 |
 | 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 2004By in large?
I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and heard it. Is this "in" version common?  SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor > today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and > heard it. > > Is this "in" version common? I'd hope it's fairly rare, on the whole. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor >> today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I'd hope it's fairly rare, on the whole. You mean "in the hole", Shirley? Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote on 02 Jan 2004: > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor > today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and > heard it. > > Is this "in" version common? It's merely an indication that the ignorant are less fearful of outing themselves in America's social crazy quilt of inclusiveness and diversity. Such linguistic luddites normally harmless alone and in pairs, but when they gather together in crowds, they can be pernicious. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. Franke: >It's merely an indication that the ignorant are less fearful of outing >themselves in America's social crazy quilt of inclusiveness and >diversity. And here I thought Franke LIKED diversity! Hypocrite! So, dissing "ignorant" people is OK but criticising Asian racists is not? Maybe in Franke's world of make-believe. >Such linguistic luddites normally harmless alone and in >pairs, I think this clause needs a verb. >"Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote on 02 Jan 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >diversity. Such linguistic luddites normally harmless alone and in >pairs, but when they gather together in crowds, they can be pernicious. It's a sign of the social influence of electronic comunications, which enable people who use such terms and phrases to write for a widfer ublic. Twenty years ago, such people would not have expressed themselves in writing to the same extent. Their school teachers may have seen it in essays, family or friends may have seen it in letters, but it would not have reached a wider public. Electronic comunications changed that. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm hayesmstw@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes) wrote on 02 Jan 2004: >>"Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote on 02 Jan 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Electronic comunications changed that. Agreed. And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It doesn't matter what they write but *that* they write". [Maniacal laughter punctuates the atmosphere from stage right as shadows of sledge- and ballpeen-hammer-swinging arms smash the shadows of wagging tongues and typing fingers accompanied by a counterpoint of dull grunts (on viola da gamba) and sharp shrieks (on calliope)] SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Agreed. And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It doesn't > matter what they write but *that* they write". [Maniacal laughter > punctuates the atmosphere from stage right as shadows of sledge- and > ballpeen-hammer-swinging arms smash the shadows of wagging tongues and > typing fingers accompanied by a counterpoint of dull grunts (on viola > da gamba) and sharp shrieks (on calliope)] It's all very well to ridicule this "method" which, especially during the 70s, was carried way too far, but as a language teacher yourself, would you not recommend to your students that the way to learn was to practise - to speak/write, without worrying too much about mistakes? Certainly with foreign languages, people who won't utter or write a word unless it's perfect never ever acquire fluency. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 04 Jan 2004: >> Agreed. And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It >> doesn't matter what they write but *that* they write". [Maniacal [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > utter or write a word unless it's perfect never ever acquire > fluency. Yes, you're quite right, Robert. I do tell students to practice and forget about making mistakes. I even tell them that when writing business letters in English, it is important to communicate their information in clear but not necessarily "perfect English". I give them real examples of what I consider acceptably clear but quite imperfect business letters in English written by Taiwanese and native speakers of English. That gives them some self-confidence. If I really felt that it was necessary to speak and write perfect English, I would never speak or write myself. I tell students that I and all other native speakers of English make mistakes just as they make mistakes in Chinese and Taiwanese, their native languages. Once they fully understand the implications of this fact, they are more willing to expose themselves as imperfect English speakers and writers. I was just being my normally excessive self. We normally accept errors like this from those who are learning the language and those who should have learned the language "perfectly"[1] as a mother- tongue but didn't, but we do correct them and hope that they will not make the same mistake again, unlike some of the incorrigible anglophones who post voluminously here. [1] A much-abused notion that seems to me much misunderstood as well. It was used against me in a recent discussion on sci.lang. Even if it is true that we learn our mother-tongue perfectly, it is equally true that every anglophone's mother-tongue is not Standard English, and that even in cases where it is, no one is infallible. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Robert Bannister <robban@it.net.au> wrote on 04 Jan 2004: > I was just being my normally excessive self. I have many days like that. Thanks. SignatureRob Bannister CyberCypher wrote, in part: > And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It doesn't > matter what they write but *that* they write". What is the American Council on Reading? SignatureSML ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu <http://pirate-women.com> sl560_delete_this_@columbia.edu spake thus: > CyberCypher wrote, in part: > > > And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It doesn't > > matter what they write but *that* they write". > > What is the American Council on Reading? The American Counsel is: "Don't go to Reading - the traffic is terrible". SignatureDavid ===== > sl560_delete_this_@columbia.edu spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The American Counsel is: "Don't go to Reading - the traffic is > terrible". Lots of changing going on there over the years. (Basingstoke, it is.) Cheers, Sage sl560_delete_this_@columbia.edu (Sara Lorimer) wrote on 05 Jan 2004: > CyberCypher wrote, in part: > >> And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It doesn't >> matter what they write but *that* they write". > > What is the American Council on Reading? That may be only an approximation of the name. There was a big push during the 1960s to encourage Americans to read. I can't remember if it was a governmental body or a private organization, but I do remember seeing their ads in 1966 or 1967. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. >CyberCypher wrote, in part: > >> And to paraphrase the American Council on Reading, "It doesn't >> matter what they write but *that* they write". > >What is the American Council on Reading? A sub-committee of the Bolivian Committee on Maidenhead? Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor today. > "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and heard it. > > Is this "in" version common? *Very* ... Cheers, Sage > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor > today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and > heard it. > > Is this "in" version common? Common as muck. I'm sure you know, as do the Hornblower / Ramage / Aubrey freaks that we're dealing with a nautical term from C17 meaning to sail with the wind near the beam. Whereas 'full and by' is sailing close-hauled to the wind. -- John 'Handsomely now ye lubbers' Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor > > today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > John 'Handsomely now ye lubbers' Dean Boy, I'm glad you didn't mention Bolitho, as well. I've just finished A. Kent/D. Reeman's latest in his increasingly turgid tales of the Bolitho family. Kent's turned into the Barbara Cartland (NAE Danielle Steele) of the naval history fiction writers. (By the way, we probably looked at the same sites/cites.) Cheers, Sage >> I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor >> today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the wind near the beam. Whereas 'full and by' is sailing > close-hauled to the wind. I'm a bit confused here. According to my trusty Falconer's dictionary, "large" means sailing with the wind from abaft the beam (I've always wanted to use that phrase), but not dead astern. But "full and by" refers to sailing close-hauled, i.e., as nearly into the wind as possible. Does the "by" not mean the same thing in the two phrases? Unfortunately Falconer doesn't define "by" alone, but he offers "full" as a synonym for "full and by". SignatureRay Heindl (remove the Xs to reply) >>> I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor >>> today. "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > two phrases? Unfortunately Falconer doesn't define "by" alone, but he > offers "full" as a synonym for "full and by". It's good to see young people taking an interest in this fascinating subject. I have to say, for myself, that I have always felt the 4,000 words devoted by the OED to full, by, large, by and large and full and by to be inadequate and I have long sought a suitable forum to express my own views on the subject. The other two wedding guests may continue on their way, I'm talking to YOU now.... 'By' , as per OED, has a nautical meaning of 'in the general direction of'. So to steer 'by the wind' is to steer as close to the direction of the wind as possible. Falconer's Dictionary of the Marine http://southseas.nla.gov.au/refs/falc/contents.html makes it clear that 'full and by' means as nearly in the direction of the wind as possible while still ensuring the sails remain full of wind. This usually means no closer than six points of the wind. 'By and large' also means as nearly as possible in the direction of the wind, but in this case keeping the wind astern or at the least no further forward than directly abeam (at an angle of 90 degrees to the side of the ship). A good helmsman could be relied on to steer full and by ('Keep her Full' is a command that Falconer quotes). A *very* good helmsman could steer close and by. An average matlow could not be trusted to do better than by and large. Hence 'by and large' became the phrase for 'roughly' or 'approximately'. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply >> I'm a bit confused here. According to my trusty Falconer's >> dictionary, "large" means sailing with the wind from abaft the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > direction of'. So to steer 'by the wind' is to steer as close to > the direction of the wind as possible. That sounds suspiciously like the use of "by" in compass readings such as "north by east". For some reason I'd always thought of the latter usage as being similar to the "by" in dimensions, such as "two by four". > Falconer's Dictionary of the Marine > http://southseas.nla.gov.au/refs/falc/contents.html makes it clear [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > large. Hence 'by and large' became the phrase for 'roughly' or > 'approximately'. Thanks, that clears it up. Just watch where you point that crossbow. SignatureRay Heindl (remove the Xs to reply) > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor today. > "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and heard it. > > Is this "in" version common? Far too common, judging by a quick Google. I found half a dozen on Google News too, and emailed the papers concerned. Adrian > > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor today. > > "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and heard it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Far too common, judging by a quick Google. I found half a dozen on Google > News too, and emailed the papers concerned. If I'd thought you weren't streaks ahead, I'd have had another thing coming. Mike. > "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote > > > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor today. > > > "By _and_ large" is the way I've always written, said, and heard it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If I'd thought you weren't streaks ahead, I'd have had another thing coming. Streaks? Is that another one? I don't recognize it. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Streaks? Is that another one? I don't recognize it. Heard the other day: "part of the course" for "par for the course". Matti > "Donna Richoux" <trio@euronet.nl> wrote... > > > > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Heard the other day: "part of the course" for "par for the course". I was once accused of being a "mind of information" (instead of "mine"). Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org Maria Conlon: > > I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor today. > > ... Is this "in" version common? Adrian Bailey: > Far too common, judging by a quick Google. Eh? "by and large" 428,000 "by in large" 5,710 That's just about 75:1. Of course, a few will be false hits, e.g. due to sentences ending in "by". SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Don't get clever at 5PM Friday." msb@vex.net -- Tom Van Vleck > Maria Conlon: >>> I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's just about 75:1. Of course, a few will be false hits, e.g. due > to sentences ending in "by". Adrian didn't mention ratios. Over 5000 occurences makes it *too common* for me, too. m. > Maria Conlon: >>> I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That's just about 75:1. Of course, a few will be false hits, e.g. due > to sentences ending in "by". Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and thought it was 'by in large'. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply >> Maria Conlon: >>>> I saw the phrase "by in large" in an online letter to the editor [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard > them and thought it was 'by in large'. They could of. m. >Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and >thought it was 'by in large'. I think your wright, to all intensive purposes. But any one who things I could care less has another thing coming. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm Hayes: >>Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and >>thought it was 'by in large'. > >I think your wright, to all intensive purposes. But any one who things I >could >care less has another thing coming. LOL! That was pretty cheesy, no offense. BTW, still, no one has explained to me why the saying is "have another think coming"; I've *always* heard people use "thing". I don't think it's fair to categorize that one with "by in large", "your vs you're", & "could care less". After all, as I already said last time "another thing" came up, Judas Priest had a hit song called "You've Got another Thin*G* Comin'" back in the late 70's or early 80's. It's definitely been part of the pop culture since. Come to think of it, Ben Folds Five had a song called "Battle Of Who Could Care Less", I think. So, maybe that's officially an acceptable saying now too. > Hayes: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Got another Thin*G* Comin'" back in the late 70's or early 80's. It's > definitely been part of the pop culture since. When this phrase is used out of its original context, "thing" is preferable. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/thing.html > Come to think of it, Ben Folds Five had a song called "Battle Of Who Could Care > Less", I think. So, maybe that's officially an acceptable saying now too. Acceptable, of course. Normal, in the US. But stupid. Adrian Adrian: >When this phrase is used out of its original context, "thing" is preferable. >http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/thing.html OK...based on that website "thing" is *always* preferable and "think" was just a cheesy pun. So how come people here have acted like the phrase *is* "you've got another think coming"? > Adrian: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was just a cheesy pun. So how come people here have acted like the > phrase *is* "you've got another think coming"? You misunderstand. "You've got another think coming" is the original and correct version. Grammatically it should be, "If you think that, you've got another *thought* coming", but was deliberately (or mistakenly) said in this jocular fashion. "You've got another *thing* coming" is a mishearing of the original. m. > "You've got another think coming" is the original and correct version. > Grammatically it should be, "If you think that, you've got another *thought* > coming", but was deliberately (or mistakenly) said in this jocular fashion. It seems to me that "thought" is not quite the original sense. "Think" in the original seems to refer to the action of thinking (i.e. "think again!"), not the thing being thought. If that's so, I guess it ought to be the gerund: "another thinking coming". Of course, that doesn't sound right, the original being so ingrained. Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > > "You've got another think coming" is the original and correct version. > > Grammatically it should be, "If you think that, you've got another > > *thought* coming" ... > It seems to me that "thought" is not quite the original sense. "Think" in > the original seems to refer to the action of thinking (i.e. "think again!"), But the word for the action of thinking is "thought", so the previous analysis is correct. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "These days, it seems even PCs have to be PC." msb@vex.net | -- Michael Quinion My text in this article is in the public domain. > > > "You've got another think coming" is the original and correct version. > > > Grammatically it should be, "If you think that, you've got another [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But the word for the action of thinking is "thought", so the previous > analysis is correct. I'm not convinced. To me, the noun "thought" is the product of thinking, or the discipline of thinking ("applying thought"), rather than a specific instance of the act. I've just looked at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=think and found the following excerpt (taken from the AHD): think, n. The act or an instance of deliberate or extended thinking; a meditation. which fits in with other idiomatic usage: "I'm just having a think", the result of which might be announced "I've just had a thought." Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org M: >Grammatically it should be, "If you think that, you've got another *thought* >coming", but was deliberately (or mistakenly) said in this jocular fashion. >"You've got another *thing* coming" is a mishearing of the original. I've got it now. Thanks. Although, now, I'd suppose that the "thing" version is the more common one. > M: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've got it now. Thanks. Although, now, I'd suppose that the > "thing" version is the more common one. Not in my (UK) experience. m. > > M: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not in my (UK) experience. Nor mine, but I suppose a usage pattern depends on one's preferred conversational group. Two of my mother's favorite argument lines: "If you think, etc. . . then you've got another think coming", and "Believe you me". Durkin: >wo of my mother's favorite argument lines: > >"If you think, etc. . . then you've got another think coming", and >"Believe you me". The rappers tend to use "trust you me", from what I've heard. > Two of my mother's favorite argument lines: > > "If you think, etc. . . then you've got another think coming", and > "Believe you me". I don't use either phrase all that much any more, but I do still say them on occasion. Of think/thing: The "think" version, of course, is my usage -- not the Johnny-come-lately "thing" version. OBaue: "Johnny-come-lately" is just a "newcomer" or an "upstart," as far as I know. I think the newness can be relative. Btw, I don't always capitalize "Johnny," but I suppose I should. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. Maria Conlon filted: >> Two of my mother's favorite argument lines: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Of think/thing: The "think" version, of course, is my usage -- not the >Johnny-come-lately "thing" version. I have a lot of trouble imagining how the "thing" version could ever have got off the ground...clearly the sequence of mutations is something like: "If you think that, you're wrong" "If you think that, you'd better think again" "If you think that, you'd better use up another think" "If you think that, you've got another think coming" Did you ever stumble across an obviously-corrupted usage where the original was so plain you wondered how the corrupted one got that way in the first place?...there was a cartoon in "Datamation" circa 1980 that showed a primitive tribesman pounding away on hide drums emitting a block something like: 10 LET A=3 20 FOR I=1 TO 10 30 INPUT x$ 40 GOSUB 2010 50 NEXT I Nearby stood a couple of white fellas in pith helmets, one declaiming to the other "I hear they can even use their drums to send simple messages".... Was there even *one* person in the programming field in 1980 who could read that and not realize that the punchline was supposed to be "send BASIC messages"?... What nitwit not only didn't get the joke, but found it necessary to "improve" on the wording in such a way?...r "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote... > > Two of my mother's favorite argument lines: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > far as I know. I think the newness can be relative. Btw, I don't > always capitalize "Johnny," but I suppose I should. For me, a Johnny-come-lately is someone whose arrival is overdue; so, unlike your usage, mine is rather pejorative. However, I see that NSOED gives a) newcomer b) new recruit. Have I got it wrong? Matti > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > unlike your usage, mine is rather pejorative. However, I see that NSOED > gives a) newcomer b) new recruit. Have I got it wrong? I am not familiar with the usage in your sense of latecomer, although in the sense of newcomer the expression is often used pejoratively. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > "Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I am not familiar with the usage in your sense of latecomer, although in > the sense of newcomer the expression is often used pejoratively. To me it's always pejorative. Mike. > To me it's always pejorative. Same here. It implies the brash newcomer who either shoots off his mouth or is given unearned status in the organization. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. > Adrian: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a cheesy pun. So how come people here have acted like the phrase *is* "you've > got another think coming"? I had never come across the "thing" version till it came up on AUE. SignatureRob Bannister >> OK...based on that website "thing" is *always* preferable and "think" was just >> a cheesy pun. So how come people here have acted like the phrase *is* "you've >> got another think coming"? > >I had never come across the "thing" version till it came up on AUE. Me neither. Perhaps it's an AUE think/thing. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > I had never come across the "thing" version till it came up on AUE. I always *thought* my mother was saying "thing" until I figured out years later what the expression was supposed to be. I never asked her what she had actually been saying, though. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "Unjutsly malinged? I think not." msb@vex.net -- Ross Howard >Hayes: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Got another Thin*G* Comin'" back in the late 70's or early 80's. It's >definitely been part of the pop culture since. The saying "If you think that you have another think coming" is an invitation to rethink your position, with a strong suggestion that you ought to do so, and that eventyually circumstances will force you to do so. But "rethinging" your position makes no sense to me at all. >Come to think of it, Ben Folds Five had a song called "Battle Of Who Could Care >Less", I think. So, maybe that's officially an acceptable saying now too. I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm Hayes: >The saying "If you think that you have another think coming" is an invitation >to rethink your position, with a strong suggestion that you ought to do so, >and that eventyually circumstances will force you to do so. > >But "rethinging" your position makes no sense to me at all. Now, what you're saying makes perfect sense. But, what *is* the original saying then? Because someone else just told me "another 'thing' coming" was the original and "think" was a joke/pun. >I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. He turned out to be a bigger fake than Nas-tradamus! >>I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it >>Orwellian? > > I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was > correct. He turned out to be a bigger fake than Nas-tradamus! There is quite a contrast between the obtuse literality with which you read others' posts and the indulgence you demand for your own singular usages. -- Mike Nitabach > Hayes: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > saying then? Because someone else just told me "another 'thing' coming" was > the original and "think" was a joke/pun. The someone else was mistaken. Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org > Hayes: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. He > turned out to be a bigger fake than Nas-tradamus! If you think it was Nas-tradamus, you've got another think coming. Cheers, Sage Sage: >If you think it was Nas-tradamus, you've got another think coming. It was a rap pun. Nas-tradamus is a rapper married to Kelis, the woman who sings "Milkshake". What do you people make of that song's lyrics, anyway? > I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. In Britain (Airstrip One) the clocks strike thirteen, don't they? > Hayes: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > saying then? Because someone else just told me "another 'thing' coming" was > the original and "think" was a joke/pun. It seems quite clear to me that expressions along the lines as "to have sthg coming to one" predate the witticism. > >I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? > > I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. You're pulling the long betrousered one, I take it. And do you regularly use the verb *prophesize? Adrian Adrian: >It seems quite clear to me that expressions along the lines as "to have sthg >coming to one" predate the witticism. I take it you mean "something" by "sthg"? Now, *someone* here *has to be* *wrong* because somebody just explained that the *original* saying was, "if that's what you think, then you've got another thought coming". >> >I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? >> >> I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. > >You're pulling the long betrousered one, I take it. What? >And do you regularly use >the verb *prophesize? Yeah. People who think they know the future are "prophets" and they "prophesize". Why? Do you not use it? > Yeah. People who think they know the future are "prophets" and they > "prophesize". Why? Do you not use it? In most of recorded history, they prophesy. SignatureRob Bannister > Adrian: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > *wrong* because somebody just explained that the *original* saying was, "if > that's what you think, then you've got another thought coming". My point is that the saying was a pun on a pre-existing idiom. Why is it wrong to use that pre-existing idiom? Why do we now have to conform to the pun? > >> >I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What? Your comment about '1984' was a joke, right? > >And do you regularly use > >the verb *prophesize? > > Yeah. People who think they know the future are "prophets" and they > "prophesize". Why? Do you not use it? No, they "prophesy". (pron. PROF-iss-eye) Adrian > > Adrian: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wrong to use that pre-existing idiom? Why do we now have to conform to the > pun? Please forgive me if I have this backwards, but I think you were misled by that page whose URL you gave us (it's not very clear). It may be that I'm misunderstanding what you say now. All that page says is: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/thing.html YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMING YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER THINK COMING Here's a case in which eagerness to avoid error leads to error. The original expression is the last part of a deliberately ungrammatical joke: "If that's what you think, you've got another think