Which is correct: "I appreciate you..." or "I appreciate your..."
void
"I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
"I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
TOF
Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
TOF
Robert Lieblich
I agree that both are acceptable. As to preferences, most Americans
prefer the latter. I'm one of them.
--
Bob Lieblich
The Voice of 'Authority
the Omrud
I agree that both are acceptable. I (a Brit) gravitate towards the
latter but I don't know many of my compatriots would concur.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Adrian Bailey
news:4482A15C...@yahoo.com...
I prefer it too.
Adrian (UK)
dontbother
> Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
>
> "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
This is not correct in formal written American English, no. Only in
informal written english and in speech --- but almost everything that's
said is considered "correct" or at least "acceptable" by those who say it.
> "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
This is correct in formal written and spoken English, but most native
anglophones don't know the difference between this and the former. That
means, of course, that there is no difference between them for most, and
most would find that "your" curious.
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor
Posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/hush.ai
It's all in the way you say it, innit?
Derek Turner
ignorant the second is correct. The first is used very commonly but does
that make it acceptable?
the Omrud
I'm not convinced that the former is wrong. In the second, "taking"
is a gerund and must be possessed. But in the former, it's a present
participle (or something) and so "you" is right.
- This is a photo of you taking the last piece of cake.
- This is a photo of your taking the last piece of cake.
Both Dead Right, but different.
TOF
dontbother wrote:
> "void" <vo...@no.spam.com> wrote:
>
> > Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
> >
> > "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
>
> This is not correct in formal written American English, no. Only in
> informal written english and in speech --- but almost everything that's
> said is considered "correct" or at least "acceptable" by those who say it.
>
> > "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
>
Just for the benefit of the original poster, here are some xamples of
places where the "you taking the ..." construction has been used:
Chairman of a UK Parliamentary committee ...
||||
186. Mr Schulte-Strathaus, I think on that note we should finish. You
have given us a lot of your time and again can I say how grateful we
are for you taking the trouble to come from Hamburg to give us your
evidence. Perhaps you could leave your opening statement behind as
there is a lot of meat in that and we would need to read that again. If
we do have any queries on it perhaps we could get in touch with you.
A. I would be delighted.
Chairman] Thank you very much.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldeucom/156/8061812.htm
||||
An American Government agency:
||||
We appreciate you taking the time to provide us with your suggestions
and concerns about refineries. Neither the California Accidental
Release Prevention (CalARP) Program nor the Industrial Safety Ordinance
(ISO) program gives Contra Costa Health Services the authority to
mandate the changes you suggest,
A US Senator:
||||
I appreciate you taking the time to visit. On my web site, you will
find extensive information on my many activities in the United States
Senate
Lego's FAQ:
||||
It will take about 5 minutes for you to complete this survey. We
appreciate you taking the time to tell us what you think of our
service. Your response will of course remain confidential.
http://www.lego.com/eng/service/survey.asp
||||
An inerview on the ABOC in Australia (words spoken by a Senior
Journalist)
||||
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s397462.htm
Mrs. Rennie: Probably not, but I'll go on fighting. I'll go on fighting
for the truth.
Negus: Mrs. Rennie, thank you very much for taking us through that. It
throws a lot of light on the situation from your point of view, and we
appreciate you taking the trouble.
Mrs. Rennie: Thank you.
||||
A professional trainign company:
||||
Element 2 is about you taking the trouble to find out what activities
other professionals are involved in and sharing information. To do this
you would communicate by telephone, correspondence, E-mail, Internet
and or meetings. The contacts you make and the information you share
will enhance your own knowledge and working practices
http://www.metier.org.uk/standards/artistic_prog_3/displayStandard.php?page=8
||||
A Limousine Company:
||||
A big thank you to all previous clients who have written, emailed or
sent us cards to express their thanks for our services. We have
received so many that we are not now in a position to display them all
on our website and have had to start deleting the older ones from this
page. However, we really do appreciate you taking the trouble to let us
know what you thought of our vehicles and overall service.
http://www.firstclasslimos.co.uk/13356.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val*
||||
A University counselling service in the UK:
||||
The Counselling Service welcomes all constructive feedback, and will
consider it very carefully. Please offer us feedback either formally or
informally in whatever way you find most convenient, whether that is
verbally or in writing.
... We want to learn all we can from your experience, and appreciate
you taking the trouble to tell us about it.
http://www.paisley.ac.uk/studentservices/counselling/feedback.asp
||||
Another UK Parliamentary Committee:
||||
Mr Restorick: I am in danger of sounding like a grumpy old man here
but I have not seen that drive personally.
Chairman: Thank you very much. You have been very forthright in the
evidence you have given to us and we do appreciate you taking the
trouble to come here. If there are any further thoughts you have which
you think would assist us in looking to see how this is being taken
forward by government, we would be very pleased to receive it.
Meanwhile, thank you for the work that you are doing on the ground,
where it really matters. Thank you very much.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmenvaud/84/4121412.htm
||||
Overall, there were 430,000 instances in Google of the string: "you
taking the time".
> This is correct in formal written and spoken English, but most native
> anglophones don't know the difference between this and the former. That
> means, of course, that there is no difference between them for most, and
> most would find that "your" curious.
TOF
dontbother
> Derek Turner <some...@odds.invalid> had it:
>> TOF wrote:
>> > void wrote:
>> >> Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
>> >>
>> >> "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
>> >>
>> >> "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
>> >
>> > Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
>> >
>> ignorant the second is correct. The first is used very commonly but
>> does that make it acceptable?
>
> I'm not convinced that the former is wrong. In the second, "taking"
> is a gerund and must be possessed. But in the former, it's a present
> participle (or something) and so "you" is right.
>
> - This is a photo of you taking the last piece of cake.
> - This is a photo of your taking the last piece of cake.
>
> Both Dead Right, but different.
And if we do a deep structure analysis of the first one, we find a
reduced relative clause --- "photo of you in which you are taking
the...", and in the second, we find the elision of "of" between "taking"
and "the last". Replace "you/your" with "him/his", and it seems less
likely that both are Dead Right but that only the first is correct. I
don't think anyone would want to defend "This is a video of his being
murdered" either, but would insist on "This is a video of him being
murdered".
