English related doubts

[Nikhar]

Hey all...

I'm not a native English speaker and on litnet, I often come across phrases or expressions, which I don't quite get. So, I thought maybe, I'd just start a thread where I'll post all my doubts. And I'd be really thankful if any of you guys could help me with it.

Well, if you think that maybe I should google, believe me, I'll post my doubts here only after doing that and if I'm still unable to find the answer.
And also, maybe this could help all the other people out there like me.

[Nikhar]

So maybe I'll start with the doubts already.

I came across this expression, who is on the fence and who is in the closet. What does that mean?

As far as I could decipher, it meant 'homosexual or heterosexual?'. Is that correct?

And Byronic twists..what's that?

Btw, both these expressions have come from one of soundofmusic's posts. :p

[OrphanPip]

On the fence is bisexual, and in the closet is homosexual.

Edit2: I think in the context of Sound's post, she meant who couldn't decide what their gender was and who was hiding their gender haha.

Byronic twists, are twist that are of a Byronic character, as in similar to twist found in Lord Byron's poetry. A more common term is the Byronic hero, who is like an anti-hero.

Edit: On the fence in general can be used to describe anyone who is caught between two choices.

[Nikhar]

On the fence is bisexual, and in the closet is homosexual.

Byronic twists, are twist that are of a Byronic character, as in similar to twist found in Lord Byron's poetry. A more common term is the Byronic hero, who is like an anti-hero.

Edit: On the fence in general can be used to describe anyone who is caught between two choices.

Thanks Orphanpip

So I was partly correct about it. I was slightly confused because I was more familiar with the second meaning of 'on the fence' that you provided.

Haven't read any of his poems..so I wonder if I'll ever understand it. :p

[Maximilianus]

I find this thread quite interesting. I thought I knew it all about fences and closets, and now I've been proved wrong :p Ah, the amazing twists of language. What a wonderful thing is to learn something new everyday. Thank you all for the illumination :thumbsup:

[Nikhar]

Today, I'd like to cover some of the other more expressive expressions..

When do people use 'Tch, tch!'?
And when does one roll the eye. (I'm sure Max told me once about it but I forgot http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/66.gif and I couldn't find a satisfying answer on google either.)

[Themis]

"Tch" - It's used to express irritation, annoyance, or impatience. At least, that's what my dictionary says. I would add disapproval to the list.

[Nikhar]

Thanks Themis. :)

And when would you 'roll your eyes'?

I really wonder how can people do that...must hurt a lot :p

[OrphanPip]

You roll your eyes at someone to show contempt, frustration, distaste, incredulity, or any other kind of feeling of animosity towards what someone is saying to you.

It is an actual gesture too, usually associated with teenagers.

[Madhuri]

Today, I'd like to cover some of the other more expressive expressions..

When do people use 'Tch, tch!'?
And when does one roll the eye. (I'm sure Max told me once about it but I forgot http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/66.gif and I couldn't find a satisfying answer on google either.)

It is like saying....tch, tch yeh kya ho gaya.

for rolleyes.... mujhe koi farq nahi padta woh jo bhi kahe (and then you roll eyes in the end)...

I think you can relate the two now?

[billl]

By the way, "in the closet" refers to homosexuals who have not "outed" themselves (that is, they have kept their homosexuality a secret). A person who is "openly" gay is not "in the closet."


And rolling the eyes looks like this:
:rolleyes5: or :rolleyes:

[applepie]

You roll your eyes at someone to show contempt, frustration, distaste, incredulity, or any other kind of feeling of animosity towards what someone is saying to you.

It is an actual gesture too, usually associated with teenagers.

:D I should be really embarrassed now. I still roll my eyes at people, especially my husband when he is saying something irritating or bigoted or just plain stupid. He hates it, so there you go :lol: the habit just sort of stuck as my little form of payback.

Nik - it doesn't really hurt to roll your eyes unless you do it a lot. I get a headache when my husband is being especially trying that day ;)

[Paulclem]

:D I should be really embarrassed now. I still roll my eyes at people, especially my husband when he is saying something irritating or bigoted or just plain stupid. He hates it, so there you go :lol: the habit just sort of stuck as my little form of payback.

Nik - it doesn't really hurt to roll your eyes unless you do it a lot. I get a headache when my husband is being especially trying that day ;)

My wife and my daughter do that to me. My son just looks on incredulously. Sometimes he shakes his head as well. :D

[Nikhar]

Thanks orphanpip, madhuri, bill, mkhockenberry. Now, I surely do know what it means. And I don't know why, but I was thinking of rolling the eyes as rolling the 'eyelids'...and so I asked, 'doesn't it hurt?' lol :p


Maybe I should have written some sentence and rolled my eyes to make this a perfect post. :p

PS:- Madhuri, that Hindi translation did make it much easier. ;)

[Nikhar]

I wonder if this would be classified as an english related doubt, but anyways,

What's that part of the revolver called that can be rolled? I don't know much about revolvers but I guess its the same place where you put the 6 bullets.

And what does the idiom 'pay the piper' mean?

[MarkBastable]

And what does the idiom 'pay the piper' mean?

He who pays the piper calls the tune...

It means that the person who is investing most (actually or metaphorically) in any endeavour has the right to dictate how that endeavour will be conducted.

[Madame X]

He who pays the piper calls the tune...

It means that the person who is investing most (actually or metaphorically) in any endeavour has the right to dictate how that endeavour will be conducted.

Really? Man, and here I thought it was a euphemism for “to die”, or something along those lines. :blush:

But perhaps someone could shed some light on my own tiny conundrum regarding the auxiliary ‘may’; namely, is ‘may’ really in common usage anymore? As in, “May I go to the bathroom”, as opposed to “Can I…”? Or, “You may be right” vs. “You might be right”? Etc. I tend to see it used extensively in, say, 19th century English texts (You fight against that devil for love as long as you may; when the time comes, not all the angels in heaven shall save him! – Wuthering Heights), but not so much beyond that except in fixed circumstances, ‘may god help us’, and so on, and I’m wondering whether it has, by now, adopted a rather hyper-correct feel to it that natives are quite happy to avoid. Any thoughts?

[Nikhar]

He who pays the piper calls the tune...

It means that the person who is investing most (actually or metaphorically) in any endeavour has the right to dictate how that endeavour will be conducted.


Thanks Mark. ;)

Before putting this query here, I googled this phrase and got some really weird meanings. I wasnt sure, so I asked here. And as usual, I got a prompt reply.

Thanks again. :)

Litnet rocks.

[kiki1982]

But perhaps someone could shed some light on my own tiny conundrum regarding the auxiliary ‘may’; namely, is ‘may’ really in common usage anymore? As in, “May I go to the bathroom”, as opposed to “Can I…”? Or, “You may be right” vs. “You might be right”? Etc. I tend to see it used extensively in, say, 19th century English texts (You fight against that devil for love as long as you may; when the time comes, not all the angels in heaven shall save him! – Wuthering Heights), but not so much beyond that except in fixed circumstances, ‘may god help us’, and so on, and I’m wondering whether it has, by now, adopted a rather hyper-correct feel to it that natives are quite happy to avoid. Any thoughts?

My husband's brilliant grammar book is gone with him, but I think there are about three possibilities:

'may' as degree of possibility:

'You may be right' = 'It is possible that you are right, but it is possible you are not.' The chance is about 50/50. In contrast with 'you might be right', which means 'you are probably right'. The chance is more probable that you are right in case the person says 'might'. So 'I may go to the woods tomorrow' is less probable than 'I might go to the woods tomorrow' (= 'I have been thinking about it and I am already looking forward to it. If it doesn't rain, I will definitely go.')

This way is still very much used. It is also present in the adverb 'maybe' (may be).

'may' as modal verb:

Not so often used apart from the above which is also modal. 'May I go to the toilet' is rather asking for permission in a formal way. 'Of course you may'. It is a use related to its meaning like its Germanic counterpart 'mogen' in Dutch or 'mögen' in German, only used that way if used in the above sense. Otherwise the German counterpart means 'to like', but one can say 'es mag sein' (it is possible) after which a 'but' will follow. 'Er mag es getan haben, aber...' (He can have done it, but...)

'may' as subjuntive/conjunctive:

As you said, 'may God help us'. It expresses a wish or unrealistic thing (is not happening now, or might not happen, is unlikely to happen, may not happen). It is the same if I say 'If I were you', I can never be you, but if I were in your place, I'd do this or that. Still it stays unrealistic. Oh, I wish he may fight that devil. This use, as you said, is only used in literary language, and mainly in older books. This use also extends to other modal verbs like might f.i.

Is that enough of a light? ;)

[OrphanPip]

If you ask someone "Can I go to the bathroom?" you're asking them if you have the ability to physically go to the bathroom, although it is common amongst native English speakers to use this in the context of asking permission, even if it is incorrect. I'd say "may" has this perception of being archaic and tends to be used interchangeably with "can" even if it isn't the correct usage.

[Nikhar]

I have a confusion as to how the following dialogue would be read, 'GET - OUT - OF -HERE!'

How does the presence of hyphen affect the way in which the dialogue is spoken?
Does it imply that the dialogue is to be spoken in a hurried manner? Or it has to be spoken in such a manner so that there is a profound pause after pronunciation of each and every word? Or is it spoken in some other manner?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have a confusion as to how the following dialogue would be read, 'GET - OUT - OF -HERE!'

How does the presence of hyphen affect the way in which the dialogue is spoken?
Does it imply that the dialogue is to be spoken in a hurried manner? Or it has to be spoken in such a manner so that there is a profound pause after pronunciation of each and every word? Or is it spoken in some other manner?

Spoken (or shouted) as to show a profound pause, emphasising every word.

Oh, and I think the place you put your bullets into a revolver is called a barrel or chamber.

[OrphanPip]

The spinny thing is called the cylinder, the places in the cylinder where you put the bullets are chambers, and the barrel is the part where the bullets come out.

Edit: I had to look up what the cylinder is called.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The spinny thing is called the cylinder, the places in the cylinder where you put the bullets are chambers, and the barrel is the part where the bullets come out.

Edit: I had to look up what the cylinder is called.

Ha, ha I'm not good with guns, I was nearly there! :biggrin5:

[Nikhar]

Spoken (or shouted) as to show a profound pause, emphasising every word.

Oh, and I think the place you put your bullets into a revolver is called a barrel or chamber.


Oh..k...thanks. ;)

Btw, would 'GET - OUT- OF - HERE!' be different from 'GET.OUT.OF.HERE.'
Is second form in frequent use?

And even I thought that it was the barrel. But google repudiated the belief. I googled a bit more thoroughly and found the following two images

http://www.basctx.com/images/Parts%20of%20Revolver.jpg
http://www.pyramidairsoft.com/manuals/uhc-spring-revolvers/images/uhc-tsd-revolvers-parts.jpg

Edit:- Oops, seems I am late. Thanks orphanpip. ;)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh..k...thanks. ;)

Btw, would 'GET - OUT- OF - HERE!' be different from 'GET.OUT.OF.HERE.'
Is second form in frequent use?


I don't think that you can get away with the second example using the fullstops because it is too broken and unnatural sounding (and to be fair ungrammatical). Maybe "GET.OUT.OF.HERE" would work if the speaker was a robot, but it is much more natural to go by the more fluid first example with the dashes.

Yes you would end up talking a bit like this if you used the fullstops in that example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbrxXr_lBds

[Wilde woman]

It is the same if I say 'If I were you', I can never be you, but if I were in your place, I'd do this or that. Still it stays unrealistic.

Off topic, but I've always wondered about this. English changes the subject-verb agreement when we use subjunctives. As you said, "If I were you" (instead of the singular "was"). Do other languages do this? (I know in Italian you just change the verb conjugation to indicate subjunctive.) Or is it just one way of marking the subjunctive?

[OrphanPip]

My husband's brilliant grammar book is gone with him, but I think there are about three possibilities:

'may' as degree of possibility:

'You may be right' = 'It is possible that you are right, but it is possible you are not.' The chance is about 50/50. In contrast with 'you might be right', which means 'you are probably right'. The chance is more probable that you are right in case the person says 'might'. So 'I may go to the woods tomorrow' is less probable than 'I might go to the woods tomorrow' (= 'I have been thinking about it and I am already looking forward to it. If it doesn't rain, I will definitely go.')


