Yes, that's the right spelling, and you divined the meaning correctly. "To barrack [someone] is similar in meaning to "to heckle".

See AskOxford.com

Interesting, considering our new president.

Here's a new one for me. A friend from England (he doesn't post here) kept writing me that he was being threatened with redundancy. I would write back and ask if that meant he was being let go. Then he'd say he was being threatened with redundancy. Etc. While I surely knew what "redundancy" meant, I looked it up to see if there was a definition that I'd not heard of. Sure enough, it's chiefly British to use it to mean being "laid off" from a job.

Is it commonly used that way? Do you not use the terminology to be "laid off?" If you do, do they differ at all in meaning?

quote:

If you do, do they differ at all in meaning?

Yes, indeed. "laid off" is temporary, whereas "redundant" is permanent.

Funnily enough, I read a blog post about this only a couple of weeks ago: separated by a common language.

ask if that meant he was being let go

So, you didn't really ask him if he was "being laid off"? How many other terms are there?

a. I was riffed from my previous job, i.e, rif is a reduction in (work)force).

b. I got a pink slip.

c. I am pursuing other opportunities elsewhere.

I got my P45
That's a form for the taxman showing money earned in the firm's employ and taxes paid.

Here are some synonyms for "fire" in the US. There may be more.

Canned
Sacked
Fired
Laid off
Redundant (ch. Br.)
At liberty
Discharged
Get your marching orders
Get rid of
Ousted
Deposed
cashiered
ax (get the ax)
Dropped from the payroll
get the boot
dismissed
dispensed with
downsized
clean out the deadwood
force out
send packing
chuck out
give notice
let go
terminate
pension off

In the US, layoffs are temporary (seasonal) or permanent.
If you're fired or sacked, you usually have done something offensive to your bosses in the course of your employment. The higher up you are in the organization, the less likely you will "officially" be regarded as fired. Some more euphemistic term or expression will be used to explain why you no longer work for the company. This explains why so many highly-paqid people leave their lucrative positions to "spend time with their family."

I am at a conference in Vermont, where we are discussing program evaluation and focusing on realistic evaluation. In order to add dimension to the discussion at the end of the day, we have "wizards" respond to the conversations. Dr. Nick Tilley and Dr. Ray Pawson, from the UK, are our wizards this year. They've been very interesting...and charming. Their English accents (one is from Leeds and the other from Sussex) we've all enjoyed.

I have a question, though, that I've not noticed about other UK speakers, including Bob, arnie or Richard, and I've met all of them. Both of these speakers have the tendency to repeat words, such as saying "to...to...to..." I'd just think it individual if only one of them did it, but they both do. Is this a coincidence or is it related to their accent?

quote:

Is this a coincidence or is it related to their accent?

If the repetition is during a public presentation I would think it more likely that it is simply a verbal mannerism. Speakers who have not been fully trained will often use these kinds of "filler" words (along with "ums" and "ahhs" to give their brains time to catch up with their mouths.

It seems to be all the time, Richard, even during social talking. These are very accomplished men who travel around the world speaking.

Do they sound like this?

quote:

It seems to be all the time, Richard, even during social talking. These are very accomplished men who travel around the world speaking.

Then I would need examples. I have never noted any tendency amongst UK speakers to repeat words excessively. As I said, it tends to happen in public speaking where "fillers" are felt necessary but not otherwise.

I haven't heard the people you mention actually speak, but I would mention that experience in public speaking does not equate to competence. Indeed, I have often noticed that the contrary is true - and I have listened to many speakers, some of them very well-known celebrities. What happens to all speakers is that the fear that new speakers have gradually disappears as they get used to speaking in front of audiences, and they eventually feel very confident. But that doesn't mean they have become good speakers, only that they have become confident speakers.

Of course, because they are confident they feel good about themselves - and who's going to tell them that they aren't good? Rarely will anyone from the audience feel confident enough, or competent enough, to tackle them. Such speakers are the ones who really need training - but are also the ones least likely to want to undertake training. I recall a speaker who attended my local branch of Toastmasters and who claimed he spoke frequently on "green" topics. He gave us a speech and he was dreadful! However, at the end of the meeting he said he did not believe he could learn anything from Toastmasters since even the evening's "star speaker" (he meant me!) wasn't especially good. In fact, had he joined Toastmasters he would have learnt just how far he had to go to be a good speaker.

