 |
 | 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 2010cartoon's English
Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. For example, like the following http://www.lightstriking.com/test/004.jpg Cow says, "Have! it's Have! Not "Got". And for you, No, I don't "Have" any. Point about it is I couldn't get a clue to help to understand what is said there. Why so difficult, I don't know. And this is common about many cartoons' English. On 05 Feb 2010, Masa wrote > Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Point about it is I couldn't get a clue to help to understand > what is said there. The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got any milk?" The cow is annoyed by the usage -- objecting to "do you got" and telling her it should be "Do you *have* any milk?" -- and the part of the cow's answer that includes "and for you" implies that she (the cow) doesn't give milk to people who use incorrect English. > Why so difficult, I don't know. > And this is common about many cartoons' English. Cartoons often rely on presenting "what happened next" without stating "what happened before"; part of the joke's effectiveness is that the reader is required to know (or to figure out) the omitted statement.  SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Harvey Van Sickle: > The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got any > milk?" No, no, no. What she asked is "Got milk?" -- it's an advertising slogan. See, according to taste, <http://www.gotmilk.com> or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_milk>. > The cow is annoyed by the usage... Yes. Of course, in informal English on both sides of the Atlantic, it's common to use "have got" with the meaning "have"; and this extends to other tenses and forms, so "(Have you) got milk?" means "(Do you) have milk?" But the cow is one of those pedantic types and thinks there's something wrong with that. > and the part > of the cow's answer that includes "and for you" implies that she > (the cow) doesn't give milk to people who use incorrect English. Exactly. SignatureMark Brader | "...the average homeowner should expect... Toronto | meteor damage every hundred million years." msb@vex.net | --Robert Nemiroff & Jerry Bonnell My text in this article is in the public domain. On 05 Feb 2010, Mark Brader wrote > Harvey Van Sickle: >> The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > advertising slogan. See, according to taste, > <http://www.gotmilk.com> Ah; thank you. That makes much more sense than how I had to take it. > or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_milk>. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Exactly. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > Harvey Van Sickle: >> The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got any [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Exactly. The "cow" is a bull. -------------------------- On 05 Feb 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote and in keeping with his insistence on altering Usenet names to real names, once again replaced my Usenet identity with my full name, quoted >> Harvey Van Sickle: [shrug] -- It's obviously his hobby-horse, rude and ill-mannered though it remains...anyway, back to the thread ----------------------------- >>> The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got >>> any milk?" [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > The "cow" is a bull. I don't think that's related to the joke, though. The horns are meaningles (some cows have horns); the joke's clearly about language rather than bovine gender; and the lack of udders is a fairly well-known mark of pussy-footing cartooning. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > -------------------------- > On 05 Feb 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > clearly about language rather than bovine gender; and the lack of > udders is a fairly well-known mark of pussy-footing cartooning. It being a bull is important to the joke. It's way the beast has no milk. Cow udders are routine in American cartoons.. [...] > The horns are meaningles (some cows have horns); the joke's > clearly about language rather than bovine gender; and the lack of > udders is a fairly well-known mark of pussy-footing cartooning. In our village school, a rather towny girl did a very fine (damn! what do you call a picture made of bits of cloth? You, know, like a collage is made with paper...memory like one of those whatchamacallits, these days...) cloth picture of a country scene. On interrogation she explained, "You can tell that's a bull by the ring in his nose." SignatureMike. >HVS wrote: >[...] >> >> The horns are meaningles (some cows have horns); the joke's >> clearly about language rather than bovine gender; and the lack of >> udders is a fairly well-known mark of pussy-footing cartooning. I find a pink gnome, a stern "403 Forbidden", and a page of Chinese-style characters. The only thing right about it is that there is no udder. >In our village school, a rather towny girl did a very fine (damn! what >do you call a picture made of bits of cloth? I fall between "fabricated" and "a victory blanket". >You, know, like a collage >is made with paper...memory like one of those whatchamacallits, these >days...) No doubt I made one with Gloy and pinking shears, between dashing off raffia mats and Plasticene aeroplanes. That I post this at all is in memory of my first mistress (school); this I first attended in 1948, and Miss M*** has only now died. Christmas cards have bonding merit. Her memorial service is in three weeks' time (Bray church again). I hope to be transported back to the Preparatory playground for an hour or so, if others of my time appear. >cloth picture of a country scene. On interrogation she >explained, "You can tell that's a bull by the ring in his nose." Not a cock-and-bull story, then. SignaturePaul >> HVS wrote: >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chinese-style characters. The only thing right about it is that there > is no udder. Ah, how