Originally posted by paceaj: Naomi, This Website might provide an answer. Read down about half way. Ann
As an aside
Not all Australian or Leichhardt (Little Italy) restaurants make the mistake of putting seafood (frutti di mare) in mariners' pasta/pizza; though most do. Probably marinara is the one word they think they recognise, whereas very few know the meaning of puttanesca, boscaiola, cacciatore, or carbonara.
We use the French meaning for entree; but I have also learn't the salad is a course before the main course, when I expect to eat it with the main course.
John "There are two types of problems: those that solve themselves, and those which you can do nothing about" Isabel Allende's grandmother
Posts: 1710 | Location: Mullumbimby, NSW, Australia | Registered: 26 March 2003
John, running round in the back of my mind is a metaphor for sending someone off on an impossible mission - involving a rolling (and it must be an American-style one) doughnut...
Here's another curiosity. I've noticed some US posters on a certain other message board occasionally asking "How is.." of a place. This sounds very odd to me. You'd say it of a person, of course, if you were asking after their health or what was going on in their life; but not of a place. Any thoughts?
Well, I don't know about the UK, but here people will anthropomorphise almost anything without even noticing, it seems to me — anything from a car to a city to a sandwich — so maybe it's an extension of that.
But let's try a concrete example. If we wanted to know about the weather in Houston at a certain time of year, we'd probably ask: "How's Houston at this time of year?"
How would you phrase it?
Qualification 1: We might also say, "What's the weather like in Houston..." Qualification 2: "How's Houston at this time of year?" could refer to characteristics other than weather, obviously, depending on the context.
I've just come across this website (WordReference.com Language Forums) that I thought might be of interest to those of you who read this thread. (Couldn't get the link to work, sorry.) It apparently has several language-specific forums.
I found it when I searched for the word "reckon." Here's why: It occurred to me that there are a number of words which are still in common use in BE but which are generally considered colloquial in AE and not used much outside of the American South. "Reckon" is one, but I think it may be used somewhat differently in Southern speech than in the UK. Around these parts, people who use it are generally expressing some degree of uncertainty as in, "I reckon I might do that" (but I'm not sure). How is it used in the UK?
Another word in this category is "yonder," as in, "He lives over yonder." (Yes, I do know some fine mountain born-and-bred folks who talk that way.) What about in the UK? How commonly is it used and in what sense?
"I reckon" is not unknown in the UK, but it sounds increasingly old-fashioned. I don't think it's used on its own as a simple agreement with what someone else says (which is what vaguely recall straw-chewing sages saying in American films), but it certainly used to be used as "I think.." or if used in the third person it can often imply "He thinks that.... (the fool)".
"Yonder" is definitely archaic in the UK now: if used at all since Thomas Hardy, it's meant rather archly.
Well, John and Patrick, you've reinforced the understanding that I've had for quite a while, namely, that in many parts of the rural US South, perhaps particularly in the Appalachian region, words or expressions are still widely used that would be considered archaic, not only in the rest of the US, but in other areas of the English-speaking world as well. (Now I wouldn't put Greensboro in that category today, John. Particularly since we left there in 1984, it's become, along with most of the Triad, rather yuppified.)
Now, how about this one: "hit" for "it," especially at the beginning of a sentence, as, "Hit's a long time since I've been there." Many people in this area still use this form. Is it at all prevalent in the UK or Australia any more?
Patrick, you'll just have to come visit us here in the NC mountains so we can take you to visit some of our friends whose families have been living here for generations and listen to their speech (and hear their tales as well).
Incidentally, while trying to find more information on these expressions, I found a very good, if lengthy, article online by a linguist at the U of So Carolina who has tried to find, more rigorously than others in the past, the actual origins of some of these Appalachian expressions. If you're interested, I can send you the link via e-mail.
