Applebee's - yuck
Deborah Stevenson
[groups expanded to alt.usage.english because they'd seem likely to know]
In <6n0k1t$jl6$7...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) writes:
>mkortlander@*monmouth.com wrote:
>: For the sake of accuracy TGIF was around long before someone
>: thought up the concepts of fern bars or yuppies.
>According to TGIF's official history their first restaurant
>opened in NYC in 1965. That is about when the term yuppie came about.
>So for the sake of accuracy, TGIF was NOT around LONG before
>someone thought up the concepts of fern bars and yuppies.
>The restaurant is contemporaneous with the origins of the
>term yuppie. TGIF may not have originated fern bars but they
>certainly became the first and best exploiter of the concept.
Really? I thought Alice Kahn's use was considered the first or
contemporaneous with the first back in '82 or so. What are you citing as a
prior use, especially back in the '60s?
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Bob McQueer
Deborah Stevenson wrote:
> In <6n0k1t$jl6$7...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) writes:
> > mkortlander@*monmouth.com wrote:
> >: For the sake of accuracy TGIF was around long before someone
> >: thought up the concepts of fern bars or yuppies.
> >According to TGIF's official history their first restaurant
> >opened in NYC in 1965. That is about when the term yuppie came about.
> >So for the sake of accuracy, TGIF was NOT around LONG before
> >someone thought up the concepts of fern bars and yuppies.
> >The restaurant is contemporaneous with the origins of the
> >term yuppie. TGIF may not have originated fern bars but they
> >certainly became the first and best exploiter of the concept.
>
> Really? I thought Alice Kahn's use was considered the first or
> contemporaneous with the first back in '82 or so. What are you citing as a
> prior use, especially back in the '60s?
Yuppie was MUCH later than '65 - it was formed by mutating
"hippie" which was a current relevent term in '65. I
believe the term "hippy" goes back a little further than '65,
but not much. The species described by "yuppie", and thus
requiring a label, didn't evolve until the 80's or very late
70's at the earliest. In fact, I remember "yumpie" (Young
Upwardly Mobile Professional) as an intermediate form - the
"m" got dropped out when the term became popular.
TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
than a business name, goes back a LONG ways. I can easily
believe somebody picked it up as a resturaunt name in 1965.
The TGIF / OHIM pair was well established usage by that time.
--
| and with these words
Bob McQueer | we parted each feeling
bo...@akamail.com | superior to the other and is not that
| feeling after all one of the great
| desiderata of social intercourse
| archy
Jeff G
Bob McQueer wrote:
>
[ SNIP ]
> TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
> than a business name, goes back a LONG ways. I can easily
> believe somebody picked it up as a resturaunt name in 1965.
> The TGIF / OHIM pair was well established usage by that time.
Two old ladies waiting for the bus.
One says, "T. G. I. F. -- Thank gawd it's Friday."
Other says, "S. H. I. T. -- So happens it's Thursday!"
Truly Donovan
On 26 Jun 1998 17:25:08 GMT, stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Deborah
Stevenson) wrote:
>[groups expanded to alt.usage.english because they'd seem likely to know]
>
>In <6n0k1t$jl6$7...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> dl...@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) writes:
>
>>mkortlander@*monmouth.com wrote:
>>: For the sake of accuracy TGIF was around long before someone
>>: thought up the concepts of fern bars or yuppies.
>
>>According to TGIF's official history their first restaurant
>>opened in NYC in 1965. That is about when the term yuppie came about.
>>So for the sake of accuracy, TGIF was NOT around LONG before
>>someone thought up the concepts of fern bars and yuppies.
>>The restaurant is contemporaneous with the origins of the
>>term yuppie. TGIF may not have originated fern bars but they
>>certainly became the first and best exploiter of the concept.
>
>Really? I thought Alice Kahn's use was considered the first or
>contemporaneous with the first back in '82 or so. What are you citing as a
>prior use, especially back in the '60s?
I'm not sure what the issue is here (as an alt.usage.englisher who
would be likely to know if I could figure out what knowledge is
wanted) but TGIF certainly predates "yuppie." I was not only in
Friday's (it was not known as "TGIF" in those days, but "T.G.I.
