 |
 | 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 2006"use to" "used to"
Hi, I want to write about something i did in the past, but which one do i use and why? i.e. "i used to go to the park." or "i use to go to the park" TIA. M. mashuk.r...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "i use to go to the park" The first. You want a past tense 'used' as in did something habitually or all the time. I used to to go swiming when I was a child - means that I did it many times. Use in the present tense means that you are doing something (use/using) with something For example: I use a fork to eat beef. The problem is that "used" can mean repeatedly as in you sentence or it can simply be the past tense of use ( I used a fork to eat beef). In spoken English it is often difficult to hear the difference in "use" and "used". The listener often understands from context which word was spoken. > mashuk.r...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > I want to write about something i did in the past, but which one do i > > use and why? > > i.e. > > "i used to go to the park." > > or > > "i use to go to the park" > The first. You want a past tense 'used' as in did something > habitually or all the time. > I used to to go swiming when I was a child - means that I did it many > times. > Use in the present tense means that you are doing something (use/using) > with something > For example: > I use a fork to eat beef. That example is greatly misleading. It misses the point that "use" in "I used to", meaning "I made it a practice to" is not the same word as "use" in "I make use of". They're best thought of as merely homonyms. "I use to go to the park" should mean "I make it a practice to go to the park", but--for the time being anyway--it's not acceptable English to use that "use" with some of its tenses. I like to think of those tenses as dormant rather than dead. I think it's quite possible that the time may come when it's again correct to say things like "When I have retired, I will use to go to the park more often", or "If I used to smoke, I would try to quit". > The problem is that "used" can mean repeatedly as in you sentence or it > can simply be the past tense of use ( I used a fork to eat beef). But, again, that "use" is not the "use" meaning "make it a practice". > In spoken English it is often difficult to hear the difference in "use" > and "used". The listener often understands from context which word was > spoken. The fallacious argument is often made that it doesn't matter whether you write "I use to" or "I used to", because the pronunciation would be the same. Following that logic, we could say it doesn't matter whether we write "bier" or "beer". While this subject is again under discussion, we shouldn't neglect mentioning the difference between British and American usage guides on "didn't used to" and "didn't use to". British guides tend to say either is okay. American guides more sensibly say "didn't used to" is as ungrammatical as "didn't wanted to". By the way, if Aaron Dinkin chooses to comment on my remarks, he will probably again disagree strongly, and I will continue to believe that he is blind to the obvious truth. > While this subject is again under discussion, we shouldn't > neglect mentioning the difference between British and > American usage guides on "didn't used to" and "didn't use > to". British guides tend to say either is okay. American > guides more sensibly say "didn't used to" is as > ungrammatical as "didn't wanted to". Both are horrible in formal English IMHO, and I am not aware of any British guides that would permit "didn't used to" even in spoken English. "Didn't use to" = "used not to" so it is at least logical, if inelegant. I would allow it in informal English. I suppose "didn't used to" is pronounced almost identically to "didn't use to". So it could be argued - if you give its users the benefit of the doubt - that it doesn't actually exist in informal speech. Don't start me on "didn't ought to". Regards Jonathan < "Didn't use to" = "used not to" > Ever notice how British people sometimes put a word between "used" and "to" in the phrase "used to" but Americans never do it? Americans act as if "used to" is one word that cannot be split. I'm always slightly taken aback when I hear a British speaker split the phrase. Matt > > While this subject is again under discussion, we shouldn't > > neglect mentioning the difference between British and > > American usage guides on "didn't used to" and "didn't use > > to". British guides tend to say either is okay. American > > guides more sensibly say "didn't used to" is as > > ungrammatical as "didn't wanted to". > Both are horrible in formal English IMHO, and I am not aware of any > British guides that would permit "didn't used to" even in spoken > English. "Didn't use to" = "used not to" so it is at least logical, if > inelegant. I would allow it in informal English. > I suppose "didn't used to" is pronounced almost identically to "didn't > use to". So it could be argued - if you give its users the benefit of > the doubt - that it doesn't actually exist in informal speech. And, again, it doesn't make any difference whether you write "bier" or "beer", because they are pronounced the same. > > While this subject is again under discussion, we shouldn't > > neglect mentioning the difference between British and > > American usage guides on "didn't used to" and "didn't use > > to". British guides tend to say either is okay. American > > guides more sensibly say "didn't used to" is as > > ungrammatical as "didn't wanted to". > Both are horrible in formal English IMHO, and I am not aware of any > British guides that would permit "didn't used to" even in spoken > English. In Gowers's second edition of Fowler's _Modern English Usage_, it says _He didn't use to_ should be regarded rather as an archaism than as the vulgarism [...] it is generally thought to be in England, though not in U.S. Burchfield, in the grossly misnamed _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_, mentions the use of "didn't use to" and "didn't used to" "only in very informal contexts". He doesn't disparage the latter any more than the former. His example of "didn't used to" is from _Times_ "1995". I don't know whether that's the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles Times_. Burchfield also says The negative/interrogative type _Use(d)n't people to_ is also found, especially in spoken English and in informal letters, and arguments rage as to whether it is 'better' than the type _Didn't people use(d) to ... ? That demonstrates his surprising indifference to the question of whether the grammatical "didn't use" or the grossly ungrammatical "didn't used" is written. I believe British English speakers don't like the "did(n't) <verb>" construction in general. Where an American could say quite acceptably (and not inelegantly) "Did you have lunch yet?" or "I didn't eat yet", the Englishman would not say those, but would say "Have you had lunch" or "I haven't eaten". So the antipathy toward "didn't use to" seems to be just part of that more general aversion. > "Didn't use to" = "used not to" so it is at least logical, if > inelegant. I would allow it in informal English. I wouldn't expect an American to say "used not to", but I think most of us would understand that it means "didn't use to". "Used not to" is valuable as a counterexample to assertions that have been made here that "used" and "to" are inseparable in the expression "used to". > I suppose "didn't used to" is pronounced almost identically to "didn't > use to". So it could be argued - if you give its users the benefit of > the doubt - that it doesn't actually exist in informal speech. Again, the difference between "bier" and "beer" doesn't exist in any kind of English speech, so far as I know, but we still carefully distinguish them in writing. Same with "their", "there", and "they're"; and "two", "too", and "to". Why write the grossly ungrammatical "didn't used to" just because it's pronounced the same as something grammatical? > Don't start me on "didn't ought to". Okay, but I will go so far as to say that to me "didn't ought to" is no more outrageous than "didn't used to". They're both inexcusably ungrammatical. > Burchfield, in the grossly misnamed _The New Fowler's Modern > English Usage_, mentions the use of "didn't use to" and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know whether that's the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles > Times_. Or, possibly, "The Times" [of London]. Was Burchfield claiming to be the "new Fowler"? It's a horrible title, I agree. > Burchfield also says > > The negative/interrogative type _Use(d)n't people > to_ is also found, especially in spoken English and > in informal letters. It certainly was, and maybe still is. I had forgotten its existence. It's very old-fashioned, and quite difficult to say - even when sober. > I believe British English speakers don't like the "did(n't) > <verb>" construction in general. Where an American could > say quite acceptably (and not inelegantly) "Did you have > lunch yet?" or "I didn't eat yet", the Englishman would not > say those, but would say "Have you had lunch" or "I haven't > eaten". Yes, "I didn't eat yet", though comprehensible, is not idiomatic BrE. That's definitely a good illustration of the BrE usage of the perfect, past in form but present in meaning: "I haven't eaten" = (probably) "I'm hungry". >> Don't start me on "didn't ought to". > > Okay, but I will go so far as to say that to me "didn't > ought to" is no more outrageous than "didn't used to". > They're both inexcusably ungrammatical. I agree - neither of them is any worse than horrible. Jonathan > > I believe British English speakers don't like the "did(n't) > > <verb>" construction in general. Where an American could [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > past in form but present in meaning: "I haven't eaten" = (probably) "I'm > hungry". Great to have it confirmed. Marius Hancu >>> I believe British English speakers don't like the "did(n't) >>> <verb>" construction in general. Where an American could [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Great to have it confirmed. Well, it's nearly lunchtime here... Marius Hancu <Marius.Hancu@gmail.com> had it: > > > I believe British English speakers don't like the "did(n't) > > > <verb>" construction in general. Where an American could [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Great to have it confirmed. You'll have had your tea.  