 |
 | 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 / British English / June 2005Valley-girl speech
There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a rising intonation at the end of a declarative statement, making it sound like a question. I've heard that sort of speech for several years and have reacted with a mixture of amusement and irritation. But I was recently completely taken in by it for the first time. The phone rang and I answered: Me: Hello. Voice: This is Patricia? (I would have sworn on a stack of bibles she had asked me if I was Patricia.) Me: No, I'm not Patricia, and there's no one here by that name. You must have dialed the wrong number. Voice: No, I'm Patricia, and I'm calling on behalf of Me: [Click] On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. About the anti-crossposting myth: In my opinion crossposting is a completely legitimate and acceptable thing to do if it's done for the right reason. The right reason will normally be that the poster has something to say that he thinks could possibly be of interest to readers of more than one newsgroup. I suppose there could be other acceptable reasons for crossposting, but at the moment I can't think of any. In alt.english.usage on Thu, 12 May 2005 23:52:00 GMT Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> posted: >On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham ><exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I suppose there could be other acceptable reasons for >crossposting, but at the moment I can't think of any. You may have been including this in your reason, but if not, another good reason would be the poster's desire for information that might be found in more than one newsgroup. For example, I want to know why it is only after I close the oven door that my grease-filled bottom part of my broiling pan bursts into flames. So I would post this to a cooking ng and a physics ng. s/ meirman  SignatureIf you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years >In alt.english.usage on Thu, 12 May 2005 23:52:00 GMT Bob Cunningham ><exw6sxq@earthlink.net> posted: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >that my grease-filled bottom part of my broiling pan bursts into >flames. So I would post this to a cooking ng and a physics ng. Though a devoted regular in newsgroups, my first thought would be to call 911. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando FL meirman turpitued: >For example, I want to know why it is only after I close the oven door >that my grease-filled bottom part of my broiling pan bursts into >flames. So I would post this to a cooking ng and a physics ng. Bad move. Given your long Usenet experience, you must surely have noticed that questions about cooking go to alt.usage.english. SignaturePeter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) | On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham | <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | he thinks could possibly be of interest to readers of more | than one newsgroup. But it is normally used on usenet to deliberately destroy newsgroups, by regularly crossposting between unrelated newsgroups. This is usually done by crossposting between the target newsgroup (the one to be destroyed) and another unrelated ng where a controversial thread is started. The newsgroup list often contains a contact newsgroup where the malefactors plan their next attack See sig for a longer explanation of the methods SignatureDave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile. In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:05 +0100 Dave Fawthrop <hyphen@hyphenologist.co.uk> posted: >| On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham >| <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >See sig for a longer explanation of the methods But if this thread were not cross posted, we wouldn't have your participation in a thread on this ng, or those of us in this ng wouldn't have the thread to begin with, and wouldn't have any of this discussion. Because I'm sure you're not from AEU. So I think this shows that cross-posting can be beneficial to Usenet. s/ meirman SignatureIf you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years At 05:18:43 on Fri, 13 May 2005, meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in <r3s881tirq5dvevtnoj0htrbvnt5i82jui@4ax.com>: >In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 06:55:05 +0100 Dave Fawthrop ><hyphen@hyphenologist.co.uk> posted: >>But it is normally used on usenet to deliberately destroy newsgroups, by >>regularly crossposting between unrelated newsgroups. This is usually done [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >So I think this shows that cross-posting can be beneficial to Usenet. You haven't met Dave before, have you? SignatureMolly 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.) In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 21:20:17 +0100 Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> posted: >At 05:18:43 on Fri, 13 May 2005, meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in ><r3s881tirq5dvevtnoj0htrbvnt5i82jui@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >You haven't met Dave before, have you? No. ... s/ meirman SignatureIf you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years Before this vigorous discussion of crossposting peters out or mutates to a discussion of the weather in North Dakota, I would like to offer a suggestion that I think is good but which will probably be, like most suggestions, widely ignored. I'm thinking of the practice of some posters wherein they state which newsgroup they're posting from. In recent days I wanted to comment on some remarks by Molly Mockford and because of something she said, I assumed her origin was in uk.culture.language.english. The thread had been crossposted, but I restricted my remarks to UCLE because what I wanted to say didn't seem to be potentially of wide interest. Now I'm beginning to suspect that Molly Mockford is more usually a denizen of alt.english.usage, but I don't know for sure. I wish she had written "Posting from <wherever>". -- Bob Cunningham (Posting from alt.usage.english). At 01:03:11 on Sat, 14 May 2005, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote in <28ia8115ptoj6ag506qqjn9e1l4gbip6vj@4ax.com>: >In recent days I wanted to comment on some remarks by Molly >Mockford and because of something she said, I assumed her [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >usually a denizen of alt.english.usage, but I don't know for >sure. I wish she had written "Posting from <wherever>". I am indeed reading in ucle, which is why I mentioned the effect of large