Strange definition of "won"

[Paul Epstein]

I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
score the second goal and make it 1-1.
I would argue that the fact that there was a second goal is clear evidence
that that commentator's remarks were seriously premature even though
his (implicit) prediction was correct.
It's a bit like saying, about a fair coin, "I'm going to toss the coin and I
know it will be heads", the prediction doesn't have any sense to it even
if the guess turns out to be right.
Strangely, people rarely analyse comments according to the facts at the
time that statements are made and evaluate past comments according
to future events that the speakers didn't know about.
In backgammon, we call this "resulting". This is a fallacious and totally
worthless type of backgammon analyis where a player's decisions are
evaluated according to whether or not they actually worked in the
game under analysis -- ignoring the probability calculations of how likely
the plays were to have turned out well.

Just some rambling thoughts.

Paul Epstein

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
<peps...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
>game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
>have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
>another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
>score the second goal and make it 1-1.

Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
it."

I know that "have" is sometimes (always? often?) used for company
names (e.g. "Microsoft have released a new version of ..."), but I
don't think I've ever seen or heard it used for a country

[Lionel Edwards]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
> >game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
> >have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> >another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
> >score the second goal and make it 1-1.
> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
> it."

"Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.

If they (you are suggesting that Iran is an "it"?) score in the 8th minute of
9 minutes of extra time, saying "Iran has won" would also seem proportionate.

[bruce bowser]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, lionele...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
> > <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
> > >game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
> > >have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> > >another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
> > >score the second goal and make it 1-1.
> > Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
> > BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
> > it."
> "Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.
>
> If they (you are suggesting that Iran is an "it"?) score in the 8th minute of
> 9 minutes of extra time, saying "Iran has won" would also seem proportionate.

Unless you add "tons", as in Iran has 'won ton' soup, which may be outlawed in Iran. Who knows?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-11-26 15:58:31 +0000, Lionel Edwards said:

> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
>> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
>>> game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
>>> have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
>>> another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
>>> score the second goal and make it 1-1.
>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
>> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
>> it."
>
> "Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.

Nothing special about Iran, however; all country names are like that,
even ones that are plural in form, so one can say "The USA was very
impressive in its match against England".

>
> If they (you are suggesting that Iran is an "it"?) score in the 8th minute of
> 9 minutes of extra time, saying "Iran has won" would also seem proportionate.
>
>> I know that "have" is sometimes (always? often?) used for company
>> names (e.g. "Microsoft have released a new version of ..."), but I
>> don't think I've ever seen or heard it used for a country

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 07:58:31 -0800 (PST), Lionel Edwards
<lionele...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
>> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
>> >game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
>> >have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
>> >another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
>> >score the second goal and make it 1-1.
>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
>> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
>> it."
>
>"Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.

And I would say "Either is normal."

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

So would I, but I let it pass.

[Paul Epstein]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
> >game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
> >have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> >another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
> >score the second goal and make it 1-1.
> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
> it."

As I've experienced before when replying to your posts, they're both correct
but they mean (subtly) different things. The "have" form stresses the individual
players that make up the team, whereas the "has" form stresses the team as a single unit.
So I would say "Iran have shown great skill with their passes" [if true]
but "Iran has an excellent goalkeeper" [if true].

Paul Epstein

[Paul Epstein]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:58:34 PM UTC, lionele...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
> > <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
> > >game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
> > >have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> > >another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
> > >score the second goal and make it 1-1.
> > Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
> > BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
> > it."
> "Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.
>
> If they (you are suggesting that Iran is an "it"?) score in the 8th minute of
> 9 minutes of extra time, saying "Iran has won" would also seem proportionate.

Iran scored the second goal after 11 minutes of extra time -- sometimes more time
is added on than was originally planned, so this doesn't contradict you.

I suppose my point is that the fact of the second goal does render the "won it" statements
premature, in my opinion, because if there was time for a second goal, there was also time
for an equaliser.

Paul Epstein

[Lionel Edwards]

Okay, which one is the normal one? Both of them?

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 09:33:01 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein

<peps...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
>> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
>> >game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
>> >have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
>> >another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
>> >score the second goal and make it 1-1.
>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
>> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
>> it."
>
>As I've experienced before when replying to your posts, they're both correct

As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with being correct. It
has to do with the difference between AmE and BrE and that's what I
asked about.

>but they mean (subtly) different things. The "have" form stresses the individual
>players that make up the team, whereas the "has" form stresses the team as a single unit.
>So I would say "Iran have shown great skill with their passes" [if true]

You would, but I wouldn't. I would say "the players on the Iran team
have shown great skill with their passes." I think most, if not all,
USAns would say it the way I would.

[Bebercito]

It may be slightly different though, as in soccer, a goal can be scored
until the last second of the game, so that saying "Iran have won" at 1-0
before the game was ended was just a wrong statement, whereas in
the case of backgammon, only further analysis can prove how valid
a prediction was, on statistical grounds.

[Jonathan Harston]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:

> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
> it."

When using the singular you are refering to a singular entity, the team.
When using the plural, you are refering to a plural entity, the players
of the team.

[Jerry Friedman]

I think the majority of Americans would say things like "Iran has shown great
skill with their passes," despite the conflict between "has" and "their".

--
Jerry Friedman

[lar3ryca]

On 2022-11-26 07:28, Paul Epstein wrote:
> I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran
World Cup
> game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have
won it. Iran
> have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for
Wales to
> score the second goal and make it 1-1.
> I would argue that the fact that there was a second goal is clear
evidence
> that that commentator's remarks were seriously premature even though
> his (implicit) prediction was correct.
> It's a bit like saying, about a fair coin, "I'm going to toss the
coin and I
> know it will be heads", the prediction doesn't have any sense to it even
> if the guess turns out to be right.
> Strangely, people rarely analyse comments according to the facts at the
> time that statements are made and evaluate past comments according
> to future events that the speakers didn't know about.

I notice that all the time. I also notice when sportscasters say things
that could well be a a valid, and even probable predictions, but are
stated as something that has to happen.

