 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009Give Us A Kiss
Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he means "me." He's from Newcastle, I believe, and his accent is often impenetrable (at least to me), but I remember hearing this in Birmingham when I was a kid. And then there was the Liverpudlian character Yosser in Boys from the Blackstuff whose catchphrase was "gissa job" - and I don't think he was talking about anyone but himself. It now seems very odd to my leftpondian ears. Was there a time when "me" simply didn't exist? Any other thoughts or observations?  Signature³Don't water it down! You always water it down! Well, don't! Just don't!² - Mary Albinson >Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of >the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It now seems very odd to my leftpondian ears. Was there a time when "me" >simply didn't exist? Any other thoughts or observations? "Me" comes from Old English (pre-1100) as does "us". The use of "us" to mean "me" appears to be much more recent. It will have been in oral use for some time before it was recorded in writing. OED: us, pron., n., and adj. I. As object. 7. Eng. regional, Sc., Irish English, and colloq. Chiefly in unemphatic use (freq. with give): me; to me. 1828 W. CARR Dial. Craven (ed. 2) (at cited word), Give us some bread, i.e. give me some bread. 1857 T. HUGHES Tom Brown's School Days I. iv. 92 Tell us something more about the pea-shooting. .... .... 1987 R. GALTON & A. SIMPSON Hancock's Half Hour 89 Give us the paper, I want to read it. 1992 B. ROCHE Wexford Trilogy 165 Artie. Give us the keys Pat. .... II. As subject; = WE pron. I. C. adj. 1. Eng. regional (north. and north midl.). As possessive adjective: = OUR adj. 1848 A. B. EVANS Leicestershire Words 103 We'en had us dinners. 1859 B. BRIERLEY Daisy Nook 49 Wi us noses just above th' ridgin'. .... .... SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > II. As subject; = WE pron. I. > C. adj. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > .... > .... That's still extant as well, or was a few years ago. "This is us turnoff" was what someone said to me when I was driving him home. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> II. As subject; = WE pron. I. >> C. adj. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's still extant as well, or was a few years ago. "This is us > turnoff" was what someone said to me when I was driving him home. Yes. It should be noted that in this possessive sense it is always pronounced "uz". Regards Jonathan On 8 July, 22:22, "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> II. As subject; = WE pron. I. > >> C. adj. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jonathan Oh no it isn't. Regards Django In message <aeaec409-3335-486c-bb2b-dcc7ccdf4cfb@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Django Cat <vivjunkmail@lineone.net> writes >On 8 July, 22:22, "Jonathan Morton" ><jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Oh no it isn't. In NE England, the singular "us" (meaning "me") tends to be pronounced "izz" (at least that's how I say it when I lapse into the vernacular). SignatureIan >> II. As subject; = WE pron. I. >> C. adj. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's still extant as well, or was a few years ago. "This is us > turnoff" was what someone said to me when I was driving him home. But in that sense definitely regional dialect. Chris R > Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of > the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It now seems very odd to my leftpondian ears. Was there a time when > "me" simply didn't exist? Any other thoughts or observations? It's very common slang in the UK, not only amongst the young, in dialect or in uneducated speech. I often use it, when I want to be casual and familiar. It tones down what might otherwise sound like a command into a cosy request - make us a cup of tea, give us a kiss, lend us a tenner. Chris R > It's very common slang in the UK, not only amongst the young, in dialect > or in uneducated speech. I often use it, when I want to be casual and > familiar. It tones down what might otherwise sound like a command into a > cosy request - make us a cup of tea, give us a kiss, lend us a tenner. The classical salami technique. SignatureLes (BrE) > > It's very common slang in the UK, not only amongst the young, in dialect > > or in uneducated speech. I often use it, when I want to be casual and > > familiar. It tones down what might otherwise sound like a command into a > > cosy request - make us a cup of tea, give us a kiss, lend us a tenner. > > The classical salami technique. ??? I think the woosh bird has visited my roost. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Roland Hutchinson a écrit : >>> It's very common slang in the UK, not only amongst the young, in dialect >>> or in uneducated speech. I often use it, when I want to be casual and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think the woosh bird has visited my roost. Chris gave three distinct examples and Leslie chose to hear them as if they were spoken by the same person, someone softening up his mark, first asking for small favours and working up little by little to his final goal: getting a tenner. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/salami_technique SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > > Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of > > the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It tones down what might otherwise sound like a command into a cosy > request - make us a cup of tea, give us a kiss, lend us a tenner. "Wicked Masster cheats us; cheats Sméagol,Gollum. He musstn't go that way. He musstn't hurt Preciouss. Give it to Sméagol, yess, give it to us! Give it to uss!" SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of > the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he > means "me." > [ ... ] > And then there was the Liverpudlian character Yosser in Boys from the > Blackstuff whose catchphrase was "gissa job" - and I don't think he was > talking about anyone but himself. > > It now seems very odd to my leftpondian ears. Was there a time when "me" > simply didn't exist? Any other thoughts or observations? Your title, "Give us a kiss", is grammatically correct, and I use it myself. A kiss is a shared experience. The expression is asking for her cooperation in this shared experience. The alternative, "Give me a kiss" implies that I am the only person to benefit from the kiss, and that she is doing it as a duty or favour. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >> Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of >> the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > am the only person to benefit from the kiss, and that she is doing it as a > duty or favour. Hm. Earlier today I phoned someone with an enquiry that involved her looking something up online and a consequent delay. I asked if it would take long and she responded, jocularly, "Give us a chance!" Obviously, she meant "a chance to undertake this task". Would that indicate a shared experience in the same way? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> Your title, "Give us a kiss", is grammatically correct, and I use it >> myself. A kiss is a shared experience. The expression is asking for her [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > meant "a chance to undertake this task". Would that indicate a shared > experience in the same way? This is an interesting question of Aristotelian logic. My posting can be summarised as the assertion:- Because [a kiss is a shared experience], {the use of "us" is correct}. i.e. Because [X], {Y}. You would equally be entitled to postulate that:- Because ["the two of you attempting to cooperate to complete a task" is a shared experience], {the use of "us" is correct. i.e. Because [X], {Y}. The same Aristotelian formation. Anybody who agrees with the logic of my oriiginal formulation should also agree with the formulation I have suggested above concerning you and your colleague. However the truth of:- Because [X], {Y} does not make the following argument a logically sound:- <{Y} is True> , therefore [X]. An example is:- a. Because my father lent me £1,000, my bank balance now stands at +£350. b. My bank balance now stands at +£350. But my father has not lent me a penny. It seems to me that your posting, in the form that you have written it, has fallen into this trap of Aristotelian logic. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >>> Your title, "Give us a kiss", is grammatically correct, and I use it >>> myself. A kiss is a shared experience. The expression is asking for her [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Richard Chambers Leeds UK. Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be needed to show why "Give us a chance!" is acceptable. From what little I know about the expression's usage, it is acceptable and spoken in parts of the UK by some strata of society and not acceptable in America. What say you? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the > English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be > needed to show why "Give us a chance!" is acceptable. From what little > I know about the expression's usage, it is acceptable and spoken in > parts of the UK by some strata of society and not acceptable in > America. What say you? In my opinion this expression (and the various related forms, such as "Pass us the mustard, love") is perfectly satisfactory in an informal situation, such as when I am at home with my wife. It is totally unacceptable in a more formal setting, such as sipping afternoon tea with the Queen at her Palace, or when writing official documents. In these situations, "me" is exclusively the accusative or dative of "I", and "us" is exclusively the accusative or dative of "we". I do not wish ever to become uptight about English grammar when I am in my own home, or amongst friends. I did make an exception to this over-liberal attitude 20 years ago, when I needed to educate my young son and daughter by living example. But even during that period, I would have been horrified if my children had grown up unable to converse in any mode other than with the stiffest of grammatical correctness. You write about "some strata of [British] society". I think that this particular form of colloquialism exists nowadays throughout the whole British society. Britain is well on the road to becoming a classless society, approaching the same style as the USA and Australia claim to be "classless". I would not think a colleague uneducated if (as described by Laura) she said "Give us a couple of minutes" when she needed to find a document during a business discussion by telephone. In business, Britain is more informal than it was 40 years ago. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. >> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >document during a business discussion by telephone. In business, Britain is >more informal than it was 40 years ago. That doesn't mean that Britain is a classless society; merely that it's heading towards relatively classless speech. The two are vastly different, as can easily be seen by visiting one of Britain's many poor areas. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the accusative or dative of "I", and "us" is exclusively the accusative or > dative of "we". I now have this wonderful picture of HRH saying "Pass us the sugar, please, Philip". > I do not wish ever to become uptight about English grammar when I am in my > own home, or amongst friends. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > society, approaching the same style as the USA and Australia claim to be > "classless". Do you mean classless in terms of a lack of distinguishing linguistic features? I think we are far from classless in many other respects. People are still classified in all sorts of ways, both benign and invidious. We used to speak of "class barriers". I would not think a colleague uneducated if (as described by > Laura) she said "Give us a couple of minutes" when she needed to find a > document during a business discussion by telephone. In business, Britain is > more informal than it was 40 years ago. Horrifyingly so. It is a very long time since I have received a formal business letter that was entirely correct in terms of grammar, syntax and spelling. Few of the younger administrative staff with whom I work have much idea of how to write such a letter. This week I read Gillian Tett's excellent book about the financial crisis, "Fool's Gold" and realised that this is the first book I've read for a while in which I did not notice a single typo or infelicity of expression. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >>> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I now have this wonderful picture of HRH saying "Pass us the sugar, >please, Philip". The Queen is HM, Her Majesty. Philip is a mere HRH. "Us" from the mouth of the Queen would be the Royal plural. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic >>>> and the English language bear little relationship, a different [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > "Us" from the mouth of the Queen would be the Royal plural. Which, I have heard, did not influence HRH Philip when, near the end of a gruelling trip to the Antipodes, he whispered in HM's ear, "Buck up, my little Cabbage, we're near the end of it!" I don't remember that any response was recorded. "Give us a break, Philip; we're no hothouse rose, here!" might have been appropriate. > > "Us" from the mouth of the Queen would be the Royal plural. > > Which, I have heard, did not influence HRH Philip when, near the end > of a gruelling trip to the Antipodes, he whispered in HM's ear, "Buck > up, my little Cabbage, we're near the end of it!" I understand that her maj, in the throes of passion, doesn't say "I'm coming!" but "we're arriving!" Signature"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones >>> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and >>> the English language bear little relationship, a different tack may [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I now have this wonderful picture of HRH saying "Pass us the sugar, > please, Philip". Except that the royal family and upper class have their own affectation, the over-use of "one". It would be "pass one the sugar". Chris R > > I now have this wonderful picture of HRH saying "Pass us the sugar, > > please, Philip". > > > Except that the royal family and upper class have their own affectation, the > over-use of "one". It would be "pass one the sugar". Would one like one lump or two? Signature"If you can, tell me something happy." - Marybones >>> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >>> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >for a while in which I did not notice a single typo or infelicity of >expression. After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the realization the edition had enough typos in the right places to rend it nonsensical. Unfortunately, I had ordered three American novels from the same British publisher about six months ago, under the same categorical designation. I plan to do a search on the Internet for better editions of each. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering > why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > categorical designation. I plan to do a search on the Internet for > better editions of each. Encountering such things is a bit like suddenly tripping up as you're walking along, I find. It disturbs the flow of your understanding because you have to go back and read the sentence again to see what was wrong with it, just as one often looks back at the ground to see what made one trip. I'm now reading A.S.Byatt's "The Children's Book" which is good in parts but could have done with some crisp editing and a homophone check. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >> why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > was wrong with it, just as one often looks back at the ground to see > what made one trip. I've come across a few cheap editions of classics that have obviously been OCRd from an out-of-copyright edition. The give away is things like "nd" for "rid". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >> why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >wrong with it, just as one often looks back at the ground to see what >made one trip. Exactly what I was doing, which is why I was getting nowhere in my understanding of the book. Faulkner's sentences are often so long, by the time I arrived at a point in one of them where I thought there must either be a typo in an earlier part or that my memory was faulty, I was reading the next sentence. To begin the sentence, or the paragraph, again was the only way to find out which was the case, and then I often got lost a second time, probably for the same reason. Such iterations occurred numerous times as I attempted to read the book, which is frustrating for a fast reader. >I'm now reading A.S.Byatt's "The Children's Book" which is good in parts >but could have done with some crisp editing and a homophone check. I wonder if the Faulkner edition I've been railing on about received too much editing or none at all. The publisher would have been better off if he'd copied the original verbatim, it seems to me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >categorical designation. I plan to do a search on the Internet for >better editions of each. So which was the publisher? I'd like to avoid the same editions. SignatureSteve Hayes Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius >>After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >>why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I'd like to avoid the same editions. The book is in my room. I'll bring it over tomorrow as a reminder to tell you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >>>why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The book is in my room. I'll bring it over tomorrow as a reminder to >tell you. "Vintage Classics" is written in small print, on the book's cover. "Vintage, Random House, 20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London" appears on the copyright page. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >>>>why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >"Vintage, Random House, 20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London" appears on >the copyright page. Thanks. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>>>After struggling halfway through a Faulkner novel recently, wondering >>>>>why I was having so much trouble understanding it, I come to the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Thanks. You're welcome. I recommend that members avoid the series like the plague. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the accusative or dative of "I", and "us" is exclusively the accusative or > dative of "we". One assumes therefore that the Queen herself, using the royal wee, would say "Pass us the mustard". SignatureRob Bannister >> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the accusative or dative of "I", and "us" is exclusively the accusative or > dative of "we". We are not amused. (I am large, I contain multitudes.) --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> Since the doctrine promoted by these two groups is that logic and the >> English language bear little relationship, a different tack may be [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Richard Chambers Leeds UK. You gently chastise me for referring to "some strata of [British] society" when referring to the popularity of "pass us the mustard" and similar expressions. I was careful at the time to write "some" because I thought readers would interpret "some" to include the cases of virtually everyone or of a small minority or of some amount in-between, as I do. I was playing it very safe for a change, in other words. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >You write about "some strata of [British] society". I think that this >particular form of colloquialism exists nowadays throughout the whole [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Laura) she said "Give us a couple of minutes" when she needed to find a >document during a business discussion by telephone. Nor would I; but actually, of course, they say "bear with me" - which is high on my list of irritating expressions. What do others think? Katy k...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > >You write about "some strata of [British] society". I think that this > >particular form of colloquialism exists nowadays throughout the whole [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nor would I; but actually, of course, they say "bear with me" - which is high > on my list of irritating expressions. What do others think? Strange, that. IIRC, "bear with me" was a rather hi-falutin expression thirty or forty years ago, but it has indeed spread like --and approximately contemporaneously with--bittercress. But I'm not sure I can blame "bear with me" on a combination of global warming and sloppy weeding of plants sold by chain garden centres. -- Mike. >k...@cam.ac.uk wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >can blame "bear with me" on a combination of global warming and sloppy >weeding of plants sold by chain garden centres. "Bear with me" was middle to upper-middle class in America too, forty years ago, and I assume it still is. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>k...@cam.ac.uk wrote: >>> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >"Bear with me" was middle to upper-middle class in America too, forty >years ago, and I assume it still is. One can always use the West African "Wait small". SignatureJohn Ritson >Nor would I; but actually, of course, they say "bear with me" - which is high >on my list of irritating expressions. What do others think? Why do you find it irritating? What yould you prefer in its place? "Please be patient" or something else? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>Nor would I; but actually, of course, they say "bear with me" - which is high >>on my list of irritating expressions. What do others think? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >"Please be patient" or something else? Good question. I would say "sorry, can you hang on for a minute?", but that's a bit long. Even a "please" would help to soften the imperative, though. Katy >> Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of >> the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > am the only person to benefit from the kiss, and that she is doing it as a > duty or favour. Ah, Nelson. Kiss us hardily. SignatureRob Bannister > Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of > the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It now seems very odd to my leftpondian ears. Was there a time when "me" > simply didn't exist? Any other thoughts or observations? Well here's an example of it by someone who isn't even alive now, so it can't be /that/ yoofspeak. You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous thread about old British seaside wear): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhdx6OB_uc SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the > pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous thread > about old British seaside wear):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhdx6OB_uc Ace! Rock, tower, donkeys, deck chairs - the beaches of my childhood! And so to bed... thanks for that nice little late night break. cheers, S in B >> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the >> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous thread [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > childhood! And so to bed... thanks for that nice little late night > break. But where were all the military installations? Pill boxes, barbed wire entanglements, rusting girders with no apparent purpose? All of these were part of my boyhood beach experience, along with the odd floating mine. SignatureRob Bannister > >> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the > >> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous thread [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > childhood! And so to bed... thanks for that nice little late night > > break. Yes: lovely little film. > But where were all the military installations? Pill boxes, barbed wire > entanglements, rusting girders with no apparent purpose? All of these > were part of my boyhood beach experience, along with the odd floating mine. And then, a little later, came the neutralised mines painted red and set up as collecting boxes for the Lifeboats. When were they taken away? -- Mike. > > >> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the > > >> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous thread [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > set up as collecting boxes for the Lifeboats. When were they taken > away? I pursued singular "us" into OED, and found the entry full of interesting bits, and worth reproducing in full. Non-Insulars may need an explanation or two. < 7. Eng. regional, Sc., Irish English, and colloq. Chiefly in unemphatic use (freq. with give): me; to me. 1828 W. CARR Dial. Craven (ed. 2) (at cited word), ‘Give us some bread,’ i.e. give me some bread. 1857 T. HUGHES Tom Brown's School Days I. iv. 92 Tell us something more about the pea-shooting. 1859 Dublin Univ. Mag. June 733/1 Come, Mr. Farrell.., give us half-a-crown to begin with that's a good man... Come, Luke, give me half-a-crown. 1889 Leeds Mercury Weekly Suppl. 5 Jan., Hug us this canful o' watter, wi' ta? 1894 H. PEASE Mark o' Deil 44 He tripped us, an' ower aa gans backwards. 1925 E. C. SMITH Mang Howes 6 If onybody hed eyed iz, hei'd heh thocht A was shuir ready for Bowden! 1987 R. GALTON & A. SIMPSON Hancock's Half Hour 89 Give us the paper, I want to read it. 1992 B. ROCHE Wexford Trilogy 165 Artie. Give us the keys Pat. 2000 C. BROOKMYRE Boiling Frog iii. 55 Gie's a lenny a wee drap milk for ma cornflakes> -- Mike. >>>>> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the >>>>> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous thread [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > BROOKMYRE Boiling Frog iii. 55 Gie's a lenny a wee drap milk for ma > cornflakes> And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily bread" spoken by one person. SignatureRob Bannister > And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily bread" > spoken by one person. I take that as a request for the lot of us. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily bread" >> spoken by one person. > > I take that as a request for the lot of us. I was going to say that the person probably was not thinking that, but then, in likelihood, the person is thinking "What am I going to have for lunch when I get home?" or "That woman's got a nice bum", neither of which have much bearing on "us". SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the >>>>>> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily bread" > spoken by one person. My only experience of the Lord's Prayer being school assemblies where it was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, like many in the Jewish liturgy, a communal prayer. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) Quoth LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>, and I quote: >>>>>>> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the >>>>>>> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, like many in >the Jewish liturgy, a communal prayer. The fact that it doesn't start with "My Father" is another clue. SignatureJames > Quoth LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>, and I quote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > The fact that it doesn't start with "My Father" is another clue. But "our father witch" is a bit confusing. SignatureRob Bannister > > And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily bread" > > spoken by one person. > > My only experience of the Lord's Prayer being school assemblies where it > was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, like many in > the Jewish liturgy, a communal prayer. In the various Christian liturgies, it is usually introduced by the officiant with "Let us pray in the words our Saviour taught us", "As our Saviour taught us, so we pray" or some similar formula. It is very definitely worded, and used, as a communal prayer. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> My only experience of the Lord's Prayer being school assemblies >> where it was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > officiant with "Let us pray in the words our Saviour taught us", "As > our Saviour taught us, so we pray" or some similar formula. Oh... so it's nothing to do with a tortoise, after all? Chris R >>> My only experience of the Lord's Prayer being school assemblies >>> where it was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Oh... so it's nothing to do with a tortoise, after all? Our Lord is a tortoise. This is quite distinct from the belief that the world is carried on the top of an infinite pile of turtles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >> And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily >> bread" spoken by one person. > > My only experience of the Lord's Prayer being school assemblies where > it was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, like many > in the Jewish liturgy, a communal prayer. Come to think of it, I have never recited that prayer, or any other prayer for that matter, as a sole participant. I have, in my early youth, mouthed group prayers, and even then only because it would have attracted attention had I not done it. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> And don't forget the religious aspect: "Give us today our daily >>> bread" spoken by one person. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >group prayers, and even then only because it would have attracted attention >had I not done it. Have thee never mouthed a curse against thy god, in private? As a woodworker, I know I have. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Have thee never mouthed a curse against thy god, in private? ObAUE/AEU: "Hast thou..." SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela filted: >> Have thee never mouthed a curse against thy god, in private? > >ObAUE/AEU: "Hast thou..." Chuck can Speak Plainer than that....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> Have thee never mouthed a curse against thy god, in private? > >ObAUE/AEU: "Hast thou..." Damn! SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> You have to wait to the very last second, but it's worth it (and the >>>>>>> pictures are interesting to those participating in the previous [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, like many in > the Jewish liturgy, a communal prayer. I think for most of us, it was just something we did in case one of the teachers caught us not doing it, but we did it on auto and thought about other things while doing it. SignatureRob Bannister >My only experience of the Lord's Prayer being school assemblies where it >was chanted in unison, I had always assumed that it was, like many in >the Jewish liturgy, a communal prayer. It is, and it starts with "Our Father" not "My Father". But singular us was common in my South African childhood, as in "Give us a sluk" (of your milkshake). SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of > the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > least to me), but I remember hearing this in Birmingham when I was a > kid. Two observations: 1. I'm one of them South-East pansies who considers anywhere north of Cambridge to be a foriegn country, but I use "us" to mean "me" occasionally, as an informal thing. It's like a cheekier version of the Royal "we". 2. Please don't judge the rest of us on the annual carnival of crazies that make their way onto Big Brother. Most of them are a bit dim and don't fairly represent us, erm, "yoof". SignatureTom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> >Big Brother is my UK Yoofspeak language lab. I've noticed that one of >the hamsters in the wheel, Charlie, almost always says "us" when he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It now seems very odd to my leftpondian ears. Was there a time when "me" >simply didn't exist? Any other thoughts or observations? A friend of mine observed in a street, somewhere in the north of England, a woman threatening to tell the mother of some misbehaving children about them, and began to speak to a woman she thought was the mother of the kids, and one of the kids said, "Us don't belong to she." SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.