 |
 | 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"something and all"
(Do not read on if you are offended by informal speech concerning breasts.) I have encountered the phrase »something and all« twice now in cases, where it seems to be intended to mean »/with/ something and all« or »/including/ something and all«, but in both cases a preceding »with« or »including«, respectively, was missing: »excavators should be handling at least some of their bounty with gloves, and freezing samples as they are found, dirt and all,« http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007011800011700.htm&da te=2007/01/18/&prd=seta& »"You ate my Chrissie?" "Titties and all!"« http://www.lukpac.org/~handmade/patio/misc/extra-titties.html So, is this a general rule, that »something and all« means »including something and all«? > (Do not read on if you are offended by informal speech > concerning breasts.) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So, is this a general rule, that »something and all« > means »including something and all«? The phrase means "The something as well as everything else?" It doesn't make sense with "with" or as "including something and all". Using the "something" emphasizes that noun phrase. In the case of the dirt, it's because the excavators would assume that the dirt is unwanted, and in the case of the titties, it's because the speaker was most attached to his Chrissie's titties and wanted to see them again.  SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "It has come to my attention that my opinions are not universally shared." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 23 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hi.Isn't 'something and all' also used as short for 'something and all that sort of thing' -- such as a sentence I myself wrote to a mate recently:'Sorry if this offends you mate;you being a Brit and all.' ? I also know that 'something and all' (where the 'something' is the word 'something' and not referring to anything else) is informal Indian English for 'anything at all' and also for long-winded or rambling nonsense.I mention this because the O.P seems to be quoting an Indian newspaper. By the bye, thanks for your post on the topic 'tense lag' I had posted. Particularly the bit about tenses was very interesting. I would post on that thread but that topic has been nudged off the front page already and might not have attracted your notice. I'd still like to know what the BrE take on that subject is but I'd probably have to post a fresh topic since the old topic is unlikely to attract anybody's notice. But thanks for your post.Certainly cleared up what the AmE perspective is on the subject. [...] > By the bye, thanks for your post on the topic 'tense lag' I had > posted. Particularly the bit about tenses was very interesting. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to attract anybody's notice. But thanks for your post.Certainly > cleared up what the AmE perspective is on the subject. I can't remember the thread title, so I'll just mention here that, as I remember it, CC's explanation held as good for British English as for American. The general principle is a fundamental feature of the language, rather than a local detail. The only "local" difference, which he mentioned, is that British-type speakers are more likely to use perfect "tenses" even in informal situations than are many Americans. To give only one example, but a clear one, a typical BrE speaker would never ask "Did you eat yet?", but "Have you eaten yet?" The formal distinction between "I ate" and "I have/had eaten" is rather strictly preserved in BrE. (I don't want you to take this as a claim that British English is in some way "purer", "better", or "more expressive" than American English: there are plenty of cases where the reverse is true. At the formal level, it's often -- or even usually -- impossible to guess the nationality of a writer from his use of the language.) SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com [...] > (I don't want you to take this as a claim that British English is in > some way "purer", "better", or "more expressive" than American > English: there are plenty of cases where the reverse is true. I very much wish I'd chosen another way of saying that. The expression "the reverse is true" implies that I believe the terms I put in inverted commas can be used objectively in describing versions of the language: I don't. I might use words like that when discussing _style_, but that's a completely different matter. > At the > formal level, it's often -- or even usually -- impossible to guess the > nationality of a writer from his use of the language.) If, by any chance, you doubt this, just consider messages in this newsgroup. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> At the >> formal level, it's often -- or even usually -- impossible to guess the >> nationality of a writer from his use of the language.) > > If, by any chance, you doubt this, just consider messages in this > newsgroup. I agree that he should do. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >>»excavators should be handling at least some of their >>bounty with gloves, and freezing samples as they are >>found, dirt and all,« >The phrase means "The something as well as everything else?" It >doesn't make sense with "with" or as "including something and all". Thanks for the answers so far! To clarify my point: »dirt« is a noun phrase as well as »dirt and all«. But consider: »Freeze as found, dirt and all!« (abbreviated form of the text above) and compare this with »Freeze as found, dirt!« The second sentence sounds wrong to me. While it would make sense to write: »Freeze as found, including dirt!« So why should it be allowed to drop »including« in the first case? > >>»excavators should be handling at least some of their > >>bounty with gloves, and freezing samples as they are [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > So why should it be allowed to drop »including« > in the first case? You ask "why"? What sort of answer are you hoping for? "It is allowed because the English Teachers Convention of 1973 passed such a resolution"? It's just one of those *things*. You've got it. Be happy you've got it. You can say "dirt and all" and you can say "including the dirt!" and you cannot say a bunch of other rhings. There's no why or wherefore or rhyme or reason. You can say "even the dirt!" too. Now, just try to explain what "even" means. I think German has some words hard to define and explain too, nicht wahr? SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux >>»Freeze as found, dirt and all!« >>»Freeze as found, dirt!« (...) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >allowed because the English Teachers Convention of 1973 passed >such a resolution"? You are right. I have asked the wrong question. The question I should have asked would be like: »Did I got it right that "including dirt and everything else" can be written as "dirt and all", but "including the dirt" can not be written as just "dirt"?« >It's just one of those *things*. You've got it. >Be happy you've got it. And you seem to confirm that it is like this. > >>»Freeze as found, dirt and all!« > >>»Freeze as found, dirt!« (...) > >>»Freeze as found, including dirt!« (...) > >>So why should it be allowed to drop »including« > >>in the first case? > >You ask "why"? What sort of answer are you hoping for? "It is > >allowed because the English Teachers Convention of 1973 passed [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And you seem to confirm that it is like this. Yes. I don't mean to scold about asking "Why?". It seems to be a natural question when learning another language -- I've found myself doing it when wrestling with some unpredictable feature of Dutch or French. We see it here a lot. But it doesn't seem to match the normal "Why?" that looks for a historical explanation. It's more like "How do I know whether to...." or "Is there a way to know how to treat this..." "Is there a pattern or category that would help me?" Plus, maybe a touch of "Why do those people put up with such a strange feature in their language when any outsider can see it is unnecessary and confusing to the rest of us?" SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux |
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.