I stink
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Larry - 23 Jan 2007 12:29 GMT Hi,
does "I stink" mean anything like "I'm not good at it/hopeless at doing it" ?? I think it's AmE
thanks
Lars Eighner - 23 Jan 2007 13:00 GMT > Hi,
> does "I stink" mean anything like "I'm not good at it/hopeless at > doing it" ?? I think it's AmE Yes. Of course it also has a more literal meaning: I have a bad odor. Someone who has failed at an athletic pursuit is likely to stink in both senses.
 Signature Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> Countdown: 728 days to go.
Larry - 23 Jan 2007 13:24 GMT > Yes. Of course it also has a more literal meaning: I have a bad odor. > Someone who has failed at an athletic pursuit is likely to stink in both > senses. lol, thanks
keithbc - 23 Jan 2007 20:25 GMT I'm afraid that Americanisms are abundant in english nowadays eg 'hi', 'guys', writing September 10th (instead of 10th September). Don't think we have heard the last of 'em!
Next we will be saying ' I have gotten'!
Why do us English so easily embrace the US culture? It is not reciprocated as far as I can tell
> Hi, > > does "I stink" mean anything like "I'm not good at it/hopeless at > doing it" ?? I think it's AmE > > thanks Hatunen - 23 Jan 2007 20:42 GMT >I'm afraid that Americanisms are abundant in english nowadays eg 'hi', >'guys', writing September 10th (instead of 10th September). Don't think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Why do us English so easily embrace the US culture? It is not >reciprocated as far as I can tell "Gotten" was Brit to start with, but Americans kept it and the Brits reduced it to "got".
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
keithbc - 23 Jan 2007 21:19 GMT The point I am making though, is that it's the US usage of the word that is relevant no matter the background. 'kids' is another word I detest which seems to be used more and more frequently instead of 'children'.
> >I'm afraid that Americanisms are abundant in english nowadays eg 'hi', > >'guys', writing September 10th (instead of 10th September). Don't think [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * > * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * HVS - 23 Jan 2007 21:28 GMT On 23 Jan 2007, keithbc wrote
> The point I am making though, is that it's the US usage of the > word that is relevant no matter the background. > 'kids' is another word I detest which seems to be used more and > more frequently instead of 'children'. I assume you mean this sort of thing: "Passed a few days happily with my wife and kids".
That examples from Lord Shaftesbury, in his journal for 1841.
It's a long-standing use in England: OED records "kid" for "child" from 1599 (with examples from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries).
One's assumptions on these things are often mistaken.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
HVS - 23 Jan 2007 21:40 GMT On 23 Jan 2007, HVS wrote
> On 23 Jan 2007, keithbc wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That examples Dropped apostrophe; sorry.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Salvatore Volatile - 23 Jan 2007 21:39 GMT > Why do us English so easily embrace the US culture? It is not > reciprocated as far as I can tell The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at the end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing some Americans use "a one-off" and, yes, though incredibly, "spot on".
My boss even uses "in future". Truly.
 Signature Salvatore Volatile
Mike Lyle - 23 Jan 2007 21:45 GMT >> Why do us English so easily embrace the US culture? It is not >> reciprocated as far as I can tell [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > My boss even uses "in future". Truly. I can't be sure that Keith actually wants to be told: I think he's just complaining.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
tinwhistler - 23 Jan 2007 22:05 GMT [snip]
> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, [snip]
A biggie in my book is the recent poll showing a majority of USers now pronounce "either" (and "neither") Queen Victoria's way, when 100 years ago that was virtually unheard on this side of the pond. I would have a deglutition problem with an argument of a predominant flow of word import/export in either direction across the pond.
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Donna Richoux - 23 Jan 2007 23:13 GMT
> A biggie in my book is the recent poll showing a majority of USers now > pronounce "either" (and "neither") Queen Victoria's way, when 100 years > ago that was virtually unheard on this side of the pond. Have you got a reference for that? Does it include this hundred-years-ago claim? After all, the song "Let's call the whole thing off" was in a 1937 movie, and Wikipedia thinks it was written earlier:
"Let's Call The Whole Thing Off": The genesis of the joke in Ira Gershwin's famous lyrics is uncertain: Ira has claimed the idea occurred to him in 1926 and remained unused. However, towards the end of Duck Soup (1933) in a throwaway line to Margaret Dumont, Groucho Marx says "eether, eyether, skip it".
