 |
 | 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 / November 2006BrE: to be in for a tennis tournament
Hello: I wonder what's the meaning of "to be in for a tennis tournament," is it to be registed for one, or playing in it? ------- Evie heard of her father's engagement when she was in for a tennis tournament, and her play went simply to pot. Howards End, by E.M. Forster, p. 245 http://www.litrix.com/howards/howar025.htm ------- It certainly doesn't seem to be: ------ Idiom: be for it (be in for it) colloq To be about to receive a punishment, etc. Example: You're for it now that he knows ------ Thank you, Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Howards End, by E.M. Forster, p. 245 > http://www.litrix.com/howards/howar025.htm [...] The context shows she was actually playing in it; but I'd only use "in for a tournament" for, as you say, being entered in advance. In this case Evie, in my usage, would be "in a tennis tournament". Perhaps usage has tightened up over the past century (it does happen!), or perhaps Forster was being a bit loose. Or perhaps I'm seeing a distinction which doesn't exist.  SignatureMike. >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > happen!), or perhaps Forster was being a bit loose. Or perhaps I'm > seeing a distinction which doesn't exist. Insufficient context, but could it mean "in (town, the family home, some expected place ) for a tournament"? Maybe the looseness is in using "was" for "came", or something similar. >>>Hello: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > some expected place ) for a tournament"? Maybe the looseness is in > using "was" for "came", or something similar. Don't think so. Mike was right: it means she had her name down to play. Think: "I'm in" (or "up for it"), which is a rather more modern and slightly different usage. SignatureRob Bannister > >> Hello: > >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > some expected place ) for a tournament"? Maybe the looseness is in > using "was" for "came", or something similar. I agree with this interpretation. I think the one sentence it's in gives enough context to judge that. Seems to me this tournament takes place in the town where her father lives and that she receives word about the engagement, which shocks her and renders her to play badly. > > Evie heard of her father's engagement when she was in for a tennis > > tournament, and her play went simply to pot. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > usage has tightened up over the past century (it does happen!), or > perhaps Forster was being a bit loose. I was thinking along the same lines. Thank you all. Marius Hancu > > Hello: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Howards End, by E.M. Forster, p. 245 > > http://www.litrix.com/howards/howar025.htm > The context shows she was actually playing in it; but I'd only use "in > for a tournament" for, as you say, being entered in advance. In this > case Evie, in my usage, would be "in a tennis tournament". Perhaps > usage has tightened up over the past century (it does happen!), or > perhaps Forster was being a bit loose. Or perhaps I'm seeing a > distinction which doesn't exist. In this case, "In for a tennis tournament" meaning "currently engaged in a tennis tournament" works fine for me. There's an implication that some formal application procedure was required, that's what the extra "for" does, but it doesn't strike me as notably archaic usage. Matthew Huntbach Mike Lyle: > > The context shows she was actually playing in it; but I'd only use "in > > for a tournament" for, as you say, being entered in advance. In this > > case Evie, in my usage, would be "in a tennis tournament". ... Matthew Huntbach: > In this case, "In for a tennis tournament" meaning "currently engaged > in a tennis tournament" works fine for me. ... Interesting. In my idiolect, "She was in for a tournament" is just wrong. It's plain "in" whether she's now playing or has entered in advance. And also if she's only just won a preliminary, qualifying event and is expected to continue by entering the tournament. SignatureMark Brader | "The race is not always to the swift, Toronto | nor the battle to the strong -- msb@vex.net | but that is the way to bet it." --Damon Runyon On 12 Nov 2006, Mark Brader wrote > Mike Lyle: >>> The context shows she was actually playing in it; but I'd only [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > preliminary, qualifying event and is expected to continue by > entering the tournament. The only way "in for a tournament" would work for me would be "she was in [town] for a tournament". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >On 12 Nov 2006, Mark Brader wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >The only way "in for a tournament" would work for me would be "she >was in [town] for a tournament". You wouldn't recognse the "entered for" sense, as in "I've put myself in for next month's tournament" = "I'm in for the tournament" or "The school decided to put him in for the maths exam this year rather than next" = "He's in for maths this year"? "Go in for" can work similarly. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 12 Nov 2006, Wood Avens wrote >> On 12 Nov 2006, Mark Brader wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > exam this year rather than next" = "He's in for maths this > year"? I don't think I would recognise it. "Put someone in for" sounds normal to me; dropping the "put" doesn't. > "Go in for" can work similarly. Indeed -- both "put in for" and "go in for" sound unremarkable; but "in for" sounds odd to me. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van Mark Brader: >>>> In my idiolect, "She was in for a tournament" is just wrong. Katy Jennison: >> You wouldn't recognse the "entered for" sense, as in "I've put >> myself in for next month's tournament" ...? Harvey Van Sickle: > I don't think I would recognise it. "Put someone in for" sounds > normal to me; I'm not sure now whether I'd say it, but I accept it as correct. > dropping the "put" doesn't. Exactly. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something, msb@vex.net | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen > On 12 Nov 2006, Wood Avens wrote > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Indeed -- both "put in for" and "go in for" sound unremarkable; > but "in for" sounds odd to me. What about "down for"? SignatureRob Bannister >> On 12 Nov 2006, Wood Avens wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>>>> entered in advance. In this case Evie, in my usage, would be >>>>>>> "in a tennis tournament". ... [agreement with the above] Don't want to be tiresome, but I really think the minority position expressed by YHS, Jan-Erik, and Harvey may be worth another look, in the light of the context: "Evie heard of her father's engagement when she was in for a tennis tournament, and her play went simply to pot." She heard of the engagement when she "was entered for a tournament" (note that the usage-equivalent of "in" is not the passive of the verb but an adjective)? "had her name down"? "in a tournament" (that would work, but not with the "for" of the original)? "had been put in (or 'down') for a tournament"? It seems to force the language Forster actually used into a rather odd shape. On the other hand, that she heard the news when "in [town, let us say] for a tournament" makes perfect sense, and it fits with the text as written. Entia etc. The attributions may come out wrong here, since my additions are showing up in the wrong colour. If so, I apologise. >Don't want to be tiresome, but I really think the minority position >expressed by YHS, Jan-Erik, and Harvey may be worth another look, in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >for a tournament" makes perfect sense, and it fits with the text as >written. Entia etc. "In [town] for" jars on my sense of idiomatic BrE in 1910. Marius will tel us whether "in town" is plausible given the context of that sentence, but I really don't think it's likely. I'm not saying "in town" wouldn't be possible in some contexts, but it feels quite wrong for a tennis tournament. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> Don't want to be tiresome, but I really think the minority position >> expressed by YHS, Jan-Erik, and Harvey may be worth another look, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > town" wouldn't be possible in some contexts, but it feels quite > wrong for a tennis tournament. With regard to the phrase "in for a tournament", I bow to your native-speaker knowledge of BrE, of course. But how can you learn something when in the state of having been registered? At the least, you would expect to be able to substitute "while" or "after" for "when", and I don't think you can. Maybe the conclusion will have to be that Forster was nodding when he wrote that line. In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >>> Don't want to be tiresome, but I really think the minority position >>> expressed by YHS, Jan-Erik, and Harvey may be worth another look, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >you would expect to be able to substitute "while" or "after" for >"when", and I don't think you can. Agreed. The logic of the situation (unless something truly bizarre is there in the wider context) says that she has to be *participating* in the tournament: otherwise the quality of her play would not be relevant. I can't comment on whether "in town" was a likely usage at the time, but I'd have to ask what was the relevance of her location, as opposed to her participation in the tournament. Are you suggesting that her presence "in town" facilitated her hearing about the engagement? >Maybe the conclusion will have to >be that Forster was nodding when he wrote that line. That seems most likely to me. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >>> >>>> Don't want to be tiresome, but I really think the minority >>>> position expressed by YHS, Jan-Erik, and Harvey may be worth >>>> another look, in the light of the context: ["in for": mistake or blunder?] > Agreed. The logic of the situation (unless something truly bizarre > is there in the wider context) says that she has to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > suggesting that her presence "in town" facilitated her hearing > about the engagement? Yes, although "town" was just an example. "In" meaning "at the family home" is another possibility. But either seems more likely to me than that she should learn of it on account of being on a list, or even on the court. Still, that interpretation has its defenders: I suppose now I'm in for it. [...] >In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>> seems to force the language Forster actually used into a rather >>>> odd shape. But it has a clear meaning, and is perfectly idiomatic, if one is familiar with the idiom. Evie was in for the tournament; she was entered for the tournament; she was due to play in the tournament. Her name was in the hat for the draw, if you like. >>>> On the other hand, that she heard the news when "in [town, let us >>>> say] for a tournament" makes perfect sense, and it fits with the >>>> text as written. Entia etc. Since 'in for a tournament' doesn't need any more entia to complete its meaning, we don't have to stretch it to include a location