The fact is, however, that in writing, this judgment cannot be made and
so the first and second must be considered deep-structure equivalents.
Only in speech can one discern the difference. In this case, there is a
difference between "you/your taking the time" and "you/your taking the
last piece of cake". The semantics of the first require "your taking" and
of the second "you taking". They are not both Dead Right, IMHO. While
some may consider them both acceptable, one is certainly better quality
English than the other.
John Dean
> TOF wrote:
>> void wrote:
>>> Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
>>>
>>> "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
>>>
>>> "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
>>
>> Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
>>
>>
Ignorance? Begs the question?
http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_c.shtml#begthe0001
--
John Dean
Oxford
Mike Lyle
TOF wrote:
> dontbother wrote:
> > "void" <vo...@no.spam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
> > >
> > > "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
> >
> > This is not correct in formal written American English, no. Only in
> > informal written english and in speech --- but almost everything that's
> > said is considered "correct" or at least "acceptable" by those who say it.
> >
> > > "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
> >
>
> Just for the benefit of the original poster, here are some xamples of
> places where the "you taking the ..." construction has been used:
>
> Overall, there were 430,000 instances in Google of the string: "you
> taking the time".
>
> > This is correct in formal written and spoken English, but most native
> > anglophones don't know the difference between this and the former. That
> > means, of course, that there is no difference between them for most, and
> > most would find that "your" curious.
I think this last, "curious", is an exaggeration: it's hard to believe
that anybody who reads things isn't familiar with the standard form,
even if he doesn't use it. But nobody seems to have commented on
"appreciate". We all, I suppose, use it from time to time, but it's
poor style. If you really can't say "Thank you for xxxing" (which is
generally best), it's better to say "I am grateful for..." or sometimes
"I would be grateful for..."
--
Mike.
Peter Moylan
Correctness is ultimately defined by usage. It's likely that, to most
of us here, your ignorant use of "begs the question" feels like
fingernails scraping on a chalkboard; but we have to accept that this
new use has entered the language and is, ipso facto, correct. Whether we
like it or not.
In the case of the two "I appreciate ..." sentences, both are in use by
well-educated native speakers of English, so both must be correct. The
fact that both can be supported by accepted grammatical rules helps, but
ultimately the only important test is whether a large number of native
speakers agree that the sentences are correct.
For what it's worth, I prefer the second version, but Fran also has a
lot of people on her side.
By the way, you're lucky Rey is not reading this thread, or there would
be some nasty things said about fucking commas.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
Salvatore Volatile
I don't think it's accurate to say that most Americans prefer the latter.
I'd guess that most Americans use the former and find the latter
unnatural, but those Americans who care about good writing and speech tend
to regard the latter as correct and the former as incorrect or correct
only for informal usage.
--
Salvatore Volatile
CDB
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Derek Turner <some...@odds.invalid> had it:
>>> TOF wrote:
>>>> void wrote:
>>>>> Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
>>>>>
>>>>> "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
>>>>>
>>>>> "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
>>>>
>>>> Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
>>>>
>>> That begs the question: how acceptable is ignorance? The first is
>>> ignorant the second is correct. The first is used very commonly
>>> but does that make it acceptable?
>>
>> I'm not convinced that the former is wrong. In the second,
>> "taking" is a gerund and must be possessed. But in the former,
>> it's a present participle (or something) and so "you" is right.
>>
>> - This is a photo of you taking the last piece of cake.
>> - This is a photo of your taking the last piece of cake.
>>
>> Both Dead Right, but different.
And both different from the example used in the question. I agree
that "This is a photo of you..." is acceptable (and IMO preferable to
"this is a photo of ... taking..."), but this pattern doesn't cover
the sentence the OP was asking about.
> And if we do a deep structure analysis of the first one, we find a
> reduced relative clause --- "photo of you in which you are taking
> the...", and in the second, we find the elision of "of" between
> "taking" and "the last". Replace "you/your" with "him/his", and it
> seems less likely that both are Dead Right but that only the first
> is correct. I don't think anyone would want to defend "This is a
> video of his being murdered" either, but would insist on "This is a
> video of him being murdered".
> The fact is, however, that in writing, this judgment cannot be made
> and so the first and second must be considered deep-structure
> equivalents. Only in speech can one discern the difference. In this
> case, there is a difference between "you/your taking the time" and
> "you/your taking the last piece of cake". The semantics of the
> first require "your taking" and of the second "you taking". They
> are not both Dead Right, IMHO. While some may consider them both
> acceptable, one is certainly better quality English than the other.
I think the difference is in the main verb (or the
noun/adjective+preposition), not in the object-phrase. How about an
analysis of the original example: "I appreciate* you [because you
are?**] taking the time"? Or Fran's parliamentary example: "...how
grateful we are for you [Government members hum swelling chorus of
'Until There Was You'] [in that you are?] taking the time..."?
My objection to the noun-participle pattern in these contexts is that
it makes the agent the object of the main verb (or the
preposition-in-context); in some cases this seems to me quite
incongruous. In these cases, it's the action that is appreciated or
that the chairman expresses gratitude for, not the actor.
Of course, usage and idiom can justify tolerance, but let's not kid
ourselves about how the puzzle fits together. Using the
noun-participle pattern sometimes requires forcing one of the pieces
where it shouldn't, strictly speaking, go.
______________________
*And I won't get started on that usage.
**Unless you like "...appreciate you [for] taking the time...", which
makes the participle back into a gerund, but requires an ellipsis I
would be mighty uncomfortable with, and still leaves us appreciating
"you", in this and in the several parallel examples that Fran offered.
TOF
Mike Lyle wrote:
> TOF wrote:
> > dontbother wrote:
> > > "void" <vo...@no.spam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
> > > >
> > > > "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
> > >
> > > This is not correct in formal written American English, no. Only in
> > > informal written english and in speech --- but almost everything that's
> > > said is considered "correct" or at least "acceptable" by those who say it.