I sure hope the pollsters didn't expect a majority of Americans to know how Queen Victoria said the word.
Webster's 1828 American Dictionary specifically comments "the first syllable to be the same as /each/" which suggests there was some variation even then. Or else why the comment?
 Signature Best -- Donna Richoux
tinwhistler - 24 Jan 2007 01:56 GMT [snip]
> I sure hope the pollsters didn't expect a majority of Americans to know > how Queen Victoria said the word. > > Webster's 1828 American Dictionary specifically comments "the first > syllable to be the same as /each/" which suggests there was some > variation even then. Or else why the comment? [snip]
I had read a pretty good authority a long time ago which claimed that it was Queen Victoria who pushed for the long /i/ sound in this pronunciation. Without exhausting myself to support that after your posting, I did find this page from Charles Harrington Elster's essay on the subject: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0395893380&id=7iocw3kK9BIC&pg=RA1-PA132&lp g=RA1-PA132&ots=3RRMHT07un&dq=%22pronunciation+of+either+and+neither%22&num=30&s ig=bmBPdH7j-5lYHBi0xWlRNzb4ESk
A couple of Elster's points are in line with my posting: (1) the long /i/ took hold among the educated elite in this country in emulation of BrE pronunciation; (2) Queen Elizabeth II pronounces it with a long /i/. Your citation of Webster supports my view that AmE 100 years ago had the /ee/ vowel sound. I wish I could direct you to the poll that had a majority of USers now using the long /i/ pronunciation -- I'll keep looking for that. (Note that Elster says there is a 50-50 divide, or so, in the UK today on the pronunciation.)
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Donna Richoux - 24 Jan 2007 13:26 GMT > [snip] > > I sure hope the pollsters didn't expect a majority of Americans [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > posting, I did find this page from Charles Harrington Elster's essay on > the subject: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0395893380&id=7iocw3kK9BIC&pg=RA1- PA132&lpg=RA1-PA132&ots=3RRMHT07un&dq=%22pronunciation+of+either+and+nei ther%22&num=30&sig=bmBPdH7j-5lYHBi0xWlRNzb4ESk
> A couple of Elster's points are in line with my posting: (1) the long > /i/ took hold among the educated elite in this country in emulation of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > keep looking for that. (Note that Elster says there is a 50-50 divide, > or so, in the UK today on the pronunciation.) OK. thanks for looking. I have to correct what I said before -- I implied Webster must have been thinking about disputed pronunciation when he made the comment about the first syllable, but actually it was in the section about etymology and I think now he was showing that it was the same historic root as "each" and the Saxon word "aeghwaer" or eachwhere, everywhere. So it's not evidence of pronunciation.
 Signature Best -- Donna Richoux
tinwhistler - 24 Jan 2007 15:56 GMT [snip]
>> (Note that Elster says there is a 50-50 divide, > > or so, in the UK today on the pronunciation.)OK. thanks for looking.[snip] > > -- > Best -- Donna Richoux Those favoring the long /i/ sound in the pronunciation of _either_ and _neither_ analogize _height_ and _stein_. Analogies looking the other way: _leisure_ and _seizure_. Anyone want to contribute others? [Would anyone be interested in a quotation of Elster's entry for the pronunciation, in this thread or a new one? I now have that in my file.]
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
HVS - 24 Jan 2007 16:29 GMT On 24 Jan 2007, tinwhistler wrote
> [snip] >>> (Note that Elster says there is a 50-50 divide, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > _either_ and _neither_ analogize _height_ and _stein_. > Analogies looking the other way: _leisure_ and _seizure_. Those last two don't sound remotely the same in my usage: for me, "leisure" rhymes with "pleasure".
