I met a young woman from New York City who, when she heard me say I "waited on" someone, told me that indicated that Southerners like me had an inferiority complex that made us use words to express servitude.
She was an editor at a national magazine.
To her, I should have said I "waited for" someone instead of "waited on," a phrase that should be reserved for people who serve customers in a restaurant, or others in similar situations.
Does she have a point?
Does she have a point?
I don't know about a point, but what she said is factually correct.
Waiters, waitresses etc wait on people.
If you're waiting for someone to arrive, then yeah- you're waiting for them, not on them.
As for it indicating an inferiority complex, i'd let the shrinks fight that one out, or someone that knows how that waiting on came in to use to replace waiting for.
But then lots of people say "could of" or "should of" when they should be saying "could have" or "should have" (which is why the abbreviated spellings are "could've" and "should've").
But then lots of people say "could of" or "should of" when they should be saying "could have" or "should have" (which is why the abbreviated spellings are "could've" and "should've").
Hmm,
I've read this "could of" and "should of" in some stories, but it was always used in dialogue.
I therefore assumed the author used this spelling to indicate a strong dialectal variation in pronunciation of "could've" or "should've".
HM.
ETA:
looked it up in Wiktionary.
While I assumed it was pronunciation spelling they name two other causes:
Verb
could of
1. Eye dialect spelling of could have or could've.
2. Misconstruction of could have or could've.
From Grammarphobia.
In the sense of "await," both "wait on" and "wait for" have long histories of usage in English, both in Britain and in the United States.
In general, "wait for" is more common, but "wait on" is part of mainstream usage in both countries.
In the US, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, "wait on" is "most strongly identified" with speakers in the South and the Midwest, though plenty of Northerners use it too.
"If it has been the mission of Northern teachers to stamp out wait on, they have failed in more places than just the South," the dictionary adds.
Another source, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) has an interesting thought: "One reason for the continuing use of wait on may lie in its being able to suggest protracted or irritating waits better than wait for."
The dictionary gives several examples to support this idea, including one from Charles Lindbergh: "for two days I've been waiting on the weather."
In my neck of the woods (UK), it's usage is as you said. 'Waited on' is normally used in a subservient/waiter dynamic, or equally, by sarcastic parents with regards to demanding (mainly teenage) children-'I'm not here to wait on you hand and foot'.
If you are waiting for someone (or something), then it's 'waiting for'
Equally, I have seen people use 'awaiting on/for' but I think that could be more regional.
Equally, I have seen people use 'awaiting on/for' but I think that could be more regional.
I'm only familiar with 'awaiting' without 'on' or 'for' eg 'I'm awaiting a delivery' rather than 'I'm awaiting for a delivery'.
AJ
Hence why I said it's probably regional. Actually, now I think about it, it could be a class thing (lower).
it could be a class thing (lower).
That's me - working class. Cardboard box in't middle of t'road.
AJ
in't middle of t'road
No 'me duck' or just 'duck'?
This is really going to confuse those across the puddle...
Nope. She was displaying an NYC-centric, anti-Southerner, and likely anti-male superiority complex, bless her heart.
Both "Waiting on a miracle" and "Waiting on a train" are relatively common usage, and neither conveys any servility, merely patience.
When I hear 'waited on' my ear hears someone serving someone.
When I hear 'waited for' my ear hears awaiting an event or person.
I waited for the bus to arrive as the waiter waited on me by refilling my water.
I have no idea if this is regional or not. I'm a Californian so that's where I aprendi a hablar ingles. ;)
When I hear 'waited on' my ear hears someone serving someone.
When I hear 'weighted don' I imagine a mafia leader fished from the river wearing concrete wellingtons ;-)
AJ
I waited for the bus to arrive
With the "to arrive" it is more likely for someone to say "for" because you're waiting for it to arrive.
But with, "I waited on the bus," it has a slightly different connotation.
I wouldn't ever find myself saying "I waited on the bus" unless the bus needed a glass of water.
I might "wait for the bus" with or without the rest of the sentence though.
"Yo girl what up?"
"Hey Carlos, just chill'n. Posting on some forum..."
"Yeah yeah, I'm waiting for the bus."
"Going somewhere?"
"Headed to the City, got a class."
"Why aren't you here already?"
"Waiting on the damn bus. It's always late."
-----------------
"Why haven't you taken off yet?"
"Waiting on the weather."
Yeah you can use those.
My thinking on this is the choice is regional or something.
I'm waiting for the bus and checking the weather - personally. :)
For me... I have to stop and think to consider the 'on' option.
Maybe:
"for" is waiting for something to happen (verb - the bus to arrive)
"on" is waiting on something (noun - the bus).
"for" is waiting for the weather to clear (verb)
"on" is waiting on the weather [to cooperate] (noun)
I wouldn't ever find myself saying "I waited on the bus" unless the bus needed a glass of water.
I might "wait for the bus" with or without the rest of the sentence though.
I think the point made was that on in that context is about where you are waiting rather than what you are waiting for.
So you might be waiting for the bus to arrive, but you might be waiting on the bus, that is you are on the bus and waiting for something.
I believe there's completely legal usage of "waited on" when it's in the actual sense of the location on top of something:
"waited on the platform until..."
"waited on a hill..."
Well, it's probably just "waited (on location) for..." actually, where that "for" may go dropped or replaced with a substructure.