> > >
> > > > "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
> > >
> >
> > Just for the benefit of the original poster, here are some xamples of
> > places where the "you taking the ..." construction has been used:
> [...fair enough examples snipped...]
> >
> > Overall, there were 430,000 instances in Google of the string: "you
> > taking the time".
> >
> > > This is correct in formal written and spoken English, but most native
> > > anglophones don't know the difference between this and the former. That
> > > means, of course, that there is no difference between them for most, and
> > > most would find that "your" curious.
>
> I think this last, "curious", is an exaggeration: it's hard to believe
> that anybody who reads things isn't familiar with the standard form,
> even if he doesn't use it.
As David says above, they *are* formally different, even if the
difference in the message is imperceptible.
> But nobody seems to have commented on
> "appreciate". We all, I suppose, use it from time to time, but it's
> poor style. If you really can't say "Thank you for xxxing" (which is
> generally best), it's better to say "I am grateful for..." or sometimes
> "I would be grateful for..."
I believe this use of 'appreciate' is now firmly in idiom. I don't much
like the use of 'aggravate' to mean 'annoy' either, but again, it's
what people say.
TOF
LFS
But nobody seems to have commented on
> "appreciate". We all, I suppose, use it from time to time, but it's
> poor style. If you really can't say "Thank you for xxxing" (which is
> generally best), it's better to say "I am grateful for..." or sometimes
> "I would be grateful for..."
>
I disagree. I think that "appreciate" is a much stronger expression than
simple thanks or being grateful. It also seems to me to be more specific
- I would probably say that I appreciate a particular effort by some one
else but would be grateful for a more generally favourable disposition.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
TOF
Derek Turner wrote:
> TOF wrote:
> > void wrote:
> >> Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
> >>
> >> "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
> >>
> >> "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
> >
> > Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
> >
> > TOF
> >
> That begs the question: how acceptable is ignorance? The first is
> ignorant the second is correct.
Your use of 'ignorant' is amusing in this context. To describe the
first usage in these terms *ignores* what educated speakers of English
say. The OP wants to know what is acceptable in the language and that
is the best standard.
> The first is used very commonly but does
> that make it acceptable?
In this case, yes, because few would see it as 'ignorant', and those
who did would look foolish mentioning it in almost any context and
would be smart enough to resist the temptation to hold forth on the
matter.
TOF
Frank ess
My ear hears a difference:
in one I am appreciating you;
in the other I am appreciating your act.
I frequently make such a distinction in reading,
and from time to time, in writing.
--
Frank ess
void
Thanks for the replies, everyone. I am writing some post-interview thank you notes, so I'm definitely interested in which one would be appropriate for formal written English. It seems the respondents here either believe that they are both correct or that only the second one is correct. Then again, I did a Google search, and "I appreciate you taking" turned up 183,000 matches, while "I appreciate your taking" turned up only 76,000 matches.
Mike Lyle
Right. Now you've given the situation, it's definitely "Thank you
for..." Longer words and periphrases don't always raise the level of
formality.
--
Mike.
Tony Cooper
Beware such Googlecounts. Googlecounts don't provide discrete
returns. Some of the returns will be duplications of the same
instance.
Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
time to speak with me."?
Personally, I'm not excited about complimenting someone for taking
time. People take time to do all sorts of things that are not at all
worthwhile or beneficial. Look at the thread in aue on "Symbology"
and see how much time was taken by Peter H.M. Brooks to say absolutely
nothing of value.
Why not compliment the person on his valuable insight or advice? It's
not the time you are grateful for, but what he offered in that time.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Mike Lyle
express my gratitude for it. Of course I say "I appreciate that" in
casual speech, just like a normal human being; but we aren't discussing
casual speech here -- he's writing to some organisation which may have
power. Oddly, though, I seem to have a feeling that "grateful" is a bit
stronger than "appreciate". It's a damfool language.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Tony Cooper wrote:
[...]
> Personally, I'm not excited about complimenting someone for taking
> time. People take time to do all sorts of things that are not at all
> worthwhile or beneficial. Look at the thread in aue on "Symbology"
> and see how much time was taken by Peter H.M. Brooks to say absolutely
> nothing of value.
>
> Why not compliment the person on his valuable insight or advice? It's
> not the time you are grateful for, but what he offered in that time.
This is very sound advice. Even if they haven't given you the job, the
well-fed signora may not even have loosened her corset. Their first
choice may not be available, and you may be equal second: so, very
briefly, give them a hint that you've thought about the interview and
taken something from it. Otherwise, I don't see why you need to write
at all.
--
Mike.
Arcadian Rises
I don't go in much for "appreciate" either, but because I find it
slightly patronizing: "I highly appreciate xing" i.e. you did a great
job in pleasing me.
fulano_de_tal
>That begs the question: how acceptable is ignorance?
John Dean wrote:
>Ignorance? Begs the question?
>http://alt-usage-english.org/intro_c.shtml#begthe0001
"Ut sementem feceris ita metes."
My congratulations, Mr. Dean...I shall raise a glass to your
succinctness.
Paulo
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
> time to speak with me."?
Why not, indeed? I'd drop the "it, however: "I appreciate that you
took the time ..." Or why not just give up and say "Thank you for
taking the time ..."? (Could it be that a prior sentence begins with
"Thank you"?
[ ... ]
--
Bob Lieblich
So much to agonize over, so little time
Tony Cooper
<r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
>> time to speak with me."?
>
>Why not, indeed? I'd drop the "it, however: "I appreciate that you
>took the time ..." Or why not just give up and say "Thank you for
>taking the time ..."? (Could it be that a prior sentence begins with
>"Thank you"?
>
I can't drop the "it". I know that "I appreciate that you..." is
street legal, but it just sounds wrong to me. Just as, probably
"appreciate it that" sounds wrong to you.
void
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
> > time to speak with me."?
>
> Why not, indeed? I'd drop the "it, however: "I appreciate that you
> took the time ..." Or why not just give up and say "Thank you for
> taking the time ..."? (Could it be that a prior sentence begins with
> "Thank you"?