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Mike Lyle - 24 Jan 2007 18:14 GMT > On 24 Jan 2007, tinwhistler wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Those last two don't sound remotely the same in my usage: for me, > "leisure" rhymes with "pleasure". As it does for, AFAIK, all speakers of BrEtcE. Is that one of your adoptions, Harvey, or is it usual in CanE?
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HVS - 24 Jan 2007 18:20 GMT On 24 Jan 2007, Mike Lyle wrote
>> On 24 Jan 2007, tinwhistler wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Those last two don't sound remotely the same in my usage: for >> me, "leisure" rhymes with "pleasure".
> As it does for, AFAIK, all speakers of BrEtcE. Is that one of > your adoptions, Harvey, or is it usual in CanE? I actually can't remember; I don't *think* it's an adopted one. (At least, I don't remember changing it in the same way that I changed my pronunciation of "garage".)
I'll go with the Canadian posters here -- if they're unanimous that they say "lee-sure", I'll have to suppose I must have changed it.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Hatunen - 24 Jan 2007 16:27 GMT >[snip] >> I sure hope the pollsters didn't expect a majority of Americans to know [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it was Queen Victoria who pushed for the long /i/ sound in this >pronunciation. It would have been nice if when you clipped the quotes you had retained the word in question.
Without exhausting myself to support that after your
>posting, I did find this page from Charles Harrington Elster's essay on >the subject: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Evan Kirshenbaum - 23 Jan 2007 22:47 GMT > The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at the > end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing some > Americans use "a one-off" "One-off" is supposed to be British? I've heard it for decades. MWCD11 doesn't mark it as British, although I see that the OED calls it "originally and chiefly British".
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To express oneself 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |In seventeen syllables Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is very diffic | Tony Finch kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Salvatore Volatile - 23 Jan 2007 23:12 GMT >> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at the >> end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > MWCD11 doesn't mark it as British, although I see that the OED calls > it "originally and chiefly British". I certainly think of it as British.
Google provides some good evidence that it's still quite British:
"a one off" 1110000 "a one off" site:.uk 1020000 Richoux Ratio: 1:1
That's much better than the usual sort of benchmarks we use (e.g. "cheesy bits", "fairy liquid", "do the washing up", "hedgehog flavoured").
 Signature Salvatore Volatile
Skitt - 24 Jan 2007 02:07 GMT
>> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at the >> end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > MWCD11 doesn't mark it as British, although I see that the OED calls > it "originally and chiefly British". I met it for the first time in this group.
 Signature Skitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
CDB - 24 Jan 2007 14:49 GMT >> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at >> the end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > MWCD11 doesn't mark it as British, although I see that the OED calls > it "originally and chiefly British". Internal evidence suggests a British origin if you think it's a development of "one-of", as I do. Stressed "of" in standard BrE speech has the "sock" vowel (according to the OneLook Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary), while in NAmE it has the "tough" vowel (according to me: the CALD says the "farm" vowel; but the important point for the question of derivation is that the BrE vowel matches "off" and the NAmE vowel doesn't.) /In/ the Church but not /of/ it, like.
Mike Lyle - 24 Jan 2007 18:31 GMT >>> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at >>> the end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "off" and the NAmE vowel doesn't.) /In/ the Church but not /of/ it, > like. "N-off" is engineerese. A document such as a "hundred-off list" sets out which widgets are to be made in the eponymous quantity. (I have seen hundred-off lists, and the word was definitely "off".) The figure is, of course, variable, and "one-off" makes a neat metaphor in non-engineering contexts. I don't know, but assume that the "off" implies "off the capstan", "off the production line", etc; I can't prove that it isn't a variant of "of", but it doesn't feel likely, and I do know it's long been common.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Nick Atty - 24 Jan 2007 19:45 GMT >"N-off" is engineerese. A document such as a "hundred-off list" sets out >which widgets are to be made in the eponymous quantity. (I have seen [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >variant of "of", but it doesn't feel likely, and I do know it's long >been common. Certainly when I used to read electronics project magazines (when I got my fun out of building things physically, instead of out of bits and bytes) the parts lists would say: DPDT switch - 2 off 6V 1W bulb - 1 off
 Signature On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2007 20:01 GMT >>"N-off" is engineerese. A document such as a "hundred-off list" sets >>out which widgets are to be made in the eponymous quantity. (I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>prove that it isn't a variant of "of", but it doesn't feel likely, >>and I do know it's long been common. I don't think I've ever heard it with a number other than one. (And I are an engineer.) My understanding (which may well be a folk etymology) is that it came from the notion of "knocking one off", i.e., cobbling it up by hand rather than as part of an assembly line process. (Interestingly, a "knock-off" might well be exactly the opposite: an assembly line process to produce replicas of a unique object.)
