bit her hand off

[GG]

"Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
movies together."

"bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
[the meaning being Gemma was very interested]

Thanks.

[Harrison Hill]

If you feed an animal by hand, they can "nearly bite your hand off" in their eagerness to make a grab at it, and this is a very oft heard expression.

[GG]

Thanks.

[tony cooper]

It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.

What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
the biting as an eager acceptance.

We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Harrison Hill]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
> >movies together."
> >
> >"bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
> >[the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
> >
> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
>
> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
> the biting as an eager acceptance.

Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say here. When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms stretched out towards them, figuratively or otherwise. If they are very eager to close the deal, they can easily "bite your arm off" let alone your hand.

> We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
> reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.

A fish of a very different kettle.

[GG]

Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
>>> movies together."
>>>
>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>>> [the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>
>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
>>
>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
>> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
>> the biting as an eager acceptance.
>
> Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say here.
>When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms stretched out towards them,
>figuratively or otherwise. If they are very eager to close the deal,
they can easily "bite your arm off" let alone your hand.
>

The original _was_ English.

>> We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
>> reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.
>
> A fish of a very different kettle.

Thanks, everyone.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:24:17 -0400, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
>>movies together."
>>
>>"bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>>[the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>
>It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
>

It makes sense to me. As Harrison Hill has said it is a phrase
describing an eager acceptance.

>What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
>an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
>the biting as an eager acceptance.
>

It is metaphorical.

>We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
>reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.


--

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Harrison Hill]

On Thursday, July 5, 2012 2:13:31 PM UTC+1, GG wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
> >>> movies together."
> >>>
> >>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
> >>> [the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
> >>>
> >> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
> >> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
> >> the biting as an eager acceptance.
> >
> > Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say here.
> >When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms stretched out towards them,
> >figuratively or otherwise. If they are very eager to close the deal,
> they can easily "bite your arm off" let alone your hand.
> >
>
> The original _was_ English.

I don't think we say "movies"; we say "cinema" and we used to say "pictures" or "the flicks".

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:13:31 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:

>Harrison Hill wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
>>>> movies together."
>>>>
>>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>>>> [the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>>
>>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
>>> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
>>> the biting as an eager acceptance.
>>
>> Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say here.
>>When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms stretched out towards them,
> >figuratively or otherwise. If they are very eager to close the deal,
>they can easily "bite your arm off" let alone your hand.
>>
>
>The original _was_ English.

There's often quite a difference between the English used in the
United States and the English used in other countries. When writing
something, you should use the English that is used by your intended
audience.

In this case, an American (me) has said that this is not appropriate
for the context. Some UK posters, who speak the same language I do,
see no objection to the use. Neither position is wrong; both
positions are right according to the experience of the poster.

In the future, you might ask: "is this idiom appropriately used here
for (BrE or AmE)? BrE being British English and AmE being American
English. There's not always a difference, but their can be.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-07-05 12:24:17 +0000, tony cooper said:

> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
>> movies together."
>>
>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>> [the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>
> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.

It's badly phrased, but I think it makes sense if the hand that nearly
got bitten off is that of the "she" who did the offering.

>
> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
> the biting as an eager acceptance.
>
> We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
> reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.


--

athel

[the Omrud]

On 05/07/2012 15:51, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2012-07-05 12:24:17 +0000, tony cooper said:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
>>> movies together."
>>>
>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>>> [the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>
>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
>
> It's badly phrased, but I think it makes sense if the hand that nearly
> got bitten off is that of the "she" who did the offering.

Yes, too many "her" and "she". Better if one of them is a bloke:

- George nearly bit her hand off when she offered him the chance to go
to movies together.

But it's much better cast with the person doing the offering before the
biting of hands.

- When Gemma offered to take George to the pictures, he nearly bit her
hand off.

And then there's the ironic use:

- Who will give me £5 for this lovely vase? Come on, don't all bite my
hand off at once.