Yes, another sentence begins with "Thank you," so I didn't want to have that twice. :)
R J Valentine
} TOF wrote:
}>
}> void wrote:
}> > Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
}> >
}> > "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
}> >
}> > "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
}>
}> Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
}
} I agree that both are acceptable. As to preferences, most Americans
} prefer the latter. I'm one of them.
The latter is the teacherly choice, the former suggesting that it's you
that is appreciated, doing whatever you happen to be doing. Both are a
waste of time compared with "Thanks for talking with me."
} --
} Bob Lieblich
} The Voice of 'Authority
Yeah, well, there's authority and there's people whose time is valuable.
--
rjv
With plenty of time and no need for authority.
Fred
"Derek Turner" <some...@odds.invalid> wrote in message
news:4482b748$0$22891$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
Surely you measn "That raises the question."
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>"Robert Lieblich" <r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4482A15C...@yahoo.com...
>> TOF wrote:
>> >
>> > void wrote:
>> > > Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
>> > >
>> > > "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
>> > >
>> > > "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
>> >
>> > Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
>>
>> I agree that both are acceptable. As to preferences, most Americans
>> prefer the latter. I'm one of them.
>
>I prefer it too.
>
So do I.
--
Robin
Hertfordshire, England
Robert Bannister
I would suggest this applies to most of the English speaking world. I
have trained myself to use the "your" form, and after so many years, I
suppose I now feel the "you" form to be vaguely wrong, but I don't
believe there is any justification for this.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I appreciate that your saying this may be helpful in some situations,
but certainly not in all. In other words, "appreciate" does not always
mean "be thankful".
--
Rob Bannister
TOF
You should note the comments of others that a simple "Thank you for
your participation" would be apt here.
A somewhat stronger (and apparently more sincere) expression of thanks
might involve stating specifically what you are thankful about: e.g.
"Your participation in this survey has contributed strongly to ...". or
"I very much value the contribution you have made to [...] by
completing this interview."
TOF
void
When I said "interview," I meant a job interview. I was the one interviewing for the job.
TOF
Oh, I see. In that case, "thanks for your time" is probably adequate.
Anything more effusive sounds insincere, unless you have some special
relationship with the interviewer.
TOF
Fred
"TOF" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149478276.0...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants for
the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It means the
first option to me.
>
void
No, I was the interviewee. I've never heard of an interviewer sending an interviewee a thank you note after the interview. Maybe an acceptance or rejection letter, but not a thank you note.
Tony Cooper
>> But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It means the first option to me.
>> >
>
>No, I was the interviewee. I've never heard of an interviewer sending an interviewee a thank you note after the interview. Maybe an acceptance or rejection letter, but not a thank you note.
Really? I've sent out dozens of those letters. I always wrote and
thanked interviewees for coming in. Usually there was some tag line
about the decision of whom to hire had not yet been made, but I
thought it courteous to let the interviewee know that I took enough
interest in him or her to pop off a letter.
Peter Moylan
> But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
> interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
> for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
> means the first option to me.
AOL.
Is this something that has different meanings in different countries? In
AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
reliably receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.
The optusnet address still has about 2 months of life left.
dontbother
> Fred wrote:
>
>> But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
>> interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
>> for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
>> means the first option to me.
>
> AOL.
>
> Is this something that has different meanings in different countries?
> In AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
> meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
It's ambiguous to me, so I'd say it could mean either one. I have no
idea whether this is the case with most AmE speakers, but I'd have to
ask whether the speaker had been the interviewer or interviewee. The way
I'd say that I was the interviewer, which I used to be in Tokyo and here
in Taiwan some years ago, is "I was interviewing candidates for a
teaching job at my school". Even in speech, I try to be specific and
precise rather than ambiguous, unless, of course, I want to confuse my
listeners or readers.
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor
Posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/hush.ai
It's all in the way you say it, innit?
TOF
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
> > But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
> > interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
> > for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
> > means the first option to me.
>
> AOL.
>
> Is this something that has different meanings in different countries? In
> AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
> meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
I've heard it used that way quite commonly in teaching. I agree with
Franke that it is fairly ambiguous, but when I answered "void" I relied
on the broader context -- in this case, his need for some sort of thank
you note. To me this latter sense, (being the applicant) is a bit like
the concept in AmE of "taking a meeting". Here, the applicant is
submitting to interview, or interviewing *FOR* the job (as opposed to
interviewing [for =] *on behalf of* the relevant employer).
TOF
Chris Waigl
> Fred wrote:
>
>> But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
>> interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
>> for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
>> means the first option to me.
>
> AOL.
>
> Is this something that has different meanings in different countries? In
> AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
> meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
I've just been through the process of securing a job in London, and while
I initially hesitated about the proper way to use the way, I swiftly
accepted that it cuts both ways. Indeed, if someone isn't known to be a
hiring manager or the like, I've found "I'm interviewing", by default, to
convey that I am looking for work. I'd frequently say things like "I'm
currently interviewing for positions as a ..." and be asked "Who else are
you interviewing with?"
Chris Waigl
on her last day of freedom slash unemployment, not sure how to view it
--
blog: http://serendipity.lascribe.net/
eggcorns: http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/
Chris Waigl
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:20:44 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
>>> interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
>>> for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
>>> means the first option to me.
>>
>> AOL.
>>
>> Is this something that has different meanings in different countries? In
>> AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
>> meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
>
> I've just been through the process of securing a job in London, and while
> I initially hesitated about the proper way to use the way,
"Verb", not "way".
> [etc. pp.]
C.W.
Salvatore Volatile
> Fred wrote:
>
>> But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
>> interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
>> for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
>> means the first option to me.
To me it means "I was the one being interviewed for the job". It's a
particular usage of intransitive "to interview".
> Is this something that has different meanings in different countries? In
> AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
> meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
I think in AmE for the other meaning you'd have to say "I was interviewing
[people] for the job".
