are we there yet vs arn't we there yet
chance
2. Aren't we there yet?
Aren't they interchangeable,
depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
TIA
CK
Ian Jackson
<cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> writes
Yes, I would say that they normally are interchangeable..
Strangely, if you aren't there yet, the answer is usually "No" in both
cases.!
--
Ian
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> 1. Are we there yet?
This is a simple question.
>
> 2. Aren't we there yet?
This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
"no", so it's not really a question at all.
>
> Aren't they interchangeable,
> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
>
> TIA
> CK
--
athel
Eric Walker
> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
>
>> 1. Are we there yet?
>
> This is a simple question.
>>
>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>
> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
> will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
> "no", so it's not really a question at all.
Moreover, it carries a clear suggestion of irritation, a sense that the
trip is taking too long.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
wugi
> 1. Are we there yet?
Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
none ~"already".
And other languages indeed use the word for "already" here.
The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-) like "Are we
still there?".
> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>
> Aren't they interchangeable,
> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
Peter T. Daniels
+aeuauesl200...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
> wugi wrote:
> >On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >> 1. Are we there yet?
> >Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
> >doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
> >none ~"already".
> >And other languages indeed use the word for "already" here.
> >The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-) like "Are we
> >still there?".
>
>
> "Are we there already" would express surprise that the journey has been
> so quick; emphasis on the last word.
>
> My experience has been that normal usage is more likely to be "are we
> nearly there yet" - because if we _were_ there, we could see that this
> was the case.
That is not, however, what the children in the back seat constantly
repeat.
Peter T. Daniels
Ask yourself why you said "Aren't they ..." and not "Are they ...,"
and you may have some of the answer.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Good comment. Why didn't I think of that?
--
athel
Alan Munn
<4d01c6bd-0334-4bdf...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
wugi <wu...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> > 1. Are we there yet?
>
> Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
> doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
> none ~"already".
> And other languages indeed use the word for "already" here.
But this would mean something different, I think, since you can say both
in English, although I can't pinpoint the difference.
> The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-) like "Are we
> still there?".
And maybe to some American English speakers too. I've recently been
puzzled by one of our local radio announcers who says
"Yet to come, a story about global warming"
Which for me has to be "still to come".
Can others say this (or find it odd as I do)?
Alan
Harlan Messinger
> On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>> 1. Are we there yet?
>
> Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
> doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
> none ~"already".
"At this or that time". It doesn't have the same meaning that "already"
would have. "Are we there yet?" implies the suspicion that "we" may not
yet be there, along with a note of impatience. "Are we there already?"
is a rhetorical question indicating that "we are there" is established
and expressing surprise that it didn't take longer to arrive.
> And other languages indeed use the word for "already" here.
> The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-) like "Are we
> still there?".
>
>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>>
>> Aren't they interchangeable,
>> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
"Aren't we there yet?" implies that the speakers not just a *suspicion*
that "we" haven't arrive yet but the *assumption* that "we" haven't,
along with a note of not only impatience but also surprise that "we"
haven't.
CDB
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:24:36 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
>>
>>> 1. Are we there yet?
>>
>> This is a simple question.
>>>
>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>>
>> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed,
>> this will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the
>> answer is "no", so it's not really a question at all.
>
> Moreover, it carries a clear suggestion of irritation, a sense that
> the trip is taking too long.
>
usually carries the implication that the answer expected is "yes".
Aren't you coming? Haven't you had enough? What seems to cause the
switch is the addition of adverbs associated with the negative form
instead of the positive meaning ("yet" instead of the positive
"already", or "any ... (at all)" instead of "some", in "Haven't you
got any sense at all?")
R H Draney
>
>On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>> 1. Are we there yet?
>
>Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
>doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
>none ~"already".
>And other languages indeed use the word for "already" here.
>The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-) like "Are we
>still there?".
>
>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
I'm in no position to explain why, but it's interesting to note that "yet" can
appear in the response only if it's negative:
*Yes, we're there yet.
No, we're not there yet.
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
John Varela
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
>
> > 1. Are we there yet?
>
> This is a simple question.
> >
> > 2. Aren't we there yet?
>
> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
> will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
> "no", so it's not really a question at all.
Both questions are whiney, but the second is even more whiney than
the first.
--
John "father of three" Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
mm
wrote:
If, as you say, it depends on the context or the tone of speech, then
that alone would mean they're not interchangeable.