Might is the past tense of may, so you would use it in the event that you say something like "I asked him if I might go to the bathroom" or "He might have been right." Although, much like the use of "may" with "can" native English speakers ignore this and use might and may interchangeably with no difference in meaning.

That's my impression of it.

[L.M. The Third]

Thanks for the above post, Pip. Just today I was wondering about 'may' and 'might'.

[Nikhar]

I don't think that you can get away with the second example using the fullstops because it is too broken and unnatural sounding (and to be fair ungrammatical). Maybe "GET.OUT.OF.HERE" would work if the speaker was a robot, but it is much more natural to go by the more fluid first example with the dashes.

Yes you would end up talking a bit like this if you used the fullstops in that example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbrxXr_lBds


Thanks. I get it now. ;)

--------------------------------------


What does it exactly mean when one says, 'hear, hear!'? I mean I have seen it in a few novels where a person is saying something, another person butts in and says 'Hear, hear!'

[kiki1982]

Off topic, but I've always wondered about this. English changes the subject-verb agreement when we use subjunctives. As you said, "If I were you" (instead of the singular "was"). Do other languages do this? (I know in Italian you just change the verb conjugation to indicate subjunctive.) Or is it just one way of marking the subjunctive?

For anything that is remotely possible not to occur.

French ;).

être - soi(+ending)
avoir - aie (pronounced é)
finire - finisse
...

But this is only for the limited amount of irregular verbs.

Je n'en suis pas süre qu'il finisse son travail aujourd'hui. I am not sure whether he (will) finish his work today.
Je veux que tu finisse ton travail. I want you to finish your work.
Je souhaite qu'il aille. I wish him to go.

I hope this is right, as my knowledge of that mainly extends to passive use, reading it in books... :o

But then OrphanPip will help out...

Spanish as well, but I am not sure whether they actually change the form as such.

German. The one where it doesn't sound as if you come from another era. Even quoting people, you have to use it. English still has limited use of it, but doesn't overdo it like we can see in earlier books.

[Madame X]

Is that enough of a light? ;)

Und es wurde Licht! :biggrin5:


'may' as degree of possibility:

'You may be right' = 'It is possible that you are right, but it is possible you are not.' The chance is about 50/50. In contrast with 'you might be right', which means 'you are probably right'. The chance is more probable that you are right in case the person says 'might'. So 'I may go to the woods tomorrow' is less probable than 'I might go to the woods tomorrow' (= 'I have been thinking about it and I am already looking forward to it. If it doesn't rain, I will definitely go.')

Makes sense. Though it seems to me, and thanks to OrphanPip for confirming as much, that the initial distinction between ‘may’ and ‘might’ in this sense is following the same route as ‘lay’ and ‘lie’ (i.e., rapidly fading), if not growing more in favour of ‘might’.


'may' as modal verb:

Not so often used apart from the above which is also modal. 'May I go to the toilet' is rather asking for permission in a formal way. 'Of course you may'. It is a use related to its meaning like its Germanic counterpart 'mogen' in Dutch or 'mögen' in German, only used that way if used in the above sense. Otherwise the German counterpart means 'to like', but one can say 'es mag sein' (it is possible) after which a 'but' will follow. 'Er mag es getan haben, aber...' (He can have done it, but...)

That’s my feeling as well. Although here the Dutch ‘mogen’ doesn’t necessarily carry that same degree of formality as the English ‘may’, which, for that reason, seems more often replaced with ‘can’...although, come to think of it, the same semantic confusion often occurs with the Dutch ‘kunnen’ and ‘mogen’, too; kan ik u helpen & mag ik u helpen, enz. :idea:


Spanish as well, but I am not sure whether they actually change the form as such.

Spanish, too. That is, the verb form changes but remains, numerically, in agreement with the subject.

Cuando yo era niño... When I was a kid… (imperfect indicative)
Si yo fuera un chico... If I were a boy… (imperfect subjunctive)

And, like English, the subjunctive is all but dead in Dutch, although still preserved in a few fixed expressions: als het ware – as it were. Such a pity. :frown2:

[kiki1982]

That’s my feeling as well. Although here the Dutch ‘mogen’ doesn’t necessarily carry that same degree of formality as the English ‘may’, which, for that reason, seems more often replaced with ‘can’...although, come to think of it, the same semantic confusion often occurs with the Dutch ‘kunnen’ and ‘mogen’, too; kan ik u helpen & mag ik u helpen, enz. :idea:

You are right in the degree of formality. It is not so much used in English anymore as in Dutch.

However, I was referring to the modal idea beyond 'mogen' in Dutch. 'Hij mag haar vermoord hebben, maar...' 'He may have killed her, but...' It is not meant here that I have given persission (like in te case with 'Mag ik u helpen?'), but it is implied that I agree that he has killed her (the body is there no doubt, so there is no dgree of impossibility either), however, I have an argument as to extenuating circumstances. In this sense it can be used with another tense than simple present. If I give permission, I will never use the present perfect or anything perfect with it, as permission is a general truth. 'Hij mag zijn huiswerk (dan) gemaakt hebben' (He may have done his homework'. I can never give permission that way. I can though with 'Hij mag zijn huiswerk maken' 'He may do his homework', but lik OrphanPip said, people now would prefer 'He is allowed to d his homework', or just, 'he can do his homework'.


Spanish, too. That is, the verb form changes but remains, numerically, in agreement with the subject.

Cuando yo era niño... When I was a kid… (imperfect indicative)
Si yo fuera un chico... If I were a boy… (imperfect subjunctive)

And, like English, the subjunctive is all but dead in Dutch, although still preserved in a few fixed expressions: als het ware – as it were. Such a pity. :frown2:

True. Totally dead. Marcellus Emants sounds so great! 'Men neme een pond boter...' ah, the good old days...

[TheFifthElement]

What does it exactly mean when one says, 'hear, hear!'? I mean I have seen it in a few novels where a person is saying something, another person butts in and says 'Hear, hear!'
It's said to indicate agreement, that the listener agrees with what the speaker is saying. It originated in, and is still used today, to show assent to a point raised in the House of Commons (UK).

[kiki1982]

Yes. It would have originated as a kind of expression like 'harken to what is being said' or something. Someone told me in a private message here (can't remember who).

I believe it is also used in the Australian parliament, or at least in the 19th century.

[OrphanPip]

For anything that is remotely possible not to occur.

French ;).

être - soi(+ending)
avoir - aie (pronounced é)
finire - finisse
...

But this is only for the limited amount of irregular verbs.

Je n'en suis pas süre qu'il finisse son travail aujourd'hui. I am not sure whether he (will) finish his work today.
Je veux que tu finisse ton travail. I want you to finish your work.
Je souhaite qu'il aille. I wish him to go.

I hope this is right, as my knowledge of that mainly extends to passive use, reading it in books... :o

But then OrphanPip will help out...


Grammar is never a strong point for me, but ya you use one of the subjunctive verb tenses for moments of uncertainty.

Apparently the one exception to this is espérer, where they no longer follow that with the subjunctive in France, but they still do here in Quebec :frown2:

Yet another reason why French frustrates me to no end.

[Nikhar]

It's said to indicate agreement, that the listener agrees with what the speaker is saying. It originated in, and is still used today, to show assent to a point raised in the House of Commons (UK).


Ah... I see. Thanks. ;)

This is turning out to be my favourite thread. I am getting to learn to so much. :)

And it's a bit frustrating to not know what subjunctive means.

[kiki1982]

Oh, sorry about the subjunctive. Force of linguistic habit. :D

This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive) provides you with the info you need.

But, you are right, it is a very interesting thread! Also one of my favourites. :)

[Madame X]

Here's a new challenge: I presume he's speaking English but I'm curious to know if can anyone actually understand this man...

-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skCEN7Mh7Qc&feature=related

(Thanks to De Wereld Draait Door for that one :biggrin5:)

[kiki1982]

He's from the north, Yorkshire, I think.

He's saying: 'No, they haven't, John. No they went, er, Geoff, John, Steve, whatever your (?) name is. Yeah, they went behind, Geoff... [can't understand what he's babbling there]. It's outrageous, can you think he... Go on, he goes on young Howard, you think he... Go on, just hop [?] in with a foot and he drags it back and he sends [player] for a pie [?]. Howard stands up and he tries to place it and he [?] in the chest, goes back out. Stil 0-0.

Or that is at least what I got out of it. It pretty much did not make sense what he was saying, not even in English. Very hard to understand. :willy_nilly::incazzato:

[OrphanPip]

He's from the north, Yorkshire, I think.

He's saying: 'No, they haven't, John. No they went, er, Geoff, John, Steve, whatever your (?) name is. Yeah, they went behind, Geoff... [can't understand what he's babbling there]. It's outrageous, can you think he... Go on, he goes on young Howard, you think he... Go on, just hop [?] in with a foot and he drags it back and he sends [player] for a pie [?]. Howard stands up and he tries to place it and he [?] in the chest, goes back out. Stil 0-0.

Or that is at least what I got out of it. It pretty much did not make sense what he was saying, not even in English. Very hard to understand. :willy_nilly::incazzato:

I don't think anyone could decipher much sense out of that, except that the score is nil-nil.

[kiki1982]

:lol: In former days I would have asked my husband whether it was bloody English the man was speaking.

You see, the strange thing is that in Belgium, the Dutch part, they subtitle anything that has a little bit of an accent. In England, people like that just come on the TV and say what they need to, even in their ghastly, northern accent like his one, and can say the greatest crap without being reproached for it. I find that wonderful. At least it means that there is no ban on accent at all like there is on Flemish TV.

In the old days I still watched Eastenders (cockney) on the BBC for two whole weeks without understanding one word. Phil was beating his wife up, but I couldn't understand for the life of me what was being said. After two weeks, something started to filter through and now I could even do it myself :). I was fortunate, because otherwise I wouldn't have understood any of my in-laws :lol:. Imagine that? 'But we are speaking English, aren't we?' :lol:

[TheFifthElement]

You see, the strange thing is that in Belgium, the Dutch part, they subtitle anything that has a little bit of an accent. In England, people like that just come on the TV and say what they need to, even in their ghastly, northern accent like his one,:
Ghastly northern accent?!

[hillwalker]

Most of us in the UK have a natural ability to decode our regional accents - whether Scots, Welsh, Geordie (North East) or Yorkshire (which is being spoken here by Dean Windass, speaking to Jeff Snelling).
If I may give you the full transcript..... plus translation.....

"No they haven't John - they nearly went behind, Jeff, John, Steve, whatever your name is."
[An obvious joke because he forgot Jeff's name for a second]

"Nearly went behind, Jeff. You know, Piquionne, he's out-raced Jagielka, you'd think he'd (Go on!) he'd go round, err, Howard and you'd think (Go on and tap it in with your left foot!), and he drags it back with his left foot and he sends Jagielka for a pie"
[One footballer, Piquionne, sends the other, Jagielka, on a fool's errand - and he is now left with only the goal-keeper, Howard, to beat].

"Howard stands up and he tries to place it and it hits Howard in his chest, comes back out. Still 0-0, Jack."
[The striker Piquionne takes too long, the goal-keeper is able to spread his body and make a save. And again, he says the name Jack at the end as an added touch of humour.]

Sub-titles? Heaven forbid. This is the wonder of our regional accents, we all talk rubbish and understand each other perfectly.

H

[LitNetIsGreat]

:lol: I wondered how long this thread would take to begin to slag off our Yorkshire accent. :hand: I'll tell me mother...

Check out these clips, quite funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfR-6NKCsxU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjJFv1NDBg&feature=related

[kiki1982]

Sorry, didn't mean to be nasty. I actually like the way they talk :), but this version was very very very deep northern, I think.

Thanks for the translation, Hillwalker, though I think it was a rugby match (there were two poles in the background). I can be mistaken, though. However, it probably helps if you listen to more of it, and more of the same kind, because they tend to use the same phrases. It's like horse racing commentry :eek:.

But I like it too that there are no subtitles, it kind of forces you to understand and there is a lot of colour in it. TV is not so bland as in French, f.e., where they just talk 'pro'er li'e'.

:lol:

'It is another reminder that change is not good'

:lol:

I can agree with that :D :goof:

[LitNetIsGreat]

Sorry, didn't mean to be nasty. I actually like the way they talk :), but this version was very very very deep northern, I think.