SignatureDavid ===== > Marius Hancu <Marius.Hancu@gmail.com> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You'll have had your tea. I thought I'd let you know that that made me smile - the only time I've ever said that to visitors they had no idea what I was taking about... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > Marius Hancu <Marius.Hancu@gmail.com> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I thought I'd let you know that that made me smile - the only time I've > ever said that to visitors they had no idea what I was taking about... I must admit "I didn't eat yet" sounds very strange. I don't think I've ever heard it used. Where in the States is it used? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada Omrud: >Yes, "I didn't eat yet", though comprehensible, is not idiomatic BrE. >That's definitely a good illustration of the BrE usage of the perfect, >past in form but present in meaning: "I haven't eaten" = (probably) "I'm >hungry". John Kane: > I must admit "I didn't eat yet" sounds very strange. I don't think I've > ever heard it used. Where in the States is it used? It's standard informal AmE all over the US. "I haven't eaten" is good AmE too, of course. SignatureBuckwheat Soba LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> had it: > > Marius Hancu <Marius.Hancu@gmail.com> had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I thought I'd let you know that that made me smile - the only time I've > ever said that to visitors they had no idea what I was taking about... Ah, thanks. I often wonder if some of my (to me) humorous asides are just wasted, or whether I have at least brought a smile to brighten up the humdrum lives of AUE denizens. SignatureDavid ===== > Burchfield, in the grossly misnamed _The New Fowler's Modern > English Usage_, mentions the use of "didn't use to" and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > know whether that's the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles > Times_. Why should it be either? A New Zealander working and writing in Oxford would be very unlikely to use an American newspaper for an example of British usage, and The Times is The Times (or just Times, where appropriate). Drop the city names from your own papers if you must, but please don't insert them incorrectly into ours. Next thing you know you'll be writing "Great Britain" on our stamps... ObAUE: Should that be "the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles Times_" or should it be "_The New York Times_ or _The Los Angeles Times_"? I'd include 'The' as part of the title of the newspaper: The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Times, etc. Jac > ObAUE: Should that be "the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles Times_" > or should it be "_The New York Times_ or _The Los Angeles Times_"? I'd > include 'The' as part of the title of the newspaper: The Daily Mail, > The Guardian, The Times, etc. The New York Times, at least, seems to treat the "The" as an official part of its name (always capitalizing the 'T' when referring to the name of the paper in the middle of a sentence). I think that may reflect standard general practice in the US wrt newspaper names and also, I think, magazine names in many cases. > SignatureBuckwheat Soba > > Burchfield, in the grossly misnamed _The New Fowler's Modern > > English Usage_, mentions the use of "didn't use to" and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > know whether that's the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles > > Times_. > Why should it be either? It shouldn't necessarily. It could be the _Seattle Times_. But I don't doubt that he was referring to a British newspaper. My remark was a flashback to an old thread when we discussed at some length the right of the London paper to exclusive use of the appellation _Times_. We often say things like "I read it in the _Times_, referring to our Los Angeles paper. > A New Zealander working and writing in Oxford would be > very unlikely to use an American newspaper for an example of > British usage, We don't know that it was an example of British usage.* The _Oxford English Dictionary_, of which I think Burchfield edited the second edition, has many citations from American sources, and there's no reason to think none of Burchfield's citations in his books were from America, South Africa, or Australia. > and The Times is The Times (or just Times, where > appropriate). Drop the city names from your own papers if > you must, but please don't insert them incorrectly into > ours. You seem to be accusing me falsely. Please provide an example where, until it came up in this posting, I have recently even mentioned the London paper. > Next thing you know > you'll be writing "Great Britain" on our stamps... Please explain why you think I would put *anything* on your stamps. I can think of no reason I would ever have to even think about your stamps. > ObAUE: Should that be "the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles Times_" > or should it be "_The New York Times_ or _The Los Angeles Times_"? I'd > include 'The' as part of the title of the newspaper: The Daily Mail, > The Guardian, The Times, etc. I'm not as consistent as I'd like to be in the use of the "the" with titles of newspapers and books, but if I were to try harder to be consistent, I would use my longstanding rule that I would follow whatever is on the masthead of a newspaper or the title page of a book. The masthead of the _Los Angeles Times_ has no _the_, so if I am writing carefully, I will write the _Los Angeles Times_, not _The Los Angeles Times_. The masthead of the New York paper (see http://www.nytimes.com/ ) does say "The New York Times". Also, interesting to see, at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/global/ I reed in the title block "The best of The Times and The Sunday Times in real time. I'm not finding a picture of the masthead, but if I ever do, I will thenceforth try to be guided by it in deciding whether to say "_Times_" or "_The Times_". And, if I am writing very carefully, I will write _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_, because that's the way the name of the book appears on the title page and the copyright page. I would have to make an exception if, as can happen, the syntax of my sentence required a "the" in front of the name for a reason not directly related to the name itself. Then, rather that writing "the _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_", I would write "the _New Fowler's Modern English Usage_". * (He has a table of "Bibliographical Abbreviations_, but he failed to include "Times", presumably assuming arrogantly that "Times" can refer only to the London paper.) > Jacqui said: > > Next thing you know > > you'll be writing "Great Britain" on our stamps... > > Please explain why you think I would put *anything* on your > stamps. I can think of no reason I would ever have to even > think about your stamps. There should have been a smiley in there - I was being flippant (I remember a number of threads on this topic before, too). The point is, our stamps don't have the country name on them because international convention is that we don't need it - British stamps came first and the implication seems to be that the onus is on RoW to distinguish their stamps from ours, not the other way around. Your hypothetically writing 'GB' or similar on our stamps is a silly comparison to putting 'London' in the name of the newspaper. Similarly, "The Times" means the newspaper published in the UK, which has no other formal name. All other newspapers using Times distinguish themselves with a city or country name; ours doesn't need to, and shouldn't be made to. > > ObAUE: Should that be "the _New York Times_ or the _Los Angeles Times_" > > or should it be "_The New York Times_ or _The Los Angeles Times_"? I'd [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > carefully, I will write the _Los Angeles Times_, not _The > Los Angeles Times_. Fair enough - I wasn't aware that it hasn't a The. > The masthead of the New York paper (see > http://www.nytimes.com/ ) does say "The New York Times". That one I did know. So it's _The New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_. :-) Wikipedia has a large number of mastheads in articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times and so on. Jac [...] > Similarly, "The Times" means the > newspaper published in the UK, which has no other formal name. All > other newspapers using Times distinguish themselves with a city or > country name; ours doesn't need to, and shouldn't be made to. There you've hit on the sticky point. While they obviously shouldn't be made to, it could be argued that they should. If you say "the Times" to anyone in Los Angeles, they're almost certainly going to think you mean the _Los Angeles Times_. It seems probable that the same would apply to many, many other cities around the world that have papers the people call "the Times". If I had occasion to bring up your "Times", I would feel it necessary to call it the London _Times_ so that people would know what I was talking about. So it is "the London _Times_" whether or not the publishers choose to call it that. But I know well that I must not call it "the _London Times_" or "_The London Times_". To avoid even the impression that I may think it's _The London Times_, I suppose I could say "_The Times_; you know, the one that's published in London", but that seems rather cumbersome. > If I had occasion to bring up your "Times", I would feel it > necessary to call it the London _Times_ so that people would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the one that's published in London", but that seems rather > cumbersome. I take your point (don't necessarily *agree* but I see what you mean); but there is a geographical distinction worth making when it comes to comparing 'The New York Times' and the hypothetical 'London Times'. The UK has a much larger number of national newspapers than the USA (not hard), and The Times is a very long way from being 'a London paper'. It might be more accurate to call it 'the British Times', or "The Times, the British newspaper". Heaven forbid that anyone ever comes out with "The London Guardian" - eny fule kno it's Manchester (even though it hasn't been called that for some time now and isn't based there). People's heads might explode. Jac >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >the one that's published in London", but that seems rather >cumbersome. "The Times of London" seems to work. I recall seeing somewhere that reporters for that newspaper use the phrase when identifying themselves. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > many, many other cities around the world that have papers > the people call "the Times". But are they really referring to their local newspaper as "The Times" or as the "Times". Pronouncing these inverted commas can be vital. We need Viktor Borge. SignatureRob Bannister > > [...] > >>Similarly, "The Times" means the > >>newspaper published in the UK, which has no other formal name. All > >>other newspapers using Times distinguish themselves with a city or > >>country name; ours doesn't need to, and shouldn't be made to. > > There you've hit on the sticky point. While they obviously > > shouldn't be made to, it could be argued that they should. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > many, many other cities around the world that have papers > > the people call "the Times". > But are they really referring to their local newspaper as "The Times" or > as the "Times". Pronouncing these inverted commas can be vital. It so happened that I noticed in this mornings _Los Angeles Times_ (on page A8), in a discussion of whether or not to call the disaster in Iraq a civil war, that they referred to themselves as "The Times". It was at the beginning of a sentence, though. In the same article, they mentioned "The New York Times", again at the beginning of a sentence. They used no italics or quotation marks in either case, so I couldn't tell for sure whether they intended "the" to be part of the title. > We need Viktor Borge. Yes indeed. He is sorely missed. I'm glad I have him on video tape. >> Jacqui said: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >other newspapers using Times distinguish themselves with a city or >country name; ours doesn't need to, and shouldn't be made to. Another point in favour of the reasonableness of Jacqui's view is that even within the UK several local newspapers include the word "Times" in their names -- *The Wiltshire Times* is one (hey, where *is* that Burgoo boy?), but nobody would say "I do the Times crossword" when addressing people from outside the local area in question to know, assume, or even suspect that they were referring to anything other than the national newspaper. Note also that even the Financial Times -- another national newspaper -- is never shortened to "the Times" but is rather known as "the FT". Like most Mancunians, I was brought up to call the *Manchester Evening News* just "the Evening News". When I moved to London, where at the time the Standard had a rival whose full name was *The Evening News*, it seemed only sensible to restore the "Manchester" to the Northern paper's title when I was talking to non-Mancunians. Upshot: "The Times" may refer to whatever it refers to when people are addressing a local audience in New York, LA, Seattle, Wilts or wherever, but for mixed or general consumption we should only expect people to assume we mean one thing by "the Times": the one newspaper whose full name is those two words. SignatureBrad Germolene > Upshot: "The Times" may refer to whatever it refers to when people are > addressing a local audience in New York, LA, Seattle, Wilts or > wherever, but for mixed or general consumption we should only expect > people to assume we mean one thing by "the Times": the one newspaper > whose full name is those two words. This admirably straightforward analysis is slightly complicated by the fact that the New York Times is considered to be "the nation's newspaper of record" -- not quite a national newspaper in the British sense, but about the closest thing we have to it. Arguably the Washinton Post and the Wall Street Journal share this status (NB USA Today, not being a proper newspaper, doesn't count). Therefore, the "local" audience for the NYT might, at least in some contexts, be the entire USA, or even -- pressing a point -- conceivably the whole of North America. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> Upshot: "The Times" may refer to whatever it refers to when people are >> addressing a local audience in New York, LA, Seattle, Wilts or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >contexts, be the entire USA, or even -- pressing a point -- conceivably the >whole of North America. Point taken, yet Bob C. has told us that in Los Angeles (and presumably other cities with Timeses of their own) the default "Times" is always assumed to be the local one, not the NYT. SignatureBrad Germolene [...] > [...] yet Bob C. has told us that in Los Angeles (and > presumably other cities with Timeses of their own) the default "Times" > is always assumed to be the local one, not the NYT. I may have said, or implied, "nearly always" or "normally"; I don't remember saying "always", and it doesn't sound like something I'd say. But I'm open to correction, and if I said "always", I hereby retract it. I had home delivery of a _New York Times_ for a while, and if I mentioned it to anyone, I would naturally say "New York Times". Actually, it was the "National" edition, so I would probably have clarified, by saying "New York Times National Edition", that I wasn't referring to the version that's widely circulated in New York City. [...] > Like most Mancunians, I was brought up to call the *Manchester Evening > News* just "the Evening News". When I moved to London, where at the > time the Standard had a rival whose full name was *The Evening News*, > it seemed only sensible to restore the "Manchester" to the Northern > paper's title when I was talking to non-Mancunians. > Upshot: "The Times" may refer to whatever it refers to when people are > addressing a local audience in New York, LA, Seattle, Wilts or > wherever, but for mixed or general consumption we should only expect > people to assume we mean one thing by "the Times": the one newspaper > whose full name is those two words. A parallel case is an Englishperson moving to New York. If they want to refer to their "Times", they'd better find a clearer way to do it, because New Yorkers will think they're referring to _The New York Times_. A poll of Los Angeles residents would probably find only some of them who even knew there's a newspaper called the "The Times" published in London. It's a fallacy to assume that everyone--or even a majority of people--in the world knows that the "Times" that's published in England has only "The Times" in its name. The excerpt from the _Times of India_ that I quoted recently said "Times London". The writer knew better than to think all of his readers would think the word "Times" referred only to the paper published in London. Incidentally, is it really published in London? I would be willing to believe the bean counters have found it more economical to move their operation to a low-rent district somewhere outside London. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are a significant number of people in Manchester who would need clarification to know that the unqualified "the Times" was referring to a London paper. [...] > It's a fallacy to assume that everyone--or even a majority > of people--in the world knows that the "Times" that's > published in England has only "The Times" in its name. Sure. But in bibliographical terms there's no alternative. A bibliography or first reference would quote the place of publication, though text references and footnotes other than the first would not. [...] > Incidentally, is it really published in London? I would be > willing to believe the bean counters have found it more > economical to move their operation to a low-rent district > somewhere outside London. It's published, and produced, in London (in Wapping, and thereby hangs a tale), even if the printing is done elsewhere (I'm out of touch with these things). Cf _The Daily Mail_, which is published and put together in London but printed in Bristol. > Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that > there are a significant number of people in Manchester who > would need clarification to know that the unqualified "the > Times" was referring to a London paper. Probably; but the number of people who need to know, but don't, is certainly insignificant. Journalists talking about it on the telephone to outsiders tend to say "...the _Times_, London" if they feel they need to specify the dorp involved. SignatureMike. > [...] > > It's a fallacy to assume that everyone--or even a majority > > of people--in the world knows that the "Times" that's > > published in England has only "The Times" in its name. > Sure. But in bibliographical terms there's no alternative. A > bibliography or first reference would quote the place of publication, > though text references and footnotes other than the first would not. Oh, yes, now I remember; this whole recent discussion started with my problem with a bibliographical entry. I think there is an alternative and a necessary one. A user of the _Oxford English Dictionary_ looking at the source of a quotation usually wants to know most of all what part of the world the quotation is from. If the user doesn't know that "Times" refers exclusively to the _The Times_* that's published in London, he or she is left wondering what "Times" means and what part of the world the quotation is from. Because a paper in England chooses to call itself by what might be more appropriate as a generic name for all of the "Times"s in the world, the bibliography should tell the user that the "Times" referred to is the one that's published in London. I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation. I did indeed find "Times" as the source of a quotation, I did have some doubt which "Times" was meant, and I did go to the bibliography looking unsuccessfully for unequivocal