Friday's," and simply "Friday's" to its custom) in 1965--it was on the
east side of First Avenue, on the corner of probably either 63rd or
64th street; they had good hamburgers--I also know the word "yuppie"
(or "yumpie") hadn't been coined yet, because I was one then and no
one called us that.
We never called Friday's a fern bar--we called it a meat rack (and I'm
not referring to the hamburgers).
I tend to think of the term "fern bar" as originating somewhat later
in California; I've always associated it with the Polk Street culture
in San Francisco. But this could be simply a matter of when and where
I first encountered the term. By my definition, no TGIFs that I have
been in in the last 20 years could really be considered a "fern bar."
They're too Disneyfied, red-checkered-tableclothed, and
cookie-cuttered. The hamburgers are now merely okay.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways. I can easily
>believe somebody picked it up as a resturaunt name in 1965.
>The TGIF / OHIM pair was well established usage by that time.
>
And now for something completely different....
Is TTFN still in jocular currency anywhere in the UK?
John Goodwin
Oh, that would be sooo UnkEwL.
Being so 'ighly cultured like:
POETS day survives in good health though.
JG
Lee Lester
>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
Singular verb, plural object?
Skitt
Lee Lester wrote in message <98062902...@guildnet.org>...
>>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
>
>Singular verb, plural object?
'Tain't plural.
MWCD10:
Main Entry: ways
Pronunciation: 'wAz
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
Etymology: Middle English wayes, from genitive of 1way
Date: 1588
: WAY 6 <a long ways from home>
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
John Underwood
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 at 04:59:20, a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca wrote in
alt.usage.english:
(Reference: <3595cc6e...@news.bctel.ca>)
>On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:37:11 -0700, Bob McQueer
><bo...@akamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways. I can easily
>>believe somebody picked it up as a resturaunt name in 1965.
>>The TGIF / OHIM pair was well established usage by that time.
>>
>And now for something completely different....
>
>Is TTFN still in jocular currency anywhere in the UK?
I am more familiar with POETS:
Push (or Piss) Off Early Tomorrow's Saturday.
I understand it has an older usage:
POE today's Saturday - dating back to the time when Saturday morning was
part of the working week.
--
John Underwood
David McMurray
Skitt <al...@myself.com> wrote:
> Lee Lester wrote in message <98062902...@guildnet.org>...
> >>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
> >>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
> >
> >Singular verb, plural object?
>
> 'Tain't plural.
Would it be reasonable to infer from your response that you agree that:
1. Whether singular or plural, 'tis an object; and
2. if _'twere_ plural, _'twould_ call for "go" rather than 'goes"?
--
David
Ross Howard
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 13:16:10 GMT, mkortlander@*monmouth.com (Marc)
wrote:
>Your recollections are right on target, the agrement was
>that some net know it all decided that the term "YUPPIE" was
>in play in the same time frame that Friday's began
>operations.
I was rather surprised to see that COD9 expands "yuppie" as "young
urban professional". Back in '81 or whenever we were first called it,
didn't our *u* stand for "upwardly-mobile"?
And what, by extension, is a "young rural professional" -- a farmhand
with a Filofax?
Ross Howard
**************************************
There's a number in my e-mail address.
Subtract four from it to reply.
**************************************
Rex Knepp
Ross Howard wrote:
>
> I was rather surprised to see that COD9 expands "yuppie" as "young
> urban professional". Back in '81 or whenever we were first called it,
> didn't our *u* stand for "upwardly-mobile"?
>
> And what, by extension, is a "young rural professional" -- a farmhand
> with a Filofax?
>
As I remember it, the phrase "young, upwardly-mobile professional"
was in brief vogue in the early eighties. It was, however (to my
uncertain recollection) converted to the acronymic "yumpie."
_The Yuppie Handbook_ by Marissa Piesman & Marilee Hartley (1984)
forever removed the 'm' and fixed the term as "yuppie" in our
collective psyche... along with "guppie," "huppie" and "buppie," all
of which refer to "urban professionals."
By the way, Piesman is at present employed as the (an?) Assistant
New York State Attorney General. Guess *she* was upwardly mobile!
-30-
rex
Bob McQueer
OK you guys, remove the phrase and simplify things:
TGIF goes back a long ways.
Acronyms like TGIF go back a long ways.
