Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    British vs. American English
Page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
British vs. American English Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Seanahan:
Is that a possible mondegreen?

I never thought of that. I suppose it's possible, but I don't really think so. Joplin's version is so much different than Tucker's. She changes some of the lyrics from the third person to the first person. For example, where Tucker says "I'm pretty sure you're gonna knock 'em dead," Joplin says "I do believe, I'm really gonna knock 'em dead, oh!"

I've never carefully listened to the lyrics, either, and I don't know if I've heard both versions. I remember very few of the lyrics, and I don't remember them right. What I remember is "Put on your high heel sneakers, we're goin' steppin' out tonight."


Tinman
 
Posts: 2770 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I was reading an English nursing journal and came across a phrase that brought a smile to my face: they talked about "looking after" the patients.

In the U.S., at least from my experience, that term is never used professionally, and even when used informally, it is a bit old-fashioned. A grandmother might tell her grandson to "look after" his sister, but that's about it. We'd say "care for" or "take care of" here. Is that use common in England?
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
I don't know about specifically in the nursing community but I'd certainly say that in her later years my father and I looked after my mother. It's common in normal day to day use, more common than care for which here would often mean something like "have an emotional attachment to".
 
Posts: 7864 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It's still quite common over here and, as Bob says, the term has a less emotional connotation than "care for" while still conveying the idea of meeting all the physical and as many of the emotional needs of patients as is possible under the circumstances while still maintaining vital professional detachment.
 
Posts: 480 | Location: UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
A generic term, "carer" has arisen here to cover people who look after the needs of other people. The people being cared-for may be very young, have disabilities, or be elderly. Usually they are relatives, but are sometimes "professional carers" such a nurses and social workers. Rather than referring to a child's "parent or guardian", as in the past, schools now frequently refer to a "carer".


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by arnie:
A generic term, "carer" has arisen here to cover people who look after the needs of other people.

The clinical phrase over here is "care giver."

Tinman
 
Posts: 2770 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Yes, Tinman (always great to see you here!) is correct. We also call those people you describe, Arnie (the disabled, very young, and eldely), as "vulnerable populations."
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Richard posted this in another thread: "What Christmas Cracker did you find this tale in?"

What does that mean?
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
"What Christmas Cracker did you find this tale in?"

A Christmas cracker is a party favor, or tube that makes a noise when you pull the ends of the shiny paper it's wrapped in, and it usually has a toy, paper hat, or slip of paper in it. I've seen them for sale in the States.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5085 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
quote:
it usually has a toy, paper hat, or slip of paper in it.

Usually all three. Usually all three are cheap 'n nasty, particularly the toy.

The slip of paper is usually called the 'motto'. I think earlier versions contained true mottos such as 'Neither a lender nor a borrower be." and so on, but nowadays they usually contain the sort of joke that is aimed at five-year-olds, for example, 'My dog's got no nose.' 'Really? How does he smell?' 'Awful!'


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
British crackers are cute but mine are more exciting.
 
Posts: 1245 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
Is the text of your article online, neveu? I clicked on various links but they seemed to be self-referential and took me round in circles.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
Are you sure you didn't get into a credit card or insurance help site? Frown
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Is the text of your article online

Unfortunately no. You've got to buy the journal. I can send you instructions though.
 
Posts: 1245 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
Thanks, neveu, I don't bother. I'm not particularly interested in making my own crackers, and suspect yours might prove to be too 'exciting'. Wink


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Ah, yes. Now I remember seeing them. I think they might be called something else here, as I don't ever recall the name "Christmas Crackers."

Neveu, I didn't know you were a celebrity!
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Neveu, I didn't know you were a celebrity!

Neither did I.
 
Posts: 1245 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Whenever I see somebody's name on a Web site, I always think of him/her as a celebrity.
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
In the future we'll all have 15 minutes of anonymity.*



*I stole that from someone, but I forgot who.
 
Posts: 1245 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
That is a great one.

At my organization, a rival organization has requested, via the freedom of information act, all emails that anyone in our organization has ever sent to our members. Whew! Probably the courts won't uphold such a broad request, but it surely will mean that we do things differently.
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The FoIA(pronounced foy-uh) is a fairly broad act. It effects almost all public(government) organizations. Most documents that the University of Illinois had could be "FoIA-ed". Daily schedules and meeting minutes of congressmen are similarly "FoIA-able".

If your organization is part of the government, then almost any record you have is fair game. This seems ridiculous, but the alternative is too horrible to think about. Something like all of the emails your organization has sent out would be a legal request, and there is little the courts could do to deny it.

That being said, if someone in your organization sent out an email saying "remember to clean up old emails every couple of months", they could be indicted for something, although I'm not sure if it is fraud, obstruction of justice, or something else.
 
Posts: 886 | Location: IllinoisReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
Fortunately we don't (yet) have such an Act, so people and organisations can still keep most things private.