Ha, ha, at it again, "they" as in "Northern monkeys". Go on admit it, that was the term you was about to use, I know it I can tell.:lol:

No, it was definitely football, he is Dean Windass and he used to play for Sheffield United, Hull and Bradford.

Here is the most noble philosopher in action again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3bdqaDFFyE

:biggrin5:

The real scary thing is that his accent is quite strong, but not as strong as you think. :eek6:

Naturally I don't speak like that, I am much more refined of course, seriously I don't really belong here amongst these scary ruffians...

[hillwalker]

kiki -

Take it from one who knows, it was definitely football (soccer to our American friends) - the Premiership (Everton v Portsmouth), not that you probably care that much I imagine.

The posts you saw were the supporting beams for the stadium roof.
But at least you brought a smile to my face.

And the commentator in question is himself an ex-footballer, who have a habit of speaking in code.

Best wishes to you tho'.....

[kiki1982]

Ok, ok, I should have known that someone who knows names cannot be wrong... :rolleyes: I indeed do not care much, as I am a woman... My hubby cares, but his interest stops at LIverpool and Man U...

Yeah, talking in code... I know that, of the cycling, being a Belgian...

Still, I am a neutral party as I am not English. On comparison, I like that better than cockney. Man, that just sounds awful, or maybe it is because I watched Eastenders and Only Fools and Horses too much in the past and because I have a hm certain image in my head... I guess it's a little the same if your knowledge of Liverpudlian extends to The Royle Family... :eek:

I had a great time with Rab C Nesbitt (is it written like that?). I fell asleep during the first episode because it was so tiring to concentrate. I asked my hubby the next day where the h*ll that family was supposed to live. My, God! Second episode was better. Still, imagine them talking in Standard English (you see, I refrained from using the word 'normal' :D)... All the fun is gone.

At least in the UK they keep their dialects and accents. Be happy with that, in other countries, they fade away never to come back. :(

[OrphanPip]

The accent differences between Central Canada and the Northern USA are too subtle, wish there was more dialect difference.

[JuniperWoolf]

The accent differences between Central Canada and the Northern USA are too subtle, wish there was more dialect difference.

I did a student exchange in grade eleven, and we noticed that there's an accent difference between Alberta and Ontario. They speak more harshly, when they say "hammock" it sounds like "haymik." They said that we spoke too slowly, and sounded like we were falling asleep.

Also, they didn't know what a semi-truck was. They called it a "transport vehicle." And, they have skunks over there (whereas we don't), so our students thought that everyone in Ontario was constantly smoking weed.

[hillwalker]

Rab C Nesbitt is broad Glaswegian - vastly different to the more 'refined' Scots of Edinburgh (where they have a classic, old-fashioned vernacular called Doric) or the gentler lilt of the Highlands. I can cope with the latter - but the other often two leave me baffled.

I am a Welshman in exile - and even the Welsh language has two distinct variants; North and South. Amazing to consider in such a tiny country, but the vocabulary is quite different (not to mention the accent as well).
One interesting little quirk - the word 'now' is 'nawr' in South Wales and 'rwan' in the North (complete reversal of letters??? who knows why?).

H

[OrphanPip]

I did a student exchange in grade eleven, and we noticed that there's a accent difference between Alberta and Ontario. They speak more harshly, when they say "hammock" it sounds like "haymik." They said that we spoke too slowly, and sounded like we were falling asleep.

Also, they didn't know what a semi-truck was. They called it a "transport vehicle." And, they have skunks over there (whereas we don't), so our students thought that everyone in Ontario was constantly smoking weed.

There are those pockets with the strong stereotypical accents though. You hear it more up around Sudbury. Out East is a different matter, the Newfies definitely have an accent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8rIbitJAbQ

[JuniperWoolf]

There are those pockets with the strong stereotypical accents though. You hear it more up around Sudbury. Out East is a different matter, the Newfies definitely have an accent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8rIbitJAbQ

:lol: F'ing Newfies, man. I think they were talking about getting drunk, and giving directions to church. How appropriate.

[L.M. The Third]

I did a student exchange in grade eleven, and we noticed that there's an accent difference between Alberta and Ontario. They speak more harshly, when they say "hammock" it sounds like "haymik." They said that we spoke too slowly, and sounded like we were falling asleep.

Also, they didn't know what a semi-truck was. They called it a "transport vehicle." And, they have skunks over there (whereas we don't), so our students thought that everyone in Ontario was constantly smoking weed.

You're from out east, right? So you're saying the Albertan accent is the harsher one. Well, I'm from Alberta and I guess I say 'ha-mick'. But I've never used the term 'transport vehicle.
Oh, now I'm confused by the skunk thing. (blushes)

[JuniperWoolf]

You're from out east, right? So you're saying the Albertan accent is the harsher one. Well, I'm from Alberta and I guess I say 'ha-mick'. But I've never used the term 'transport vehicle.
Oh, now I'm confused by the skunk thing. (blushes)

No, I'm from Alberta. People in Ontario speak harshly, say "transport vehicle" and have skunks.

[OrphanPip]

No, I'm from Alberta. People in Ontario speak harshly, say "transport vehicle" and have skunks.

And some of them live in close proximity to Toronto, ew!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLMkV7VyPns

[JuniperWoolf]

:lol: Somehow, I've never heard that song before. That's wicked... "Nova Scotia's dumb 'cuz it's the name of a bank." Classic.

Most Albertans do hate Calgary (stupid cowboys with their stupid Flames and mountains and pretty city... that tower's not impressive, you know).

[L.M. The Third]

No, I'm from Alberta. People in Ontario speak harshly, say "transport vehicle" and have skunks.

Hi neighbor! I'm glad we're not the ones who speak 'harshly'. We have a few skunks though.

[soundofmusic]

So maybe I'll start with the doubts already.

I came across this expression, who is on the fence and who is in the closet. What does that mean?

As far as I could decipher, it meant 'homosexual or heterosexual?'. Is that correct?

And Byronic twists..what's that?

Btw, both these expressions have come from one of soundofmusic's posts. :p

Did Isay that; I wish my memory was better...today; I don't think I could tell you what a Byronic twist was...

Sometimes, on the fence is refered to in politics: a candidate will keep back his true feelings about a controversial topic until he sees which way the crowd is leaning...

I guess, the difficulty with most slang, is that it is relative to context. I could have been talking of Byrons twisted foot, his twisted sense of humor, his twisted sexual preference for his sister and young greek boys....

[Nikhar]

When do you say 'huh'? And how is it different form using 'eh'?

[JuniperWoolf]

When do you say 'huh'? And how is it different form using 'eh'?

"Huh?" can mean the same thing as "what?" Like, if someone says something and you don't hear them or don't understand, you could say "huh?" meaning that you'd like them to clarify.

"Huh" could also mean that you find something interesting or thought-provoking. In my case, when someone says something that I didn't know before, I often respond with "Huh. That's neat."

"Eh" is kind of a Canadian thing. It can mean "what" as well. You'd just use it in exactly the same way as "huh" in the first paragraph.

"Eh" could also mean that you're looking for confirmation or agreement, and it's a way to make a direct statement without sounding strange or forceful. "It's pretty cold out, eh?" means the same thing as "it's pretty cold out, do you agree?" and it's less awkward than just randomly saying "it's pretty cold out."

Pretty confusing, eh?

[OrphanPip]

Do you guys call colouring pencils "pencil crayons" out West?

When I was younger I actually thought that was what they were called until I suddenly had the revelation that the box was bilingual. I think it might be a Quebec thing.

[JuniperWoolf]

Do you guys call colouring pencils "pencil crayons" out West?


You guys call them "colouring pencils?" But they're, like, crayons... in pencil form. Pencil crayons.

[billl]

When do you say 'huh'? And how is it different form using 'eh'?

I'm American, and, to add to Juniper's comment, Americans (who never use, "eh" to my knowledge, unless they do somewhere in Michigan or Wisconsin, and they might actually bristle at the suggestion, I have no idea) commonly would say "huh" instead of the Canadian "eh", e.g.
"It's pretty cold out, huh?"
"Pretty confusing, huh?"

But who cares what Americans talk like...

[OrphanPip]

You guys call them "colouring pencils?" But they're, like, crayons... in pencil form. Pencil crayons.

Thank God it's not just us, it would make me feel too ridiculous.

I know "close the lights" instead of turn off the lights is definitely a Quebec thing we've picked up from the peppers.

I can't understand anglo Quebecer slurs for the French we call them peppers and pepsies, not sure why. Although, the French call us "tête carré" (square heads), which I could never understand either. A pepper once was kind enough to explain to me that the reason they made toilet seats round was so that the "tête carrés" wouldn't drink out of the toilet.

[JuniperWoolf]

Americans (who never use, "eh" to my knowledge, unless they do somewhere in Michigan or Wisconsin, and they might actually bristle at the suggestion, I have no idea) commonly would say "huh" instead of the Canadian "eh", e.g.
"It's pretty cold out, huh?"
"Pretty confusing, huh?"

Haha, in my part of Canada we use "huh" in that way if we're joking and trying to sound dumb. This is because of one quote off of South Park where Cartman dresses like Dog the Bounty Hunter, and his redneck underling says (and I quote) "he's going to have to deal with the Dog, huh" using a very bible-belt accent. It really stuck with us, so much so that the accent and usage of "huh" was banned from school because it kept causing classroom disruptions.



I know "close the lights" instead of turn off the lights is definitely a Quebec thing we've picked up from the peppers.

Haha, that's like when Newfies say "stay where you're at and I'll come where you're to." The first time someone said that to me I just froze.


I can't understand anglo Quebecer slurs for the French we call them peppers and pepsies, not sure why. Although, the French call us "tête carré" (square heads), which I could never understand either. A pepper once was kind enough to explain to me that the reason they made toilet seats round was so that the "tête carrés" wouldn't drink out of the toilet.

Yeah, you have to deal with that whole French/English thing over there. In Alberta a lot of people aren't really aware that there's even an issue. Like, when we heard that the French Canadians were talking about how so many of the gold medals were won by Quebecers, I heard a lot of people say something along the lines of "what do they mean, don't they like us?"

[OrphanPip]

The biggest difference between Canadian and American slang has to be the word goof.

In Canada a goof is a child molester (apparently this is prison slang in particular lol). In the USA a goof is just a silly person.




Yeah, you have to deal with that whole French/English thing over there. In Alberta a lot of people aren't really aware that there's even an issue. Like, when we heard that the French Canadians were talking about how so many of the gold medals were won by Quebecers, I heard a lot of people say something along the lines of "what do they mean, don't they like us?"

Complaining about the rest of Canada is the provincial past-time in Quebec.

[Nikhar]

"Huh?" can mean the same thing as "what?" Like, if someone says something and you don't hear them or don't understand, you could say "huh?" meaning that you'd like them to clarify.

"Huh" could also mean that you find something interesting or thought-provoking. In my case, when someone says something that I didn't know before, I often respond with "Huh. That's neat."

"Eh" is kind of a Canadian thing. It can mean "what" as well. You'd just use it in exactly the same way as "huh" in the first paragraph.

"Eh" could also mean that you're looking for confirmation or agreement, and it's a way to make a direct statement without sounding strange or forceful. "It's pretty cold out, eh?" means the same thing as "it's pretty cold out, do you agree?" and it's less awkward than just randomly saying "it's pretty cold out."

Pretty confusing, eh?

It might have been confusing had you not explained it so nicely. Thanks. :)

And thanks to you too, bill. ;)

Btw, for some reason, even I had the feeling that one uses 'huh' when one wants to act dumb.

[JuniperWoolf]

The biggest difference between Canadian and American slang has to be the word goof.

In Canada a goof is a child molester (apparently this is prison slang in particular lol). In the USA a goof is just a silly person.


Plus, they call a tuque a "beanie." What's that about?

[Nikhar]

Oh... and another thing.... is 'na' a word in English too? My spellchecker doesn't believe so, at least.


Do you guys call colouring pencils "pencil crayons" out West?


We call them crayons in the east too.

[JuniperWoolf]

Oh... and another thing.... is 'na' a word in English too? My spellchecker doesn't believe so, at least.

"Nah" is. It's like an informal version of "no," in the same way that "yeah" is an informal version of "yes."

[OrphanPip]

Plus, they call a toque a "beanie." What's that about?

Haha, I always forget about the tuques.

I think I'll pull on my tuque, sit on the chesterfield, watch the CBC and **** the dog all day, eh?

Friggin' hosers.


