Cultural differences

June 27, 2003, 02:02

Richard English

I do not intend to get into an argument about this (the more so since this a a word board, not a Royalty board).

I will merely observe that CJ's comments are based on "media-appearance" and his conclusions are as suspect as would mine be if I were to base my judgement of, say Bill Clinton, on such superficial things.

We should all be wary of the media; it can be manipulated very well by those who are good at media manipulation.

I never met Diana; I did, though, used to work with one of her school friends.

Richard English

June 27, 2003, 14:06

C J Strolin

To R.E.:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:
I do not intend to get into an argument about this (the more so since this a a word board, not a Royalty board).
Quite agree though that never seems to stop us from discussing non-language topics when the spirit moves us. If I were to post something along the lines of "American beer's are great," I'm sure I could count on you for more than simply a correction of my apostrophe error.

I will merely observe that CJ's comments are based on "media-appearance"
Again, totally agree. I stated as much repeatedly in my post.

and his conclusions are as suspect as would mine be if I were to base my judgement of, say Bill Clinton, on such superficial things.
Yet you must agree that a huge percentage of our opinions are based on information received less than directly from the source itself. I would love to be able to form an opinion of your Camilla based on something other than what I read in the press (which, I further agree, is never 100% reliable) but what else is there?

I never met Diana; I did, though, used to work with one of her school friends.
"I did, though, used to work..."?? Is that the structure you would use over there? I would have opted for "I did, however, work at one time with..." (You may read this, of course, as my attempt to paddle this thread back into language-related waters.)

To Kalleh:
You really think our American preference for Di over Camilla is simply a matter of looks? As a nation, I agree that we're a pretty shallow bunch but certainly we're not as bad as all that!

AND Princess Di was nothing short of mind-bogglingly, drop-dead gorgeous! But yes, the difference between the two women, as striking as it is, certainly plays its part as you say. Nowadays someone not familiar with the royals and seeing a picture of Prince Charles and Camilla for the first time could be forgiven for asking "Which one's the Prince?" Never would have happened in the old days, unh-unh!

To Graham Nice:
OK, wiseguy, you started this. So what's the answer? What do you call those who view the royals as expendable?

To our British brethren (which, of course, includes "sistren" if there are any of you out there):
During the time Prince Charles was married to Princess Diana, a common joke which made the rounds over here dealt with the observation that the, let's say, striking nature of his ears was becoming even more pronounced as a result of the use the fair Princess was putting them to. Was that strictly an American bit of gossip or did you reach a similar conclusion over there?

And, lastly, I'm glad no one attacked me for being sarcastic when I ended that post with "God Save the Queen," a possible outcome that I considered long after leaving the computer. Absolutely no sarcasm was intended; she seems like a truly wonderful person. (at least judging from what I read in the papers...)

June 27, 2003, 18:40

tinman

quote:
Originally posted by C J Strolin:
To R.E.:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:
I never met Diana; I did, though, used to work with one of her school friends.

"I did, though, used to work..."?? Is that the structure you would use over there? I would have opted for "I did, however, work at one time with..." (You may read this, of course, as my attempt to paddle this thread back into language-related waters.)

Yes, I much prefer discussing language to British Royalty. Is it "use to" or "used to"? In Richard's sentence I would have written "did ... use" rather than "did ... used". CJ chose to recast. James J. Kilpatrick (The Writer's Art) discussed this recently.

Tinman

June 27, 2003, 19:47

Kalleh

quote:
You really think our American preference for Di over Camilla is simply a matter of looks? As a nation, I agree that we're a pretty shallow bunch but certainly we're not as bad as all that!

CJ, I don't think it is that Americans are shallow. However, I do think that people all over the world tend to be a bit shallow about women's looks. How many ugly, fat men do you see on television, and it doesn't matter. The women? They have to be "drop-dead gorgeous." Look at "Law and Order" as an example. Or, remember all the jokes about Janet Reno when she was our Attorney General?

As far as Princess Di being "drop dead gorgeous", I just don't agree. Surely, beauty is individual. For example, to me Harrison Ford is tremendously more gorgeous than Robert Redford, whom I consider to be a "pretty boy" type. Yet, most women wouldn't agree with me. Certainly, Princess Di was pretty; in my view, she wasn't "drop-dead gorgeous."

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Fri Jun 27th, 2003 at 19:55.]

June 28, 2003, 13:45

Richard English

I meant to write this. The "d" was a typo.

