Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

anytime

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Michael J Hardy - 10 Jan 2004 01:00 GMT
   Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
it seems compmletely new.  Is this used only by those people
(probably all under 25 or so) who make no distinction between
"anyway" and "any way"?     -- Mike Hardy
Donna Richoux - 10 Jan 2004 01:01 GMT
>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
> it seems compmletely new.  Is this used only by those people
> (probably all under 25 or so) who make no distinction between
> "anyway" and "any way"?     -- Mike Hardy

So what date did m-w.com give you when you looked up the word?

Signature

Hint, hint -- Donna Richoux

Michael J Hardy - 10 Jan 2004 01:10 GMT
> >     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> > I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> So what date did m-w.com give you when you looked up the word?

    OED doesn't have it at all.  But now I see that m-w
finds it in some book in 1926, but does not say which book
-- an uncouth omission.      -- Mike Hardy
Skitt - 10 Jan 2004 01:25 GMT
> Donna Richoux wrote:

>>>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>>> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> finds it in some book in 1926, but does not say which book
>  -- an uncouth omission.      -- Mike Hardy

anytime
adverb
at a time which is not or does not need to be decided or agreed:
Call round to see me anytime.
US We don't expect the economic situation to change anytime soon.

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/  

Raymond S. Wise - 10 Jan 2004 07:16 GMT
> > >     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> > > I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> finds it in some book in 1926, but does not say which book
>  -- an uncouth omission.      -- Mike Hardy

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, and the online dictionary at www.m-w.com
represents a version of that dictionary, does not have as part of its
mission quoting the first use. Only the OED does that, and it may very well
be that it is the only general dictionary on the planet which does so.

For that reason, your accusation that the editors of the Collegiate made an
"uncouth omission" is itself uncouth.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Charles Riggs - 10 Jan 2004 05:25 GMT
>>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>So what date did m-w.com give you when you looked up the word?

I wasn't aware m-w.com generally included information on how words are
typically used by young people or people sloppy with English.

I wasn't aware we should expect sarcastic responses when we ask a
perfectly reasonable question about word usage in alt.usage.english,
hint, hint.

Why not complain about off-topic questions for a change, they being in
sufficient quantity to generate a large number of complaints, hint,
hint?
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Raymond S. Wise - 10 Jan 2004 07:22 GMT
> >>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> >> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> sufficient quantity to generate a large number of complaints, hint,
> hint?

Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the online
Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently did so, and
found the term listed there. No usage note accompanies the entry: That is,
it is not a question of sloppy English. I thought Donna's reply was an
excellent one.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Charles Riggs - 11 Jan 2004 05:43 GMT
>> >>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>> >> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the online
>Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com .

Duh, of course, but he, you, and I could look it up in a dozen
dictionaries and we'd still not have an answer to the questions he
asked.

> He subsequently did so, and
>found the term listed there.

Then you must be either clairvoyant or be in communication with him
outside his newsgroup.

>No usage note accompanies the entry: That is,
>it is not a question of sloppy English.

There are other things to consider. In addition, your Merriam-Webster
does not have the last word on usage.

>I thought Donna's reply was an
>excellent one.

A good reply is one that answers a question; an excellent reply is one
that answers it very well. Franke, John Lawler, Stefano, and Evan all
made substantive responses: that is how the newsgroup is supposed to
work, I thought. So what are you smoking to make you think the
sarcastic response -- typical of Donna when she suspects someone
hasn't consulted one of her favourite sources -- was helpful,
substantive, or (Wow!) excellent? She left out the asking of what he
already knew about the subject or what his motives were when posting.
That'd be equally as typical and irrelevant.
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Raymond S. Wise - 11 Jan 2004 19:42 GMT
> >> >>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> >> >> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Then you must be either clairvoyant or be in communication with him
> outside his newsgroup.

Take a look at this thread at

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3fff4e98%240
%24570%24b45e6eb0%40senator-bedfellow.mit.edu&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe

%3Dimages%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26as_umsgid%3D3fff4e98%25240%2524570%252
4b45e6eb0%40senator-bedfellow.mit.edu%26lr%3D%26hl%3Den

or

http://tinyurl.com/27aps

where you can see that I wrote my reply to you *after* Michael J Hardy wrote
a post in which he showed that he had looked up the word subsequent to
Donna's advice: "now I see that m-w[....]"

> >No usage note accompanies the entry: That is,
> >it is not a question of sloppy English.
>
> There are other things to consider. In addition, your Merriam-Webster
> does not have the last word on usage.

Very well, let's compare the entry for "anytime" from other dictionaries.

Of the American dictionaries I consulted, the word "anytime" is presented,
as in the Collegiate, without a usage note in the AHD4 and the dictionary at
Infoplease.com at, respectively,

http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/A0356300.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0320976.html

The word "anytime" is presented in the *Encarta World English Dictionary,*
North American Edition, at

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/anytime.html

with a usage note, "informal."

Of the British dictionaries, *The Collins English Dictionary* at

www.wordreference.com

has no entry for "anytime." The *Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary* at

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3369&dict=CALD

contains an entry for "anytime" with no usage note. The *Cambridge
Dictionary of American English,* unsurprisingly, also contains "anytime"
with no usage note.

The Collegiate entry thus certainly appears to represent the consensus of
opinion about the usage of the word "anytime."

> >I thought Donna's reply was an
> >excellent one.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> already knew about the subject or what his motives were when posting.
> That'd be equally as typical and irrelevant.

I can't agree with you, Charles. I took Michael's post to mean that he was
unaware that there was a standard word, "anytime," based upon "any time."
Donna pointed out to him a way of verifying not only that there was such a
standard word, but that it had existed for a long time. Having him look it
up himself, instead of simply telling him, will make the knowledge more
likely to stick. This is a good thing. Donna's reply was excellent.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Charles Riggs - 12 Jan 2004 05:15 GMT
>> A good reply is one that answers a question; an excellent reply is one
>> that answers it very well. Franke, John Lawler, Stefano, and Evan all
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Donna pointed out to him a way of verifying not only that there was such a
>standard word, but that it had existed for a long time.

