Why do we say such things as, "Five FOOT six inches," instead of five FEET six inches?" Why isn't "foot" plural in this case? Have we just gotten grammatically lazy?

Ummmmm...danged if I know? But I usually say 5 foot 11 inches! (I must be taller than you!)

Well, Asa, maybe I am a strange bird (and I am told that I am!), but I always say that I am "5 feet, 2 inches tall". Now--I do wish I could say something taller, but I do say "feet".

Asa, darn fine question, and darn if I have a clue as to the answer.

Kalleh, there is authority against your position:

Five foot two...
Eyes of blue...
But Oh! what those five foot could do...
Has anybody seen my gal?

(An easier-to-follow midi version, but without the full lyrics, is on the list at Hand Carved Midis.)

But Oh! what those five foot could do...
**************************************

Well, unless she was a quinquiped (!?) "feet wouldn't do here, would it!

OK...so, let's see if i have this right. Kalleh, you must be 5 foot 2...
And shufitz, you sing about your gal of 5 foot 2 with eyes of blue....
Umm....Kalleh? What color did you say your eyes were?
Tee hee

You've got me. Yes, my eyes are blue. However, I am more intrigued by your word, Asa, quinquiped. Referring to 5--but actually a made-up word? I couldn't find it.

After Shufitz posted that song, I realize that I do say that I am "5-feet, 2-inches tall", though I say I am "5-foot, 2. Now that is a subtle difference! I imagine the Europeans just say 157 centimeters and don't have to worry about the "feet" or "foot" issue!

Quote

"I imagine the Europeans just say 157 centimeters and don't have to worry about the "feet" or "foot" issue!"

The Europeans might use metric measures but the British don't!

Who on earth would want to drink half a litre of beer...!

Richard English

Oh, dear, Richard! I certainly wouldn't want to drink a half a litre of beer!

You would if it were proper beer; if it's anything like the average US chemical concoction then half a mouthful would be enough for me!

It is impossible to convey, to those who have never tried it, the incredible pleasure of drinking a properly served pint of Real Ale - a pleasure that can be repeated several times in the one sitting with no ill effects other than a slight loosening of the tongue and a feeling of bonhomie to the world.

One of the really interesting things about good beer and its afficionadoes is this. If you want to see the worst manifestations of over-indulgence, don't go to a Real Ale festival. In all my years of attending such events I have NEVER seen drunkeness. But go to a sporting event or pop concert...!

Richard English

You say you don't get drunk on your beers. But I have such a low tolerance for alcohol, that I can literally get drunk on about 3 sips of wine. Have you just built up a tolerance, or is there something different about the alcohol in the beer your country produces?

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't get drunk; I meant to say that you don't get ILL, which is a different thing.

Good beers will allow you to get slightly "merry" without the ill effects (sickness, headache, gastritis) that are the side-effects commonly experienced by those who drink "chemical" beers. Unless your intake of alcohol is truly excessive, its only effect will be the feelings of bonhomie.

There is no difference in the alcohol; it's what comes along with it in the drink that makes the difference.

Experienced drinkers will build up a tolerance to alcohol and will be able to drink more before the effects of it are noticeable. However if you can get drunk on two or three sips of wine then there is some other mechanism in play. I am not a medical expert but I assume that it is possible to be allergic to alcohol and, if this is the case, then possibly the adverse effects you experience are due to this. Nobody can get drunk on the alcohol in two or three sips of wine.

I have noticed, though, that expectations seem to have an effect as well. It is a well-known myth that mixtures of drinks are more intoxicating than the same drinks on their own. This cannot be true; it is the total amount of alcohol that matters. However, if someone believes that a mixture of, say, cider and gin, is a lethal concoction, then he or she will probably start to exhibit symptoms of drunkenness quickly simply because of the expectation that this will happen.

And to hark back to my first sentence; mixtures can make you more ILL than their component parts - they can't though, make you more DRUNK.

