quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:

Sad but true. I assume it's the same for some areas of England as heard by, say, London.

---

Oh, yes!
I come from the Midlands and our accent is rarely heard on television except for the occasional comedy character there for the others to poke fun at. We are generally portrayed as thick and slow witted. Just as well we like to poke fun at ourselves as well or we might get offended by it.

In parts of the country people from my area are known as "yam-yams" because this, to their ears, is what it sounds like when we say "I am". In Wolverhampton there is a bar (genuinely a bar rather than a pub) which seems to change its name and decor about once a month. For a while it was known as "Cafe Yam Yam".

Vescere bracis meis.

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
Once again people don't generally _say_ anything but you get some very nasty looks and a lot of tutting.

---

This brings up another pet peeve of mine and one which, I believe, points out a major difference between the British and Americans in general.

If I am doing something that upsets you, spare me your tutting and you know where you can stick your nasty looks! TELL ME! Find yourself a damn backbone and let me know that I'm doing something that's upsetting you. I'm a nice guy and very probably am completely unaware I'm pissing you off. Let me know what's putting your knickers in a twist and I'll be happy to make amends.

Now, obviously, this occurs far more frequently for me with other Americans than with any British visitors. A classic case came when a friend and I stood at our seats, just stretching our legs and conversing, during an intermission of a play we were attending. Unfortunately, we didn't notice three things:
1.) The play's elaborate first act set was being converted to an equally elaborate second act set, and
2.) This conversion was quite interesting to watch and was, in fact, one reason people came to this play, and
3.) There were two people sitting in the seats just behind us just fuming at our rudeness.

I happened to notice this just as the intermission was about to end and commented on it to my friend. One of the strangers behind us very huffily said something along the lines of "Yes, we would have liked to have seen it!"

The ol' guilt trip, right? Sorry, Pal. That just doesn't wash. I answered, quite rightly I believe, that she was a stupid cow to just sit there looking at my butt when there were a half dozen different ways to deal with what she saw as my rudeness.

Tinman brought up the Kingdom of Strolinia in another thread and it's got me thinking along those lines again. Dirty looks, unless accompanied with dialog of some sort (Noel Cowardesque putdowns preferred but any verbal non-fuming silence you can come up with) will be outlawed.

Ours is a beautiful language. With all its rich and luscious vocabulary at our command, if you insist on attempting to communicate in tuts and nasty looks, screw you!

Now, having said this (and reread it) I realize that if this is the cultural difference I suspect it is, I would be more tolerant of this ridiculous behavior on any visit to the British Isles IF, as I say, this is what is accepted over there. Here in the states, though? Tut-tut me and you're asking for a good smack upside the head.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
In parts of the country people from my area are known as "yam-yams"

---

Short-sighted and bigoted people often neglect to acknowledge that many important people have come from just those areas that they mock.

For example, Rene Descartes came from the Midlands. Hence his famous, "I think, therefore I yam."

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:

For example, Rene Descartes came from the Midlands. Hence his famous, "I think, therefore I yam."

---

I feel you may be mixing him up with that other famous philosopher Popeye.

I think, therefore I yam what I yam.

Vescere bracis meis.

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Or, to quote Monty Python:

And Renny Decart was a drunken fart.
"I drink, therefore I am!"

At the risk of irritating Graham again, the same author wrote the following, and I just have to know if this is true. This, as well, could be totally "rubbish".

Speaking of the Prime Minister's Question Period in the House of Commons:

"This has to be seen to be believed. Barely veiled or even naked insults are hurled by members of Parliament at one another, while howls of derision and guffaws of braying laughter render the institution more like a high-school classroom whose teacher has stepped out than a hallowed hall of government. There is something rather invigorating about this cacophony, and it gives you an idea of the healthy self-regard to which the English hold themselves. The great paradox is that they yield to no one, except the monarch."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
At the risk of irritating Graham again, the same author wrote the following, and I just have to know if this is true. This, as well, could be totally "rubbish".

Speaking of the Prime Minister's Question Period in the House of Commons:

"This has to be seen to be believed. Barely veiled or even naked insults are hurled by members of Parliament at one another, while howls of derision and guffaws of braying laughter render the institution more like a high-school classroom whose teacher has stepped out than a hallowed hall of government. There is something rather invigorating about this cacophony, and it gives you an idea of the healthy self-regard to which the English hold themselves. The great paradox is that they yield to no one, except the monarch."

---

It's a slightly jaundiced view but if I'm at home during the day I do sometimes watch Prime Minister's Question Time and it can get like that. The Speaker of the House is there to control it but it often runs away from him and while I'm not sure it's fair to call it a cacophony the description is quite accurate.