Pointing out that dictionaries exist and should be consulted is
mocking someone, nothing more. I'd have said nothing if this weren't
such a standard and tiresome ploy on her part. I keep wondering how
many newbies, especially, are so put off by it they never ask a
question of the group again. I'm not saying the member who started
this line of inquiry is new, but that many potential new members have
objected to the rude welcome they receive here, and no wonder --  not
that they are able to do much about it with her being the holder of
the group's Magna Carta. I'm also pissing in the wind to think I can
make a difference: you all love Donna. Being a practiced control
freak, she's seen to that.

>Having him look it
>up himself, instead of simply telling him, will make the knowledge more
>likely to stick. This is a good thing. Donna's reply was excellent.

If you consider it excellent to try to make a person look foolish
after he posts to this group, then you'll think it excellent that I
single out a sentence you wrote yesterday:

'The Collegiate entry thus certainly appears to represent the
consensus of opinion about the usage of the word "anytime."'

Normally I wouldn't comment on a c-o-p, but I'm making a point:

None of us is in a position to look down our nose at people wanting to
improve their use of the language, not even John Lawler, which he
doesn't, and not Ms Richoux, which she does.
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Raymond S. Wise - 12 Jan 2004 10:13 GMT
> >> A good reply is one that answers a question; an excellent reply is one
> >> that answers it very well. Franke, John Lawler, Stefano, and Evan all
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> make a difference: you all love Donna. Being a practiced control
> freak, she's seen to that.

The "control freak" comment strikes me as odd, but about us all loving
Donna, yes, that appears to be the case--you excepted, of course.

> >Having him look it
> >up himself, instead of simply telling him, will make the knowledge more
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Normally I wouldn't comment on a c-o-p, but I'm making a point:

You're going to have to explain your point, then.

First, about "c-o-p," I don't have a clue what you mean. It looks like it
should represent an acronym, but I checked a couple of acronym Web pages and
found nothing relevant.

You appear to think it will make me look foolish to quote me saying "The
Collegiate entry thus certainly appears to represent the consensus of
opinion about the usage of the word 'anytime.'" How could that possibly make
me look foolish? It followed directly from what I had posted concerning the
treatment of the word "anytime" in several American and British
dictionaries, given which, it hardly seems controversial, much less likely
to make me look foolish.

Where there's smoke, there's supposed to be fire. So where's the fire?

> None of us is in a position to look down our nose at people wanting to
> improve their use of the language, not even John Lawler, which he
> doesn't, and not Ms Richoux, which she does.

I reject your conclusion that Donna is "looking down her nose" at anyone.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2004 15:09 GMT
[...]
> > None of us is in a position to look down our nose at people wanting to
> > improve their use of the language, not even John Lawler, which he
> > doesn't, and not Ms Richoux, which she does.
>
> I reject your conclusion that Donna is "looking down her nose" at anyone.

I do, too: but Donna certainly does tease, as she did here; and
there's always the risk that it *can* look snooty. (Speaking, of
course, as one who does it a hell of a lot more, and by no means
always as innocently.)

Mike.
Charles Riggs - 13 Jan 2004 06:49 GMT
>[...]
>> > None of us is in a position to look down our nose at people wanting to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>course, as one who does it a hell of a lot more, and by no means
>always as innocently.)

I'll keep your perception in mind, Mike: teasing, not snotty. Perhaps
I let her bother me more than I should. She comes on like a house on
fire at times, but perhaps that's just her way.
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Maria Conlon - 13 Jan 2004 20:27 GMT
> She comes on like a house on fire at times...

Quick survey for readers: Which are you more likely to say, "house on
fire" or "house afire"?

I would tend to say "afire," but I know I'm sort of "different" at
times. Charles will, no doubt, chalk this up to my living in the Great
Midwest, and thus having much more linguistic latitude and all-around
smartitude than those "unfortunates" limited to the left and right
coastal areas.

Well, maybe I've guessed wrong about what Charles will think. <smile>
Signature

Maria Conlon
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.

Ross Howard - 13 Jan 2004 20:32 GMT
>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Well, maybe I've guessed wrong about what Charles will think. <smile>

With few exceptions[1]* it's always "house on fire" when used
colloquially in BrE, although "come on like a house on fire" is not
the expression that's used; "get on like a house on fire" is what we
say (to refer, weirdly,  to a problem-free relationship).

[1. Four people in the Orkneys may be hanging on in there.)

--
Ross Howard
Skitt - 13 Jan 2004 21:27 GMT
>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
> Quick survey for readers: Which are you more likely to say, "house on
> fire" or "house afire"?

On.

Signature

Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup.      -- Dogbert

Evan Kirshenbaum - 14 Jan 2004 00:35 GMT
> >> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
> >
> > Quick survey for readers: Which are you more likely to say, "house
> > on fire" or "house afire"?
>
> On.

Both, but with something of a bias toward "afire".  I think.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |All tax revenue is the result of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |holding a gun to somebody's head.
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |Not paying taxes is against the law.
                                      |If you don't pay your taxes, you'll
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |be fined.  If you don't pay the fine,
   (650)857-7572                      |you'll be jailed.  If you try to
                                      |escape from jail, you'll be shot.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |                  P.J. O'Rourke

Pat Durkin - 14 Jan 2004 02:11 GMT
> > >> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Both, but with something of a bias toward "afire".  I think.

afire.
R F - 14 Jan 2004 04:54 GMT
> > > >> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> afire.

"On fire".  I suppose it's a non sequitur, but "afire" seems
archaic/poetic to me.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 14 Jan 2004 18:04 GMT
> "On fire".  I suppose it's a non sequitur, but "afire" seems
> archaic/poetic to me.

It's certainly archaic for me, but it survives in the fixed phrase
"like a house afire".  Interestingly, "ablaze" is still perfectly
active.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The Elizabethans had so many words
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |for the female genitals that it is
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |quite hard to speak a sentence of
                                      |modern English without inadvertently
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |mentioning at least three of them.
   (650)857-7572                      |             Terry Pratchett

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Harvey Van Sickle - 13 Jan 2004 21:36 GMT
On 13 Jan 2004, Maria Conlon wrote

>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
> Quick survey for readers: Which are you more likely to say, "house
> on fire" or "house afire"?

"On", which is definitely what I'd write.  When spoken, though, I'd say
"on fire" so quickly that the "n" would almost disappear and it might
be mistaken for "afire".