cross-posted threads on that group (the last lot, some months ago, nearly killed it completely), and attempted to set FU there in Message-ID: <DZSIaVG+RFhCFwL7@molly.mockford>. I saw your post to ucle-only, but didn't think it needed a reply - it seemed complete in itself. Regrettably, I don't have enough hours in the day to read aue/aeu (and I never remember which is which anyway). (Since we are discussing cross-posting, no FU set) SignatureMolly 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.) On Saturday, in article <WuD9H9g4ubhCFwKR@molly.mockford> > Regrettably, I don't have enough hours in the day to read aue/aeu (and I > never remember which is which anyway). Quite; in the beginning was alt.usage.english, which I used to read on a regular basis in the early 1990s. Nearly everything was on-topic, although there were a few minor skirmishes from AOL arrivistes who didn't bother to look at the FAQ (for which there was no excuse in those days, with it being regularly posted). I eventually gave up on the group when my newsfeed at work became unreliable, and I honestly couldn't afford the bandwidth of 200+ postings per diem over a 12kb/s modem; moreover, there just weren't enough hours in the day to read everything in the group: at the time, I advocated most strongly that one had no entitlement to post anything in a newsgroup if one did not read EACH and EVERY posting that was made in it. (I did make the obvious exception for kill-filed trolls and other disruptive influences.) [To some extent, I still do hold to that view: many's the time when some query has already been answered, in another thread, due to thread drift.] SFAICT, alt.english.usage arose because some incompetent moron(s) posted, by accident or design, to that non-existent newsgroup, possibly cross- posting to legitimate groups. When the posts hit certain ill-configured servers that automatically newgrouped anything previously unseen, the "group" came into existence on that server, which in turn promoted use of the "group" by other morons. Sadly, by then the practice of rmgrouping ill-advised groups had fallen into disuetude, so no one took the trouble to remove the redundant group; indeed, efforts were put into increasing the propagation of the unnecessarily duplicated group. Now, looking at the headers of this cross-post, it would seem that yet another superfluous group has also been created :-( > (Since we are discussing cross-posting, no FU set) Ditto. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 [...] > SFAICT, alt.english.usage arose because some incompetent moron(s) posted, > by accident or design, to that non-existent newsgroup, possibly cross- > posting to legitimate groups. When the posts hit certain ill-configured > servers that automatically newgrouped anything previously unseen, the > "group" came into existence on that server, which in turn promoted use of > the "group" by other morons. That theory has been expressed from time to time, but I think it has been cogently shot down. The argument has gone that if it were true, there could be a newsgroup for every typographical error or misremembered newsgroup name in typing a newsgroup name. Granted that many of them may not have triggered the establishment process, at least some of them should have. For example, it's so easy to unthinkingly write "alt.england.usage" that it seems hard to imagine that more than one person has not done so at some point. It seems a plausible name for a newsgroup, but I don't believe one exists with that name. Other typos that are plausible names are alt.english.use alt.eng.usage uk.culture.lang.english uk.language.english uk.culture.language Anyone here could come up with a much longer list of plausible name errors that haven't resulted in the creation of new newsgroups. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > plausible name errors that haven't resulted in the creation > of new newsgroups. It's not totally implausible for the alt.* groups (uk.* is more tightly controlled.) It would certainly explain why there are both alt.language.latin and the phantom alt.languages.latin. SignatureJohn Briggs At 23:26:39 on Wed, 18 May 2005, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in <PaQie.8089$f5.2033@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>: >It's not totally implausible for the alt.* groups (uk.* is more tightly >controlled.) It would certainly explain why there are both >alt.language.latin and the phantom alt.languages.latin. Some years ago, DejaNews was fooled into believing in the existence of a group called wibble.wobble as a result of a few deliberate cross-postings. Presumably, therefore, it took on board (actually non-existent) group which appeared to receive sufficient posts. Since there were fewer home computers in those days, and quite a lot of people who had web access but no newsfeed at work posted via DejaNews (I did myself), this could explain the "creation" of groups in any hierarchy - for DejaNews purposes only, of course. SignatureMolly 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.) On Wednesday, in article <4jin815csn1d3rr7h57fgf1br0riaee4mt@4ax.com> > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have triggered the establishment process, at least some of > them should have. Whereabouts do you envisage the alt.binaires.* "hierarchy" arose? It IS the case that some newsservers automatically create a "group" for anything seen in the Newsgroups line on a post; most of these are inadequately managed servers, but some of the big providers, wanting to boast that they "carry 90,000+ uncensored groups" are happy to see spurious unnecessary groups created. In the case of something like alt.english.usage, the group WAS "created" by the mechanism I posit, and so many misguided posters mistakenly thought that this was the correct name that they asked their own newsmasters to create the group and peer with those servers that were carrying it. It is this action that has made the group appear as mainstream, rather than being isolated to a few mismanaged servers. It is surely significant that ftp.isc.org carries absolutely no record whatsoever of any Control messages related to a.e.u (whereas those that brought a.u.e into existence are archived). SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > On Wednesday, in article > <4jin815csn1d3rr7h57fgf1br0riaee4mt@4ax.com> > > [...] > > > SFAICT, alt.english.usage arose because some incompetent moron(s) posted, > > > by accident or design, to that non-existent newsgroup, possibly cross- > > > posting to legitimate groups. When the posts hit certain ill-configured > > > servers that automatically newgrouped anything previously unseen, the > > > "group" came into existence on that server, which in turn promoted use of > > > the "group" by other morons. > > That theory has been expressed from time to time, but I > > think it has been cogently shot down. The argument has gone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > have triggered the establishment process, at least some of > > them should have. > Whereabouts do you envisage the alt.binaires.