--
Salvatore Volatile
Salvatore Volatile
> Really? I've sent out dozens of those letters. I always wrote and
> thanked interviewees for coming in. Usually there was some tag line
> about the decision of whom to hire had not yet been made, but I
> thought it courteous to let the interviewee know that I took enough
> interest in him or her to pop off a letter.
That was nice of you, Coop. I don't think that's common in the business
world. Usually you only get a response like that once they've decided not
to hire you.
How did you view thank-you letters from the interviewees? Did the fact
that one bothered to send you a thank-you note influence you in favor of
extending an offer of employment to said person?
--
Salvatore Volatile
TOF
That works for me, though typically, context allows you to distinguish.
This is the sort of phrase which would probably be uttered in
circumstances where it was plain which applied.
TOF
Stephen Calder
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>Really? I've sent out dozens of those letters. I always wrote and
>>thanked interviewees for coming in. Usually there was some tag line
>>about the decision of whom to hire had not yet been made, but I
>>thought it courteous to let the interviewee know that I took enough
>>interest in him or her to pop off a letter.
>
>
> That was nice of you, Coop. I don't think that's common in the business
> world. Usually you only get a response like that once they've decided not
> to hire you.
If you get a response at all. I recently applied for a position and it
was made clear from the outset that I would not be contacted unless I
was on the short list for an interview. I had to guess how much time
should elapse before I could assume I did not get the job.
They will tell you whether the position has been filled or not if you
call them, but not otherwise. If it has not yet been filled, keep
guessing about how long it will take.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Tony Cooper
I hope you understand that ordinary Americans don't "take a meeting".
I've never used that expression, and I've never been around people who
do.
I think it started out as a Hollywood expression used by movie
industry people because they like to speak in jargon. It was used in
some movies in dialog with movie industry people, and some people
adopted it as catchy. It has very minimal use here.
I'd put it in the category of "Make my day".
If you think that "take a meeting" is commonly used by the general
American public, then I'm allowed to think that Australians throw a
shrimp on the barbie.
Mike Lyle
Robert Bannister wrote:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>
> > void wrote:
> >>Thanks for the replies, everyone. I am writing some post-interview thank you notes, so I'm definitely interested in which one would be appropriate for formal written English. It seems the respondents here either believe that they are both correct or that only the second one is correct. Then again, I did a Google search, and "I appreciate you taking" turned up 183,000 matches, while "I appreciate your taking" turned up only 76,000 matches.
> >
> >
> > Right. Now you've given the situation, it's definitely "Thank you
> > for..." Longer words and periphrases don't always raise the level of
> > formality.
> >
> I appreciate that your saying this may be helpful in some situations,
> but certainly not in all. In other words, "appreciate" does not always
> mean "be thankful".
>
enquiry. I don't use "appreciate" for "be grateful" in writing, and I
recommend others not to, either: it's still a very valuable word as it
is without being further undermined.
--
Mike.
Tony Cooper
Depended on the job in question. It counted quite highly if the
person was being interviewed for a sales or customer service position.
It showed that they were aware of the importance of follow-up. In
both sales and customer service, what is done after the first contact
is sometimes more important that what is done at the time of the first
contact.
Also important was the difference between a follow-up letter and a
follow-up phone call. I didn't like the follow-up phone calls because
it seemed like they were pressing too hard. Also, phone calls can
come in at inappropriate times where letters can be read anytime.
I don't know how I'd react to follow-up emails if I was still running
a company. E-mails seem like a cheap-and-easy thing to toss off where
letters take some effort. I probably would have adjusted, though.
Peter Moylan
>> That was nice of you, Coop. I don't think that's common in the
>> business world. Usually you only get a response like that once
>> they've decided not to hire you.
>
> If you get a response at all. I recently applied for a position and
> it was made clear from the outset that I would not be contacted
> unless I was on the short list for an interview. I had to guess how
> much time should elapse before I could assume I did not get the job.
Our university's Human Objects department, or whatever the current
buzzword is, had the annoying habit of tying up the selection process
with so much red tape that everything proceeded at a snail's pace. By
the time we were ready to interview candidates, it usually turned out
that everyone on the short list had already accepted a position elsewhere.
I myself was once offered a position about six months after I'd applied
for it. By then, of course, I was no longer interested.
TOF
Tony Cooper wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2006 23:47:59 -0700, "TOF" <fran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> Fred wrote:
> >>
> >> > But he or she may have been the interviewer. Does 'I was the one
> >> > interviewing for the job' mean 'I was the one interviewing applicants
> >> > for the job' or 'I was the one being interviewed' for the job? It
> >> > means the first option to me.
> >>
> >> AOL.
> >>
> >> Is this something that has different meanings in different countries? In
> >> AusE, "I was interviewing for the job" can never be interpreted as
> >> meaning "I was being interviewed for the job."
> >
> >
> >I've heard it used that way quite commonly in teaching. I agree with
> >Franke that it is fairly ambiguous, but when I answered "void" I relied
> >on the broader context -- in this case, his need for some sort of thank
> >you note. To me this latter sense, (being the applicant) is a bit like
> >the concept in AmE of "taking a meeting". Here, the applicant is
> >submitting to interview, or interviewing *FOR* the job (as opposed to
> >interviewing [for =] *on behalf of* the relevant employer).
>
> I hope you understand that ordinary Americans don't "take a meeting".
> I've never used that expression, and I've never been around people who
> do.
>
I didn't, but thanks for setting me straight. I think it ugly, so I'm a
little happier for the knowledge.
> I think it started out as a Hollywood expression used by movie
> industry people because they like to speak in jargon. It was used in
> some movies in dialog with movie industry people, and some people
> adopted it as catchy. It has very minimal use here.
>
> I'd put it in the category of "Make my day".
>
Fair enough.
> If you think that "take a meeting" is commonly used by the general
> American public, then I'm allowed to think that Australians throw a
> shrimp on the barbie.
>
And *that* is a hybrid -- because although the word barbie is an
unremarkable abbreviation for barbecue in AusE, 'shrimp' for prawn is
not.