--
David

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:51:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2012-07-05 12:24:17 +0000, tony cooper said:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to
>>> movies together."
>>>
>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>>> [the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>
>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.
>
>It's badly phrased, but I think it makes sense if the hand that nearly
>got bitten off is that of the "she" who did the offering.

Ah. The phrase is sufficiently familiar to me that I didn't notice that
possible ambiguity.

>>
>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
>> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
>> the biting as an eager acceptance.
>>
>> We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
>> reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.

--

[R H Draney]

Harrison Hill filted:

>
>On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com> wrote:

>>=20
>> >"Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to go to=
>=20

>> >movies together."
>> >
>> >"bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here?
>> >[the meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>> >
>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make sense.

>>=20

>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future, not
>> an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it in with
>> the biting as an eager acceptance.

>=20
>Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say here. When=
> you offer somebody something you do it with your arms stretched out toward=
>s them, figuratively or otherwise. If they are very eager to close the deal=

>, they can easily "bite your arm off" let alone your hand.

As Coop indicates, we don't have that idiom in AmE...the image it suggests here
is that of a coyote gnawing off one of its limbs to escape a trap....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Peter Moylan]

Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to
>>> go to movies together."
>>>
>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here? [the
>>> meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>
>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future,
>> not an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it
>> in with the biting as an eager acceptance.
>
> Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say
> here. When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms
> stretched out towards them, figuratively or otherwise. If they are
> very eager to close the deal, they can easily "bite your arm off" let
> alone your hand.

How new is this BrE idiom? Usually that sort of expression makes it as
far as Australia, but I've never heard of this one.

>
>> We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
>> reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.
>
> A fish of a very different kettle.

My initial impression, I must admit, was that it was the same kettle. It
sounded as if she was going to bite the hand off as an appetiser before
tackling the head.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:32:19 +1000, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Harrison Hill wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to
>>>> go to movies together."
>>>>
>>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here? [the
>>>> meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>>
>>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future,
>>> not an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it
>>> in with the biting as an eager acceptance.
>>
>> Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say
>> here. When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms
>> stretched out towards them, figuratively or otherwise. If they are
>> very eager to close the deal, they can easily "bite your arm off" let
>> alone your hand.
>
>How new is this BrE idiom? Usually that sort of expression makes it as
>far as Australia, but I've never heard of this one.

I don't think its particularly new.

>>
>>> We do use "bit her head off" to mean an aggressive and unpleasant
>>> reaction to someone, but that's a negative reference.
>>
>> A fish of a very different kettle.

There is also the expression "to bite the hand that feeds one".
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bite+the+hand+that+feeds+one

Fig. to do harm to someone who does good things for you. (Does not
involve biting.)

That is not the same as the similarly worded phrase we are discussing.

The phrase we are discussing is about someone being so keen to accept an
offer that they cause accidental damage when grabbing the thing offered.

>
>My initial impression, I must admit, was that it was the same kettle. It
>sounded as if she was going to bite the hand off as an appetiser before
>tackling the head.

--

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 5, 4:32 pm, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:

> How new is this BrE idiom? Usually that sort of expression makes it as
> far as Australia, but I've never heard of this one.

Nor have I, and I live here. The BNC has four examples of the phrase:

Probably bite his hand off, he decided and smiled instead.
She might bite your hand off, or anything.
Publishers bit his hand off, paying a £100,000 advance before the book
was written.
I'm not brushing Dempsey's teeth he'll bite my hand off!

Of these only the third is clearly an example of the meaning referred
to, so I've really no idea how prevalent it is. It does seem a bit
too close to "bite someone's head off" for comfort.

--
Guy Barry

[tony cooper]

That's what bothers me about the usage cited: "Gemma nearly bit her

hand off when she offered her the chance to go to movies together."

The thing offered is a promise, not a ticket or any kind of grabbable
object.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It is a figurative in the same way that "to bite someone's head off" is
figurative.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bite+head+off

bite someone's head off

Fig. to speak sharply and with great anger to someone. (Fixed
order.)
"Don't bite my head off! Be patient."
"I'm very sorry I lost my tempter. I didn't mean to bite your head
off."