Interchangeable means totally interchangeable. If you mean less than
that, you have to says sometimes interchangeable, or have almost the
same meaning, or use some qualification.
Number 1 shows some impatience, partly because one asks at all, and
moreso because of the use of yet.
Number 2 shows more impatience. It shows someone who clearly wants an
answer, Yes, we are there, but doesn't expect to get it.
Usually.
>
>TIA
>
>CK
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> In article
> <4d01c6bd-0334-4bdf-913c-29292a4a5...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Well, the sentence as given is a journalistic sentence-type, which I
wouldn't use (if it's a sentence at all). But if I re-structure it to
something like "The story about global warming is still/yet to come",
they both seem acceptable.
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
> On 2009-12-17 16:04:33 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> said:
>
> > On Dec 17, 4:22 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >> 1. Are we there yet?
>
> >> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>
> >> Aren't they interchangeable,
> >> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
>
> >> TIA
>
> > Ask yourself why you said "Aren't they ..." and not "Are they ...,"
> > and you may have some of the answer.
>
> Good comment. Why didn't I think of that?
Hmm, "Why didn't I think of that yet?" would mean it will occur to you
later; "Why didn't I think of that, already?" would be Yinglish; and
"Why didn't I think of that already?" would indicate impatience in
yourself for not having come up with it till now.
Peter T. Daniels
> --
> Posters should say where they live, and for which area
> they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
> Western Pa. 10 years
> Indianapolis 7 years
> Chicago 6 years
> Brooklyn, NY 12 years
> Baltimore 26 years
Will you be dropping in on the Linguistic Society of America meeting
at the Hilton Baltimore, 7-10 Jan?
Alan Munn
<f2ade5b4-0c15-4338...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Do they have slightly different meanings for you? You also changed the
NP from indefinite to definite in your rearrangement, which I think
makes a difference.
A story about global warming is still/??yet to come.
The story about global is still/yet to come.
The 'yet' seems to presuppose that we know it's coming, but isn't here
(yet), so if that presupposition fails (as in the newscaster telling me
what's up ahead) 'still' must be used. The definite adds that
presupposition and so 'yet' becomes good again.
Alan
>
> Ross Clark
Brian M. Scott
<am...@msu.edu> wrote in
<news:amunn-388B15....@news.eternal-september.org>
in alt.english.usage,alt.usage.english,sci.lang:
> In article
> <f2ade5b4-0c15-4338...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> "benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 5:11�am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>> I've recently been puzzled by one of our local radio
>>> announcers who says
>>> "Yet to come, a story about global warming"
>>> Which for me has to be "still to come".
>>> Can others say this (or find it odd as I do)?
>> Well, the sentence as given is a journalistic
>> sentence-type, which I wouldn't use (if it's a sentence
>> at all). But if I re-structure it to something like "The
>> story about global warming is still/yet to come", they
>> both seem acceptable.
> Do they have slightly different meanings for you? You
> also changed the NP from indefinite to definite in your
> rearrangement, which I think makes a difference.
> A story about global warming is still/??yet to come.
> The story about global is still/yet to come.
All four versions are fine for me. So is 'has yet to come',
and 'has still to come' is acceptable, though less good.
> The 'yet' seems to presuppose that we know it's coming,
> but isn't here (yet),
Not for me. Consider such usages as 'I have yet to learn
that ... those on board the steam-tug had a right to ...
overrule the order of the pilot' (1848), in which the
speaker clearly doesn't believe that such a right existed.
And what about 'I may yet be there', meaning that I'm not
there now, but I may be there later -- or I may not.
> so if that presupposition fails (as in the newscaster
> telling me what's up ahead) 'still' must be used. The
> definite adds that presupposition and so 'yet' becomes
> good again.
Brian
PaulJK
Assuming that we are not there yet, you can answer
the second one with "No, we aren't" or priggishly with
"Yes, we aren't", but the answer to the first one is only
"No, we aren't". :-))
pjk
Steve Hayes
> *Yes, we're there yet.
> No, we're not there yet.
In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
"Yes we're there anymore".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Patok
Is it ever acceptable in English to answer "Yes, we aren't"? One of
the most memorable moments of learning English was, that unlike in my
native language, when answering, one answers the question, and not the
questioner. Thus, in English, when asked "We aren't there yet, right?"
one is supposed to answer "No." if we aren't there yet, and "Yes." if we
are there. Whereas in my native language, the rule is to agree or
disagree with the speaker, and the answer would be "Yes." if the speaker
is correct and we are not there yet, and "No.", if he is wrong, and we
have, in fact, arrived.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
chance
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:7ov3qoF...@mid.individual.net...