I'm told, although I haven't seen it myself, that discussion in the Australian Parliament sometimes gets even more venomous - the Australians priding themselves on their plain speaking.

Vescere bracis meis.

Read all about my travels around the world here.

The Taiwan National Parliament tends to take things a little further, if we are to judge from this report.

One aspect of human behaviour which is almost a universal truth is that few people consider others' beliefs, attitudes and feelings sufficiently.

We all tend to assume that the way that we behave is near perfect and that those who behave differently from us must, perforce, be wrong.

A moment's thought should show that this is a frail belief and that it is our perceptions of the way in which we and others behave which is wrong.

For example, whereas I speak my mind, you are rude. Whereas I am diplomatic, you are just mealy-mouthed.

I am, of course, decisive; you rush into things without proper consideration. Finally, whereas I consider matters very carefully before making up my mind, you are just indecisive!

Richard English

In fact, we had a thread (now closed from inactivity) about just that.

Waaaay back in July Asa wrote that his pet peeve was people who say, "nuculer"--which is of course how our current President in the U.S. pronounces it. I just read today that President Eisenhower used to pronounce it that way too, and that it is a Texas pronunciation. It is similar to John F. Kennedy referring to the "'Cubar' missle crisis".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Waaaay back in July Asa wrote that his pet peeve was people who say nucular, which is of course how our current President in the U.S. pronounces it. I just read today that President Eisenhower used to pronounce it that way too,".

---

Last week I heard a BBC journalist use the dreaded "Nuke-u-lar" pronunciation. I'm shuddering even now to think that this is creeping across the Atlantic.

Maybe GWB thinks it's Nuke-u-lar by analogy from Spud-u-like. Just a thought.

Vescere bracis meis.

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Reviving a thread...
This thread was started when Wordcraft was 2 days old, so I thought it would be a fun thread to revive for those who'd like to see a bit of our history.

"Chicago Reader," a smallish Chicago paper (quite popular) recently criticized columnists for using the word kerfuffle so much recently. I have noticed that, too. The "Reader" columnist says that kerfuffle is a writer's word, not a reader's word...whatever that means.

Of course, this kind of column bring up others' pet peeves. Here are a few:

"It is what it is." - I hate that, too. It's commonly said by someone I know and love.

"You know the drill." - I always think of the dentist with this one!

"Stakeholder" - In my line of work, I bet I hear that 100 time a day.

"Not so much" - I have no opinion on this one.

I know we've discussed this before (obviously!), but are there any new ones that you just can't stand...or old ones, for that matter?

quote:

The "Reader" columnist says that kerfuffle is a writer's word, not a reader's word...

How common is the word in the US? It's in fairly common use in UK speech and writing; if it's rarely used in America I can understand the accusation, but not otherwise.

I haven't looked through the thread yet but I'll bet I commented on "D'ya know worra mean, like?"
(Do you know what I mean, like.)

I'll go check now.

Yes. I was right. I commented on it.

A construction I've heard a few times recently on TV which makes me want to strangle someone is


both... but also


He met with both Tony Blair but also President Bush.

It is hideous, wrong and illogical and it sets my teeth on edge.

I've ranted about this on another thread . . . but it bugs me when people say "with all due respect" before saying something really insubordinate.

Another is the constant use of degrading epithets by teens when they speak to and about one another. This is so common where I work that I'm almost starting to grow immune . . . but not quite.

If I remember correctly, Bob dislikes that also, CW.

Yes, arnie, "kerfuffle" is normally not that common here; however, recently you see it a lot more in the newspapers. I have no idea why.

One of my least favorite columnists in the Chicago Tribune (a real neo-con) wrote about some of his linguistic pet peeves. They may be some of yours, too, but I thought he was a little picky.

~ He doesn't like "very latest" news because "it's either the latest or not." I suppose, but it wouldn't bother me.

~ He also can't stand to "place" or "put" something at risk. Risk, he says, is not an object that has a location. He thinks "putting at risk" has become a "scourge." Frankly, I've seen worse!

~ Then there is "nuanced," which I believe we've talked about before. He thinks it's a word used by elitists to impress us with their understanding of complex issues. I suppose I could agree on that one.

~ Next there's "snarky," which he says is "deployed by dullards" as a clever insult. I might say the same for "deployed by dullards!"

~ And he hates "grace note," which he says is misused to mean "graceful" when it actually is a musical note that is added as a "lilting embellishment." I haven't heard that one before, but if he is right on how it is being used, I can see his point (unfortunately ).

~ He doesn't like it when an announcer says that a team has pulled to "within 3 points" when, for example, the score is 75-72. He is right of course on this one, but I can't say that I've heard that one before. I suppose I don't listen to that many games, though.