clarification. > [...] > > Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that > > there are a significant number of people in Manchester who > > would need clarification to know that the unqualified "the > > Times" was referring to a London paper. > Probably; but the number of people who need to know, but don't, is > certainly insignificant. Journalists talking about it on the telephone > to outsiders tend to say "...the _Times_, London" if they feel they > need to specify the dorp involved. But how about the people in Manchester who may be using the _Oxford English Dictionary_ and who aren't sure that "Times" refers exclusively to the _The Times_ of London? They will probably turn to the bibliography, as I did, hoping to find reassurance. Do we really know that their number is insignificant? * Note the felt necessity for a definite article that's a syntactical element of the sentence apart from the "The" that's part of the name, combined with a felt need to use precisely the name of the newspaper. Hence, "the _The Times_". If this were the best of all possible worlds, maybe newspapers and books would never use the word "The" in their titles. >> [...] >> > It's a fallacy to assume that everyone--or even a majority [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >user that the "Times" referred to is the one that's >published in London. In that case a bibliography should tell the user that the "Time" magazine referred to is the Eastern Standard Time one and no other. Any bibliography that merits being considered as such will use either the full names of publications or standardised abbreviations (of the "N. Eng. J. Trop. Med." type) -- not street nicknames. Assuming that the street nickname used for the New York Times and LA Times ("Times" in both cases) could be meant by a bibliography entry that says "*Times*" is like expecting "Grauniad" or "News of the Screws" to appear in a serious bibliography. Any half-decent -- quarter-decent, even -- bibliography would abbreviate those two American newspapers to "NYT" or "LA Times", not just "Times". If you saw just *Journal* in a bibliographic reference, would you assume that Woman's Journal or the Wall Street Journal was possibly meant, or would you assume that "The Journal" must be the full name of some publication somewhere? The latter, right (because the other two would almost certainly be abbreviated as "Wom J." and "WSJ" or something useful)? In that case, why treat "Times" any differently? SignatureBrad Germolene > > [...] > > > It's a fallacy to assume that everyone--or even a majority [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > user that the "Times" referred to is the one that's > published in London. "Because a paper in England chooses to call itself..."? !! Auntie Times got there first with a snappy title, and now you want to shift the goalposts? You'd need to take that up with the editors of the Guardian, Herald (RIP), Telegraph, Observer, Sun, Daily Mail, People, Mirror, etc etc. Any confusion is headed off in the OED bibliography by the magic figure "1788 --" But I'll agree that putting "London" in brackets might help some people, and would do no harm. (Interestingly, the first edition of OED doesn't refer to the NYT: "Herald" and "Tribune", but no "Times". It does mention "The Oxford Times", if that's any consolation. "Oxford man dies in nuclear holocaust", as its billboards fortunately never said; but you've no idea of the trials, travails, and tribulations that Oxford man went through.) > I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation. I did > indeed find "Times" as the source of a quotation, I did have [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > reassurance. Do we really know that their number is > insignificant? On the whole, I rather suspect that the number of Mancunians who refer in any detail to the OED, but who have never looked at the selection of titles in their local newsagent's, is very likely not so much insignificant as infinitesimal. If this tiny person assumes the periodical in question is _The Straits Times_, I'm prepared to make a small bet that it isn't vital data for his D.Phil. If he is used to bibliographies, he'll probably become aware that there is a newspaper named "The Times" which was founded in 1788; if he isn't thus accustomed, why, I guess he'll be mightily confused, and may even demand his money back. OUP can probably afford it. I think you'll just have to file this in the same compartment as male nipples. SignatureMike. > "Because a paper in England chooses to call itself..."? !! Auntie Times > got there first with a snappy title, and now you want to shift the > goalposts? I'm not shifting any goalposts. That Auntie Times got there first doesn't alter the fact that she chose to call the paper "The Times". > You'd need to take that up with the editors of the Guardian, > Herald (RIP), Telegraph, Observer, Sun, Daily Mail, People, Mirror, etc > etc. I don't know what you have in mind for me to take up with them. My beef is not with them; it's with the people who devised the bibliography for the _Oxford English Dictionary_ and neglected to put in it the information that "Times" means "the "The Times" that's published in London", or some suitable abridgment of that information that avoids any implication that the word "London" appears in the title of the paper. > Any confusion is headed off in the OED bibliography by the magic > figure "1788 --" The possible confusion lies in the inability of a reader to find out what the attribution "Times" means. I don't see how writing "1788" somewhere would lessen that confusion. > But I'll agree that putting "London" in brackets might > help some people, and would do no harm. It would certainly help some people. In particular, it would have helped me a few days ago. As for harm, think of the affront to the sensibility of Englishpersons when they're confronted with a suggestion that their beloved "Times" may be an ambiguous attribution for hundreds of millions of English speakers who don't live in England. > My beef is not with them; it's with the people who > devised the bibliography for the _Oxford English Dictionary_ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > implication that the word "London" appears in the title of > the paper. No such notice is necessary. "Times" means "The Times", obviously, since articles are often omitted to save space. Surely you've heard of _The Times_. It's one of the major newspapers in the world. SignatureStefano > > My beef is not with them; it's with the people who > > devised the bibliography for the _Oxford English Dictionary_ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > implication that the word "London" appears in the title of > > the paper. > No such notice is necessary. "Times" means "The Times", obviously, > since articles are often omitted to save space. Surely you've heard of > _The Times_. It's one of the major newspapers in the world. And surely you've heard of _The New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_, two other major newspapers of the world that are more often than not called "the Times" by residents of their respective cities. As for major newspapers, as I've posted here recently, _The Times of India_ has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the world. I would be surprised to find that there are not many of the residents of India who call it informally "the Times". And when, as shown in the Web excerpt I quoted, they want to mention the London paper, they say "Times London". (See URL upthread.) Anyway, whether or not *I* have heard of _The Times_, as referring to a newspaper published in England, is of little importance. What matters is whether out of millions of speakers of English in the world who may want to use the _Oxford English Dictionary_ a significant number of them don't know that _The Times_ should be used exclusively for a British newspaper. By the way, as I've mentioned before in years past, when we were last in London (1979) I felt an urge to buy a copy of _The Times_ (you know, the one that's published in London), but I couldn't find one on any newsstand. Where does an ordinary tourist have to go to find a copy? >By the way, as I've mentioned before in years past, when we >were last in London (1979) I felt an urge to buy a copy of >_The Times_ (you know, the one that's published in London), >but I couldn't find one on any newsstand. Where does an >ordinary tourist have to go to find a copy? Back to London (England) to try again. The workers of Times Newspapers (as it then was; now it's part of Murdoch's News International) were on strike for the best part of a year between late 1978 and early November 1979 and the paper wasn't published. SignatureBrad Germolene > >By the way, as I've mentioned before in years past, when we > >were last in London (1979) I felt an urge to buy a copy of > >_The Times_ (you know, the one that's published in London), > >but I couldn't find one on any newsstand. Where does an > >ordinary tourist have to go to find a copy? > Back to London (England) to try again. The workers of Times Newspapers > (as it then was; now it's part of Murdoch's News International) were > on strike for the best part of a year between late 1978 and early > November 1979 and the paper wasn't published. I think someone in alt.usage.english has told me this in recent years, but I had completely forgotten it. Anyway, thank you ever so much for solving (anew?) this longstanding mystery. >> >By the way, as I've mentioned before in years past, when we >> >were last in London (1979) I felt an urge to buy a copy of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Anyway, thank you ever so much for solving (anew?) this >longstanding mystery. They weren't good times to be a Times, since I see that *The New York Times* came back after a three-month strike just as the UK one was starting. SignatureBrad Germolene >> By the way, as I've mentioned before in years past, when we >> were last in London (1979) I felt an urge to buy a copy of >> _The Times_ (you know, the one that's published in London), >> but I couldn't find one on any newsstand. Where does an >> ordinary tourist have to go to find a copy? > Back to London (England) to try again. The workers of Times Newspapers > (as it then was; now it's part