The one that really irks me is in Canadian Football, when it is the 3rd
down, with, say, 10 yards to do.

At this point one of the announcers might say "It's third and long.
They're forced to punt".

Of course they are NEVER forced to punt. They could pass, run, take a
knee, drop the ball, or even run the ball in the wrong direction and
score against themselves. Each of these has a different likelihood of
happening, and mostly, they will punt, but sometimes they will do the
next likely thing, which is pass or run.

> In backgammon, we call this "resulting". This is a fallacious and
totally
> worthless type of backgammon analyis where a player's decisions are
> evaluated according to whether or not they actually worked in the
> game under analysis -- ignoring the probability calculations of how
likely
> the plays were to have turned out well.
>
> Just some rambling thoughts.
>
> Paul Epstein

--
A writer learns his trade by wrote.

[Paul Epstein]

In soccer, I've heard "[Player's name here] must score!"
Usually, the player will indeed go on to score after this comment, but
non-goals are not rare, even after such pronouncements.

Paul Epstein

[Dingbat]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 5:28:08 AM UTC-8, Paul Epstein wrote:
> I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
> game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
> have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
> score the second goal and make it 1-1.
> I would argue that the fact that there was a second goal is clear evidence
> that that commentator's remarks were seriously premature even though
> his (implicit) prediction was correct.

The predicted outcome is his opinion; the actual outcome could
well have defied his prediction.

Ways to put it in US English:
Iran has this game in the bag.
Iran has this game sewn up.

Do Brits use either expression?

[Paul Epstein]

As a Brit, I personally don't use those expressions myself but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear
another Brit use them, so I'll give a tentative "yes".
Warning -- major segue to different topic will follow.
One saying that I find odd, and that I've only heard from Americans, is "last time I checked".
It is always (in my experience) used sarcastically in reference to something that is completely
obvious and therefore doesn't need any checking.
There's always a part of me that says: "What? Did you really need to check that?"

Paul Epstein

[Dingbat]

I've read of QE2 using that expression. A child asked, "Are you the Queen, mam."
Her reply, that I don't remember in full, included "I was the last time I checked".

[Hibou]

Le 27/11/2022 à 11:35, Dingbat a écrit :
>
> I've read of QE2 using that expression. A child asked, "Are you the Queen, mam."
> Her reply, that I don't remember in full, included "I was the last time I checked".

A talking ship? That really is strange!

[Dingbat]

The ship would be 'the QE2', not 'QE2'.

[Paul Epstein]

Here's a (somewhat) reliable link to this Queen story:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/queen-elizabeth-ii-had-unlikely-231414683.html
Dingbat has the gist, but the facts are slightly different.

For resolving this point about US/Brit English, it's essential to realise that the asker (not a child)
was Californian, and that the Queen knew him quite well.
I think that, when speaking to someone who uses a different variety of English, it's very common to
reflect their idioms and speaking mannerisms. This can be done consciously to bond with them,
or subconsciously. It's quite possible that the Queen had a (perhaps subconscious) memory of the
asker using this expression.

Paul Epstein

[Dingbat]

Now, I remember reading this. A child did ask that question; I don't know the answer.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 27.11.2022 kl. 12.20 skrev Paul Epstein:

> One saying that I find odd, and that I've only heard from Americans, is "last time I checked".
> It is always (in my experience) used sarcastically in reference to something that is completely
> obvious and therefore doesn't need any checking.

It is inconspicuous to me. In general I do not in my mind respond to
sarcasm as if it was meant seriously.

--
Bertel

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 27.11.2022 kl. 13.20 skrev Paul Epstein:

> I think that, when speaking to someone who uses a different variety of English, it's very common to
> reflect their idioms and speaking mannerisms. This can be done consciously to bond with them,
> or subconsciously. It's quite possible that the Queen had a (perhaps subconscious) memory of the asker using this expression.

A similar thing happens to me. I once was playing disc golf in the local
park when an American happened to pass by with a child in a stroller. He
was delighted to see that we played golf, and I talked to him for a
while. My normal pronunciation of "basket" is british with a deep a, but
after hearing his "basket" I started to use the American pronunciation.
It felt to me as if I wanted to correct his pronunciation if I kept up
with my own. I don't think he would have thorugt about it much, but that
was how I felt.

PS. In disc golf the target is a basket like this:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2538/1152/products/innova-discatcher-pro-installed_1024x1024.jpg

--
Bertel

[Paul Epstein]

Yes, it's an Aspergers reaction on my part.

Paul Epstein

[Paul Epstein]

I think that I know the answer to the question: "Are you the Queen?" so maybe I can help you.
The answer is "Yes" if you are in a state that has a Queen and you are that person; the answer is "No" otherwise.
Currently, the answer would always be "No" in the UK.

Paul Epstein

[CDB]

On 11/26/2022 12:33 PM, Paul Epstein wrote:

> Ken Blake wrote:
>> Paul Epstein <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales --
>>> Iran World Cup game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator
>>> said "Iran have won it. Iran have won this game!" Surely, that
>>> was nonsense. Since Iran had time for another goal to make it
>>> 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to score the
>>> second goal and make it 1-1.
>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common
>> in BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has
>> won it."

> As I've experienced before when replying to your posts, they're both
> correct but they mean (subtly) different things. The "have" form
> stresses the individual players that make up the team, whereas the
> "has" form stresses the team as a single unit. So I would say "Iran
> have shown great skill with their passes" [if true] but "Iran has an
> excellent goalkeeper" [if true].

Iran are going to have some splainin to do about the anthem thing.

[Ken Blake]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 20:17:13 -0800 (PST), Jonathan Harston
<j...@mdfs.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
>> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
>> it."
>
>When using the singular you are refering to a singular entity, the team.

Yes, that's correct. I am.

>When using the plural, you are refering to a plural entity, the players
>of the team.

No, that's not correct. Not me. I would never use the plural.

If I wanted to refer to the players of the team, I would say "the
players of the team."