Signature

Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 21 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)

Aaron J. Dinkin - 13 Jan 2004 22:28 GMT
> Quick survey for readers: Which are you more likely to say, "house on
> fire" or "house afire"?

"On fire". I don't think I ever use the word "afire".

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
CyberCypher - 14 Jan 2004 00:10 GMT
"Maria Conlon" <mariaconlon001@hotmail.com> wrote on 14 Jan 2004:

>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Well, maybe I've guessed wrong about what Charles will think.
> <smile>

"on", without a doubt.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.

Charles Riggs - 14 Jan 2004 04:12 GMT
>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Well, maybe I've guessed wrong about what Charles will think. <smile>

It appears, so far, that you've been overruled, so I needn't
comment... grin, snicker, snort, and a big old :-)
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Maria Conlon - 15 Jan 2004 18:37 GMT
>>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It appears, so far, that you've been overruled, so I needn't
> comment... grin, snicker, snort, and a big old :-)

Ross: "on fire" [1]
Skitt: "on fire"
Evan: both, bias toward "afire"
Pat: "afire"
R F: "on fire" [2]
Harvey: "on fire"
Aaron: "on fire"
Franke: "on fire"
David56: "on fire"
Ray H.: "afire" [3]
Charles: "on fire"
Maria: "afire"

I count eight "on fires" and four "afires" (I'm counting Evan's vote in
the "afire" column), but I don't feel too "overruled." For one thing, my
guess is that many people who would be inclined to use "afire" are not
into Usenet or are not being "published" otherwise. I will admit,
though, that we "afire"-users are, most likely, a vanishing breed.

***************
[1] Ross adds: it's always "house on fire" when used colloquially in
BrE, although "come on like a house on fire" is not the expression
that's used; "get on like a house on fire" is what we say (to refer,
weirdly, to a problem-free relationship).

Maria: I agree with the usage of "get on like" and the meaning Ross
gives, but I have also heard (and used) "comes on like a house afire,"
meaning, more or less, "with great enthusiasm, other emotion, or
strength." And for the "enthusiasm/etc." meaning, I also use "comes on
like gangbusters," yet another dated usage.

[2] R F adds" "afire" seems archaic/poetic to him. Evan agrees about
"archaic." I do, too (and about "poetic," as well), but I find I have
several active words in my vocab that even I recognize as being archaic
to most people. Usually, those words are from my Southern heritage, with
some KJV thrown in for good measure. (Of course, as happens all too
often, I can't come up with concrete examples at the moment.)

[3] Ray adds: The Google ratio for "like a house on fire":"like a house
afire" is about 4:1.  But "on fire" sounds rather odd to me; I much
prefer "afire".  The RHUD lists both versions, with "on fire" first.

Thanks to all who responded. This is very interesting to me.

Signature

Maria Conlon
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.

david56 - 14 Jan 2004 10:15 GMT
mariaconlon001@hotmail.com spake thus:

> > She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> smartitude than those "unfortunates" limited to the left and right
> coastal areas.

On.  I don't think I've heard "afire" in real life in the UK.

Signature

David
=====

Ray Heindl - 14 Jan 2004 21:35 GMT
>> She comes on like a house on fire at times...
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Well, maybe I've guessed wrong about what Charles will think.
> <smile>

The Google ratio for "like a house on fire":"like a house afire" is
about 4:1.  But "on fire" sounds rather odd to me; I much prefer
"afire".  The RHUD lists both versions, with "on fire" first.

Signature

Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)

Charles Riggs - 13 Jan 2004 06:49 GMT
>The "control freak" comment strikes me as odd, but about us all loving
>Donna, yes, that appears to be the case--you excepted, of course.

With all that love, she doesn't need mine.

What would you call someone who wields the FAQ like a club: as a
document there to admonish rather than to inform? I'd prefer less
control on our discussions than we have, hoping we'd lean towards
English usage at least some of the time, but with no restrictions
attempted on what posters write about it.

In how many newsgroups do you see the rule book, er, FAQ, published
daily? I read, or have read, a number of language groups, along with
other types, and my answer is one, not counting AUE's sister group. I
see it as an attempt to impose the group's will on others,
particularly newcomers. Other groups don't find this necessary, why
does this one, in the persona of Donna Richoux? She won't answer since
she has me killfiled, but perhaps someone else will.

>> Normally I wouldn't comment on a c-o-p, but I'm making a point:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>should represent an acronym, but I checked a couple of acronym Web pages and
>found nothing relevant.

Consensus of opinion. I was surprised that you of all people would be
that lax. From C**per it wouldn't raise an eyebrow, we're so used to
his brand of English, but from you?
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Raymond S. Wise - 13 Jan 2004 09:55 GMT
> >The "control freak" comment strikes me as odd, but about us all loving
> >Donna, yes, that appears to be the case--you excepted, of course.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> that lax. From C**per it wouldn't raise an eyebrow, we're so used to
> his brand of English, but from you?

I wondered what you were getting at. Then it occurred to me that you thought
"consensus of opinion" to be redundant. I took a look at a couple of usage
guides. The first, *The American Heritage Book of English Usage* is
descriptivist:

From
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C002/012.html

[quote]

2. Style: Parallelism, Passives, Redundancy, and Wordiness

§ 12. consensus

Many grammarians have condemned the expression _consensus of opinion_ as
redundant since a consensus itself entails a judgment about which there is
general agreement. But many reputable writers have used _consensus of
opinion,_ and some have defended it on the grounds that a consensus may
involve attitudes other than opinions; thus, there may be a _consensus of
beliefs_ or a _consensus of usage._ Nonetheless, the qualifying _of_ phrase
can usually be omitted with no loss of clarity. The sentence _It was the
consensus of opinion among the sportswriters that the game should not have
been played_ says nothing that is not said by _It was the consensus of the
sportswriters that the game should not have been played._

[end quote]

The second usage guide, *The Columbia Guide to Standard American English* by
Kenneth G. Wilson, describes itself as both a descriptive and prescriptive
guide. However, after having read what he means by those terms, it is clear
that it is just as much a descriptivist usage guide as is the American
Heritage guide cited above. The following entry does indeed seem to
accurately describe how the expression "consensus of usage" is used.