TGIF seems to be a singular subject. I should have quoted
it, I suppose.
TGIF go back a long ways
This just SOUNDS wrong, with the TGIF quoted or unquoted, sort
of like you're trying for stereotyped "indian" (Native American)
speech. Although, if that were my intent, I would drop the
"a" as well.
And "back a long ways" is simply the way I've always
heard it. It's an idiom when I use it. "Back a long
way" probably wouldn't bother me much, but just doesn't
SOUND quite right either. A lot of times I would express
myself differently after some cogitation, but I'll stick
with ".. goes ... ways." in this example. I should have
punctuated the inserted phrase differently, though, or
constructed the whole sentence differently.
K1912
Ross Howard wrote:
[...]
>And what, by extension, is a "young rural professional" -- a farmhand
>with a Filofax?
>
>
A "young rural professional" is a farmhand who's been to an agricultural
college. He (or she) is then called an agronomist. If he has an AUE penchant
for annomination, he is an agronomist with a Silofax.
gk
Training is everything: the peach was once a bitter almond; cauliflower is
nothing but a cabbage with a college education.--Mark Twain
K1912
Skitt
David McMurray wrote in message
<1dbe0o5.1fg...@gk3-206.47.80.58.kingston.net>...
>Skitt <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>> Lee Lester wrote in message <98062902...@guildnet.org>...
>> >>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>> >>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
>> >
>> >Singular verb, plural object?
>>
>> 'Tain't plural.
>Would it be reasonable to infer from your response that you agree
that:
>
>1. Whether singular or plural, 'tis an object; and
>
>2. if _'twere_ plural, _'twould_ call for "go" rather than 'goes"?
If it were, that would be the case.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
David McMurray
Bob McQueer <bo...@akamail.com> wrote:
> David McMurray wrote:
> > Skitt <al...@myself.com> wrote:
> > > Lee Lester wrote in message <98062902...@guildnet.org>...
> > > >>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
> > > >>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
> > > >Singular verb, plural object?
> > >
> > > 'Tain't plural.
> > Would it be reasonable to infer from your response that you agree that:
> >
> > 1. Whether singular or plural, 'tis an object; and
> >
> > 2. if _'twere_ plural, _'twould_ call for "go" rather than 'goes"?
>
> OK you guys, remove the phrase and simplify things:
> TGIF goes back a long ways.
> Acronyms like TGIF go back a long ways.
Both sound fine to me.
> TGIF seems to be a singular subject. [...]
Agreed.
[snip]
> And "back a long ways" is simply the way I've always
> heard it. It's an idiom when I use it. [...]
And when I use it.
Sorry for the confusion, Bob. I have no problem at all with your
original sentence. I was commenting on Lee Lester's response (as was
Skitt, I believe) which, it seems to me, is based on the following
analysis:
1. Verbs agree in number with their _objects_.
2. "Ways" is the object of your sentence.
3. "Ways", in the phrase "a long ways", is plural.
4. The verb ought therefore to be "go" rather than "goes".
I disagree with the first three propositions (and I also disagree with
the conclusion).
Skitt's only comment dealt with number 3. My response to him was to
inquire - facetiously - whether we could assume that he agreed with
numbers 1 and 2 (and perhaps 4, if he was wrong about 3).
--
David
P&DSchultz
Lee Lester wrote:
>
> >TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
> >than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
>
> Singular verb, plural object?
Sure. What do you say? "He feed the chickens."?
John Emery
add avis to ucd
----------
In article <6n8u9v$5od$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Skitt"
<al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>David McMurray wrote in message
><1dbe0o5.1fg...@gk3-206.47.80.58.kingston.net>...
>>Skitt <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>>> >Singular verb, plural object?
>>>
>>> 'Tain't plural.
>>Would it be reasonable to infer from your response that you agree
>that:
>>
>>1. Whether singular or plural, 'tis an object; and
>>
>>2. if _'twere_ plural, _'twould_ call for "go" rather than 'goes"?
>
>
>If it were, that would be the case.
I take it you would say:
I pay those three on Tuesdays, but I pays Mr. Jeffers Wednesdays.
Skitt
John Emery wrote in message <6n9fj7$6og$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
What has the third person pronoun have to do with singular vs. plural?