Isn't it so that this may be the case of 'One size fits all',
in that 'yet' not only signifies a note of 'impatience'
but also connotes a simple 'concern' or 'enquiry',
as evidenced in situations where the mother asks her son,
'Have you eaten yet?' or where she asks the nurse,
'Does he (her husband being hospitalized) eat yet?'
chance
"Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hgf12r$k4r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> PaulJK wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-17 16:04:33 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 17, 4:22 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>>>>> 1. Are we there yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't they interchangeable,
>>>>> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>> Ask yourself why you said "Aren't they ..." and not "Are they ...,"
>>>> and you may have some of the answer.
>>> Good comment. Why didn't I think of that?
>>
>> Assuming that we are not there yet, you can answer
>> the second one with "No, we aren't" or priggishly with
>> "Yes, we aren't", but the answer to the first one is only
>> "No, we aren't". :-))
>
> Is it ever acceptable in English to answer "Yes, we aren't"? One of
> the most memorable moments of learning English was, that unlike in my
> native language,
What is your native language, please?
PaulJK
> PaulJK wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-17 16:04:33 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 17, 4:22 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>>>>> 1. Are we there yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't they interchangeable,
>>>>> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>> Ask yourself why you said "Aren't they ..." and not "Are they ...,"
>>>> and you may have some of the answer.
>>> Good comment. Why didn't I think of that?
>>
>> Assuming that we are not there yet, you can answer
>> the second one with "No, we aren't" or priggishly with
>> "Yes, we aren't", but the answer to the first one is only
>> "No, we aren't". :-))
>
> Is it ever acceptable in English to answer "Yes, we aren't"?
Okay, the word "priggishly" is English, but hey, the smiley is definitely
language-independent.
:-)
pjk
James Hogg
>
> "Patok" <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hgf12r$k4r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> of the most memorable moments of learning English was, that unlike in
>> my native language,
>
> What is your native language, please?
Maybe it's Greek, like the probable origin of the song "Yes! We Have No
Bananas"
--
James
mm
Well I didn't know about it until just now.
240 dollars for pre-registration. Will there be many lectures and
seminars that a rank amateur would enjoy?
wugi
wrote:
> wugi wrote:
> >> 1. Are we there yet?
>
> > Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
> > doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
> > none ~"already".
>
> "At this or that time".
I inferred this too. Making it the counterpart of German jetzt, (by)
now.
> It doesn't have the same meaning that "already"
> would have. "Are we there yet?" implies the suspicion that "we" may not
> yet be there, along with a note of impatience.
Making it look suspiciously alike to its negation :-)
> "Are we there already?"
> is a rhetorical question indicating that "we are there" is established
> and expressing surprise that it didn't take longer to arrive.
Funnily both meanings can be conveyed by the same sentence in Dutch
"Zijn we er al?", with hardly any difference in intonation; and, to my
feeling, equally so in German, French, Spanish...
Peter T. Daniels
> On 17 Dec 2009 09:48:37 -0800, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > *Yes, we're there yet.
> > No, we're not there yet.
>
> In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
> "Yes we're there anymore".
Nothing to do with "oneword."
There are dialects in which "any more" is not a neg-pol item, and in
such dialects, it's conceivable that it could be used as you suggest.
But I'm not in a position to travel to Chicago and ask around.
Peter T. Daniels
> PaulJK wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 17, 4:22 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >>>> 1. Are we there yet?
>
> >>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>
> >>>> Aren't they interchangeable,
> >>>> depending on the context involving the tone of speech?
>
> >>>> TIA
> >>> Ask yourself why you said "Aren't they ..." and not "Are they ...,"
> >>> and you may have some of the answer.
> >> Good comment. Why didn't I think of that?
>
> > Assuming that we are not there yet, you can answer
> > the second one with "No, we aren't" or priggishly with
> > "Yes, we aren't", but the answer to the first one is only
> > "No, we aren't". :-))
>
> Is it ever acceptable in English to answer "Yes, we aren't"? One of
> the most memorable moments of learning English was, that unlike in my
> native language, when answering, one answers the question, and not the
> questioner. Thus, in English, when asked "We aren't there yet, right?"