* "hierarchy" arose? > It IS the case that some newsservers automatically create a "group" for > anything seen in the Newsgroups line on a post; most of these are > inadequately managed servers, but some of the big providers, wanting to > boast that they "carry 90,000+ uncensored groups" are happy to see > spurious unnecessary groups created. > In the case of something like alt.english.usage, the group WAS "created" > by the mechanism I posit, and so many misguided posters mistakenly > thought that this was the correct name that they asked their own > newsmasters to create the group and peer with those servers that were > carrying it. It is this action that has made the group appear as > mainstream, rather than being isolated to a few mismanaged servers. > It is surely significant that ftp.isc.org carries absolutely no record > whatsoever of any Control messages related to a.e.u (whereas those that > brought a.u.e into existence are archived). I've spent a little time trying to find clues to where alt.languages.english came from. As a result, I'm beginning to believe in the accidental-formation hypothesis. It's not impossible that the earliest postings to that group have been lost to Google Groups, but the first postings there seem clearly to be crosspostings by one or more people who acted as if the newsgroup already existed. I can see them doing it for one of a number of reasons: 1. They were aware of alt.usage.english, but were hazy about its correct name 2. They didn't know that there was a group named alt.languages.english but thought there probably was 3. They were aware that using a previously unused newsgroup name would cause the newsgroup to be created and set out to deliberately cause its creation. No matter which of those reasons applies, calling them "morons" seems grossly inappropriate. I once told a friend of mine, a highly intelligent engineer, about alt.usage.english and suggested that he take a look at it. Some time later he told me that he had looked, but found only a very few postings there. It turned out he had misremembered the name and had looked at alt.english.usage. He is far from being a moron. Obaue: Exercise for the student: Where should "accidental newsgroup creation theory" be hyphenated? > Obaue: Exercise for the student: Where should "accidental > newsgroup creation theory" be hyphenated? "... newsgroup-creation... " ? Shaun aRe - Just a guess - I'm crap at this technical language stuff and all sh.t like that, yaknow? > Before this vigorous discussion of crossposting peters out > or mutates to a discussion of the weather in North Dakota, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm thinking of the practice of some posters wherein they > state which newsgroup they're posting from. That's where setting Followup-To helps, because any decent newsreader will show something like "Poster has set followup to whatever, do you wish to do that?". It can then be reasonably assumed that this is where the poster is expecting to read the reply, but you can override it if you wish. > In recent days I wanted to comment on some remarks by Molly > Mockford and because of something she said, I assumed her > origin was in uk.culture.language.english. The thread had > been crossposted, but I restricted my remarks to UCLE > because what I wanted to say didn't seem to be potentially > of wide interest. Yes, this is often annoying (I don't mean Molly!) with crossposted threads. I have no idea where the OP was reading the post, for instance, except that it probably wasn't alt.languages.english where I'm reading it. > Now I'm beginning to suspect that Molly Mockford is more > usually a denizen of alt.english.usage, but I don't know for > sure. I wish she had written "Posting from <wherever>". AFAIK she reads ucle, possibly as well (but many news clients will only 'see' the post in the first newsgroup in which it is read, which can confuse things). > -- Bob Cunningham (Posting from alt.usage.english). All left in, note followups... Chris C >> On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham >> <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is started. The newsgroup list often contains a contact newsgroup > where the malefactors plan their next attack This certainly does happen, but I'd challenge your use of the word "normally". -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. At 23:52:00 on Thu, 12 May 2005, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote in <mlq781ht5ud592ba0rcap1ehdrqtrlomr2@4ax.com>: >On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham ><exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >he thinks could possibly be of interest to readers of more >than one newsgroup. It is not always good for the newsgroups concerned, however. uk.culture.language.english has far too often been swamped by threads cross-posted to aue/aeu which are large, long and contain considerable thread drift. For a quiet little group like ucle, this is equivalent to having a gang of happy but loud-mouthed drunks suddenly entering one's peaceful pub. The usual netiquette, when cross-posting, is to set follow-ups to one particular newsgroup from the list; that way, those who are interested in the discussion can follow it there and those who are not need not be bothered with it. In this particular case, "Valley Girl" is not an expression in common use in the UK, so I am puzzled as to why you included uk.culture.language.english unless you would like to discuss that particular phrase. Is it similar to "Essex girl"? FU set to ucle. SignatureMolly 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.) > At 23:52:00 on Thu, 12 May 2005, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> > wrote in <mlq781ht5ud592ba0rcap1ehdrqtrlomr2@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > FU set to ucle. I *love* the image of Mr Cunningham as a "happy but loud-mouthed drunk"! And I'm always pleased when the occasional cross-post brings you, Phil, Peter and other ucle regulars into aue and reminds me to check out the "quiet little group". SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >At 23:52:00 on Thu, 12 May 2005, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> >wrote in <mlq781ht5ud592ba0rcap1ehdrqtrlomr2@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >FU