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
--Emo Phillips
Skitt
David McMurray wrote in message
<1dbeewa.df...@11-g1.kingston.net>...
> I was commenting on Lee Lester's response (as was
>Skitt, I believe) which, it seems to me, is based on the following
>analysis:
>
>1. Verbs agree in number with their _objects_.
>
>2. "Ways" is the object of your sentence.
>
>3. "Ways", in the phrase "a long ways", is plural.
>
>4. The verb ought therefore to be "go" rather than "goes".
>
>I disagree with the first three propositions (and I also disagree
with
>the conclusion).
>
>Skitt's only comment dealt with number 3. My response to him was to
>inquire - facetiously - whether we could assume that he agreed with
>numbers 1 and 2 (and perhaps 4, if he was wrong about 3).
Number three is the only thing that could have been in question.
I was *not* wrong about number 3, and I enclosed a dictionary entry
which stated that it was in a singular construction.
Here it is again:
MWCD10:
Main Entry: ways
Pronunciation: 'wAz
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
<=================!!!!!!!!!!!!
Etymology: Middle English wayes, from genitive of 1way
<===============!!!!!!!!!
Date: 1588
: WAY 6 <a long ways from home>
John Emery
add avis to ucd
----------
In article <6n9g35$de2$2...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Skitt"
<al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>John Emery wrote in message <6n9fj7$6og$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>>
>>add avis to ucd
>>
>>----------
>>In article <6n8u9v$5od$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Skitt"
>><al...@myself.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>David McMurray wrote in message
>>><1dbe0o5.1fg...@gk3-206.47.80.58.kingston.net>...
>>>>Skitt <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>>Lee Lester wrote:
>>>>> >Singular verb, plural object?
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Tain't plural.
>>>>Would it be reasonable to infer from your response that you agree
>>>that:
>>>>
>>>>1. Whether singular or plural, 'tis an object; and
>>>>
>>>>2. if _'twere_ plural, _'twould_ call for "go" rather than 'goes"?
>>>
>>>
>>>If it were, that would be the case.
>>
>>I take it you would say:
>>I pay those three on Tuesdays, but I pays Mr. Jeffers Wednesdays.
>
>What has the third person pronoun have to do with singular vs. plural?
Well, I don't know where the 3rd person pronoun came from, but it does come
in several flavors, including both singular and plural.
Perhaps I was confused. Certainly I am. It seems you are agreeing with with
David McMurray's second question, more fully explained in his reply to Bob
McQueer. That is, you hold the position that verbs should agree in number
with their objects. In English.
th@out Death of Rats
John Emery wrote in message <6n9fj7$6og$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>
>add avis to ucd
>
>----------
>In article <6n8u9v$5od$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Skitt"
><al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>David McMurray wrote in message
>><1dbe0o5.1fg...@gk3-206.47.80.58.kingston.net>...
>>>Skitt <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>>> >Singular verb, plural object?
>>>>
>>>> 'Tain't plural.
>>>Would it be reasonable to infer from your response that you agree
>>that:
>>>
>>>1. Whether singular or plural, 'tis an object; and
>>>
>>>2. if _'twere_ plural, _'twould_ call for "go" rather than 'goes"?
>>
>>
>>If it were, that would be the case.
>
>I take it you would say:
>I pay those three on Tuesdays, but I pays Mr. Jeffers Wednesdays.
Surely it goes back a long WAY. Or even better a long TIME, as it doesn't
actually 'go' *any* 'way'.
Skitt
John Emery wrote in message <6n9mcf$hsh$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>>>I take it you would say:
>>>I pay those three on Tuesdays, but I pays Mr. Jeffers Wednesdays.
>>
>>What has the third person pronoun have to do with singular vs.
plural?
>
>Well, I don't know where the 3rd person pronoun came from, but it
does come
>in several flavors, including both singular and plural.
>Perhaps I was confused. Certainly I am.
I did not phrase my statement very clearly, what I meant was "I pays"
is a "no-no."
>It seems you are agreeing with with
>David McMurray's second question, more fully explained in his reply
to Bob
>McQueer. That is, you hold the position that verbs should agree in
number
>with their objects. In English.