> one is supposed to answer "No." if we aren't there yet, and "Yes." if we
> are there. Whereas in my native language, the rule is to agree or
> disagree with the speaker, and the answer would be "Yes." if the speaker
> is correct and we are not there yet, and "No.", if he is wrong, and we
> have, in fact, arrived.
A question with a tag-question is usually answered with respect to the
tag question, so the confirming response to "We aren't there yet,
right?" would be "Right!" To say that we arrived (and that you somehow
missed that fact), the response would be "No, we are!" because we're
discussing your assumption, not the facts.
A bare "Yes" or "No" is not only unclear but also (and probably in
part as a result) impolite.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:42:11 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >On Dec 17, 1:04 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> --
> >> Posters should say where they live, and for which area
> >> they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
> >> Western Pa. 10 years
> >> Indianapolis 7 years
> >> Chicago 6 years
> >> Brooklyn, NY 12 years
> >> Baltimore 26 years
>
> >Will you be dropping in on the Linguistic Society of America meeting
> >at the Hilton Baltimore, 7-10 Jan?
>
> Well I didn't know about it until just now.
>
> 240 dollars for pre-registration. Will there be many lectures and
> seminars that a rank amateur would enjoy?
No idea. They've only distributed the program on line so far, and I'm
not about to print out 29 pages to find out. (There might be as many
as 10 simultaneous sessions.)
Go to www.lsadc.org .
If you find something interesting, just show up -- two years ago (in
Chicago), the guy I was staying with came to my paper (and stayed for
the whole session) with no problem. You probably won't be allowed into
the book display room without a badge, but that might be it.
Harlan Messinger
I think that the fact that it's a *question* signifies that it's an
enquiry. No? As for concern: maybe, or maybe it's just that concern is
one reason why someone might be impatient.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:36 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
>>
>> > 1. Are we there yet?
>>
>> This is a simple question.
>> >
>> > 2. Aren't we there yet?
>>
>> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
>> will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
>> "no", so it's not really a question at all.
>
>Both questions are whiney, but the second is even more whiney than
>the first.
It goes whiny, whinier, whiniest, I believe.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>wugi filted:
>>
>>On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>>> 1. Are we there yet?
>>
>>Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet
>>doesn't seem to have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still",
>>none ~"already".
>>And other languages indeed use the word for "already" here.
>>The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-) like "Are we
>>still there?".
>>
>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>
>I'm in no position to explain why, but it's interesting to note that "yet" can
>appear in the response only if it's negative:
>
> *Yes, we're there yet.
> No, we're not there yet.
Strange.
Chuck Riggs
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 17 Dec 2009 09:48:37 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> *Yes, we're there yet.
>>
>
>In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
>"Yes we're there anymore".
"Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
James Hogg
> On 17 Dec 2009 09:48:37 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>> wugi filted:
>>> On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
>>>> 1. Are we there yet?
>>> Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yet doesn't seem to
>>> have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still", none
>>> ~"already". And other languages indeed use the word for "already"
>>> here. The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher, that is :-)
>>> like "Are we still there?".
>>>
>>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
>> I'm in no position to explain why, but it's interesting to note
>> that "yet" can appear in the response only if it's negative:
>>
>> *Yes, we're there yet. No, we're not there yet.
>
> Strange.
There are parallel cases where negatives and questions differ from
affirmative statements:
Have you any idea?
I don't have any idea.
*I have any idea.
Have you much time?
I don't have much time.
?I have much time.
--
James
R H Draney
Kay Kyser used to play with a form of this on his radio quiz show...he'd ask a
contestant to respond "right" or "wrong" to a series of questions:
Kay: "Right or wrong: Johann Strauss Jr was the son of Johann Strauss?"
Contestant: "Right."
Kay: "That's right, you're right. Right or wrong: the brother of Franz
Schubert was Raspberry Schubert?"
Contestant: "Wrong."
Kay: "You're right, that's wrong! Now, right or wrong: Wagner was Liszt's
son-in-law?"
Contestant: "Wrong."
Kay: "That's right, you're wrong!"
John Varela
wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2009 18:02:25 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:36 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> ><athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
> >>
> >> > 1. Are we there yet?
> >>
> >> This is a simple question.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Aren't we there yet?
> >>
> >> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
> >> will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
> >> "no", so it's not really a question at all.
> >
> >Both questions are whiney, but the second is even more whiney than
> >the first.
>
> It goes whiny, whinier, whiniest, I believe.