I searched and found what I was looking for. Here is a free audio recording of our late friend, Ray Hicks, the premier traditional Appalachian storyteller at the time of his death four years ago. Go about one minute into the recording to hear Ray. Now, some of his speech is idiosyncratic, but a good deal of it reflects the kind of speech patterns I've been talking about. Hope you enjoy it.
The "not quite glottal stop" at the end of words like "heat", and vowel sounds like "paypul" for people is very like the kind of accent you'll hear in East Anglia, but you can also hear something similar in some sorts of Devon accent.
Many writers have commented on the glottal stop in the speech of Ray Hicks and some of his kin and neighbors, but it is not typical of everyone born here. It's a local puzzle. The article I referenced above is a rather lengthy attempt to identify the origins of several characteristics of Southern Appalachian speech, and it contains a useful chart toward the end. I hope this topic isn't becoming too academic for this thread.
The plural of die - the six-sided cube with dots on it - is dice. At least, that's the way it is in the US. Using 'dice' as a singular - as in, 'roll one dice' - isn't technically correct.
Someone told me that 'dice' is always acceptable as a singular in Britain. Is this correct?
I suspect so few people use them, and so few of the people who do use them have any particular interest in semantics or grammar, that nobody really knows what's "correct" - so to the people concerned, it probably is entirely acceptable.
Cf "data" (or "bacteria" - that's another one that's lost now, sadly, I suspect).
I have always suspected that "reckon" came from "rendre compte". But one could get so wrong in linguistic sleuthing. As Nabokov pointed out: "mist" has nothing to do with "mistake", and one of his characters thought everything was just honky-donkey. Best, N
Oops. I was in the bath and thought: Eureka, I got it... wrong! Of course "reckon" should be from "rechnen", and not "rendre compte". But Honky-Donkey still stands. Best, N
I found this interesting discussion on the web. It's by Kenneth Wilson, author of "The Standard Guide to Standard American Usage":
"Dice is the plural, die is one singular, and dice is also a Standard singular form. A pair of dice usually takes a singular verb. We keep the singular die primarily in the cliché “The die is cast,” and in tool and die (the plural of which is dies) work. The verb dice means “to play gambling games with dice,” and it also has a figurative use meaning “to cut up (vegetables) into small cubes shaped like dice.” Those cubes are sometimes referred to by a curious noun plural, limited mainly to cookbooks: dices (Dice the carrots, and simmer the dices in a cup of stock)."
I thought the cooking comment was particularly amusing.
And from Patrick (quotes don't seem to work in the middle of a post-???): "Cf 'data' (or 'bacteria' - that's another one that's lost now, sadly, I suspect)."
"Bacterium" may indeed be lost, but I'm not willing to give up on "datum." I suspect most people (not knowing Latin) don't realize that "data" is plural. I think, grammar crank that I am, have even corrected someone recently on the misuse of "data" in the singular. This may be because I have actually done formal statistical research. Also, the sense of "data" is usually plural. It's hard for me to think of a case where "datum" would occur normally, as in reference to a particular piece of information.
Patrick,
Do you think we're among the few remaining purists on these matters? I cringed today when I heard someone interviewed on TV say, "...about he and I." (Help!!!)
Of course "reckon" should be from "rechnen", and not "rendre compte".
Well, yes, sort of, though really not "from," but closely related. This is from the online OED: " - ORIGIN (of verb "reckon")= Old English, recount, relate, later give an account of items received." The OED, though, gives the first meaning of the verb as "calculate."
(I can't help looking up these things; can't break old habits.)
Can't see anything wrong with "8 people" - "persons" has largely disappeared, except possibly in legalese.
"Datum": I know it's used as meaning something like the base point for measurements, rather than an item of information (I wouldn't be surprised if the specialism that uses the former meaning objects to the latter!).
Oh, and Ann, I'm beginning to think "me" is on its way out, at least in combination. Somehow people seem to have got the idea that "X and me" is wrong, because (I assume) they were sharply pulled up for saying "Me and X" (especially as the subject of a sentence) and somehow the opprobrium was transferred.