We call them crayons in the east too.

Are we talking about the same thing though?

http://www.lincolnstationers.com/images/1.PACME3BL-Crayon.jpg

This is a crayon.

http://a6.vox.com/6a00c2251cd6588fdb00c2251cd8b6f219-500pi

These are pencil crayons.

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, I always forget about the tuques.

I think I'll pull on my tuque, sit on the chesterfield, watch the CBC and **** the dog all day, eh?

Friggin' hosers.

Haha, I once worked with a Lebonese guy. I said something like "let's just get all of our work done quickly so we can just f**k the dog for the rest of the day." He looked terrified.

[Nikhar]

"Nah" is. It's like an informal version of "no," in the same way that "yeah" is an informal version of "yes."


Ok... then a sentence 'I told you na?' isn't a correct sentence in English as 'na' doesnt exist.
And 'I told you nah?' doesnt make sense even if its correct.

Actually, I would have preferred to use 'I told you na?' instead of 'I told you, didn't I?'.

[JuniperWoolf]

Ok... then a sentence 'I told you na?' isn't a correct sentence in English as 'na' doesnt exist.
And 'I told you nah?' doesnt make sense even if its correct.

Nah, that wouldn't be right.

[Nikhar]

Are we talking about the same thing though?

http://www.lincolnstationers.com/images/1.PACME3BL-Crayon.jpg

This is a crayon.

http://a6.vox.com/6a00c2251cd6588fdb00c2251cd8b6f219-500pi

These are pencil crayons.



Edit:-

Yes, I am referring to the same pics. Here in east, we call the first pic a crayon and the second a pencil crayon.

Or do we? Lol, I'm confused. I have never been observant enough to notice these petty things.

Edit:-
We call the first crayon for sure. But now, I'm not exactly sure if the second picv is 'colouring pencils' or 'pencil crayons'. I am sorry for being so useless lol.

[TheFifthElement]

Pencil crayon is used in UK too. Certainly when I was a kid anyway.

[OrphanPip]

Haha, I once worked with a Lebonese guy. I said something like "let's just get all of our work done quickly so we can just f**k the dog for the rest of the day." He looked terrified.

Haha, reminds me of an old Bowser and Blue song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lG-i2bjhk


Pencil crayon is used in UK too. Certainly when I was a kid anyway.

Haha, now if I can just discover if it is used in the USA too I can die happy.

[billl]

Btw, for some reason, even I had the feeling that one uses 'huh' when one wants to act dumb.

For better or worse, it doesn't really imply any particular (greater than average, anyhow) dumbness down here in the States.

[Madame X]

Haha, now if I can just discover if it is used in the USA too I can die happy.

I believe they’re called ‘colored pencils’ in the States. The same in Dutch in case you’re wondering: kleurpotlood, pl. kleurpotloden. Now, godspeed, my good man. :thumbsup:

[Whifflingpin]

I've never heard the term 'pencil crayon' used in the UK (maybe I've just led a sheltered life.) 'Coloured pencil' is the term I've always used.

[MarkBastable]

I've never heard the term 'pencil crayon' used in the UK.

Neither have I.

[hillwalker]

Ditto :

the top 'crayon' picture is what we would call a 'wax crayon' and the bottom we would just call 'crayons'

H

[TheFifthElement]

Perhaps it is just a northern thing.

Edit - just asked my kids and they call them pencil crayons and apparently so do 'all the kids at school'.

[papayahed]

In the US (or at least the Midwest, US):

Top Picture - Crayon

Bottom Picture - Colored pencil

[qimissung]

Yeah, same here. 1st pic-crayon
2nd pic-colored pencil

[kiki1982]

Oh, so my hubby (and I naturally) call them: pic 1 wax crayon and pic 2 crayon.

We haven't had that one yet. :D

[Annamariah]

I have a question about correct punctuation. If someone could answer me quickly, I would be most grateful.

In a sentence like "In this paper I will study..." should there be a comma after "In this paper"? I tried to Google it, but I saw people do it with or without and couldn't find a rule that would say which one is preferable in this case (I know that in some cases you can either use a comma or leave it out).

The thing is that my teacher told me to check the punctuation in my Bachelor's Thesis, and she had added a couple of commas in similar sentences ("For the analysis, I have chosen..." and "In the theoretical part of this study, I will introduce..."), but not in the "In this paper I will study" part, which to me sounds similar to the two others. So now I'm at a loss with which is the rule I should be following here. If anyone could clarify that, it would be much appreciated :nod:

[OrphanPip]

"In this paper I will study..." means you are going to study the paper.

"In this paper, I will study..." means you will study "..." in the paper you are writing.

There are terms for these clauses, but they escape my mind at the moment.

Edit:

It helps to think about it as if "In this paper" comes at the end of the sentence.

"I will study ... in this paper" is what you're trying to say.

Edit2: I think it's called an adjunct, but someone with a more formal understanding of grammar might be able to assist on that.

[Annamariah]

So even if it's "In this paper I will study the differences between this and this." (when it's clear I'm not studying the paper itself ), one should put a comma after "In this paper"?

But yeah, thanks, I guess my teacher was just being inconsistent adding commas in the two sentences but not in that first one. I guess I've been afraid of over-punctuating and left out some commas that should have been there. In Finnish there are much more commas used (and the punctuation rules are clearer, at least in my opinion), whereas what they taught us at school was that in English commas are much more random and said "when in doubt, leave it out". Only at the university level they actually introduced the punctuation rules to us...

[OrphanPip]

I comma splice like a fiend anyway, lol. I would definitely put a comma after "in this paper." I could be wrong though.

[Annamariah]

Did you really have to say that last thing? :D Now I'm more confused than ever. Should there be a comma after the word 'book' in a sentence like "In the translation of the first book there are several spelling mistakes."? I thought I knew what I was doing, but now I'm no longer certain about anything :willy_nilly:

[billl]

A comma there wouldn't be overkill at all, in my opinion.

[Annamariah]

At least in Finnish the rules are very clear, either you must use a comma or you must leave it out. In English it seems to be often "in this case you can use a comma if you want, but it's not necessary", and then one should remember which rules apply always and which only sometimes.

[Scheherazade]

When in doubt, leave it out!

If it is unnecessary and you use it, you look like you don't know what you are doing... But if it is necessary and you don't use it, there is always the possibility that you have forgotten it.

:p

[OrphanPip]

I'm getting out my little grammar book.

Edit: My grammar book says you can omit the comma after an introductory element if there is no risk of it running together with the main clause.

Also, you would* have a comma in that sentence above. You should probably rephrase it as "There are several spelling mistakes in the translation of the first book."

*Sorry, I meant you would, but the sentence is awkward.

[Whifflingpin]

I hope your grammar book says, "If there is no risk of its running together...";)

My (non-grammatical) approach to the comma, when I think about it at all, is to consider that the comma represents a pause. If, when reading aloud, a pause would be appropriate, then so would a comma. Otherwise not.

[kiki1982]

My Grammar book My Grammar and I (or should that be 'me'?) - Old School Ways to sharpen your English, says:

rule 2:

'After introductory words or phrases that come before the main clause:

ex
In 1066, the English lost the Battle of Hastings
Once upon a time, there lived a boy called Jack
Of course, ... / However, ... / Finally, ... / Yes, ... '

That seems pretty clear. It comes up with a quote as well at the start of the chapter of John Mason in his Essay on Elocution (1748):

'A comma stops the voice while we may privately tell one, a semi colon ywo, a colon three, and a period four.'

That seems pretty clear. Imagine then how an introductory phrase would sound without a comma...

[Whifflingpin]

" 'A comma stops the voice while we may privately tell one, a semi colon ywo, a colon three, and a period four.'

That seems pretty clear."

Yes, but I'd have written 'A comma stops the voice while we may privately tell one; a semi colon two; a colon three; and a period four.' The sentence does not simply make a list: it offers separate, albeit related, statements.

Were it a list, modern practice is generally, I think, not to include a comma after the penultimate item in the list if 'and' is present.

[Annamariah]

My Grammar book My Grammar and I (or should that be 'me'?) - Old School Ways to sharpen your English, says:

rule 2:

'After introductory words or phrases that come before the main clause:

ex
In 1066, the English lost the Battle of Hastings
Once upon a time, there lived a boy called Jack
Of course, ... / However, ... / Finally, ... / Yes, ... '

That seems pretty clear. It comes up with a quote as well at the start of the chapter of John Mason in his Essay on Elocution (1748):

'A comma stops the voice while we may privately tell one, a semi colon ywo, a colon three, and a period four.'

That seems pretty clear. Imagine then how an introductory phrase would sound without a comma...

Rules like that are clear, but there are always sentences about which it's hard to say how they should be punctuated. I know the theory, but the practise is sometimes difficult...

By the way, in Finnish there are generally speaking more commas than in English, but not after introductory clauses like those in that example.

Many of my fellow studets complain about getting their punctuation wrong all the time. They say: "I punctuate English as if it was Finnish, and Finnish as if it was English!" :willy_nilly: :D

[Nikhar]

What does 'terrific' actually mean? Terrific apparently seems to come from the word 'terrify'. But whenever I have used terrific and have seen it being used, it's been in a positive sense and I have comprehended it to be synonymous to 'splendid'.

So what does terrific mean? It's an adjective for terrify or does it mean extraordinarily good? Both the meanings seem to be poles apart.

[billl]

It means "extraordinary," basically. Usually positive, but not always.

It could be used in reference to a "terrific storm" or a person who has a "terrific temper." But 95% of the time it would just basically mean "really good, extraordinarily good!"

It would not normally carry connotations of "terrorism." It would never really be used to refer to that, I don't think...

[Nikhar]

It means "extraordinary," basically. Usually positive, but not always.

It could be used in reference to a "terrific storm" or a person who has a "terrific temper." But 95% of the time it would just basically mean "really good, extraordinarily good!"

It would not normally carry connotations of "terrorism." It would never really be used to refer to that, I don't think...


Ahh... Thanks. :)

So, is terrific an independent word in itself or is it an adjective of terrify?

[kiki1982]

" 'A comma stops the voice while we may privately tell one, a semi colon ywo, a colon three, and a period four.'

That seems pretty clear."

Yes, but I'd have written 'A comma stops the voice while we may privately tell one; a semi colon two; a colon three; and a period four.' The sentence does not simply make a list: it offers separate, albeit related, statements.

Were it a list, modern practice is generally, I think, not to include a comma after the penultimate item in the list if 'and' is present.

That is The Oxford Comma, though. It is optional, but certainly not forbidden. It is mainly useful in lists where the peultimate item has already an 'and'. In that case, which 'and' belongs to the list, and which one not. I catch myself using it now and again since I have known of its existence.

I don't think the semi-colons are right there, as it is definitely a list and not related sentences linked, not by a conjunction, but by a pause.

@Annamariah:

Of course it is just a general rule. It is sometimes difficult in the grey zone and there is an amzing amounnt of people who just write: 'In the evening I went to the cinema'. Though I try to watch it, I will only do it maticulously in something serious.

I know what you mean about other languages. German also has commas everywhere! For every sub-clause. When you are translating, it is dangerous, because you tend to put commas everywhere as well, instead of just writing normally.

[kiki1982]

Ahh... Thanks. :)

So, is terrific an independent word in itself or is it an adjective of terrify?

It is an adjective.

[Madame X]

What does 'terrific' actually mean? Terrific apparently seems to come from the word 'terrify'. But whenever I have used terrific and have seen it being used, it's been in a positive sense and I have comprehended it to be synonymous to 'splendid'.

Yeah, I can see the confusion; just last week I was watching a docu-series where a young, non-native English speaking, African girl described the governmental oppression of the people in her country (can’t remember which one it was…perhaps Zimbabwe) as “really terrific”. Etymologically speaking, however, she’s right on the money – here’s what the online etymology dictionary (tremendous site ;)) has to say about TERRIFIC (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=terrific&searchmode=none).


It would never really be used to refer to that, I don't think...

Ah, billl, that’s another thing I’ve seen on more than one occasion which has given me cause to wonder. You see, I’m aware that English generally frowns upon the use of double negatives, “I didn’t see nothing”, and so on, but, like I said, I’ve seen/heard this use of a negative + the phrase “I don’t think” before; in your case, “It would never be used like that, I don’t think” which is essentially the same as saying “I don’t think it would never be used like that” but then, nobody says it like that, right? Instead, you’d either say, “I don’t think it would ever be used like that” or “I think that it would never be used like that” the inverse of which, I would have assumed to be “It would never be used like that, I think”…or does that just sound silly? Is this negative + “I don’t think” more or less a standard colloquialism, or as far as you’re aware, perhaps just a regionalism?