Is it whiny or whiney? Whatever; I think you're correct in
suggesting that #2 calls for the superlative.
--
John Varela
John Varela
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:34:41 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
> >"Yes we're there anymore".
>
> "Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
mm
Thank you for the url and the encouragement. Will you be there? How
will I recognize you?
tony cooper
wrote:
Peter has a very, very, large head.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
By coming to the room where I'm speaking?
chance
"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:7p1kcf...@mid.individual.net...
Ok. Whatever.
PaulJK
ROTFL
thanks James
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:14:15 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On 17 Dec 2009 18:02:25 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:36 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> ><athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
>> >>
>> >> > 1. Are we there yet?
>> >>
>> >> This is a simple question.
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. Aren't we there yet?
>> >>
>> >> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
>> >> will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
>> >> "no", so it's not really a question at all.
>> >
>> >Both questions are whiney, but the second is even more whiney than
>> >the first.
>>
>> It goes whiny, whinier, whiniest, I believe.
>
>Is it whiny or whiney?
Why, did you find whiney in someone's dictionary?
>Whatever; I think you're correct in
>suggesting that #2 calls for the superlative.
I'm sure some contexts call for the superlative, "whiniest". Since
"whinier" sounds, to me, more emphatic than "more whiny", I prefer it.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:21:29 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:34:41 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
>> >"Yes we're there anymore".
>>
>> "Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
>
>I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
>say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
Wow, I see no connection between anymore and nowadays, John. What am I
missing?
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Is it common practice, if that is what you have done, to use asterisks
to mark incorrect constructions and question marks to mark
questionable ones?
Chuck Riggs
When did you peek at his head?
James Hogg
Yes, although linguists might choose some other word than "incorrect",
probably "ungrammatical".
--
James
tony cooper
wrote:
Oh, dear, Charles. Doesn't that buzzing of things that go over your
head annoy you?
Skitt
> "John Varela" wrote:
>> I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
>> say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
>
> Wow, I see no connection between anymore and nowadays, John. What am I
> missing?
Both *can* have the meaning of "now", or "at the present time". That has
been discussed here before.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter T. Daniels
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:24:09 +0100, James Hogg
> > <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> wugi filted:
> >>>>> On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >>>>>> 1. Are we there yet?
> >>>>> Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
> >>>>> have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still", none
> >>>>> ~"already". And other languages indeed use the word for
> >>>>> "already" here. The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher,
> >>>>> that is :-) like "Are we still there?".
>
> >>>>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
> >>>> I'm in no position to explain why, but it's interesting to note
> >>>> that "yet" can appear in the response only if it's negative:
>
> >>>> *Yes, we're there yet. No, we're not there yet.
> >>> Strange.
> >> There are parallel cases where negatives and questions differ from
> >> affirmative statements:
>
> >> Have you any idea? I don't have any idea. *I have any idea.
>
> >> Have you much time? I don't have much time. ?I have much time.
>
> > Is it common practice, if that is what you have done, to use
> > asterisks to mark incorrect constructions and question marks to mark
> > questionable ones?
>
> Yes, although linguists might choose some other word than "incorrect",
> probably "ungrammatical".
The asterisk marks utterances that are unattested for a variety of
reasons, the particular reason in any one case usually being evident
from the context.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:20:39 -0500, tony cooper
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:54:58 -0500, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com>
Pay no attention to tony cooper. He has a longstanding, visceral
hatred of me and every so often interjects an utterly irrelevant
insult into a discussion that by some misfortune has been crossposted
with aue.
tony cooper
While I find you to be a fat-head, and one with a swelled head, my
emotional reaction to you never nears the intensity of hatred. You
are not substantial enough to hate.
The misfortune you experience in cross-posts is self-inflicted. You
appear cross-posted to aue or aeu, or both, because you don't have
sense enough to read the headers and adjust them. In this, you are
empty-headed.
John Varela
wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2009 20:46:58 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:14:15 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On 17 Dec 2009 18:02:25 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:36 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> >> ><athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2009-12-17 10:22:12 +0100, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr> said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > 1. Are we there yet?
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a simple question.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 2. Aren't we there yet?
> >> >>
> >> >> This implies regret that the answer is likely to be "no". Indeed, this
> >> >> will usually be said when the questioner _knows_ that the answer is
> >> >> "no", so it's not really a question at all.
> >> >
> >> >Both questions are whiney, but the second is even more whiney than
> >> >the first.