For sure! The only dificult part might be the figuring out if TGIF is
singular (like the *term* or the restaurant *chain*) or plural (like a
bunch of TGIFs - notice spelling).
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Skitt
John Emery
add avis to ucd
----------
In article <6naici$l0...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>, "Skitt" <al...@myself.com>
wrote:
>I did not phrase my statement very clearly, what I meant was "I pays"
>is a "no-no."
>>It seems you are agreeing with with
>>David McMurray's second question, more fully explained in his reply
>to Bob
>>McQueer. That is, you hold the position that verbs should agree in
>number
>>with their objects. In English.
>
>For sure! The only dificult part might be the figuring out if TGIF is
>singular (like the *term* or the restaurant *chain*) or plural (like a
>bunch of TGIFs - notice spelling).
Ah ha. I though that this might be the case. We are then in accord
concerning the actual grammar of English, we are simply using different
terminology. Well, far be it from me to object to a redefinition of terms,
but I think our confused conversation is an argument for standardization.
The original sentence under discussion was:
TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
I think that 'TGIF' here is being quoted as a word, or an abbreviation, as
stated parenthetically. It is therefore analogous to a statement such as:
'We' is a second person plural pronoun.
And so it does not matter whether 'TGIF' is singular or plural in this case.
Mark E. Smith
In article <3597e052...@news.redestb.es>,
rho...@mx7.redestb.es (Ross Howard) wrote:
> And what, by extension, is a "young rural professional" -- a
> farmhand with a Filofax?
Hey, don't laugh. Lots of farmers are using PCs to manage their
businesses, and carrying cell phones. No pay phones on the back
forty, you know.
--
Mark E. Smith <msm...@lvnworth.com>
Peter Hullah
Jeff G wrote:
>
> Bob McQueer wrote:
> >
> Two old ladies waiting for the bus.
>
> One says, "T. G. I. F. -- Thank gawd it's Friday."
>
> Other says, "S. H. I. T. -- So happens it's Thursday!"
Two old ladies waiting for a bus.
"Windy isn't it?"
"No, Thursday."
"So am I - let's find a pub."
Skitt
John Emery wrote in message <6nbsdd$1dd$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>The original sentence under discussion was:
>TGIF - as an abbreviation of "Thank God It's Friday", rather
>>than a business name, goes back a LONG ways.
>
>I think that 'TGIF' here is being quoted as a word, or an
abbreviation, as
>stated parenthetically. It is therefore analogous to a statement
such as:
>'We' is a second person plural pronoun.
>And so it does not matter whether 'TGIF' is singular or plural in
this case.
>
After all this confusion (a lot of it being my fault) I have to
disagree with your latest statement, but only because in "TGIF - as an
abbreviation" the "an abbreviation" indicates that it is handled as a
singular. For plural it would have to say "TGIFs - as abbreviations
... go back ...", but we would not normally say that.
In my final analysis, the original statement, if it was as you have
shown above, was well written.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
pet...@ms.com
In article <6nd6g6$lh...@svlss.lmms.lmco.com>,
"Skitt" <al...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
> After all this confusion (a lot of it being my fault) I have to
> disagree with your latest statement, but only because in "TGIF - as an
> abbreviation" the "an abbreviation" indicates that it is handled as a
> singular. For plural it would have to say "TGIFs - as abbreviations
> ... go back ...", but we would not normally say that.
>
> In my final analysis, the original statement, if it was as you have
> shown above, was well written.
> --
> Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
>
Around here they get around this by 1/4 unabbreviating
it. "At the local TGIFridays nearest you."
hth
Pjk
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Truly Donovan
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:11:34 GMT, pet...@ms.com wrote:
>Around here they get around this by 1/4 unabbreviating
>it. "At the local TGIFridays nearest you."
If I recall correctly (and I'm to be forgiven if I don't, because it
is about a third of a century ago), the sign on the original
establishment -- a tall skinny one mounted on the corner of the
building -- had "TGI" smallishly and horizontally across the top and
a comparatively large "Friday's" on a steep, predominantly vertical,
slant below.
Indeed, it was quite some time before I realized that the place wasn't
just "Friday's." And I remember thinking at the time that that was
really too bad, because "Friday's" was a much better name than
anything one could make out of "TGIFriday's." And I still think so.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com