Richard English

June 30, 2003, 05:58

Graham Nice

quote:
To Graham Nice:
OK, wiseguy, you started this. So what's the answer? What _do_ you call those who view the royals as expendable?

Republicans.

Not an earth-shattering answer, but the name of a US political party at the opposite side of the political spectrum.

June 30, 2003, 09:54

Richard English

Republicans are a well-intentioned group who believe that an elected leader is better than a hereditory one.

They certainly have reason on their side but I am less convinced that they can say the same about history.

Richard English

June 30, 2003, 10:58

arnie

quote:
are you Americans aware of the name given o those of us on this side of the pond who understandably want William and his hideous family strung up?

quote:
Republicans.

Hardly. I'd call them would-be regicides. I doubt that there are many republicans over here who want the royal family's blood. If it ever happens over here I imagine Tony will announce during a Cabinet reshuffle that Lizzie has been pensioned off, and, by the way, he is now Head of State. No-one is likely to be hanging from lamposts, no rivers of blood.

July 01, 2003, 11:33

C J Strolin

quote:
Originally posted by arnie:
I'd call them would-be regicides.
Not to quibble (though, God knows, it's what I do best) but the regicides would be the murders themselves, not the murderers Republican or otherwise. Those committing the dastardly deed could be labled "regicidal maniacs" or whatever but the regicides themselves, warranted or otherwise, would refer to the late Prince C. and company.

Although, come to think of it, not the entire company since Camilla isn't, by definition, royal. I'd suggest the term "tarticide" but doesn't "tart" imply a woman of far fewer years than Camilla? Any suggestions?

I doubt that there are many republicans over here who want the royal family's blood.
Their cash, maybe, yes, but I agree, not their blood. I'll even include Camilla and that toe-sucking what's-his-name in the group of those whom I personally would not string up.

No-one is likely to be hanging from lamposts, no rivers of blood.
Not like the good ol' days, eh? I don't suppose there's much chance of an eventual King Charles going mad (He's British, remember; it's not that long of a stretch!) and turning into a modern day Henry VIII. Sure would spice up the papers, though!

July 01, 2003, 14:13

jerry thomas

"Royals to the wall," Reggie sighed.

July 02, 2003, 01:37

Ros

Actually, a regicide is both the act and the person committing the act...

quote:
Main Entry: reg·i·cide
Pronunciation: 're-j&-"sId
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin reg-, rex king + English -cide -- more at ROYAL
Date: circa 1548
1 : one who kills a king
2 : the killing of a king
- reg·i·ci·dal /"re-j&-'sI-d&l/ adjective

Interestingly, the current Prince of Wales is on record as saying he doesn't intend to be crowned King Charles - I think he's expressed a preference for George (his last name).

July 02, 2003, 14:26

C J Strolin

VERY interesting! I don't particularly like it and will make the appropriate adjustments in the next OED rewrite but the "regicide" dichotomy is both a definite eye-opener and a reminder to me to check the damn dictionary the next time before I go putting my foot in it again.

Several years ago, there was a comedy routine about various forms of murder which included the following:

When you kill your mother, that's matricide. When you kill your mother and then leave her body on the front porch, that's welcome matricide.

When you kill your father, that's patricide. When you kill your father on March 17th, that's Saint Patricide.

When you kill yourself, that's suicide. When you kill yourself because you have a very large nose, that's inka-dinka-duicide. (a reference to Jimmy Durante and his theme song)

There were some seven or eight others but they escape me at the moment.

July 02, 2003, 14:46

C J Strolin

quote:
Originally posted by Ros:
Interestingly, the current Prince of Wales is on record as saying he doesn't intend to be crowned King Charles...

Using Kalleh's formula in the "Great E-Mails" thread, "Charles, Prince of Wales" would translate into "King Poopsie Gizzardchunks."

Not all that likely, I suppose...

July 03, 2003, 03:51

Ros

I think you suppose correctly CJ!

After a bit more digging, it appears that the dichotomy extends to all the "icide" words...

July 07, 2003, 17:27

C J Strolin

The only term in which this commonly occurs, to the best of my knowledge, is "suicide" as in "He was the third suicide of the month" but even in this aspect it's only because the murderer and the victim are the same person.

July 09, 2003, 14:23

shufitz

quote:
Originally posted by Ros:
I think you suppose correctly CJ!

After a bit more digging, it appears that the dichotomy extends to all the "icide" words...