TOF
R H Draney
>
>Our university's Human Objects department, or whatever the current
>buzzword is, had the annoying habit of tying up the selection process
>with so much red tape that everything proceeded at a snail's pace. By
>the time we were ready to interview candidates, it usually turned out
>that everyone on the short list had already accepted a position elsewhere.
>
>I myself was once offered a position about six months after I'd applied
>for it. By then, of course, I was no longer interested.
Once when I was unemployed, I had been on two promising interviews within a
short period of time...employer A pressed me for a response, but I told them I
had another possible offer and asked them to wait until a certain date for my
answer...employer B was told that I had a definite offer from A, but I would
accept B's offer if they made it before that date...finally, the date arrived,
and B informed me that they had made the offer to someone else...free of the
dilemma, I called A back and told them I would accept their offer....
The next day, I got a call from B to tell me that the person they'd offered the
job to had turned it down, and they were now ready to make that same offer to
me....r
--
It's the crack on the wall and the stain on the cup that gets to you
in the very end...every cat has its fall when it runs out of luck,
so you can do with a touch of zen...cause when you're screwed,
you're screwed...and when it's blue, it's blue.
Skitt
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>>> That was nice of you, Coop. I don't think that's common in the
>>> business world. Usually you only get a response like that once
>>> they've decided not to hire you.
>>
>> If you get a response at all. I recently applied for a position and
>> it was made clear from the outset that I would not be contacted
>> unless I was on the short list for an interview. I had to guess how
>> much time should elapse before I could assume I did not get the job.
>
> Our university's Human Objects department, or whatever the current
> buzzword is, had the annoying habit of tying up the selection process
> with so much red tape that everything proceeded at a snail's pace. By
> the time we were ready to interview candidates, it usually turned out
> that everyone on the short list had already accepted a position
> elsewhere.
> I myself was once offered a position about six months after I'd
> applied for it. By then, of course, I was no longer interested.
I had an identical experience with FMC (formerly Food Machinery
Corporation). Six months after I dropped off my resume! Can you believe
it? As it happened, I was hired on the spot by another company. Well, I
knew I was hired -- it took them another day to send me the offer, which was
better then what I had asked for.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
the Omrud
> I've just been through the process of securing a job in London, and while
> I initially hesitated about the proper way to use the way, I swiftly
> accepted that it cuts both ways. Indeed, if someone isn't known to be a
> hiring manager or the like, I've found "I'm interviewing", by default, to
> convey that I am looking for work.
Not in these northern climes. It sounds like poncy metropolitan
speak to me. "To interview" can only mean (to me) that the speaker
is the prospective employer. The prospective employee says "I am
being interviewed" or "I am attending interviews".
> I'd frequently say things like "I'm
> currently interviewing for positions as a ..." and be asked "Who else are
> you interviewing with?"
"with"? That last sentence is asking who is also a member of the
panel which is interviewing prospective employees.
I think this actually meant "Who are you being interviewed by?"
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Robert Bannister
> A somewhat stronger (and apparently more sincere) expression of thanks
> might involve stating specifically what you are thankful about: e.g.
> "Your participation in this survey has contributed strongly to ...". or
> "I very much value the contribution you have made to [...] by
> completing this interview."
I react differently to that. I feel "contribution" is eduspeak and I
don't like it.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>If you think that "take a meeting" is commonly used by the general
>>American public, then I'm allowed to think that Australians throw a
>>shrimp on the barbie.
>>
>
>
> And *that* is a hybrid -- because although the word barbie is an
> unremarkable abbreviation for barbecue in AusE, 'shrimp' for prawn is
> not.
Moreover, not only I have never barbecued prawns myself, I have never
been to a barbie where this was done. Fish, satay kebabs, honey & soy or
chilli chicken wings, chops, steak, snaggers, but never prawns. Maybe
it's a disgusting Sydney practice.
--
Rob Bannister
TOF
Robert Bannister wrote:
> TOF wrote:
>
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> >>If you think that "take a meeting" is commonly used by the general
> >>American public, then I'm allowed to think that Australians throw a
> >>shrimp on the barbie.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And *that* is a hybrid -- because although the word barbie is an
> > unremarkable abbreviation for barbecue in AusE, 'shrimp' for prawn is
> > not.
>
> Moreover, not only I have never barbecued prawns myself,
Nor I, but then, I'm vegetarian
> I have never
> been to a barbie where this was done.
Again, it's the same for me.
> Fish, satay kebabs, honey & soy or
> chilli chicken wings, chops, steak, snaggers, but never prawns.
Tofu, Tempeh, Gluten, lentil patties, rice patties, soy burgers (plus
onions of course)
> Maybe
> it's a disgusting Sydney practice.
>
Maybe, but if so, I haven't witnessed it.
TOF
Peter Moylan
I haven't seen it in Sydney either. I've occasionally thrown some prawns
into a frying pan to accompany beef strips, but barbecuing sounds like a
silly way to cook prawns.
Anyway, we can console ourselves with the thought that that ad is no
longer run. It's all going to be "where the fuck are you?" from now on.
Chris Waigl
> TOF wrote:
>> void wrote:
>>> Which one of these is correct (or are they both correct)?
>>>
>>> "I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me."
>>>
>>> "I appreciate your taking the time to speak with me."
>>
>> Both are acceptable, but I prefer the former.
>>
>> TOF
>>
> That begs the question: how acceptable is ignorance? The first is ignorant
> the second is correct. The first is used very commonly but does that make
> it acceptable?
It's a little silly to call something ignorant if it is a choice made
after careful consideration of correctness, register and present usage.
Your way of using "beg the question", though, is properly speaking
ignorant, since you appear to be unaware of the usage issues surrounding
that one. Not that I care -- innovations and deprecated language become
acceptable all the time, and formerly prestigious forms become obsolete
or, worse, turn into a mark of pretence and old-fashionedness. And for
every one of us, there are more things that we are ignorant about than
that we know.