[the Omrud]

No hands or biting are involved, any more than pants are involved when
you're caught with your pants down. Or tails and legs when you leave
with your tail between your legs.

--
David

[Mike L]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:32:19 +1000, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Harrison Hill wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:24:17 PM UTC+1, tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 07:39:36 -0400, GG <not_here@no_where.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gemma nearly bit her hand off when she offered her the chance to
>>>> go to movies together."
>>>>
>>>> "bit her hand off": is this idiom appropriately used here? [the
>>>> meaning being Gemma was very interested]
>>>>
>>> It's not appropriate as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't make
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> What was accepted was a verbal offer for something in the future,
>>> not an object. Nothing was in the person's hand that would tie it
>>> in with the biting as an eager acceptance.
>>
>> Must be BrE idiom then; because it is a very normal thing to say
>> here. When you offer somebody something you do it with your arms
>> stretched out towards them, figuratively or otherwise. If they are
>> very eager to close the deal, they can easily "bite your arm off" let
>> alone your hand.
>
>How new is this BrE idiom? Usually that sort of expression makes it as
>far as Australia, but I've never heard of this one.

It hasn't got into OED yet, so it may be very new. I can date my first
hearing it to 1990, because I know where I was and who said it.

I wonder if it originates with the idea of hand-feeding animals.

Aslant from this, there's a graphic Arabic expression for food being
irresistibly delicious: "You'll eat your fingers!" Beats the Colonel,
and I don't mean the golfing one.
[...]

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

I took it to mean an angry reaction similar to "snapped at her",
although "bit her head off" would be more common for that.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Further signs of how much English English has changed since I left in
1971. I mistook the "hand off" expression for the "head off" one.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

OTOH, it has already been pointed out that "movies" is not BrE, so the
expression is at best infelicitous.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

"movies" is certainly used in BrE. It is now unremarkable. I wouldn't
like to speculate why people choose to use one or the other of "movie"
or "film".

Sky Movies is a UK satellite TV channel.

The Tate Movie Project. (That is "Tate" as in the Tate art gallery.)
http://www.tatemovie.co.uk/about-the-project/

In 2010, Tate set out to encourage 5-13 year olds across the country
to engage with art and get excited about the possibilities of their
own visual creativity. So the Tate Movie Project was born: an
animation film made by kids, for kids, using great art as
inspiration.

A year in the making, the Tate Movie Project's 'The Itch of the
Golden Nit' premiered on 29 June, 2011 in Leicester Square.
Thousands of drawings, sound effects and story ideas by children
from across the UK make up the action-packed, half hour animation.

How We Did It

The film was brought together by Tate and the creative magic of
Aardman Animations, with celebrity voiceovers from David Walliams,
Vic Reeves, Catherine Tate and Miranda Hart amongst many others.
<detail>

The online _Movie: A Journal of Film Criticism_ a joint venture between
the Universities of Warwick, Reading, and Oxford:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/film/movie/


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/apr/30/alan-partridge-movie

A-ha! Alan Partridge movie set for 2013

Armando Iannucci says feature-length movie about Norfolk's favourite
son will begin filming later this year
....

[Mike L]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:26:58 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:05:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
><rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:

[...]

>>
>>OTOH, it has already been pointed out that "movies" is not BrE, so the
>>expression is at best infelicitous.
>
>"movies" is certainly used in BrE. It is now unremarkable. I wouldn't
>like to speculate why people choose to use one or the other of "movie"
>or "film".
>

I started using "movie" in the mid-sixties simply as an elegant
variation. Soon enough I was saying "film" again.
[...]

--
Mike.

[David Hatunen]

A film is art, a movie is entertainment....