I was about to say I agree with Ros, though CJ is right that most of those words are rare. However, it occured to me that the most common "icide" word, homicide, is doesn't have such a pair of meanings.

But I was wrong. Upon checking, I find that homocide does have two meanings:
1. The killing of one person by another.
2. A person who kills another person.

The latter was news to me.

July 10, 2003, 19:28

wordnerd

The various definition conflict.

Consider One-look, which:

chooses as its definition "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being"; but
quotes at length a discussion that begins by defining of homicide as "the unlawful killing of a human being" ("premeditated" has vanished); and yet
has many definitions that do not insist that the killing be "unlawful".
Among these, notice that Webster's Unabridged breaks homicide into three classes, only the last of which is criminal: justifiable homicide (such as self-defense), accidental homicide, and criminal homicide.

July 17, 2003, 20:38

Kalleh

I will be delivering a paper in Palermo, Italy this fall. The distance between the hotel and the "castle" that is hosting the conference was described as 30'. In the U.S. that's not far... that's 30 feet! I assume that means kilometers? Oh, and it would be rather unlikely that we'd have a conference in a "castle" in the U.S.

July 18, 2003, 02:08

Richard English

I wonder whether it was a corruption in an electronic version of the document?

It's a guess but I'd have thought the 30 kilometres was unlikely as well - after all, that's getting on for 20 miles. If you have the full address it should be easy enough to find the details and a map.

In many European countries castles have found new use as conference centres. After all, they are too big for most people to use simply as homes (apart from being very expensive to maintain).

The alternative would be to demolish the castle and create a purpose-built conference centre which might be a more efficient solution but probable a less attractive one.

That it doesn't happen in the USA is simply an accident of history. The age of the castle proper was over by the time the USA was born and so there was no need to build them and little inclination for later builders to copy them, as is the case with many of the "modern" castles here in the UK.

Richard English

July 18, 2003, 21:54

Kalleh

quote:
It's a guess but I'd have thought the 30 kilometres was unlikely as well

They don't make it clear, and there are no specific addresses given ("near Palermo" is as close as they get). However, they do say we can take a "coach" to the conference in the castle. This all makes me think of Cinderella, taking a coach to the castle! Is a "coach" a car? Or a bus?

July 19, 2003, 02:50

Richard English

In transport the expression "coach" usually means a 'bus used for a private hire. It can also be used to describe a long-distance 'bus service (like your own Greyhound).

The words are often used interchangeably so don't put too much store on them as descriptors.

The term coach derives from the horse-drawn private vehicles used by the wealthy few in the days before motor cars. Sadly I suspect that your transport to the castle will be by motor-coach and not one of the horse-drawn variety!

Bus, on the other hand, is short for "omnibus" (still the official legal term). An omnibus is a vehicle designed to carry several people on payment of a fare and the first ones were introduced into London by a man called Shillibeer in 1829. His first route was from London (that would have been the City) to the village of Paddington. Early London onibuses (horse-drawn, of course) carried passengers "outside" as well as inside and from this configuration grew the double-decker bus, still one of London's special sights.

Richard English

July 19, 2003, 12:04

arnie

To add a little to Richard's explanation, we would normally expect a coach to be slightly more comfortable than a bus. The seats are generally upholstered rather better, and would quite likely be slightly wider.

July 19, 2003, 12:25

shufitz

quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:
The age of the castle proper was over by the time the USA was born

What was it that rendered the castle obsolete?¹ The cannon, perhaps?

------
¹I will not say "obsoleted the castle."

July 20, 2003, 04:19

Richard English

If not the cannon specifically, certainly gunpowder and its various applications.

Richard English

August 04, 2003, 21:35

Kalleh

Our research department surveyed nurses internationally. In a report from England, the following sentence had to be clarified for the Americans:
"I applied many months in advance and had to call the U.S. from England on many occasions to chase up ["monitor the progress of?"] my application and the verification of credentials."

Now, the respondent's reply was fairly clear; still, we would never say, "chase up."

Then, my favorite, from the British press (reported in the Chicago Sun times):

The London Times interviewed a woman who rented a house in Oxford to Chelsea Clinton and talked about finding a "blocked sink" and a "general air of untidiness." She also noted "a number of empty (or half-empty) wine bottles." The Sun Times noted, "The Brit press will go any length to suction some tittle tattle. Talk about much ado about little."

August 05, 2003, 07:16

Graham Nice

quote:
The Sun Times noted, "The Brit press will go any length to suction some tittle tattle. Talk about much ado about little."