of Murdoch's News International) were > on strike for the best part of a year between late 1978 and early > November 1979 and the paper wasn't published. Some of the story behind this is given in the obituary of the man who the vowned The Times: http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1796020,00.html who died this year. I remember it being something of a surprise that the newspaper managed to recover after going so long without being published. There was always the possibility that its readers would have become used to whatever else they had started reading in its place, and wouldn't return. Matthew Huntbach [...] > Some of the story behind this [the strike at _The Times_ -- Mike] is given in the obituary of the > man who the vowned The Times: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > possibility that its readers would have become used to whatever else they > had started reading in its place, and wouldn't return. I was surprised, too. I think there was quite a deep-seated loyalty among readers. I always felt that the paper was in some sense "proper" -- it didn't even occur to me to use any other for a birth announcement, for example; and for many years I regarded its crossword as "the" crossword. I'm sure stuffier readers than I were more convinced that it should be supported; and of course factual items like the law and parliamentary reports were a series which interested parties would have wanted to maintain even after a break. SignatureMike. >> I remember it being something of a surprise that the newspaper managed to >> recover after going so long without being published. There was always the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the law and parliamentary reports were a series which interested >parties would have wanted to maintain even after a break. Sadly this is all in the past tense. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> By the way, as I've mentioned before in years past, when we >>> were last in London (1979) I felt an urge to buy a copy of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >possibility that its readers would have become used to whatever else they >had started reading in its place, and wouldn't return. We loyal readers were not so easily deterred. For some reason during, but not connected with, the Falklands War copies of The Times were arriving in Northern Ireland (and presumably other places) out of chronological order. It was mildly exciting to go to the newsagent's each morning wondering "will there be a Times today, and if so will it be today's, yesterday's or the day before yesterday's?". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > And surely you've heard of _The New York Times_ and the _Los > Angeles Times_, two other major newspapers of the world that > are more often than not called "the Times" by residents of > their respective cities. Irrelevant. None of those papers says "The Times" on its masthead. I would not expect the OED to refer to newspapers by mere nicknames. Why would you? SignatureStefano >Irrelevant. None of those papers says "The Times" on its masthead. I >would not expect the OED to refer to newspapers by mere nicknames. Why >would you? I would expect any bibliography or source citation to refer to a publication *unambiguously*. "Times" is ambiguous, period, end of story. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>Irrelevant. None of those papers says "The Times" on its masthead. I >>would not expect the OED to refer to newspapers by mere nicknames. Why [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >publication *unambiguously*. "Times" is ambiguous, period, end of >story. Why is it ambiguous? Just because a bunch of me-too American rags hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining the name of the English-speaking world's longest-established newspaper does not even approach constituting justification for referring to that august organ by anything more or less than its own -- and no other newspaper's -- name in a serious bibliography or, come to that, anywhere in decent society. SignatureBrad Germolene >Why is it ambiguous? Just because a bunch of me-too American rags >hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining the >name of the English-speaking world's longest-established newspaper I call bullshit. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > >Why is it ambiguous? Just because a bunch of me-too American rags > >hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining the > >name of the English-speaking world's longest-established newspaper > > I call bullshit. And gratuitously obnoxious, at that; we can safely ignore his "contribution". But the fact remains that the paper concerned does have a particular name, and any proper bibliography has to use it. As I suggested earlier, it would do no harm to put "London" after the name -- as is correct for any publication in a full bibliography -- and it seems it would be helpful to a number of people. If, however, one or more of the other Londons also has a _Times_, the waters quickly become deep. SignatureMike. >earlier, it would do no harm to put "London" after the name -- as is >correct for any publication in a full bibliography -- and it seems it >would be helpful to a number of people. If, however, one or more of the >other Londons also has a _Times_, the waters quickly become deep. I think the suggestion elsethread that "(UK)" would be sufficient for the UK national newspapers makes sense to me. (It appears, by the way, that the only other notable London is London, Ontario, where the local paper is the /The London Free Press/, owned by Quebecor.) The U.S. doesn't really have a truly national paper other than USA Today, but there's no obvious choice for a "city of publication" for that rag, either. (I suppose "Arlington, Va." may be as close as one can get.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > I think the suggestion elsethread that "(UK)" would be sufficient for > the UK national newspapers makes sense to me. (It appears, by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rag, either. (I suppose "Arlington, Va." may be as close as one can > get.) USA Today is published in 36 locations in the USA and four sites abroad. The headquarters appear to be in McLean, VA. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> >Why is it ambiguous? Just because a bunch of me-too American rags >> >hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And gratuitously obnoxious, at that; we can safely ignore his >"contribution". Why is it obnoxious? Any marketing consultant studying the early history of newspapers would conclude that the naming of those well-known American newspapers was a clear example of what is known in the trade as a "me-too" strategy. And in the case of the NYT it was a strategy that worked, since it was to become in many respects the US equivalent of its UK near-namesake (the "newspaper of record" and all that -- hence my remark about "bolt-on prestige"). Seeing how this strategy had succeeded, start-up newspapers in Los Angeles, Seattle and so on decided to jump on the Timeswagon too, to be followed over the years by many others, including a good number of now-well-known publications that weren't even strictly speaking newspapers (Fortean Times, High Times, etc. ) My post was perhaps forcefully put, but "obnoxious"? What can possibly be obnoxious about briefly reviewing the historical background in response to a post that arrogantly end-of-story-periods the opposite view without offering a shred of evidence or even argument to support it? SignatureBrad Germolene > >> >Why is it ambiguous? Just because a bunch of me-too American rags > >> >hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > view without offering a shred of evidence or even argument to support > it? Not like us to fall out, Ross: perhaps I was over-forceful myself. But there's something about the phraseology of "a bunch of me-too American rags hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining". I'm getting the impression that those who claim ambiguity are suffering a genuine, if slightly baffling, difficulty with standard bibliographical practice, rather than an episode of cultural imperialism, and need Nanny's t.l.c.more than the back of her hairbrush at this point. SignatureLassivia. >> >> >Why is it ambiguous? Just because a bunch of me-too American rags >> >> >hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Not like us to fall out, Ross: perhaps I was over-forceful myself. No, but it's fun though. >But >there's something about the phraseology of "a bunch of me-too American >rags hoped to bolt on some desperately needed prestige by purloining". First, "me-too" and "bolt-on" are standard marketing term, and not necessarily a disparaging ones that imply poor quality, either -- Pepsi-Cola is the classic me-too, and MS Windows was one too when it was launched to compete with the Mac. Second, Garrett himself refers to newspapers as "rags". Third, "purloining" was I thought obviously jocular -- but change it to "ripping off" if you like. That only leaves the "desperately needed" -- hyperbolic for "much sought after", but obnoxious? No more so than the Americans who claim that the OED's references to "*Times*" are parochial and misleading, surely. SignatureBrad Germolene >>Irrelevant. None of those papers says "The Times" on its masthead. I >>would not expect the OED to refer to newspapers by mere nicknames. Why [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > publication *unambiguously*. "Times" is ambiguous, period, end of > story. I would agree that the "Times" is ambiguous, but I can't see how "The Times" is. "The Sunday Times", however, is a different kettle of fish, as there appear to be several newspapers of that name. SignatureRob Bannister >>>Irrelevant. None of those papers says "The Times" on its masthead. I >>>would not expect the OED to refer to newspapers by mere nicknames. Why [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Times" is. "The Sunday Times", however, is a different kettle of fish, >as there appear to be several newspapers of that name. I can. There is the question of whether the "The" is an article or part of the name. Quoting like "The Times" or italicising, as in The Times would help in a sentence like The Times of yesterday had an article on grammar. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. > I would expect any bibliography or source citation to refer to a > publication *unambiguously*. "Times" is ambiguous, period, end of > story. "Times" in unambiguous, as there is only one well-known newspaper with that name. Period. End of story. SignatureStefano >"Times" in unambiguous, as there is only one well-known newspaper with >that name. Actually, there is no well-known newspaper called "Times". There are, on the other hand, many newspapers, several of them well-known, called by their own editors "The Times", as a study of any of them would tell you, had you bothered. When a byline in Mr. Sulzburger's or Mr. Blethen's papers says "Special to The Times", you can be certain that it is not referring to Mr. Murdoch's paper. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>"Times" in unambiguous, as there is only one well-known newspaper with >>that name. > >Actually, there is no well-known newspaper called "Times". Isn't arguing about the missing article like claiming that "*Lancet*" in a bibliography is ambiguous because it could be an abbreviation referring to *The Grimsby & District Barbers and Ships Surgeons Association Lancet*? >There are, >on the other hand, many newspapers, several of them well-known, called >by their own editors "The Times", as a study of any of them would tell >you, had you bothered. When a byline in Mr. Sulzburger's or >Mr. Blethen's papers says "Special to The Times", you can be certain >that it is not referring to Mr. Murdoch's paper. Again, it's just a nickname when used like that. The UK newspaper *The Independent* -- oops, sorry, the London Independent -- is full of references to "the Indy" (they probably think it's endearing), but that doesn't mean we should expect "*Indy*" to appear in a bibliography unless it is the real name of the publication referred to, which in the case of *Times*, it is. SignatureBrad Germolene > When a byline in Mr. Sulzburger's or > Mr. Blethen's papers says "Special to The Times", you can be certain > that it is not referring to Mr. Murdoch's paper. I think it was always "Special to The New York Times" (and merely signified an article written from some non-New York location), but I noticed the other day that they don't seem to use that anymore. SignatureSalvatore Volatile > >"Times" in unambiguous, as there is only one well-known newspaper with > >that name. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mr. Blethen's papers says "Special to The Times", you can be certain > that it is not referring to Mr. Murdoch's paper. What we've seen already, though, is that those other papers aren't _formally_ called "The Times". A responsible bibliographer has no option but to use a publication's _formal_ title: it would be incompetent to use anything else. It's also been pointed out that even within the US "the Times" can be ambiguous. So no American general bibliography would be justified in using the short form; if the city-less title is found, it must refer to a publication whose full title it is. At that stage, it's the reader's responsibility to find out, not the compiler's to explain: it's not unreasonable to expect users to learn how a system works. This is going round and round. I could justifiably say "Take it from me: I know what I'm talking about"; but that wouldn't be helpful. We know that a bibliography should include the place of publication: OED's usually doesn't, presumably for brevity. I also have a bone to pick with its parsimonious use of capital letters: it's wrong. But the list couldn't really be very much clearer. See below: <Time: the weekly newsmagazine 1923- (several eds. used) Time and tide 1920- Time out 1968- Times, The 1788- -weekly edition 1877- Times educational supplement, The 1910- Times literary supplement, The 1902- Times of India, The 1838- Times review of industry, The 1947- Times storehouse See Milles, T. Time's telescope for 1814; or a complete guide to the almanack 1814 Times' whistle 1616 See C., R. Times-Picayune (New Orleans) 1914-> . . . <New York 1968- New York Academy of Sciences Annals 1877- New York dramatic news 1894-6 New York Evening Post 1802-1919 New York Herald, The 1859- New York Herald Tribune (title varies) 1841- New York Herald Tribune International (title varies) 1887- New York law journal 1949- New York medical journal 1865-1923 New York review of books 1963-114016130031New York State Documents relative to the colonial history of the State of New-York See under title New York State. Department of Correctional Services Guidelines to volunteer services 1974 New York Times, The 1857- New York Times book review 1896- New York World 1860-1931 New York World-Telegram 1931-66 (1950-66 with title New York World-Telegram and Sun)> SignatureMike. >>I would expect any bibliography or source citation to refer to a >>publication *unambiguously*. "Times" is ambiguous, period, end of >>story. > > "Times" in unambiguous, as there is only one well-known newspaper with > that name. Period. End of story. Oh, you mean "Die Zeit". SignatureRob Bannister > > "Times" in unambiguous, as there is only one well-known newspaper with > > that name. Period. End of story. > > > Oh, you mean "Die Zeit". No, and I don't mean "Le Temps", either. Or for that matter, the major newspaper of Esperanto, "La Tempo". SignatureStefano >[...] >> It's a fallacy to assume that everyone--or even a majority [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >these things). Cf _The Daily Mail_, which is published and put together >in London but printed in Bristol. It is published in Wapping, London.[1] It is printed in: Wapping, London Prescot, Merseyside (the Liverpool area) Kells, Co Meath, Republic of Ireland Belgium Madrid, Spain Marseilles, France and Port Morris Print Center, 900 East 132nd Street, Bronx, NY (where the New York Post is printed). [1] For map lovers http://tinyurl.com/yxd8sm or http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=51.508&lon=-0.0644&scale=10000&icon=x SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >would need clarification to know that the unqualified "the >Times" was referring to a London paper. Don't bet on it. The only newspaper that gets an extraneous "London" added to its title is the Evening Standard -- which is a local newspaper. In fact, I can't think of any newspaper national or local that does have London in its title (which may explain the general reaction of upinarmsness you'll get from Brits whenever you hurl "the London Times" on our lawns. It seems to me that for many Americans all newspapers have to be "from" some city. Instead, try to think of them as magazines. Wouldn't you react with a "Huh?" if non-Americans referred to the "Beverly Hills Hustler", "San Francisco Rolling Stone" or "Boca Raton National Enquirer"? If we ever needed to disambiguate those publications from others with similar titles, we'd call them the "US GQ", "US Rolling Stone" (those two are real, actually, since localised editions of both are published for several foreign markets) or "America's National Enquirer". All we ask is that you guys do the same with our national newspapers by, whenever necessary, expanding it to "*The Times* (UK)" or "Britain's *Guardian*" or whatever, rather than bringing in the irrelevance of the city in which a national newspaper happens to be published. (Even the word "published" opens a can of worms. What does it mean? Where the publisher's offices are? Where the printing works is? Where the newsroom is? Where it first began if it has since relocated?) SignatureBrad Germolene > >[...] > >> Like most Mancunians, I was brought up to call the *Manchester Evening > >> News* just "the Evening News". When I moved to London, where at the > >> time the Standard had a rival whose full name was *The Evening News*, > >> it seemed only sensible to restore the "Manchester" to the Northern > >> paper's title when I was talking to non-Mancunians. > >> Upshot: "The Times" may refer to whatever it refers to when people are > >> addressing a local audience in New York, LA, Seattle, Wilts or > >> wherever, but for mixed or general consumption we should only expect > >> people to assume we mean one thing by "the Times": the one newspaper > >> whose full name is those two words. > >A parallel case is an Englishperson moving to New York. If > >they want to refer to their "Times", they'd better find a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >of people--in the world knows that the "Times" that's > >published in England has only "The Times" in its name. > >The excerpt from the _Times of India_ that I quoted recently > >said "Times London". The writer knew better than to think > >all of his readers would think the word "Times" referred > >only to the paper published in London. [...] > >Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find that > >there are a significant number of people in Manchester who > >would need clarification to know that the unqualified "the > >Times" was referring to a London paper. > Don't bet on it. The only newspaper that gets an extraneous "London" > added to its title is the Evening Standard -- which is a local > newspaper. In fact, I can't think of any newspaper national or local > that does have London in its title You're talking about only what a paper is officially called, not what people may think it could be called. > (which may explain the general > reaction of upinarmsness you'll get from Brits whenever you hurl "the > London Times" on our lawns. I wonder if that upinarmsness would exceed that of the user of a reference who finds "Times" as the source of a quotation and is left without certainty that the quotation is British. Anyway, the possibility is quite remote that I will ever hurl anything at all on your lawns. > It seems to me that for many Americans all newspapers have to be > "from" some city. Instead, try to think of them as magazines. Wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is? Where the newsroom is? Where it first began if it has since > relocated?) All of what you've said is typical of the drift away from the original problem that started the recent discussion about "Times". With regard to an entry in a reference, the question arose