set to ucle. The phenomenon of giving question intonation to declarative statements is also found in the UK? So it is quite relevant to your group in that sense? I blame *Neighbours*. (Reset to include AUE) -- Ross Howard [...] > In this particular case, "Valley Girl" is not an > expression in common use in the UK, so I am puzzled as to why you > included uk.culture.language.english unless you would like to discuss > that particular phrase. Is it similar to "Essex girl"? I've seen in UCLE at least one discussion of speech styles in which declarative sentences habitually end with rising intonation, making them sound like questions. That was what my original posting was about. I think "Valley girl" appeared only in the subject line, and judging by your comment, it would have been better to not use it. However, I had seen "valley girl" mentioned in UCLE, so I was under the impression the term would be understood there. Valley-girl speech has other characteristics, but the one I mostly associate with it is the rising terminal intonation. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > intonation, making them sound like questions. That was what > my original posting was about. The rising intonation is widely accepted as being of Australian origin, and usually attributed to the ubiquity of Australian television soap operas (itself attributable to the costs of production, and peculiarities of Australian accountancy law). "Patricia" was probably telephoning from an Indian call centre (popularly supposed to be in Bangalore), and was probably suffering from cultural confusion, not realising that "This is Patricia?" would be interpreted as "Is this Patricia?", and understood to mean "Is that Patricia?". SignatureJohn Briggs In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 08:17:18 +0100 Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> posted: >At 23:52:00 on Thu, 12 May 2005, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> >wrote in <mlq781ht5ud592ba0rcap1ehdrqtrlomr2@4ax.com>: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >having a gang of happy but loud-mouthed drunks suddenly entering one's >peaceful pub. A real newsreader like Agent and Free Agent has an Ignore key or some other key that will keep future posts to a thread from even showing up, if one doesn't want them. >The usual netiquette, when cross-posting, is to set follow-ups to one >particular newsgroup from the list; that way, those who are interested >in the discussion can follow it there and those who are not need not be >bothered with it. I don't think that in practice that is the result at all, and I find it deleterious when people try to divert a cross-posted thread to one particular newsgroup, whether it is the one I read or not. Most people aren't going to add a whole new newsgroup to the list of those they read just for the sake of one thread. So what happens is that those not in the follow-up-to group don't get to read some/many/most of the remaining posts. Don't get to read any of those posts that acquiesce to the follow-up line. And even if one is in the follow-up group, he doesn't get the benefit of reading what those in the other groups have to say. The only reason most of the people who had been following this thread are able to read my reply is that I restored the original list of ngs, and I'd like to keep it that way, so that they can read the whole thread. If I hadn't noticed, or if I used a newsreader where it wasn't so obvious that most of the groups got omitted when I clicked on Reply, I wouldn't have been able to see my own reply via Usenet, nor would anyone on the group I usually read, or 2 others, have seen my reply. And when someone in your group replied to me, I wouldn't see it, I would know if your group's readers understood what I said and I wouldn't know if their replies had any value, because I wouldn't see them. I would think no one replied, even if people had. >In this particular case, "Valley Girl" is not an >expression in common use in the UK, so I am puzzled as to why you >included uk.culture.language.english unless you would like to discuss >that particular phrase. Is it similar to "Essex girl"? That sounds interesting. What does Esssex girl mean? >FU set to ucle. FU set to all original groups. s/ meirman SignatureIf you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years > In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 08:17:18 +0100 Molly Mockford > <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > other key that will keep future posts to a thread from even showing > up, if one doesn't want them. How do you say "I don't want to read bits cross-posted to another newsgroup and off-topic, but I do want to read the bits which are on-topic later in the newsgroup I read" without having access to an AI? > The only reason most of the people who had been following this thread > are able to read my reply is that I restored the original list of ngs, > and I'd like to keep it that way, so that they can read the whole > thread. Or they put you (or the crossposted groups) in their killfile so they still don't see what you have to say. Or they reply only to their own group, overriding followups, so you have no idea what they say. >>In this particular case, "Valley Girl" is not an >>expression in common use in the UK, so I am puzzled as to why you >>included uk.culture.language.english unless you would like to discuss >>that particular phrase. Is it similar to "Essex girl"? > > That sounds interesting. What does Esssex girl mean? Illustrates the point, really. ucle is a group for discussing English as used in the UK, so "Valley Girl" is off-topic but "Essex Girl" might be on-topic (although I'm not convinced that "Essex Girl" is a language variant). F/U to alt.languages.english (where I'm reading it, my newsreader -- deliberately -- doesn't like me not setting followups to multiple groups). Chris C In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 13:05:48 +0100 Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net> posted: >> In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 08:17:18 +0100 Molly Mockford >> <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >newsgroup and off-topic, but I do want to read the bits which are >on-topic later in the newsgroup I read" without having access to an AI? One could filter out posters who are never seen on non-crossposted threads. That would leave the rest of the thread. I usually just mark as read posts from individual posters, in case the person after them says something interesting, but I want to see the previous post because of that. >> The only reason most of the people who