> Certainly when I used to read electronics project magazines (when I > got my fun out of building things physically, instead of out of bits > and bytes) the parts lists would say: > DPDT switch - 2 off > 6V 1W bulb - 1 off I'd expect to see "of" (or "each" or "ea").
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Lyle - 24 Jan 2007 21:39 GMT >>> "N-off" is engineerese. A document such as a "hundred-off list" sets >>> out which widgets are to be made in the eponymous quantity. (I have [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I'd expect to see "of" (or "each" or "ea"). It must be Pondial, then. E.g. "As batch sizes vary from less than a dozen to several hundred off, a quick change over is essential. With the AXNW a single operator can now change a job over in under ten minutes, slashing hours from set up times." Which is to be found at http://www.mwponline.com/story.aspx?uid=1d0fff48-f082-4f4f-81ba-e15026b7d0bc&cui d=32087911-1393-46ad-a3cb-4d4e6e466d2c aka http://tinyurl.com/3aexmv The mag is called _Metalworking Production_. Not, AIUI, the kind of engineer wich you is.
 Signature Mike.
-- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter Moylan - 25 Jan 2007 01:41 GMT >> "N-off" is engineerese. A document such as a "hundred-off list" >> sets out which widgets are to be made in the eponymous quantity. (I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and bytes) the parts lists would say: DPDT switch - 2 off 6V 1W bulb > - 1 off Factory storemen and parts suppliers have expressed it like this for yonks, if not longer. Still, this leaves the question of who said (or, more likely, wrote) it first, and why.
I first learnt the terminology when I was learning how to use mechanical manufacturing equipment such as lathes and grinders. A mechanical specification typically includes a drawing showing how all the bits fit together, and a parts list saying things like "J-shaped widget, 10 off". If the parts themselves were nonstandard then drawings were also needed for them. The factory foreman would go to, say, a lathe operator with a drawing and an instruction like "I need 20 off of these". The craftsman would then set up his machine to produce the desired piece, after which he could run off 20 thingummies. My choice of "run off" is deliberate; I think that's where the "20 off" comes from.
In mechanical production, the initial setup time in preparation for making a widget is a significant part of the production cost, because it's lost time while the craftsman is adjusting his machinery but not producing anything. A foreman who asked him to produce one part, and then came back later - after he had started a different job - to ask for 19 more would be incompetent, except of course in the special case where a prototype has to be tested before the real production starts.
It's less obvious in electronics construction, where efficiency usually dictates the use of stock-standard components rather than made-to-order components. (No electronics hobbyist would ever dream of building his own transistor, except as a challenge. I do recall having to build my own germanium diode in a metallurgy lab as a student, but the end product was by far inferior to what I could have bought for a few cents.) Even there, however, it is useful to have lists saying things like "1k resistor, 20 off", because it lets you pick up all your components in one go rather than having to search for missing parts all the time.
 Signature Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time.
Mike Lyle - 25 Jan 2007 13:27 GMT > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:31:03 -0000, "MikeLyle" > > <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > and bytes) the parts lists would say: DPDT switch - 2 off 6V 1W bulb > > - 1 off
> Factory storemen and parts suppliers have expressed it like this for > yonks, if not longer. Still, this leaves the question of who said (or, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > he could run off 20 thingummies. My choice of "run off" is deliberate; I > think that's where the "20 off" comes from. [...]