~ He obviously (being conservative and all) hates Barack Obama and anything he says.

~ Lastly he hates "about," as in the campaign is "about honesty" or some other virtue. I don't get this one.

I suspect he is a bit curmudgeonly in real life.

quote:

He also can't stand to "place" or "put" something at risk. Risk, he says, is not an object that has a location.

I wonder what verb he would choose? Subjecting, maybe? The concept of causing a person or thing to be subject to risk is an important one, and I can't see that the idiomatic term he dislikes is all that bad.

I agree, especially in health care. For example, cigarettes put people at risk for lung cancer. Is there something grammatically wrong with that sentence?

The "it's all about whatever" construction has been around since I was a teenager, and I hate to say, but that's a looooooong time!

I heard the word "kerfuffle" used for the first time when we were in New Zealand this past March. There were several kerfuffles discussed, in real life and on television.

By the time we got home, I was hearing it in the U.S. also. I had assumed it was a kiwi term!

A similar thing happened the last time I visited down undah, in 1999. There was a story all over the papers and television news about a little girl who had "gone missing." She first "went missing" three days after I arrived. About six months after I returned home, I was surprised to hear American newscasters saying that missing persons had "gone missing" instead of that they were merely "missing." Everybody used to say "A mother of three has been missing since Saturday..." Now they say she "went missing Saturday."

"What up with that?" as "they" also say around here in some parts!

WM

quote:

Quoth Kalleh:
... cigarettes put people at risk for lung cancer. Is there something grammatically wrong with that sentence?

I wouldn't say so. However, I think most people here would say ... cigarettes put people at risk of lung cancer.

Well, the Americans I know wouldn't say "at risk of lung cancer," though they might say "at risk for lung cancer."

Wordmatic, I will have to listen more closely, but I don't think I've heard people say "she went missing." It sounds weird.

Definitely I've heard "What's up with that" and similarly "How is that working for you?" (usually sarcastically).

Instead of "what's up with that" I generally hear "s'up witdat?"

I also like "How YOU doin'?", a la Joey on Friends, as a pick-up line. LOL Always cracks me up!

Waaaay back in November of 2002 I had mentioned my disdain for confusing a 360-degree turn with a 180-degree turn. I read this in QT's column today:

"A California drug and alcohol counselor's public advice to Lindsay Lohan: 'Whatever you have done in the past, do a 360-degree turn and go the other way.' Did someone just recommend that Lindsay Lohan spin around completely and start walking backward? She may want to continue shopping for advice."

quote:

A California drug and alcohol counselor's

Don't forget he's a Californian. In CA a "drug and alcohol counselor" advises people where to get the best weed or booze. He was probably stoned himself at the time.

Good point, arnie.

Richard Roeper writes a column for the Chicago Sun Times, and he thinks the phrase "throw under the bus" is so overused these days that it has lost its meaning. He says that it used to mean unfairly blaming someone. Now he says it just means to blame someone.

quote:

Don't forget he's a Californian. In CA a "drug and alcohol counselor" advises people where to get the best weed or booze.

No true Californian needs advice on where to get weed or booze.

quote:

he thinks the phrase "throw under the bus" is so overused

I can't say I've ever seen or heard it.

I've never seen it nor heard it.

The director of my library uses a similar phrase, I'm told, when he talks about going along with the system goals.

"You're either on my bus or your under it."

Charming.

I can understand arnie not hearing it because perhaps it's a U.S. phrase...but you've not heard it, Jer? That's surprising.

On the other hand, there are only 13,500 google hits for "throw him under the bus." Perhaps Roeper is being too persnickety. While I do hear the phrase occasionally, I can't say that I think it overused. On the other hand, many of the citations using it seem to be political, and I don't make it a point to run around with poltical types.

I don't recall ever hearing the phrase, either. So I looked it up. I found two explanations of the origin of the phrase. One is from the Urban Dictionary:

quote:

Origin: A Boston radio station manager coined the term circa 1987-88 when canceling a radio network's services on his music-oriented FM station, stating that he was going to put the network "under the bus." The term was picked up by staff members to describe conduct in which one person would try to gain an advantage in company politics by speaking ill of, or doing something to reflect disfavorably on, another. In this context, it generally meant something that was a combination of sneaky, subtle and vicious. The phrase crept into on-air talk. In time, the radio station's owner acquired a sports-oriented station whose employees picked up the phrase and eventually began using it on highly-rated programs.

