| Author |
Message |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:13:19 +0100, Charles Riggs <chriggs@eircom.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | You have a point when it comes to that particular Briticism, for I
don't think there is a true equivalent in AmE. "What are you talking
about?" doesn't quite do it. Perhaps Coop should be allowed to get
away with this one in AUE, although I doubt if it'd fly in Orlando.
I'll continue to put my foot down, though, when it comes to such words
as "lift" and "anticlockwise" from the pen of the Coop, probably an
invitation for him to pepper his next ten hundred posts with them.
|
Sometimes I do see some conflict in choosing words. I would not say
"The lift in the hotel I stayed in in Chicago creaked and bumped as it
rose." However, if I was describing a similar apparatus in my hotel
in London, I think that "lift" is appropriate. Not necessary, but
appropriate.
The conflict is more apparent in "tube" vs "subway". Hoosier or not,
straw in my hair or not, I use the tube in London. I go to a tube
station and use the tube to get to my destination. Same with "pub"
and "bar".
I don't labor over these decisions here and labour over them in
London, but using the local term for objects is perfectly OK in my
mind.
The OKness fades with minor objects, though. I know to look for a
hire-car firm in the UK, but I rent a car. I place my luggage in the
trunk but I may stop at a boot sale on the way. When I return the
car, I may point out that the off-side wing was damaged when I picked
the car up, but I checked the fenders for damage when I picked up the
car.
--
Making an effort to include a condemnable term in every posting.
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:13:19 +0100, Charles Riggs <chriggs@eircom.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | How do you explain the fact you "react" to alleged English errors in
my posts roughly one hundred times more often than you do to errors in
Coop's posts?
|
This somehow reminds me of the discussion where someone says that
there are 100 times more black people in prisons than white people,
and the reply is "That's because black people commit crimes 100 times
more frequently than white people."
| Quote: | I have to consider you a member of Coop's fan club on
the "Those who aren't with me are against me" principle,
|
This would be understood as "Anyone that doesn't support Charles is
automatically a member of Coop's fan club". That's hardly the case.
--
Making an effort to include a condemnable term in every posting.
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:13:19 +0100, Charles Riggs <chriggs@eircom.net
wrote:
How do you explain the fact you "react" to alleged English errors in
my posts roughly one hundred times more often than you do to errors in
Coop's posts?
This somehow reminds me of the discussion where someone says that
there are 100 times more black people in prisons than white people,
and the reply is "That's because black people commit crimes 100 times
more frequently than white people."
I have to consider you a member of Coop's fan club on
the "Those who aren't with me are against me" principle,
|
Word Boo! If ain't WITH the terror-fighters, then you ARE a terrorist!
| Quote: |
This would be understood as "Anyone that doesn't support Charles is
automatically a member of Coop's fan club". That's hardly the case.
--
Making an effort to include a condemnable term in every posting.
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
|
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
|
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this one.(Indeed, I
am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered at it here.) There is
also "chin" for "tune".
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:00:39 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
Sometimes I do see some conflict in choosing words. I would not say
"The lift in the hotel I stayed in in Chicago creaked and bumped as it
rose." However, if I was describing a similar apparatus in my hotel
in London, I think that "lift" is appropriate. Not necessary, but
appropriate.
Actually, Coop, I think there is a (weak) case to be made for that sort of
usage. The problem is that you never limit these Hiberno-Britic usages to
Hiberno-Britic contexts. You speak of "lifts" in Chicago.
|
Never without the pulling end of the chain in hand.
| Quote: | The conflict is more apparent in "tube" vs "subway". Hoosier or not,
straw in my hair or not, I use the tube in London. I go to a tube
station and use the tube to get to my destination.
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
|
You have no idea of how relieved I am to hear this.
--
Making an effort to include a condemnable term in every posting.
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
| Quote: | aHarvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this one.(Indeed, I
am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered at it here.) There is
also "chin" for "tune".
|
I can imagine the existence of a form approaching that, but I think to
call it "the current prevailing London pronunciation" is just silly.