But regardless of what *I* would say, I was asking about what's common
in BrE.

[Ken Blake]

So if the Queen of the Netherlands was visiting the UK, and someone
asked her "Are you the Queen?" she should answer "no"?

[Paul Epstein]

Definitely. If you met her, it would probably be at a chess tournament and she should say:
"No, I'm not the queen -- the queen is just one of my pieces."

Paul Epstein

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 10:24:29 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein

<peps...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 5:14:05 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 05:29:56 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein

>> >I think that I know the answer to the question: "Are you the Queen?" so maybe I can help you.
>> >The answer is "Yes" if you are in a state that has a Queen and you are that person; the answer is "No" otherwise.
>> >Currently, the answer would always be "No" in the UK.
>> So if the Queen of the Netherlands was visiting the UK, and someone
>> asked her "Are you the Queen?" she should answer "no"?
>
>Definitely. If you met her, it would probably be at a chess tournament and she should say:
>"No, I'm not the queen -- the queen is just one of my pieces."

OK.

To change the subject, back in my chess-playing days, there were
almost never any women at chess tournaments except for the few who
were spectators trying to hook up with a man.

It's changed significantly. Until about ten years I was teaching chess
at a couple of schools (one elementary, one middle). There were still
more boys than girls, but perhaps about a quarter of my students were
girls, including the one who in my last year teaching, was the best of
my students,

[Sam Plusnet]

Quite. That use of the definite article gives her no choice.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 27.11.2022 kl. 18.13 skrev Ken Blake:

> So if the Queen of the Netherlands was visiting the UK, and someone
> asked her "Are you the Queen?" she should answer "no"?

Of course. On the other hand if she were asked "Are you a queen?", she
should answer yes.

--
Bertel

[Dingbat]

> > > > A child asked, "Are you the Queen, mam."
> > >

> > A child did ask that question; I don't know the answer.
> I think that I know the answer to the question: "Are you the Queen?" so maybe I can help you.
> The answer is "Yes"
>

Too curt. More likely, QE2 would have beamed at the child and exclaimed, "Why yes, I am!"

>
> if you are in a state that has a Queen and you are that person; the answer is "No" otherwise.
> Currently, the answer would always be "No" in the UK.
>

Since you're given to expatiating on a subject, here's something I've wondered:
>
Would "Are you Mr. President, sir" be idiomatic in US English? A pun with an example of a
of "Mr. President" that I know to be idiomatic:
>
At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:34:43 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:

> Since you're given to expatiating on a subject, here's something I've wondered:
>
> Would "Are you Mr. President, sir" be idiomatic in US English? A pun with an example of a
> of "Mr. President" that I know to be idiomatic:

No. "Mr. President," like any other "Mr. + name," is vocative only.

> At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
> A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"

What an insulting "joke." You don't get to be a Rhodes Scholar
without being able to read simple English.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 27.11.2022 kl. 22.34 skrev Dingbat:

> At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
> A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"

I understand why she slapped him, but I don't know the innocent meaning
of "quickie" (and "keesh" doesn't help).

--
Bertel

[Peter T. Daniels]

There is no "innocent meaning."

The insult is that he would not know the word "quiche."

Not to mention the bizarre notion that someone who didn't know
the word would interpret "ch" as [k]. _And_ make a final e a new
syllable.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 27.11.2022 kl. 22.57 skrev Peter T. Daniels:

>> I understand why she slapped him, but I don't know the innocent meaning
>> of "quickie" (and "keesh" doesn't help).
>
> There is no "innocent meaning."
>
> The insult is that he would not know the word "quiche."
>
> Not to mention the bizarre notion that someone who didn't know
> the word would interpret "ch" as [k]. _And_ make a final e a new
> syllable.

Thanks for the explanation. No, the joke is somewhat farfetched.

--
Bertel

[lar3ryca]

A 'quickie' is sexual intercourse without foreplay. The sort of thing
described by the phrase, "Slam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am".

--
Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

[Tony Cooper]

No. Our president is addressed as "Mr President" or as "Sir", but
referred to as "President (last name)". "Sir" is used as a form of
respect for the office.

Trump has a very annoying habit of recounting encounters with people
in which he says someone made a comment to him or asked him a question
and starts the comment or question with "Sir, ...". Trump does this
because he wants to constantly remind us of his importance.

I've heard no other ex-President do this.






--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

[Snidely]

After serious thinking Paul Epstein wrote :
> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:58:34 PM UTC, lionele...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:

>>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
>>> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World
>>>> Cup game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have
>>>> won it. Iran have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran
>>>> had time for another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally
>>>> likely for Wales to score the second goal and make it 1-1.

>>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common in
>>> BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has won
>>> it."

>> "Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.
>>
>> If they (you are suggesting that Iran is an "it"?) score in the 8th minute
>> of 9 minutes of extra time, saying "Iran has won" would also seem
>> proportionate.
>
> Iran scored the second goal after 11 minutes of extra time -- sometimes more
> time is added on than was originally planned, so this doesn't contradict you.
>
> I suppose my point is that the fact of the second goal does render the "won
> it" statements premature, in my opinion, because if there was time for a
> second goal, there was also time for an equaliser.

But a good analyst would be jugdging not just the time remaining, but
also the likelyhood that the team behind was playing well enough to
have a good chance of scoring.

For instance, if Wales had a hard time getting the ball past midfield,
or was playing desperate defense and appearing to be off-balance, their
chances might appear slim, and the analyst should be on top of that.

Likewise, if the team to score first is showing mastery of not just the
moment but of all the game to that point, then the analyst should have
confidence that the team will prevail.

Of course, the game isn't over until its over, and sometimes the win
probability charts shown on fivethirtyeight.com show dramatic reversals
on occasion. As well as teams that start slow but warm up after
getting into the action. There's also the phrase "Bonneville didn't
win the game, Rochester lost it."

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 27.11.2022 kl. 23.25 skrev lar3ryca:

> A 'quickie' is sexual intercourse without foreplay. The sort of thing
> described by the phrase, "Slam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am".