I think you're right about the disappearance of "me" correctly used, although I've heard a number of people make both mistakes. That is, they make the older error of using "me" as the subject and the newer one of making "I" the object, at least when used with another pronoun. I'm just nasty enough to be waiting eagerly to correct someone in person or for me to use the objective "me" correctly and have someone try to censor me for doing so. Instead, my husband and I resort to correcting people on TV (aloud) and do the same with "less" and "fewer." (Hmm! I think we've discussed this before.)
I just had an uncomfortable thought. What if making these corrections out loud has become such a habit that we will actually do it to a real live person?
Here's another singular/plural issue that's becoming more common: using "a phenomena" (rather than "phenomenon") in complete ignorance of the fact that it's a plural form.
Sounds like we're getting off the topic of US vs. UK English, but as long as we are, I just recently had to remind an author/psychologist that his patient doesn't "feel badly" any more than his patient feels happily or sadly...
Though, to be fair, it's possible his patient was suffering from severe frost bite. It's very cold here.
Do you think we're among the few remaining purists on these matters? I cringed today when I heard someone interviewed on TV say, "...about he and I." (Help!!!)
Ann
I'm with you. It hadn't occurred to me that "bacterium" had gone out of use. I still use it.
Some years ago one of my managers smiled when he read my "The data show .." and realised the grammar was correct. (I have been a statistical analyst in a previous career)
About "he and I". It was drummed into us at school that we should not say "Jim and me are going ..." and should say "Jim and I are going", so that many think you should never say "Jim and me". They did not learn the distinction between subject and object in a sentence.
John "There are two types of problems: those that solve themselves, and those which you can do nothing about" Isabel Allende's grandmother
Posts: 1710 | Location: Mullumbimby, NSW, Australia | Registered: 26 March 2003
Oooohhh...one of my pet peeves! People seem to want to use "I", thinking that it's ALWAYS correct!
The rule I was taught was to leave out the other person's name and see if it still works. i.e., "Pauline and I went shopping", works because "I went shopping" is correct.
If, OTOH, I said "They sent a car for Pauline and I", that's NOT correct because "They sent a car for ME" is correct.
Maybe someone can tell me if this rule always applies....
Originally posted by Naomi B.: Sounds like we're getting off the topic of US vs. UK English, but as long as we are, I just recently had to remind an author/psychologist that his patient doesn't "feel badly" any more than his patient feels happily or sadly... cold here.
Touché. Last time I was back in the States, the customs officer asked everyone, "how are you?" Most answered: "I'm good." I thought: "according to whom?"
Back to the topic of UK vs US English. I was partly brought in the US and was most surprised the first time a Brit asked me if he could knock me up the next day at 5. I nearly asked: why wait?
Originally posted by Americana in Parigi: Last time I was back in the States, the customs officer asked everyone, "how are you?" Most answered: "I'm good." I thought: "according to whom?"
Back when he was yong and frisky, Art would answer, "I'm good....or so they tel me" with a smile and a wink! Altho he IS still good (at least according to me!), he's not quite as cocky with his answer anymore!
Now here's a curiosity (for me, at least). In last night's episode of Desperate Housewives, Bree made some remark about her creepy new husband "reading the Riot Act" to his ex. I know that the Act in question was well before 1776, but I'd have thought custom and usage (not to mention the relevant laws) would have changed a bit more in the US. Or was it meant to show how snootily out of touch her character is?!
"Reading the riot act" is a common term in the states, not referring to a specific Act, but rather to infer that someone expressed their rage and gave an ultimatum.
That's the usage still in the UK, too, but it really did refer to a law that had to be nominally read out to a crowd before the authorities started to, ahem, disperse them. Seemed a bit odd that it should still be hanging around over there too.
I had already done the search and unrearthed the reference you found amongst others.
It may all be in the reading but I deduced from the various articles that although many people have used infer in the sense 'to imply' it isn't a correct meaning of infer. Of course this does call into question 'who defines corect ?'.