whether the entry was citing only British uses All seemed clearly British except one, which referred to "Times". If it had said "Post Intelligencer" or "Oregonian"--or if an abbreviation was used for one of them whose expansion could be found in the bibliography, I would have had no doubt that a United States source was meant. But, knowing that there are many newspapers around the world whose names might be abbreviated "Times", I looked in the bibliography to make sure it meant the "Times" that's published in London. I failed to find "Times" in the bibliography, so I was left without complete confidence that the quotation was a British use. Even though I was fairly certain that it was, I wouldn't have bet any of my own money on it, and the related discussion called for certainty. [...] > * (He has a table of "Bibliographical Abbreviations_, but he > failed to include "Times", presumably assuming arrogantly > that "Times" can refer only to the London paper.) Really, Bob! In a correct bibliographical reference, the full title is given unless, as in Burchfield's book, a consistent abbreviation has been provided. No abbreviation was given in this case because the title was given in full (except for the "The"): it's hardly arrogant to call a paper the "Times" when that's its name. Any arrogance would be in assuming that readers would know that the abbreviation "Times" actually referred to a paper whose name was "The New York Times" -- I'm a little surprised that it isn't quoted in the book, but if it had been, the abbreviation used would probably have been "NYT". Note that he mentions both the "London Review of Books" and the "New York Review of Books". Neither is referred to as "Review of Books". Where he _was_ wrong in his table of abbreviations was in saying that "Tel" stood for "Telegraph": it actually stands for "Daily Telegraph". I doubt that he meant to include the "Sunday Telegraph", as that isn't the correct way to do it. SignatureMike. > [...] > > * (He has a table of "Bibliographical Abbreviations_, but he > > failed to include "Times", presumably assuming arrogantly > > that "Times" can refer only to the London paper.) > Really, Bob! In a correct bibliographical reference, the full title is > given unless, as in Burchfield's book, a consistent abbreviation has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > assuming that readers would know that the abbreviation "Times" actually > referred to a paper whose name was "The New York Times" -- I see what you mean. Thank you. >> [...] >>> * (He has a table of "Bibliographical Abbreviations_, but he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I see what you mean. Thank you. We are perilously close to the old "Paris, France" discussion, and I think it's partly a matter of courtesy. "The Times" wouldn't refer to "Times Square" as "New York Times Square", because that is not its name. Incidentally, how does "The New York Times" refer to "The Times"? Jonathan [...] > Incidentally, how does "The New York Times" refer to > "The Times"? Searching at http://www.nytimes.com/ , I find. for example, The Times welcomes comments and suggestions, or complaints about errors that warrant correction. Messages on news coverage can be e-mailed to [...]. -- http://preview.tinyurl.com/y9yp3y and As Corey Kilgannon of The Times revealed last week, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has a plan. -- http://preview.tinyurl.com/u7gjx By the way, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1152489.cmsatat I see this: NEW DELHI: With more than 2.4 million copies sold every day, The Times of India has been certified by the Audit Bureau of Circulations as having become the world's largest selling English broadsheet newspaper ahead of giants like USA Today and Wall Street Journal, Times London and The Guardian. (Note "Times London" versus "The Guardian".) The quote reminds me that it's natural to use "the" with some newspaper names, but not with others. We wouldn't say "I saw it in _Wall Street Journal_", but we would say "I saw it in _USA Today_". >>> [...] >>>> * (He has a table of "Bibliographical Abbreviations_, but he [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Incidentally, how does "The New York Times" refer to "The Times"? Using the NYT's online search for occurrences since 1981: "The Times of London" 1,859 "The London Times" 98 http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22The+Times+of+London%22&srchst=nyt The results include uses of "The Sunday Times of London". This is the UK paper published as "The Sunday Times". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] > >Incidentally, how does "The New York Times" refer to "The Times"? > Using the NYT's online search for occurrences since 1981: > "The Times of London" 1,859 > "The London Times" 98 > http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22The+Times+of+London%22&srchst=nyt > The results include uses of "The Sunday Times of London". This is > the UK paper published as "The Sunday Times". I find it interesting that while I took Jonathan's question to mean "How does the _New York Times_ refer to itself" (see http://preview.tinyurl.com/u7gjx ), Peter appears to have understood it to mean "How does the _New York Times_ refer to _The Times_ that's published in the United Kingdom. I can see now that Peter's interpretation was probably more appropriate than mine. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I can see now that Peter's interpretation was probably more > appropriate than mine. FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. SignatureBuckwheat Soba [...] > FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. You're not the only one who did do, look. SignatureMike. > [...] > > FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. > You're not the only one who did do, look. Where should he or she look? > > [...] > > > FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. > > > You're not the only one who did do, look. > > Where should he or she look? Oh, around, you know. I felt it was time to introduce Bucky to a new BrE sentence-tic. (I assume Soba-san, whose speech is not strongly rhotic, knows what "Bucky" is. Not to be confused with Buckie, of course; though there is an association.) SignatureMike. > I felt it was time to introduce Bucky to a new > BrE sentence-tic. (I assume Soba-san, whose speech is not strongly > rhotic, knows what "Bucky" is. Eh? My speech is strongly rhotic, although it's not hyper-rhotic the way Richard M. Nixon or Wilford Brimley's speech is. I do have a few exceptional words where I have some non-rhoticism, such as "jarmulke" /jAm@k@/, and "berserk" /b@zRk/ (I don't think either of those pronunciations is uncommon in AmE, for whatever phonological or dialectological reason). It is true that I grew up in a community in which many speakers of various ages were largely non-rhotic (though only the oldest speakers failed to rhoticized stressed pre-consonantal /R/). SignatureBuckwheat Soba > Eh? My speech is strongly rhotic, although it's not hyper-rhotic the way > Richard M. Nixon or Wilford Brimley's speech is. I do have a few > exceptional words where I have some non-rhoticism, such as "jarmulke" > /jAm@k@/, and "berserk" /b@zRk/ (I don't think either of those > pronunciations is uncommon in AmE, for whatever phonological or > dialectological reason). I think they are standard, General American pronunciations. Except, of course, for those who pronounce yarmulke /ki'pa:/. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > > > [...] > > > > FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. > > > You're not the only one who did do, look. > > Where should he or she look? > Oh, around, you know. I felt it was time to introduce Bucky to a new > BrE sentence-tic. (I assume Soba-san, whose speech is not strongly > rhotic, knows what "Bucky" is. Not to be confused with Buckie, of > course; though there is an association.) I suppose all of that may make some sense to those who read more than a smattering of alt.usage.english. I, not being one of those readers, can make no sense of it at all. Is there some way to confirm that "Buckwheat Soba", whoever that is, was not the only one who did do take the same interpretation I did? > > > > [...] > > > > > FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that is, was not the only one who did do take the same > interpretation I did? I unintentionally misled you a little. When "look" is a tic, it usually does imply that there is some evidence which could be really or metaphorically looked at; but it isn't pronounced as an imperative. The tonal pattern of a sentence of the type "You've crashed my computer look!" will generally show a very slight fall on "look", and its stress pattern will occasionally, but usually barely or not at all, suggest a comma after "computer". I think, subject to correction, that if users of the "xxx look" formula seriously want you to look, they'll generally say, "Look! You've crashed my computer." On the other matter, I anxiously await news of Buck's Bucky-awareness. SignatureMike. > > > > > [...] > > > > > > FWIW, I interpreted it the way Sparky did do. > > > > > You're not the only one who did do, look. > > > > Where should he or she look? > > > Oh, around, you know. I felt it was time to introduce Bucky to a new > > > BrE sentence-tic. (I assume Soba-san, whose speech is not strongly > > > rhotic, knows what "Bucky" is. Not to be confused with Buckie, of > > > course; though there is an association.) > > I suppose all of that may make some sense to those who read > > more than a smattering of alt.usage.english. I, not being > > one of those readers, can make no sense of it at all. > > Is there some way to confirm that "Buckwheat Soba", whoever > > that is, was not the only one who did do take the same > > interpretation I did? > I unintentionally misled you a little. When "look" is a tic, it usually > does imply that there is some evidence which could be really or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pattern will occasionally, but usually barely or not at all, suggest a > comma after "computer". > I think, subject to correction, that if users of the "xxx look" formula > seriously want you to look, they'll generally say, "Look! You've > crashed my computer." But your statement was You're not the only one who did do, look. The "look" is not really a significant part of the enigmaticity of your statement. Removing "look", we get You're not the only one who did do, and my curiosity as to who was someone else who did do is unaffected. > On the other matter, I anxiously await news of Buck's > Bucky-awareness. I take that to be written in an esoteric code that may be known to only you and Buck, whoever Buck is, but certainly is not known to me. If you don't intend it to be understood by the general readership, wouldn't it be more appropriate in e-mail than in Usenet. Or if it's known to a small inner circle of alt.usage.english regulars, have you thought of using a mailing list instead of a Usenet group with a broadly diverse readaership? [...] > > I unintentionally misled you a little. When "look" is a tic, it usually > > does imply that there is some evidence which could be really or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and my curiosity as to who was someone else who did do is > unaffected. Ah, I was considering the usage, which has always intrigued me. It was I, and at least one other, whose identity I've forgotten. > > On the other matter, I anxiously await news of Buck's > > Bucky-awareness. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > using a mailing list instead of a Usenet group with a > broadly diverse readaership? It's not relevant to the original subject-line of this thread; but it's thoroughly relevant to the group and its English-usage objects inasmuch as Richard's latest nom de guerre has given rise to the diminutive "Bucky", and to some comment on its connotations. To elucidate . . . The word "Bucky" is also the nickname of a drink popular among Scottish soaks and Weegie* teenagers. It's a compound produced by the monks of Buckfast Abbey on the fringe of the Dartmoor Forest and sold under the name "Buckfast Tonic Wine"; it's such a cheap intoxicant that it has been denounced in the Scottish Parliament as a public health risk. (I'm told it tastes horrible to sophisticated palates.) Other names for the beverage include "Wreck the Hoose Juice", "Commotion Lotion", and "A Bottle of Fecht the Worruld". The good brothers are probably more comfortable with their fame for honey and the special strain of queen bees they breed and export around the world under the name "Buckfast queens". There is some question as the to preferred spelling. I use "Bucky" in order to avoid homonymy with the name of the Morayshire fishing port, Buckie. UK-based readers will have known all this; I set out my remarks in an allusive form to allow Richard the pleasure of investigating for himself, and I confess I had expected him to reply quickly enough for nobody to be more than momentarily inconvenienced by the obscurity. I make no apology for continuing AUE's traditions of cryptic puzzling and discussion of terms for food and drink: I could, indeed, even have taken the opportunity to mention the sturdy Dartmoor Greyface sheep, as at: http://www.greyface-dartmoor.org.uk/images/dscf0143e.jpg , but that would have been too tenuous a connection. *ObAUE: ="Glaswegian". SignatureMike. [...] > It's not relevant to the original subject-line of this thread; but it's > thoroughly relevant to the group and its English-usage objects inasmuch > as Richard's latest nom de guerre has given rise to the diminutive > "Bucky", and to some comment on its connotations. I suppose the line between in-groupness and general interest is not easy to see sometimes, especially for those who are part of the in-group. ... } I suppose the line between in-groupness and general interest } is not easy to see sometimes, especially for those who are } part of the in-group. Truly, Sparky and Rey must be considered the hard core of the in-group. Signaturerjv > ... > } I suppose the line between in-groupness and general interest > } is not easy to see sometimes, especially for those who are > } part of the in-group. > > Truly, Sparky and Rey must be considered the hard core of the in-group. Truly. SignatureSalvatore Volatile > I find it interesting that while I took Jonathan's question > to mean "How does the _New York Times_ refer to itself" (see [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can see now that Peter's interpretation was probably more > appropriate than mine. Well, it's not for me to decide which was more appropriate - in the sense that if my question is ambiguous, that's my hard luck. Peter's interpretation was the one I intended, though. Thanks to both of you for the reply. Jonathan >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >understood it to mean "How does the _New York Times_ refer >to _The Times_ that's published in the United Kingdom. I too find this interesting. It didn't occur to me that there might be more than one interpretation. With Jonathan being in the UK I assume that he would, by default, mean the UK paper when saying "The Times" unless context indicated otherwise. Also, to me, the most natural understanding of his question '... how does "The New York Times" refer to "The Times"?' is 'how does paper A refer to paper B?'. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >[...] > >> >Incidentally, how does "The New York Times" refer to "The Times"? > >> Using the NYT's online search for occurrences since 1981: > >> "The Times of London" 1,859 > >> "The London Times" 98 > >> http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22The+Times+of+London%22&srchst=nyt > >> The results include uses of "The Sunday Times of London". This is > >> the UK paper published as "The Sunday Times". > >I find it interesting that while I took Jonathan's question > >to mean "How does the _New York Times_ refer to itself" (see > >http://preview.tinyurl.com/u7gjx ), Peter appears to have > >understood it to mean "How does the _New York Times_ refer > >to _The Times_ that's published in the United Kingdom. > I too find this interesting. It didn't occur to me that there might > be more than one interpretation. > With Jonathan being in the UK I assume that he would, by default, > mean the UK paper when saying "The Times" unless context indicated > otherwise. > Also, to me, the most natural understanding of his question '... how > does "The New York Times" refer to "The Times"?' is 'how does paper > A refer to paper B?'. You left out the part where I said I thought your interpretation was the more appropriate one. >> >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >You left out the part where I said I thought your >interpretation was the more appropriate one. Yes, but not out of disrespect or to be argumentative. I was simply introspecting to attempt to understand what had predisposed me to interpret the question in the way that I did. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Yes, but not out of disrespect or to be argumentative. > > I was simply introspecting to attempt to understand what had > predisposed me to interpret the question in the way that I did. Well, perhaps I can suggest an answer. I intended my question about how the NYT might refer to Mr Murdoch's paper to be in direct contrast to my point about how "The Times" would refer to Times Square. I obviously didn't get it right. Jonathan ... } I would have to make an exception if, as can happen, the } syntax of my sentence required a "the" in front of the name } for a reason not directly related to the name itself. Then, } rather that writing "the _The New Fowler's Modern English } Usage_", I would write "the _New Fowler's Modern English } Usage_". ... I agree with than. I have often (erk'll know exactly) written "my trusty old _American Heritage Dictionary_ (I)", knowing full well that it's "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language". Signaturerjv > > mashuk.r...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Hi, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > is not the same word as "use" in "I make use of". They're > best thought of as merely homonyms. Well since it is my example I should disagree but I think you are correct. I knew that there was a difference in the verbs but a) was in a rush, b) could not think of how to explain it expecially to a non-native speaker. I like your explanation of homonyms though I don't think it is exact since I cannot find a present tense of "used" Still it is a very useful explanation. ----clip----- > > The problem is that "used" can mean repeatedly as in you sentence or it > > can simply be the past tense of use ( I used a fork to eat beef). > > But, again, that "use" is not the "use" meaning "make it a > practice". No of course not. That was the point I was trying to make. Again your homonym agruement makes sense, I wish I'd thought of it. However in usage 'use' and 'used' are common and potentially confusing use. I may sound like a heretic on a.u.e but as a person who has stumbled around trying to learn 4 other langauges it is often easier to comprehend a fairly simple and general rule even if it is not totally accurate. I find it is better to be correct 90% of the time rather than to be unable to use an expression at all. Of course, one hopes that the other 10% does not lead to some nasty reactions. > > In spoken English it is often difficult to hear the difference in "use" > > and "used". The listener often understands from context which word was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > could say it doesn't matter whether we write "bier" or > "beer". Well as it is said, we're all dead in the long run so maybe it doesn't matter? I'll have a Molson please and put me down gently. However the point I was making was that the OP might not hear a difference even if it was there. One might make the same point of the UK (English?) pronunication of waiter. Have you heard the old joke about the American tourists in London looking for the Marble Arch? > While this subject is again under discussion, we shouldn't > neglect mentioning the difference between British and > American usage guides on "didn't used to" and "didn't use > to". British guides tend to say either is okay. American > guides more sensibly say "didn't used to" is as > ungrammatical as "didn't wanted to". Damn I think I agree with the Us guide here. |
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.