> >>
> >> It goes whiny, whinier, whiniest, I believe.
> >
> >Is it whiny or whiney?
>
> Why, did you find whiney in someone's dictionary?
OED: "Characterized by whining; disposed to whine, fretful. Also
whin(e)y"
John Varela
wrote:
> On 18 Dec 2009 20:50:56 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:21:29 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:34:41 +0200, Steve Hayes
> >> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
> >> >"Yes we're there anymore".
> >>
> >> "Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
> >
> >I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
> >say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
>
> Wow, I see no connection between anymore and nowadays, John. What am I
> missing?
Near synonyms: "We don't do that anymore." "We don't do that
nowadays."
I'm having trouble coming up with an example of one of my friend's
idiomatic uses of "anymore". If I think of one I'll post it. I do
know that he occasionally uses the word in a way that jars me.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:53:57 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Dec 2009 20:50:56 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:21:29 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:34:41 +0200, Steve Hayes
> > >> <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
> > >> >"Yes we're there anymore".
>
> > >> "Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
>
> > >I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
> > >say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
>
> > Wow, I see no connection between anymore and nowadays, John. What am I
> > missing?
>
> Near synonyms: "We don't do that anymore." "We don't do that
> nowadays."
"Any more" says that we used to do it. "Nowadays" says nothing about
whether we used to do it.
> I'm having trouble coming up with an example of one of my friend's
> idiomatic uses of "anymore". If I think of one I'll post it. I do
> know that he occasionally uses the word in a way that jars me.
As I said, you just need to go to the right parts of the English-
speaking world, where "any more" isn't a negative polarity item.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
From it and the two other dictionaries I looked it, it seems that
whiny is their first choice of spellings.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:53:57 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On 18 Dec 2009 20:50:56 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:21:29 UTC, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:34:41 +0200, Steve Hayes
>> >> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a synonym for "yet"?
>> >> >"Yes we're there anymore".
>> >>
>> >> "Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
>> >
>> >I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
>> >say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
>>
>> Wow, I see no connection between anymore and nowadays, John. What am I
>> missing?
>
>Near synonyms: "We don't do that anymore." "We don't do that
>nowadays."
I had forgotten the group's discussion on this, Skitt and John.
>I'm having trouble coming up with an example of one of my friend's
>idiomatic uses of "anymore". If I think of one I'll post it. I do
>know that he occasionally uses the word in a way that jars me.
Try to remember. It is an interesting usage.
Chuck Riggs
If this convention is not in the AUE FAQ, it might cause more
confusion than it is worth. It might, anyway.
Chuck Riggs
Jackass that Coop is, it amuses me to play with him at times.
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You missed the joke, Coop. Again. Since we know bathroom humour isn't
beneath you, you must have been asleep at the wheel.
James Hogg
If your email address is undisguised and if you are interested, I could
send you an article in pdf from "American Speech" about the use of this
construction in Missouri.
--
James
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:29:26 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
>
>
>
>
> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 19, 12:12 pm, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
> >> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:24:09 +0100, James Hogg
> >> > <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> >> >>> On 17 Dec 2009 09:48:37 -0800, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net>
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> wugi filted:
> >> >>>>> On 17 dec, 10:22, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> 1. Are we there yet?
> >> >>>>> Anyone know why English has "yet" in this phrase?
> >> >>>>> have a ready meaning for this case : all are ~"still", none
> >> >>>>> ~"already". And other languages indeed use the word for
> >> >>>>> "already" here. The phrase as is looks (to me non-Englisher,
> >> >>>>> that is :-) like "Are we still there?".
>
> >> >>>>>> 2. Aren't we there yet?
> >> >>>> I'm in no position to explain why, but it's interesting to note
> >> >>>> that "yet" can appear in the response only if it's negative:
>
> >> >>>> *Yes, we're there yet. No, we're not there yet.
> >> >>> Strange.
> >> >> There are parallel cases where negatives and questions differ from
> >> >> affirmative statements:
>
> >> >> Have you any idea? I don't have any idea. *I have any idea.
>
> >> >> Have you much time? I don't have much time. ?I have much time.
>
> >> > Is it common practice, if that is what you have done, to use
> >> > asterisks to mark incorrect constructions and question marks to mark
> >> > questionable ones?
>
> >> Yes, although linguists might choose some other word than "incorrect",
> >> probably "ungrammatical".