I wrote "I understand why she slapped him" for a reason.

--
Bertel

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 28.11.2022 kl. 00.05 skrev Tony Cooper:

> No. Our president is addressed as "Mr President" or as "Sir", but
> referred to as "President (last name)". "Sir" is used as a form of
> respect for the office.

The style in the UK and Denmark is to say "Your Majesty" the first time
and the following times say "mam" and "De" (= polite "you"). Is there a
similar style in the USA, that is, to say "Mr. President" once and else
"sir"?

--
Bertel

[Tony Cooper]

In this television interview conducted by Scott Pelley on "60
Minutes", Scott uses "Mr President" first, then another "Mr
President", then "Sir", then "Mr President" again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1UC89H4Swc

I don't think we have the more rigid protocols in the US that are
found in countries with royalty.

BTW...let's not forget that it could be Madam President.

Ex-Presidents, by the way, should be addressed as Mr (name).

[Ken Blake]

Quiche

[Peter Moylan]

Besides, it wasn't Clinton. That joke has always been about Dubya.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Den 27.11.2022 kl. 22.34 skrev Dingbat:
>
>>> At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
>>> A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"
>>
>> I understand why she slapped him, but I don't know the innocent meaning
>> of "quickie" (and "keesh" doesn't help).
>
> There is no "innocent meaning."

None that fits the situation, but a "quickie" can be a number of things;
I've encountered it as a short, unannounced test in class.

Collins has the example sentence "I'm off down to the pub for a
quickie."

--
Legends of prediction are common throughout the whole Household of Man.
Gods speak, spirits speak, computers speak. Oracular ambiguity or
statistical probability provides loopholes, and discrepancies are
expunged by Faith. -- Ursula LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness, ch. 5

[Quinn C]

* Bertel Lund Hansen:

Whereas in German, the question "Bist Du die Queen?" would mean "are you
the queen of the UK?", wherever the questioning happens.

--
Jesus is like Elvis - I love the guy, but the fan club scares me.
-- John Fugelsang

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:34:43 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
>
>> Would "Are you Mr. President, sir" be idiomatic in US English?
>

> No. "Mr. President," like any other "Mr. + name," is vocative only.

I immediately corrected in my head to "Is it you, Mr. President?"

But even then, that would also apply to ex-Presidents, no?

--
I try not to dwell on what's right and what's wrong.
It slows my processors.
-- Rommie (Andromeda ship AI)

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:27:25 -0500, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:34:43 PM UTC-5, Dingbat wrote:
>>
>>> Would "Are you Mr. President, sir" be idiomatic in US English?
>>
>> No. "Mr. President," like any other "Mr. + name," is vocative only.
>
>I immediately corrected in my head to "Is it you, Mr. President?"
>
>But even then, that would also apply to ex-Presidents, no?

While it's done, it's not supposed to be done. Some titles are
retained after office, but not "President". There can be but one "Mr
President".

Trump is now "Mr Trump".

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:27:24 -0500, Quinn C
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Den 27.11.2022 kl. 22.34 skrev Dingbat:
>>
>>>> At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
>>>> A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"
>>>
>>> I understand why she slapped him, but I don't know the innocent meaning
>>> of "quickie" (and "keesh" doesn't help).
>>
>> There is no "innocent meaning."
>
>None that fits the situation, but a "quickie" can be a number of things;
>I've encountered it as a short, unannounced test in class.

Most Americans would call that a "pop quiz".

>
>Collins has the example sentence "I'm off down to the pub for a
>quickie."
--

[Hibou]

Le 27/11/2022 à 12:02, Dingbat a écrit :
> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:51:15 AM UTC-8, Hibou wrote:

>> Le 27/11/2022 à 11:35, Dingbat a écrit :
>>>
>>> I've read of QE2 using that expression. A child asked, "Are you the Queen, mam."

>>> Her reply, that I don't remember in full, included "I was the last time I checked".
>> A talking ship? That really is strange!
>
> The ship would be 'the QE2', not 'QE2'.

I'm inclined to agree, though I see Wikipedia (for what it's worth) uses
the name both with and without the article:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_2>

My point was that 'QE2' is not a valid appellation for the late Queen.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-11-27 23:05:36 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

>
> No. Our president is addressed as "Mr President" or as "Sir", but
> referred to as "President (last name)". "Sir" is used as a form of
> respect for the office.
>
> Trump has a very annoying habit of recounting encounters with people
> in which he says someone made a comment to him or asked him a question
> and starts the comment or question with "Sir, ...". Trump does this
> because he wants to constantly remind us of his importance.

If only that was the worst thing one could say about the orange loser...

>
> I've heard no other ex-President do this.
>
>
>
>
>
>


--

Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-11-28 00:11:20 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 00:40:32 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Den 28.11.2022 kl. 00.05 skrev Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> No. Our president is addressed as "Mr President" or as "Sir", but
>>> referred to as "President (last name)". "Sir" is used as a form of
>>> respect for the office.
>>
>> The style in the UK and Denmark is to say "Your Majesty" the first time
>> and the following times say "mam" and "De" (= polite "you"). Is there a
>> similar style in the USA, that is, to say "Mr. President" once and else
>> "sir"?
>
> In this television interview conducted by Scott Pelley on "60
> Minutes", Scott uses "Mr President" first, then another "Mr
> President", then "Sir", then "Mr President" again.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1UC89H4Swc
>
> I don't think we have the more rigid protocols in the US that are
> found in countries with royalty.
>
> BTW...let's not forget that it could be Madam President.

We can believe that when we see it.

>
> Ex-Presidents, by the way, should be addressed as Mr (name).


--

[Paul Epstein]

It was a nice and witty point, made humourously.
It can be really annoying, when people reply to clever points by pedantic correction.

Paul Epstein

[Peter T. Daniels]

More realistic. But still not nice.

Who was the happiest person in the US when the 2016 election was
decided?

