 |
 | 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 / February 2010McDonalds' language error
McDonalds' language error 27/01/2010 18:06:47 London - A new advert for McDonald's has come under fire over its inaccurate use of the English language. The advert, which promotes the Pound Saver Menu, begins "the pound, also known as a bob", a statement which, strictly speaking, is not true. Technically, a bob is a term for a shilling, or five pence, and of far less value than a pound. The American fast food giant's blunder has stirred up some incensed online debate about English currency slang, blaming executives in the US for not properly researching the UK market before broadcasting the advert. Some customers asked McDonald's to either correct or withdraw the advert, or allow them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence. http://www.ofm.co.za/news.asp?nid=6186  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 > McDonalds' language error > 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > allow > them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence. A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) 240 pennies = 1 pound (1 quid) 20 shillings = 1 pound 21 shillings = 1 guinea or that's how it was when I went to school Steve Hayes quotes: > > ...to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence. > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? This will no doubt be the first of six independent followups noting that 12 old pence (12d.) = 5 new pence (5p), and that shilling (bob) coins continued in circulation for years after decimalization as 5p coins. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "What's fair got to do with it? It's going msb@vex.net | to happen." -- Lawrence of Arabia > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? > 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > or that's how it was when I went to school You couldn't have had a more complicated system, could you? If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? 12 pennies = 1 >> shilling (one bob) 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) 240 pennies = 1 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word > meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? The system in your own country was once just as complicated. You're lucky you never had to calculate in "dukater" or "skilling banco", or to convert from "riksdaler specie" to "riksdaler riksmynt". SignatureJames >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? 12 pennies = 1 >>> shilling (one bob) 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) 240 pennies = 1 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lucky you never had to calculate in "dukater" or "skilling banco", or > to convert from "riksdaler specie" to "riksdaler riksmynt". Since Pekka posted from Finland, I suppose you refer to when it was part of Sweden, i e before September 17, 1809. >>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? 12 pennies = 1 >>>> shilling (one bob) 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) 240 pennies = 1 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Since Pekka posted from Finland, I suppose you refer to when it was part > of Sweden, i e before September 17, 1809. Yes. What did they have in the tsarist period? SignatureJames >>>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? 12 pennies = 1 >>>>> shilling (one bob) 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) 240 pennies = 1 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yes. What did they have in the tsarist period? They used Russian money until they were permitted by the tsar to start using their own currency, mark, in 1860. >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word >meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? One explanation that I have seen for the use of a 21 shilling guinea is that it was used in pricing items sold at auction. If the buyer paid N guineas the auction house kept N shillings and the seller received N pounds (20 x N shillings). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > guineas the auction house kept N shillings and the seller received N > pounds (20 x N shillings). The story I heard was that a guinea piece - named after the country the gold came from - was originally worth exactly 20 shillings. After the introduction of paper money, gold rose in value, and the guinea was worth different numbers of shillings at different times. The reason for the survival of the guinea into our time, as I understand it, was that the wealthier people didn't consider paper money to be real money, and preferred to continue using gold for their transactions. The snob value remained even after it became uncommon to pay in gold. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You couldn't have had a more complicated system, could you? Plenty of traditional systems were complicated. For example, 12 pies (or 4 paise) = 1 anna 16 annas = 1 rupee 10000000 rupees = 1 lakh 100 lakhs = 1 crore As James has pointed out, your own country was no exception. Signatureathel >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > As James has pointed out, your own country was no exception. Hmm. I thought a lakh was 100,000 not 10 million. Was there a point when it was? SignatureRay UK >>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Hmm. I thought a lakh was 100,000 not 10 million. Was there a point when it >was? One lakh is one hundred thousand (100,000). One crore is 10 million or 100 lakh (10,000,000). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > One lakh is one hundred thousand (100,000). One crore is 10 million or > 100 lakh (10,000,000). Yes, that's why I questioned AC-B's post. SignatureRay UK >>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Hmm. I thought a lakh was 100,000 not 10 million. Was there a point when it > was? That's what I thought as well, but Wikipedia thought otherwise (or else I read it wrongly) , and, as we know, Wikipedia is 100% accurate. Signatureathel >>>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >That's what I thought as well, but Wikipedia thought otherwise (or else >I read it wrongly) , and, as we know, Wikipedia is 100% accurate. Possibly a misreading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakh A lakh or lac (English pronunciation: /?læk/ or /?l??k/) is a unit in the Indian numbering system equal to one hundred thousand (100,000; 10^5) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jan 29, 10:34 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? > >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 10000000 rupees = 1 lakh > 100 lakhs = 1 crore But that doesn't have the master touch of pounds and guineas. > As James has pointed out, your own country was no exception. Former Finnish money is another addition to the list of fields I know absolutely nothing about. -- Jerry Friedman >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > As James has pointed out, your own country was no exception. HHG: Monetary units Although there are three major units, (The Altarian Dollar, the Flainian Pobble Bead and the Triganic Pu) none of them count. The Altarian Dollar has recently collapsed, the Flainian Pobble Bead is only exchangeble for other Flainian Pobble Beads, and the Triganic Pu has its own very special problems. Its exchange rate of eight Ningis to one Pu is simple enough, but since a Ningi is a triangular rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles along each side, no one has ever collected enough to own one Pu. Ningis are not negotiable currency, because the Galactibanks refuse to deal in fiddling small change. SignatureDavid > HHG: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Flainian Pobble Bead and the Triganic Pu) none of them count. The > Altarian Dollar has recently collapsed Hope this won't lead to a panic. Brian SignatureDay 361 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word > meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? No. It was a term for 21 shillings, but there was never a coin or note of that denomination. It was a term used by pretentious retailers to show they were a cut above Joe Bloggs down the road who charged a pound. It was used mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a limited way. On 29 Jan 2010, Fred wrote > "Pekka Numminen" <p.numminen@suomi24.fi> wrote in message > news:a26281b0-0508-4dee-98d4-f2b70fbb2c9b@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > who charged a pound. It was used mainly in the 18th century, and > survived into the 19th century in a limited way. I believe guineas are still used today for selling racehorses. [bings] Ah; here we are: http://www.stuartwilliamsracing.co.uk/forsale.asp SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 29 Jan 2010, Fred wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >http://www.stuartwilliamsracing.co.uk/forsale.asp Certain horseraces have guineas in the name: 2000 Guineas and 1000 Guineas. Those amounts were the original prize money for the winner. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 29 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> On 29 Jan 2010, Fred wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > 1000 Guineas. Those amounts were the original prize money for > the winner. Indeed; I find it intriguing, though, that in addition to oddities like that -- historical continuity of fixed events -- a whole trading industry still quotes prices in an abandoned measure. It's kind of like if parish land surveyors were still using acres, roods, and perches. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >I believe guineas are still used today for selling racehorses. And sometimes as prizes when they win. 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 >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a limited >way. I remember window-shopping in the UK on my first trip (1969) and seeing prices shown on cards where the number was large and prominent and the guinea reference small and almost unnoticeable. It seemed to me to be a cheap trick to add 12 cents times the number to the unwary tourist shopper's bill. I was multiplying the number shown by US $2.40 to arrive at the cost to me. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > tourist shopper's bill. I was multiplying the number shown by US > $2.40 to arrive at the cost to me. We have the same problem with sales tax in the US, where you always have to pay more than the displayed price. Signatureathel >>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > tourist shopper's bill. I was multiplying the number shown by US > $2.40 to arrive at the cost to me. I consider tipping to be in the same category. SignatureRob Bannister > No. It was a term for 21 shillings, but there was never a coin or > note of that denomination. It was a term used by pretentious > retailers to show they were a cut above Joe Bloggs down the road who > charged a pound. It was used mainly in the 18th century, and > survived into the 19th century in a limited way. An apochyphal trick was told concerning a shop that used to advertise sales goods thus: "SALE: Was 30 pounds! Now 29 Guineas!" SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a limited > way. It survived a lot longer than that. Prices were still sometimes quoted in guineas when I were a lad, and as late as 1975 I was paid a fee of £15.75 as an external examiner at Oxford University, which struck me as a very odd sum until I expressed it in guineas. Signatureathel Fred wrote on Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:08:03 +1300: >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 >> shillings', too? >No. It was a term for 21 shillings, but there was never a coin or note >of that denomination. It was a term used by pretentious retailers to >show they were a cut above Joe Bloggs down the road who charged a >pound. It was used mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the >19th century in a limited way. Oh, I think there were once guinea coins and tailor's and lawyer's bills were often denominated in guineas long after the coin ceased to exist. I am told that one could cause confusion to Americans in London in auction sales by saying "guineas" to up the bid by 5% SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a limited > way. It survived a lot longer than that. I was perfectly aware of things being priced in guineas up to the early 60s. SignatureDavid >>>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It survived a lot longer than that. I was perfectly aware of things being > priced in guineas up to the early 60s. Yes. Sorry. I meant to say it had survived into the twentieth century. >>> 21 shillings = 1 guinea >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No. It was a term for 21 shillings, but there was never a coin or > note of that denomination. For values of never that exclude 1717-1813, at least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_coin which shows pictures of several. > It was a term used by pretentious retailers to show they were a cut > above Joe Bloggs down the road who charged a pound. It was used > mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a > limited way. The Wikipedia page has what seems to be a plausible explanation. It says that the guinea was originally (1663) a gold coin whose value was, at the time, equivalent to a (troy) pound of silver, and the difference in value came from the increase in the value of gold (relative to silver) at the end of the seventeenth century, hitting a high of 30 shillings (with the dimensions changing to try to keep equivalence) before being fixed by law at 21 in 1717. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A little government and a little luck 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |are necessary in life, but only a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |fool trusts either of them. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > It says that the guinea was originally (1663) a gold coin whose value > was, at the time, equivalent to a (troy) pound of silver... Tower weight, not troy. SignatureMark Brader "If you design for compatibility with a Toronto donkey cart, what you get is a donkey cart." msb@vex.net -- ?, quoted by Henry Spencer >> It says that the guinea was originally (1663) a gold coin whose value >> was, at the time, equivalent to a (troy) pound of silver... > > Tower weight, not troy. The OED, under "Tower pound" says A pound weight of 5400 grains (= 11 Troy ounces), which was the legal mint pound of England prior to the adoption of the Troy pound of 5760 grains in 1526. So by 1663, it would have been troy. Unless you mean that the pound sterling was a troy pound, but the guinea was, for some reason, still pegged to the tower pound. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum: >>> It says that the guinea was originally (1663) a gold coin whose value >>> was, at the time, equivalent to a (troy) pound of silver... Mark Brader: >> Tower weight, not troy. Evan Kirshenbaum: > The OED, under "Tower pound" says > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sterling was a troy pound, but the guinea was, for some reason, still > pegged to the tower pound. Vice versa. The pound sterling dates to the tower weight era and must therefore have been a tower pound. SignatureMark Brader "Oh, I'm a programmer and I'm O.K.... Toronto I work all night and I sleep all day" msb@vex.net -- Trygve Lode (after Monty Python) > Evan Kirshenbaum: >>>> It says that the guinea was originally (1663) a gold coin whose value [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Vice versa. The pound sterling dates to the tower weight era and > must therefore have been a tower pound. The OED etymology I give above seems to imply that the "legal mint pound" changed from the tower pound to the troy pound in 1526. What would that mean if it didn't refer to the pound sterling? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum and I (Mark Brader) write: >>>>> It says that the guinea was originally (1663) a gold coin whose value >>>>> was, at the time, equivalent to a (troy) pound of silver... >>>> Tower weight, not troy. >>> The OED, under "Tower pound" says >>> >>> A pound weight of 5400 grains (= 11 Troy ounces), which was the >>> legal mint pound of England prior to the adoption of the Troy >>> pound of 5760 grains in 1526. (Note incidentally that the parenthetical is wrong: 5760*11/12 is 5280. Was that in the OED Online?) >>> So by 1663, it would have been troy. Unless you mean that the >>> pound sterling was a troy pound, but the guinea was, for some >>> reason, still pegged to the tower pound. >> Vice versa. The pound sterling dates to the tower weight era and >> must therefore have been a tower pound. > The OED etymology I give above seems to imply that the "legal mint > pound" changed from the tower pound to the troy pound in 1526. What > would that mean if it didn't refer to the pound sterling? I was saying it meant the pound sterling was now to be described as 15/16 of a (troy) pound of silver. However, I was mistaken. The coins actually were made larger. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "I can be gullible about these kinds of things. msb@vex.net | Or so people tell me, and I believe them." My text in this article is in the public domain. > Evan Kirshenbaum and I (Mark Brader) write: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (Note incidentally that the parenthetical is wrong: 5760*11/12 is 5280. > Was that in the OED Online?) Yes, but I didn't note that something got dropped in the copy-and- paste. It's "11¼ [11.25] Troy ounces". I typically go back and check when there are thorns or eths (which also get dropped), but it didn't register that that would be a problem. >>>> So by 1663, it would have been troy. Unless you mean that the >>>> pound sterling was a troy pound, but the guinea was, for some [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > However, I was mistaken. The coins actually were made larger. To try to achieve parity in buying power after inflation? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Mark Brader: >> (Note incidentally that the parenthetical is wrong: 5760*11/12 is 5280. >> Was that in the OED Online?) Evan Kirshenbaum: > Yes, but I didn't note that something got dropped in the copy-and- > paste. It's "11¼ [11.25] Troy ounces". I typically go back and check > when there are thorns or eths (which also get dropped), but it didn't > register that that would be a problem. Ah! >> However, I was mistaken. The coins actually were made larger. > > To try to achieve parity in buying power after inflation? I have no idea. I can't remember ever having heard of such a thing -- Gresham's Law and all that -- which is why I assumed it hadn't happened. SignatureMark Brader "A facility for quotation covers the absence Toronto of original thought" -- Lord Peter Wimsey msb@vex.net (Dorothy L. Sayers, "Gaudy Night") >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a limited > way. Oh yes there was. Google will give you several results, but here's one: http://www.londonmintoffice.org/shop/action/product/107303/2008-Trafalgar-Guinea -Coin.html SignatureRob Bannister >>> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >>> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>> or that's how it was when I went to school >> You couldn't have had a more complicated system, could you? >> >> If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word >> meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? > No. It was a term for 21 shillings, but there was never a coin or note of > that denomination. It was a term used by pretentious retailers to show they > were a cut above Joe Bloggs down the road who charged a pound. It was used > mainly in the 18th century, and survived into the 19th century in a limited > way. I'm sure I remember it from the 1940s and 1950s, Perce >> If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word >> meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? > > No. It was a term for 21 shillings, but there was never a coin or note of > that denomination. Guinea coins were minted from 1663 to 1813. Their value in shillings fluctuated with time, but their value in guineas remained constant. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If 20 shillings were 1 pound, then was there really need for a word > meaning '21 shillings'? Was there a word for '22 shillings', too? No doubt some coin expert can give us the true history, but I assume that originally there was no table on the lines of 10 coppers = 1 bronze 10 bronze = 1 silver 10 silver = 1 gold For a start, the value of the various metals fluctuated wildly (and still does). Secondly, many mints debased their coinage, but wily merchants knew which ones to pick. Thirdly, various lords and monarchs, for a variety of reasons, often suddenly decided to mint a new coin, which might or might not match up to any existing coinage. So when we read about groats and marks, pennies and pounds, there is no reason to believe they fitted the 12 pennies = 1 shilling pattern at all until more recent times. I'm pretty sure there was a golden guinea coin of greater value than the golden sovereign - the exact relationship to silver coins would have been a matter for merchants and bankers. SignatureRob Bannister >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) Twelve OLD pence (12d) became 5 new pence (5p). The pound was divided into 240 old pence, 100 new pence. 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 Fred wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:46 +1300: >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five >> pence. > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? > 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) > 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) > 240 pennies = 1 pound (1 quid) > 20 shillings = 1 pound > 21 shillings = 1 guinea Wasn't the half crown coin (2 shillings six pence) also called " half a dollar"? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Fred wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:46 +1300: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Wasn't the half crown coin (2 shillings six pence) also called " half > a dollar"? I remember watching the news on D Day. They showed a (possibly rigged) scene from a railway station where the staff had evidently been instructed to deal exclusively in the new money. An old man who refused to change his ways was trying to buy a 25 p ticket. He said, "Look, the ticket costs five shillings, I gave you ten bob, so I want a dollar change." SignatureJames >> Fred wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:46 +1300: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to change his ways was trying to buy a 25 p ticket. He said, "Look, the > ticket costs five shillings, I gave you ten bob, so I want a dollar change." So what's odd about that? That is exactly how we used to talk. A surprising number of people retained the word "bob" even in Australia for several years after the change to decimal currency - this was somewhat easier than in Britain, since 2 shillings became 20 cents and the coin was and still is the same size. SignatureRob Bannister James Silverton wrote, in <hjuomg$il$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0500: > Wasn't the half crown coin (2 shillings six pence) also called " half a > dollar"? And for some years that was pretty accurate. Wikipedia he say: "Bretton Woods See also:Economic history of Britain 19451959 In 1940, an agreement with the U.S.A. pegged the pound to the U.S. dollar at a rate of £1 = $4.03. This rate was maintained through the Second World War and became part of the Bretton Woods system which governed post-war exchange rates. Under continuing economic pressure, and despite months of denials that it would do so, on 19 September 1949 the government devalued the pound by 30.5% to $2.80. The move prompted several other currencies to be devalued against the dollar." SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >James Silverton wrote, in <hjuomg$il$1@news.eternal-september.org> >on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the government devalued the pound by 30.5% to $2.80. The move prompted >several other currencies to be devalued against the dollar." I spent 1970 in the USA when the exchange rate was £1 = $2.40. Made mental conversion easy as 1c was 1d. >>James Silverton wrote, in <hjuomg$il$1@news.eternal-september.org> on >>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I spent 1970 in the USA when the exchange rate was £1 = $2.40. Made > mental conversion easy as 1c was 1d. The last time I was in Austria (about a year before the Euro), the Austrian schilling was worth 5p, which was handy. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > The last time I was in Austria (about a year before the Euro), the > Austrian schilling was worth 5p, which was handy. Conversely, the first time I went to Austria - 1968 - it was 60 to the pound. I remember we used to say "three schillings to the bob". Regards Jonathan >>> James Silverton wrote, in <hjuomg$il$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>> on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The last time I was in Austria (about a year before the Euro), the > Austrian schilling was worth 5p, which was handy. Last time I was in Germany I made a call on a handy, which was 5p. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> James Silverton wrote, in <hjuomg$il$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>> on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Last time I was in Germany I made a call on a handy, which was 5p. Based on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfennig, I'm inclined to believe that 5p should be 5 Pf, but my German is awful. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> James Silverton wrote, in <hjuomg$il$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>>> on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:43:46 -0500: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Based on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfennig, I'm inclined to believe > that 5p should be 5 Pf, but my German is awful. ...to say nothing of artificial and amusing. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > Fred wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:46 +1300: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wasn't the half crown coin (2 shillings six pence) also called " half a Only in the rougher parts of big cities. We would never have used such common slang. SignatureDavid >> London - A new advert for McDonald's has come under fire over its >> inaccurate [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> customers asked McDonald's to either correct or withdraw the advert, or >> allow them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence. > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? Yes, but twelve "old pennies" = five "new pence" > 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) > 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > or that's how it was when I went to school And when I was going to school in UK, 5/- (5 shillings) was popularly referred to as "a dollar" (although we were never *taught* that), apparently because at some point that had been the exchange rate. But it was still being used long after the official exchange rate had become 7/2d (7 shillings and tuppence) to one US dollar. Similarly, ISTR, "half a crown" (2/6d -- and there was a coin of that value) could be referred to as "half a dollar"; there had been a "crown" coin, and one showed up occasionally, but they were no longer being minted. Long before my time there was a 4d coin, the groat. Perce > >> London - A new advert for McDonald's has come under fire over its > >> inaccurate [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Perce And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. Before that, there was only the penny. >> >> London - A new advert for McDonald's has come under fire over its >> >> inaccurate [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. > Before that, there was only the penny. And don't forget the (dodecagonal) threepenny bit, which was minted until 1970: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threepence_%28British_coin%29> SignatureLes (BrE) > And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. > Before that, there was only the penny. I recall buying sweets with my brother back in 1959 which we paid for using farthings. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. > > And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. > > Before that, there was only the penny. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain > to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. I too (being born in 1955)recall spending farthings at the local sweet shop. These were usually found down the back of old settees or in hidden jars in granny's cupboards. They were last minted in 1947 but remained legal tender until 1960. There are not only contemporaries but older people who question my memory of this. Incidentally if you search monetary value comparison sites you will find that not only the current penny but even the two pence piece are worth less in real terms than was the farthing when it was abolished, so why I wonder are they still used? One cannot purchase anything in pence these days. Time for another re-evaluation? >> > And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. >> > Before that, there was only the penny. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >so why I wonder are they still used? One cannot purchase anything in >pence these days. Time for another re-evaluation? Some prices are so many pounds and 99 pence. That needs sub-five-pence coins. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 29 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> Incidentally if you search monetary value comparison sites you >> will find that not only the current penny but even the two [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Some prices are so many pounds and 99 pence. That needs > sub-five-pence coins. It's a solveable problem. In NZ they still price things as so many dollars and 95 or 99 cents, but the lowest-denomination coin in circulation is 10 cents. ("Swedish rounding", I think it's called.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dollars and 95 or 99 cents, but the lowest-denomination coin in > circulation is 10 cents. ("Swedish rounding", I think it's called.) Similarly in Australia, where the lowest-denomination coin is the 5c coin. If you buy an item advertised at $1.99, and you'll get no change from $2. Buy three of them, though, and the effective unit price drops. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On 29 Jan 2010, Redshade wrote > Incidentally if you search monetary value comparison sites you > will find that not only the current penny but even the two pence > piece are worth less in real terms than was the farthing when it > was abolished, so why I wonder are they still used? One cannot > purchase anything in pence these days. Time for another > re-evaluation? Possibly; it's certainly an oddity that countries grapple (or refuse to grapple) with this in such different ways. New Zealand rounds up and down to 10 cents -- 4 or 5 pence -- while the US still has one-cent coins in circulation (about .6 of a pence, I think). I do realise that's probably using two extremes: the NZ 10c base is probably one of the highest-value minimum coins around, while the US system still shifts to banknotes when the value hits 60 or 70 pence. Nonetheless, But the difference in approach is quite marked.. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 Jan 2010, Redshade wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the US still has one-cent coins in circulation (about .6 of a pence, > I think). "... of a pence"? > I do realise that's probably using two extremes: the NZ 10c base is > probably one of the highest-value minimum coins around, while the US > system still shifts to banknotes when the value hits 60 or 70 pence. > Nonetheless, But the difference in approach is quite marked.. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |more than the average number of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 30 Jan 2010, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> On 29 Jan 2010, Redshade wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > "... of a pence"? It sounds right to my ear. (I don't think I'd write "0.6 cents", either.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> "... of a pence"? > > It sounds right to my ear. (I don't think I'd write "0.6 cents", > either.) You missed Evan's point, which is that "a pence" is wrong, pence being plural. Regards Jonathan On 30 Jan 2010, Jonathan Morton wrote >>> "... of a pence"? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You missed Evan's point, which is that "a pence" is wrong, pence > being plural. Ah, yes. My, as they say, bad. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 30 Jan 2010, Jonathan Morton wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ah, yes. My, as they say, bad. I agree. Although I may have said it once or twice, "My bad" is not really in my lexicon. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Jonathan Morton: > You missed Evan's point, which is that "a pence" is wrong, pence being > plural. The Institution of Silly & Meaningless Sayings collects examples: http://www.isms.org.uk/1_pence.htm The OED: = PENNY n. 1. Usu. in one pence. Frequently regarded as a solecism. In the 20th cent. applied colloquially to a ‘new penny’ after the introduction of decimal currency to Britain in 1971. 1652 in A. Lewis & J. R. Newhall Hist. Lynn (1865) ii. 211 Mr Auditer, pay to Joseph Armeteg fouer pound sevene shillings one pence. 1722 R. BEVERLEY Hist. Virginia (1855) IV. I. viii. 214 The revenue of one pence per pound on tobacco exported to the plantations from Virginia and Maryland. 1867 J. M. BONNELL Man. Art Prose Composition 181 To be corrected... If the twelve apples actually costed six pence, then two apples should cost one pence. 1971 Record (Oxf. Univ. Press) Dec. 10/2 The computer was found to be rounding up to the nearest pence the Bank Code Numbers on the Wages Slips. 1975 M. BRADBURY Hist. Man i. 3 Comparative, up-to-the-minute lists showing how Fine Fare, on lard, is one pence up on Sainsbury's, or vice versa. 2002 Daily Tel. 14 Nov. 40/2 They are awarded units, priced at one pence each, which are redeemable at £100. SignatureJohn > Jonathan Morton: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > They are awarded units, priced at one pence each, which are redeemable > at £100. The solecism can be avoided by saying "one pee". Which reminds me of an identical-sounding solecism: "one pea". That should of course be "one pease" (cf. French "pois"), but the mistake is an old one (although not as old as "cherry"). SignatureJames "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com> writes: >>> "... of a pence"? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You missed Evan's point, which is that "a pence" is wrong, pence > being plural. Well, my point was to discover whether it was now considered okay to use in the singular as well. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> > writes: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com> > writes: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, my point was to discover whether it was now considered okay to > use in the singular as well. To which the answer is that "one pence" is quite commonly heard in the UK. I consider it wrong, for the reason previously given. But it is clearly not unintelligible. However, I suspect that many people who cheerfully use "one pence" would think that "a pence" was wrong. Regards Jonathan On Jan 30, 11:08 pm, "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> > > writes: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jonathan I have always understood that "pence" as a plural was just a contraction or "pennies" I have to say that I have never heard "one pence" or "a pence" used in the UK either to describe the old or the new penny singularly, though I would not be surprised to find usages either current or archaic as English is so malleable. I recall though that both "thrupence" (three pence) and "thrupney bit/ piece" (three penny bit/piece) were extant in my youth . I absolutely hate the modern usage of "one pee, two pee etc" to describe the "new penny " as it was designated thus, not only in official descriptions but also by having the words engraved in full view on all of the coins. Where/how/why was this ugly nomenclature coined. >On Jan 30, 11:08 pm, "Jonathan Morton" ><jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Where/how/why was this ugly nomenclature coined. It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new both of which had penny coins although of substantially different values. It was very simple to use a "p" by analogy with the "d" of the previous currency. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jan 31, 12:40 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:46:29 -0800 (PST), Redshade > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new > both of which had penny coins although of substantially different > values. But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started much later, hence my where/how/why. > But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not > call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage > started much later, hence my where/how/why. It couldn't have been all that much later. I remember a _Benny Hill_ skit, which I couldn't have seen much later than about 1981 and which probably wasn't recent, with a commercial that contained the line "When they ask you how much it costs, tell them '2p off'." And I see "2p off" in 1977 book. In Erving Goffman's 1981 _Forms of Talk_, he says Written abbreviations (such as British _p_ for _pence_) also enter the spoken domain. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth. |Enormous effort and elaborate kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this (650)857-7572 |much money | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not > > call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > | P.J. O'Rourke > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ This reinforces one of my personal theories that the usage started in the media and was then adopted by the rest of us. > But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not > call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started > much later, hence my where/how/why. Although nigel molesworth could write that someone (IIRC) is "not worth a d", we presume he would read that out as "a penny". SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not >> call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started >> much later, hence my where/how/why. > > Although nigel molesworth could write that someone (IIRC) is "not worth > a d", we presume he would read that out as "a penny". Why? As I have already written a few minutes ago, "dee" was in common use at my school. SignatureRob Bannister >>> But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not >>> call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why? As I have already written a few minutes ago, "dee" was in common > use at my school. Well because until you posted, everyone was denying it happened! Although I clearly remember the switch over, I don't really remember spending or discussing money before it happened. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > On Jan 31, 12:40 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started > much later, hence my where/how/why. I rather think we did. It started out as "new pence" and that was too much for such a trivial share of the currency so we started saying 'pee'. OED has these cites: "1971 Observer 14 Feb. 9/5 Everyone at the Decimal Currency Board has taken to calling new pence 'pee'. 1972 Daily Tel. 9 Aug. 16 If Mr. Broca had contacted us we would have sold him one not for 'seventy-eight pees', but for 69p. 1974 Punch 6 Mar. 362/2 The Scandinavian revenue men+intimating that it's either an immediate fifty pee in the £ or chuck the belongings back into the red-spotted hankie and ring up a mini cab. 1974 R. Rendell Face of Trespass ii. 23 May I trouble you for forty~two pee? 1974 Observer (Colour Suppl.) 15 Dec. 13/4 Few could be bothered to say 'new pence' for the decimal stuff, so we used 'pee', and that is what we are lumbered with today. 1976 Times Lit. Suppl. 2 Apr. 388/1 A small boy on the loose in London with a million pound picture in a laundry bag and 'two pee' in his pocket. 1977 Transatlantic Rev. lx. 187 He was accosted by a group of rotting cider bums: 'Mister+we just need ten pee to get ourselves another bottle.'" The 1971 quote suggests even the overlords had given up on the 'new pence' idea. The other 70s quotes suggest it had entered the language. In particular, Ruth Rendell (1974) is an author who demonstrates an ear for contemporary usage and if she has a character speaking of "forty-two pee" then that says to me that the usage was commonly heard by then. Which is what I recollect. The OED prefaces the cites with: " Representing the pronunciation of the initial letter of 'penny', i.e. a new penny, a unit of decimal currency introduced in Britain on 15 Feb. 1971. See also p s.v. *P II, penny I. 1. The pronunciation of p. as (pi;) is common in everyday speech but is avoided by many people, who prefer ("pEnI) (as singular) and (pEns) (as pl.)." SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not >> call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started >> much later, hence my where/how/why. > > I rather think we did. It started out as "new pence" and that was too much > for such a trivial share of the currency so we started saying 'pee'. I agree. My recollection is that we were already talking about "new pee" before the changeover. It should not be forgotten that the new 50p (October 1969), 10p and 5p (both April 1968) coins were already in circulation well before 15 February 1971, being perfectly serviceable as 10 shillings, 2 shillings and 1 shilling respectively. <snip citations> Further, Supertramp's "Asylum" on "Crime of the Century" from 1974 has "I ask if he'd be willing to lend me fifteen pee [that's how he pronounces it], I'm dying for a smoke". Regards Jonathan On Jan 31, 10:17 pm, "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethisp...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> But we did not call the "old" penny a "dee". And in 1971 we did not > >> call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jonathan I was 15/16 years old in 1971 and I distinctly remember as a working class lad the derision heaped upon "pee" users: "Does tha mean a 'nuppence?'". And a few years later I still remember the badinage when in pubs a young barmaid might have said "one pee change" the barrage of comments from the tap room philosophers: "No thanks lass I'v just 'ad one" and " peeing's free luv but ah'll tek it in case ah ivver av t'spend a penny" etc. Excuse me now whilst I go feed my pigeons, worm my whippet, and try to prise my ferret from the mother-in-law's ankle. > On Jan 31, 12:40 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > call the new pence a pee. If memory serves me right this usage started > much later, hence my where/how/why. At my school, we did in fact use "dee" in conversation (1951-1959). I won't say we ever talked about "one dee", but "Have you got three dee? or "I haven't got a dee" were fairly common. Whether this was restricted to our school, I can't say. In 1971, the year I left England, the term "pee" for money was already quite common. SignatureRob Bannister >At my school, we did in fact use "dee" in conversation (1951-1959). I >won't say we ever talked about "one dee", but "Have you got three dee? >or "I haven't got a dee" were fairly common. Whether this was restricted >to our school, I can't say. In 1971, the year I left England, the term >"pee" for money was already quite common. I never encountered "dee" when I was in England, 1966-1968. By the time I left two of the new coins had been introduced and were in circulation. I think one was 5p, but I can't remember what the other was. But amounts and prices were still given as £-s-d, and not in new pence, and no one (in my hearing) ever spoke of either "dee" or "pee" in reference to money. 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 >It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >both of which had penny coins although of substantially different >values. It was very simple to use a "p" by analogy with the "d" of the >previous currency. But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". 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 >> It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >> both of which had penny coins although of substantially different >> values. It was very simple to use a "p" by analogy with the "d" of the >> previous currency. > > But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". I went to see a thrippeny film last week. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >>> both of which had penny coins although of substantially different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > I went to see a thrippeny film last week. Was it an adaptation of a penny dreadful or a tuppenny-ha'penny novel? Those thripenny films are ten a penny round here. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >>>> both of which had penny coins although of substantially different [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Was it an adaptation of a penny dreadful or a tuppenny-ha'penny novel? Those > thripenny films are ten a penny round here. The truppny opera wasn't bad. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >>>>> both of which had penny coins although of substantially different [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >The truppny opera wasn't bad. Sexy, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltqK0WXb3qg SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE [come up pence] >>> Was it an adaptation of a penny dreadful or a tuppenny-ha'penny >>> novel? Those thripenny films are ten a penny round here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltqK0WXb3qg Thank you for a whole new take on the song. Can't do better than Wartonite's comment, cleaned up a bissel: <A story about the starving class, set in London in the 1800s, written by a couple of Germans in the early 1900s as an anti-opera piece, popularized by American pop singers in? the 1950s, and now sung to us by a very healthy couple in Hebrew over the internet. How amazing! How fantastic! I luv it!> >>>> It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >>>> both of which had penny coins although of substantially different [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Was it an adaptation of a penny dreadful or a tuppenny-ha'penny novel? > Those thripenny films are ten a penny round here. Around here, they are considerably dearer: a dime a dozen. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) [...] [...]. >>>> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". I have, though. It seems to have been something they said at my brother's school _before_ decimalisation. I won't swear on a selection of holy books that I've occasionally heard or used it in a conscious effort to distinguish d-pence from p-pence, but it doesn't feel unlikely. [...] SignatureMike. Steve Hayes filted: >>It was necessary to distinguish between the old currency and the new >>both of which had penny coins although of substantially different >>values. It was very simple to use a "p" by analogy with the "d" of the >>previous currency. > >But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". Oh, how is it that I could come out to here And be still floating, And never hit bottom and keep falling through, Just relaxed and payin' attention? ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". Why would you? Language, by its origin, is not guaranteed to be consistent. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". > > Why would you? Language, by its origin, is not guaranteed to be > consistent. There was simply no need to say dee when it didn't have to be distinguished from a pee. SignatureJames >> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". > > Why would you? Language, by its origin, is not guaranteed to be > consistent. What's consistency got to do with it? I never heard it either. If you have evidence or even hearsay that anyone spoke of, eg, "five dee" in either pre- or post-decimal times, let's have it. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you have evidence or even hearsay that anyone spoke of, eg, "five > dee" in either pre- or post-decimal times, let's have it. My point was that it would be a false consistency to assume that one might have heard anything like "five dee" just because one has heard "five pee". SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >>> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". >> Why would you? Language, by its origin, is not guaranteed to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > evidence or even hearsay that anyone spoke of, eg, "five dee" in either pre- > or post-decimal times, let's have it. I have already stated that it was part of our school slang. James' argument that it was not necessary has, of course, no validity in the sphere of slang. Regrettably, though, spoken slang is not going to produce written evidence. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". >>> Why would you? Language, by its origin, is not guaranteed to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sphere of slang. Regrettably, though, spoken slang is not going to > produce written evidence. Right on both counts. Lack of necessity has never stopped people from doing things. And "I have never heard anyone say dee" does not necessarily mean "No one ever said dee". SignatureJames >> But I never heard anyone speak of "five dee". > >Why would you? Language, by its origin, is not guaranteed to be >consistent. Which is why said it was not by analogy with d. It was more likely who have been because "new pence" was cumbersome to say, as others have also suggested. 