Chris Waigl
Linz
> Chris Waigl <cwa...@free.fr> had it:
>
>> I've just been through the process of securing a job in London, and
>> while I initially hesitated about the proper way to use the way, I
>> swiftly accepted that it cuts both ways. Indeed, if someone isn't
>> known to be a hiring manager or the like, I've found "I'm
>> interviewing", by default, to convey that I am looking for work.
>
> Not in these northern climes. It sounds like poncy metropolitan
> speak to me. "To interview" can only mean (to me) that the speaker
> is the prospective employer. The prospective employee says "I am
> being interviewed" or "I am attending interviews".
I know I'm in the same northern climes as the Omrud but I felt I should
offer my agreement with him. My boss is interviewing all day today, on a
panel. A variety of the great and the good are being interviewed for the
position of Head of School.
dcw
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Not in these northern climes. It sounds like poncy metropolitan
>speak to me. "To interview" can only mean (to me) that the speaker
>is the prospective employer. The prospective employee says "I am
>being interviewed" or "I am attending interviews".
Likewise in these southern climes.
David
TOF
Yes, but that phrasing is rendered unambiguous, at first because you
omit "for the job", secondly because you say "all day" and finally you
emphasise that with the passive voice later.
What would it mean, had you said:
"My boss is interviewing for the Company Secretary position"?
ambiguous at best ...
TOF
the Omrud
Not the slightest bit ambiguous in Cheshire. It means that her boss
is the employer. It would never have occurred to me that it might
mean that her boss was looking for a new job.
This feels like the ghastly modern use of "eat": "These fresh
asparagus tips eat well". <shudder>
Wood Avens
And in these south-Midlandish ones.
I conjecture that it's a newfangled London affectation, imported into
the Brit HQs of multinationals.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Lyle
the Omrud wrote:
> TOF <fran...@hotmail.com> had it:
[...]
> > "My boss is interviewing for the Company Secretary position"?
>
> Not the slightest bit ambiguous in Cheshire. It means that her boss
> is the employer. It would never have occurred to me that it might
> mean that her boss was looking for a new job.
>
> This feels like the ghastly modern use of "eat": "These fresh
> asparagus tips eat well". <shudder>
>
"Like one of our French wither'd pears...it eats drily" -- All's Well.
But I can't believe Bill Shake invented the usage: you get it with too
many verbs for that. Wonderful Colonel Hawker (early 19C) says, with
characteristic partiality, of the trout on his beat "...they cut as red
as a salmon". "Don't worry, Missis: them winders'll paint up good as
new." "That old thing cleaned up nicely." "Some Indian shirts don't
wash." "The mare rides easily." Ad lib.
--
Mike.
the Omrud
"Paint up" and "cleaned up" are OK; perhaps it's all right with
phrasal verbs. "These windows'll paint as good as new" is not nice.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Do your cars "drive well" or "handle well"?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Mike Lyle
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> had it:
> >
> >>
> >> the Omrud wrote:
> >> > TOF <fran...@hotmail.com> had it:
> >> [...]
> >> > > "My boss is interviewing for the Company Secretary position"?
> >> >
> >> > Not the slightest bit ambiguous in Cheshire. It means that her boss
> >> > is the employer. It would never have occurred to me that it might
> >> > mean that her boss was looking for a new job.
> >> >
> >> > This feels like the ghastly modern use of "eat": "These fresh
> >> > asparagus tips eat well". <shudder>
> >> >
> >> That ghastly little modern man Shakespeare has much to answer for.
> >> "Like one of our French wither'd pears...it eats drily" -- All's
> >> Well. But I can't believe Bill Shake invented the usage: you get
> >> it with too many verbs for that. Wonderful Colonel Hawker (early
> >> 19C) says, with characteristic partiality, of the trout on his beat
> >> "...they cut as red as a salmon". "Don't worry, Missis: them
> >> winders'll paint up good as new." "That old thing cleaned up
> >> nicely." "Some Indian shirts don't wash." "The mare rides easily."
> >> Ad lib.
> >
> > "Paint up" and "cleaned up" are OK; perhaps it's all right with
> > phrasal verbs. "These windows'll paint as good as new" is not nice.
>
> Do your cars "drive well" or "handle well"?
>
with the mare one because cars seemed too modern for David. The verb
really doesn't have to be phrasal. I've just thought of one David
couldn't possibly deprecate: "to look good". And his style reads very
easily, come to that.
--
Mike.
the Omrud
"handle well" is OK, but I don't like "my car drives well" at all.
> Both. I actually had "The car drives well" at first, but replaced it
> with the mare one because cars seemed too modern for David. The verb
> really doesn't have to be phrasal. I've just thought of one David
> couldn't possibly deprecate: "to look good".
Yes, that's OK.
I once bought an elderly 5.3 litre Jag. When I drove back to the
garage for something, the proprietor (who had known me for years)
said "You look well in that".
> And his style reads very easily, come to that.
Nope, I don't like that. Must be me then. Comes of getting old,
perhaps.
TOF
I'm sorry, but that argument just won't wash.
TOF
Robin Bignall
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 06 12:17:57 GMT, D.C....@ukc.ac.uk (dcw) wrote:
>
>>In article <MPG.1eeebb99c...@news.ntlworld.com>,
>>the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Not in these northern climes. It sounds like poncy metropolitan
>>>speak to me. "To interview" can only mean (to me) that the speaker
>>>is the prospective employer. The prospective employee says "I am
>>>being interviewed" or "I am attending interviews".
>>
>>Likewise in these southern climes.
>>
>And in these south-Midlandish ones.
>
>I conjecture that it's a newfangled London affectation, imported into
>the Brit HQs of multinationals.
It certainly hadn't reached the UK HQ of an American multinational,
which is pretty devoted to managerspeak, by 1993, when I retired. But
the staff there were Brits. Over in the European HQ, which was then
in Paris, maybe a third of the posts were held by Americans, and I
often came across people who were looking for jobs and who said they
were interviewing when they meant, in BrE, that they were being
interviewed.
--
Robin
Hertfordshire, England
Robert Bannister
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> had it:
>>
>>
>>>the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>>>TOF <fran...@hotmail.com> had it:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>"My boss is interviewing for the Company Secretary position"?