From
http://www.bartleby.com/68/53/1453.html

[quote]

_Consensus,_ many commentators insist, already means "an agreement among
holders of opinion," so consensus of opinion must be redundant. Not entirely
so: there are many kinds of consensus that do not involve
opinion--_consensus_ of political forces, of military tactics, of
ordinances, of evidence, and the like. Actually, _consensus_ (_of opinion_)
is in divided usage; its chief flaw is a matter of style: it is not as
concise as some would wish. Use it if you will, but if you do, be aware that
some people will judge you ignorant on what they are sure is a blunder in
usage.

[end quote]

I see nothing in the above which would lead me to object to "consensus of
opinion," nor which would justify your calling me "lax" for having used it.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Skitt - 13 Jan 2004 20:48 GMT
['twas written:]

>>>> Normally I wouldn't comment on a c-o-p, but I'm making a point:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> "consensus of opinion," nor which would justify your calling me "lax"
> for having used it.

Right, but Charles wanted to be one of the "many grammarians", and if not
that, at least one of the "some people", and that is his right, lest the
usage guides be erroneous.

In other words, momma told you there'd be days like this.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Maria Conlon - 15 Jan 2004 18:37 GMT
> In other words, momma told you there'd be days like this.

"Mamma *said* there'd be days like this..." (from a musical point of
view).

Signature

Maria Conlon
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.

Don Aitken - 15 Jan 2004 21:02 GMT
>> In other words, momma told you there'd be days like this.
>
>"Mamma *said* there'd be days like this..." (from a musical point of
>view).

But "Momma told me not to come".

Want some whiskey in your water
Sugar in your tea
What's all these crazy questions they askin' me
This is the craziest party there could ever be
Don't turn on the lights, 'cause I don't want to see

Mama told me not to come
Mama told me not to come
That ain't the way to have fun, no

Open up the window Let some air into this room
I think I'm almost chokin' From the smell of stale perfume

And that cigarette you're smoking
'Bout scared me half to death
Open up the window, sucker
Let me catch my breath

{Refrain} Mama told me not to come
Mama told me not to come
She said, that ain't the way to have fun, son
That ain't the way to have fun, son

The radio is blastin'
Someone's knocking at the door
I'm lookin' at my girlfriend
She's passed out on the floor

I seen so many things I ain't never seen before
Don't know what it is I don't wanna see no more

{Refrain}

Mama told me, mama told me, mama told me
Told me, told me That ain't no way to have fun, whoah, yeah yeah
Mama told me not to come
Mama, mama, mama told me
That ain't no way to have fun

That ain't the way to have fun, no
That ain't the way to have fun, son
That ain't the way to have fun, no
That ain't the way to have fun, son

Signature

Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Charles Riggs - 14 Jan 2004 04:12 GMT
>I see nothing in the above which would lead me to object to "consensus of
>opinion," nor which would justify your calling me "lax" for having used it.

Give me a break. I edited "error", changing it to "lax". I thought I
was being nice. After reading your wordy, not surprisingly, reaction,
I'll reedit the word to "f.ck up".
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

John Holmes - 13 Jan 2004 06:26 GMT
> Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the
> online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently
> did so, and found the term listed there. No usage note accompanies
> the entry: That is, it is not a question of sloppy English.

Aren't you perhaps putting a bit too much faith in the dictionary there?
How do you know that the lack of a usage note isn't simply due to
slackness or lack of space?

Personally, I'd recognise "anytime" as a significant non-standard usage.
It isn't listed in the Australian Oxford, and I wouldn't expect to see
it in edited text.

--
Regards
John
Raymond S. Wise - 13 Jan 2004 10:15 GMT
> > Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the
> > online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> It isn't listed in the Australian Oxford, and I wouldn't expect to see
> it in edited text.

The answer to your question is simple: I am entirely confident that the
editors of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionaries would label as
"nonstandard" a usage which they believed to be nonstandard. Furthermore,
they would label as "informal" a usage which they believed to be informal,
which, in this case, they did not.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

John Holmes - 15 Jan 2004 10:34 GMT
>>> Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the
>>> online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Furthermore, they would label as "informal" a usage which they
> believed to be informal, which, in this case, they did not.

What then, do you make of the fact that some other dictionaries (and
especially the OED) omit the word entirely? Are you confident that their
editors would include an entry for it if they believed it to be a valid
word?

If some dictionaries exclude "anytime", wouldn't that be sufficient
reason to expect that the others should at least mark it as disputed or
controversial?

--
Regards
John
Ben Zimmer - 15 Jan 2004 16:50 GMT
> >>> Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the
> >>> online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> editors would include an entry for it if they believed it to be a valid
> word?

I wouldn't read too much in the OED's omission of the word.  There has
yet to be a systematic revision of words beginning with A, so the
entries consist of those compiled way back in 1882-88 with various
additions provided by the supplements.  I'm sure that when the revision
program(me) returns to the letter A, "anytime" will get its own entry
(as it does in MW10/11, AHD, the Cambridge dictionaries, Encarta, etc.).
A full-text search on the OED shows that there are already 11 citations
of "anytime" in the OED2 and the New Edition.  The cites range from 1841
to 1996.  (The 1841 cite is a bit of an outlier, however-- the next one
is from 1934.)  It also shows up in an undated illustrative sentence for
"send round":

    send, v.1
    32. send round.  
    c. colloq. To send (something; also absol. to send a message)
    to some one in the neighbourhood.
      Mod. I will leave the basket; you can send it round anytime.

The editors could have used "(at) any time" in this sentence, but chose
to use "anytime".  I would assume this means that they don't consider
the word's colloquial usage to be particularly unusual.
Bob Cunningham - 15 Jan 2004 18:10 GMT


> > >>> Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the
> > >>> online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently
> > >>> did so, and found the term listed there. No usage note accompanies
> > >>> the entry: That is, it is not a question of sloppy English.

> > >> Aren't you perhaps putting a bit too much faith in the dictionary
> > >> there? How do you know that the lack of a usage note isn't simply
> > >> due to slackness or lack of space?

That point can be tested by reference to the
_Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage_ (_MWDEU_),
where the Merriam-Webster editors discuss "anytime" with no
pejorative hint.

> > >> Personally, I'd recognise "anytime" as a significant non-standard
> > >> usage. It isn't listed in the Australian Oxford, and I wouldn't
> > >> expect to see it in edited text.

