 |
 | 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 2010tie or bow tie?
What will be suitable at a Scottish- English wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie or a bow tie? The wedding does not take place in a church but in a hotel, and I am sure that I am not wearing a kilt or any tartan, but a normal lounge suit (black). >What will be suitable at a Scottish- English >wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie or >a bow tie? The wedding does not take place in a >church but in a hotel, and I am sure that I am not >wearing a kilt or any tartan, but a normal lounge >suit (black). These days, at British weddings, principal guests tend to wear fairly formal dress. However, ordinary guests often wear anything from 'smart casual' to 'smart formal'. Provided that you are not too scruffy, I doubt if anyone really cares very much what you wear. But if you are an ordinary guest, and you suspect that even the principal guests are likely to be somewhat casual, it might be a good idea to do the same, so you don't 'out-dress' them. Unless the invitation specifically request formal dress, I'm sure that a normal lounge suit (almost any colour) - plus either tie - will be fine. And once the wedding and the formal part of the reception is finished, it's fairly normal to remove jackets and ties (take a lead from the other guests), especially if they intend to do some serious celebrating!  SignatureIan "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen news:9IYeATN8DKUMFwtL@g3ohx.demon.co.uk... > In message > <4c5039bc$0$36573$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > other guests), especially if they intend to do > some serious celebrating! Thank you - this was useful information. On 2010-07-29 01:10:28 +0200, "ahw" <nix> said: "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen news:9IYeATN8DKUMFwtL@g3ohx.demon.co.uk... In message <4c5039bc$0$36573$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk>, ahw <nix@?.?.invalid> writes > What will be suitable at a Scottish- English > wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Thank you - this was useful information. Yes, but something Ian didn't mention is that wearing evening dress (tuxedo), with bow ties at weddings is an American tradition, not a British one. At a traditional British wedding one should wear a morning suit (long grey jacket, stripy black and grey trousers, white shirt, dark tie (not a bow tie), waistcoat as flashy as you like, black shoes, black or dark grey socks, top hat). Scottish wedding may be a bit different from English. If you haven't seen "Four Weddings and a Funeral", you should. It has three examples of classy English weddings, and one Scottish. Signatureathel >Yes, but something Ian didn't mention is that wearing evening dress >(tuxedo), Yes, Tuxedo is a town in New York. An hour or two from NYCity. The commuter station is a good place ot park on weekends when hiking in Harriman Park. The jacket at least was first worn at the Tuxedo Country Club, I hear. Tuxedo comes from the Indian word, tucseeto meaning fancy dance with starched shirts. > with bow ties at weddings is an American tradition, not a >British one. At a traditional British wedding one should wear a morning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Funeral", you should. It has three examples of classy English weddings, >and one Scottish. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >What will be suitable at a Scottish- English >wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie or >a bow tie? The wedding does not take place in a >church but in a hotel, and I am sure that I am not >wearing a kilt or any tartan, but a normal lounge >suit (black). I hope someone from the UK answers this. As an American, and giving advice about what to wear at a wedding the US, the answer would be: your choice. It would be completely up to the guest to choose the style of necktie, but some taste would be expected. No hand-painted dancing Hawaiian girl necktie or bow ties with LED lights. I have worn a bow tie with formal wear, but never been tempted to purchase a bow tie for any other purpose. I've never seen a man in a bow tie and thought "I wish I would worn that.". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>What will be suitable at a Scottish- English >>wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > never seen a man in a > bow tie and thought "I wish I would worn that.". thank you, Tony - I think you have answered this some time ago, but I could not find it at the newsgroup -but I think that some Americans will be attending the party, so I can see what they are wearing. Nevertheless I think that i stick to my lounge suit, but whether I am wearing a bow tie or a "normal" tie will depend on what the parents of the groom might suggest - I think, according to what I have read already, it should be a good idea to take both tie and bow tie with me. The American suggestion, however, contributes to my knowledge of the American culture, and your answer tells me that the wedding I see in feature films and the dresses they use - especially in American films - seem to be according to what you are telling me, so thank you for that too. The blinking bow tie you suggest not to use: It could be a suggestion at New Years Eve, but of course not to a wedding, whatever casual it may be. (smile) >>What will be suitable at a Scottish- English >>wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >purchase a bow tie for any other purpose. I've never seen a man in a >bow tie and thought "I wish I would worn that.". Henry Morgan used to wear a bow tie all the time. He said it didn't get in the soup. Not the admiral, the comedian. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years On 28 Jul 2010, ahw wrote > What will be suitable at a Scottish- English > wedding (she is English, he is Scottish): a tie or > a bow tie? The wedding does not take place in a > church but in a hotel, and I am sure that I am not > wearing a kilt or any tartan, but a normal lounge If you're a guest rather than part of the formal wedding party -- in which case you should have been informed what to wear -- wear a standard tie if you wish to dress like everyone else. You can, of course, choose to wear a bow-tie, but it's making a "statement" -- I Am The Sort Of Individualist Who Chooses To Wear A Bow Tie -- rather than a matter of protocol. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 28 Jul 2010, ahw wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Tie > -- rather than a matter of protocol. The way I see it it is like wearing a baseball cap reversed. It says "I'm a pretentious individualist and wish everyone to know it". > On 28 Jul 2010, ahw wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Who Chooses To Wear A Bow Tie > -- rather than a matter of protocol. That was a very useful contribution, which I shall bear in mind. I think I shall dress like the groom's father - if he wears a bow tie, I shall do the same and if not I shall not. But your advice is useful so I thank you too. >> On 28 Jul 2010, ahw wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >the same and if not I shall not. But your advice >is useful so I thank you too. Where are you from, "ahw"? Wherever it is, bow ties must be more popular there than I see here. Older, somewhat eccentric, academics are sometimes seen around here in large, hand-tied, floppy bow ties. In books and movies, actors and artists wear bow ties, but I don't see actors around here and most artists I see wear scruffy, grungy clothes. I rarely see them on businessmen. There are a few politicians that affect bow ties, but they do so as sort of a visual trademark. Wearing a bow tie in the US is enough to get you listed in Wikipedia as notable for doing so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bow_tie_wearers but notice that many of the listed ones - like Churchill - did so in a different era. This isn't a Dr Who thing, is it? I knew there was something about that show I didn't like. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>That was a very useful contribution, which I >>shall [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Where are you from, "ahw"? I don't quite follow you? I am Danish, my friends (the groom's parents) are Scottish and Danish respectively, and I and my wife have been invited to the wedding by the groom. We don't know the bride's family or their friends. We only know that the groom is an actor - what the bride is doing we don't know. If you mean "what year" I am from, I can say that I am from 1951 - i.e. almost 60 (March 2011). > Wherever it is, bow ties must be more popular > there than I see here. I see. > Older, somewhat eccentric, academics are > sometimes seen around here in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > around here and most > artists I see wear scruffy, grungy clothes. Probably not -I have never been in the US. > I rarely see them on businessmen. There are a > few politicians that > affect bow ties, but they do so as sort of a > visual trademark. aha! > Wearing a bow tie in the US is enough to get you > listed in Wikipedia > as notable for doing so. Really? That I didn't know. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bow_tie_wearers > but notice that > many of the listed ones - like Churchill - did > so in a different era. Probably - in my generation in Denmark an ordinary tie was the usual thing - the only situation I did wear a bow tie was when I was attending a classical choir and as a child where a bow tie was mandatory in the dancing school I was forced to attend :-(. > This isn't a Dr Who thing, is it? I knew there > was something about > that show I didn't like. Dr. Who? who? I only know one 'dr. Who' and he derives from a cartoon, I think -or is it from a James Bond movie? I don't recall. [Scottish wedding dress code] > Probably - in my generation in Denmark an ordinary > tie was the usual thing Just for information, Arne: a "regular tie" is often called a "four-in-hand tie". OneLook OED says that the usage is North American -- something I hadn't realised -- but their definition seems quite out of date, so perhaps that has changed. BrEtcophone comments? From Merriam-Webster: 2 : a necktie tied in a slipknot with long ends overlapping vertically in front http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/four-in-hand [Doctor who?] On 29 Jul 2010, CDB wrote > [Scottish wedding dress code] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > American -- something I hadn't realised -- but their definition seems > quite out of date, so perhaps that has changed. BrEtcophone comments? I'd say that in my circles, anything irregular gets a qualifier - a bow tie, a string tie, a ready-made tie[1] -- but the thing yer average businessman slings around his neck each day is just "a tie". [1] I'm sure there's another name for those things, but I can't think of it at the moment. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 Jul 2010, CDB wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > things, but I can't think of it > at the moment. I couldn't tell - I am, of course, not a native speaker! >On 29 Jul 2010, CDB wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >[1] I'm sure there's another name for those things, but I can't think of it >at the moment. "Clip-on ties"? http://www.swaggerandswoon.com/index.php?cPath=285_31 Tired of tying? Apparently you can send your favourite ties to these people who will convert them to clip-ons: http://www.meechs.co.uk/acatalog/Tie_Conversion.html SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) On 29 Jul 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> I'd say that in my circles, anything irregular gets a qualifier - a bow >> tie, a string tie, a ready-made tie[1] -- but the thing yer average [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Clip-on ties"? That's the term I was after; don't know why it escaped me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 Jul 2010, CDB wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > [1] I'm sure there's another name for those things, but I can't > think of it at the moment. Something like a strap-on. It's been quite a long time. Thanks to you and Peter; I guess it's still pondial. >[Scottish wedding dress code] >> >> Probably - in my generation in Denmark an ordinary >> tie was the usual thing >Just for information, Arne: a "regular tie" is often called a >"four-in-hand tie". The four-in-hand is a knot, but you have to have a tie with sufficient size and shape to tie that knot. I've never been able to tie a four-in-hand. I tie a half-Windsor as my father did and his father before him...and as my son does. Fathers teach sons in my family. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>[Scottish wedding dress code] >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >my father did and his father before him...and as my son does. Fathers >teach sons in my family. I would just call the tie a necktie, and call the knot a four-in-hand. When I was about 13, I found a small brochure in my or my brother's dresser (they were next to each other, and the smaller top drawers struck me as common territory, for things like shoehorns and brochures.) My mother might have left it there. Maybe she even pointed it out to my older brother. He already knew how to tie a tie, but maybe not all three knots. It explained with drawings how to tie a four-in-hand, a half-windsor, a full windsor, and a bow tie. The first three are really the same excep that the number of times the wide end crosses the narrow end increases by one from one to the next. And the starting position of the short end alternates from one to the next. That is, for the 4, it starts with the seam down, for the half, with the seam up, and for the full, with the seam down again. I usually use a half-Windsor, but it varies with the width of the tie and could vary if the shirt collar somehow had more or less width from the left collar to the right. With a narrow tie, when they were in style, I would likely tie a full Windsor, to fill the space between the collars. With a really thick tie, I have to tie a four-in-hand, or the knot is so big, you can't see my eyes. With a tie that has been used a lot, I have my own knot, which I call a Windsor and a half. It's relationship to a windsor is the same as a windsor to a half-windsor. I have never tried to tie a double-Windsor. My ties probably aren't long enough, even if they one was thin enough. As to a bow-tie, do people realize that it is tied with the same knot used to tie one's shoes? People are always saying how difficult it is to tie, but I don't know if they mean it's hard to get the folds at the right places, or "I don't know how to even start tying it." I've never had one to practice with. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The four-in-hand is a knot, but you have to have a tie with > sufficient size and shape to tie that knot. I see what you and mm mean, but the question seems to turn on what you mean by "tie". The fact that the noun and the verb are the same doesn't help. Is "tie" the piece of cloth (they are shaped differently for bow- and four-in-hand- purposes), or the piece of cloth when and as arranged, or the arrangement itself? How can you tell, so to speak. > I've never been able to tie a four-in-hand. I tie a half-Windsor as > my father did and his father before him...and as my son does. > Fathers teach sons in my family. >>> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >cloth when and as arranged, or the arrangement itself? How can you >tell, so to speak. Context. I put the tie around my shirt collar and then tie it. I then am dressed to go out and tie one on. I have to choose a color and a knot in this process, and "color" and "knot" can be either a verb or a noun. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and a knot in this process, and "color" and "knot" can be either a > verb or a noun. But, by the phrase "four-in-hand tie", do you mean "a piece of cloth suitable for tying in a 4ih knot", "a piece of cloth tied in a 4ih knot", "the tying of a 4ih knot" or "a 4ih knot" in either the concrete sense (and so leaning towards the second alternative) or in the abstract(and so towards the third)? It seems to me that they are all possible interpretations, and that "four-in-hand" can legitimately be used for more than just the knot. The M-W definition I posted, which got snipped, was "a necktie tied in a slipknot with long ends overlapping vertically in front", which seems to correspond to either the first choice (the suitable piece of cloth) or the second (the piece of cloth in that particular configuration), depending on whether "tied" implies "customarily configured", i.e. "suitable for configuring", or simply "configured". >>>>> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >suitable for tying in a 4ih knot", "a piece of cloth tied in a 4ih >knot", "the tying of a 4ih knot" or "a 4ih knot" I don't know what others mean by "a four-in-hand", but to me it is just the knot. There is no such thing as a "four-in-hand tie" just as there is no such thing as a "bow knot shoe lace" or a "hangman's noose rope". My take, not for general consumption. > in either the >concrete sense (and so leaning towards the second alternative) or in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >configuration), depending on whether "tied" implies "customarily >configured", i.e. "suitable for configuring", or simply "configured". M-W did not consult with me about that definition. I would have rejected it out-of-hand. If you see them, send them around. I'm not even in agreement with the description of "a slipknot with long ends overlapping vertically in front". My half-Windsor slips when I pull the short end. I don't know if a four-in-hand knot slips any differently. How descriptive is "overlapping vertically in front"? Would that adequately describe a tied tie if you had not seen one before? What's that about the "long ends"? There are two ends to a necktie, and neither is long nor short. Properly tied, the outside end extends below the inside end. Almost all neckties have a wide end and a narrow end, but how can both ends be "long"? Really, what is M-W thinking? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >there is no such thing as a "bow knot shoe lace" or a "hangman's noose >rope". My take, not for general consumption. This use of four-in-hand for a tie (knot) is completely new to me. The only four-in-hand I knew of was horse-drawn carriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-in-hand_%28carriage%29 SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>The M-W definition I posted, which got snipped, was "a necktie tied in >>a slipknot with long ends overlapping vertically in front", which [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >when I pull the short end. I don't know if a four-in-hand knot slips >any differently. Not about the M-w definition, but when the narrow end is pulled out of the knot, one knot I use just falls apart, but the other one doesn't. I think it's the half-windsor that doesn't, so I suspect that means both of the other two do. Peter the four-in-hand doesn't start with an overhand know (like a pretsel), like the bigger ones do. Assume the wide end is on the right side of your neck. Just run the wide end over the narrow end, under the part of the tie at the left front of your neck, up towards your chin, and then down under the part that you just ran over the narrow end. The four-in-hand isn't symmetric like I think the other two are, but when tightened a bit that's not really noticeable. At least with most ties. >How descriptive is "overlapping vertically in front"? Would that >adequately describe a tied tie if you had not seen one before? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Really, what is M-W thinking? SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years > Not about the M-w definition, but when the narrow end is pulled out of > the knot, one knot I use just falls apart, but the other one doesn't. > I think it's the half-windsor that doesn't, so I suspect that means > both of the other two do. I can't guarantee that I tie the knots in the defined way - I'm self- taught. In any case, the three knots I have used consist of taking the long end around the short end once, twice, and three passes, with the end going through the top opening between passes, for the three knots, which may correspond to four-in-hand, half-windsor, and full windsor. I had the problem, as you describe, of the twice-around knot not coming loose just by pulling out the short end. I solved the problem by changing the knot just a bit. I was making that knot with the long end going CW (viewed from above) on the first pass and CCW on the second. I now make the two-pass knot by going CW for both passes. It now unties just by pulling the short end out. Try it out and see if it works for you. For the three-pass knot, I alternate directions (CW, CCW, CW) and it does untie by pulling out the short end. Bill in Kentucky >> Not about the M-w definition, but when the narrow end is pulled out of >> the knot, one knot I use just falls apart, but the other one doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Bill in Kentucky Now I have to find a tie! SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>>>>> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Really, what is M-W thinking? Many people distrust M-W, especially since the publication of their descriptivist third edition. Nero Wolfe tore his copy up and burned it, page by page and buckram cover. But surely Sears and Roebuck are beyond reproach? From the GooBooBlurb, since I couldn't get the snippet view to come out readable: Sears, Roebuck and Company - 1922 Men's Medium Width Open End Four- In-Hand Tie. Made of good quality silk and cotton rep material in striped effects. ... Our Best Quality All Silk Open End Four- In-Hand Tie for men. Not' often are you able to buy a tie of this quality ... . They seem to think it can mean the piece of cloth. >>>>>>> [Scottish wedding dress code] >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >. >They seem to think it can mean the piece of cloth. Yeah, and look what happened to them. K-Mart bought them. I just happen to own a 1902 Sears, Roebuck catalog. I checked in the neckwear section and see that they called them "Four in Hand Scarfs" in those days. Here's a scan of the part of the page: http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/sears.jpg SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>That was a very useful contribution, which I >>>shall [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I don't quite follow you? > I am Danish, I didn't recognize you as Arne Wilstrup (sp?) I thought it was some different poster from Asia. Your writing style in English smacks of sampans and chopsticks. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> >>skrev [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > in English smacks of > sampans and chopsticks. Interesting - please explain in more details, please. >>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> >>>skrev [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Interesting - please explain in more details, > please. I rephrase the above sentence: Interesting - more details, please -I love to learn! >>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> >>>>skrev [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >I rephrase the above sentence: Interesting - more >details, please -I love to learn! All those "shall"s come across as an English learner parroting one of those exercises written by non-native-English speakers. The questioned area itself is not something I'd expect from a European. This advance planning of the minute details of what to wear to a wedding, and taking two types of ties along, seems like an indication of great insecurity in blending in with another - and completely different - culture. What underwear are you packing? Y-fronts or boxers? String vest or tee shirt? Or, will you take both and check to see what the father of the groom is wearing? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> >>>>>skrev [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >tee shirt? Or, will you take both and check to see what the father of >the groom is wearing? Arne is perhaps a bit nervous and just wants to do the right thing. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:26:16 +0200, "ahw" >>>>> <nix> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Arne is perhaps a bit nervous and just wants to > do the right thing. Quite so - unlike what Tony Cooper supposedly thinks, I have no intentions to offend people in the foreign, and I have never been to an English wedding before - actually I did not expect that I should ever get such an invitation - so it is imperative for me and my wife that we do the right thing. That's all there's to it. >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:26:16 +0200, "ahw" >>>>>> <nix> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >thing. >That's all there's to it. Yes. There are two possible approaches you could take to this problem. 1. You and your wife could dress in a way that is normal at a wedding in England. This is what you are hoping to do. or 2. You and your wife could dress in the way that you would at a similar wedding in Denmark. I'm sure that dressing in accordance with your own local custom would be completely acceptable. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) On 30 Jul 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> >> skrev >>> Arne is perhaps a bit nervous and just wants to >>> do the right thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> imperative for me and my wife that we do the right >> thing. >> That's all there's to it. To be fair, I don't think Tony thinks you want to offend anyone -- I suspect he just finds it a bit odd that anyone would concern themselves with details to the extent that you clearly are doing. -snip- > There are two possible approaches you could take to this problem. > > 1. You and your wife could dress in a way that is normal at a wedding in > England. This is what you are hoping to do. In which case, a suit and a "normal" tie is what's needed. > or > > 2. You and your wife could dress in the way that you would at a similar > wedding in Denmark. I'm sure that dressing in accordance with your own > local custom would be completely acceptable. I'd say it would be more than "completely acceptable" -- it would be enthusiastically welcomed as adding to the international character of the wedding. FWIW, Arne, my view is that the "right thing" for you to do is to "bring a bit of Denmark to the wedding". You are part of the bride and groom's existence as a cosmopolitan couple, and I am certain they are relying on you to contribute to -- and exhibit -- that aspect of their life.. In other words, the most valuable thing you can contribute to their wedding is to be Danish; so dress as you would for a Danish wedding. (Question to others: am I right, or am I right?) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 30 Jul 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >enthusiastically welcomed as adding to the international character of the >wedding. Teaching them the Aquavit and penny in the coffee trick might go over. >FWIW, Arne, my view is that the "right thing" for you to do is to "bring a >bit of Denmark to the wedding". You are part of the bride and groom's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >(Question to others: am I right, or am I right?) I would not dress any differently for a wedding in England, Scotland, Denmark, or the US. I don't own a suit and tie combination that would be inappropriate in any of those countries. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On 30 Jul 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > (Question to others: am I right, or am I right?) I think that's sound advice. Bill in Kentucky >>> There are two possible approaches you could >>> take to this problem. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I think that's sound advice. So do I. However, no harm is done just to be sure, is there? On 31 Jul 2010, ahw wrote >>> FWIW, Arne, my view is that the "right thing" >>> for you to do is to "bring a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So do I. However, no harm is done just to be sure, > is there? Absolutely no harm at all -- what they'll want is for you to enjoy yourself, and if you would rather blend in than stand out in some way, that is what you should do. You can rest assured that the dress code for wedding guests in the UK is fairly flexible, and that you'll fit in perfectly if you wear a "normal" suit and tie. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 31 Jul 2010, ahw wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > perfectly if you wear a "normal" > suit and tie. I remember that I was asked in this group to tell the participants here how it went when I attended the wedding - I still shall do that - after the wedding, even if it might be a disaster (but I don't expect this!) Leaving this Tuesday to Glasgow - I am looking forward to meeting my friends there. On 31 Jul 2010, ahw wrote > I remember that I was asked in this group to tell > the participants here how it went when I attended [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Leaving this Tuesday to Glasgow - I am looking > forward to meeting my friends there. Have a wonderful visit, Arne. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 31 Jul 2010, ahw wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Have a wonderful visit, Arne. thank you very much! > On 30 Jul 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > (Question to others: am I right, or am I > right?) Yes, but you must understand that we seldom participate in weddings here in the same way the very family does - the mother is very religious and she doesn't like that her son is not going to be wed in a church. My wife and I do sometimes attend celebrations in churches (mostly funerals (according to our ages)) and here we normally dress - for my part - in lounge suit with a tie or with some black trousers, corduroy trousers of a dark colour, a white shirt or a slightly blue one - the women are entitled to use a greater variation of dresses according to the customs. I have always been anxious to dress properly in most parties - call it a neurosis or something else, but I have to live with it. At my daughters wedding one year ago she and her husbond were dressed in black (they are Goths) and the males were dressed in black and white (=lounge suit and white shirt with a tie - the variations among men don't seem to be very big). >> (Question to others: am I right, or am I >> right?) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and she doesn't like that her son is not going to >be wed in a church. There's probably nothing you can do to ameliorate that. Or even that you are considering doing that would make it worse. If the wedding were in a strip joint, with naked women dancers, and you went naked too, that would make it worse. It's not, is it? >My wife and I do sometimes >attend celebrations in churches (mostly funerals AFAIK, most people don't call funerals celebrations, but what the hey! >(according to our ages)) and here we normally >dress - for my part - in lounge suit with a tie or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >wedding one year ago she and her husbond were >dressed in black (they are Goths) Really! How long have they been that? I don't care about the black clothes, but is there more to it than that? > and the males >were dressed in black and white (=lounge suit and >white shirt with a tie - the variations among men >don't seem to be very big). Even non-Gothic men's dress clothes and white-collar work clothes don't have that much variation. Women with white collar jobs get to wear all kinds of things. It's just not fair. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>I have always been anxious to dress properly in >>most parties - call it a neurosis or something [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > care about the black > clothes, but is there more to it than that? Normally the bride is white as a sign of innocense - for the same reason the groom is wearing black :-) >>"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" >><mail@peterduncanson.net> [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > accordance with your own > local custom would be completely acceptable. quite - The groom's mother (who is the native one, Scottish) says that we are not to worry - we can dress as we please (but I am uncertain what "as we please" is - there might be an expectation or a standard which I don't really know -I am quite sure that they don't mean we are to come naked) so there might not be any uncertainty at all. Nevertheless, I for my part will use a lounge suit and a tie, which I understand the father will do too - that is, as I see it, something between a very formal dress (like "Four Weddings and a Funeral"), the Great Gatsby, and an ordinary New Years Party or a babtism of a child in a church (I think). >Nevertheless, I for my part will use a lounge suit >and a tie, which I understand the father will do >too Nothing whatsoever to do with Arne's sartorial decision, but the term "lounge suit" always stops me in my tracks. Yes, I've known this term for yonks and I know that the suits in my closet become "lounge suits" when I wear them to Europe. However, the term is *never* used in the US by Americans. A "lounge", to us, is a bar. We speak of "lounge lizards"; men who hang out in bars and try to pick up women. One expects lounge lizards to wear heavy gold chains and dangling gold bracelets. A few years back their shirts were unbuttoned down to the navel. Some wore leisure suits or Nehru jackets. Not all males who hang out in bars and try to pick up women are "lounge lizards". Younger males who frequent "singles bars" are not lounge lizards. Lounge lizards are usually middle-aged and sometimes married. They might say they are "separated" from their wife, but they mean separated by distance. She's home and he's here. A "bar" is not the same as a pub. Bars are usually dimly lit, sometimes sleazy, and seldom family places. They are sometimes called "cocktail lounges", and that's the source of the "lounge" in "lounge lizard". This is in no way critical of Arne's use of "lounge suit" because the term is proper for what he describes where he is. It's just funny for me to read. Should Arne ever be invited to a wedding in the US, I would advise that he wear a lounge suit but not to announce to any Americans that he will be wearing a lounge suit. The word "suit" is sufficient here. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>Nevertheless, I for my part will use a lounge suit >>and a tie, which I understand the father will do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for yonks and I know that the suits in my closet become "lounge suits" >when I wear them to Europe. Amazing prestidigitation. >However, the term is *never* used in the US by Americans. A "lounge", >to us, is a bar. We speak of "lounge lizards"; men who hang out in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >married. They might say they are "separated" from their wife, but >they mean separated by distance. She's home and he's here. All very true. When I was a boy, afaik no one accepted dating until people were actually divorced. Being separated, even legally, wasn't enough. >A "bar" is not the same as a pub. Bars are usually dimly lit, >sometimes sleazy, and seldom family places. They are sometimes called >"cocktail lounges", and that's the source of the "lounge" in "lounge >lizard". I can just see a martini or a Manhattan kicking back and relaxing. >This is in no way critical of Arne's use of "lounge suit" because the >term is proper for what he describes where he is. It's just funny for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that he wear a lounge suit but not to announce to any Americans that >he will be wearing a lounge suit. The word "suit" is sufficient here. LOL SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>Nevertheless, I for my part will use a lounge >>suit [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > he will be wearing a lounge suit. The word > "suit" is sufficient here. Good point -thank you! >> There are two possible approaches you could take >> to this problem. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >standard which I don't really know -I am quite >sure that they don't mean we are to come naked) so In college I met a girl at an off campus class, and when the class was ending for the semester, I asked if I could call her and she said sure. I asked when I could call her and she said "Any time". I said, "Surely you don't mean that" and she said "Yes. Any time". A couple nights later, I think it was a Saturday night, I had just hooked up an extension phone and wanted to call someone and it was 2AM, and I called her. Her mother answered, and put her on the phone when I asked. Then she stood over her shoulder asking, Who died? But she talked to me for a couple hours. Still, don't go naked. >there might not be any uncertainty at all. >Nevertheless, I for my part will use a lounge suit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Years Party or a babtism of a child in a church (I >think). I live in the US and almost never see a bow tie. And no one here of any ethincity has a special practice of wearing them to weddings, afaik. If it's the custom somewhere in Great Britain, maybe they have all assimilated here, or I don't get invited to the right weddings. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:26:16 +0200, "ahw" >>>>>> <nix> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >thing. >That's all there's to it. The choice between a regular tie and a bow tie worn by a wedding guest would not result in anyone taking offense. I can't imagine even thinking that it would. The Brits have progressed a great deal and don't even seem to mind if you talk to them now. That said, on my first trip to the UK in 1969 I did give some thought to the neckties I packed. At that time, almost all of my neckties were Brooks Brothers "rep" ties. Rep ties (aka: repp ties) resembled, if not duplicated, UK club ties, regimental ties, university ties, and other designs worn by people who belonged to some specific organization. Not wanting to go under false colours, I purchased three patterned ties for the trip. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:26:16 +0200, "ahw" >>>>>>> <nix> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >Not wanting to go under false colours, I purchased three patterned >ties for the trip. Now you can send away for your own family coat of arms, no matter who you are. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>>>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> >>>>>>skrev [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >Arne is perhaps a bit nervous and just wants to do the right thing. I'm sure he does, but he's not going to be taken for an Englishman or Scotsman no matter how closely his clothing matches that of the father-of-the-groom. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:59:15 +0100, "Peter > Duncanson (BrE)" [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > matches that of the > father-of-the-groom. I am not going to be taken for an Englishman or so - my intention is just to wear a suitable suit which does not deviate from customs in this situation in England. The only persons we know in this party will be the groom and his parents, so what I am taken for, doesn't matter at all as long it is fit. Why is it so hard to understand? >I am not going to be taken for an Englishman or >so - my intention is just to wear a suitable suit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >what I am taken for, doesn't matter at all as long >it is fit. Why is it so hard to understand? It is hard for me to understand because if you are respected enough by the family to be invited to the wedding, then your choice of necktie style will in no way jeopardize that respect. You will be judged only by your conduct, your demeanor, and your contribution to the social occasion. To excessively worry about the impression your necktie choice will make is to suggest that you think your hosts are very shallow people indeed. Frankly, I think this whole story could be the thing that could make you the star guest at the wedding. At an appropriate time, reel out this anecdote about exchanging over thousand words and dozens of posts with your newsgroup contacts around the world about your dilemma in choosing a bow tie or a regular tie in order to fit in at an Englishman's wedding in Scotland. Include the bit about packing both and hoping for a sneak peek at the groom's father's neckwear in order to know what to wear. Carry the not-chosen tie in your lounge suit jacket pocket and pull it out with a flourish to cap the story and tell them you were prepared to retreat to the necessary room to change. I guarantee laughs, claps on the shoulder, and future dining-out stories about "Good old Arne" and his tie dilemma. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>I am not going to be taken for an Englishman or >>so - my intention is just to wear a suitable [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > stories about "Good old Arne" and his tie > dilemma. On the contrary I don't want to be in a middle of anything at a party -this time is over for my part. It is the married couple who are to be celebrated. I just am nervous not to do the right thing - this I have always been, so there is nothing new to this, which I have already told. Just recently we got a new neighbour who is English and he is married to a Danish girl. I could have asked him, however,they have just moved in, so I would not like to ) poach on their preserves so to speak before I know them a little better. That's why I ask in this group where I also can have a certain anonymity. >On the contrary I don't want to be in a middle of >anything at a party -this time is over for my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Just recently we got a new neighbour who is >English and he is married to a Danish girl. I Asking them sounds like a good way to get to know them. People love to do favors for other people, especially when it takes no effort. I found that a good way to get to know new neighbors when I moved in was to ask to use the phone, even when mine had been connected already. (This method may not work as well anymore.) >could have asked him, however,they have just moved >in, so I would not like to ) poach on their >preserves so to speak before I know them a little >better. That's why I ask in this group where I >also can have a certain anonymity. SignaturePosters should say where they live, and for which area they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in Western Pa. 10 years Indianapolis 7 years Chicago 6 years Brooklyn, NY 12 years Baltimore 26 years >>On the contrary I don't want to be in a middle >>of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > already. (This method may not work as well > anymore.) Well, it so happen that we are dividing our house with my friend from my childhood. He is a chairman of the houseowners' association and he therefore has to welcome them to the association. Moreover, we have a "street party" in the middle of August, so we shall probably learn to know them better. It is, however, too late in relation to the wedding party in England. I think, however, I'm on top of the dress code for now - thank you to all contributors. It is a relief that there are nice people here in this group to ask about daily concerns about culture in England -it is not what I have ever learnt about in my studies. It is about English history and community, but not in details about weddings, funerals etc., so it has been a relief to get some tip from natives in this field. End of dicussion for now. >>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:26:16 +0200, "ahw" >>>> <nix> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > see what the father of > the groom is wearing? You are exaggeration a lot - I just want to do the right thing as I have never been to a wedding before in England/Scotland, and it is imperative that we don't stand out in this matter which means a lot to our Scottish friends. Unlike what you might think of me, I am not very keen on annoying other people. Having said that, I admit that my posting - the 'style' is full of mistakes, grammatical and stylistic, which I should have done better. I thought, however, that the case was more important than the style -it is not an excuse, but an explanation. Perfect I will never be as a non-native speaker, I'm afraid, but I could have done it much better, I 'm sure. >(the groom's parents) are Scottish and Danish >respectively, and I and my wife have been invited >to the wedding by the groom. Wait, invited by the groom? That suggests to me that you've been invited to play a special role in the wedding, and you really should be asking the groom what the appropriate dress is. Traditionally, the bride's parents are the ones to issue the invitations. Also, a letter to Dear Abby last week pointed out that there can be confusion about who is expected to RSVP, so you might want to double- check whether you need to send a response directly to the bride's parents so that they have the correct count of guests for the caterers. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr "The notion of objecting to a fake Web ¬R site on the grounds that it might possibly incite other people to do bad things is so dangerous to our constitutionally protected freedoms that it must never be mentioned, even in jest." --Matt McIrvin >>(the groom's parents) are Scottish and Danish >>respectively, and I and my wife have been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Traditionally, the bride's > parents are the ones to issue the invitations. You are right - We was invited by the bride's family - what I meant was that the groom and his parents were the only persons we know and therefore I think that it is the groom who has thought of us - we don't know the bride at all. We have just heard about her. > Also, a letter to Dear Abby last week pointed > out that there can be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so that they have the correct count of guests > for the caterers. We have responded to the bride's family - as I think I have said some time ago. |
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.