different history would have been had a young German displayed greater natural aptitude for the dairy trade for which his proud family had initially intended him. Sadly, he was utterly (geddit?) unable to master the rather fundamental skill of milking, and confessed failure. "Here," cried Martin, "I stand: I can no udder." >> In our village school, a rather towny girl did a very fine (damn! >> what do you call a picture made of bits of cloth? [...] SignatureMike. > Ah, how different history would have been had a young German > displayed greater natural aptitude for the dairy trade for which his > proud family had initially intended him. Sadly, he was utterly > (geddit?) unable to master the rather fundamental skill of milking, > and confessed failure. "Here," cried Martin, "I stand: I can no > udder." Nice one. Poor old Luther. His famous statement just asks to be distorted. Some Swedes render "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders" as "Här står jag och kan inte andas" (Here I stand and can't breathe) SignatureJames James Hogg filted: >> Ah, how different history would have been had a young German >> displayed greater natural aptitude for the dairy trade for which his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >distorted. Some Swedes render "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders" as >"Här står jag och kan inte andas" (Here I stand and can't breathe) Gott helfe mir!...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Ah, how different history would have been had a young German displayed > greater natural aptitude for the dairy trade for which his proud family > had initially intended him. Sadly, he was utterly (geddit?) unable to > master the rather fundamental skill of milking, and confessed failure. > "Here," cried Martin, "I stand: I can no udder." The standing was the problem, of course. You have to sit in order to reach udderneath. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got any > milk?" I think you're being a bit unfair here, in that few, if any, people would say that. However, "(You) got any milk?" is relatively common and that, in my humble opinion, is what is being parodied. Of course, this must be a North American cow, because "Do you have any milk?" (as opposed to "Have you got...") is most unlikely in Other-English. SignatureRob Bannister On 05 Feb 2010, Robert Bannister wrote >> The joke is that the woman must have asked the cow "Do you got >> any milk?" > > I think you're being a bit unfair here, in that few, if any, > people would say that. More like "I was completely oblivious of the reference to a well- known American advertising slogan". (chagrined emoticon thingie goes here) > However, "(You) got any milk?" is > relatively common and that, in my humble opinion, is what is > being parodied. Point well taken, although I didn't mean it as unfairly as that. It seems, though, that both our readings of it are wrong, and that the reference is clearly to the "Got milk?" advertisements. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 05 Feb 2010, Robert Bannister wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It seems, though, that both our readings of it are wrong, and that > the reference is clearly to the "Got milk?" advertisements. Indeed. I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky to have missed at least one advertisement. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> It seems, though, that both our readings of it are wrong, and that >> the reference is clearly to the "Got milk?" advertisements. > >Indeed. I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky to have missed at >least one advertisement. One?...I'd say you missed hundreds....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. > For example, like the following > http://www.lightstriking.com/test/004.jpg > Cow says, "Have! it's Have! Not "Got". And for you, No, I don't "Have" > any. > Point about it is I couldn't get a clue to help to understand what is > said there. > Why so difficult, I don't know. > And this is common about many cartoons' English. Pedantic English, and this was one of the repeated corrections that I used to get from my pedantic Father. "Have" = to be in possession of. "Get" (past tense "got") = to obtain. If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be smartly corrected to, "I haven't any money on me". In spoken colloquial English the "got" construction is in general use. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk > [ ... ] > Pedantic English, and this was one of the repeated corrections that I > used to get from my pedantic Father. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be > smartly corrected to, "I haven't any money on me". It seems to me that your father was not just pedantic; he was wrong. "I have got", meaning "I possess", is just about universal in spoken BrE, though it might be avoided in formal writing. The only people who say "I have" in that sense are AmE speakers or people influenced by AmE (which often includes me, as I've lived in the US and I've had an AmE-speaking wife). In AmE "gotten" is widely used as the past participle of "get", but in BrE "gotten" is not used and "got" is very rare as past participle: "I have got" almost always means "I possess" and almost never "I have obtained" in BrE. For most practical purposes "get" hasn't got a past participle in BrE for 1st person subjects. If you need to say "I have obtained" then that's what you say, and if you insist on a form of "get" you'd use the simple past, "I got". Signatureathel >> [ ... ] >> Pedantic English, and this was one of the repeated corrections that I >> used to get from my pedantic Father. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be >> smartly corrected to, "I haven't any money on me". > It seems to me that your father was not just pedantic; he was wrong. Unfortunately he hasn't been able to rebut this for the last 22 years, but I'm sure he would have done if he could. His English was distinctly old-fashioned; he was particularly fond of the word "mumpsimus", which he half-jokingly applied to himself. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >>> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > distinctly old-fashioned; he was particularly fond of the word > "mumpsimus", which he half-jokingly applied to himself. What a splendid chap! Calling oneself a "mumpsimus" is a sign of Grace Abounding. But I'm an unblushing "have got" man myself: the point there is that in formal contexts one would generally be more precise, but it works well informally. SignatureMike. >>>> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > is that in formal contexts one would generally be more precise, but it > works well informally. Agreed. But he wouldn't have. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk Peter Young: > If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be > smartly corrected to, "I haven't any money on me". An American pedant, on the other other hand, would more likely make it "I don't have any money on me." For most people in North America, the form "haven't" only exists when the "have" is an auxiliary verb, and "have not" would be an archaism. SignatureMark Brader "It's okay for us to love our country, Toronto but we ought to spend most of our time msb@vex.net making our country lovable." -- Andy Rooney >Peter Young: >> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the form "haven't" only exists when the "have" is an auxiliary verb, >and "have not" would be an archaism. Would a pedant, American or otherwise, add "on me"? Even I wouldn't and don't. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Peter Young: >>> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be >>> smartly corrected to, "I haven't any money on me". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Would a pedant, American or otherwise, add "on me"? Even I wouldn't > and don't. ... thus leaving it unclear whether you are claiming abject poverty or merely forgetfulness. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >Peter Young: > >> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Would a pedant, American or otherwise, add "on me"? Even I wouldn't > and don't. There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" and "I haven't any money on me." SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >Peter Young: >> >> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" and "I >haven't any money on me." The case of not having any money at all is such a rare one, even for a vagrant, that I left it out of consideration. But since you insist, in most cases, "I haven't any money" is all the information your interlocutor needs, IMO, to know you're not carrying any money at the moment. The unnecessary, dangling "on me", sometimes seen, simply sounds silly, IMO. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Peter Young: >>>>> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > moment. The unnecessary, dangling "on me", sometimes seen, simply > sounds silly, IMO. When they observe the expensive car you have just alighted from and the cut of your clothes, your "I haven't any money" is going to get you beaten up, since you are clearly lying to them. By adding "on me", you force them to take you home first before they beat you up and trash your house. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> Peter Young: >>>>>> If I said, for instance, "I haven't got any money on me" I would be [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >force them to take you home first before they beat you up and trash your >house. By adding "on me" your man may immediately guess that some of your cash is near at hand. If I were the robber, that would, indeed, be what I'd guess. ObAUE: My real objection to "on me" is the same one I have to the "up" some people place after "call me". Because it is so unnecessary, it sounds uneducated. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Robert Bannister wrote: >>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" and >>>> "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > some people place after "call me". Because it is so unnecessary, it > sounds uneducated. But Chuck, those two are completely different things. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Robert Bannister wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >But Chuck, those two are completely different things. Not as I see it, since both are unnecessary appendages. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" and >>>>>> "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Not as I see it, since both are unnecessary appendages. I thought that the difference between "I don't have any money" and "I don't have any money on me" is glaringly obvious. For me, as I sit here, the first one is false, but the second one is quite true. There is nothing in my pockets except lint. The nearest money is in my wallet on the nightstand in the other room. There have been times in my life when I didn't have any money. None at all. My mother would then give me five bucks, so I could go see my girlfriend. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" and >>>>>>> "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >my pockets except lint. The nearest money is in my wallet on the nightstand >in the other room. I've been discussing a nuance in the language, not what is glaringly obvious. >There have been times in my life when I didn't have any money. None at all. >My mother would then give me five bucks, so I could go see my girlfriend. I've been broke at times in my life, too, but AFAIC, anyone with an education who says "on me" doesn't deserve to have any money until he can get his act together. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >>>>>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" and > >>>>>>> "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I've been discussing a nuance in the language, not what is glaringly > obvious. But the glaringly obvious is what makes your claim so mystifying. You said that "Because it is so unnecessary, it sounds uneducated", and that "on me" is an "unnecessary appendage". In the case of "I don't have any money (on me)", that's not true. The addition of "on me" changes the meaning of the sentence dramatically. If Bill Gates is walking around with his pockets empty, he can truthfully say "I don't have any money on me". He can't truthfully say "I don't have any money". The "on me" adds significant meaning to the sentence, which makes it far from an appendage IMO. If you want to argue that "on me" is clunky and should be avoided, that's fine--but that's a different situation from the "call me (up)" situation. An appendectomy fixes "call me up"; "I don't have any money on me" requires rephrasing to maintain its meaning. >>>>>>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" >>>>>>>> and "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > education who says "on me" doesn't deserve to have any money until he > can get his act together. Ouch! That hurt. Undeservedly, even. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>>>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" >>>>>>>>> and "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Ouch! That hurt. Since I was referring not to you but to the philistines who prefer "on me" to "with me", and there are undoubtedly some other ways to express the same thing, it shouldn't. >Undeservedly, even. Once we understand each other, I don't think you'll find I insulted you in the least. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>>>>> There's a difference in meaning between "I haven't any money" >>>>>>>>>> and "I haven't any money on me." [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Once we understand each other, I don't think you'll find I insulted > you in the least. Well, alrighty, then. SignatureSkitt (AmE) happy again > Since I was referring not to you but to the philistines who prefer "on > me" to "with me", and there are undoubtedly some other ways to express > the same thing, it shouldn't. Now you finally explain what your objection is about. I'm sure most people thought you meant that the "on me" was just unnecessary, which is why so many people have been trying to explain why the meaning difference is important. Now you say it's because you prefer a different phraseology. I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a more likely explanation. For me, "with me" is comprehensible, but peculiar. SignatureRob Bannister >> Since I was referring not to you but to the philistines who prefer "on >> me" to "with me", and there are undoubtedly some other ways to express [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a more >likely explanation. For me, "with me" is comprehensible, but peculiar. Yes, philistines generally live on the other side of the river. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Since I was referring not to you but to the philistines who prefer "on >>> me" to "with me", and there are undoubtedly some other ways to express [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, philistines generally live on the other side of the river. I thought the Philistines lived on the other side (or the other end) of the Mediterranean. --Jeff SignatureLove consists of overestimating the differences between one woman and another. --George Bernard Shaw >>>> Since I was referring not to you but to the philistines who prefer "on >>>> me" to "with me", and there are undoubtedly some other ways to express [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I thought the Philistines lived on the other side (or the other end) >of the Mediterranean. Isn't "the other side of the river" a nearly universal idiom or am I thinking about something else? Rivers need not be involved, if I'm right. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:34:24 +0800, Robert Bannister >>>> I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thinking about something else? Rivers need not be involved, if I'm > right. I immediately understood what you meant (at least I think I did), but I don't think I've heard it as a set phrase. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |And the wildest dreams of Kew 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | are the facts of Khatmandhu, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |And the crimes of Clapham | chaste in Martaban. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Rudyard Kipling http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Robert Bannister >>>>> I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a >>>>> more likely explanation. For me, "with me" is comprehensible, but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I immediately understood what you meant (at least I think I did), but > I don't think I've heard it as a set phrase. Nor have I. In fact, I think I've heard it only in cases where someone does, indeed, live on the other side of the river. There are two other "set" phrases that might apply, "other-side wise"*: [certain people] live on the other side of town. [ditto] live on the other side of the railroad tracks. "Other side of town," and "other side of the railroad tracks" often have implications of a separation from others who are "different" from the speaker. Two examples: Less/more wealthy; a different race. ("Other side of the river" seems to have no "different" connotation for me.) As for "river," I think someone in AUE (or email) recently used this: "It was once said that you can't step twice in the same river." (I mention that because I like the saying.) *I have no idea whether or not "other-side wise" is correctly hyphenated. Anyone? SignatureMaria Conlon >>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:34:24 +0800, Robert Bannister >>>>> I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I immediately understood what you meant (at least I think I did), but > I don't think I've heard it as a set phrase. I thought it was a reference to the River Jordan, which seemed incorrect, but made sense. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:34:24 +0800, Robert Bannister >>>>>> I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I thought it was a reference to the River Jordan, which seemed >incorrect, but made sense. Yes, that makes sense. The actual explanation is that I had my rivers and my railroad tracks mixed up, yesterday. Some people "come from the other side of the tracks". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:34:24 +0800, Robert Bannister >>>>>>> I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and my railroad tracks mixed up, yesterday. Some people "come from the > other side of the tracks". Interesting. I was taking "the other side of the river" to mean a distinction that didn't make a difference. "The other side of the tracks" has a strong implication of class difference to me. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Revolution" has many definitions. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |From the looks of this, I'd say Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"going around in circles" comes |closest to applying... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Richard M. Hartman (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:34:24 +0800, Robert Bannister >>>>>>>> I don't see how philistinism comes into it - regionalism is a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > distinction that didn't make a difference. "The other side of the > tracks" has a strong implication of class difference to me. I think "the other side of" is common in many contexts depending on local geography. I once lived in a town in which "the other side of the harbour" was a common phrase. I don't think there was any implication of class structure, but since everyone used the phrase, the listener really needed to know what side of the harbour the speaker lived on in order to understand which side of the harbour any directions referred to. Of course, all longterm residents did know exactly where everyone lived, and didn't find "the other side" at all ambiguous. I believe the local municipal government had a map with street names, and even installed street signs eventually, but no one ever used them, much to the chagrin of outside people who came provided with a street address that no one local could recognize. "On the other side of the harbour just down the street from Uncle Joe's place, and across the street from the Brown's garden. You can't miss it." SignatureCheryl >> Interesting. I was taking "the other side of the river" to mean a >> distinction that didn't make a difference. "The other side of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speaker lived on in order to understand which side of the harbour > any directions referred to. Sure, but that's when it's used literally. Metaphorically, the tracks separated the rich and poor areas, with the poor people growing up "on the wrong side of the tracks", even when there were no physical tracks that formed that boundary. Looking at Google Books, I see one use in the 1920s and several from the 1940s. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Interesting. I was taking "the other side of the river" to mean a >>> distinction that didn't make a difference. "The other side of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Looking at Google Books, I see one use in the 1920s and several from >the 1940s. Yes, I am sure the phrase is not as popular today, with our sensitivities about class distinctions, as it once was. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Isn't "the other side of the river" a nearly universal idiom or am I > thinking about something else? Rivers need not be involved, if I'm > right. Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees. SignatureJohn Varela >> Isn't "the other side of the river" a nearly universal idiom or am I >> thinking about something else? Rivers need not be involved, if I'm >> right. > >Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees. Where the grass is always greener. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England Robin Bignall filted: >>> Isn't "the other side of the river" a nearly universal idiom or am I >>> thinking about something else? Rivers need not be involved, if I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Where the grass is always greener. Ah, Transriparian Cissylvania!...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > > Isn't "the other side of the river" a nearly universal idiom or am I > > thinking about something else? Rivers need not be involved, if I'm > > right. > > Let us cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees. I had to look that one up, with may be what comes of never having lived in the South. GB is pretty much unanimous that it's "under the shade of the trees". -- Jerry Friedman [what not to say to a mugger] >> I thought that the difference between "I don't have any money" and >> "I don't have any money on me" is glaringly obvious. For me, as I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > education who says "on me" doesn't deserve to have any money until > he can get his act together. How would you feel about "I don't have any money with me"? >[what not to say to a mugger] >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >How would you feel about "I don't have any money with me"? That, IMO, is perfect. (See my response to Skitt.) SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE In our last episode, <34e7c62f-4536-485f-b59f-2e6fa732bc07@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Masa broadcast on alt.usage.english: > Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. > For example, like the following > http://www.lightstriking.com/test/004.jpg > Cow says, "Have! it's Have! Not "Got". And for you, No, I don't "Have" > any. > Point about it is I couldn't get a clue to help to understand what is > said there. > Why so difficult, I don't know. > And this is common about many cartoons' English. The first thing you have to know is that the slogan "Got milk?" is used by the American Dairy Association to promote the consumption of dairy products. Anyone who sees American commercial television can be expected to know that. The slogan is also used in magazine advertising and on billboards, so the people who know it would include almost all English-speaking people in the US and many Canadians. The other thing you have to know is that "got" in the sense of "have" is considered substandard by some people. "Got milk?" means "Do you have milk?" Evidently the cow is a bit of language purist who is sticking to her guns although this battle is lost in informal usage. She was asked "Got milk?" is the part you would infer if you knew the two things mentioned. She finds the informal usage unacceptable and forcefully corrects it. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 65 1568.0 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II. Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change. >In our last episode, ><34e7c62f-4536-485f-b59f-2e6fa732bc07@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >milk?" is the part you would infer if you knew the two things mentioned. >She finds the informal usage unacceptable and forcefully corrects it. All very true, but what I culdn't help noticing was the absence of any milk-giving apparatus on the animal concerned. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> In our last episode, >> <34e7c62f-4536-485f-b59f-2e6fa732bc07@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > All very true, but what I culdn't help noticing was the absence of any > milk-giving apparatus on the animal concerned. I guess that explains why it don't got milk. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> In our last episode, >>> <34e7c62f-4536-485f-b59f-2e6fa732bc07@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >I guess that explains why it don't got milk. That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy farm and asked for a pint or two. The person behind the counter said that the customer couldn't have any until the cows had been milked. The customer became indignant and said that it was wrong that the cows should be given precedence in the receiving of milk -- he should be served first. Eventually the shop assistant managed to calm down the customer and explain "the facts of lactic life". The customer waited in a state of shock and confusion until the cows had been milked. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of England. A > townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy farm and asked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > explain "the facts of lactic life". The customer waited in a state of > shock and confusion until the cows had been milked. When I was under 10, Dad ran the Warwickshire Beekeepers' stand at the Royal Show. People were invited into our tent to ask questions of the assembled beekeepers and to look at the show hive which we installed for the week. A girl a little younger than me once asked, "How do you milk the bees?". SignatureDavid > That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of England. A > townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy farm and asked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > explain "the facts of lactic life". The customer waited in a state of > shock and confusion until the cows had been milked. I was taught how to milk a cow when, as a child, I was on holiday with my family at a guest house in the mountains. After we returned home, I told my parents that I didn't like bottled milk, and that I wanted cows' milk instead. It turned out that, although the guest house did indeed have cows, the milk served with the guests' breakfasts was reconstituted condensed milk. That was the stuff that I thought tasted better than shop milk. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of >> England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > condensed milk. That was the stuff that I thought tasted better > than shop milk. ObPondiality: Because it was heavily sugared? Or do Australians use "condensed" where North Americans would say "evaporated"? Around here, undiluted "condensed milk" is as sweet as candy. In Haiti for the first year or two, the choice was between evaporated and powdered milk, and I still have a fondness for evaporated milk on cornflakes, as a junk food. >>> That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of >>> England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "condensed" where North Americans would say "evaporated"? Around > here, undiluted "condensed milk" is as sweet as candy. Not undiluted: the writer wrote "reconstituted", and that's where I got stuck - I don't recall any method for turning either condensed or evaporated milk into something resembling real milk. Powdered milk, yes; tinned milk, not to my knowledge. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of >>>> England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > evaporated milk into something resembling real milk. Powdered milk, > yes; tinned milk, not to my knowledge. Adding water to evaporated milk (ratio 1:1) yields something quite similar to regular milk. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of >>>>> England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Adding water to evaporated milk (ratio 1:1) yields something quite > similar to regular milk. I'll take your word for it, but it sounds like a disgusting habit that I wish I still didn't know about. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of >>>>>> England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >I'll take your word for it, but it sounds like a disgusting habit that I >wish I still didn't know about. The taste of the stuff is pretty disgusting too, IMO. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> That reminds me of a conversation reported in a rural part of >>>> England. A townie needing milk went to a shop attached to a dairy [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > or evaporated milk into something resembling real milk. Powdered > milk, yes; tinned milk, not to my knowledge. I realised that Peter wasn't taking it straight in those days, but I was picking the sweetest form of the stuff to comment on. As Skitt says, you reconstitute it by simple dilution (but I use it undiluted on cornflakes -- mmm, junk --; I suppose I would still like it, although I haven't eaten it for years.). The funny punctuation just above was experimental, and not any kind of smiley. Is there a better arrangement? >> I was taught how to milk a cow when, as a child, I was on holiday >> with my family at a guest house in the mountains. After we returned [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "condensed" where North Americans would say "evaporated"? Around > here, undiluted "condensed milk" is as sweet as candy. Here too, although I think it depends on the brand. On the supermarket shelves some cans explicitly say "sweetened condensed milk", and those are the ones with lots of sugar. The ones that say "condensed milk" tout court are sometimes sweetened and sometimes not. "Evaporated milk" apparently never has added sugar. For a long time I used sweetened condensed milk for my office coffee, for a very practical reason: the opened can of condensed milk could sit on my desk for one or two or three months and not go off. This was partly, I believe, because of the sugar content, and partly because the stuff was so thick that it would form a seal over the two triangular holes at the top. Unfortunately I now work in a building where the office cleaners believe that every opened can has to be thrown out. After spending a fortune on used-once cans, I gave in to the inevitable and switched to black coffee. (Somebody is bound to ask why I don't buy my condensed milk in toothpaste tubes. The answer is stinginess: condensed milk packaged that way is, in my opinion, hideously overpriced.) SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> I was taught how to milk a cow when, as a child, I was on holiday >>> with my family at a guest house in the mountains. After we [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > toothpaste tubes. The answer is stinginess: condensed milk packaged > that way is, in my opinion, hideously overpriced.) It would never have occurred to me to imagine condensed milk in toothpaste tubes, but I did wonder if the cleaners go through your desk drawers. Thanks to you and Rob for the explanation. I don't recall having seen unsweetened "condensed" milk here, but maybe I haven't looked carefully. Wood Avens filted: >All very true, but what I culdn't help noticing was the absence of any >milk-giving apparatus on the animal concerned. A lot of people these days seem to have trouble with the difference between cows and bulls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Wood Avens filted: >> >>All very true, but what I culdn't help noticing was the absence of any >>milk-giving apparatus on the animal concerned. > A lot of people these days seem to have trouble with the difference between cows > and bulls: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI All very true, but what I couldn't help noticing was the absence of the usual bull accoutrements. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 65 1578.0 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II. Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change. Lars Eighner filted: >> Wood Avens filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >All very true, but what I couldn't help noticing was the absence of the >usual bull accoutrements. Given the sparse nature of the artwork I didn't even bother looking for reproductive organs...this song bothered me from the first time I heard it because of the continual use of "he" and "his" for a character quite clearly called a "cow"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > All very true, but what I culdn't help noticing was the absence of any > milk-giving apparatus on the animal concerned. Or any other apparatus, for that matter, so I doubt that had anything to do with the point of the joke. Speaking of ambiguous bovine apparati: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email the American Dairy Association's "Got milk?" This "got" means "take" or "drink" ? not necessarily meaning "obtain" or "possess", I think. > the American Dairy Association's "Got milk?" > This "got" means "take" or "drink" ? not necessarily meaning > "obtain" or "possess", I think. It means "have" or "possess" in US talk. Baa! Baa! Black sheep, have you any wool? Have you got any milk? Have you any? Do you have any? (some say--dialectally--Do you got(s) any milk? (Have you, Do you)Got (any) milk? In some cases, one might interpret "Got milk?" as a past tense for "Did you get milk?" Someone sneezes, and the other person asks: Got a cold? (Do you have a cold? and not Did you catch a cold? usually.) (You) got milk? And eggs and bacon? But the commercial uses the "have" or "possess" meaning. > Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why so difficult, I don't know. > And this is common about many cartoons' English. It plays on an American advertizing campaign "got milk'. http://magdalicious00.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hayden-got-milk.jpg > Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. Comic strips are among the last things that a learner should try to read. Although some of them are aimed at children, all of them are full of slang and cultural references that will be very difficult for you to understand. For the same reason, you don't want to try to work crossword puzzles. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Cartoon's English is mostly hard to make out for us. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why so difficult, I don't know. > And this is common about many cartoons' English. I should perhaps remind us all of an earlier UK milk slogan: - Fresh milk's gotta lotta bottle. Doesn't work with "has". And you have to know that "bottle" is slang for "courage" or "chutzpah". SignatureDavid |
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.