> > > The answer to your question is simple: I am entirely confident that
> > > the editors of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionaries would
> > > label as "nonstandard" a usage which they believed to be nonstandard.
> > > Furthermore, they would label as "informal" a usage which they
> > > believed to be informal, which, in this case, they did not.

> > What then, do you make of the fact that some other dictionaries (and
> > especially the OED) omit the word entirely? Are you confident that their
> > editors would include an entry for it if they believed it to be a valid
> > word?

> I wouldn't read too much in the OED's omission of the word.  There has
> yet to be a systematic revision of words beginning with A, so the
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> to use "anytime".  I would assume this means that they don't consider
> the word's colloquial usage to be particularly unusual.

It's possible "anytime" is considered colloquial by some in
the UK, but from what I've seen in usage guides it's
standard in American English.

_MWDEU_ says "Evans 1957 and Phythian 1979 agree _anytime_
is not in British use -- Phythian in fact insists it does
not exist."

I'm pleased to see that _MWDEU_ refers to my favorite usage
maven, Edward D. Johnson:

  This adverb is generally spelled as one word.  
  Johnson 1982 tells us that the one-word spelling is  
  all right when it can be replaced by the phrase "at
  any time" but when it cannot be so replaced, it
  should be spelled as two words.  Johnson's rule of
  thumb is a sensible one, though occasionally it is
  not observed:

     This is a dressing that's fun, never a burden
     for anytime of day.  -- advt. N.Y.Times, 28
     April 1980.

But an advertiser is apt to say anything.

There's now a second edition of Johnson's book (1991), but
he says the same thing about "anytime" in the two editions.

What he actually says is that "anytime" and "sometime" are
*contractions* of "at any time" and "at some time", and
"Whenever the full forms cannot be substituted for the
contractions, they should not be contractions but two
words".

I think the party line is that contractions shouldn't be
used in formal text.  I don't think that should apply to
"anytime" or "sometime".

Key to references:

Evans 1957 - Evans, Bergen and Cornelia Evans.  1957.  _A
Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage_.  New York.
Random House.

Phythian 1979 - Phythian, B. A.  1979.  _A Concise
Dictionary of Current English.  Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield,
Adams.

Johnson 1982 - Johnson, Edward D. 1982.  _The Handbook of
Good English_.  New York: Facts on File.  

The 1991 edition of Johnson's book is "A Washington Square
Press Publication of POCKET BOOKS, a division of Simon &
Schuster Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York. NY
10020".
Ben Zimmer - 15 Jan 2004 19:29 GMT
> I'm pleased to see that _MWDEU_ refers to my favorite usage
> maven, Edward D. Johnson:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> But an advertiser is apt to say anything.

I noticed that the earliest of the cites for "anytime" in a full-text
search of the OED also breaks this rule:

    [under "make, v.1" - 1997 additions]
    1841 T. CARLYLE Let. 21 Sept. in H. J. Nicoll T. Carlyle
    (1884) iv. 112 If at anytime a definite service can be
    done by answering, doubt not I shall make time for it.

It's possible that "anytime" was at first simply a variant spelling of
"any time", and that the adverbial sense of "at any time" only emerged
colloquially in the US some time (sometime?) in the late 19th century.  

Searching on the 19th-century sources in the Making of America database
<http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/> is difficult, as most matches for "anytime"
are actually scanning errors and appear as "any time" on the page image.
I did find some legitimate examples of "anytime", though.  The first is
in a transcript of a 1685 document and appears to be merely a spelling
variant of "any time".  But the others are used adverbially (all
appearing in reported speech, one in a peculiar eye-dialect):

    Youatt, William, 1776-1847.
    The dog. 1852.
    [From a 1685 document "in which a yeoman binds himself
    for the sum of ten shillings, fully and effectually to
    teach a spaniel to sit partridges and pheasants."]
    And if at anytime after the said Bitch shall, for
    want of use or practice, or orwise, forgett to sett
    Game as aforesaid, I will, at my costes and charges,
    maynetayne her for a month, or longer...

    Wright, Julia McNair, 1840-1903.
    A million too much, a temperance tale.     [c1871]
    "I've a good boarding-place, Mrs. Jillet, I can
    recommend it to you, anytime you happen to get out
    of service."

    Haliburton, Thomas Chandler, 1796-1865.
    The letter-bag of the Great Western, by Sam Slick. [1873]
    ... Ide rather trust to a jug messing fire, or not
    hitting his man anytime to side-arms, for them big
    wigs oftener ang fire than ang a man.

    Crary, Agnes
    Annals of the Upper Valley: IV. The Story of a Short Story
    Overland monthly and Out West magazine.
    Volume 30, Issue 179, Nov 1897, pp.423-428
    "Don't, it's like the grippe, after the first attack
    it's likely to return anytime."

    Miller, Joaquin
    Stampedes on the Klondike
    Overland monthly and Out West magazine.
    Volume 30, Issue 180, Dec 1897, pp.519-527
    Men throw down their tools and leave things and go off
    almost anytime, and often when we need them most to
    put on a roof or hang a door, but they don't stay long.
Skitt - 13 Jan 2004 20:58 GMT
>> Donna was hinting that the poster should look up "anytime" in the
>> online Merriam-Webster dictionary at www.m-w.com . He subsequently
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> usage. It isn't listed in the Australian Oxford, and I wouldn't
> expect to see it in edited text.

AHD4 does not add a usage note to its "anytime" entry either.  Does that
mean to you that there's a severe paper shortage here in the USA?  Oops, it
must be worse than that -- Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary also
tried to save space, as did all the other dictionaries I looked in.  I don't
have any that show BrE or AuE usage, though.

Signature

Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup.      -- Dogbert

John Lawler - 10 Jan 2004 03:25 GMT
>    Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
>it seems compmletely new.  Is this used only by those people
>(probably all under 25 or so) who make no distinction between
>"anyway" and "any way"?

Space is the final frontier, but not part of the lexicon.

Since 'anytime' is pronounced without a pause, it's going to be spelled
without a space pretty frequently, on the model of 'anybody' or 'anywhere',
how ever any one thinks it ought to be spelled.

Spelling with or with out spaces doesn't have anything to do with whether
it's a 'single word' or not.  Spelling is technology, not language.