had been following this thread >> are able to read my reply is that I restored the original list of ngs, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >still don't see what you have to say. Or they reply only to their own >group, overriding followups, so you have no idea what they say. If they want to they can do those things too, but those things don't bother me as much as someone setting followups for ME if I choose to reply and don't notice that followups were set. >>>In this particular case, "Valley Girl" is not an >>>expression in common use in the UK, so I am puzzled as to why you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >deliberately -- doesn't like me not setting followups to multiple >groups). Sorry, reset. I don't think AEU folk object, certainly not most of them. >Chris C s/ meirman SignatureIf you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years > In alt.english.usage on Fri, 13 May 2005 08:17:18 +0100 Molly Mockford > <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> posted: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > That sounds interesting. What does Esssex girl mean? Essex girls come from Essex :-) (Much as Valley girls come from the [San Fernando] Valley, I suppose) In many ways the opposite of Valley Girls, whose London equivalents were Sloane Rangers, or Sloanes. Essex girls are traditionally called Tracy or Sharon, and dance round their handbags. SignatureJohn Briggs At 14:01:35 on Sat, 14 May 2005, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in <3xnhe.4862$sE4.2741@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>: >Essex girls come from Essex :-) (Much as Valley girls come from the [San >Fernando] Valley, I suppose) In many ways the opposite of Valley Girls, >whose London equivalents were Sloane Rangers, or Sloanes. > >Essex girls are traditionally called Tracy or Sharon, and dance round their >handbags. And they say "Innit?" at the end of most of their sentences, on a rising inflection. SignatureMolly 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.) > At 14:01:35 on Sat, 14 May 2005, John Briggs > <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And they say "Innit?" at the end of most of their sentences, on a > rising inflection. Yes, but that's a question :-) SignatureJohn Briggs >> At 14:01:35 on Sat, 14 May 2005, John Briggs >> <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, but that's a question :-) Surely you mean: Yes, but that's a question, innit? <g> (Having spent time in Germany I have a tendency to use "or?" at the end of statements, equivalent of the German "oder?" or the older "nicht wahr?" ("is that not so?"). It's not dissimilar to "innit?" or "isn't it?"...) Chris C On Saturday, in article <GHDpNd75GkhCFw6t@molly.mockford> [Essex Girls] > And they say "Innit?" at the end of most of their sentences, on a rising > inflection. ITYM > And they say "Innit?" at the end of most of their sentences, on a rising > inflection? Those unfamiliar with the Essex Girl soubriquet are invited to Google for "Essex girl jokes" which ought to turn up a plethora of pejorative remarks about Sharon and Tracy; such as: Q. Does an Essex girl leave the light on when she's making love? A. Only if she accidentally opens the door of the [Ford] Escort. SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 John Briggs spake thusly: > > That sounds interesting. What does Esssex girl mean? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Essex girls are traditionally called Tracy or Sharon, and dance round their > handbags. There are uncountable jokes about Essex girls, which US English might ascribe to "a blonde". They are assumed to be stupid and possessed of loose morals. - What do you call an Essex girl with two brain cells? - Pregnant. http://www.ukchatterbox.co.uk/msg/34974 and many others. SignatureDavid ===== replace usenet with the In alt.english.usage on Sat, 14 May 2005 22:30:25 GMT the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> posted: >John Briggs spake thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >ascribe to "a blonde". They are assumed to be stupid and possessed >of loose morals. I'll have to go there someday. >- What do you call an Essex girl with two brain cells? >- Pregnant. LOL. >http://www.ukchatterbox.co.uk/msg/34974 and many others. s/ meirman SignatureIf you are emailing me please say if you are posting the same response. Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years Indianapolis, 7 years Chicago, 6 years Brooklyn NY 12 years now in Baltimore 22 years Molly Mockford wrote in uk.culture.language.english on Fri, 13 May 2005 08:17:18 +0100 MID<DZSIaVG+RFhCFwL7@molly.mockford>: >In this particular case, "Valley Girl" is not an >expression in common use in the UK, so I am puzzled as to why you >included uk.culture.language.english unless you would like to discuss >that particular phrase. Is it similar to "Essex girl"? It's been taken in parody in South Wales, a friend of mine refers to herself as a Valleys Girl: "When I was twelve, I wanted to go to ballet classes. But my mam told me judo would be more use in Merthyr." Signaturebaby-sitter - one who mounts guard over a baby to relieve the usual attendant Chambers 20th Century Dictionary >On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:43:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham ><exw6sxq@earthlink.net> crossposted to four newsgroups. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I suppose there could be other acceptable reasons for >crossposting, but at the moment I can't think of any. Why Bob, you ignorant slut! If you have something that may be pertinent to more than one newsgroup, you can post it to the primary newsgroup, then copy/paste it into a new post on the second newsgroup, then copy/paste to a new post on the third newsgroup, etc. Is that so hard? This way, cross-chatter is avoided and you look like a non-crossposting Good Guy. Geez. Kids these days... - TR - Usenet vet since '94. [...] > If you have something that may be pertinent to more than one > newsgroup, you can post it to the primary newsgroup, then copy/paste > it into a new post on the second newsgroup, then copy/paste to a new > post on the third newsgroup, etc. Is that so hard? Most Usenet users know by now that that practice is frowned on by those in the know. Posting separately to different newsgroups is a waste of bandwidth. It posts one copy of the message for each recipient, while crossposting posts only one copy with multiple addresses. There's a group of documents that all Usenet users should have read at least once. Somewhere in those documents you should be able to find confirmation of what I've said. You