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 > And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. > Before that, there was only the penny. Given that the origin of the farthing[1] is a penny cut into quarters along the cross on its reverse, I wonder by how much the penny precedes it. [1] or have I swallowed an urban legend? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them. | Albert Einstein kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> And longer ago than that, there was a halfpenny. And a farthing. >> Before that, there was only the penny. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [1] or have I swallowed an urban legend? When it comes to coinage there are no urban legends. There are even coins that are 1/3rd of a farthing. > >> London - A new advert for McDonald's has come under fire over its > >> inaccurate [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> allow them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence. > > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? > was still being used long after the official exchange rate had become > 7/2d (7 shillings and tuppence) to one US dollar. Similarly, ISTR, "half [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Perce And the 4d groat times by 60 gave us the 240d pound. Based on the ancient 12x5=60 counting system (based on the bones in the hand). *They* might have abolished this system in our currency in *their* attempt to abolish measures that were based on old folk methods but *they* are never going to be able to decimalise the 60 unit in the way we measure time or the area of circles/angles. > And the 4d groat times by 60 gave us the 240d pound. > Based on the ancient 12x5=60 counting system (based on the bones in > the hand). While it may well be that counting by twelves had its origins in finger bones (i.e. four fingers having three bones each, the thumb having only two), it had nothing at all to do with multiplying by 5 and coming up with 60 > > And the 4d groat times by 60 gave us the 240d pound. > > Based on the ancient 12x5=60 counting system (based on the bones in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > two), it had nothing at all to do with multiplying by 5 and coming up with > 60 I was taught this method by my grandad back in the 50s. Using the thumb of the right hand as a counter, point it to the bottom bone of the first digit and work upwards 1-2-3 then go to the bottom bone of the next finger 4-5-6 and so on until the number 12 was reached. This dozen was marked by raising one of the digits of the left hand. Repeat 5 times and one reaches 60. "[[I]t had nothing to do with multiplying by 5 and coming up with 60". I have no objection to being disabused of my traditional beliefs. Please show me otherwise. > > > And the 4d groat times by 60 gave us the 240d pound. > > > Based on the ancient 12x5=60 counting system (based on the bones in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I have no objection to being disabused of my traditional beliefs. > Please show me otherwise. Nor do I have any objection to learning something new. I'd never considered counting off the dozens on the other hand. Very interesting. What was your grandfather's background? > > > > And the 4d groat times by 60 gave us the 240d pound. > > > > Based on the ancient 12x5=60 counting system (based on the bones in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > "[[I]t had nothing to do with multiplying by 5 and coming up with 60". > > I have no objection to being disabused of my traditional beliefs. > > Please show me otherwise. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Born 1894 died 1967. He was a farm labourer who, when he came back from the Somme, spent the rest of his working life in various knackers yards in Heckmondwike and Dewsbury (rendering some of the millions of defunct horses that had served him so well as a civilian and soldier) until his retirement in the 50s. El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:46 +1300, Fred escribió: > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? 12 pennies = 1 > shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > or that's how it was when I went to school Didn't you have crowns and half crowns? SignaturePablo >El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:31:46 +1300, Fred escribió: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Didn't you have crowns and half crowns? Half crowns (2 shillings and sixpence) were in general circulation. Crowns were not. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: > Half crowns (2 shillings and sixpence) were in general circulation. > Crowns were not. I've got one somewhere (a crown), in a little presentation case. I haven't seen it in about 40 years though, so I don't know where it is. SignaturePablo > El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've got one somewhere (a crown), in a little presentation case. I > haven't seen it in about 40 years though, so I don't know where it is. The Bank of England had crowns on sale honouring the Queen's Silver Jubilee. About 1977 I believe. >> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the Queen's Silver Jubilee. > About 1977 I believe. There was also one for Churchill in the mid-sixties. SignatureRay UK musika wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:44:06 GMT: >>> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> the Queen's Silver Jubilee. >> About 1977 I believe. > There was also one for Churchill in the mid-sixties. Were these crown legal tender? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > musika wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:44:06 GMT: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Were these crown legal tender? Yes, but I don't think many people spent theirs. I still have my Churchill crown somewhere (probably in the same place as Peter's). SignatureJames >> musika wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:44:06 GMT: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yes, but I don't think many people spent theirs. I still have my > Churchill crown somewhere (probably in the same place as Peter's). Me too. IIRC, Churchill is the only non-royal real human ever to be put on a UK coin. SignatureDavid >>> musika wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:44:06 GMT: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Me too. IIRC, Churchill is the only non-royal real human ever to be put >on a UK coin. The 2009 2 pound coin has Charles Darwin on it. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> musika wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:44:06 GMT: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >The 2009 2 pound coin has Charles Darwin on it. There are two design of 2006 2 pound coin each commemorating Brunel. One has his image and the edge inscription 1806-59 . ISAMBARD KINGDOM BRUNEL . ENGINEER The other has iron structures and his name. The edge inscription is SO MANY IRONS IN THE FIRE SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Me too. IIRC, Churchill is the only non-royal real human ever to be put >>> on a UK coin. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The other has iron structures and his name. The edge inscription is > SO MANY IRONS IN THE FIRE Ah, I see that I need to update my facts. SignatureDavid >>>> Me too. IIRC, Churchill is the only non-royal real human ever to be put >>>> on a UK coin. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ah, I see that I need to update my facts. In the absence of more information I can live with the speculation that Churchill might have been the first. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There was also one for Churchill in the mid-sixties. I've still got one of my Festival of Britain crowns somewhere. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I've still got one of my Festival of Britain crowns somewhere. The UK Royal Mint issues commemorative crown coins from time to time. The face value is now 5 pounds. This lists crown coins: http://www.royalmint.com/Corporate/facts/coins/FivePoundCoin.aspx The £5 crown piece is issued to commemorate special occasions of national importance. These coins are not intended to be a permanent feature of the United Kingdom circulation coinage, rather they are intended as souvenirs. In its present form, the cupro-nickel crown has a face value of £5 it was increased to this value from 25p in 1990. This increase gives the coin a value consistent with its weight and size in relation to present range of coins. Each new crown issue is authorised by Royal Proclamation, as required by the Coinage Act of 1971. A crown therefore has legal tender status, but since it is not a circulation coin, most retailers will refuse to accept it. In recognition, however, that some people may wish to exchange a crown piece given or purchased as a souvenir, post offices have agreed to accept crowns in exchange for goods and services. The first crown piece with a portrait of a non-Royal is the Churchill crown. The next was that marking the 200th anniversary of the death of Horatio Nelson. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the Queen's Silver Jubilee. >About 1977 I believe. I almost certainly have one of those - somewhere. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the Queen's Silver Jubilee. > About 1977 I believe. Quite a few crowns have been issued over the years: Charles and Diana's wedding, I believe, and Churchill's funeral may be two other occasions. There were also three penny bits. Before decimalisation, the sum of three pence was pronounced variously "THROOP-ence" "THREPP-ence" or "THRUPP-ence" reflecting different pronunciations in the various regions of Great Britain. Likewise, the coin was usually referred to in conversation as a "THROOP-nee" "THREPP-nee" or "THRUPP-nee" bit (taken from wikipedia, but my memory tells me that it is correct). They had a varied history, sometimes not being minted in earlier centuries to the 20th, but from the 19th century onwards they were routinely minted as small silver coins. By the end of George V's reign (in 1936) their small size had become unpopular, and so brass, thicker coins were introduced that had 12 edges to them. The last silver threepenny bits were minted in George VI's reign up to about 1945. The threepenny bit was withdrawn and stopped being legal tender on 31 August 1971, after decimalisation. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >>> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:45:03 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) escribió: >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > threepenny bit was withdrawn and stopped being legal tender on 31 > August 1971, after decimalisation. Silver coins in my collection, 2d 1838 young Queen Victoria 6d 1679 Charles II 4d 1827 George IIII (not IV) 6d 1834 William IIII 6d 1889 Older Queen Victoria Non silver coins 1977 Crown size but no face value Queen is riding side saddle. 1972 Crown size Elizabeth and Philip 20 November 1947-1972 1965 Crown size Churchill, Queen on the other side. 1977 Silver Jubilee, Australian 50 cents > There were also three penny bits. Before decimalisation, the sum of > three pence was pronounced variously "THROOP-ence" "THREPP-ence" or > "THRUPP-ence" reflecting different pronunciations in the various > regions of Great Britain. Likewise, the coin was usually referred to > in conversation as a "THROOP-nee" "THREPP-nee" or "THRUPP-nee" bit > (taken from wikipedia, but my memory tells me that it is correct). Your memory is correct. > They had a varied history, sometimes not being minted in earlier > centuries to the 20th, but from the 19th century onwards they were > routinely minted as small silver coins. By the end of George V's reign > (in 1936) their small size had become unpopular, and so brass, thicker > coins were introduced that had 12 edges to them. The last silver > threepenny bits were minted in George VI's reign up to about 1945. Which means that there was a time when both silver and the 12-sided ones were being minted. The first of the 12-sided ones were supposed to be dated 1937 and obviously to have the head of Edward VIII. I believe these were the only coins bearing his head which were actually minted, and none seems to have made it into circulation. > The threepenny bit was withdrawn and stopped being legal tender on 31 > August 1971, after decimalisation. By then it had become really a rather ugly coin. Presumably the old penny ceased to be legal tender at the same time, these being the only then remaining coins that had no exact equivalent value in the new decimal coinage. I lived through conversion, but being 14 at the time remember it as rather a non-event. Regards Jonathan > A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? > 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) > 2 shillings = a florin (2 bob) > 240 pennies = 1 pound (1 quid) > 20 shillings = 1 pound > 21 shillings = 1 guinea What was a crown? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What was a crown? 5 shillings. Half-a-crown 2/6d SignatureRay UK >> A pound was 'a quid', but wasn't a bob twelve pence? >> 12 pennies = 1 shilling (one bob) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What was a crown? Five shillings. SignatureJames > McDonalds' language error > 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > speaking, > is not true. . . "Strictly speaking"? I don't believe a pound was *ever* known as a bob, even broadly speaking. >> McDonalds' language error 27/01/2010 18:06:47 >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "Strictly speaking"? I don't believe a pound was *ever* known as a > bob, even broadly speaking. Why didn't they use "nicker"? As for "bob", a McDonald spokesman has said: "research has shown it is now more commonly used as slang for a pound or money in general." Can anybody here substantiate this? I wonder where this "research" is presented. I suspect someone looked at the first page of hits at the Urban Dictionary and found this: <noun> British Slang; Money, coinage, currency. "Tommy made a few bob selling cut n shuts to some old lady." SignatureJames > As for "bob", a McDonald spokesman has said: > "research has shown it is now more commonly used as slang for a > pound or money in general." Of course, the way this is phrased, research can show anything, but it must usually be extremely poor research, biased and selective. > Can anybody here substantiate this? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Money, coinage, currency. > "Tommy made a few bob selling cut n shuts to some old lady." Yes, that would be consistent with the statement McDonald made. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >> As for "bob", a McDonald spokesman has said: >> "research has shown it is now more commonly used as slang for a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yes, that would be consistent with the statement McDonald made. No, it wouldn't. There's nothing there to equate 'bob' with 'pound'. That statement could equally read "Tommy made a few sovs selling cut n shuts to some old lady" even though nobody's been paid in sovereigns for many years. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> As for "bob", a McDonald spokesman has said: "research has shown it is >> now more commonly used as slang for a pound or money in general." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yes, that would be consistent with the statement McDonald made. It's consistent with the "money in general" sense. It's not a sentence that indicates "bob" = "pound". SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) On 29 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote >>> McDonalds' language error 27/01/2010 18:06:47 >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Can anybody here substantiate this? In one sense he's right, but his defence isn't relevant to the usage he's trying to defend. In context, "a few bob" can mean "a few pounds"; but no one would refer to "a pound" as "a bob". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 29 Jan 2010, James Hogg wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In context, "a few bob" can mean "a few pounds"; but no one would > refer to "a pound" as "a bob". Any more than "a few feet" can mean "a few yards" means that "foot" is a word for "yard". [saddles up hobby-horse] Still, what can you expect from a naff caff that calls itself a "restaurant" [does not, yet, dismount] SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>[...] >> London - A new advert for McDonald's has come under fire over its [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bob, > even broadly speaking. Correct. I am sad that certain new slang terms, from the 80s, for the then new pound coins never caught on: (a) A "Thatcher", because it is "thick, brassy, and acts like a sovereign" (b) A Scargill, because it is "rough round the edges, universally disliked, and wears a hole in the nation's pockets." SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. > I am sad that certain new slang terms, from the 80s, for the then new > pound coins never caught on: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (b) A Scargill, because it is "rough round the edges, universally > disliked, and wears a hole in the nation's pockets." I remember one of the new coins being called, for a short while "an Argentinian penny" - which helps fix the date. I'm pretty sure it was the 20p piece. I can find no on-line reference to this, does anyone else remember it? SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >> I am sad that certain new slang terms, from the 80s, for the then new >> pound coins never caught on: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the 20p piece. I can find no on-line reference to this, does anyone > else remember it? I don't recall hearing the expression, but the 20p coin was indeed introduced in 1982. It was the first coin to say simply "pence" as opposed to "new pence". The 5s, 10s and 50s dropped "new" when they were made smaller. The only remaining coins which are in identical form to the 1971 versions are the 1p and 2p coins. Both of these now say "pence" but I'm not sure when the "new" was dropped on these. Regards Jonathan Jonathan Morton: > I don't recall hearing the expression, but the 20p coin was indeed > introduced in 1982. It was the first coin to say simply "pence" as > opposed to "new pence". The 5s, 10s and 50s dropped "new" when they > were made smaller. The only remaining coins which are in identical > form to the 1971 versions are the 1p and 2p coins. Both of these now > say "pence"... I would be astonished if that was correct. However, I haven't had occasion to use them for a few years. I can say that it's in the singular on the three 1p's I have at hand -- 1981, "1" and "NEW PENNY"; 1988 and 1993, "1" and "ONE PENNY". SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "I asked you for a *good* reason, msb@vex.net | not a *terrific* one!" --Maxwell Smart (Agent 86) My text in this article is in the public domain. >Jonathan Morton: >> were made smaller. The only remaining coins which are in identical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >singular on the three 1p's I have at hand -- 1981, "1" and "NEW PENNY"; >1988 and 1993, "1" and "ONE PENNY". Yes; I have here pennies from 2001, 2005 and 2009; all of them say "ONE PENNY". I think Jonathan meant only to remark that they no longer use the word "new". Katy >>Jonathan Morton: >>> were made smaller. The only remaining coins which are in identical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Yes; I have here pennies from 2001, 2005 and 2009; all of them say "ONE PENNY". >I think Jonathan meant only to remark that they no longer use the word "new". Somewhere in the loft I have a "systematic" collection of coins. However, closer at hand I have a container full of 1p coins that I've put to one side rather than carry with me. The long-term intention is to bank them. The coins have been accumulating for years. The earliest among them seems to be one dated 1973 and marked "NEW PENNY" and "1". The same wording is on those dated 1975 and 1978. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >The only remaining coins which are in identical form to the 1971 versions >are the 1p and 2p coins. Both of these now say "pence" but I'm not sure >when the "new" was dropped on these. Not so ---- the 1p coin is still stamped "One Penny" Here are the 2009 UK coins: http://noclichesallowed.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/matthew-dent/ >> I am sad that certain new slang terms, from the 80s, for the then new >> pound coins never caught on: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the 20p piece. I can find no on-line reference to this, does anyone >else remember it? No, never heard that, but I do remember that the first 50p coin was called a "Wilson" because it was "many-sided and two-faced". >>> I am sad that certain new slang terms, from the 80s, for the then new >>> pound coins never caught on: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No, never heard that, but I do remember that the first 50p coin was called a > "Wilson" because it was "many-sided and two-faced". I remember the joke very clearly, although I don't think anybody actually said it except as a joke. SignatureRob Bannister On 29 Jan 2010, Caffista wrote >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Strictly speaking"? I don't believe a pound was *ever* known > as a bob, even broadly speaking. Indeed; it's as silly as saying a dollar is also known as a dime (or, to be proportionately accurate, a nickel). SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 29 Jan 2010, Caffista wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Indeed; it's as silly as saying a dollar is also known as a dime >(or, to be proportionately accurate, a nickel). Except "dime" isn't slang; it is legally a unit of American money and has been ever since American money was defined by statute (although it was spelled "disme" in the first currency act passed). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>On 29 Jan 2010, Caffista wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (although it was spelled "disme" in the first currency act > passed). "Nickel", however, is, as is "penny". And "bit". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired |for their resemblance to a kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger. (650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Except "dime" isn't slang; it is legally a unit of American money > > and has been ever since American money was defined by statute > > (although it was spelled "disme" in the first currency act > > passed). > > "Nickel", however, is, as is "penny". And "bit". There's a term that's gone out of use. It was common WIWAL, but I'll bet few people under the age of 30 know what "two bits" means. Shave and a haircut: two bits. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> > Except "dime" isn't slang; it is legally a unit of American money >> > and has been ever since American money was defined by statute [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Shave and a haircut: two bits. And even fewer will be likely to use "four bits" or "six bits" in the money sense outside the cheer Two bits, four bits, six bits, a dollar. All for <name of school> stand up and holler! SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>On 29 Jan 2010, Caffista wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >"Nickel", however, is, as is "penny". And "bit". Generally referred to in the plural, from what I've seen, since who can spent a bit? A long time ago, perhaps, one could. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>On 29 Jan 2010, Caffista wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >"Nickel", however, is, as is "penny". And "bit". Generally referred to in the plural, from what I've seen, since who can spent a bit? A long time ago, perhaps, one could. Correction: spent => spend SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 29 Jan 2010, Hatunen wrote >> On 29 Jan 2010, Caffista wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (although it was spelled "disme" in the first currency act > passed). Except that whether something's slang or official has no bearing on whether two words can or can't be used interchangeably. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Steve Hayes filted: >McDonalds' language error >27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >customers asked McDonald's to either correct or withdraw the advert, or allow >them to purchase items on the Saver Menu for a true bob, or five pence. Others are in a better position than I to know this, but I seem to recall that "bob" strictly applies only to the actual shilling, and not its post-decimalisation equivalent...this will probably give the Golden Arches a legal out.... Some decades ago, a car dealer with an overdeveloped sense of whimsy used another slang term for money in his ads, telling people they could get a new car from him for "only five thousand bananas" (or whatever the number was)...someone took him at his word and brought in a truckload of fruit to pay for his new car....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Steve Hayes filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >post-decimalisation equivalent...this will probably give the Golden Arches a >legal out.... In South Africa some of the same terms were used -- especially "quid" and "bob", when we adopted decimal currency in 1961 (ten years before Britain did). And as recently as 10 years ago the cashier at the cafeteria at the university where Iworked woudl still ask for "five bob" when the amount owing was 50c. We adopted a different system from Britain, and at the time of the change the Rand was worth ten bob. Now it's worth peanuts. 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 >Steve Hayes filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >took him at his word and brought in a truckload of fruit to pay for his new >car....r Bananas was not a particularly unusual term for dollars, years ago. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > McDonalds' language error > 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is not true. Technically, a bob is a term for a shilling, or five pence, and > of far less value than a pound. Has anyone tried to pay a bob for an item whose price is advertised as being a pound? It seems to me that, if such a payment were rejected, McCrap would be seriously at risk of being done for false advertising. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rejected, McCrap would be seriously at risk of being done for false > advertising. I thought that it was no longer possible to present a British shilling coin that was still legal tender. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: > I thought that it was no longer possible to present a British shilling > coin that was still legal tender. Doesn't the value of a coin stay with it, ie; it's value is it's weight? I've always assumed that coins could at least be redeemed at the BoE. Come to think of it, notes are just cheques, and I'm sure they don't have an expiry date on them. SignaturePablo >El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: > >> I thought that it was no longer possible to present a British shilling >> coin that was still legal tender. > >Doesn't the value of a coin stay with it, ie; it's value is it's weight? It is many years since the face value of a coin was the same as the value of the metal from which it is made. >I've always assumed that coins could at least be redeemed at the BoE. >Come to think of it, notes are just cheques, and I'm sure they don't have >an expiry date on them. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:50:07 +0000: >> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Doesn't the value of a coin stay with it, ie; it's value is >> it's weight? > It is many years since the face value of a coin was the same > as the value of the metal from which it is made. >> I've always assumed that coins could at least be redeemed at >> the BoE. Come to think of it, notes are just cheques, and I'm >> sure they don't have an expiry date on them. Sentimental attachment can keep a coin in use even while it costs more than its face value to produce. This was the case for the rather useless American copper penny that mainly serves to pay state purchase taxes. The current penny is made from zinc plated with copper. I think I have mentioned previously that people seemed to get by with much larger value smallest coins. Given the change in the CPI, the smallest coin of 1911, still the penny, was worth about 20 current cents. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >I think I have mentioned previously that people seemed to get by with >much larger value smallest coins. Given the change in the CPI, the >smallest coin of 1911, still the penny, was worth about 20 current >cents. In the UK many years ago, if you needed change that was smaller than any available coin, you would take it in pins. I don't know, however, whether you could spend the pins at the next shop you went to, or just had to accumulate them in a pincushion. Katy On Jan 29, 10:16 pm, k...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <hjvk24$25...@news.eternal-september.org>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would take it in pins. I don't know, however, whether you could spend the pins > at the next shop you went to, or just had to accumulate them in a pincushion. For two pins, I'd take issue with you over that. -- franzi > In the UK many years ago, if you needed change that was smaller than any > available coin, you would take it in pins. I don't know, however, whether > you could spend the pins at the next shop you went to, or just had to > accumulate them in a pincushion. In Washington State, as in many other states, they used special tokens for just such occasions: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/que_sara_sara/3183697996/> I also don't know if you could spend them like coins, or what you did with them. SignatureSML > Peter wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:50:07 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > rather useless American copper penny that mainly serves to pay state > purchase taxes. Actually, there's nothing inherently silly about it costing more than the face value of a coin to produce one. If it cost $1.25 to make a hundred pennies with one composition and $0.75 to make them with another, but the first was more durable and stayed in circulation twice as long (on average), then it would cost less to keep the coin in circulation the first way. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken. | Larry Wall kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I think I have mentioned previously that people seemed to get by with > much larger value smallest coins. Given the change in the CPI, the > smallest coin of 1911, still the penny, was worth about 20 current > cents. At the other end of the scale, in the 1940s the half-dollar was in common circulation. Its equivalent today would be a coin worth about six dollars. Before that there were gold coins up to $20, worth well over 100 of today's dollars. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> I think I have mentioned previously that people seemed to get by with >> much larger value smallest coins. Given the change in the CPI, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > six dollars. Before that there were gold coins up to $20, worth well > over 100 of today's dollars. I am pretty sure that the half-dollar was in common circulation throughout the '50s (early '60s, even). I came to the USA in mid-1949, and I know that I handled 50-cent pieces for a long time. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Skitt wrote on Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:50:13 -0800: >>> I think I have mentioned previously that people seemed to >>> get by with much larger value smallest coins. Given the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> coin worth about six dollars. Before that there were gold >> coins up to $20, worth well over 100 of today's dollars. >I am pretty sure that the half-dollar was in common circulation >throughout the '50s (early '60s, even). I came to the USA in mid-1949, >and I know that I handled 50-cent pieces for a long time. In 1959, shortly after coming to the US, I took a trip across country and was surprised to get a number of silver dollars as change in the Southwest. They were monstrous things to keep in a pocket. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > >> I think I have mentioned previously that people seemed to get by with > >> much larger value smallest coins. Given the change in the CPI, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the '50s (early '60s, even). I came to the USA in mid-1949, and I know that > I handled 50-cent pieces for a long time. The half dollar went out of circulation after the silver coinage was discontinued and the Kennedy half was minted. The silver halves were driven out of circulation by Gresham's law and many Kennedys were sequestered by the faithful. This took halves out of circulation for a while. If the mint had just kept making halves there's no reason the half wouldn't have returned; after all, Gresham's law did away with all the silver dimes and quarters but we still have their debased versions in circulation. Why not halves? It's a mystery to me. The disappearance of the half should have left a coin slot open in every cash register in the US. But one of the reasons cited for non-acceptance of the dollar coin is the lack of a place to put them in the cash registers. That's another mystery. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela: > The [US] half dollar went out of circulation after the silver > coinage was discontinued and the Kennedy half was minted. The > silver halves were driven out of circulation by Gresham's law > and many Kennedys were sequestered by the faithful.... Note also that the US was squeamish for a few years about (thread merge!) desilverizing all of its silver coins. Even after the dime and quarter became base metal, the half dollar -- the largest denomination of coin being minted at the time -- continued to be part silver for several years. So the "sequestration" of these was probably at least as much a matter of Gresham's Law as of "faith". SignatureMark Brader "C was developed for the programmer Toronto (two of them, in fact)" msb@vex.net -- Alasdair Grant My text in this article is in the public domain. > Peter wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:50:07 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >smallest coin of 1911, still the penny, was worth about 20 current >cents. Australia has phased out one- and two- cent pieces a while back. The current smallest is a five-cent and I think many people would welcome it's departure. When it goes, prices will round to the nearest tenth of a dollar (for cash). The current buying power of five cents is less than the original power of one cent back in 1966. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>Come to think of it, notes are just cheques, and I'm sure they don't have >>an expiry date on them. From the Web, "on August 15, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon announced that the United States would no longer redeem currency for gold. This was the final step in abandoning the gold standard". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Come to think of it, notes are just cheques, and I'm sure they don't have > an expiry date on them. In the Euro region, wasn't there a cutoff date after which pre-conversion currency and coins were no longer redeemed? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >In the Euro region, wasn't there a cutoff date after which >pre-conversion currency and coins were no longer redeemed? It seems to be decided by individual national central banks: http://www.ecb.int/euro/exchange/html/index.en.html SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) John Varela wrote, in <dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-SldSqd2dS4gM@localhost> on 30 Jan 2010 00:14:54 GMT: > > El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In the Euro region, wasn't there a cutoff date after which > pre-conversion currency and coins were no longer redeemed? Here in Ireland they ceased to be legal tender after a few weeks and ordinary banks wouldn't take them but they can still be converted at the Central Bank. The same applies to pre-decimal coinage. I think the same sort of arrangement exists in all affected countries. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >John Varela wrote, in <dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-SldSqd2dS4gM@localhost> > on 30 Jan 2010 00:14:54 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Central Bank. The same applies to pre-decimal coinage. I think the >same sort of arrangement exists in all affected countries. Acording to the ECB webpage I pointed to, Ireland has placed no limit on the exchange of pre-Euro banknotes and coins. France would not exchange pre-Euro coins after 17 February 2005 and has a cutoff date of 17 February 2012 for banknotes. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <av68m5h4eocgaq823v6hhulppnlt88a1oh@4ax.com> on Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:50:01 +0000: > >John Varela wrote, in <dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-SldSqd2dS4gM@localhost> > > on 30 Jan 2010 00:14:54 GMT: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > pre-Euro coins after 17 February 2005 and has a cutoff date of 17 > February 2012 for banknotes. Shysters! SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE On 30 Jan 2010, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> Here in Ireland they ceased to be legal tender after a few >> weeks and ordinary banks wouldn't take them but they can still [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Acording to the ECB webpage I pointed to, Ireland has placed no > limit on the exchange of pre-Euro banknotes and coins. I've not been following this part of the thread, so my first reaction to reading that was to wonder why on earth someone would look to the cricket authorities for information on the validity of banknotes... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > El Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:20:01 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum escribió: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > weight? I've always assumed that coins could at least be redeemed > at the BoE. The value of the coin in terms of the metal you get if you melt it down or in terms of the amount a collector is willing to pay for it stays with it, but a coin can be "demonetized" and made no longer legal (or legally acceptable) money. Typically when coins (or bills) are demonetized the government will decree a period of time during which people can turn them in to banks in exchange for new money. Poking around, I see evidence of what I had thought, e.g., All shillings from 1816 onwards remained legal tender after decimalization in 1970, valued at five new pence until finally demonetized in 1990. http://www.kenelks.co.uk/coins/recoinage/recoinage.htm Of course, that doesn't preclude individual merchants from being willing to accept them, but it does preclude them from being required to. > Come to think of it, notes are just cheques, and I'm sure they don't > have an expiry date on them. They're checks drawn on an account whose holder reserves the right to declare them worthless after a given date. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> McDonalds' language error >>> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I thought that it was no longer possible to present a British shilling >coin that was still legal tender. Shilling coins are still legal tender and worth 5 pence. Bob Martin filted: >>> Has anyone tried to pay a bob for an item whose price is advertised >>> as being a pound? It seems to me that, if such a payment were [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Shilling coins are still legal tender and worth 5 pence. Pronounced "fippence"?...(serious question; I acquired a list of words with each of the 26 letters silent from one of Espy's books, and "fivepence" was the instance for the letter V)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Bob Martin filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of the 26 letters silent from one of Espy's books, and "fivepence" was the > instance for the letter V)....r Yes, 5½d could be pronounced fippence ha'p'ny. SignatureJames >> Bob Martin filted: >>> in 302644 20100129 162001 Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yes, 5½d could be pronounced fippence ha'p'ny. Don't remember ever hearing that. Tuppence, certainly. Threppence for sure. But four and above got their full value. Maybe it was the posh part of Manchester I lived in. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > >> Pronounced "fippence"?...(serious question; I acquired a list of > >> words with each of the 26 letters silent from one of Espy's books, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Do you know I think you are right. Once we got past thripence it was (even in broadest Yorkshire) four/fivepence in full, but then we got to the "tanner". uoted text - > Do you know I think you are right. Once we got past thripence it was > (even in broadest Yorkshire) four/fivepence in full, but then we got > to the "tanner". But eleven pence ha'penny! > uoted text - >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But eleven pence ha'penny! Or eleven pence ape knee. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > Bob Martin filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of the 26 letters silent from one of Espy's books, and "fivepence" was the > instance for the letter V)....r Seems odd to me. I would have expected "fife-punce". SignatureRob Bannister >> Pronounced "fippence"?...(serious question; I acquired a list of words >> with each [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Seems odd to me. I would have expected "fife-punce". Me too, and the same for all the rest - i.e. the vowel sound in "pence" was a schwa. Curiously, even after all these years, people have not universally gone back to the "fivepunce" pronunciation, preferring "five pence". This was understandable in the early years. It's not dissimilar to the "two thousand and ten"/"twenty-ten" debate. Regards Jonathan >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >being a pound? It seems to me that, if such a payment were rejected, >McCrap would be seriously at risk of being done for false advertising. False advertising is advertising prepared with an intent to deceive or advertising where there is potential for the consumer to be deceived. The images available online do not show that McDs is offering to the sell hamburgers for a bob; they have done no more than mistakenly compared the pound to a bob. The burgers are offered for a pound. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > McDonalds' language error > 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.ofm.co.za/news.asp?nid=6186 You'd think they'd have hired a natvice British speaker to write the ad. I'm sure most of us American types find old style English money incomprehensible. >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >I'm sure most of us American types find old style English money >incomprehensible. As a result of the ad, people in the UK are talking about McDonald's who might never have thought about McD's before. Some might be going to a McD's for the first time just because the issue is in the news. Sounds like a successful ad to me. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Ray O'Hara wrote, in <hk071l$cdp$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:54:43 -0500: > > McDonalds' language error > > 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You'd think they'd have hired a natvice British speaker to write the ad. They may well have done just that, one born well after 1971 with no experience of pre-decimal money. > I'm sure most of us American types find old style English money > incomprehensible. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >> McDonalds' language error >> 27/01/2010 18:06:47 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >I'm sure most of us American types find old style English money >incomprehensible. They might have hired a native British speaker. The change to the new style money was in 1971. That was 39 years ago. I'd guess that someone for whom the change happened when they were, say, 10or 11 might not be able to exactly recall details of the older currency and the familiar words for it. That could mean that we can't rely on advertising executives under the age of 50-ish to know the idiomatic use of old coin-words. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> You'd think they'd have hired a natvice British speaker to write the ad. >>I'm sure most of us American types find old style English money [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > executives under the age of 50-ish to know the idiomatic use of old > coin-words. I agree that this is plain ignorance from young executives. It is a sobering thought that there is now hardly anyone of working age who would have worked in the old system. Where I quarrel with McDonald's is that instead of owning up - a "bob" was never a pound - they tried to dig themselves out and just dug themselves in deeper, insulting our intelligence. Still, as Chuck says, there's no such thing as bad advertising. Regards Jonathan > They might have hired a native British speaker. The change to the new > style money was in 1971. That was 39 years ago. I'd guess that someone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > executives under the age of 50-ish to know the idiomatic use of old > coin-words. My first thought on seeing the commercial was to wonder why the actor (apparently native English) agreed to say it. He's probably only 30. SignatureDavid >> They might have hired a native British speaker. The change to the new >> style money was in 1971. That was 39 years ago. I'd guess that someone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My first thought on seeing the commercial was to wonder why the actor > (apparently native English) agreed to say it. He's probably only 30. The higher the irritation factor the more effective the advert. >>> They might have hired a native British speaker. The change to the new >>> style money was in 1971. That was 39 years ago. I'd guess that someone [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The higher the irritation factor the more effective > the advert. The higher the irritation factor the more likely I won't buy the product. The worlds greatest ad wouldn't get me into a McD's, the food is swill. >>>> They might have hired a native British speaker. The change to the new >>>> style money was in 1971. That was 39 years ago. I'd guess that someone [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The higher the irritation factor the more likely I won't buy the product. You would think so but the opposite seems to be the case. > The worlds greatest ad wouldn't get me into a McD's, the food is swill. If you need to use a clean free toilet in Paris, go to a McDo's. >> The worlds greatest ad wouldn't get me into a McD's, the food is >> swill. > > If you need to use a clean free toilet in Paris, go to a > McDo's. The same goes for Riga. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> The worlds greatest ad wouldn't get me into a McD's, the food is >>> swill. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The same goes for Riga. If you need a clean toilet in Paris, go to Riga? SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > "Skitt" wrote: >>>> The worlds greatest ad wouldn't get me into a McD's, the food is >>>> swill. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you need a clean toilet in Paris, go to Riga? That's a very strange interpretation of what I wrote. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> The worlds greatest ad wouldn't get me into a McD's, the food is >>>>> swill. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's a very strange interpretation of what I wrote. This newsgroup specialises in strange interpretations. SignatureJames >> "Skitt" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >That's a very strange interpretation of what I wrote. I *like* very strange interpretations of what people write and say. Some people think I'm a bit weird. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. Richard Bollard filted: >>That's a very strange interpretation of what I wrote. > >I *like* very strange interpretations of what people write and say. >Some people think I'm a bit weird. In that case, enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVvylo4L_bI ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Richard Bollard filted: >>> That's a very strange interpretation of what I wrote. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVvylo4L_bI Loved it. I'm sure I heard those English words sung at a folk club back in the 70s. SignatureRob Bannister >> They might have hired a native British speaker. The change to the >> new style money was in 1971. That was 39 years ago. I'd guess that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > actor (apparently native English) agreed to say it. He's probably > only 30. Perhaps he thought it had to do with his uncle. SignatureFrank ess |
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.