-John Lawler  http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler  Michigan Linguistics
  ------------------------------------------------------------
    "Ordnung gibt es heutzutage meistens dort, wo nichts ist.
     Es ist eine Mangelerscheinung."     -- Bertolt Brecht
Michael J Hardy - 11 Jan 2004 00:14 GMT
> >    Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> >I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Space is the final frontier, but not part of the lexicon.

   Why wouldn't it be in the lexicon?   Doesn't the (standard)
lexicon distinguish between the meaning of "any way" and that of
"anyway"?  (Even if that distinction is starting to exit the
scene among under-25s?)  Doesn't the lexicon list "anyway" as
a word and neglect to list "any horse", because it doesn't give
syntactically correct phrases?

> Since 'anytime' is pronounced without a pause, it's going to
> be spelled without a space pretty frequently, on the model of
> 'anybody' or 'anywhere', how ever any one thinks it ought to
> be spelled.

   True.  I wan't saying anything was wrong with it; just
inquiring whether I was write to think it's more frequent than
formerly, and among which linguistic communities it is used.
"Is there anyway to do that", on the other hand, irritates me,
precisely because "anyway" is a perfectly good word that does
NOT mean "any way".       -- Mike Hardy

> Spelling with or with out spaces doesn't have anything to
> do with whether it's a 'single word' or not.  Spelling is
> technology, not language.

   Then why isn't "any horse" in the dictionary?  I thought
it's because it's not just a 'single word'.    -- Mike Hardy
Aaron J. Dinkin - 11 Jan 2004 02:26 GMT
>> >    Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>> >I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> scene among under-25s?)  Doesn't the lexicon list "anyway" as
> a word and neglect to list "any horse",

All John said wasn't in the lexicon is the _space_, qua typographical
item. "Anyway" is in the lexicon and "any way" and "any horse" aren't;
but whether "anyway" is written as <any way> or as <anyway> isn't part of
the lexicon.

> because it doesn't give syntactically correct phrases?

I don't know what you mean by this. "Any horse" is a syntactically
correct phrase; the reason it's not in the lexicon is because its form,
grammaticality, and meaning are deducible in a predictable way from the
syntactic properties and meanings of "any" and "horse".

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
John Lawler - 11 Jan 2004 03:18 GMT
>> >    Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>> >I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
>> >it seems compmletely new.  Is this used only by those people
>> >(probably all under 25 or so) who make no distinction between
>> >"anyway" and "any way"?

>> Space is the final frontier, but not part of the lexicon.

>    Why wouldn't it be in the lexicon?   Doesn't the (standard)
>lexicon distinguish between the meaning of "any way" and that of
>"anyway"?  (Even if that distinction is starting to exit the
>scene among under-25s?)  

Yes, it does.  The stress distinction is criterial. 'Anyway', spelled any
way, is a single word, stressed on the first syllable, while 'any way',
spelled with a space and stressed on the last syllable, is a phrase (another
one of those androgynous nominadverbial phrases), and thus isn't in the
lexicon (which, by the way, doesn't mean a dictionary, but rather the store
of words and idioms that all native speakers carry around in their minds).

>Doesn't the lexicon list "anyway" as a word and neglect to list
>"any horse", because it doesn't give syntactically correct phrases?

That's the general gist; of course the spelling of 'anyway' isn't
in the lexicon as such; it's technology, not language.

>> Since 'anytime' is pronounced without a pause, it's going to
>> be spelled without a space pretty frequently, on the model of
>> 'anybody' or 'anywhere', how ever any one thinks it ought to
>> be spelled.

>    True.  I wan't saying anything was wrong with it; just
>inquiring whether I was write to think it's more frequent than
>formerly, and among which linguistic communities it is used.
>"Is there anyway to do that", on the other hand, irritates me,
>precisely because "anyway" is a perfectly good word that does
>NOT mean "any way".

Yup.  It's an error precisely because it invites one to stress
the first syllable in the mind's ear, producing nonsense, which
in turn crashes the parser and loads the debugger, waking up
the reader up and destroying the dream.  Bad form all around.

>> Spelling with or with out spaces doesn't have anything to
>> do with whether it's a 'single word' or not.  Spelling is
>> technology, not language.

>    Then why isn't "any horse" in the dictionary?  I thought
>it's because it's not just a 'single word'.

Dictionaries -- being part of literacy -- are technology, too, and thus make
arbitrary decisions for arbitrary reasons.  The reasons why anything is or
isn't in a particular dictionary frequently don't have anything to do with
actual language.  Why, for instance, don't English dictionaries distinguish
mass from count nouns?  Or use IPA to indicate pronunciation like all other
language dictionaries?

-John Lawler  http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler  Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Bokonon invites us to sing along with him:
     'We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do
      What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must;
      Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do
      Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust.'"
                                 -- Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's Cradle"
CyberCypher - 11 Jan 2004 03:55 GMT
jlawler@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (John Lawler) wrote on 11 Jan 2004:

[...]

> Dictionaries -- being part of literacy -- are technology, too, and
> thus make arbitrary decisions for arbitrary reasons.  The reasons
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> nouns?  Or use IPA to indicate pronunciation like all other
> language dictionaries?

English dictionaries for non-native speakers of English, of course, do
just that. Every noun entry has a capital U or a capital C in a box to
indicate uncountable (mass) and count nouns, and some nouns have both
forms. I've always wondered why English dictionaries use IPA instead of
the idiosyncratic systems they force their users to decipher ---
tradition, probably. IPA, whatever the variant, makes much more sense,
especially to people who have learned other languages.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.

Aaron J. Dinkin - 11 Jan 2004 05:41 GMT
> I've always wondered why English dictionaries use IPA instead of
> the idiosyncratic systems they force their users to decipher ---
> tradition, probably. IPA, whatever the variant, makes much more sense,
> especially to people who have learned other languages.

I assume you missed a "don't" or the like in the first sentence
somewhere. Some English dictionaries do use IPA, of course. Among the
ones that don't, a reason for them to avoid IPA (apart from tradition,
which probably is a strong factor also) is that using IPA would restrict
their applicability to a smaller dialect subpopulation than their
idiosyncratic systems do. Any particular IPA symbol you might use to
represent the vowel in a word like "hot", for instance, is going to be
incorrect for perhaps a majority of English speakers, since that symbol
has a well-defined phonetic meaning; whereas an idiosyncratic symbol can
be mapped by any given speaker onto the sound that is appropriate for it
to represent in their own dialect.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
CyberCypher - 11 Jan 2004 06:28 GMT
"Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote on 11 Jan
2004:

>> I've always wondered why English dictionaries

ADD: don't

>> use IPA instead of
>> the idiosyncratic systems they force their users to decipher ---
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I assume you missed a "don't" or the like in the first sentence
> somewhere.