>>>>
>>>>Not the slightest bit ambiguous in Cheshire. It means that her boss
>>>>is the employer. It would never have occurred to me that it might
>>>>mean that her boss was looking for a new job.
>>>>
>>>>This feels like the ghastly modern use of "eat": "These fresh
>>>>asparagus tips eat well". <shudder>
>>>>
>>>That ghastly little modern man Shakespeare has much to answer for.
>>>"Like one of our French wither'd pears...it eats drily" -- All's
>>>Well. But I can't believe Bill Shake invented the usage: you get
>>>it with too many verbs for that. Wonderful Colonel Hawker (early
>>>19C) says, with characteristic partiality, of the trout on his beat
>>>"...they cut as red as a salmon". "Don't worry, Missis: them
>>>winders'll paint up good as new." "That old thing cleaned up
>>>nicely." "Some Indian shirts don't wash." "The mare rides easily."
>>>Ad lib.
>>
>>"Paint up" and "cleaned up" are OK; perhaps it's all right with
>>phrasal verbs. "These windows'll paint as good as new" is not nice.
>
>
> Do your cars "drive well" or "handle well"?
>
My car, though automatic, can't drive without assistance.
--
Rob Bannister
Richard Bollard
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:52:14 -0400, Robert Lieblich
><r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>[ ... ]
>>
>>> Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
>>> time to speak with me."?
>>
>>Why not, indeed? I'd drop the "it, however: "I appreciate that you
>>took the time ..." Or why not just give up and say "Thank you for
>>taking the time ..."? (Could it be that a prior sentence begins with
>>"Thank you"?
>>
>
>I can't drop the "it". I know that "I appreciate that you..." is
>street legal, but it just sounds wrong to me. Just as, probably
>"appreciate it that" sounds wrong to you.
FWIW, I'm with Bob. The "it" tripped up my AusE voice. There's nothing
wrong or even that strange about it, but there was a minor stumble.
I don't know to what extent this has been discussed here before, but
there is a cetain type of redundancy or layering that sounds
peculiarly Murrican to me. Your "it" is an example of this. See also,
horse+back riding, tuna+fish. These aren't very good examples but I'm
definitely onto something here. Comments?
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Richard Bollard
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> > Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
>> > time to speak with me."?
>>
>> Why not, indeed? I'd drop the "it, however: "I appreciate that you
>> took the time ..." Or why not just give up and say "Thank you for
>> taking the time ..."? (Could it be that a prior sentence begins with
>> "Thank you"?
>
>Yes, another sentence begins with "Thank you," so I didn't want to have that twice. :)
You might be able to run them together. Something like "Thank you for
<x> and for taking the time to speak with me".
TOF
Richard Bollard wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:15:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:52:14 -0400, Robert Lieblich
> ><r_s_li...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >>[ ... ]
> >>
> >>> Why not just recast and write: "I appreciate it that you took the
> >>> time to speak with me."?
> >>
> >>Why not, indeed? I'd drop the "it, however: "I appreciate that you
> >>took the time ..." Or why not just give up and say "Thank you for
> >>taking the time ..."? (Could it be that a prior sentence begins with
> >>"Thank you"?
> >>
> >
> >I can't drop the "it". I know that "I appreciate that you..." is
> >street legal, but it just sounds wrong to me. Just as, probably
> >"appreciate it that" sounds wrong to you.
>
> FWIW, I'm with Bob. The "it" tripped up my AusE voice. There's nothing
> wrong or even that strange about it, but there was a minor stumble.
>
Much as it might be a crime against nature for me to agree with Tony, I
think he could be right here.
While both possible sentences will probably be interpreted the same way
by most, including "it" excludes the possibility of interpreting
"appreciate" as "recognise" or "acknowledge".
TOF
Richard Bollard
wrote:
My Canberra-usage perspective agrees with the Cheshire one. Employers
interview, employees are interviewed.
Linz
> Linz wrote:
>> I know I'm in the same northern climes as the Omrud but I felt I
>> should offer my agreement with him. My boss is interviewing all day
>> today, on a panel. A variety of the great and the good are being
>> interviewed for the position of Head of School.
>
> Yes, but that phrasing is rendered unambiguous, at first because you
> omit "for the job", secondly because you say "all day" and finally you
> emphasise that with the passive voice later.
>
> What would it mean, had you said:
>
> "My boss is interviewing for the Company Secretary position"?
>
> ambiguous at best ...
Not ambiguous at all in Br English. That would mean that my boss is acting
as an interviewer for the CS post. If my boss was being interviewed for the
CS position, I would say "my boss is being interviewed".
Richard Maurer
This feels like the ghastly modern use of "eat":
"These fresh asparagus tips eat well". <shudder>
Then you might like to share a shudder with the
1890 writer, just before he complained about
using "the Zoo" for "the Zoological Gardens" and
"vet" for "veterinary surgeon" (didn't know
about the surgeon part before this),
complained about the American boarding house
keeper who said she could
"eat a hundred, but could only sleep fifty".
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
the Omrud
> David the Omrud wrote:
> This feels like the ghastly modern use of "eat":
> "These fresh asparagus tips eat well". <shudder>
>
>
>
> Then you might like to share a shudder with the
> 1890 writer, just before he complained about
> using "the Zoo" for "the Zoological Gardens" and
> "vet" for "veterinary surgeon" (didn't know
> about the surgeon part before this),
> complained about the American boarding house
> keeper who said she could
> "eat a hundred, but could only sleep fifty".
That is a little odd, since "feed" is a perfectly good word.
Paul Wolff
<usenet...@gmail.com> writes
manage it, rather than having the table space for a hundred which is
what "eat" (meaning "dine") a hundred implies?
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
the Omrud
To me it implies the dining space, or both, depending on the context,
but not normally the full larder meaning on its own.
Robert Bannister
I would expect "sit" for that meaning.
--
Rob Bannister
Al in Dallas
I would expect "seat" in AmE. This medium company's cafeteria seats
500, but Manchester University's dining hall seats 2000.
--
Al in St. Lou