that the former grants only the bachelor's degree, while the
latter also grants the master's degrees\ and the Ph.D.
As far as U.S. usage goes, 'top college' sounds rather odd to me, but
'one of the top colleges' sounds fine.
Brian M. Scott
Peter T. Daniels
The anglicism is "top" used as an absolute commendation, as in *1066 and
All That*.
You're wildly mistaken about "college."
Caelius
>> Can't be an anglicism: a college is only part of a university in Britain.
>> No-one would refer to a whole university as a college. However, I thought
>> that in the States, college was equivalent to high school/upper secondary
>> school, so it would seem this in not an americanism either.
>
>The anglicism is "top" used as an absolute commendation, as in *1066 and
>All That*.
>
>You're wildly mistaken about "college."
Well that was certainly a stunning refutation.
Caelius
Richard Herring
> >
> I'm not. That point about "formal name" makes no sense, especially
> since the "formal name" (and I honestly have no idea what in god's
> name you mean by this phrase) of Cambridge is "Univ. Cantabrig."
In my formal dealings with the University of Cambridge, it has
always referred to itself as precisely that.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Richard Herring
> Fer cryin' out loud, now you're sounding so dumb maybe you belong at
> Cambridge instead of Oxford (I know the reputations the two places used
> to have).
Namely?
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Caelius
>In article <3a9fb2fd...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Caelius (thelon...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> >
>> I'm not. That point about "formal name" makes no sense, especially
>> since the "formal name" (and I honestly have no idea what in god's
>> name you mean by this phrase) of Cambridge is "Univ. Cantabrig."
>
>In my formal dealings with the University of Cambridge, it has
>always referred to itself as precisely that.
Formal dealings meaning business dealings? Either way, I would not
doubt it all. But if someone were to ask me for the "formal name" of
Oxford or Cambridge, I would have good reason to believe that they
were asking for that which appears on diplomas, inscriptions, etc.
Caelius
Peter T. Daniels
If you think that was a refutation, then you don't know the meaning of
the word "refutation."
The details had already been given by another poser.
Peter T. Daniels
But since those generally aren't given in English, they're not very
helpful.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3AA019...@att.net>, Peter T. Daniels (gram...@att.net) wrote:
>
> > Fer cryin' out loud, now you're sounding so dumb maybe you belong at
> > Cambridge instead of Oxford (I know the reputations the two places used
> > to have).
>
> Namely?
Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen. (Didn't
Tolkein and Lewis used to twit each other about that, or some similar
celebritous pair?)
Though these days, with Oxford accepting an endowment for the Rupert
Murdoch Chair of Advanced Media Studies, or something like that, its
reputation may be a bit tarnished.
Caelius
>> Formal dealings meaning business dealings? Either way, I would not
>> doubt it all. But if someone were to ask me for the "formal name" of
>> Oxford or Cambridge, I would have good reason to believe that they
>> were asking for that which appears on diplomas, inscriptions, etc.
>
>But since those generally aren't given in English, they're not very
>helpful.
How helpful they are depends on the purpose and context.
Caelius
Caelius
>> >The anglicism is "top" used as an absolute commendation, as in *1066 and
>> >All That*.
>> >
>> >You're wildly mistaken about "college."
>>
>> Well that was certainly a stunning refutation.
>
>If you think that was a refutation, then you don't know the meaning of
>the word "refutation."
>
of the written word.
Caelius
Caelius
>Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen. (Didn't
>Tolkein and Lewis used to twit each other about that, or some similar
>celebritous pair?)
>
Caelius
John
> All That*.
>
banana'. It can relate to anything, not just bananas. (Or so I'm told - I
haven't lived there for a few years, so my information is somewhat
second hand.)
John
Arnold Zwicky
claims:
>Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen.
oh yes, and cambridge had all those *scientists*. including
theoretical linguists.
> (Didn't
>Tolk[ie]n and Lewis used to twit each other about that, or some
>similar celebritous pair?)
possibly so. but this is at the level of opposing apollonian stanford
to dionysian berkeley, urban-gritty michigan to farm-boy ohio state,
and endless other such absurdities (like the deductive french vs. the
inductive english). an entertaining parlor game, but nothing more.
arnold (zwi...@csli.stanford.edu)
Peter T. Daniels
*That*, however, comes from (American) vaudeville of the 1920s at the
latest! All sorts of explanations have been offered, none of them
convincing. "Second banana" remains fairly common for something like
'sidekick'.