can find those documents under news.announce.newusers FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nan/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > recipient, while crossposting posts only one copy with > multiple addresses. Yes, but that's not the reason it's frowned on. If you post separately (simultaneously) to different newsgroups, someone replying in one newsgroup won't know that the question has already been answered, or the point has been made, in a different newsgroup. This annoys everyone. SignatureJohn Briggs > Yes, but that's not the reason it's frowned on. If you post separately > (simultaneously) to different newsgroups, someone replying in one newsgroup > won't know that the question has already been answered, or the point has > been made, in a different newsgroup. This annoys everyone. Even more annoying is that it sucks in all contributions for all the groups. These might be on topic for the group in which the message was read, but utterly off topic for the others, and divergently so as the thread develops. And, of course, it sucks in all the gathered swarm of headbangers, resulting in a high- noise environment. It's a little bit like messing with Pratchett's dungeon dimensions. Paul Burke > There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity > of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Me: [Click] Now you'll never know. You could have hung up after that sentence was over, 'cause now I'll never know either. > There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity > of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a > rising intonation at the end of a declarative statement, > making it sound like a question. It's far more common among women than young people... especially in the Southern US, as far as I can tell. As I understand it, it's not so much a question as an invitation to provide some sort of response. Sort of like, "Hi, this is Patricia; do you know who I am?" or "Hi, this is Patricia; will you speak to me?" Never having done it myself, I don't know for certain, though. SignatureMichael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? On Friday, in article <IRVge.370$E_3.83@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> > > There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity > > of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Never having done it myself, I don't know for certain, though. The theory in the UK is that it originated from imported Australian "soaps" (such as Neighbours, Home & Away, etc.); apparently this misleading intonation is common (and, as you say, more so amongst young women) in the big cities in Australia. However, from the thread's title, it would seem that there's a home-grown USAian subspecies? SignatureBrian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 > On Friday, in article > <IRVge.370$E_3.83@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> It's far more common among women than young people... especially in >> the Southern US, as far as I can tell. As I understand it, it's not >> so much a question as an invitation to provide some sort of >> response. Sort of like, "Hi, this is Patricia; do you know who I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > However, from the thread's title, it would seem that there's a > home-grown USAian subspecies? And I remember a kind which was used natively by East-Devonians. It isn't exactly the same, but some Syrians have something like it, too: much piss-tooken by Palestinians. What I'd like to know is how it got into Aus speech: it was, I feel sure, quite absent in the 'fifties and even the 'sixties. We call it "up-speak", do we not? I have a very strong feeling, though one which comes entirely without warranty, that it really started as an alternative to "Are you with me so far?" and "You do know what I mean, don't you?" when a girl was telling a story, and then kind of spread. But that may just be the way I first interpreted it: I do remember resisting the impulse to snap "Of course I know what you mean by 'hospital', you bloody fool!" SignatureMike. > ... > > The theory in the UK is that it originated from imported Australian [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What I'd like to know is how it got into Aus speech: it was, I feel > sure, quite absent in the 'fifties and even the 'sixties. ... The same way most American perversions have: TV. --Toby >> ... >>> The theory in the UK is that it originated from imported Australian [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The same way most American perversions have: TV. No, so far it seems pretty clear that this perversion is native to Oz. (And, for the archive, it wasn't me who said the first para.) (And, for the archive, I have no objection to the disjunctive use of "me".) SignatureMike. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.usage.english.] >>> ... >>>> The theory in the UK is that it originated from imported [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (And, for the archive, I have no objection to the disjunctive use of > "me".) You're talking about Uptalk, a feature of my own speech? I can't easily believe that the AusEs developed this first (how would it have spread to the US? -- it would have had to have been prior to the period of AmE flirtation with AusE culture (mid-1980s); Uptalk was established by the early '80s?), and it seems quite unlikely that AusE and AmE would have invented it independently of one another. The more plausible explanation is that AusE got it from AmE. Moreover, I continue to believe that Uptalk was pioneered not in Southern California but in New York City, probably Manhattan. (This one doesn't belong to Brooklyn, IDT.) In alt.usage.english Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@removethisyahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On Friday, in article >> <IRVge.370$E_3.83@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> However, from the thread's title, it would seem that there's a >> home-grown USAian subspecies? > And I remember a kind which was used natively by East-Devonians. It > isn't exactly the same, but some Syrians have something like it, too: > much piss-tooken by Palestinians. > What I'd like to know is how it got into Aus speech: it was, I feel > sure, quite absent in the 'fifties and even the 'sixties. We call it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > remember resisting the impulse to snap "Of course I know what you > mean by 'hospital', you bloody fool!" I recall a few girls using something like this in the 1960s. It was definitely then a way of asking for confirmation that you were still listening and still not disagreeing or getting annoyed. Some wanted some kind of a regular nod or grunt from the listener and got increasingly distressed and "up" if it wasn't supplied. Others seemed to assume that assent was given unless it was contradicted, and what they were polling for was dissent. I found it very irritating too, and I can remember at the time wondering whether it was some kind of pathological insecurity, and dismissing the idea, since one of the girls who used it was very popular, attractive, and self-confident. I've always wondered if it was this habit which somewhere somehow morphed into the current upspeak, or whether that has quite different origins. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > I recall a few girls using something like this in the 1960s. It was > definitely then a way of asking for confirmation that you were still [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to assume that assent was given unless it was contradicted, and what > they were polling for was dissent. Ah, that's a matter of communication protocol and differs even within the same culture. I both give and expect fairly regular "acknowledge" signals, especially vocal, but there are others who expect to be uninterrupted and take the 'ack' as a request to interruption (and when I'm specking I get confused because I take lack of 'acks' to mean that the person isn't interested or disagrees and is waiting to say so). As far as I can see there is no way of solving that except by making an explicit agreement of protocol at the start (or knowing by experience which protocol the other person is using). Similar to that is the eye contact protocol. To some people, it is expected that eye contact is made continuously to indicate agreement (or at least agreement to continue) and lack of eye contact indicates disagreement or disinterest. To others eye contact from a listener means "I wish to say something" and from a talker means "I'm ready to hand over to you is you wish". Again, two almost inverse interpretations of the same signals and no way to tell in advance which one a person uses without explicit negotiation. > I found it very irritating too, and I can remember at the time > wondering whether it was some kind of pathological insecurity, and > dismissing the idea, since one of the girls who used it was very > popular, attractive, and self-confident. No, it's just a different protcol. > I've always wondered if it was this habit which somewhere somehow > morphed into the current upspeak, or whether that has quite different > origins. I favour the derivation from an explicit question ("isn't it?", "with me so far?"), with the question being elided but the intonation remaining, which is compatible with the "expected acknowledgement" protocol. But I have no proof (it would make a fascinating study for someone's doctoral thesis in human communication, though)... Chris C At 19:17:21 on Fri, 13 May 2005, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in <3ek9a2F3hb69U1@individual.net>: >But that may just be the way I first interpreted it: I do >remember resisting the impulse to snap "Of course I know what you >mean by 'hospital', you bloody fool!" It's a big building with patients in it. But that's not important right now. SignatureMolly 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.) > There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity > of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a > rising intonation at the end of a declarative statement, > making it sound like a question. Not just younger people, most of my friends from Georgia (USA, not the ex-Soviet one) do it whatever their age. I regard it as equivalent to the European tendency to put "isn't it?" or "or?" on the end of sentences, an equivalent of the CB radio "come on?" or formal radio "over" meaning "it's your turn to speak now, either confirm or disagree with what I said". > I've heard that sort of speech for several years and have > reacted with a mixture of amusement and irritation. But I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Voice: This is Patricia? Heh. > (I would have sworn on a stack of bibles she had asked me if > I was Patricia.) I suspect I would have interpreted it that way as well. > Me: No, I'm not Patricia, and there's no one here by that > name. You must have dialed the wrong number. > > Voice: No, I'm Patricia, and I'm calling on behalf of I have several friends called Chris, and we do: "Hello, Chris here." "No, Chris here!" Some just say: "Hello, Paul" and I have to work out whether it's a person called Paul or one wanting Paul -- and that's without the 'question' intonation... Chris C > There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity > of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a > rising intonation at the end of a declarative statement, > making it sound like a question. I'll give you a U.S.A. California perspective circa 1970-1971. It's not originally a Valley-girl thing. After I returned from Vietnam in 1970 and set up housekeeping on Treasure Island (then and now part of San Francisco), some teenagers lived with us. They picked up that rising intonation from the local teens, and I tracked it down to the influence of the dope smoking, maggot infested, hippy culture in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time. I lived in and visited San Francisco at various times 1963-1971 and I witnessed the cultural, social and linguistic changes, and I am absolutely certain of this. I've concluded that the rising intonation comes from the politically correct desire to be seen as non-judgemental which is supposed to be cool and it means, "you know man..., you know what I mean man..., whatever you say man..., let it all hang out..., go with the flow", and all that crap. The rising intonation injects a little bit of doubt, a little bit of tentativeness, a little bit of the interrogative into the declarative statement. I tried to break the kids of the habit, but was not entirely successful and now one is an adult of 50 and she still speaks that way. Dennis Hopper in the role of the hippy journalist in "Apocalypse Now" spoke that way, so you can get an idea how far back this self-inflicted speech impediment goes. The generation of the 1970s passed it on, so that many American kids of 1980s and 1990s have acquired this annoying habit of speech. I always thought it sounded whiny. Valley-girl speech has incorporated that annoying habit of speech, but to me the rising intonation is not the sole distinctive feature of Valley-girl speech. Another misuse of the English language occurred at about the same time, that is the incorrect use of "may I" and "can I". It goes like