too. >>> "In [town] for" jars on my sense of idiomatic BrE in 1910. Marius >>> will tel us whether "in town" is plausible given the context of that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>native-speaker knowledge of BrE, of course. But how can you learn >>something when in the state of having been registered? There's no causal connection, if that's what you're looking for. >>At the least, >>you would expect to be able to substitute "while" or "after" for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >there in the wider context) says that she has to be *participating* in >the tournament: otherwise the quality of her play would not be relevant. She was due to play: the news threw her off her stroke (or is that rowing?). >I can't comment on whether "in town" was a likely usage at the time, but >I'd have to ask what was the relevance of her location, as opposed to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That seems most likely to me. It seems to boil down to the expression 'in for a [tournament]' being unfamiliar to many of our modern ears. Forster was not at fault; he was on the ball. SignaturePaul All part of the service. >> In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Evie heard of her father's engagement when she was in for a >>>>> tennis tournament, and her play went simply to pot." [the server won't send unless I snip] >>> With regard to the phrase "in for a tournament", I bow to your >>> native-speaker knowledge of BrE, of course. But how can you learn >>> something when in the state of having been registered? > > There's no causal connection, if that's what you're looking for. But there should be one somewhere, I think (see below). >>> At the least, >>> you would expect to be able to substitute "while" or "after" for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > She was due to play: the news threw her off her stroke (or is that > rowing?). But he doesn't say that she was due to play when she heard it, but that she heard it when she was due to play. And this rephrasing is misleading: most other ways of putting it seem to make more sense than the one F chose. [...] >>> Maybe the conclusion will have to >>> be that Forster was nodding when he wrote that line. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being unfamiliar to many of our modern ears. Forster was not at > fault; he was on the ball. Your interpretation above makes sense, but IMO it doesn't let Forster off. If that was what he meant, he should have written, "Evie was in for a tournament when she heard of her father's engagement, and her play went simply to pot." >> There's no causal connection, if that's what you're looking for. > >But there should be one somewhere, I think (see below). [...] >But he doesn't say that she was due to play when she heard it, but >that she heard it when she was due to play. And this rephrasing is >misleading: most other ways of putting it seem to make more sense than >the one F chose. >> It seems to boil down to the expression 'in for a [tournament]' >> being unfamiliar to many of our modern ears. Forster was not at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >for a tournament when she heard of her father's engagement, and her >play went simply to pot." I see what you are driving at, but do not recognise it. I don't know the passage in its context, but simply suppose that Forster chose to make hearing of the engagement, rather than being in for a tournament, the principal subject of that element of his narrative. SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> On 12 Nov 2006, Wood Avens wrote >> >>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:39:58 GMT, HVS <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> >>> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>>>> only use "in for a tournament" for, as you say, being >>>>>>> entered in advance. In this case Evie, in my usage, would be >>>>>>> "in a tennis tournament". ... >>>>> >>>>> Matthew Huntbach: >>>>> >>>>>> In this case, "In for a tennis tournament" meaning "currently >>>>>> engaged in a tennis tournament" works fine for me. ... >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. In my idiolect, "She was in for a tournament" is >>>>> just wrong. It's plain "in" whether she's now playing or has >>>>> entered in advance. And also if she's only just won a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > What about "down for"? Clashes with idiomatic use, I think. "Go down for" and "put down for" mean quite different things than "down for", whereas the argument here is that "go/put in for" don't change their meaning if "go" or "put" is dropped. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >>What about "down for"? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "down for", whereas the argument here is that "go/put in for" don't > change their meaning if "go" or "put" is dropped. Doesn't your dialect allow "I'm down for the darts competition"? SignatureRob Bannister On 14 Nov 2006, Robert Bannister wrote >> On 12 Nov 2006, Robert Bannister wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doesn't your dialect allow "I'm down for the darts competition"? Yes: that's my point. "Down for" is idiomatic, partly because "put down for" is idiomatically used for something different, and so can't be readily used to mean the same thing. "In for" isn't idiomatic (for me), partly because "put in for" is not idiomatically used for something different, and thus *can* be readily used to mean the same thing. (I hope that's clear, but I'm not confident....) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
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.