Richard English

Okay, Richard, I second the motion, posed in another thread----please start a thread on beer! I am sure we could come up with some fantastic words and phrases.

Ohhh--too late, I see that you already did. Thanks!

Richard is in the minority in England with his real ale enthusiasm. The vast majority of people here drink "chemical" beers and lagers from Britain, Europe and the colonies. Those who enthuse about real ales tend to have beards (including the women) and listen to folk music. The first question real ale imbibers ask when they get to the pub is "What's the (name of ale) like tonight?" They need to check before they drink it because it varies so much even from one night to the next. What you get with "chemical" beers is consistency of quality and taste.
I think that what Richard says about real ales allowing you to get slightly "merry" without the ill effects commonly experienced by those who drink chemical beers is balderdash. Since starting to drink regularly in pubs from the age of 14, I can honestly say that when I have been ill (apart from excessive alcohol induced illness) it has been on occasions when I have sampled "real" ales.
With regard to mixing drinks, I think that it is possible to get more drunk when drinking, for example, pints of beer with whisky chasers. The alcoholic strength of the liquid in the stomach, and the volume of liquid held in the stomach (where alcohol is absorbed) are important factors. If you drink a pint of beer then a whisky the stomach will be holding a high volume of beer with its alcoholic strength increased by the whisky. With a large surface area to volume ratio the alcohol can be absorbed rapidly into the bloodstream giving a more immediate "hit" than by say drinking beer alone. If anyone doubts this they can try it!
This is my first posting but I doubt that I shall be a prolific contributor until I learn to type with more than one finger.
Regards from the sunny North East of England

quote:

---

This is my first posting but I doubt that I shall be a prolific contributor until I learn to type with more than one finger.
Regards from the sunny North East of England

---

Oh, Stan! We love one finger typers! It gives the rest of us time to come up with great replies! Oh, and be still my heart ...another man from England! Welcome, Stan!

It is true that most people in England drink chemical beers; this is a product of the aggressive marketing that has been so successful in eliminating real beer from much of the world - it is not derived from consumer choice. Chemical lagers are hugely profitable, easy to store and have a long life - which is why they are so promoted so heavily. And promotion has a tremendous effect on the behaviour of ill-informed consumers. After all, just look at the millions of people who now buy bottled water at around twice the price per gallon of petrol (gas) when they can get exactly the same product out of their taps (faucets) for as near nothing as makes no difference. That phenomenon has happened, in my lifetime, and has been driven entirely by marketing.

And the majority of the chemical lagers some in the UK choose to drink are not, in fact, from Europe or the colonies. To a font they are brewed under licence in the UK - even the ghastly products of Anheuser Busch! The only ones that are imported are the specialist brands such as Coopers (Australian); Budweiser Budvar (Czech); Jenlain (French).

The consistency of flavour (if one can grace its taste with that description) of chemical beers is a selling point that appeals more to the publicans than anyone else - they don't have to take the trouble to look after chemical beer since it is a sterile product. It's rather like sliced white bread - always just about edible but never very nice. Real ale can, like real bread, be off, but like real bread, when it is at its best it is wonderful. And like any other product you can reject it if its not suitable.

In my own experience of drinking, which goes back nearly fifty years, I have found my "hangover phenomenon" to be accurate - as have many of my drinking acquaintances. I don't know which brand FS has drunk that has given him such ill effects but I would just point out that the most famous product of the North East of England, Newcastle Brown Ale, is not a real ale. It is a brewery conditioned bottled beer of high strength and little merit - although it will get you very drunk and give you a shocking hangover.

So far as mixing drinks is concerned I stand my ground. The intoxicating effect of the mixture is equivalent to the total intoxicating effect of the alcohol in the mixture. The absorbtion rate is a different matter. Some drinks are absorbed more quickly than others and this can affect the rate at which one feels the effects; it does not, though, alter the eventual level of intoxication. It is a well-observed phenomenon that drinking with a meal gets one drunk more slowly than drinking without, simply because the food slows down the rate of alcohol absorbtion.