Brits wouldn't use suction in this way: are you referring to hoovering? Also, we would probably expect our newspapers to know the odd Shakespeare play.

August 05, 2003, 21:35

Kalleh

To be honest, Graham, I was just using the newspapers words (note the quote). I wouldn't use "suction" that way either, and I only know the meaning from the context. I thought it was a British phrase! Americans, would you say "suction some tittle tattle"?

Most Americans also know the Shakespearean play, and I am sure the author of the article was just having fun with the quote, if that's what you meant.

August 29, 2003, 08:39

Kalleh

Today I questioned the title of one of our Executive Directors of a board of nursing. I had to send an e-mail to all our boards introducing her, and her title didn't sound right to me. It is Executive Secretary. She, in fact, is the top person at one of our large boards of nursing. Secretary? However, my colleague said, "Oh, you don't know much about England, do you? They consider 'secretary' to be of the highest level in the government. That must be from where that title comes." Well, I do know that we have "Secretary of States" and the like here, but generally "secretary" sounds rather low-level to me. Does it indicate a high level position to you?

And, I didn't tell my colleague that in fact I do know a lot about England; however, it just happens to be about English beers!

August 29, 2003, 10:02

jerry thomas

quote:
Does it indicate a high level position to you?

In my dialect "Executive Secretary" indicates the highest possible level ..... within the category of secretaries. She's the woman (very rarely a man) who acts as valet and scribe for the Boss.

I would think the title "Executive Secretary" attached to the person in question would engender a lot of confusion.

August 29, 2003, 10:06

Richard English

In the UK a Company Secretary is a very exhalted position - right up there with the Managing Director/CEO

Richard English

August 29, 2003, 10:54

BobHale

From Yes Minister

Jim Hacker: "Who else is in this department?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well briefly, Sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary, I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are 10 Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretary are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing 2 Parliamentary Under Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary."
Jim Hacker: "Do they all type?"
Sir Humphrey: None of us can type, Minister. Mrs McKay types. She is your secretary.

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

August 29, 2003, 11:04

arnie

The first episode of the BBC TV series Yes Minister (I believe it can be seen on PBS the other side of the Pond) deals with this in a particularly amusing way.

quote:
Sir Humphrey: "Well briefly, Sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary, I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are 10 Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretary are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing 2 Parliamentary Under Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary."

Jim Hacker: "Do they all type?"

Sir Humphrey: "None of us can type, Minister. Mrs McKay types. She is your secretary."

EDIT. BAH! Bob got there first!

August 30, 2003, 11:48

C J Strolin

Thought you might find the following appropriate:

Sir Humphrey: "Well briefly, Sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary, I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are 10 Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretary are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing 2 Parliamentary Under Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary."

Jim Hacker: "Do they all type?"

Sir Humphrey: "None of us can type, Minister. Mrs McKay types. She is your secretary."

This puts me in third place which, considering the fact that I'm a Yank who's never seen the show, isn't half bad!

August 30, 2003, 13:48

Kalleh

Well, they are very funny, indeed!

Secretary is defined as a "clerical who handles correspondence" or "an administrative head of a department." To me, those are opposite uses and therefore confusing. Its etymology is from the Latin word secretarius, meaning a confidential officer or clerk. It has roots similar to secret. I wonder how it changed its meaning from "confidential."

Now, this morning I came across a heartwarming story that connects an area very close to me (Evanston) to a very small town near London: Kirton. [It is described as a tiny "one-pub, one-shop village; only the English describe their towns in terms of pubs!

] This man in Kirton had a watch that he found after the war which belonged to an 82-year-old gentleman in Evanston. A neighbor, seeing the watch for the first time, encouraged him to find the rightful owner, if possible. Sure enough, through the Internet, it only took them 3 weeks to find him. The English gentleman was quoted as saying, "He was a bit 'gob-smacked', as we would call it." Gob-smacked?

August 30, 2003, 15:10

tsuwm

quote:
Gob-smacked?

haven't you been paying attention Kalleh? gobsmacked was the wwftd less than two weeks ago!

August 30, 2003, 15:51

shufitz

tsuwm, are you a married man? Women listen to men all the time.

(signed)
Long-suffering husband <sigh-icon>

August 30, 2003, 17:43

Kalleh

quote:
haven't you been paying attention Kalleh?

Oh, I guess I wasn't, Tsuwm. Two weeks ago I was at our annual convention and didn't pay much attention to anything then--except for the convention.