--He would no longer be the dumbest president in history.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 11:44:06 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:27:24 -0500, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >* Peter T. Daniels:
> >> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >>> Den 27.11.2022 kl. 22.34 skrev Dingbat:

> >>>> At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
> >>>> A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"
> >>> I understand why she slapped him, but I don't know the innocent meaning
> >>> of "quickie" (and "keesh" doesn't help).
> >> There is no "innocent meaning."
> >None that fits the situation, but a "quickie" can be a number of things;
> >I've encountered it as a short, unannounced test in class.
>
> Most Americans would call that a "pop quiz".

More likely to produce groans than giggles.

> >Collins has the example sentence "I'm off down to the pub for a
> >quickie."

An accommodating barmaid?

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 22:27:24 -0500, Quinn C
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 4:51:10 PM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Den 27.11.2022 kl. 22.34 skrev Dingbat:
>>>
>>>>> At a diner, President Clinton said, "I'd like a quickie, please." The waitress slapped him.
>>>>> A secret agent leaned over and said, "It's pronounced keesh, Mr. President!"
>>>>
>>>> I understand why she slapped him, but I don't know the innocent meaning
>>>> of "quickie" (and "keesh" doesn't help).
>>>
>>> There is no "innocent meaning."
>>
>>None that fits the situation, but a "quickie" can be a number of things;
>>I've encountered it as a short, unannounced test in class.
>
> Most Americans would call that a "pop quiz".

The professor who gave us a quickie was Australian.

>>
>>Collins has the example sentence "I'm off down to the pub for a
>>quickie."


--

Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Sam Plusnet]

On 27-Nov-22 23:17, Snidely wrote:
>
> Of course, the game isn't over until its over, and sometimes the win
> probability charts shown on fivethirtyeight.com show dramatic reversals
> on occasion.  As well as teams that start slow but warm up after getting
> into the action.  There's also the phrase "Bonneville didn't win the
> game, Rochester lost it."

To me, Bonneville will always be a Triumph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Bonneville

--
Sam Plusnet

[Tony Cooper]

To many Americans..the Pontiac Bonneville.
https://hagerty-vid-images.imgix.net/vehicles/1273_3228_25.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&h=500

Named after the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah where many motorsport
land speed records were set as was the Triumph motorcycle.

[lar3ryca]

One of the best bikes I ever rode.

--
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons and morons.

[Paul Epstein]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:20:02 PM UTC, Bebercito wrote:

> Le samedi 26 novembre 2022 à 14:28:08 UTC+1, Paul Epstein a écrit :
> > I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales -- Iran World Cup
> > game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator said "Iran have won it. Iran
> > have won this game!" Surely, that was nonsense. Since Iran had time for
> > another goal to make it 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to
> > score the second goal and make it 1-1.

> > I would argue that the fact that there was a second goal is clear evidence
> > that that commentator's remarks were seriously premature even though
> > his (implicit) prediction was correct.

> > It's a bit like saying, about a fair coin, "I'm going to toss the coin and I
> > know it will be heads", the prediction doesn't have any sense to it even
> > if the guess turns out to be right.
> > Strangely, people rarely analyse comments according to the facts at the
> > time that statements are made and evaluate past comments according
> > to future events that the speakers didn't know about.
> > In backgammon, we call this "resulting". This is a fallacious and totally
> > worthless type of backgammon analyis where a player's decisions are
> > evaluated according to whether or not they actually worked in the
> > game under analysis -- ignoring the probability calculations of how likely
> > the plays were to have turned out well.

Declaring victory, when the victory is likely but not certain, is standard practice
in sports commentary in my experience. However, I've never known these
declarations to be incorrect, and this soccer match is the only example I've
seen where there is reason to think (in my opinion) that the declaration was
premature (although not contradicted).
I personally don't like the practice, but it's the overall viewing population that counts.
This practice is very evident in tennis. In the men's game, commentators tend to regard
the result as certain if the trailer is not higher-ranked than the leader, and the trailer
needs at least two breaks of serve to make a comeback.

Paul Epstein

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 29.11.2022 kl. 11.48 skrev Paul Epstein:

> Declaring victory, when the victory is likely but not certain, is standard practice
> in sports commentary in my experience. However, I've never known these
> declarations to be incorrect, and this soccer match is the only example I've
> seen where there is reason to think (in my opinion) that the declaration was
> premature (although not contradicted).

In Danish commentatory [1] you can hear the journalist explain that with
the second goal the team will "close the game" - meaning that the
opposing team hasn't got a chance to win.

At the same time a popular saying is "the ball is round" which has come
to mean that anything can happen until the last whistle.

[1] I missed a word and made up "commentatory". Is that acceptable?
Which other word would you use?

Another word I made up in a posting that I deleted, was "discontence".
Same two questions.

--
Bertel

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022, at 16:05:59, lar3ryca posted:

>On 2022-11-28 14:00, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 27-Nov-22 23:17, Snidely wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, the game isn't over until its over, and sometimes the win
>>>probability charts shown on fivethirtyeight.com show dramatic
>>>reversals on occasion.  As well as teams that start slow but warm up
>>>after getting into the action.  There's also the phrase "Bonneville
>>>didn't win the game, Rochester lost it."
>> To me, Bonneville will always be a Triumph.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Bonneville
>
>One of the best bikes I ever rode.
>

They went well in straight lines - but people who wanted to go round
corners faster put their Bonnie's engine and gearbox into a Norton
featherbed frame. You could buy special mounting plates for that.
--
Paul W

[Peter Moylan]

Commentary. Discontent.

[Paul Epstein]

Some humourous styles of writing include invented words, which will occasionally
be used more widely. I think it would be quite plausible for such a writer to use the
invented word "commentatory" to be mean "commentary by a professional commentator".
However, this usage is certainly non-standard.

BTW, I would think your question would be better worded as "Is that standard?" rather
than "Is that acceptable?"

Paul Epstein

[Paul Epstein]

"your question" refers to Bertel's question.