Oh, and by the way, I don't like folk music.

Richard English

quote:

---

Oh, and by the way, I don't like folk music.

Richard English

---

Would it help if I said I love you both?


Now, let's all raise a pint to the board! It is 2 months old today!

I'm a real ale man myself and I find that on some points I can agree with both RE and FatStan. I believe the 'real ale doesn't give you a hangover' story to be an urban myth. I've had plenty of hangovers and they've been just as bad on all sorts of varieties of real ale as they have drinking the chemical concoctions.
On the other hand I'd have to say that the worst hangover I ever had was when I was about seventeen and that was drinking Newcaastle Brown. (I was too young to know better - I've never touched the stuff since.)

Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I must agree with Bob and Richard on Newcastle Brown Ale. In my youth I would drink seven or eight bottles (pints) in a session without any serious side effects. Recently I reinstated "Broon" to my liquid diet but found that I would have seriously bad nightmares at about three o'clock in the morning. A friend of mine worked in the brewery where it is made and he claimed that they started off with ordinary beer then added some chemicals and a couple of dead rats to improve the "body."

This thread has caused me to assess my beer consumption since I was fourteen. It seems that at the age of forty three I have consumed in the region of 46800 pints. At today's average price of £2.00 per pint that equates to £93600. This would buy a two bedroomed house where I live today. Having said that, I am sure that had I not spent that money on beer, it would have just been wasted.

Richard, I'm sorry if I unjustly accused you of liking folk music. However, it is significant that you do not deny the possession of a beard.

I forgot to mention that in the North East, Newcastle Brown Ale is known as "Lunatic's Broth" or "Journey into Space."

quote:

---

Having said that, I am sure that had I not spent that money on beer, it would have just been wasted.

---

Oh, Honey! You know the old saying... "You don't buy beer, you only rent it!"

quote:

---

You don't buy beer, you only rent it!

---

We are but the intermediary between the brewer and the sewer.

Quote

"I believe the 'real ale doesn't give you a hangover' story to be an urban myth"

It is not, in fact. There is much scientific evidence to show that it is not alcohol that causes the hangover, but the various other substances in the drink (not just beer, of course). This is one reason why cheap red wine tends to give a bad hangover whereas cheap white wine does not. Pure alcohol has little effect other than intoxication and dehydration (which is why drinking a pint or two of water before you retire after an evening on spirits will help reduce the symptoms of dehydration - one of the components of a hangover)

Real Ale has few additives and therefore is less likely to cause a hangover. Real lagers (such as those brewed in Bavaria under the ancient purity laws of that state will not usually give you a hangover; the rubbish that is sold under pseudo-germanic names in the UK will. These concoctions contain many adulterants including heading compounds to give an artificial foam as well, of course, as commercially produced carbon-dioxide in large measure. There is anecdotal evidence (and I will not name the manufacturer of the brew) of a chemical beer to which was added a compound that was actually intended to its drinkers a headache the next morning, thus to make them think that they must really have enjoyed themselves the night before!

I confess, I do have a beard, but no beer-gut. You can see a picture of me on my website - www.retraining-uk.com. For pictures of other Real Ale enthusiasts inncocent of beards (as well as much other useful information about beer) go to www.camra.org.uk. If nothing else, the picture of Ninkasi, the new Goddess of British Beer, is very easy on the male eye. (I would have pasted her image here but don't have the knowledge yet of how to do this)

As regards the cost of drinking (and I have many more years to look back on than do most) I can say that, after much consideration, I have decided that, were I to win a million pounds, I would probably spend half of it on drink and fast living.

The other half I would probably just fritter away.

Richard English

I have decided that, were I to win a
million pounds, I would probably spend half of it on drink and fast living.
***************************************

Were I to win, I'd hire someone to find out why my asking about the plural of "foot" caused you all to go a pub and get pissed!