Although our Government would surely like such an Act so that they could spy on others, they wouldn't like it if that same right were given to the hoi polloi to spy on them - so it seems unlikely that any such legislation will reach the Staute Book.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Richard, I don't think I was very clear. The FoIA only applies to organizations within the government. The act is not applicable to private organizations. The idea is not for the government to spy on us, it is for us to be able to keep track of what the government does. The government itself could get all of these documents anyways.
 
Posts: 886 | Location: IllinoisReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Yes, Richard, Sean is correct. The freedom of information act has been around for a long time; it isn't a result of the recent reaction to terrorism.

Sean, our company is private. The freedom of information request went to governmental agencies to which we write emails. There are a couple of ways to prevent this, though. One, is that since there have been one hell of a lot of emails sent since our organization formed, the govenmental agencies have a right to charge for each individual sheet. That can add up!

Secondly, the request that is affecting our company is way too general. I know because I once requested some documents of our local school district from the freedom of information act. To do so, I read the Illinios law on it, and it specifically says that you have to request something specific for an acceptable purpose. The purposes are spelled out, and the law was an excellent guide.

The problem, however, is that since the request wasn't made to us, we can't control how it's handled. Most of the agencies that received the requests have handled them by charging for each page or by having their attorneys intervene. There are a few, however, that aren't handling the requests as well; they want to give away the farm, so to speak. In the end, there is nothing we've done wrong, so there is nothing to worry about. Still, having every single email looked at can be unsettling.

The bottom line is, we will have to do business differently, and that has already started.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
Yes, Richard, Sean is correct. The freedom of information act has been around for a long time; it isn't a result of the recent reaction to terrorism.

I was aware of this. But we still don't have an equivalent - and I am still pleased that we don't.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
Richard,

You are incorrect, I'm afraid; we do have such an Act. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into effect in January 2005.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I fear that the information hadn't reached me. Bad news, then :-(

Mid you, I'll bet it's hedged around with exceptions if Blair had anything to do with it.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
As Arnie knows, I am doing a British words theme from my Paul Dickson book "A Connoisseur's Collection of Old and New, Weird and Wonderful, Useful and Outlandish Words." Many of them are wrong, unfortunately...according to King Arnold anyway. Wink

However, it had this word that I thought was great, if it in fact is correct. I couldn't post it on wordcraftjr, though, for obvious reasons:

Slut's wool - Dickson calls it "A marvelous piece of British slang for dust balls or 'dust bunnies'."

On another front...I read this in the Chicago Tribune today. Without getting all political, I am wondering if culturally it is true; the quote originally came from the Washington Post. The article was talking about how Blair has become too "Pro-American":

"Blair's affinity with the United States went deeper than policy. His can-do optimism, his relentlessly on-message spin, his frank love of the camera: All would have been unremarkable in an American pol, but all challenged British tradition. Blair's predecessors respected their countrymen's distaste for showmanship, and they often seemed mousy when appearing alongside U.S. leaders. But Blair smiled his enormous chipmunk smile. He was even more upbeat than Americans."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
Many people feel that Blair is aligning us too closely with the USA.

Some feel we should be more closely aligned with Europe.

I think we should be more closely aligned with England.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
I can't say I've ever heard of "slut's wool" but the OED defines it as "the fluff or dust left on the floor, etc., by a sluttish servant or person.". Makes sense.

Also in the OED are: slut's corner, a corner left uncleaned by a sluttish person; also fig.; slut-, slut's-hole, a place or receptacle for rubbish; also fig.; and slut's-pennies, hard pieces in a loaf due to imperfect kneading of the dough.

I agree with the Trib about B. Liar. His adoration of Bush and willing acquiescence to his wishes turns many people's stomachs over here, whatever their politics.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I get the political part of Blair. However, what about the "showmanship;" the "can-do" optimism; the relentless "on-message spin;" and that enormous "chipmunk smile?" Do the British really prefer the "mousy" type instead?
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
Speaking just for myself (and you can take it to extend to the English in general if you wish) I'd say that the last things I want in a politician are showmanship, can-do optimism, an on-message spin and a chipmonk smile. Those are traits that a stand-up commedian or a used car salesman can use. What I want in a politician is a sense of authority, competence and yes, if you like, gravitas. I simply don't trust the showbiz style of politics. So "mousy" if you wish but an air of quiet authority beats an air of can-do optimism any day in my book.
 
Posts: 7864 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
quote:
I want in a politician are showmanship, can-do optimism, an on-message spin and a chipmonk smile.


The chipmonk was the fish friar's partner, was he not?

So who among the British subjects on this board should you elect as the next PM? Hmmmmmm.... Does one have to be an MP before reversing the initials? Curious, wot?
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Interesting. "Chipmunk" can be spelled that way or as "chipmonk." I was sure when both Asa and Bob spelled it differently that I was wrong, but I was pleasantly surprised. Smile
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
Does one have to be an MP before reversing the initials? Curious, wot?

Certainly.

Remember, we do not elect our leaders; we elect a poliical party and the party chooses its leader - who will then become PM.

