 |
 | 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 / January 2007"the radio", "television"
Checking around with people I know, we'd all say I'm going to listen to the radio in preference to I'm going to listen to radio and I'm going to watch television in preference to I'm going to watch the television but none of us can think of an explanation as to why we prefer "the radio", but not "the television". Is this one of those things where both are OK, and a given group of people tends to prefer one or the other, but it varies from region to region, or is one of these forms actually better?  Signature--Tim Smith reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com had it: > Checking around with people I know, we'd all say > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm going to listen to radio I agree with this - it is odder to say "listen to radio". However, it's not impossible. - Do you spend much of the day listening to radio? > and > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm going to watch the television but in this case I am comfortable with both. As I see it, "television" is a mass noun, meaning the entertainment which one can access by use of a TV set. "the television" is a count noun referring to the set in the corner of the room (=BrE "goggle box"). The same applies to "radio" and "the radio" but for some reason the mass noun is less comfortable to native speakers. > but none of us can think of an explanation as to why we prefer "the > radio", but not "the television". > > Is this one of those things where both are OK, and a given group of > people tends to prefer one or the other, but it varies from region to > region, or is one of these forms actually better? SignatureDavid ===== > reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > count noun referring to the set in the corner of the room (=BrE > "goggle box"). Which is why if I heard "I'm going to watch the television", my first thought would be something like "Are you worried that it might do something it's not supposed to?" SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com had it: > > reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > thought would be something like "Are you worried that it might do > something it's not supposed to?" My granny was middle aged before TV came to Warwickshire. She used to say that she was going to "look at the television". Not surprising really, when for the earlier part of her life she had "listened to the wireless". She liked the Two Ronnies. SignatureDavid ===== > My granny was middle aged before TV came to Warwickshire. She used > to say that she was going to "look at the television". "Look at television" is used in one of the Nero Wolfe novels. SignatureSalvatore Volatile > Checking around with people I know, we'd all say > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > people tends to prefer one or the other, but it varies from region to > region, or is one of these forms actually better? It's true that "on the television" sounds wrong. But "What's on the telly tonight?" works for me. On a related point, a (BrE) usage that seems to have died out is that of "programme" meaning "channel". My parents (1960s) frequently used to say things like: "What programme are we watching?" "BBC" "What's on the other programme?" "Coronation Street" "Switch over" It makes sense when you think of the usage of "programme" in, say, the theatre. But then, what was (e.g.) Coronation Street? Perhaps a "show"? Or maybe that was a programme as well. Mike M > But then, what was (e.g.) Coronation Street? Perhaps a "show"? > Or maybe that was a programme as well. It always seems odd to me that Americans seem to call every programme a 'show', whether it contains comedy, drama, news, or documentary material. I personally feel that in UK English, to use 'show' implies that the content is light entertainment. Eg the Benny Hill Show, the Black and White Minstrel Show. You wouldn't talk about a 'show' discussing the Holocaust or sex-murderers. > > But then, what was (e.g.) Coronation Street? Perhaps a "show"? > > Or maybe that was a programme as well. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Black and White Minstrel Show. You wouldn't talk about a 'show' > discussing the Holocaust or sex-murderers. Somebody on aue recently reported a case of a TV newsreader saying "later in the show..." But, yes, I agree. I think, with hindsight, that we referred to both individual programmes *and* channels as "programmes". Or maybe it was just my family, before they learned the word "channel"? Mike M In alt.usage.english, Mike M wrote: >I think, with hindsight, that we referred to both >individual programmes *and* channels as "programmes". > >Or maybe it was just my family, before they learned the word "channel"? No, I think that used to be normal usage, and in my idiom it still is. To me the word "channel" means the number associated with the broadcast frequency, not the name of the broadcaster. Mind you, I have almost no exposure to TV or conversation about it, so I'm probably well behind the times. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England The Mike Barnes entity posted thusly: >In alt.usage.english, Mike M wrote: >>I think, with hindsight, that we referred to both [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >To me the word "channel" means the number associated with the broadcast >frequency, not the name of the broadcaster. That it does, yet if asked "What channel are you watching?", I am as likely to respond with a number as with "CTV" or "PBS", etc. The latter for tends to be more useful because the same network does not appear on the same channel for different services. Speaking of my area, Bell Expressvu and Starchoice are two satellite services that have their content on different channels, and there are yet other lineups for Access, Image Wireless, Max, and broadcast. > > > But then, what was (e.g.) Coronation Street? Perhaps a "show"? > > > Or maybe that was a programme as well. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Or maybe it was just my family, before they learned the word "channel"? Probably came from the radio: "The Light Programme" which would have had a number of different shows on. > Probably came from the radio: "The Light Programme" which would have > had a number of different shows on. Yes, of course, that'll be it. Predictably, the BBC were inconsistent with their naming convention: The Home Service The Light Programme The Third Programme Why not three "programmes"? Or three "services"? Getting back to the original debate about use of/lack of the definite article, it was always "What's on the BBC?" or "What's on ITV?" (no "the"). Mike M Mike M wrote, in <1168268159.767230.76870@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> on 8 Jan 2007 06:55:59 -0800: > > Probably came from the radio: "The Light Programme" which would have > > had a number of different shows on. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > article, it was always "What's on the BBC?" or "What's on ITV?" (no > "the"). The Home Service was different from the others, it had regional variants. I think I am right in remembering that pre-war it was the Regional Service and what became The Light Programme was the National and was on long wave at 200kc/s, 1500 metres, now 198KHz and used for Radio 4. I even more vaguely remember that wireless sets had the regions' names on the dials. SignatureNick Spalding > The Home Service was different from the others, it had regional variants. > I think I am right in remembering that pre-war it was the Regional Service > and what became The Light Programme was the National and was on long wave > at 200kc/s, 1500 metres, now 198KHz and used for Radio 4. I even more > vaguely remember that wireless sets had the regions' names on the dials. (All together, now): ....Hilversum. Mike M > > The Home Service was different from the others, it had regional variants. > > I think I am right in remembering that pre-war it was the Regional Service [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike M I'm sure they weren't in this order, but I remember:- Allouis, Sottens, Horby, Falun, Kalundborg, Athlone, Daventry mike.j.harvey@gmail.com wrote, in <1168274041.250885.165670@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com> on 8 Jan 2007 08:34:01 -0800: > > > The Home Service was different from the others, it had regional variants. > > > I think I am right in remembering that pre-war it was the Regional Service [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Allouis, Sottens, Horby, Falun, Kalundborg, Athlone, Daventry Luxemburg SignatureNick Spalding In alt.usage.english, wrote: >> > The Home Service was different from the others, it had regional variants. >> > I think I am right in remembering that pre-war it was the Regional Service [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Allouis, Sottens, Horby, Falun, Kalundborg, Athlone, Daventry Danzig. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>The Home Service was different from the others, it had regional variants. >>I think I am right in remembering that pre-war it was the Regional Service [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ....Hilversum. We used to practise saying that shushy Dutch s. SignatureRob Bannister > It always seems odd to me that Americans seem to call every programme a > 'show', whether it contains comedy, drama, news, or documentary > material. I personally feel that in UK English, to use 'show' implies > that the content is light entertainment. Eg the Benny Hill Show, the > Black and White Minstrel Show. You wouldn't talk about a 'show' > discussing the Holocaust or sex-murderers. Yes, "show" is broad enough in AmE to encompass such program topics. "Program" remains the more formal term; "show" certainly retains its narrower associations with light entertainment, so that even to an American "a show about the Holocaust" *could* sound peculiar if one thought about it enough. SignatureSalvatore Volatile > Yes, "show" is broad enough in AmE to encompass such program topics. > "Program" remains the more formal term; "show" certainly retains its > narrower associations with light entertainment, so that even to an > American "a show about the Holocaust" *could* sound peculiar if one > thought about it enough. Although there has been a stage show (and a movie of the stage show of the movie) of The Producers... Life following Art, or what? ;-) > Checking around with people I know, we'd all say > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm going to watch the television To me, that sounds like you're monitoring the TV to make sure it doesn't so something unexpected. Stupot > but none of us can think of an explanation as to why we prefer "the > radio", but not "the television". Another AUE thread led me, indirectly, to a wikipedia entry which cites an English obituary as saying the deceased "frequently appeared on the television". <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%2C_the_Lord%27s_cat>, if you're interested. -=Eric |
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.