Still, I have no excuse for not putting it in Google!

August 31, 2003, 02:51

Richard English

I suppose it's a commentary on the respective sizes of the USA and the UK that the twin villages of Kirton and Fakenham, about a hundred miles from London, could be described in a US organ as "near London"! Both are actually very close to Ipswich and just inland from the port of Felixtowe.

We would consider that to be quite distant from London.

Richard English

September 01, 2003, 19:28

Kalleh

Once again the Brits have the U.S. in a dither. The French Connection, with headquarters in London, has put out a t-shirt emblazoned with the abbreviation FCUK. Teens are wearing the shirt to school, as it has become quite hip. Yet, schools are sending the kids home, citing their dress codes, "students are expected to dress in a manner that does not disrupt the school environment and is consistent with acceptable community standards." Tsk! tsk!

September 02, 2003, 01:46

arnie

[yawn] Been there, done that. I suppose we've been seeing those t-shirts for a couple of years. The fuss has died down now.

September 02, 2003, 05:29

Richard English

Maybe this US oversensitivity explains why rugger has never become a popular game in the USA.

Richard English

September 02, 2003, 07:45

Ros

I remember having to explain about FCUK to a scandalised Japanese colleague last year... She was still scandalised even after I'd explained.

September 02, 2003, 08:52

BobHale

quote:
Originally posted by Richard English:
Maybe this US oversensitivity explains why rugger has never become a popular game in the USA.

Richard English

I'm not sure it is over sensitive. I find this advertising distasteful if not actually offensive. French Connection chose the FCUK logo in the full knowledge that many people would find it offensive and decided that that was the way they wished to market themselves.
To deliberately mount an offensive marketing campaign seems to me to be not only a risky strategy but also an immoral one.

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

September 03, 2003, 05:24

Graham Nice

There is a huge tradition of nudge-nudge wink-wink risque humour in the UK. FCUK isn't part of this, and is simply rude: single-entendre T-shirts; blunt advertising campaigns, etc.

If it has offended any Americans, I don't blame them at all.

(By the way, I find all the Gap adverts incredibly offensive - do they deliberately choose the worst music they can find?)

September 03, 2003, 17:55

WinterBranch

quote:
(By the way, I find all the Gap adverts incredibly offensive - do they deliberately choose the worst music they can find?)

Hey now! At least two Gap ads used the music from Bernstein/Sondheim's West Side Story, so they aren't ALL bad.

Because if loving anything by Sondheim is wrong? I don't want to be right.

September 03, 2003, 19:51

Kalleh

It's Abercrombie and Fitch that I hate. Their catalogues are absolutely disgusting, and they cater to the young teens.

Furthermore, I made a big scene in our store (much to my children's dismay!) because they followed around all the African-American customers, quite overtly. I complained to the company and refused to shop there ever since.

September 04, 2003, 01:51

WinterBranch

Kalleh, in the odd, but as far as I know true--category:

A&F recruits salespeople from the customers. Blond/e, blue-eyed, neat in appearance? They'll approach you. I think it's a bit creeepy myself.

I read an article in the newspaper here, the gal had been asked more than once if she'd like to work for them.

September 04, 2003, 03:34

BobHale

quote:
Originally posted by WinterBranch:
Kalleh, in the odd, but as far as I know true--category:

A&F recruits salespeople from the customers. Blond/e, blue-eyed, neat in appearance? They'll approach you. I think it's a bit creeepy myself.

I read an article in the newspaper here, the gal had been asked more than once if she'd like to work for them.

I post so many debunking references on here that it's quite a pleasure to able to post something that is - if not exactly the opposite - certainly related.
This item appears on snopes and while it isn't exactly verifying your story it certainly indicates the same kind of thinking.

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

September 04, 2003, 18:04

WinterBranch

quote:
I post so many debunking references on here that it's quite a pleasure to able to post something that is - if not exactly the opposite - certainly related.
This item appears on snopes and while it isn't exactly verifying your story it certainly indicates the same kind of thinking.

You got my interest all piqued, so I went agooglin'.

Here's from the Palo Alto weekly on a discrimination suit filed against the company.

And this is an entertaining little rant on the subject. I don't agree with him, but I do enjoy rants.

Alas, I'll never be hiring material for A&F, belonging as I do the tribe of folks known for their utter lack of desire to pay mall prices for anything. Full retail markup? My aunt Fanny!