Yes, I did. Thank you for pointing it out.

> Some English dictionaries do use IPA, of course.

Yes, but they are usually the dictionaries for foreign students of
English and not for native speakers of English --- at least in the
USA.

> Among
> the ones that don't, a reason for them to avoid IPA (apart from
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> any given speaker onto the sound that is appropriate for it to
> represent in their own dialect.

That's a good argument. It argues for national PAs, but I don't think
there is such a standardized animal, is there? I don't remember
Ladefoged mentioning the American English Phonetic Alphabet.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.

John Lawler - 11 Jan 2004 14:51 GMT
>"Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> writes

>>> I've always wondered why English dictionaries

>ADD: don't

>>> use IPA instead of
>>> the idiosyncratic systems they force their users to decipher ---
>>> tradition, probably. IPA, whatever the variant, makes much more
>>> sense, especially to people who have learned other languages.

>> I assume you missed a "don't" or the like in the first sentence
>> somewhere.

>Yes, I did. Thank you for pointing it out.

>> Some English dictionaries do use IPA, of course.

>Yes, but they are usually the dictionaries for foreign students of
>English and not for native speakers of English --- at least in the
>USA.

>> Among
>> the ones that don't, a reason for them to avoid IPA (apart from
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> any given speaker onto the sound that is appropriate for it to
>> represent in their own dialect.

>That's a good argument. It argues for national PAs, but I don't think
>there is such a standardized animal, is there? I don't remember
>Ladefoged mentioning the American English Phonetic Alphabet.

Well, of course, pure IPA is far too powerful for a dictionary, except to
distinguish dialect.  A decent phonemic notation would suffice.  For
instance, there's an extra low back phoneme in RP that I never know
when to pronounce, since it overlaps with /a/, which then gets pushed
into /ae/ territory, so 'ask' has different vowels in British and American
English, but 'man' doesn't.  Can I find this out in an American dictionary?

Similarly, many Americans don't distinguish /a/ from /O/, and therefore
can't tell whether people are named 'Don' or 'Dawn', unless they know
their sex.  It would be nice to to be able to look things like that up
in a reference work on the English language.

And using an idiosyncratic symbol that can be mapped by any given speaker
onto the sound that is appropriate in their dialect is essentially giving
*no* information, which is in fact what American dictionaries do.  They're
indicating that there's a consonant and then a vowel and then a consonant
and then a vowel, and so on. Fill in the blanks yourself, to your own
satisfaction.  For this we need a dictionary?

-John Lawler  http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler  U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   "A man does not know what he is saying until he knows what he
    is not saying."  -- G.K. Chesterton, 1936, "As I Was Saying"
Aaron J. Dinkin - 11 Jan 2004 16:42 GMT
> Well, of course, pure IPA is far too powerful for a dictionary, except to
> distinguish dialect.  A decent phonemic notation would suffice.  For
> instance, there's an extra low back phoneme in RP that I never know
> when to pronounce, since it overlaps with /a/, which then gets pushed
> into /ae/ territory, so 'ask' has different vowels in British and American
> English, but 'man' doesn't.  Can I find this out in an American dictionary?

I'm not sure what phoneme it is that you're intending to represent by /a/.

Anyway, the answer is probably no, but not because of the way an American
dictionary represents pronunciation - rather, because the R-type
pronunciation of "ask" is rare enough among American English that makers
of American dictionaries may feel justified in omitting it. But there's
nothing to stop them from writing something like "\a^sk\ also \a"sk\",
using their own idiosyncratic notation.

> Similarly, many Americans don't distinguish /a/ from /O/, and therefore
> can't tell whether people are named 'Don' or 'Dawn', unless they know
> their sex.  It would be nice to to be able to look things like that up
> in a reference work on the English language.

Look up things like what? The fact that many Americans have this merger?

> And using an idiosyncratic symbol that can be mapped by any given speaker
> onto the sound that is appropriate in their dialect is essentially giving
> *no* information, which is in fact what American dictionaries do.  They're
> indicating that there's a consonant and then a vowel and then a consonant
> and then a vowel, and so on. Fill in the blanks yourself, to your own
> satisfaction.  For this we need a dictionary?

I admit that the system I describe requires that the reader already know
how to pronounce about a couple of dozen English words before the
pronunciation guide can be of use. However, if each symbol is defined in
terms of a common word - \u-\ as in "food", \u^\ as in "look", \o-\ as in
"boat", \o^\ as in "law", and so on - the reader knows to translate any
given symbol into a systematically consistent pronunciation. How does
this differ from the "decent phonemic system" of your wishlist?

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Jonathan Jordan - 12 Jan 2004 10:26 GMT
<snip>

> Well, of course, pure IPA is far too powerful for a dictionary, except to
> distinguish dialect.  A decent phonemic notation would suffice.  For
> instance, there's an extra low back phoneme in RP that I never know
> when to pronounce, since it overlaps with /a/,

Most British varieties, including RP, do indeed have two phonemes
where most American accents appear to have one.  Using the notation
used by those British dictionaries which do use IPA, we have:
/A./ in "cot", "bother", "swan", also usually in "dog", "cloth",
"long", "orange", where many American accents have /O/.
/A:/ in "palm", "father", "cart", plus some more words, like "bath"
and "ask", in southern England.  Being from the North, I use the "cat"
vowel in "bath" and "ask".

The first one is usually spelt <o>, the second one <a> (but <wa>,
<qua> and <al> can indicate /A./).

Which of these did you mean by /a/?  In recent Oxford dictionaries,
that's the vowel of "cat" etc.; other British dictionaries use /&/ for
that and don't use /a/.

> which then gets pushed
> into /ae/ territory, so 'ask' has different vowels in British and American
> English, but 'man' doesn't.

In many British accents, "ask" and "man" have the same vowel, though
it's usually lower and backer than the typical American vowels in
those words (particularly "man", which often seems to have a
strikingly raised and diphthongised vowel in AmE).