[Peter Brooks]

On Jul 6, 10:04 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:26:58 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>

> <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:05:09 +0800, Robert Bannister
> ><robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >>OTOH, it has already been pointed out that "movies" is not BrE, so the
> >>expression is at best infelicitous.
>
> >"movies" is certainly used in BrE. It is now unremarkable. I wouldn't
> >like to speculate why people choose to use one or the other of "movie"
> >or "film".
>
> I started using "movie" in the mid-sixties simply as an elegant
> variation. Soon enough I was saying "film" again.
> [...]
>

They don't move, they just stay there, on the screen, so 'movie' is a
silly name. They aren't films any more either, so the proper phrase
should be 'going to the pictures'.

[Peter Moylan]

That's what I say, but I've noticed that it's become less common. I've
tried saying "movie", but it doesn't come naturally to me. Perhaps I
should try "talkie".

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 7, 7:44 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:

> Peter Brooks wrote:

> > They don't move, they just stay there, on the screen, so 'movie' is a
> > silly name. They aren't films any more either, so the proper phrase
> > should be 'going to the pictures'.

"Movies" is short for "moving pictures", and you can't deny that the
pictures move (or appear to).

> That's what I say, but I've noticed that it's become less common. I've
> tried saying "movie", but it doesn't come naturally to me. Perhaps I
> should try "talkie".

Why not just "going to the cinema"?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Moylan]

"Cinema" was never part of my active language either. We just went to
the pictures. Or sometimes the flicks.

Or, in extreme cases, to the flea-house.

[Nick Spalding]

Peter Brooks wrote, in
<f58c4133-0d88-4da0...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
on Fri, 6 Jul 2012 22:45:24 -0700 (PDT):

"Going to the flicks" was often heard in my young days.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Nick Spalding]

Peter Moylan wrote, in <gcWdnU7oXan4dGrS...@westnet.com.au>
on Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:46:45 +1000:

>Guy Barry wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 7:44 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>> They don't move, they just stay there, on the screen, so 'movie' is a
>>>> silly name. They aren't films any more either, so the proper phrase
>>>> should be 'going to the pictures'.
>>
>> "Movies" is short for "moving pictures", and you can't deny that the
>> pictures move (or appear to).
>>
>>> That's what I say, but I've noticed that it's become less common. I've
>>> tried saying "movie", but it doesn't come naturally to me. Perhaps I
>>> should try "talkie".
>>
>> Why not just "going to the cinema"?
>
>"Cinema" was never part of my active language either. We just went to
>the pictures. Or sometimes the flicks.
>
>Or, in extreme cases, to the flea-house.

Our fleas were in a pit.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Robin Bignall]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:24:28 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:

Not in mine. We always said 'going to the cinema'.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[the Omrud]

You were lucky.

--
David

[the Omrud]

Yep, I said "flicks" right into my 20s. But also "pictures".

--
David

[Peter Brooks]

On Jul 7, 11:24 am, Nick Spalding <spald...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Peter Brooks wrote, in

> <f58c4133-0d88-4da0-ad4a-8e6f05539...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>

I remember that too - but they don't flicker that much anymore.

[Ian Noble]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:26:58 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

"Movie" instead of "film" is undoubtedly gaining traction; I even
catch myself using it. I still don't hear it as a synonym for the
place to which one goes, though (which is my perception was the
intended meaning here, missing article notwithstanding) - I go to "the
cinema", and most definitely *not* "the movies" or "a movie
theatre/er."

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)

[tony cooper]

Certain people in the US go to the "moom pitchers".

[Mike L]

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:46:45 +1000, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Guy Barry wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 7:44 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>> They don't move, they just stay there, on the screen, so 'movie' is a
>>>> silly name. They aren't films any more either, so the proper phrase
>>>> should be 'going to the pictures'.
>>
>> "Movies" is short for "moving pictures", and you can't deny that the
>> pictures move (or appear to).
>>
>>> That's what I say, but I've noticed that it's become less common. I've
>>> tried saying "movie", but it doesn't come naturally to me. Perhaps I
>>> should try "talkie".
>>
>> Why not just "going to the cinema"?
>
>"Cinema" was never part of my active language either. We just went to
>the pictures. Or sometimes the flicks.