This usually means that our leaders are in power for a shorter perion than are US Presidents - which is maybe a good idea.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
On the other hand, they can go on for longer. US presidents are limited to 2 terms maximum, whereas UK PMs can go on ... and on ... and on ... until they die or get thrown out.

Maggie Thatcher had just over 12 years in power before she got ousted by her own party and Tony Blair would have had that long too if he had decided to stay for the full duration of his party's third term.
 
Posts: 480 | Location: UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
As I said, "usually". Few of our PMs have been in power for more than 7 years; most US Presidents have.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
American Presidents get a maximum of 8 years (Roosevelt was elected 4 times, after that they amended the constitution). Since Roosevelt we've had

Truman: ~7 years (Roosevelt died during his 4th term)
Eisenhower: 8
Kennedy: 3
Johnson 5
Nixon: 6
Ford: 2
Carter: 4
Reagan: 8
Bush 4
clinton 8
W 8

The mean is 5.7 and the median is 6.
 
Posts: 1245 | Location: San FranciscoReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Asa Lovejoy>
posted
The tenures of Kennedy and Ford were anomalies, so one should subtract those, I think.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Few of our PMs have been in power for more than 7 years; most US Presidents have.

You can count for yourselves on Wikipedia.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5085 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
This usually means that our leaders are in power for a shorter perion than are US Presidents - which is maybe a good idea.

Welll...then there is royalty, too, but we won't mention that. Wink

Nope, Asa, I don't think Kennedy and Ford should have been considered anomalies (what about Johnson then?). Things happen. Besides, Ford could have won again, but he didn't. Likewise, Johnson could have been in for 9 years, but he bowed out because he could read the writing on the wall.

In looking at zmj's post, I didn't do the math, but it looks like the U.S. and the U.K. leaders aren't significantly different (statistically) in numbers of years in power.
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
American Presidents get a maximum of 8 years


Constitutionally, the office can be held for one day less than 10 years. That is, if you take over for a president more than half way through his term, you can still be elected to two terms.
 
Posts: 886 | Location: IllinoisReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Having just come from the UK...boy, do I have a lot of of British vs. American differences!

However, here are a couple from the London Times:

Are obese people called "fattipuffs?" That's what Daisy Waugh calls them. Oh...and she calls thin people "thinnifers," though I imagine that is her own coinage. What I also liked about her column (and Arnie will as well) is this sentence: "It has been mooted that London Fashion Week..." We don't see that use of moot very often in the U.S.
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Are obese people called "fattipuffs?" That's what Daisy Waugh calls them. Oh...and she calls thin people "thinnifers," though I imagine that is her own coinage.


Yes, it is her own coinage - I've never heard it here at all.


quote:
What I also liked about her column (and Arnie will as well) is this sentence: "It has been mooted that London Fashion Week..." We don't see that use of moot very often in the U.S.


It's becoming rarer, but it still crops up occasionally in "posh" papers like The Times.
 
Posts: 480 | Location: UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
I have a vague memory that "fattipuffs" I may have seen elsewhere, but I'm sure I've never heard of a "thinnifer".

Coming from the literary Waugh family as she does, I'd be astounded if she had used moot incorrectly.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I've heard of both fattipuffs and thinnifers, but only in a limited literary context - not in "normal" everyday speech.

Ah, yes. I thought so. They originally appear in a translation of a children's book by Andre Maurois. See here.
 
Posts: 480 | Location: UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Reviving a fun thread...

Shu would much rather me start my own topic than to always revive threads, but this is hardly worth a thread of its own, and yet I thought it quite funny.

I was asked to be a reviewer for an article that was submitted for publication. Here is a sentence from the response email I got back when I agreed: "We are keen to limit the time between receipt of papers and the editorial decision, and so it would help us enormously if you could look at this paper within the next fortnight."

Americans, 3 guesses, and the first two don't count: Which country is this publication from? Wink
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of pearce
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kalleh:
Reviving a fun thread...


I was asked to be a reviewer for an article that was submitted for publication. Here is a sentence from the response email I got back when I agreed: "We are keen to limit the time between receipt of papers and the editorial decision, and so it would help us enormously if you could look at this paper within the next fortnight."

Americans, 3 guesses, and the first two don't count: Which country is this publication from? Wink


Sorry, not an American but since I know Americans eschew verbosity… No, I retract that. It must be Japanese Wink
 
Posts: 424 | Location: Yorkshire, EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I apologize for my extreme ignorance...but because I wanted to be sure that I met their deadline, I actually had to look up the word "fortnight." I thought it was "2 weeks," but I wanted to be sure. Also, we just don't use that word "keen" like our English compatriots do.
 
Posts: 23298 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of jerry thomas
posted Hide Post
Kalleh, while you're looking up words, you might want to consider "friends" instead of "compatriots".

On the other hand, maybe not.

We share a language -- more or less -- but we live in different countries !!
 
Posts: 6710 | Location: Kehena Beach, Hawaii, U.S.A.Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    British vs. American English

Copyright © 2002-12