And the other is from "Language: From grass roots to netroots," by William Saffire:

quote:

The meaning of this distinctive American verbal phrase goes beyond "reject" or "dissociate from" to a more vividly figurative expression of "to damage a reputation; to use as a scapegoat." For its origin, I turn to our leading popular slanguist, Paul Dickson, author of "Slang -the Topical Dictionary of Americanisms," just deliciously updated.

Origin? He says he believes it to be back-formed from a baseball team's clubhouse man, who called for the ballplayers to board the team bus with "Bus leaving. Be on it or under it." The slanguicographer backs this up with a citation from a 1980 Washington Post article and offers another usage that extends beyond sports: The rocker Cyndi Lauper in 1984 was quoted as saying: "In the rock 'n' roll business you are either on the bus or under it. Playing 'Feelings' with Eddie and the Condos in a buffet bar in Butte is under the bus."

Tinman

It might be a humorous modification of Ken Kesey's "you are either on the bus or off the bus" quip.

Wow...our Tinny hasn't heard of it, either? Then I am convinced that it's a midwestern phrase. I hear it a lot. A similar phrase I hear a lot is, "I don't have a dog in that fight." What about that one?

Reviving a thread...

We all know that George Carlin had his linguistic pet peeves, and I just read about a few today. Surely the pronunciation of forte and modifiers with unique we've discussed, but I've not thought of this one: No comment is a comment. Good point!

quote:

Originally posted by ghoti bowl on July 20, 2002:

People who say, "I'll aks him."

From The Mavens' Word of the Day (December 16, 1999):

quote:

While the pronunciation /aks/ for ask is not considered standard, it is a very common regional pronunciation with a long history. ...

So in fact, your colleague is correct in calling /aks/ a regional pronunciation, one with a distribution that covers nearly half of the territory in the United States and England.

It's common enough here - but only amongst Afro-Caribbeans.

What prompted you to reply to a seven-year-old post, tinman?

People who say, "I'll aks him."

The process is called metathesis (Wikipedia), and the funny thing is it happened in Middle (must've been those pesky Normans invaders). English ask < Middle English asken (MED) < Old English ācsian (Bosworth and Toller).

One, of which I am sure must peeve somebody, somewhere, is "This page intentionally left blank". True, it's a puerile response, but I always chuckled when I come across it in some , usually government, document. It's like those ancient artifacts that say: "X made (me) for Y". "(I have) No comment" is not really a comment about the situation which one is being asked, but rather a statement of fact, that a comment is not going to be coming anytime soon, and one's relationship with the person asking you for a comment.

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

quote:

One, of which I am sure must peeve somebody, somewhere, is "This page intentionally left blank".

I use this device quite often in documents such as examination papers. Without it candidates might think that their paper is missing some information - especially if the blank page is in the middle of a series of printed pages.

Apparently some years ago a phone company discovered at the last minute that some pages in the latest printing run of a local directory were blank in a very few cases. Rather than pulp the print run they added a slip to the effect that subscribers who found any blank pages should contact them for a replacement. Hundreds replied, and it turned out that almost all of them were looking at the last couple of endpapers that were meant to be blank anyway.

quote:

It's common enough here - but only amongst Afro-Caribbeans.

It's fairly common here, in general. A similar type of pronunciation is "warshing machine."

quote:

I use this device quite often

Why does that not surprise me, Richard?

Arnie, that is so funny!

quote:

Why does that not surprise me, Richard? Wink

Could it be because you know I write manuals and examination papers?

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
What prompted you to reply to a seven-year-old post, tinman?

When this topic first came up I said that "people's pronunciation is a product of their education, culture and physical limitations," and that I thought some people were unable to pronounce the sk sound (I was referring specifically to the sk in ask, but I didn't make that clear). I didn't even think of the fact that it was dialect. Someone responded that, no, they didn't think that people were unable to pronounce the sk but, rather, it was a matter of education and that "they were probably never corrected by their teachers."

That response indicated that aks was an incorrect pronunciation caused by ignorance. I've known many people who pronounce it aks (or, more commonly, ax) and never felt comfortable asking them why, but I never felt it was due simply to ignorance of the "correct" pronunciation. I should have realized it was dialect, but I didn't at the time.

Zmježd noted that aks is derived through metathesis. This is also noted in Wiktionary:

quote:

Pronouncing ask as /æks/ is a common example of metathesis and a feature of some varieties of English, notably African American Vernacular English (AAVE).

and in Wikipedia:

quote:

Use of metathesised forms like aks for "ask"[29] or graps for "grasp".

c1386 CHAUCER Wife's Prol. 21, I axe, why the fyfte man Was nought housbond to the Samaritan?

1803 PEGGE Anecd. Eng. Lang. 114 A true born Londoner, Sir, of either sex, always axes question, axes pardon, and at quadrille axes leave.