anytime
|
|
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.
|
|
|