Paul Epstein

[Mark Brader]

Bertel Lund Hansen:

> In Danish commentatory [1] you can hear the journalist explain that with
> the second goal the team will "close the game" - meaning that the
> opposing team hasn't got a chance to win.

"Lock" can have a similar meaning in English.

> At the same time a popular saying is "the ball is round" which has come
> to mean that anything can happen until the last whistle.

"It isn't over until it's over" or, in reference to opera, "it isn't
over until the fat lady sings".

> [1] I missed a word and made up "commentatory". Is that acceptable?
> Which other word would you use?

"Commentary".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "If disapproval we will drawback."
m...@vex.net --seen on a box of cookies

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Ken Blake]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:08:08 +0000, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Bertel Lund Hansen:
>> In Danish commentatory [1] you can hear the journalist explain that with
>> the second goal the team will "close the game" - meaning that the
>> opposing team hasn't got a chance to win.
>
>"Lock" can have a similar meaning in English.
>
>> At the same time a popular saying is "the ball is round" which has come
>> to mean that anything can happen until the last whistle.
>
>"It isn't over until it's over" or, in reference to opera, "it isn't
>over until the fat lady sings".

In both of those, it's normally "ain't," not "isn't."

And it's " 'till," not "until."

[Richard Heathfield]

I beg to differ.

Not sayin' you're wrong; I just differ.

In my English:

until - is fine;
till - is fine;
'til - is fine;

but

'till - is Right Aht.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Quinn C]

* Bertel Lund Hansen:

> Den 29.11.2022 kl. 11.48 skrev Paul Epstein:
>
>> Declaring victory, when the victory is likely but not certain, is standard practice
>> in sports commentary in my experience. However, I've never known these
>> declarations to be incorrect, and this soccer match is the only example I've
>> seen where there is reason to think (in my opinion) that the declaration was
>> premature (although not contradicted).
>
> In Danish commentatory [1] you can hear the journalist explain that with
> the second goal the team will "close the game" - meaning that the
> opposing team hasn't got a chance to win.
>
> At the same time a popular saying is "the ball is round" which has come
> to mean that anything can happen until the last whistle.

Like "the game lasts for 90 minutes", this is often attributed to Sepp
Herberger in Germany, the manager of the national team when they won the
World Cup in 1954.

A bit of a German Yogi Berra, maybe: "The round thing has to go into the
rectangular thing." (sounds better in German.) "Soccer is exciting
because no one knows the outcome of the game."

"The next game is always the hardest."
"After the game is before the game."
"The ball is the fastest player."

--
The notion that there might be a "truth" of sex, as Foucault
ironically terms it, is produced precisely through the regulatory
practices that generate coherent identities through the matrix of
coherent gender norms. -- Judith Butler

[Sam Plusnet]

On 29-Nov-22 10:48, Paul Epstein wrote:

> Declaring victory, when the victory is likely but not certain, is standard practice
> in sports commentary in my experience. However, I've never known these
> declarations to be incorrect, and this soccer match is the only example I've
> seen where there is reason to think (in my opinion) that the declaration was
> premature (although not contradicted).
> I personally don't like the practice, but it's the overall viewing population that counts.
> This practice is very evident in tennis. In the men's game, commentators tend to regard
> the result as certain if the trailer is not higher-ranked than the leader, and the trailer
> needs at least two breaks of serve to make a comeback.

Commentators have to fill the empty space.
Making such a statement gives them all something to discuss, and if
there should be an upset, they have even more material to fill the void.
Win Win, really.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 2:48:56 AM UTC-8, Paul Epstein wrote:
>
> Declaring victory, when the victory is likely but not certain, is standard practice
> in sports commentary in my experience. However, I've never known these
> declarations to be incorrect, and this soccer match is the only example I've
> seen where there is reason to think (in my opinion) that the declaration was
> premature (although not contradicted).

This is an unlikely scenario though:
Iranians celebrate US victory over Iran | Newsweek
<<Following the U.S. win, videos emerged on social media appearing to show
Iranians at home also celebrating their own team's defeat.>>
https://www.newsweek.com/videos-show-iranians-celebrating-us-win-world-cup-1763331

[bruce bowser]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 1:01:59 PM UTC-5, Quinn C wrote:
> * Bertel Lund Hansen:
> > Den 29.11.2022 kl. 11.48 skrev Paul Epstein:
> >
> >> Declaring victory, when the victory is likely but not certain, is standard practice
> >> in sports commentary in my experience. However, I've never known these
> >> declarations to be incorrect, and this soccer match is the only example I've
> >> seen where there is reason to think (in my opinion) that the declaration was
> >> premature (although not contradicted).
> >
> > In Danish commentatory [1] you can hear the journalist explain that with
> > the second goal the team will "close the game" - meaning that the
> > opposing team hasn't got a chance to win.
> >
> > At the same time a popular saying is "the ball is round" which has come
> > to mean that anything can happen until the last whistle.
>
> Like "the game lasts for 90 minutes",

... or until that whistle goes.

[marika]

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 6:04:47 AM UTC-6, Paul Epstein wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 6:32:15 AM UTC, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 27/11/2022 à 12:02, Dingbat a écrit :
> > > On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:51:15 AM UTC-8, Hibou wrote:
> > >> Le 27/11/2022 à 11:35, Dingbat a écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>> I've read of QE2 using that expression. A child asked, "Are you the Queen, mam."
> > >>> Her reply, that I don't remember in full, included "I was the last time I checked".
> > >> A talking ship? That really is strange!
> > >
> > > The ship would be 'the QE2', not 'QE2'.
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree, though I see Wikipedia (for what it's worth) uses
> > the name both with and without the article:
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_2>
> >
> > My point was that 'QE2' is not a valid appellation for the late Queen.
> It was a nice and witty point, made humourously.

>
>

Wow! It is so nice to see this affirming post.