It's certainly not the one I hear from the people I work with in
London; we must work in widely diverging circles.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
aHarvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this one.(Indeed, I
am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered at it here.) There is
also "chin" for "tune".
I can imagine the existence of a form approaching that, but I think to
call it "the current prevailing London pronunciation" is just silly.
It's certainly not the one I hear from the people I work with in
London; we must work in widely diverging circles.
|
I certainly don't hear it either (although I don't work in circles...)
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" wrote:
Maria Conlon wrote:
I don't think "Coop" -- or anyone -- expected to see my name on the
membership list of any TC fan club there might be. I'm neutral on
TC: both nice and not-so-nice to him, depending on what he's
posted. (Does that make me wishy-washy? No answers, please.)
That's exactly how I am. I react to posts, not to what I imagine
people might be like. Granted, there are some posters whose
material often makes me quit reading it after just a casual glance.
I'm not into hobbyhorses much.
How do you explain the fact you "react" to alleged English errors in
my posts roughly one hundred times more often than you do to errors in
Coop's posts?
|
Say what? I have reacted to a missing or extra comma in your posts from
time to time, and I have done the same with Coop's posts. More often with
Coop's, I'd say.
| Quote: | I have to consider you a member of Coop's fan club on
the "Those who aren't with me are against me" principle, Matti isn't
fond of, but then he could well be another member -- hard to pin the
fellow down on anything, but I think he leans in that direction.
|
Well, I hate to say this, but your crusade against Coop is getting to be a
bit boring. You have become one of the posters whose posts I often threat
with only a cursory glance nowadays. Life's too short to read something
that is repetitive, negative (not buddha-like), and has nothing to do with
me.
I mean, really!
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, Laura F. Spira wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
It's certainly not the one I hear from the people I work with in
London; we must work in widely diverging circles.
I certainly don't hear it either (although I don't work in
circles...)
|
Some days it seems that's all I do...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
aHarvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this one.(Indeed,
I
am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered at it here.) There
is
also "chin" for "tune".
I can imagine the existence of a form approaching that, but I think
to
call it "the current prevailing London pronunciation" is just
silly.
It's certainly not the one I hear from the people I work with in
London; we must work in widely diverging circles.
|
Not your circles or mine, but try the Radio One types.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Skitt wrote:
| Quote: | Well, I hate to say this, but your crusade against Coop is getting to
be a bit boring. You have become one of the posters whose posts I
often threat with only a cursory glance nowadays.
|
Damn fingers -- threatening and all. That's no treat to anyone.
--
Skitt
Things keep happening that no one can explain.
- Sally Brown (Peanuts). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:14 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
aHarvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this
one.(Indeed, I am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered
at it here.) There is also "chin" for "tune".
I can imagine the existence of a form approaching that, but I
think to call it "the current prevailing London pronunciation" is
just silly.
It's certainly not the one I hear from the people I work with in
London; we must work in widely diverging circles.
Not your circles or mine, but try the Radio One types.
|
I'll pass on that, thanks -- but I'd argue that Radio Oneland doesn't
constitute "the current prevailing London pronunciation"....
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:55 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:46:04 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrought:
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this one.(Indeed, I
am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered at it here.) There is
also "chin" for "tune".
|
Don't be soace cheepid!
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:09 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle wrote
aHarvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, Salvatore Volatile wrote
-snip-
I think this is completely legitimate -- I'd also say "tube",
although arguably one should write "cheeb" to match the
current
prevailing London pronunciation.
?? You really need to have your ears checked.
No, allowing for the exaggeration, I back him on this
one.(Indeed, I am probably one of his sources, as I've sneered
at it here.) There is also "chin" for "tune".
I can imagine the existence of a form approaching that, but I
think to call it "the current prevailing London pronunciation" is
just silly.
It's certainly not the one I hear from the people I work with in
London; we must work in widely diverging circles.
Not your circles or mine, but try the Radio One types.
I'll pass on that, thanks -- but I'd argue that Radio Oneland
doesn't
constitute "the current prevailing London pronunciation"....
|
Quite so; but I did insert an exaggeration disclaimer, which I hoped
would cover it. You hear it on Four as well, though.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in