I'm wondering if there's a wider Pondial division about this use of "off" for making things -- perhaps especially when using machines. OurE quite naturally forms expressions with it: in an office you'd ask the repro room to "run off n copies". A nice, and typical, one appears in _The Wee Magic Stane_, a song celebrating the theft, in 1950, of the Stone of Scone from Westminster Abbey (the official superstition is that you can't be king or queen of Scotland if you weren't incoronated while sitting on this stone, so it was placed under St Edward's coronation throne in 1296):
<8. Noo the cream o' the joke Still remains tae be tell't
_Fur the bloke that was turnin' them Off on the belt_
At th' peak o' production Was so sorely pressed That the real one got bunged In along wi' th' rest! Chorus>
The whole is at: http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/wjmc/othedean.shtml
 Signature Mike.
CDB - 26 Jan 2007 17:42 GMT >>>> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at >>>> the end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > etc; I can't prove that it isn't a variant of "of", but it doesn't > feel likely, and I do know it's long been common. I confess I was running on the fumes of instinct for this one. My mind's ear heard it being read from a list of supplies: shirts, ruffled, six of(f).
But I see that it has made Chris Waigl's list:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/24pzal .
Philip Eden - 24 Jan 2007 18:46 GMT >>> The US has adopted a few Briticisms in recent times, such as "at >>> the end of the day" and "gone missing". I've even been hearing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > question of derivation is that the BrE vowel matches "off" and the NAmE > vowel doesn't.) Although until well into the second half of the 20th century "off" was pronounced "orff" (non-rhotic), or perhaps "awff", by many Brits at both ends of the social scale (I'm not sure about the middle).
Philip Eden
Salvatore Volatile - 24 Jan 2007 19:00 GMT > Although until well into the second half of the 20th century > "off" was pronounced "orff" (non-rhotic), or perhaps "awff", > by many Brits at both ends of the social scale (I'm not sure > about the middle). As it still is pronounced by, I believe, all CINCs in AmE (that is, "off" has the "caught" vowel).
 Signature Salvatore Volatile
Roland Hutchinson - 24 Jan 2007 13:35 GMT > Why do us English so easily embrace the US culture? It is not > reciprocated as far as I can tell We've got them outnumbered, innit.
 Signature Roland 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.
Amethyst Deceiver - 24 Jan 2007 16:29 GMT > I'm afraid that Americanisms are abundant in english nowadays eg 'hi', > 'guys', writing September 10th (instead of 10th September). Don't > think we have heard the last of 'em! > > Next we will be saying ' I have gotten'! Why shouldn't we? It used to be standard Br English.
> Why do us English so easily embrace the US culture? It is not > reciprocated as far as I can tell "Us English"? "Why do us..."?
By the way, it's considered polite to post underneath the quoted material rather than above it.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
Robert Bannister - 24 Jan 2007 23:04 GMT > I'm afraid that Americanisms are abundant in english nowadays eg 'hi', > 'guys', writing September 10th (instead of 10th September). Don't think > we have heard the last of 'em! > > Next we will be saying ' I have gotten'! So Americanised has Australian culture now become that I hear people as old as 30 using "gotten", frequently in places where an American would not.
 Signature Rob Bannister
John Holmes - 28 Jan 2007 06:57 GMT >> Next we will be saying ' I have gotten'! > > So Americanised has Australian culture now become that I hear people as > old as 30 using "gotten", frequently in places where an American would > not. "Gotten" has been around at some level for a long time in AusE. I think it is because of the 40% of us who have Irish ancestry, though current usage is probably modified by what people hear on television.
 Signature Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au
Prai Jei - 23 Jan 2007 20:48 GMT Larry (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <dontmewithme-EA580B.13295523012007@news.tin.it>:
> Hi, > > does "I stink" mean anything like "I'm not good at it/hopeless at > doing it" ?? I think it's AmE > > thanks No it means you've got a personal hygiene problem.
 Signature Terms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status. Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children.
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
|
|
|