The Queen was reputed to have a great sense of humor when traveling incognito, unrecognized by tourists. Here's an interview by former bodyguard Richard Griffin recounting one of her most well known encounters.

https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/celebrity/story/what-queen-elizabeth-ii-said-when-a-clueless-tourist-asked-her-if-she-had-met-the-queen-1998356-2022-09-09

[Peter Moylan]

On 01/12/22 11:25, marika wrote:

> The Queen was reputed to have a great sense of humor when traveling
> incognito, unrecognized by tourists. Here's an interview by former
> bodyguard Richard Griffin recounting one of her most well known
> encounters.
>
> https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/celebrity/story/what-queen-elizabeth-ii-said-when-a-clueless-tourist-asked-her-if-she-had-met-the-queen-1998356-2022-09-09

I chose not to sign in, so I didn't get to see the story.

I'm curious, though, about that "Dark Mode" switch. Does that move you
to the dark web?

[Tony Cooper]

It changes the screen from black-on-white to white-on-black.

[Peter Moylan]

On 01/12/22 11:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:33:12 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/22 11:25, marika wrote:
>>
>>> The Queen was reputed to have a great sense of humor when traveling
>>> incognito, unrecognized by tourists. Here's an interview by former
>>> bodyguard Richard Griffin recounting one of her most well known
>>> encounters.
>>>
>>> https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/celebrity/story/what-queen-elizabeth-ii-said-when-a-clueless-tourist-asked-her-if-she-had-met-the-queen-1998356-2022-09-09
>>
>> I chose not to sign in, so I didn't get to see the story.
>>
>> I'm curious, though, about that "Dark Mode" switch. Does that move you
>> to the dark web?
>
> It changes the screen from black-on-white to white-on-black.

Thanks. I didn't have the courage to try it.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:52:20 +1100, Peter Moylan

<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 01/12/22 11:38, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:33:12 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/12/22 11:25, marika wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Queen was reputed to have a great sense of humor when traveling
>>>> incognito, unrecognized by tourists. Here's an interview by former
>>>> bodyguard Richard Griffin recounting one of her most well known
>>>> encounters.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/celebrity/story/what-queen-elizabeth-ii-said-when-a-clueless-tourist-asked-her-if-she-had-met-the-queen-1998356-2022-09-09
>>>
>>> I chose not to sign in, so I didn't get to see the story.
>>>
>>> I'm curious, though, about that "Dark Mode" switch. Does that move you
>>> to the dark web?
>>
>> It changes the screen from black-on-white to white-on-black.
>
>Thanks. I didn't have the courage to try it.

The photo editing program I used has a "dark mode" option so I knew
what to expect.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 01/12/2022 12:33 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 01/12/22 11:25, marika wrote:
>
>> The Queen was reputed to have a great sense of humor when
>> traveling
>> incognito, unrecognized by tourists.  Here's an interview by
>> former
>> bodyguard Richard Griffin recounting one of her most well known
>> encounters.
>>
>> https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/celebrity/story/what-queen-elizabeth-ii-said-when-a-clueless-tourist-asked-her-if-she-had-met-the-queen-1998356-2022-09-09
>
> I chose not to sign in, so I didn't get to see the story.

Reuters has it:

The monarch was out in the hills near her Scottish castle at
Balmoral when two U.S. tourists on a walking holiday approached
and one of them engaged her in conversation, said former royal
protection officer Richard Griffin, known as Dick.

The hiker asked the queen where she lived, so she said London,
adding that she had a holiday home just over the hill and had
been visiting the area for more than 80 years since she as a
little girl. She did not say she was referring to Balmoral.

Aware that the castle was in the vicinity, the hiker then asked
her if she had ever met the queen, Griffin said.

"Quick as a flash she said: 'I haven't, but Dick here meets her
regularly'," Griffin recounted on Sky News during celebrations of
Elizabeth's 70 years on the throne earlier this year.

[Richard Heathfield]

It turns out there's a little more to the story:

The hiker than asked Griffin what the monarch was like in person.

"Because I was with her a long time and I knew I could pull her
leg (tease her), I said 'oh, she can be very cantankerous at
times, but she's got a lovely sense of humour'," Griffin said.

Delighted, the hiker then put his arm around Griffin's shoulder
and asked if he could have a picture of the two of them together.

"Before I could see what was happening, he gets his camera and
gives it to the queen and says 'can you take a picture of us?'"

The queen obliged, and then Griffin took the camera and took a
picture of her with the pair of hikers.

Later, Griffin said, the queen told him: "I'd love to be a fly on
the wall when he shows those photographs to friends in America
and hopefully someone tells him who I am."

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 01.12.2022 kl. 01.33 skrev Peter Moylan:

> I chose not to sign in, so I didn't get to see the story.

I didn't sign in. I just read the story beneath the photo. It's really
funny.

--
Bertel

[Hibou]

Le 27/11/2022 à 17:13, Ken Blake a écrit :
> Paul Epstein wrote:
>>
>> I think that I know the answer to the question: "Are you the Queen?" so maybe I can help you.
>> The answer is "Yes" if you are in a state that has a Queen and you are that person; the answer is "No" otherwise.
>> Currently, the answer would always be "No" in the UK.
>
> So if the Queen of the Netherlands was visiting the UK, and someone
> asked her "Are you the Queen?" she should answer "no"?

It depends on context. If greeting a royal party from another country,
it would be perfectly in order to ask of one, "Are you the Queen?" and
for her to reply, "Yes."

'The Queen' is ambiguous, since there are a number of queens in the
world, and the Queen of the Netherlands remains such even when she's in
Britain.

Wikipedia thinks Camilla "is Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14
other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III". I don't know
if that is technically correct.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Queen_Consort>

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 12:04:17 PM UTC-8, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Den 27.11.2022 kl. 18.13 skrev Ken Blake:
>
> > So if the Queen of the Netherlands was visiting the UK, and someone
> > asked her "Are you the Queen?" she should answer "no"?

> Of course. On the other hand if she were asked "Are you a queen?", she
> should answer yes.
>
True story:

In the winter of 1966-67, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, a sort of political
jug band, was searched by municipal police in Calgary and busted because
several suspected marijuana seeds were found in one member's coat lining.
Calgary was like that then.

