At 14:03:21 on Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Ivan <vorotyntsev@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1111010601.283827.230280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>Anyone familiar with the phrase, "not (or naught) for nothing"?
"Not for nothing" is the correct phrase. Yes, it is in reasonably
common use. "It was not for nothing that he worked hard at his
revision, since he passed his exam with flying colours."
>Is it true "naught" is sometimes spelled differently in England
>(nought, or nowt)?
No. "Naught" is an old word equivalent to "nothing". "Nought"
(pronounced exactly the same as "naught") is in current use and is
equivalent to "zero". "Nowt" is a dialect word for "naught" /
"nothing".

Signature
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Danny Collman - 17 Mar 2005 00:29 GMT
>At 14:03:21 on Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Ivan <vorotyntsev@yahoo.com> wrote in
><1111010601.283827.230280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>(pronounced exactly the same as "naught") is in current use and is
>equivalent to "zero". "Nowt" is a dialect word for "naught" / "nothing".
I wonder whether the enquirer may also have had 'owt for nowt' in mind -
the idea that you don't get anything for nothing: direct equivalent of
TANSTAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Signature
Danny Collman, Birmingham
Ivan - 17 Mar 2005 21:04 GMT
> I wonder whether the enquirer may also have had 'owt for nowt' in mind -
> the idea that you don't get anything for nothing: direct equivalent of
> TANSTAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
> --
> Danny Collman, Birmingham
No. It's from an Amercian TV show (The West Wing), and characters
frequently preface a statement of opinion with "Not for nothing
but...". Now it seems to me the "but" is unnecessary or even incorrect.
In any case I think it was the "but" that kept me from understanding
what was really meant.
HB - 17 Mar 2005 18:54 GMT
> At 14:03:21 on Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Ivan <vorotyntsev@yahoo.com> wrote
> in <1111010601.283827.230280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> common use. "It was not for nothing that he worked hard at his
> revision, since he passed his exam with flying colours."
The literal equivalent is also frequently used in Flemish/Dutch: 'niet
voor niets'.
- Herman -
Ivan - 17 Mar 2005 21:06 GMT
Molly Mockford wrote:> No. "Naught" is an old word equivalent to
"nothing". "Nought"
> (pronounced exactly the same as "naught") is in current use and is
> equivalent to "zero". "Nowt" is a dialect word for "naught" /
> "nothing".
> --
> Molly Mockford
Thank you, Molly. Is "Nowt" pronounced differently, as in "now" +"t"?
Peter Duncanson - 17 Mar 2005 22:48 GMT
>Is "Nowt" pronounced differently, as in "now" +"t"?
Yes.

Signature
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)
David - 18 Mar 2005 00:23 GMT
> >Is "Nowt" pronounced differently, as in "now" +"t"?
> Yes.
But not as "now" +"t", TV and radio notwithstanding.

Signature
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y08-0.htm
Devil's Arrow at Boroughbridge
Paul Burke - 18 Mar 2005 09:56 GMT
> Thank you, Molly. Is "Nowt" pronounced differently, as in "now" +"t"?
That's a very good question. You can actually tell the area of origin of
people in some parts of northern England by their pronunciation of
'nowt'. To us Lankies, the Yorkshire pronunciation sounds more like
'note', and Oldham is fairly close to that. But over in Leigh, it's
halfway between 'now-t' and 'newt'. Of course, we in Salford adopted the
happy medium, the correct prounciation...
Paul Burke