coming." "You've got another think coming" is what it means by "the original expression." They don't explain why they think it is a joke. You seem to think that it means that the original was "thing", and that "think" was a playful variation of this. Me, I'm convinced that "think" is older and "thing" was an accidental variation. Does Mastertext.com help show this? Well, it has Huck Finn - Tom was a good deal bothered about what to do for a spoon, but he said we'd got to have it; so he took a think. I see I was up a stump again, so I played another chicken bone and got another think. Tom Sawyer - I backed up agin the wall to have another think. We couldn't ever git away from them at this gait, and I couldn't hold on forever. So Tom took a think, and struck another idea. Then Mastertexts has two Dickens quotes where "think" is a dialectal pronunciation of "thing"! So that muddies the water a little. Never heerd of sich a think I wouldn't be a man and have such a think upon my mind! [snip] > > >And do you regularly use > > >the verb *prophesize? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, they "prophesy". (pron. PROF-iss-eye) I have a hunch that we have another orient/orientated in the making. prophesied 119,000 prophesized 10,700 Ratio 11:1 By my records, that ratio falls in the realm of "common mistake", not "common variant," but I just have the feeling that the use is growing fast. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > > Adrian: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Me, I'm convinced that "think" is older and "thing" was an accidental > variation. You've got me wrong. I understand that "original expression" refers to the joke with "think". My point is that the witticism uses the pre-existing idiom/structure "to have sthg coming", meaning "not to be able to avoid sthg". Therefore an expression like "If you believe that, you've got another thing coming" makes sense without reference to the "original" expression, and needn't be stigmatised. Adrian > "You've got another think coming" is what it means by "the original > expression." They don't explain why they think it is a joke. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Me, I'm convinced that "think" is older and "thing" was an accidental > variation. I did a bit of ProQuest searching. The earliest hit for "another thing is a false hit as it were, but I wonder whether it might be a clue to how the current usage developed. It's from a 1929 speech given by a General Electric executive on big business morals: Now in 1905 there was another thing coming round the bend that people didn't like, a thing known as Big Business. When we discussed this matter back in the 20th century, I recall that a lot of AUE people in the "think" camp didn't understand one of the points I was making about "thing": that "you've got another thing coming" makes sense because the "thing coming" is understood to mean "something about to happen that will be surprising or make you see things differently". "Another thing coming 'round the bend" is exactly how I think of the "another thing coming" usage. The first true hit for "another thing coming" is from a 1971 New York Times article. The article, with no by-line, reports the arrest of more than 500 persons in San Antonio in a raid of a gambling and stag party (Coop, were you there?). The article says: One of those taken into custody identified himself as "very prominent in the community" and declared, "After this, if the police think they are getting a raise they've got another thing coming." We can assume that the reporter thought of the expression as "thing", regardless of what the speaker thought. The second ProQuest hit is from later on in 1971, in a Washington Post article by Lewis M. Simons on Bangladesh refugees in India. Simons writes: For those who visualize endless columns of Bengalil men, women and children trekking down the dusty road to home, there is another thing coming. This is very interesting because it shows a usage of "another thing coming" divorced from the "if you think" antecedent. "Another think coming" hits begin around 1900, and may have been specifically associated with youth slang around that time. One of the earliest hits I could find lacked an explicit "think" antecedent: When the blood got back to my friend's face, and his heart out of his throat, he grew suddenly bold (reaction, I suppose), and felt like following the bear, and finishing the argument. but he had another think coming, which was that he didn't want to follow a silver-tip into cover so near dark, or perhaps any other old time for that matter, so he thankfully struck out for camp. From _Forest and Stream; A Journal of Outdoor Life, Travel, Nature Study, Shooting,..._, Jan. 12, 1901. (I get the sense that stories about hunting bears and wolves were very popular around the turn of the 20th century.) >Hayes: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >saying then? Because someone else just told me "another 'thing' coming" was >the original and "think" was a joke/pun. In what way was it a joke or a pun? If "thing" was the original, what was it supposed to mean? >>I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? > >I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. He >turned out to be a bigger fake than Nas-tradamus! Ah well, that must make "I could care less" incorerect as well! Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm Steve Hayes: >>>I first heard "I could care less" in 1984. Does that make it Orwellian? >> >>I don't get it. *Nothing* Orwell prophesized about 1984 was correct. He >>turned out to be a bigger fake than Nas-tradamus! > >Ah well, that must make "I could care less" incorerect as well! WHAT?! > >Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and > >thought it was 'by in large'. > > I think your wright, to all intensive purposes. ". . .to all intensive purposes. . ." Ah,That's the word/expression I was trying to recall! The only other common mis-expression I could come up with yesterday was "All and all" or "all in all", and the meanings of those are so close as to be almost irrelevant (even though I came up with 3,000,000 with one and only 100,000 on the other.) Of course, I have seen "all told" written as "all tolled", which can be twisted to be synonymous. Pat Durkin filted: >". . .to all intensive purposes. . ." Ah,That's the word/expression I was >trying to recall! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >almost irrelevant (even though I came up with 3,000,000 with one and only >100,000 on the other.) I wish that hundred thousand would learn to tow the line....r > Pat Durkin filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I wish that hundred thousand would learn to tow the line....r Good one. And I should have included "one in only", although sharper minds and eyes than mine would have seen it and, perhaps flatteringly, thought I had intended it. Pat Durkin: > The only other common mis-expression I could come up with yesterday > was "All and all" or "all in all", and the meanings of those are so > close as to be almost irrelevant ... "All and all" *has* a meaning, without specialized context? If you read the rec.travel groups, you'll probably see people asking more often about "sites" to visit in distant places than "sights". (Yes, of course there are situations where "site" is the correct word, but what most people are talking about are things you see.) Okay, maybe not *more* often, but *almost* as often. It occurred to me to test this with a phrase search on "must see sights" and "must see sites" in rec.travel.* using groups.google.com -- of course this would also pick up correctly hyphenated forms and those with quotation marks. I got 578 and 363 hits respectively, so the correct form is still a bit more common, at least in this particular phrase. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "This is as 'real' as your so-called life gets!" msb@vex.net | "Q Who", ST:TNG, Maurice Hurley My text in this article is in the public domain. > Pat Durkin: > > The only other common mis-expression I could come up with yesterday > > was "All and all" or "all in all", and the meanings of those are so > > close as to be almost irrelevant ... > > "All and all" *has* a meaning, without specialized context? Yes, I think so. To me it means, "all told", or "after all is said and done". I think that "all in all", at least from the sites listed in google (3.000,000) tends to mean "everything", God's presence, etc. Precious Lord Take My Hand.com - You Are My All In All at Precious ... ... You Are My All In All Words and Music: Dennis Jernigan You are my Strength when I am weak You are the Treasure that I seek You are my all in all. ... www.preciouslordtakemyhand.com/christianhymns/ youaremyallinall.html - 62k Well, I have only found 2 or 3 uses of "All and all" in my usage, compared to 40 instants that quote "one for all and all for one", etc. of the 100,000. Oops! Our all and all The Heavenly Father is our All and All. He is the Center of our lives. He is our First Love. He is the Cause of all things. ... www.mninter.net/~jimpower/jul/july16.htm - Could it be that Dylan Thomas and I and a few writers and speakers of an English-Irish mish-mash are the only ones who use "all and all"? Then maybe we few are just as subject to the intensive purposes error as the next. Shudder! I don't like being out in the cold like that, but there I must stay. > If you read the rec.travel groups, you'll probably see people asking > more often about "sites" to visit in distant places than "sights". > (Yes, of course there are situations where "site" is the correct word, > but what most people are talking about are things you see.) > > Okay, maybe not *more* often, but *almost* as often. You see it often enough on AUE. (But I think one will find the phrase corrected to "must-see" rather frequently in AUE, while that formation is not commented upon in "rec.travel", etc.) > It occurred to me > to test this with a phrase search on "must see sights" and "must see > sites" in rec.travel.* using groups.google.com -- of course this would > also pick up correctly hyphenated forms and those with quotation marks. > I got 578 and 363 hits respectively, so the correct form is still a bit > more common, at least in this particular phrase. >> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:25:54 -0000, "John Dean" ><john-dean@frag.lineone.net> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Of course, I have seen "all told" written as "all tolled", which can be >twisted to be synonymous. The first one that I noticed in electronic communications (and had not seen elsewhere) was "a waist of time" and "waisting time". I haven't seen it much recently, though, so perhaps some of the others will correct themselves. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > >Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and > >thought it was 'by in large'. > > I think your wright, to all intensive purposes. But any one who things I could > care less has another thing coming. Ah, many errors illustrated in one foul swoop! Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >> >Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and >> >thought it was 'by in large'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Ah, many errors illustrated in one foul swoop! It definitely deserves a stinking rebuke. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > >> >Betcha people started saying 'by 'n' large' and other peeps heard them and > >> >thought it was 'by in large'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Best regards, > Spehro Pefhany If you need any further help with this stuff, I'm at your beckon call. (I once caught that just before it went to press.) Cheers, Sage |
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.