It became an instant circus with pro-and anti-marijuana groups demonstrating
and handing out pamphlets, and a number of tweedy professors from the
U of Calgary English and philosophy departments forming a support committee.
Somebody set up a sound system in the student dining centre, speeches were
spoken, and the campus police decided they had a dangerous situation on their hands,
and that they ought to arrest the group that was causing the trouble.

They marched to the stage, approached the English and philosophy profs
and asked them if they were the group, and one of them replied, quite correctly,
"We are a group", and all of them were arrested on the spot and taken away,
while everyone who heard and understood what had just happened was doubled
over with laughter.

First-year U of Calgary was a hoot, actually. That was one of the highlights.

bill

[Richard Heathfield]

royal.uk (which damn well ought to know) styles her as "Her
Majesty The Queen Consort (formerly HRH The Duchess of Cornwall)".

[Dingbat]

Q. Have you met the Queen?
A. I haven't but he (Griffin) does regularly.

Was she right that she hadn't met herself?

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 01.12.2022 kl. 09.28 skrev Hibou:

> Wikipedia thinks Camilla "is Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14
> other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III". I don't know
> if that is technically correct.

As I see it, her title just means that she is married to the King. We
had a similar case in Denmark with Prince Henrik, later titled
Prince-Consort.

--
Bertel

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 01.12.2022 kl. 09.39 skrev Richard Heathfield:

> royal.uk (which damn well ought to know) styles her as "Her Majesty The
> Queen Consort (formerly HRH The Duchess of Cornwall)".

That is different from Prince Henrik. He was not a majesty.

--
Bertel

[Hibou]

Le 01/12/2022 à 08:46, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Den 01.12.2022 kl. 09.28 skrev Hibou:
>>
>> Wikipedia thinks Camilla "is Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14
>> other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III". I don't
>> know if that is technically correct.
>

> As I see it, her title just means that she is married to the King. [...]

Yes, it's not an official title, just one of the definitions of 'queen'
in the dictionary.

[charles]

In article <tm9puq$505$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

unlike the Queen Regnant - like Anne or the 2 Elizabeths or the 3 Marys

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[GordonD]

On 26/11/2022 15:58, Lionel Edwards wrote:
> On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:46:01 PM UTC, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 05:28:06 -0800 (PST), Paul Epstein
>> <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've just finished watching some highlights from the Wales --
>>> Iran World Cup game. After Iran's first goal, the BBC commentator
>>> said "Iran have won it. Iran have won this game!" Surely, that
>>> was nonsense. Since Iran had time for another goal to make it
>>> 2-0, it would have been equally likely for Wales to score the
>>> second goal and make it 1-1.
>> Leaving aside whether or not what he said is correct, is it common
>> in BrE to say things like "Iran have won it"? I would say "Iran has
>> won it."
>
> "Iran" can be singular or plural in BrE, so either are normal.

In BrE sports teams are treated as plural, so "Iran has won it" would
sound odd to my ears.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[GordonD]

On 27/11/2022 23:40, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 28.11.2022 kl. 00.05 skrev Tony Cooper:
>
>> No.  Our president is addressed as "Mr President" or as "Sir", but
>> referred to as "President (last name)".  "Sir" is used as a form of
>> respect for the office.
>
> The style in the UK and Denmark is to say "Your Majesty" the first time
> and the following times say "mam" and "De" (= polite "you").

Probably not a good idea to address King Charles as 'mam'...

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 14:45:55 +0000, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

The same in AmE, but ...

> so "Iran has won it" would
>sound odd to my ears.

... "the Yankees have won it " would sound right to me, but "New York
have won it would sound odd."

[Ken Blake]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 11:06:59 +0000 (GMT), charles
<cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

>In article <tm9puq$505$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:
>> Le 01/12/2022 à 08:46, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>> > Den 01.12.2022 kl. 09.28 skrev Hibou:
>> >>
>> >> Wikipedia thinks Camilla "is Queen of the United Kingdom and the 14
>> >> other Commonwealth realms as the wife of King Charles III". I don't
>> >> know if that is technically correct.
>> >
>> > As I see it, her title just means that she is married to the King. [...]
>
>> Yes, it's not an official title, just one of the definitions of 'queen'
>> in the dictionary.
>
>unlike the Queen Regnant - like Anne or the 2 Elizabeths or the 3 Marys

Last night there were four Marys.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 01.12.2022 kl. 15.53 skrev GordonD:

>> The style in the UK and Denmark is to say "Your Majesty" the first
>> time and the following times say "mam" and "De" (= polite "you").
>
> Probably not a good idea to address King Charles as 'mam'...

Wouldn't it be acceptable in these gender-floating times?

--
Bertel

[Hibou]

Le 27/11/2022 à 23:40, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
>
> The style in the UK and Denmark is to say "Your Majesty" the first time

> and the following times say "mam" and "De" (= polite "you"). [...]
Et pourtant, on tutoie Dieu.

And yet, one (chummily) thous God. Who do these royals think they are?

[bruce bowser]

Royales ne pensent-ils pas qu'ils sont royale ?

[Sam Plusnet]

Should we make assumptions about his preferred pronouns?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 01.12.2022 kl. 18.33 skrev Hibou:

>> The style in the UK and Denmark is to say "Your Majesty" the first
>> time and the following times say "mam" and "De" (= polite "you"). [...]

> Et pourtant, on tutoie Dieu.

Oui.

> And yet, one (chummily) thous God. Who do these royals think they are?

Queen Margrethe thinks that she is a woman born 1940 at which time "De"
was the polite pronoun. Crownprince Frederik and Crownprincess Mary are
not particular about whether you say "De" or "du". Frederik doesn't even
mind if called by nickname (Frede).

Prince Joakim used to protest against "du", but he doesn't any more.
Princess Marie doesn't either.

In an "official" context it would be improper to use "du" with either of
them.

--
Bertel