I am a good speaker but I go to speaking groups regularly so as to continue to improve my technique. Speaking, like all jobs, requires constant practice if the speaker is to keep on top of the job. If nothing else, all speakers should video themselves frequently to make sure that they haven't adopted any bad habits or mannerisms. Oh, and they should all join Toastmasters or a similar speaking club.

quote:

Do they sound like this?

This is a well-known, if rather old, skit and exemplifies, by its exaggeration, just how pedantic some chat programmes can be. Very amusing, of course, but nevertheless it reminds one, if reminder is necessary, just how mellifluous and cultured is Stephen Fry's voice.

Incidetally, did you know that he would have been brought up as an American had his father not turned down a job at Princeton University?

No, that's not quite it, neveu, though close. Clearly, Richard, they were exceptional speakers as they mesmerized us, and in the end we all gave them a standing ovation...quite unlike that group. The speakers had us laughing much of the time, and they enjoyed comparing the U.S. to the U.K. It wasn't that they weren't good speakers, and they could teach Toastmasters a lot.

What I had noticed, which must have been just isolated individual quirks that they both had, was that they continually repeated words, such as saying, "When we came to to to to the airport..." It wasn't annoying, but bordered on it.

"Ovation?" From "ova," "egg?" You stood up and laid eggs for them? WOW!!!

quote:

It wasn't that they weren't good speakers, and they could teach Toastmasters a lot.

Without having heard them I couldn't comment, although I would feel it unlikely that they would be able to "teach Toastmasters a lot". I do know about Toastmasters, though, and have been to several groups and many meetings. I know of many professional and hugely competent speakers who earn huge amounts through their speaking - who still go to Toastmasters to ensure that they are on top of their game.

Remember, the very best sports stars spend a great deal of time in training to improve their game; less effective players spend less time in training, often because they believe they have nothing more to learn (which idea is almost always untrue).

And the quirk you noted would seem to me to be no more than a personal one. Stammerers do this a lot, of course, and it might be that both these chaps had slight stammers. It's certainly not a normal British quirk - I don't believe you've ever heard it in my speech, for example.

"Ovation?"

I know. I saw the smiley at the end, but I thought you might like the real etymology of ovation From Latin ovatio, ovationis, 'a lesser triumph' (made after a bloodless, easy victory) < ovatus, past participle of ovo, ovare, 'to exult, rejoice'.

quote:

No, that's not quite it, neveu, though close

It's not a British thing, it's a boffin thing. I've noticed it as well. Cambridge-educated Fry and Laurie are parodying a real quirk they've no doubt heard many times; they certainly didn't originate it. In the bit Stephen Fry repeats 8 phrases for emphasis ("listen to me, listen to me" at 0:52; "may I? May I?" at 1:17; "extrinsically, extrinsically" at 1:27; "mark the difference for me, mark it please" at 1:47; "and yet, and yet" at 1:57; "our language, tiger, our language" at 2:05; "and yet, oh, and yet" at 2:44; "of course it is of course it is of course it is of course it is" at 3:07). The editors even added a hearty chuckle of recognition in the laugh track after each one.

To my mind, "and yet...and yet" is very different to "to to to to". The former seems to be repetition for the sake of emphasis; the latter simply vocal stumbling.

I agree.
"And yet [pause] and yet" seems to me to be a device to indicate that the speaker is considering his words carefully, framing his argument in a thoughtful manner."
Other phrases in the Stephen Fry piece are emphatic repetition.

I haven't had the pleasure of listening to Kalleh's friends, so I can't compare their repetition to that Stephen Fry is parroting. Until someone can show me an example of this kind of repeated repetition (he does it, on average, every 30 seconds) in American speech, I will continue to maintain it is a boffin thing.

quote:

"And yet [pause] and yet" seems to me to be a device to indicate that the speaker is considering his words carefully, framing his argument in a thoughtful manner.

Watch it again. There's no pause between the "and yet"s (no "oh", either. My bad). I think they are all emphatic repetition, and not a case the speaker pausing to consider words carefully.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: neveu,

I did, neveu, and you might be right after all. I wish I'd have posted this while I was still in Vermont because I would have listened a lot closer and taken down some precise quotes. I wouldn't have diagnosed it as a "stammer" that's for sure, though I am not a speech pathologist.