I remember being rather surprised to hear people actually _saying_
"cinema" when I first came to England.

>
>Or, in extreme cases, to the flea-house.

Like the others, I only remember "flea-pit".

--
Mike.

[R H Draney]

tony cooper filted:

WIWAL, we were often invited to go to "the show"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Robert Bannister]

You can't say "We're watching a DVD cinema tonight" or "There's a good
cinema on TV this evening", and "film" would be quite wrong.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Interesting. For us, that would have meant something on the stage.
Later, that might have been extended to television, but only for
theatrical-like performances or cabaret.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Moylan]

My version of the first is "We're watching a DVD tonight", and nobody
would take that to mean staring at the round thing. For the second, I'd
say either "a good film" or "a good show". Of course "a good movie"
would be appropriate, but somehow I can't get used to using that word.

[Peter Brooks]

On Jul 8, 3:35 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>

wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > On 7/07/12 3:02 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 7:44 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>> They don't move, they just stay there, on the screen, so 'movie' is a
> >>>> silly name. They aren't films any more either, so the proper phrase
> >>>> should be 'going to the pictures'.
>
> >> "Movies" is short for "moving pictures", and you can't deny that the
> >> pictures move (or appear to).
>
> >>> That's what I say, but I've noticed that it's become less common. I've
> >>> tried saying "movie", but it doesn't come naturally to me. Perhaps I
> >>> should try "talkie".
>
> >> Why not just "going to the cinema"?
>
> > You can't say "We're watching a DVD cinema tonight" or "There's a good
> > cinema on TV this evening", and "film" would be quite wrong.
>
> My version of the first is "We're watching a DVD tonight", and nobody
> would take that to mean staring at the round thing. For the second, I'd
> say either "a good film" or "a good show". Of course "a good movie"
> would be appropriate, but somehow I can't get used to using that word.
>

I think part of the problem is that it sounds like a childish
diminutive for 'move'.

[R H Draney]

Robert Bannister filted:

We knew at an early age that there were other sorts of "show", but a movie was
the default assumption...sneaky grownups occasionally tried to use the ambiguity
into tricking us into attending everything from a rodeo to a tent revival....r

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Like "telly", then?

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Code should be designed to make it
SF Bay Area (1982-) |easy to get it right, not to work
Chicago (1964-1982) |if you get it right.

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Peter Brooks]

On Jul 8, 7:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, I think so, though that wasn't in my mind when I said it.

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 8, 1:18 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> You can't say "We're watching a DVD cinema tonight" or "There's a good
> cinema on TV this evening", and "film" would be quite wrong.

Why would "film" be wrong? That's certainly the usual term over
here. Our main TV review programme is called "Film 2012":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019g47n

"In the first show of the new year Claudia Winkleman and Danny Leigh
review Steven Spielberg's hugely anticipated new film, War Horse. Will
it be the big awards contender this year? Plus, a look at Steve
McQueen's new film Shame, and Richard Curtis talks about the films he
has loved and loathed in the Film 2012 questionnaire."

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

And:
http://www.moviemail-online.co.uk/

MovieMail
The Quality Film Shop

....
New and Classic Films on DVD and Blu-ray
....
DVDs and Blu-ray Films Coming Soon
....
Browse our Film catalogue: DVDs by Genre, DVDs by Country, DVDs by
Director, DVDs by Actor

[Robert Bannister]

If so, then it would have been adopted more completely in Australia. We
absolutely love childish diminutives. The British have even stolen some
of them like "footie".

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/07/12 4:03 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
> On Jul 8, 1:18 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> You can't say "We're watching a DVD cinema tonight" or "There's a good
>> cinema on TV this evening", and "film" would be quite wrong.
>
> Why would "film" be wrong?