[kiki1982]

'I didn't see nothing' is rather colloquial. I don't know really whether it is regional only, but it is certainly used dialectically in the South, though probably further as well. My in-laws use it, but I don't...

'I don't think' is also something like that. If you want to sound less formal and more loose, then you do the 'I don't think'-bit, but you wouldn't use it in writing or in 'proper' speech.

You would be able to say, 'I on't think it is ever used like that', or something.

[Madame X]

Thing is, “I didn’t see nothing” sounds really substandard to my ears -although I’m far more acquainted with the American spectrum so perhaps the Brits are a bit more lenient there-, whereas the negative + “I don’t think” seems to be more acceptable, like you said, coolly informal but not, well, illiterate or anything. Again, that’s not to make presumptions about all people who use double negatives, as far as I’m aware no one speaks with 100% prescriptive accuracy (and even if they did, they’d sound quite ridiculous anyway), but I still like investigating apparent inconsistencies. :p Perhaps the “I don’t think” construction is more acceptable because it functions more as an afterthought or amendment, like “He didn’t do it, I don’t think” as in, “He didn’t do it…at least, I don’t think that he did”, or something.

[Maximilianus]

I also hear the phrase "I don't know nothing" used quite often. I was always taught I mustn't use two negatives in a row. I was told it's bad English grammar, whereas it's not wrong in languages like Spanish for example, where it's the most normal thing to put one negative after another. Then I wondered about what really determines the right and wrong grammar practices in any given language. I once heard someone saying that good and bad grammar are chiefly determined by the use and acceptance that people give to words and phrases (as though implying that grammar rules shouldn't matter very much).

If I am to contrast these two divergent positions, then I would have to say that I don't know nothing anymore :p

[Whifflingpin]

"It would never really be used to refer to that, I don't think... "

"Ah, billl, that’s another thing I’ve seen on more than one occasion which has given me cause to wonder. You see, I’m aware that English generally frowns upon the use of double negatives, “I didn’t see nothing”, and so on, but, like I said, I’ve seen/heard this use of a negative + the phrase “I don’t think” before; in your case, “It would never be used like that, I don’t think” which is essentially the same as saying “I don’t think it would never be used like that” "

The phrase "I don't think" on the end of a sentence is not generally a double negative but is usually a contradiction of the preceding phrase - as in "Politicians are always truthful, I don't think." So "The Mayor never tells lies, I don't think" makes an assertion about the Mayor and contradicts it. Of course, it's all in the intonation, so its use is verbal rather than written.

[L.M. The Third]

Double negatives- the bane of my existence. Well, not mine, my father's, because I'm always correcting his use of them and confusing him in the process. Poor man! But they really do drive me nuts. The other thing that amuses me is his constant reference to himself as 'we'. It reminds me of some king in Shakespeare.

[Nikhar]

so, what does 'I don't know nothing' mean? 'I know a lot' or 'I know nothing.'?


It is an adjective.

If it's an adjective of terrify so shouldn't it be used to refer to frightening situations?

[Maximilianus]

so, what does 'I don't know nothing' mean? 'I know a lot' or 'I know nothing.'?
It means "I don't know anything" or, which is the same, "I know nothing".


If it's an adjective of terrify so shouldn't it be used to refer to frightening situations?
"terrific" is now mostly used as a synonym for "excellent" or "great". According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, this use of the word began in the 19th Century.

[L.M. The Third]

I have a question about our current use of the word yet. Today in my discussion with Virgil I said something along the lines of, "Can I call the baby your son yet?" Of course, I meant, "can I now begin to...".
However, if I changed the sentence around and said, "Can I yet call him your son?" it would sound like Virgil had a son he was planning to disown! It would essentially mean, "Is he still your son?"

And even in older English, yet as used in the first question would mean, 'Is this still the case?' So have the rules of this term changed, or has society simply used it wrong so long that we all accept a wrong usage?

Do I make myself sufficiently clear? I fear I may have to redo this entire post.

I'm quite sure the same idea applies to the phrase I doubt. While our current use implies a skeptical attitude towards the idea in question, I'm quite sure that it was once used to imply near certainty. (At least in George Elliot's novels.)

[OrphanPip]

I think the problem with yet is that its meaning changes radically based on context.

In, "Can I call him your son yet," the word "yet" is replacing "as of now."

So, "Can I, as of now, call him your son" carries the same meaning.

In "Can I yet call him your son" (bit of an awkward sentence anyway)

Seems to take on the meaning of "Can I, nevertheless, call him your son?"

Idiosyncratic word best avoided when possible :p.

[L.M. The Third]

In "Can I yet call him your son" (bit of an awkward sentence anyway)
.

You think so? I'm sure I've heard it in such a context quite often, but you're probably right about the idiosyncratic usages. Thanks.

[billl]

Is this negative + “I don’t think” more or less a standard colloquialism, or as far as you’re aware, perhaps just a regionalism?

Whoops, sorry I hadn't checked back on this thread in a while. And the unfortunate thing is that I don't really know whether it's a regionalism, or not. Probably so, because I know a lot of other native speakers who don't seem to use it (I don't think). I reach for it pretty naturally, though--it's maybe a sort of lawerly hedging. But the more I think about it, I guess it isn't so common...

[Annamariah]

Then I wondered about what really determines the right and wrong grammar practices in any given language. I once heard someone saying that good and bad grammar are chiefly determined by the use and acceptance that people give to words and phrases (as though implying that grammar rules shouldn't matter very much).

Languages change all the time, basically the forms that are used the most become the standard within time. In some countries (like in France and Finland, for example), there is an institution that determines the standard language.

[Nikhar]

What is meant by off-the-wall humour?

[OrphanPip]

Unusual or strange humour.

[Whifflingpin]

I heard on the news today that a couple of august bodies are about to set up an English Academy, a l'Academie Francaise. Anything less English would be hard to imagine.

[Nikhar]

Thanks OrphanPip. :)

[kasie]

I heard on the news today that a couple of august bodies are about to set up an English Academy, a l'Academie Francaise. Anything less English would be hard to imagine.

Heaven forefend! :eek:

[Nikhar]

What does it mean by 'being a sucker for something'? I read this on litnet somewhere-->
' I'm a sucker for happy endings.'

[OrphanPip]

A sucker is someone who is easily fooled or charmed.

So, in general if you say that you're a sucker for happy endings, it means you're easily charmed/pleased by happy endings. Or, you just really like happy endings.

[billl]

If someone is a "sucker" that basically means they have been fooled/tricked in some way, usually related to buying/selling, gambling, naively trusting someone, etc. People are often nervous when they try to buy a used car, because the seller might be "playing you for a sucker," that is they might be selling a car that is not nearly as good as it seems to be. You can imagine the salesman, laughing to himself as the buyer drives away: "Ha-ha! Sucker..."

Here is a famous quote about "suckers":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

Anyhow, if someone says they are a sucker for happy endings, it is a joking way of saying that they will probably like any book (even one that might be rather simple and predictable, maybe even a poorly-written one) if it has a happy ending. The author just slaps a happy ending on the story, and that person is guaranteed to love it. Easy success for the money-motivated writer that uses this to his/her advantage: "Ha-ha! Suckers..."

But really, like I just noticed Pip point out, all of my 'background' explaining is just background in this case, not REALLY the situation. The person is just saying that they pretty much always like happy endings (and they know that it isn't maybe the best way to judge a writer's ability, etc.).

[Nikhar]

Thank you OrphanPip and Billl. I get the meanings clearly now. Thanks again to both of you and all others who are so helpful. :)

[Lulim]

Snowqueen asked me in the other thread:


what does your German octopus say about today's games?

I believe it means, if I have a hunch about the results of today's games. I'm not sure, however, and but apart from the sea animal, I didn't find anything about it.

[OrphanPip]

Ha, apparently there's an octopus somebody owns in Germany that has been correctly predicting winners of world cup matches.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gSAn2kj0J3tzJJQmKiYaCo6Aetbg

[Lulim]

Oh, I never heard of it before

Thank you, Pip :)

[Paulclem]

This is an interesting thread.:smile5:

Nice and calm too!

[Nikhar]

I read almost all the posts in the thread today again and realized what an insightful and outstanding thread it had turned out to be. Sad that it died out...

[LadyLuck]

This is a great thread Nik :) I never really put much thought into the slang language I use, but it is good to have a place to explain it.

[Nikhar]

Ok...I've been wanting to ask this for quite some time now...

Whenever you think someone is the best, why do you put arguably in front of it (nice manners?). Like, 'Sachin Tendulkar is arguably the greatest batsman of this era.'

[Darcy88]

Ok...I've been wanting to ask this for quite some time now...

Whenever you think someone is the best, why do you put arguably in front of it (nice manners?). Like, 'Sachin Tendulkar is arguably the greatest batsman of this era.'

I think it might be because such claims are often debatable. If you didn't put in the arguably then someone could come along and say "what about so and so, he was a damn great batsman as well." The arguably makes it less categorical and therefore more acceptable.

[billl]

First, the idea of "argue" has a common meaning that has anger and emotional conflict involved with it. Some people are surprised to find that it has a much calmer sense as well, in which it is used to describe the "arguing" of a position in reasoned debate. Lawyers "argue" their case. Rock music critics "argue" that certain groups are the best. Basically, it's about putting forth one's opinion, but with some facts/reasons backing that opinion.

Anyhow, that is one reason why this use of "arguably" might seem strange, I think--but not the only reason (perhaps you were aware of this usage for "argue" already).

I think it might also seem unusual because people giving their opinion are already giving an opinion. Why mention that the opinion could be argued? It would seem to be implied as soon as someone gives, it, right?

Well:
1) Saying "arguably" might indicate that the speaker has some reasons for throwing the opinion out there. It isn't just a random or juvenile opinion. Still, as much as the person might be suggesting they have some good reasons, they are also sort of allowing for this next idea here, number 2:

2) More likely, the speaker isn't completely committed to the opinion, but wants to give it some credit. "Look, I'm not sure if they're the best, but a lot of people would say so--and there's good reasons to think it..." They just might not be sure. In fact, the person might hold another opinion entirely, when it comes right down to it. For example, if you think person A is the best football player, but you know that many people like person B, then, in a situation where person B is being offered a low salary to play for his team, you can say, "but person B is arguably the best player at his position!" and thus make this obvious point while NOT contradicting your support for person A.

3) I think it is also the sort of thing a person might say if they DO hold that opinion, but don't want to get into an argument. It's easier to say "arguably best", and then anyone who would want to disagree would at least have to admit that there's something to debate/argue about regarding that opinion. Sometimes it might be fun for people to sit and debate which is better (Beatles? Rolling Stones?), but other times, especially if the conversation is about something else, and arguing about this opinion would be a distraction, or too exhausting at that moment, it's easier to avoid the issue and just say "arguably the best".

I think case (2) is probably the most common usage. I know I wrote a lot about number (3), but I actually think it wouldn't happen as often as case (2)--but it might depend on the situation, and personality types.

I think this covers a lot of the reasoning/nuance, but maybe there's something I missed and other people can add to it. And maybe there's some question about some situation that might seem a little different than these.

[Nikhar]

@darcy & @bill

Thanks for your comments. I guess I get it, more or less. :)

[Lulim]

I'v some trouble understanding this phrase:

"(s.o.) ... can waste time burning their tires just to catch up on ... (s.th.)"

I would be glad if someone could explain it for me.

[Paulclem]

I'v some trouble understanding this phrase:

"(s.o.) ... can waste time burning their tires just to catch up on ... (s.th.)"

I would be glad if someone could explain it for me.

It seems to be saying that they are damaging their equipment/ selves in a futile effort.

[Lulim]

Thank you so much, Paul :-)

[cacian]

I found this as I walked pass the Olympic stadium the other day.


It is a postcard of The Houses of Parliement and underneath in the center of it it says:
''Love for all Hatred for none''
Welcome to London

It is supposed to be some kind of greeting to all the international public coming to the Olympics.

What would you have thought if you found it?

[Whifflingpin]

It seems to be (currently) the motto of certain Muslim groups who wish to disassociate Islam from armed militancy.