I did look on YouTube just in case someone had taped them and put their talk about realist evaluation there, but I couldn't find anything. They were very charming, and modest, men, and what luck that we got to hear them.

Reviving a great thread
I've always liked this thread so I am going to post this question here for our British compatriots.

We've had a cold winter so far, and those down coats have been extremely popular (particularly the North Face ones). They're called "puffers." Do the British use that term for them? I am thinking not, but I just wondered.

I haven't worn a down jacket or coat since I lived in Central NY and I've never heard them called "puffers," and I apologize for replying when I'm not British, except by distant ancestry!

WM

North Face export to over here; I've seen the sort of coats you mean and they are described as "puffers" as well. That may just be the North Face name for them, though. A more generic name might be "anorak".

The only puffer I'd ever heard of was a pufferfish (fugu). So I looked up puffer coats. They look like insulated quilted nylon jackets to me.

I had never heard puffer before, but then I live in out on the Wrong Coast where I have been told we do not have real seasons. I like it though; it's nice, short, and descriptive. Three decades ago, while visiting on Long Island in December, my hosts took one look at my California winter coat and said, "you'll freeze in that!" They gave me an old parka to wear, one of those with the fur edging around the hood. I looked a bit like Kenny on South Park with just my nose peeking through to the chill outside.

[Fixed misspelling.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

They look like what the Chinese soldiers wore during the Korean War. And Z's nose must be quite prominant if it came to a "peak."

I used to have a Chinese silk coat that was sewn quilt fashion, and the individual segments were quite puffy. That sucker was WARM!!! Alas, I left it behind at some event I attended and never got it back.

Interesting. It seems like it may be more a British term than an American one!

quote:

It seems like it may be more a British term than an American one!

Why? As I said, I've only ever seen it used to describe the North Face coats. They are an American firm.

European knights wore quilted tunics under their armor both for warmth and cushioning.

[Addundem: While reading the New York Times I noticed a short article on the puffer coats (link). In his column, Bill Cunningham says that the puffed jacket was invented in 1937, but he doesn't say what it was called.]

[Added omitted suffix.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

Why? As I said, I've only ever seen it used to describe the North Face coats. They are an American firm.

Because the Americans here hadn't heard the term, but the British posters had. According to this site, the term is used for other down coats and not just North Face ones.

You are correct, however, that North Face is an American company. Here is a link to their story. As they say on their Web site, it is rather ironic that North Face developed on a beach.

quote:

the British posters had

Well, I had. I dunno about Bob, Richard, or any others from the UK.

The only puffers I have every heard of have been steam locomotives and Clyde Puffers.

I have never heard of the expression in relation to clothing.

I think it just means that you are more up on current fashion terms than I am, Kalleh. I just Googled "puffer coat" and came up with over 3 million ghits. Here is one of them. It looks like the last down jacket I owned, but that was in the '80s, and I haven't needed to own one since, so I haven't even wondered what they're called now.

It's an appropriately descriptive term.

Wordmatic

North Face doesn't care for the competition from a company called South Butt.

An amusing blog entry on some differences between British and American pronunciation: A dutiful post.

some differences between British and American pronunciation

I realize it's intended as humorous, but I was reminded of a friend telling me in high school that he had no accent as he pronounced all his words as they were in the dictionary. He was unaware of any humour [sic] in his statement. The relativity of most dictionary pronunciation systems, which choose ad hoc symbols and defines them not by they sound or how they are produced but by reference to other English words. It's s if I were to write: "I pronounce water as water." Unless you heard me, you would have no idea how I pronounced water. On the other hand I was reminded of this Steve Martin (a US comedian) quotation: "It's like the French have a different word for everything." I guess when they say water, the French pronounce it eau. Anyway, the post and the commentary subpended to it was funny.

I was running a telephone skills course a few years ago and one of the things I do is to roleplay calls with the delegates, and record the roleplays. I then play them back and we use them as a basis for discussion and action-planning.

One girl on the course, who was more East End than Eliza Doolittle, was reluctant to undetake the activity since, she claimed, she had no accent - her very words being, "I ain't got no accent so why do I need to bovver wiv this stoopid fing?"

Having persuaded her that it was important for the objectives of the course that all delegates heard their voices, she involved herself and made a good job of the roleplay - to my mind dealing quite charmingly with the awkward customer (me, as it happens) who was calling her.

