 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009relation and relationship
How are these two words used differently in a proper way? Thanks > How are these two words used differently in a proper way? My brother is a relation. I have a stormy relationship with him.  SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> How are these two words used differently in a proper way? > > My brother is a relation. I have a stormy relationship with him. Agreed, but there is a growing tendency in commerce-speak to use "relation" in the sense of "relationship". An obvious example is "public relations"; "customer relations management" and similar also abound. SignatureLes (BrE) > fyfpoon writes: > >> How are these two words used differently in a proper way? ["relation" and "relationship" as in subject line] > My brother is a relation. I have a stormy relationship with him. The following sites may be of interest to fyfpoon: http://www.phrasebase.com/forum/read.php?TID=17864 http://www.englishforums.com/English/RelationVsRelationship/bnvhg/post.htm http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=29820 Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. SignatureMaria C. > Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in the > first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. I have noticed this modern trend. I can't explain the rise of "relative" as a substitute for "relation" - but Rabbit certainly had "friends and relations". Regards Jonathan >> Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in >> the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. > > I have noticed this modern trend. I can't explain the rise of > "relative" as a substitute for "relation" - but Rabbit certainly had > "friends and relations". "Friends and relations" doesn't sound wrong, but "friends and relatives" is what I'd use. I'm not sure about the trend in the USA though. I may be the odd one out. SignatureMaria C. >>> Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in >>> the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >relatives" is what I'd use. I'm not sure about the trend in the USA >though. I may be the odd one out. "Picture me upon your knee Just tea for two And two for tea Just me for you And you for me alone Nobody near us to see us or hear us No friends or relations On weekend vacations We won't have it known That we own a telephone, dear.... " SignatureIan >>> Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in >>> the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > relatives" is what I'd use. I'm not sure about the trend in the USA > though. I may be the odd one out. I'd use "relative" for my kin. I'd also not have relations of a certain sort with them. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in >>>> the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'd use "relative" for my kin. I'd also not have relations of a certain > sort with them. I had a look at OED. For "relation" it says "kinsman, relative". For "relative" it says "kinsman, relation". So bang goes my theory. Clearly you pays your money... Regards Jonathan > I'd use "relative" for my kin. I'd also not have relations of a > certain sort with them. Good thinking. SignatureMaria C. Maria Conlon: >>> Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in >>> the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. > "Friends and relations" doesn't sound wrong, but "friends and relatives" > is what I'd use. I'm not sure about the trend in the USA though. I may > be the odd one out. This use of "relations" sounds British to me, i.e. wrong for North America. I might accept the specific expression "friends and relations" as a set phrase; I'm not sure whether it sounds British or not. What I'd say myself is "friends and family". SignatureMark Brader | Up until now, you have been told never to use Toronto | the Goto. I use it. I use a revolver too, but msb@vex.net | I don't give it to my children. --a Prof. Baird >>> Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in >>> the first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > relatives" is what I'd use. I'm not sure about the trend in the USA > though. I may be the odd one out. All things being relative, I'm with you. > > Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in the > > first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. > > I have noticed this modern trend. I can't explain the rise of "relative" as > a substitute for "relation" - but Rabbit certainly had "friends and > relations". Yes, that is the one place I heard it, too -- when I was four and my mother read Winnie-the-Pooh out loud, "Rabbit's friends and relations" stood out, even then, as odd to my ears. Your saying "the rise of 'relative' as a substitute" assumes that "relation" is old and "relative" is modern, but I believe we established before that that is not the case. A quick look at Webster's 1828 shows that both were used for family members then. Mastertexts shows it in literary classics on both sides of the pond. The OED should give the date for each sense. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> > Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in the >> > first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >members then. Mastertexts shows it in literary classics on both sides of >the pond. The OED should give the date for each sense. relation, n. 5.c. A person related to one by blood or marriage; a kinsman or kinswoman; a relative. Also freq. in pl., kinsfolk, relatives. 1502 HEN. VII in Lett. Kings Eng. (1846) I. 191 His cousin and relation the king of Spain. .... 1870 DICKENS E. Drood ix, Rosa had no relation that she knew of. relative, a. and n. 3. One who is connected with another or others by blood or affinity; a kinsman. Cf. RELATION 5c. 1657 GAULE Sap. Just. 43 In respect of proximate Parents and of relatives yet living. .... 1860 TYNDALL Glac. I. xvii. 121 He had received intelligence of the death of a near relative. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> fyfpoon writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Note to Nick: I would have used "relative" rather than relation in the > first sentence. "Relation" is not incorrect, though. Looking back on it so might I - despite the influence of rabbit at an early age - if I was starting from "brother". But starting from "relation" the sentence felt perfectly natural. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >How are these two words used differently in a proper way? > >Thanks I'll assume you are asking about social, not physical, relationships. If you want to sound like a redneck, I suggest you talk about your "relations", otherwise refer to them as your "relatives". That is my opinion, not gospel, of course. As for your second question, the meaning of "relationship" can be found in most dictionaries. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your question is. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > I'll assume you are asking about social, not physical, relationships. > If you want to sound like a redneck, I suggest you talk about your > "relations", otherwise refer to them as your "relatives". Proper rednecks talk about "kin" and "connections" -- and carefully distinguish between the two (where possible). > That is my opinion, not gospel, of course. Thou sayest. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >Chuck Riggs wrote: > >> I'll assume you are asking about social, not physical, relationships. >> If you want to sound like a redneck, I suggest you talk about your >> "relations", otherwise refer to them as your "relatives". I have a feeling that I was brought up to speak of 'relations', but once opted for 'relatives' (on entirely theoretical grounds) when speaking on the phone in earshot of my parents. I'll swear I heard them swivel their ears, eyes and eyebrows in my direction. >Proper rednecks talk about "kin" and "connections" -- and carefully >distinguish between the two (where possible). Over here (among the Berkshire downs) 'connections' rings out wild bells from the world of racing. I'm not even sure what they include, though I was one, once. Owners and trainers and hangers-on generally. So what's comprehended in a redneck's connections? SignaturePaul >>Chuck Riggs wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So what's comprehended in a redneck's connections? Relatives by marriage, as opposed to blood relatives (which are "kin"). SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> I'll assume you are asking about social, not physical, relationships. >> If you want to sound like a redneck, I suggest you talk about your >> "relations", otherwise refer to them as your "relatives". > >Proper rednecks talk about "kin" and "connections" -- and carefully >distinguish between the two (where possible). "Kin" and "kyn" go back to the days of Old English, so proper rednecks may be keeping a tradition in English, as they often do in other things. >> That is my opinion, not gospel, of course. > >Thou sayest. Please note that I wrote "gospel", not "Gospel". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> I'll assume you are asking about social, not physical, relationships. >>> If you want to sound like a redneck, I suggest you talk about your [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Please note that I wrote "gospel", not "Gospel". Thus, no (Usenet) news is Good News. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > fyfpoon wrote: > >> How are these two words used differently in a proper way? ["relation and relationship" as in the Subject line] > I'll assume you are asking about social, not physical, relationships. > If you want to sound like a redneck, I suggest you talk about your > "relations", otherwise refer to them as your "relatives". That is my > opinion, not gospel, of course. [...] I believe, as Roland has suggested, that "rednecks" talk about "kin" more than about "relatives." He also said "rednecks" talk about "connections." That part -- "connections" -- sounds unfamiliar to me. I think of "connections" as more urban. Not a redneck, but related to a few, Maria C. Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. >> fyfpoon wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"connections." That part -- "connections" -- sounds unfamiliar to me. I >think of "connections" as more urban. Maybe it's "kith" in Tennessee. I have never felt the need to say or use "kith" before today. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [kith 'n' cousins] >> I believe, as Roland has suggested, that "rednecks" talk about >> "kin" more than about "relatives." He also said "rednecks" talk >> about "connections." That part -- "connections" -- sounds >> unfamiliar to me. I think of "connections" as more urban. > Maybe it's "kith" in Tennessee. I have never felt the need to say > or use "kith" before today. Probably a reference to the Biblical use of "know", as in "Kith me, my fool!" (as the showgirl said to the bishop) >[kith 'n' cousins] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Probably a reference to the Biblical use of "know", as in "Kith me, my >fool!" (as the showgirl said to the bishop) "Kinsfolk", or "kinfolk", which goes back to 1450, is another version of "kin", although the OED says it is rare today. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>[kith 'n' cousins] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"Kinsfolk", or "kinfolk", which goes back to 1450, is another version >of "kin", although the OED says it is rare today. I've always understood that "kin" derives from "kind" (as in "my kind", meaning "of the same type/family as me"). SignatureIan > I've always understood that "kin" derives from "kind" (as in "my kind", > meaning "of the same type/family as me"). Not quite derives *from*. Merriam-Webster says that "kind" comes from Old English "cynd," and "kin" from Old English "cynn," and that they are, ahem, akin. SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux >> [kith 'n' cousins] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "Kinsfolk", or "kinfolk", which goes back to 1450, is another version > of "kin", although the OED says it is rare today. Have we mentioned "blood kin" or simply "blood" yet? I've used "he's blood" meaning "he's related to me directly; he's not an in-law." SignatureMaria C. Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. >>> [kith 'n' cousins] >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Have we mentioned "blood kin" or simply "blood" yet? I've used "he's >blood" meaning "he's related to me directly; he's not an in-law." To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] >> Have we mentioned "blood kin" or simply "blood" yet? I've used "he's >> blood" meaning "he's related to me directly; he's not an in-law." > > To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". Well, some of mine are certainly thicker than water. SignatureMike. >[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Well, some of mine are certainly thicker than water. It doesn't surprise me in the least to learn than your relatives are thick. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>[...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It doesn't surprise me in the least to learn than your relatives are > thick. Merely thicker than water, which is not terribly thick. It's all relative, doncha know. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>[...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Merely thicker than water, which is not terribly thick. It's all relative, >doncha know. Last night I watched a demonstration on TV of what happens when a container of water is dropped on a car from a height of twenty feet or so. The car was largely destroyed, so I'd say water is thick enough. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>[...] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > container of water is dropped on a car from a height of twenty feet or > so. The car was largely destroyed, so I'd say water is thick enough. Repeat after me: "It's not the viscosity; it's the incompressibility". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. [somebody wrote:] >>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [I wrote:] >>>>> Well, some of mine are certainly thicker than water. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Repeat after me: "It's not the viscosity; it's the > incompressibility". And the rigidity of the container. One of said related individuals did make an unplanned trip to the lateritic surface of Australia from an unusually spirited horse at a show, and demonstrated a quite impressive degree of pliability in the face of a sun-baked land. SignatureMike. >[somebody wrote:] >>>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >unusually spirited horse at a show, and demonstrated a quite impressive >degree of pliability in the face of a sun-baked land. The container was merely the delivery vehicle. Its rigidity was relatively unimportant. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> [somebody wrote:] >>>>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The container was merely the delivery vehicle. Its rigidity was > relatively unimportant. Well, I'd rather take my chances with a balloon full of water than a bucket of the same. SignatureSkitt (AmE) funny that way >>> [somebody wrote:] >>>>>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Well, I'd rather take my chances with a balloon full of water than a bucket >of the same. Well, I'd prefer a kid's sand bucket full of water hitting my head to a weather balloon full of same. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> [somebody wrote:] >>>>>>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Well, I'd prefer a kid's sand bucket full of water hitting my head to > a weather balloon full of same. I was talking about the weight of water plus container being the same in both cases. I'd take the weather balloon if it were tiny enough to match the sand bucket. Size matters, and so does rigidity. Ask ... no, don't. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Skitt wrote, in part: > Size matters, and so does rigidity. Ask ... no, don't. Some of us will just think about it, then. (I'm not saying who.) SignatureMaria C. >>>>> [somebody wrote:] >>>>>>>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Size matters, and so does rigidity. Ask ... no, don't. I had a very large balloon in mind when I wrote "weather balloon". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>>> [somebody wrote:] >>>>>>>>>>>> To me in BrE that would be "blood relative". [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > I had a very large balloon in mind when I wrote "weather balloon". So I gathered. That's a horse of a different color. Weight too. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>[...] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Repeat after me: "It's not the viscosity; it's the incompressibility". Neither had much to do with the demonstration. Water's density and weight did, however. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>[kith 'n' cousins] >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"Kinsfolk", or "kinfolk", which goes back to 1450, is another version >of "kin", although the OED says it is rare today. Ian Smith, the former prime minister of Rhodesia, used to speak a lot about "kith and kin", which inspired a political cartoonist to illustrate the phrase "kith --- my arth". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> fyfpoon wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Maybe it's "kith" in Tennessee. I have never felt the need to say or > use "kith" before today. I've heard "kith" and used it -- in "kith and kin." But the "kith" didn't come from Tennessee. So where'd I pick it up? Probably in a book and/or on TV. And actually, I don't think it's ever just "kith." "Kin" goes with it. (Some folks may hear "kith" as a lisper's "kiss.") SignatureMaria C. >> fyfpoon wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "connections." That part -- "connections" -- sounds unfamiliar to me. I > think of "connections" as more urban. You may be right: it may be more of a urban Southern "thang". Pretty much everything south of the Raritan is one big blur to us in Nort' Jersey, so I might have mixed up the one with the other. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.