[cacian]

It seems to be (currently) the motto of certain Muslim groups who wish to disassociate Islam from armed militancy.

Hi Whiffling which post are you replying to?

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: It seems to be (currently) the motto of certain Muslim groups who wish to disassociate Islam from armed militancy.

Cacian: Hi Whiffling which post are you replying to?

I was replying to the post on "Love for all. Hatred for none."

[Nikhar]

What's so special about the following line, ""Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again." It's said to be quite a famous opening line.

[Themis]

What's so special about the following line, ""Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again." It's said to be quite a famous opening line.

I'd think it has less to do with the English language and more with the fact that it puts the reader right into medias res. And 'Rebecca' is generally a well-known book.

[DocHeart]

What's so special about the following line, ""Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again." It's said to be quite a famous opening line.

It's famous because it's effective.

What's special about it is that if you were reading it and somebody snatched the book away from your hands, you'd chase them, catch them, kill them, reclaim the book, and read on.

[cacian]

What's so special about the following line, ""Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again." It's said to be quite a famous opening line.
Difficult to say at first because this sentence on its own does not mean anything to anybody if it was just lying on a piece of paper out of context. The reason could be perhaps that the word Manderley is too obscure and could be anything from a place to a city to whatever.
If this sentence however was
''Last night I dreamed I went to the moon again'' then that would attract attention because people would identify with it because the word 'moon' is publically known by literally everyone.
I personally feel nothing towards this opening for the reasons that I stated above. I do not recognise the word Manderly although I understand the sentence.
So I looked up Manderley. A reader with no computer but just the book would be quite tricky to get this opening line. I would say it would be quite a turn off for me. I must understand everything otherwise I switch off.
Here this might be helpful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/donotmigrate/3671423/The-real-ghost-of-Manderley.html

[Paulclem]

Difficult to say at first because this sentence on its own does not mean anything to anybody if it was just lying on a piece of paper out of context. The reason could be perhaps that the word Manderley is too obscure and could be anything from a place to a city to whatever.
If this sentence however was
''Last night I dreamed I went to the moon again'' then that would attract attention because people would identify with it because the word 'moon' is publically known by literally everyone.
I personally feel nothing towards this opening for the reasons that I stated above. I do not recognise the word Manderly although I understand the sentence.
So I looked up Manderley. A reader with no computer but just the book would be quite tricky to get this opening line. I would say it would be quite a turn off for me. I must understand everything otherwise I switch off.
Here this might be helpful.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/donotmigrate/3671423/The-real-ghost-of-Manderley.html

The point of the line is to raise questions in the mind of the reader. No reader when it was first written would associate Manderley with anything, except that it was a place - capital letter - and not Mandalay which is a city in Myanmar - (Burma). It would of course bring to mind briefly Mandalay, and all the exotic ideas of travels in Asia, before the reader would note the different spelling and subconciously ask the question - where is this place?

The line also establishes the narrative voice - the I who dreams - who could be male or female - and the implied question is "why did you dream of that place?"

I think that first line more than earns its keep in the book.

[cacian]

Whifflingpin: It seems to be (currently) the motto of certain Muslim groups who wish to disassociate Islam from armed militancy.

Cacian: Hi Whiffling which post are you replying to?

I was replying to the post on "Love for all. Hatred for none."

Thank you Whifflingpin.

[Nikhar]

@all
Thanks for your responses. :) I get what you mean. But there's also something about iambic hexameter mentioned on wiki. Whats so special about 12 syllables?

[Paulclem]

@all
Thanks for your responses. :) I get what you mean. But there's also something about iambic hexameter mentioned on wiki. Whats so special about 12 syllables?

I think this form is considered more suitable for reflective/ meditative poetry given the length of the line.

[qimissung]

And it sounds prettty. At least I think so. It sounds pensive and dreamy and mysterious.

[Nikhar]

Ok... thanks. :)

[cacian]

Sorry but this is may be the
'''Latin related doubts'' if you do not mind me adding this bit here.
I am trying to understand the meaning of this:
Julius Caesar uttered famous phrase "Iacta alea est -
''the die is cast." when he crossed the rubicon river with his legion in 49BC.

[Maximilianus]

Sorry but this is may be the
'''Latin related doubts'' if you do not mind me adding this bit here.
I am trying to understand the meaning of this:
Julius Caesar uttered famous phrase "Iacta alea est -
''the die is cast." when he crossed the Rubicon river with his legion in 49BC.
It means that events have reached a point of no return and something will inevitably happen. As for the context in which he said this, a nice explanation by historian Frances Titchener, as per quoted below:


We know from Caesar's journals that Caesar is not taking this lightly. He knows that if he marches on Rome with his armies, then he is a public enemy, and that he will either have to win, or die. For a Roman patrician like Julius Caesar there is no life without military service; there is no life without service to the state. He cannot simply 'go native' and stay in Gaul, and he does realise that if he goes back to Rome, he would be killed. At this time the northernmost border of the Roman territory in Italy is the River Rubicon. Once someone crosses the River Rubicon, he's in Roman territory. A general must not cross that boundary with his army - he must do what the Romans call lay down his command, which means surrender his right to order troops, and certainly not be carrying weapons. Caesar and his armies hesitate quite awhile at this river while Caesar decides what to do, and Caesar tells us that he informs his soldiers that it's a little tiny bridge across the river, but once they cross it they'll have to fight their way all the way to Rome, and Caesar is well aware that he's risking not just his own life, but those of his loyal soldiers, and he might not win. Pompey is a formidable enemy. It's also impossible to avoid the fact that Caesar was attacking the state, and as a patrician Roman this would have been very difficult for him, equivalent to beating up your father. He wouldn't have done any of this lightly. Finally he makes a decision, it's time to go, and he uses a gambling metaphor and he says 'Roll the dice', 'Alea jacta esto'. Once the dice start rolling they cannot be controlled, even though we don't know what it is as the dice roll and tumble. Julius and his men swiftly cross the river and they march double time toward Rome, where they almost beat the messengers sent to inform the Senate of their arrival.


— Titchener, To Rule Mankind and Make the World Obey

[cacian]

Maximilianus I thank you for such an interesting and lenghty post.
I think I am still unsure about the words
''the die is cast''
in a literal sense. I think I know that the Rudicon river had a tendency to be red like the Red Sea for example hence the word die as in the act of dying clothes into a new colour.
After reading your post I now wonder whether the die refers to the colour of the river Rubicon or the die as in a group of dice.
That is where it is not clear for me.

A meaning of cast can be this too:

''A slight trace of color; a tinge''
As in the expression half-cast meaning of two different races.

So I thought he meant that the colour of the river is red again hence cast.

Again did dice exist in Roman time ang again would one throw one dice rather then two in an expression such as this?
The games I know mostly have a throw of one dice not two.

What could be the difference if any between spouse and wife/husband?

I am aware that the word epouse if French for husband/wife and it also means the verb to 'marry'.

'spouse' and 'epouse' have the same spelling.

[OrphanPip]

What could be the difference if any between spouse and wife/husband?

I am aware that the word epouse if French for husband/wife and it also means the verb to 'marry'.

'spouse' and 'epouse' have the same spelling.

Spouse is gender neutral.

[cacian]

Spouse is gender neutral.

Oh I see. Thank you very much.
But if it is gender neutral isn't it obvious who is saying what?

[OrphanPip]

Oh I see. Thank you very much.
But if it is gender neutral isn't it obvious who is saying what?

You see it a lot in questions addressed to people of unknown gender, like in a product survey:

"Have you or your spouse owned a Ford at some point in the previous ten years."

Or you can just use it as a less specific equivalent to husband or wife.

[cacian]

You see it a lot in questions addressed to people of unknown gender, like in a product survey:

"Have you or your spouse owned a Ford at some point in the previous ten years."

Or you can just use it as a less specific equivalent to husband or wife.

OrphanPip I thank you again for explaining this. It makes sense now.

[kiki1982]

Not to mention legal documents.

[Maximilianus]

Maximilianus I thank you for such an interesting and lenghty post.
I think I am still unsure about the words
''the die is cast''
in a literal sense. I think I know that the Rudicon river had a tendency to be red like the Red Sea for example hence the word die as in the act of dying clothes into a new colour.
After reading your post I now wonder whether the die refers to the colour of the river Rubicon or the die as in a group of dice.
That is where it is not clear for me.

A meaning of cast can be this too:

As in the expression half-cast meaning of two different races.

So I thought he meant that the colour of the river is red again hence cast.
Dying clothes into a new color is "to dye" and has nothing to do with the cubic object known as die, other than being homonyms. Therefore, Caesar was quite unlikely to have been thinking about colors. Most likely he was thinking about the outcome of future events after crossing the river. Therefore, he was talking about dice games that may lead to political power depending on how you play (as a figure of speech).


Again did dice exist in Roman time ang again would one throw one dice rather then two in an expression such as this?
The games I know mostly have a throw of one dice not two.
By the first century AD alea refers to an early form of backgammon that was played in Caesar's time, and a die was commonly known in Latin as cubus ("cube" in English).

[Paulclem]

Just to add to Max's post.

In addition to your definition, to cast is to throw, so casting the die is merely throwing the dice. (Die and dice are both singular and plural).

[Maximilianus]

Thanks, Paul. I had skipped that detail.

[cacian]

The expression:
'the early catches the worm'

Is there such a thing as an early bird?
Taking into account that there is early riser and late riser only amongst fellow humans?

Do birds do the same?

[Maximilianus]

Dearest cacian, please kindly bear in mind that birds are among the hardest working people around. They sleep little, and work extra hours to make ends meet. Many should imitate the birds' ways. Birds have the push and juice http://smiles.kolobok.us/artists/just_cuz/JC_rockin.gif

[cacian]

Dearest cacian, please kindly bear in mind that birds are among the hardest working people around. They sleep little, and work extra hours to make ends meet. Many should imitate the birds' ways. Birds have the push and juice http://smiles.kolobok.us/artists/just_cuz/JC_rockin.gif

I am unaware any birds did a push and juice and I am not a bird.:angel:

The famous Shakespeare solliloquy:

'to be or not to be'
I was wondering whether Shakespeare was playing on words, doing a DaVinci.
Could there be a number hidden in this solliloquy?
Could TO have meant TWO for example.
This would explain the question.
Could have Shakespeare had doubts about his sexuality and so through Hamlet he slipped the question to see if anyone notice.
Was he trying to say to himself whether he might well have felt both man and woman?
Then the answer would logically be 'To Be/Two Be' because unless you think you are then you would not think it.
It is just a thought.

[Maximilianus]

I can't quite imagine how to respond to sexuality assumptions about people who haven't been around for several centuries, and I can't quite imagine how anyone could. I mean, who do we ask about Shakespeare's sexuality nowadays? A close friend, a relative, a biographer? Of course not. What's the point in devising assumptions impossible to prove? I don't think there's an accurate chance to find out by reading between the lines of a writer's work, unless it is explicitly indicated somewhere in his works that his inclination was this or that. Anyway, that's just me wondering aloud. Quite often it happens to me that I cannot even decipher the sexuality of peoples I meet in person everyday, let alone that of a person long gone :rolleyes: Then again, I also wonder what do I need to know their sexuality for. As long as I know my own my curiosity is satisfied http://smiles.kolobok.us/artists/just_cuz/JC_thinking.gif

[cacian]

I can't quite imagine how to respond to sexuality assumptions about people who haven't been around for several centuries, and I can't quite imagine how anyone could. I mean, who do we ask about Shakespeare's sexuality nowadays? A close friend, a relative, a biographer? Of course not. What's the point in devising assumptions impossible to prove? I don't think there's an accurate chance to find out by reading between the lines of a writer's work, unless it is explicitly indicated somewhere in his works that his inclination was this or that. Anyway, that's just me wondering aloud. Quite often it happens to me that I cannot even decipher the sexuality of peoples I meet in person everyday, let alone that of a person long gone :rolleyes: Then again, I also wonder what do I need to know their sexuality for. As long as I know my own my curiosity is satisfied http://smiles.kolobok.us/artists/just_cuz/JC_thinking.gif


Indeed.
My point is not trying to make any judgement but to wonder about this solliloquy.
It is more often then none that work of literature carries symbols and messages that remain unsolved because no one has really paid much attention to them.
The point here is not sexuality as such , because it could have any other subject had it been different, but it is about trying to discover throught words and texts other meanings.
That is the beauty of literature it is not black and white. There is more to the words that meets the eye.