But when we came to play back the recordings she was almost in denial. "That ain't me" she ejaculated. "My voice ain't nuffing like that".

In the end. I and the rest of the group were able to persuade her that, yes, the recording was a very fair representation of her voice and that we would all have been able to identify her from it, did she reluctantly accept that, not only did she have an accent, but that also her accent was not quite so "BBC English" as she had previously assumed.

quote:

I was reminded of a friend telling me in high school that he had no accent

That reminds me of a story. After Maggie Smith won the lead role in the movie of The Pride of Miss Jean Brodie, she realised that, as an Essex girl, she'd need some coaching in the Edinborough accent that would have been used by the schoolteacher heroine. She was given the telephone number of a lady, a retired schoolteacher, who lived in Morningside, which is a famously genteel area of Edinborough.

Dame Maggie phoned her up, and was gushing about the wonderful Morningside accent, and how she'd like to visit her to learn to speak like that. There was a frigid silence for a moment, then the reply was, "Young lady, I am reliably informed that I have no trace of any accent." The receiver was then firmly replaced.

Maggie Smith must have found an alternative coach, as she gives a very convincing rendering of the accent in the movie.

quote:

humour [sic]

Sometimes, z, you take these pronunciation discussions too seriously, I think. Surely the discussion about "water" anyway, which I started, was because I am interested in words and how they are pronounced. That's all. I certainly don't think the East or South or West or North or English pronounce things correctly or incorrectly. Just differently.

Having said that, however, most Americans I know do pronounce both ts in dentist.

One I've found interesting is February. Now that we're in that month, I often hear Feb-u-ary. It's not right or wrong...just different from the way I say it.

quote:

One I've found interesting is February. Now that we're in that month, I often hear Feb-u-ary. It's not right or wrong...just different from the way I say it.

I would consider that wrong. As I would consider the pronunciation of secretary as "seccatree" to be wrong as well.

Sometimes, z, you take these pronunciation discussions too seriously, I think.

Then please stop poking me with a virtual stick. If I took it too seriously, I would have to say that I have no idea how people were pronouncing the word in your open post. If you linked to a recording or gave me its representation in IPA I might have. But, then the latter might lead to further too-serious postings. I'm with Asa, excuse me for being dense, and I'll go way now.

As I would consider the pronunciation of secretary as "seccatree" to be wrong as well.

I was saddened to learn that Elizabeth had passed away but gladdened to learn that you had replaced Charles and those other royals in the line of succession.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

One I've found interesting is February. Now that we're in that month, I often hear Feb-u-ary. It's not right or wrong...just different from the way I say it.

I would consider that wrong.

This pronunciation is in the OED. Dropping one /r/ or changing it to /l/ in is common. It happened with pilgrim - compare the related word peregrine. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, the "Feb-u-ary" pronunciation is the most widespread pronunciation among educated speakers, and a majority of usage writers are tolerant of it.

My library leaves me recorded voice messages when I have books on hold, and they say it's the "liberry" calling.

quote:

My library leaves me recorded voice messages when I have books on hold, and they say it's the "liberry" calling.

I would consider that wrong as well - and I have as much, or more, right to consider such pronunciations wrong as others have to consider them correct.

I don't mean to suggest that you have no right to hold your opinion. I'm just saying that there's a lot of good evidence that the r-less pronunciation of "February" is acceptable.

There's less evidence for the r-less "library". I was surprised to hear people from the library pronounce it like that. On the other hand, if it's good enough for them.

And once more, in my neck of the woods, its Feb-ree and Lie-bree

quote:

If you linked to a recording or gave me its representation in IPA I might have. But, then the latter might lead to further too-serious postings.

Yes, yes, I really do need to learn that IPA, don't I? Sorry about that. It would have those minute subtitles (I am talking about the "water" ones)? I truly do like serious discussions here.

quote:

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, the "Feb-u-ary" pronunciation is the most widespread pronunciation among educated speakers, and a majority of usage writers are tolerant of it.

I am surprised to hear that. I do hear it pronounced without the first r from time to time, but I'd not say it's "widespread."

I do try to make that first "r" in "February" audible, but I'm afraid it comes out more like "Feberary," and not quite "Feb-u-ary."

Wordmatic