>
> >The asterisk marks utterances that are unattested for a variety of
> >reasons, the particular reason in any one case usually being evident
> >from the context.
>
> If this convention is not in the AUE FAQ, it might cause more
> confusion than it is worth. It might, anyway.
Sorry, I don't know what "the AUE FAQ" is, I only know what linguists
do.
The asterisk was first used to mark reconstructed Indo-European forms
(and there's been quite a debate in the history of linguistics
literature over who introduced the convention and when).
Then it came to be used for hypothetical forms that ought to be
attested if we had more data on some language but happen not to be.
Then when Chomsky invented the notion of "grammaticality," it came to
be used for ungrammatical (non)"sentences."
Then as concepts like grammaticality and acceptability and
interpretability came to be explored, it came to be used for each of
those notions, and which concept you were talking about was explicit
somewhere in your discussion.
Then additional markings came to be used, such as question marks and
percent signs.
And combinations of all the above.
James Hogg
> On Dec 20, 10:49 am, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> If this convention is not in the AUE FAQ, it might cause more
>> confusion than it is worth. It might, anyway.
>
> Sorry, I don't know what "the AUE FAQ" is, I only know what linguists
> do.
AUE FAQ is an abbreviation for alt.usage.english frequently asked questions.
alt.usage.english is a Usenet newsgroup that was instituted for the
discussion of English grammar, word usages, and related topics.
An FAQ is a list of frequently asked questions to which people can be
referred so that the members of the group don't have to explain the same
elementary things time and time again.
You can find the AUE FAQ here:
http://alt-usage-english.org/fast_faq.shtml
There is one curious omission at that site. It ought to explain what
"FAQ" means, for the benefit of newbies.
--
James
Skitt
> "John Varela" wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> "John Varela" wrote:
>>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>>>> In the land of oneword "anymore" can "anymore" be used as a
>>>>>> synonym for "yet"? "Yes we're there anymore".
>>
>>>>> "Yes, we're there anymore" does not make any sense to me.
>>
>>>> I have a friend from Philadelphia who says "anymore" where I would
>>>> say "nowadays", but that doesn't work in this example.
>>
>>> Wow, I see no connection between anymore and nowadays, John. What
>>> am I missing?
>>
>> Near synonyms: "We don't do that anymore." "We don't do that
>> nowadays."
>
> "Any more" says that we used to do it. "Nowadays" says nothing about
> whether we used to do it.
>
>> I'm having trouble coming up with an example of one of my friend's
>> idiomatic uses of "anymore". If I think of one I'll post it. I do
>> know that he occasionally uses the word in a way that jars me.
>
> As I said, you just need to go to the right parts of the English-
> speaking world, where "any more" isn't a negative polarity item.
The discussion is about "anymore", not "any more". See above.
--
Skitt (AmE)
tony cooper
wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
You misunderstand Peter's purpose in saying that he doesn't know what
the AUE FAQ is. Peter's posts have been appearing in AUE and AEU for
yonks, but Peter pretends that he doesn't post in either group. He
denies understanding how cross-posts work and feigns inability to
examine the headers in order to know where his reply-to posts will
appear.
Peter's statement above is a silly little charade intended to say "I
may be among you, but I am not of you".
He gets sillier. Eventually, after participating in a thread in
several posts and being thoroughly discredited, he will lament that we
- posters with a home base in AUE or AEU - are intruding into his
group: sci.lang.
Peter T. Daniels
I know what AUE means, and I know what FAQ means. I had no reason to
believe that there is an AUE FAQ. I am equally surprised to learn that
there is an aue website. Who pays the annual fee for the domain name?
Peter T. Daniels
There are not two different lexical items, and even if there were, the
spelling would not distinguish between them. There is a single lexical
item, which a minority do not use as a negative polarity item, and
such uses puzzle those who can only use it as a negative polarity
item.
See the M-W usage note s.v.
tony cooper
The Committee.
the Omrud
I thought it was the Cabal.
--
David
tony cooper
I dunno. I'm not in that echelon. I have applied for camarilla
status, though. I like the idea of giving advice but not being held
responsible for the effect of the advice. I used Dick Cheney as a
reference.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
Thank you for the offer, James, but I had bad luck after revealing my
email address in an open forum. For years I received spam from every
Tom, Dick and Harry.