[kiki1982]

Thinking about plays on words, have you ever seen Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Laurie's sketch on this soliloqui? It is conversation between Shakespeare (Shakey) and his editor or so. Hilarious. :lol:

[cacian]

Thinking about plays on words, have you ever seen Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Laurie's sketch on this soliloqui? It is conversation between Shakespeare (Shakey) and his editor or so. Hilarious. :lol:

Hi kiki I have never seen it actually.
What is it called? I could look it up.

[kiki1982]

I think it is called A Little Rewrite, but just type in "Rowan Atkinson Hugh Laurieshakespeare sketch" on google and it comes up. Did when I looked at it again this morning.

Actually that characer that Atkinson plays is very similar to his Blackadder. Same kind of businesslike arrogance (rrr, so sexy :D).

[cacian]

I think it is called A Little Rewrite, but just type in "Rowan Atkinson Hugh Laurieshakespeare sketch" on google and it comes up. Did when I looked at it again this morning.

Actually that characer that Atkinson plays is very similar to his Blackadder. Same kind of businesslike arrogance (rrr, so sexy :D).

Thank you kiki I shall do.
I enjoyed Blackadder fully. I love that kind 'black comedy'. Atkinson was at his best here and extremely charming too. I am not so sure about the MrBean he does however.

What does 'a beautiful kept woman' mean?
I know it is something to do with age but isit another way of avoiding saying middle aged woman?

[Maximilianus]

The phrase speaks for itself. Beautifully kept people are those who keep a reasonably good semblance and a reasonably good health despite the years lived and the overall situations they've had to go through.

[billl]

A "kept woman" is a woman who is being financially supported by her partner (who is not her husband). Basically, rather than being called "girlfriend", the financial arrangement is highlighted, and so it is basically a slur. Typically, a "kept woman" is being "kept" (i.e. financially supported) by a man who is married to someone else. A similar term is "mistress".

So "a beautiful kept woman" would generally mean "a beautiful mistress".

(An example where the man wouldn't be married might be a rich traveler who is single, such as a rock star or professional athlete, who pays rent/food/clothing/etc. for women in more than one city. Those women might be called "kept women" as well, I guess--even though the man has no wife at all. But the basic/typical example would be a married man who is giving a mistress enough money to live on comfortably.)

[cacian]

A "kept woman" is a woman who is being financially supported by her partner (who is not her husband). Basically, rather than being called "girlfriend", the financial arrangement is highlighted, and so it is basically a slur. Typically, a "kept woman" is being "kept" (i.e. financially supported) by a man who is married to someone else. A similar term is "mistress".

So "a beautiful kept woman" would generally mean "a beautiful mistress".

(An example where the man wouldn't be married might be a rich traveler who is single, such as a rock star or professional athlete, who pays rent/food/clothing/etc. for women in more than one city. Those women might be called "kept women" as well, I guess--even though the man has no wife at all. But the basic/typical example would be a married man who is giving a mistress enough money to live on comfortably.)

Billl thank you. I would have never guessed it was a mistress. It is interesting how your definition differ from that of Maximilianus.
Thank you both for your replies.

[Maximilianus]

My assumption was way too quick and literal. I shouldn't be making this sort of mistake at this stage. I feel ashamed.

[billl]

No need for being ashamed! But we did get to see you falling into a bit of poetic license ;-), revealing your actual enjoyment of experiencing language and making sense of it. It's probably why you are so good with languages, and why it would usually take a while for someone reading your posts to suspect English isn't your first language.

[Whifflingpin]

Of course, "a beautifully kept woman" would be exactly as Maximilian said.

It's one of those situations where knowing the difference between an adverb and an adjective might save a lot of embarassment,

[kiki1982]

:lol: yes, imagine you got it wrong.

To me the kept woman also immediately rang a not so favourable bell... I suppose though that it is the 'woman' that does that. If you said 'a beautifully kept man', then you don't have that association because men don't tend to have themselves kept, unlike women.

Indeed, the kept woman is typically a mistress who doesn't work for herself. I.e. who is not married or living with her partner, but is staying at home waiting for her man when he's got time, like a good wife. Hence she must be taken care of. A kept man, then, is pretty unlikely, because it is not male to have yourself taken care of.

[cacian]

:lol: yes, imagine you got it wrong.

To me the kept woman also immediately rang a not so favourable bell... I suppose though that it is the 'woman' that does that. If you said 'a beautifully kept man', then you don't have that association because men don't tend to have themselves kept, unlike women.

Ah well that is only because men keep better then women physically haha.
Imagine the harsheness men do not suffer from cellulite :p

Indeed, the kept woman is typically a mistress who doesn't work for herself. I.e. who is not married or living with her partner, but is staying at home waiting for her man when he's got time, like a good wife. Hence she must be taken care of. A kept man, then, is pretty unlikely, because it is not male to have yourself taken care of.
Wow this woman must live in a world of her own.
For me the world 'mistress' rings a bell with a French maitresse.
It is/was the norms in France to have mistressses and so I guess this is why I always think French.
Anyway in terms of reality I wonder how many of these beautifully kept women actually exist.

[Maximilianus]

Yes, I had assumed that cacian had meant beautifully kept, with the adverb, and that's where my brainstorming started in that direction. I often tell my brains to get out of the storms but they just won't listen. And when I yell 'bail out, bail out!!' it's way too late already...


http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af178/maxicastro/Smileys/rainy_cloud_3.gif?t=1323059263

:p :D

Thanks for the praise billl. It's meaningful, especially coming from a native speaker :)

[cacian]

Maximilianus that the sweetest emoticon I have seen in a long time haha.
Is Destination:departure a story you wrote?

[Maximilianus]

It is sweet! :)

Destination: departure is a song by Tristania, from the times when Vibeke Stene (Norwegian soprano) was their main singer. You probably haven't heard of either, but here's the song in case you are curious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92tagOyj0ao

[cacian]

what is your FIRST INSTINCTIVE meaning of this sentence:

'run your own race'

[Paulclem]

Do your own thing and don't involve me.

[cacian]

Thank you both Maximilianus and Paulclem.
The song destination:departure is amasing! I have never heard this before. It is very dramatic almost the sound song to a drama movie Shakespearian almost.

[Maximilianus]

Welcome, and I agree http://smiles.kolobok.us/standart/yes3.gif

[cacian]

Welcome, and I agree http://smiles.kolobok.us/standart/yes3.gif

Maximilianus where do you get your emoticons from?

[Maximilianus]

There are quite a few emoticon sites on the Internet that seem permanent and reliable. These are four I've been using over the years:


http://www.en.kolobok.us/
http://gs128.photobucket.com/groups/p161/OPSIZFMLVC/?start=all
http://yoursmiles.org/
http://www.freesmileys.org/

I manage my emoticons through specific plug-ins intended for that purpose. A plug-in is like a little program that can be added to some browsers, like the one I use which is Firefox, in order to add a specific functionality. The emoticon plug-ins open a window, as if it were a sort of library, where you can view your favorite emoticons and place their links on posts on forums that allow it by just clicking on the corresponding picture.
If you don't use this type of tool, most emoticon sites feature some way to copy and paste the code needed to place the emoticon picture on a forum post. There're always several ways to do it http://smiles.kolobok.us/standart/ok.gif

[Nikhar]

What exactly is 'irony'? At first I thought it was something like sarcasm. I don't think that is it though.

[cacian]

Irony is what I call the double edge sword. In other words it is a fallacy that everything ones does bears no consequences on anything.

[Maximilianus]

http://smiles.kolobok.us/standart/scratch_one-s_head.gif


What exactly is 'irony'? At first I thought it was something like sarcasm. I don't think that is it though.
Listen up, Nik! Uncle Max is gonna tell you what an irony is by means of neat grammar and straightforward examples ;)

It is a synonym for sarcasm when it conveys mockery in which one says the opposite of what is obviously true. For example, let's say you hate a neighbor and want him down, and when he goes down you go to him and say "oh, I'm so sorry to see you so down!" with that particularly sarcastic tone of voice and obvious grin in your face revealing how delighted you feel at his misery :p

An irony can also be an apparent mockery in a situation. For example, it would be an irony if someone has stolen money from you that you were actually willing to give away to them in the first place.

On the other hand, an irony is a discrepancy between what might be expected and what actually occurs. For example, one might expect a swordsmith to be a swordsman, but that is not always the case. When it's not, it may be considered an irony because a craftsman is supposed to know how to use whatever they craft.

[Nikhar]

@cacian and @Max...
ah...I guess I get it now. Thanks a lot. :)
Those examples helped max. And glad I wasn't completely wrong about sarcasm.

This brings me to another question.
Are there any two words in English that have "exactly" the same meaning? I mean, if they are exactly same why need two of them? If there are subtle differences, I understand.

[Whifflingpin]

Particularly in legal language, there was a long period where words with the same meaning were used in pairs, one with an English origin and one with a French origin. The only such phrase that comes to my mind at present is "without let or hindrance," as found in UK passports, in which context, "let" means "hindrance."
The custom arose during the transition period from the official use of Norman-French to the use of the vernacular.

[Oh stupid me - I should not assume that everyone knows that England had a French-speaking ruling class for between 300 & 500 years after 1066AD.]

[OrphanPip]

That's actually a typical construction in Anglo-Saxon, they often used synonyms in pairs. Both let and hindrance are of Old English origin, although the declension -ance to noun the verb hinder is a French borrowing.

[Maximilianus]

@cacian and @Max...
ah...I guess I get it now. Thanks a lot. :)
Those examples helped max. And glad I wasn't completely wrong about sarcasm.
No probs! :wave:


This brings me to another question.
Are there any two words in English that have "exactly" the same meaning? I mean, if they are exactly same why need two of them? If there are subtle differences, I understand.
Besides what has been posted above, you can take the words ire and wrath as further examples. They both mean the same but each stems from a different nest. Ire has a Latin origin, whereas wrath has an Anglo-Saxon root. Other than that, wrath is more common than ire nowadays, although ire is still found in the realm of poets who often resort to words that everyone else appears to have discarded.

Not that we actually need several words meaning the same, but many western languages, like English and Spanish, have been constructed over centuries of merging words of different origin into a common pot. To make it simple, let's say that someone during Roman-occupied England had a Roman parent; such a person was probably more used to saying ire. On the other hand, someone without Roman blood in their veins must have been much more likely to use the Anglo-Saxon equivalent, wrath. And that is how linguistic habits passed on from generation to generation up to our days, words piled up, and then someone included everything as synonyms in a dictionary. Don't forget that several peoples occupied England during the course of its history, Celts, Normans, Angles, Saxons, Romans, and each one contributed with its own language to the shaping of the English that we now speak. Summing up, the evolution of the language speaks for the many words that mean the same but rest on different roots.

[prendrelemick]

Having two words for the same thing is useful as different nuances for each can develop. For instance, Art and Craft began as having the same meaning, but Craft has taken on a clever trickiness, (crafty) whereas Art has gone highbrow.

[Eiseabhal]

Sarcasm - verbal and usually intended to hurt the feelings of an individual. Has been called the lowest form of wit and is often delivered with a sneer of mockery. It can be comic but more frequently is merely nasty.
Irony - more literary. Not usually aimed at hurting an individual. More usually intended to highlight the difference between expectation and reality. It can be split into situational irony, dramatic irony and the sort of mocking wit that leans towards drollery. It frequently pokes fun at ideas or institutions. When Harper Lee's narrator Scout refers to her cousin Francis having been produced in a "burst of friendliness" between her Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jimmy then that is ironic wit.

[JBI]

Sarcasm - verbal and usually intended to hurt the feelings of an individual. Has been called the lowest form of wit and is often delivered with a sneer of mockery. It can be comic but more frequently is merely nasty.
Irony - more literary. Not usually aimed at hurting an individual. More usually intended to highlight the difference between expectation and reality. It can be split into situational irony, dramatic irony and the sort of mocking wit that leans towards drollery. It frequently pokes fun at ideas or institutions. When Harper Lee's narrator Scout refers to her cousin Francis having been produced in a "burst of friendliness" between her Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jimmy then that is ironic wit.

My understanding, Irony - the words said, or actions done have a different significance than their apparent function - for instance, I say one thing and it means another. I do one thing for reason A, but B is the result.