Peter T. Daniels
> to dionysian berkeley, urban-gritty michigan to farm-boy ohio state,
Wouldn't that be Michigan State?
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Richard Herring wrote:
>> In article <3AA019...@att.net>, Peter T. Daniels (gram...@att.net) wrote:
>> > Fer cryin' out loud, now you're sounding so dumb maybe you belong at
>> > Cambridge instead of Oxford (I know the reputations the two places used
>> > to have).
>> Namely?
>Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen. (Didn't
>Tolkein and Lewis used to twit each other about that, or some similar
>celebritous pair?)
The distinction that I learned (for roughly that same era) was rather
different: supposedly Cambridge was for scientists, while Oxford
leaned more toward the humanities.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Richard Green
> Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen. (Didn't
> Tolkein and Lewis used to twit each other about that, or some similar
^^
> celebritous pair?)
Ouch!
ObContent:
I wasn't aware of the distinction you mention, although I've heard people
say that Oxford is arts-based and Cambridge is science-based.
John
Arnold Zwicky <zwi...@Turing.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>peter daniels <gram...@att.net>
> claims:
> >Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen.
>
> oh yes, and cambridge had all those *scientists*. including
> theoretical linguists.
>
real talent (scientists, mathematicians, satirists etc) and Oxford is for
those who need to create the impression of talent (politicians in
particular). (I was at Oxford and am one of the exceptions.)
John
John
1920s at the
> latest! All sorts of explanations have been offered, none of them
> convincing. "Second banana" remains fairly common for something like
> 'sidekick'.
> --
So you don't think the 'anglicism' top X is connected with the 'americanism'
top banana? Or was the latter formed on the basis of the former after the
former had crossed the pond?
John
Richard Herring
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 17:56:53 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@att.net> wrote:
> >Richard Herring wrote:
> >> In article <3AA019...@att.net>, Peter T. Daniels (gram...@att.net) wrote:
> >> > Fer cryin' out loud, now you're sounding so dumb maybe you belong at
> >> > Cambridge instead of Oxford (I know the reputations the two places used
> >> > to have).
> >> Namely?
> >Oxford was for the scholars, and Cambridge for the gentlemen.
But Oxford had the "Oxford manner", which definitely goes with
the latter. Of course it also had the Oxford Movement and the
Oxford Group, but that's another story.
> (Didn't
> >Tolkein and Lewis used to twit each other about that, or some similar
> >celebritous pair?)
> The distinction that I learned (for roughly that same era) was rather
> different: supposedly Cambridge was for scientists, while Oxford
> leaned more toward the humanities.
Cammbridge had physics, Oxford stamp-collecting.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@baesystems.com>
Peter T. Daniels
Bananas do grow in vertical clumps, so there is a physically "top" one.
Like I said, no one knows where the phrase comes from.
Joe Fineman
> I missed the start of this, but my view is that Cambridge is for
> those with real talent (scientists, mathematicians, satirists etc)
> and Oxford is for those who need to create the impression of talent
> (politicians in particular).
Sort of like Harvard & Yale, respectively? (Cf. JFK's remark on
receiving an honorary degree: "Now I have the best of both worlds -- a
Harvard education & a Yale degree".)
--- Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
||: The vice of the English is not buggery but humbuggery. :||
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "John" <cat...@rubikon.net.pl> writes:
>
> > I missed the start of this, but my view is that Cambridge is for
> > those with real talent (scientists, mathematicians, satirists etc)
> > and Oxford is for those who need to create the impression of talent
> > (politicians in particular).
>
> Sort of like Harvard & Yale, respectively? (Cf. JFK's remark on
> receiving an honorary degree: "Now I have the best of both worlds -- a
> Harvard education & a Yale degree".)
But it's the Cornellians that actually do the work. (And the
Princetonians that party.)
John Emery
Steve Whittet wrote:
>What is it's etymology as a phrase?
"It's" from "it is".
>
> I would expect something more like "it's out there in Never-never land."
> Refering to "it's way out Man".
You're sure that.