Chuck Riggs
Since Donna posts references to the AUE FAQ on a regular basis,
perhaps you only read those AUE posts that are cross-posted to
sci.lang. That could explain it.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
James's email address is in each of his postings (remove OUT). If you
wish you could send him an email. There is no need to reveal your
address in these newsgroups.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Chuck Riggs
There may be something haywire with my Agent newsreader setup, for I
can't find his email address.
Peter Moylan
Question: has there ever been a thread crossposted between sci.lang and
alt.usage.english where the cross-posting has not been initiated by
Peter Daniels? Enquiring minds are squirming with anticipation.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter T. Daniels
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:28:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> I know what AUE means, and I know what FAQ means. I had no reason to
> >> believe that there is an AUE FAQ. I am equally surprised to learn that
> >> there is an aue website. Who pays the annual fee for the domain name?
>
> > Since Donna posts references to the AUE FAQ on a regular basis,
> > perhaps you only read those AUE posts that are cross-posted to
> > sci.lang. That could explain it.
Duh.
> Question: has there ever been a thread crossposted between sci.lang and
> alt.usage.english where the cross-posting has not been initiated by
> Peter Daniels? Enquiring minds are squirming with anticipation.
In the 15 or so years I have been reading sci.lang, I believe I have
initiated two or three crossposts to aue, in each case regarding an
odd-seeming British usage, because there is not a sizable sample of
BrE speakers at sci.lang.
John Varela
wrote:
> Question: has there ever been a thread crossposted between sci.lang and
> alt.usage.english where the cross-posting has not been initiated by
> Peter Daniels? Enquiring minds are squirming with anticipation.
This particular thread has been crossposted to aeu, aue, and sl from
the outset.
Skitt
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Question: has there ever been a thread crossposted between sci.lang
>> and alt.usage.english where the cross-posting has not been initiated
>> by Peter Daniels? Enquiring minds are squirming with anticipation.
>
> This particular thread has been crossposted to aeu, aue, and sl from
> the outset.
Yeah, but a poster named "chance" was the initiator.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
Peter T. Daniels
> John Varela wrote:
> > Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> Question: has there ever been a thread crossposted between sci.lang
> >> and alt.usage.english where the cross-posting has not been initiated
> >> by Peter Daniels? Enquiring minds are squirming with anticipation.
>
> > This particular thread has been crossposted to aeu, aue, and sl from
> > the outset.
>
> Yeah, but a poster named "chance" was the initiator.
"chance" appears to be a Korean-speaker, who over the last few weeks
has initiated three fairly inane threads in sci.lang about points of
English grammar and then essentially disappeared from the discussion.
If the other two were crossposted, they attracted no attention from
aue.
Frank ess
Skitt wrote:
> John Varela wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>> Question: has there ever been a thread crossposted between
>>> sci.lang and alt.usage.english where the cross-posting has not
>>> been initiated by Peter Daniels? Enquiring minds are squirming
>>> with anticipation.
>>
>> This particular thread has been crossposted to aeu, aue, and sl
>> from the outset.
>
> Yeah, but a poster named "chance" was the initiator.
S/he likes to watch.
--
Frank ess
James Hogg
Doesn't it appear now?
--
James
chance
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:15665fbc-8646-4c62...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Good for you being a NSOE.
How can a non-NSOE avoid making 'inane' questions
with regard to English? Isn't it so that questions come from inanity?
If I was a NSOE, I wouldn't make any questions about English grammar.
What is the use of grammar of one's own language?
Grammar is a tool for learning a foreign language, if anything.
It 's the silliest thing for one to discuss one's own language's grammar,
if there was such a thing as grammar. As I recall the days of my junior high school,
which span the period from 1948 to 1951, I scoffed at the Korean grammar,
which had been included in the subjects of the first year of the school.
PaulJK
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:10:45 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:41:26 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:15:05 +0100, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
Don't you see it in the line between two long rows of asterisks?
James Hogg
It's pretty visible to me.
--
James
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:15665fbc-8646-4c62...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
I don/'t know what a NSOE is, but if you were seriously interested in
the questions you ask, you would participate in the discussions,
respond to the questions asked of you, etc.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I don/'t know what a NSOE is,
NSOE: Native Speaker Of English
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
It does not.
Chuck Riggs
Now I see it. I was looking in the wrong place.
James Hogg
You have mail.
Best wishes
--
James
PaulJK
Good.
:-) But next time don't look for the asterisks :-)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Was it AOL that announced that to users, in the early days of
messaging? Anyway, I responded. Thanks again.