this; student in line at school cafeteria asks; "Mmmh, uhhh, can I have a tuna sandwich?" If I was the cafeteria line server I would reply with "Yeah, sure" and then go on to ignore the student. I hear this daily all over the U.S. If the student asked why he didn't get a sandwich, when he asked "Can I have a sandwich?", I'd say; "Sure you can. Anything is possible." Just think, some of the American kids of the 1970s and 1980s that adopted that whiny, rising intonation in the declarative statement went on to become public school teachers, doctors, lawyers, movie stars and congress-creatures. >> There has been much discussion in Usenet of the peculiarity >> of speech shown by some younger people wherein they have a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > break the kids of the habit, but was not entirely successful and > now one is an adult of 50 and she still speaks that way. [...] > Just think, some of the American kids of the 1970s and 1980s that > adopted that whiny, rising intonation in the declarative statement > went on to become public school teachers, doctors, lawyers, movie > stars and congress-creatures. It's pretty awful, but you ought to listen to how Japanese and Taiwanese girls and young women (under 50, say?) speak Japanese and Chinese. That nauseating feeling brought on by Valley-girl speech feels like Maalox Max in comparison SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. [snip] > After I returned from Vietnam in 1970 and set up housekeeping on Treasure > Island (then and now part of San Francisco), some teenagers lived with us. > They picked up that rising intonation from the local teens, and I tracked it > down to the influence of the dope smoking, maggot infested, hippy culture in > the San Francisco Bay Area at the time. I lived in and visited San Francisco > at various times 1963-1971 and I witnessed the cultural, s [snip] > Another misuse of the English language occurred at about the same time, that > is the incorrect use of "may I" and "can I". It goes like this; student in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > asked why he didn't get a sandwich, when he asked "Can I have a sandwich?", > I'd say; "Sure you can. Anything is possible." How odd that the 1960s California textbooks *already* thought this was an issue to address, then. Schoolbooks are not usually that quick to change. I see that Evans & Evans addressed "may" and "can" as an issue in their _A Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, 1957. They thought it was a fuss about politeness, by the way, not language; they say that both "may" and "can" have long been used to indicate permission, but recently a standard had been building that "may" was politer. Why does P.G. Perrin's _Writer's Guide_ of 1950 have a section on "can - may" if the question never arose until the 1970s? He, too, like the Evanses, don't come down on the side that you seem to believe was a universal standard: Can is generally used for both permission and ability: Can I go now? You can if you want to. I an do 89 miles an hour with mine. This is in such general usage that it should be regarded as good English in speaking and in writing... In formal English some distinction is made between the auxiliary /can/ when it has the meaning of ability, "being able to," and /may/, with the meaning of permission. The distinction makes possible the classic dialog at many tables: "Can I have some more meat and potato?" "You /may/ [with a withering acent] have some more meat and potato." Why call it classic if it hadn't even been invented yet? No, I think you've falled victim to the "Fallacy of the First Encounter." The first time you noticed this phenomenon was at that time and that place, and you assumed it was (newly) invented there. I recall that Meredith Willson puts a may/can exchange into "The Music Man," but that was merely set in 1905, not written then. SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux A child of the Bay Area [...] [discuusing when the use of "can for "may" was first castigated} [quoting from P.G. Perrin's _Writer's Guide_ of 1950] > In formal English some distinction is made between the auxiliary > /can/ when it has the meaning of ability, "being able to," and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I recall that Meredith Willson puts a may/can exchange into "The Music > Man," but that was merely set in 1905, not written then. I can take it back to about 1944. I knocked on the school's Staff Room door and asked the master who opened it "Can I see Mrs Davies, please?" "Of course", he replied, pointing; "there she is, sitting by the window". Then he closed the door. An older pupil standing nearby explained why the man had behaved so oddly, and I tried again, this time successfully. Alan Jones > I can take it back to about 1944. I knocked on the school's Staff > Room door and asked the master who opened it "Can I see Mrs Davies, > please?" "Of course", he replied, pointing; "there she is, sitting > by the window". Then he closed the door. Someone once walked up to me with an expression of urgency on her face and asked, "Can I see you?" I kid you not... my first (without-a-thought) response was to look down to see if I was visible. When I realized what I'd done, I had a good laugh at myself. SignatureMichael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? > I recall that Meredith Willson puts a may/can exchange into "The > Music Man," but that was merely set in 1905, not written then. Surely "The Music Man" is set later than 1905? The opening ditty mentions the Model T Ford, which didn't come out until 1908. I have it in my head the TMM takes place in 1912. Extra points, though, for spelling Willson's last name correctly. SignatureOpus the Penguin The best darn penguin in all of Usenet > > I recall that Meredith Willson puts a may/can exchange into "The > > Music Man," but that was merely set in 1905, not written then. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Extra points, though, for spelling Willson's last name correctly. You're right that I'm wrong. I must have been remembering this (checks IMDb): Marian Paroo: Gary Conservatory of Music, class of '05. Harold, there wasn't any Gary Conservatory of Music in '05. Harold Hill: Why, there most certainly w... Marian Paroo: Because the town wasn't even built until '06. There used to be a complete script on line somewhere, but I don't find it any more. I found a page with a couple of can/may exchanges between Miss Marian and the girl Amaryllis, here: http://www.puc.edu/Staff/Todd_Peterson/amaryllis.html SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux |
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.