Sarcasm, saying one thing meaning another, but from a condescending perspective, "oh yes, of course I would be so stupid as to be like that, of course I am like that."

as for how nasty it is, well, people are touchy. I use it a lot to cope with the repressive censorship here in China, but Chinese people are mixed about it.

[AuntShecky]

I've got news for you: it's not only non-native speakers of English who have problems deciphering certain idioms and expressions. Some of us who have spent their entire lives studying the language and literature have trouble at times. For instance, I'm still not sure what the old saying, "Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth," really means. Same with "too clever by half." Haven't a clue.

There's one handy reference tool which I've found helpful at times: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. The reference book doesn't cover every single colloquial expression, but nonetheless contains a great storehouse of information. The alternative, as the original poster mentioned, is plugging the puzzling phrase into the "Google" machine, with the understanding that online information is not always accurate.

As to the sidebar discussions of regional accents, I can only imagine what the differences are like on the British isles. Here in the U.S. there are multiple terms for various items, as well as vast pronunciation differences. This is in spite of the logical assumption that coast-to-coast communications networks must tend to "homogenize" the sounds of words. Not true at all--we learn to talk not from TV and radio but primarily upon our mothers' knees, as well as from those who live near us. Hence, the so-called "regional accent" is very much alive, which in my opinion is a very, very good thing.

Such problems in communication can offer opportunities for humor. On an episode of I Love Lucy, a hugely popular American television comedy series from half a century ago that is still widely known via syndication, the title character goes to England on vacation with her husband, Ricky Ricardo, and their neighbors Fred and Ethel Mertz. Lucy asks for directions from a native Londoner, whose heavy British-accent makes his reply totally incomprehensible to Lucy, who keeps repeating her question to the point of annoyance-- until Ethel offers an apology: "You'll have to excuse my friend. She doesn't understand English!"

[cacian]

That's actually a typical construction in Anglo-Saxon, they often used synonyms in pairs. Both let and hindrance are of Old English origin, although the declension -ance to noun the verb hinder is a French borrowing.

True about the word 'ANCE'. It is an interesting addition to the word HINDER. Funnily enough 'ANCE' is French for the word ELEVEN ie the number eleven. It also reminds me of the word OUNCE which is the old fashioned measurement here in the UK before they introduced the metrics.

Here is something that always interested me and it is the word AMEN. It is said in both Christianity Islam and Judaism.
I am not sure of its origin but it always surprised that all three religions are so different and yet they all come under one word AMEN when ending their prayers.

[Maximilianus]

Here is something that always interested me and it is the word AMEN. It is said in both Christianity Islam and Judaism.
I am not sure of its origin but it always surprised that all three religions are so different and yet they all come under one word AMEN when ending their prayers.
Three religions based on prayers and on the desire for the prayers to come true make it very appropriate to end prayers in amen, the root of which is a Hebrew word meaning certainly or verily. Therefore, its suitability to be used at the end of prayers. After all, everyone wants their prayers to be listened to and fulfilled by these gods they talk to, regardless of religion names. What's more, these three religions stem from the Hebrews, or so they say ;)

[qimissung]

They all worship the same God, also.

[cacian]

Max and Qimi thank for your replies.
Here is one synonym I find quite baffling. The word opportunity it is it suggests something positive but then take the word opportunist and then the meaning takes a negative approach.

[Maximilianus]

They all worship the same God, also.
True! :nod:


Max and Qimi thank for your reply,
Here is one synonym I find quite baffling. The word opportunity it is it suggests something positive but then take the word opportunist and then the meaning takes a negative approach.
Opportunities are chances for progress, some of which are ethical, some of which are unethical. When an opportunity is unethical and nonetheless taken by a person, that person is an opportunist. Therefore the negative implication, even in the word opportunity itself.

[Zagreus]

That's actually a typical construction in Anglo-Saxon, they often used synonyms in pairs. Both let and hindrance are of Old English origin, although the declension -ance to noun the verb hinder is a French borrowing.
Saying that using synonyms in pairs is typically Anglo-Saxon reminds me of Shakespeare's use of hendiadys. Hendiadys (or two for one or figure of twinnes) is a figure of speech in which you use two nouns linked by a conjunction for greater emphasis. Funny thing is, creating a hendiadys with synonyms can have quite striking effects. For example, Hamlet says "book and volume of my mind" somewhere in the play. Book and volume might mean the same thing, but volume can also mean "space", so that single expression might have as meaning "the book-like volume of mind" or "the big book of my mind" or simply "the book of my mind".

[Maximilianus]

(...) For instance, I'm still not sure what the old saying, "Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth," really means. Same with "too clever by half." Haven't a clue.
According to my favorite dictionary, butter wouldn't melt in somebody's mouth when they look as if they would never do anything wrong, although you think they would. For example: she looks as though butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, but I've seen her fighting with the younger kids. Please tell me if you ever heard a similar or even a different meaning!

And once again according to my favorite dictionary, to be too clever by half (a British idiom) means to be too confident of your own intelligence in a way that annoys other people. For example: at school he had a reputation for arrogance. 'Too clever by half' was how one former teacher described him. Please tell me if you ever heard any different!


There's one handy reference tool which I've found helpful at times: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. The reference book doesn't cover every single colloquial expression, but nonetheless contains a great storehouse of information. The alternative, as the original poster mentioned, is plugging the puzzling phrase into the "Google" machine, with the understanding that online information is not always accurate.
BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE & FABLE online version on the Internet Archive: archive.org/details/brewersdictionar000544mbp

Thanks a lot for pointing it out, AuntShecky. It does appear really useful for wannabe English experts, if such an expertise is ever attainable :p


As to the sidebar discussions of regional accents, I can only imagine what the differences are like on the British isles. Here in the U.S. there are multiple terms for various items, as well as vast pronunciation differences. This is in spite of the logical assumption that coast-to-coast communications networks must tend to "homogenize" the sounds of words. Not true at all--we learn to talk not from TV and radio but primarily upon our mothers' knees, as well as from those who live near us. Hence, the so-called "regional accent" is very much alive, which in my opinion is a very, very good thing.

Such problems in communication can offer opportunities for humor. On an episode of I Love Lucy, a hugely popular American television comedy series from half a century ago that is still widely known via syndication, the title character goes to England on vacation with her husband, Ricky Ricardo, and their neighbors Fred and Ethel Mertz. Lucy asks for directions from a native Londoner, whose heavy British-accent makes his reply totally incomprehensible to Lucy, who keeps repeating her question to the point of annoyance-- until Ethel offers an apology: "You'll have to excuse my friend. She doesn't understand English!"
Amusing! :)

[Nikhar]

@all... Thanks a lot for your responses. Have I ever said that I feel really glad to have created this thread. :D

@cacian... Isn't 'onze' 11 in french? I mean I always say, 'Je m'appelle Nikhar Agrawal. J'ai onze ans.' Well, those are one of the first things that I learned in french and those have stuck whereas I have forgotten the rest of it. I don't remember what 20 is in french so I stick with 11. :p

By the way, is 'french' supposed to be capitalized?

[cacian]

@all... Thanks a lot for your responses. Have I ever said that I feel really glad to have created this thread. :D

@cacian... Isn't 'onze' 11 in french? I mean I always say, 'Je m'appelle Nikhar Agrawal. J'ai onze ans.' Well, those are one of the first things that I learned in french and those have stuck whereas I have forgotten the rest of it. I don't remember what 20 is in french so I stick with 11. :p

ONZE is right but it in the example it is spelt with a C and still reads ANCE/ONZE.
20 is VINGT in French.


By the way, is 'french' supposed to be capitalized?
Yes and no I think. It depends on the sentence. A french pen or the French flag. Personalising the sentence might require capital F.

[Maximilianus]

By the way, is 'french' supposed to be capitalized?
Of course, if you are aiming at writing proper English; something that doesn't seem a standard to be aimed at nowadays :frown2:

Nationalities in proper English should be capitalized, whereas verbs are not. French (capitalized) is the correct form of the word when it means a noun, adjective, or proper noun referring to anything that comes from France. If you say french (not capitalized), you'll be surely referring to the verb to french, which means to give someone a French kiss. For example: Tommy frenched Lucy without further warning, awakening the butterflies in her stummick.

[Maximilianus]

And not that I love quoting myself, but


According to my favorite dictionary, butter wouldn't melt in somebody's mouth when they look as if they would never do anything wrong, although you think they would. For example: she looks as though butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, but I've seen her fighting with the younger kids. Please tell me if you ever heard a similar or even a different meaning!

And once again according to my favorite dictionary, to be too clever by half (a British idiom) means to be too confident of your own intelligence in a way that annoys other people. For example: at school he had a reputation for arrogance. 'Too clever by half' was how one former teacher described him. Please tell me if you ever heard any different!

has been confirmed by a friend on Facebook who is a native speaker. I'm told that the first idiom is widely used in the US, and that the second is really British.

Another example of the first, suggesting a portrayal of innocence: By the time her parents came home, Emily had cleaned up all evidence of having broken the valuable figurine, and she looked as though butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.

[Maximilianus]

Hello everyone!

This is mostly aimed at native anglophones, because I'm looking for sharp overwhelming confirmation, but of course I will take anyone's linguistic opinions. This morning some people were arguing with me that the word tourist is both a noun and adjective, so they say that when speaking about tourism-related places we call them tourist attractions. On the other hand and since I know the existence of the word touristic, which of course they don't, it seems more natural to me to speak about touristic attractions. So what's your take on this? Is it one, is it the other, or both can be used as adjectives?

[Maximilianus]

I've just rechecked on another dictionary and found that touristic may have a pejorative connotation. One detail new to me.

[Calidore]

Hello everyone!

This is mostly aimed at native anglophones, because I'm looking for sharp overwhelming confirmation, but of course I will take anyone's linguistic opinions. This morning some people were arguing with me that the word tourist is both a noun and adjective, so they say that when speaking about tourism-related places we call them tourist attractions. On the other hand and since I know the existence of the word touristic, which of course they don't, it seems more natural to me to speak about touristic attractions. So what's your take on this? Is it one, is it the other, or both can be used as adjectives?

According to Merriam-Webster, "tourist", while primarily a noun, can be used as an adjective or adverb, as in "tourist class". "Touristic" is in the dictionary and is an adjective, but I've never heard it used in place of "tourist" as you did above. The example in the dictionary is "the touristic tradition of visiting Roman ruins by night."

[Hawkman]

A tourist attraction is a location/venue etc that attracts tourists. Hence tourist attraction. Touristic would mean " like a tourist, or evoking an impression of a tourist."

[Maximilianus]

Thank you both!

I probably fell into the assumption that touristic was more likely out of matching it with my native Spanish equivalent, which looks more like touristic. Assuming is inconvenient.

[kiki1982]

The people you are talking about confuse the idea of compound nouns (or compounds) with adjectival attributes (I think they are called).

Languages like German still put the compound nouns together. So your 'tree house' (a house in a tree) or 'birthday party' (party for your birthday) would be written in one word like 'wallpaper'. Adjectives remain just loose from the word they're talking about (or try to further determine). So the tree house and the birthday party, as the tourist attraction/town or whatever are a more colloquial way of saying that something is touristic. An anglophone would rarely say a 'touristic attraction' just because he likes the sound of tourist attraction better.

A tourist board, for example, is where you go as a tourist to know what there is to see. The tourist attraction is an attraction (maybe mainly for tourists, not always). A touristic place is a place where many tourists flock and may be used in a pejorative sense by people who don't like that. Venice is a touristic place. You literally can't move in the streets around St Mark's square sometimes because the tourists are scared to get lost (really ;)). Venice is not a tourist town, though, because it's still go a real population of Venetians. Benidorm is then largely a tourist town, I expect.

But it's a common problem that English speakers have ceased to be able to tell the difference between a real adjective and an attribute in a compound noun. Just because they are both two separate words. Essentially it's like the words 'checklist', 'wallpaper', 'flowerpot'. Those are still compound noun written together where the 'bedside table' isn't, but it's still a compound noun.
There are reports of certain attributes being used as adjectives now, without adjective endings like -ic, -(e)an, etc. Mainly in slang, but it's a sign that the boundary between real adjectives and those attributes is fading.

[Maximilianus]

Thank you for your elaborate opinion, kiki. It shows you are quite into this thing :)

[kiki1982]

I hope I am, as my hubby and I do translation work into English mostly. :)