<snip>

> And using an idiosyncratic symbol that can be mapped by any given speaker
> onto the sound that is appropriate in their dialect is essentially giving
> *no* information, which is in fact what American dictionaries do.  They're
> indicating that there's a consonant and then a vowel and then a consonant
> and then a vowel, and so on. Fill in the blanks yourself, to your own
> satisfaction.  For this we need a dictionary?

But dictionaries that use IPA phonemic transcriptions have to choose a
phonetic symbol for each phoneme, and this tends to be
dialect-specific.  So, for example, they use /@U/ for the "coat"
vowel, which is something like [@U] in RP.  I (and many other BrE
speakers) don't use [@U], so how is this better for us than an <o>
with a macron?

Jonathan
CyberCypher - 11 Jan 2004 10:51 GMT
"Aaron J. Dinkin" <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> wrote on 11 Jan
2004:

>> I've always wondered why English dictionaries use IPA instead of
>> the idiosyncratic systems they force their users to decipher ---
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I assume you missed a "don't" or the like in the first sentence
> somewhere.

I just discovered that if my wireless keyboard and receiver aren't in
the proper physical relationship to each other, I lose keystrokes. I
frequently move the keyboard around, so sometimes I drop words. That's
not true for all the missing words or letters, though. Some of them are
just thinkos --- I thought them but didn't type them and failed to
check what I'd written before pushing the "Send Now!" button.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.

CyberCypher - 10 Jan 2004 07:53 GMT
mjhardy@mit.edu (Michael J Hardy) wrote on 10 Jan 2004:

>     Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
> I don't think I've seen this until within the last five years;
> it seems compmletely new.  Is this used only by those people
> (probably all under 25 or so) who make no distinction between
> "anyway" and "any way"?     -- Mike Hardy

W3NID has it and a credit to Kerouac for using it:

Main Entry:anytime
Function:adverb
Etymology:1any + time

: at any time whatever : under any circumstances *can get a job
anywhere anytime Jack Kerouac*

Kerouac died in 1969, but three of his books were published
posthumously: Visions of Cody (1972), Some of the Dharma (1995),
and Orpheus Emerged (2000). Chances are good that the word was used in
one of his books in the 50s or 60s, though.
   

Collins Cobuild for Advanced Learners. Third Edition, 2001 ((c) 1987,
1995, 2001) has it.

And AHD4 (2000) has it.

In any case, it isn't completely new to me and lots of others. You may
be completely new to it, though.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.

Stefano MacGregor - 10 Jan 2004 15:48 GMT
> Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.

Lately, I've been seeing "nevermind" as one word, too.  I think it's
just a general illiteracy phenomenon.

Signature

Stefano
http://www.steve-and-pattie.com/esperantujo

Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2004 17:05 GMT
> > Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>
> Lately, I've been seeing "nevermind" as one word, too.  I think it's
> just a general illiteracy phenomenon.

Many a sign at the entrance to an American business establishment
cautions: "No Barefeet."  I don't think they're referring to members
of an Indian tribe.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Barefoot just now, as it happens

Evan Kirshenbaum - 10 Jan 2004 19:31 GMT
> Lately, I've been seeing "nevermind" as one word, too.  I think it's
> just a general illiteracy phenomenon.

Looking at Amazon, Jae-On Kim's _Factor Analysis_ cites a 1976 paper
from _Psychological Bulletin_ entitled "Estimating coefficients in
linear models: it don't make no nevermind".  I suspect that it's quite
a bit older.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Specifically, I'd like to debate
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |whether cannibalism ought to be
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |grounds for leniency in murder,
                                      |since it's less wasteful.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                   Calvin
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Donna Richoux - 10 Jan 2004 20:18 GMT
> > Lately, I've been seeing "nevermind" as one word, too.  I think it's
> > just a general illiteracy phenomenon.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> linear models: it don't make no nevermind".  I suspect that it's quite
> a bit older.

Now there's a time-honored phrase. RHHDAS has for a first entry:

      1924 Isman /Weber & Fields/ 83 [ref. to 1880's]:
    Dot makes no nefer mind.

Apparently Joe Weber & Lew Fields were a comedy vaudeville team, and
Isman wrote a book about them in 1924. I assume this was a line from a
routine of theirs in the 1880s. Yes, that fits: here's a bit from
Publisher's Weekly via Amazon:

    At the age of 12, in 1879, Fields launched with his
    partner, Joe Weber, an act that would prove to be
    one of the most successful in vaudeville. Their
    fractured English and knockabout comedy, expressions
    of the immigrant culture from which 20th-century
    American popular entertainment sprang, were still
    convulsing nostalgic audiences on a reunion tour in
    1932.

Back to the RHHDAS. The next citations have variations, and, in
particular, they use the spellings "never mind," "never-mind," and
"nevermind" (that one, 1942).

Odd, even though there are a dozen variations here, none is precisely
the one I grew up hearing: It, or That "don't make me no never mind." A
couple of them put a "me" at the end instead --  "Makes no nevermind to
me."

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux

Charles Riggs - 11 Jan 2004 05:44 GMT
>> > Lately, I've been seeing "nevermind" as one word, too.  I think it's
>> > just a general illiteracy phenomenon.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>couple of them put a "me" at the end instead --  "Makes no nevermind to
>me."

Now, *this* post on word variations was both interesting and helpful,
hint, hint.
Signature

Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net

Maria Conlon - 13 Jan 2004 08:21 GMT
>> Lately I've frequently seen "anytime" as a single word.
>
> Lately, I've been seeing "nevermind" as one word, too.  I think it's
> just a general illiteracy phenomenon.

"Nevermind" is one of those words that can serve as an example of what
Prof. Lawler was saying about "anytime." That is -- if two words are
said as one word, with no "space" (sorry if I'm overparaphrasing, John),
the two may often be spelled as one. And why not? Until it's written,
who's to know for certain? <smile>

In the case of "nevermind," I'm describing its single-word status when
"never mind" is used as a noun to indicate something that doesn't
matter: "It don't make no nevermind." (Or, if you prefer, and don't care
about being true to the fading but still-with-us usage, "it doesn't make
any 'nevermind.'")

I hear it more in the south (East Tennessee) than in the Detroit area.

Signature

Maria Conlon
Please send any email to the Hot Mail address.

 
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.