They no longer require a couple of projectors to display because they
are not on film. They are, however, still "moving pictures". I'm sorry
"flicks" has disappeared because sometimes digital TV does flicker
alarmingly, but it never did refer to an individual movie so much as the
entire showing.


--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Brooks]

Indeed they have - but I'm not sure that it's the driving policy.

[Dr Nick]

But there's a thin film of material in a DVD, on a hard disk, and - less
persuasively - in a memory.

If I can put a block of wood on a Kindle I don't see why I can't put a
flimsy transparent thing on a TV.

[jgharston]

Guy Barry wrote:
> Of these only the third is clearly an example of the meaning
> referred to, so I've really no idea how prevalent it is.

Well, I used it last week at my JobSearch Review interview:
"If somebody actually paid me to work, I'd bite their hand off"
and it was understood with no confusion.

JGH

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 9, 2:27 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 8/07/12 4:03 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 1:18 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> You can't say "We're watching a DVD cinema tonight" or "There's a good
> >> cinema on TV this evening", and "film" would be quite wrong.
>
> > Why would "film" be wrong?
>
> They no longer require a couple of projectors to display because they
> are not on film.

So what? It wouldn't be the first time that technological
developments had changed the meaning of a word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film

"A film, also called a movie or motion picture, is a series of still
or moving images. It is produced by recording photographic images with
cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or visual
effects. The process of filmmaking has developed into an art form and
industry. [...] The origin of the name 'film' comes from the fact
that photographic film (also called film stock) has historically been
the primary medium for recording and displaying motion pictures."

The process of recording moving images with a camera is still known is
"filming" as far as I'm aware.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 01:13:16 -0700 (PDT), Guy Barry
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On Jul 9, 2:27 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 8/07/12 4:03 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 1:18 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> You can't say "We're watching a DVD cinema tonight" or "There's a good
>> >> cinema on TV this evening", and "film" would be quite wrong.
>>
>> > Why would "film" be wrong?
>>
>> They no longer require a couple of projectors to display because they
>> are not on film.
>
>So what? It wouldn't be the first time that technological
>developments had changed the meaning of a word.
>

Indeed.

And further, this is one of those cases where the name of a medium is
used for the message conveyed on the medium.

When you go to a cinema to watch a film you will not see the actual
tangible film. You will actually be looking at a screen on which images
are projected.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film
>
>"A film, also called a movie or motion picture, is a series of still
>or moving images. It is produced by recording photographic images with
>cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or visual
>effects. The process of filmmaking has developed into an art form and
>industry. [...] The origin of the name 'film' comes from the fact
>that photographic film (also called film stock) has historically been
>the primary medium for recording and displaying motion pictures."
>
>The process of recording moving images with a camera is still known is
>"filming" as far as I'm aware.

--

[tony cooper]

Perhaps you felt they would be giving you a hand-out.

[Jerry Friedman]

In America, "a flick" often refers to an individual movie. Hence
"chick flick".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Not to be confused with a "chic flic", which would be a stylish French
policeman.

[the Omrud]

Oooooh, Laure Berthaud, you mean. She's one of them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/may/03/meet-spirals-feminist-anti-hero

We've really got into Spiral (Engrenages). First series down, two to
go. It's so unremittingly grubby. The police are grubby, the criminals
are grubby, the city is grubby. It's only the lawyers and the
politicians who are not quite so grubby. Although thinking about it,
some of the lawyers and all of the politicians are physically neat but
morally grubby.

My French argot has improved no end. I hope I don't accidentally use
the wrong kind of slang on the reserved community in our Limousin
village this summer. It's difficult to know just how vulgar or
offensive some of it is.

--
David

[Lanarcam]

Formerly, it would have been a nice cop, un chic type was a nice
guy, but now it is somewhat dated.

[Robert Bannister]

A very convincing argument, sir. Well played.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Sorry. I had forgotten that even though I confess to reading chick lit.


--
Robert Bannister