I've read two different stories today that used the phrase, "I could care less." I know you hear this in everyday conversation, but it is not only wrong, it is 180 degrees from what you mean. The phrase is, "I couldn't care less" meaning you do not care. "I could care less," means you do actually care.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
That's no "bad habit" by the grammar police, but by the authors (basic laziness, rather than incorrect grammar usage). The Grammar police are correct on this one!
While proofreading I've noticed the colonials frequently miss out negatives, although this example is by far the most frequent. I compiled a list of the most notable cases but I think it's on the hard disc of my most recently deceased PC.
AJ
Not as bad as irregardless.
When used, they mean regardless. But by putting the "ir" in the front, you have a double negative so it means just the opposite.
Dialog should reflect actual usage. Characters should use that phrase wrong, unless they're the type to know about the difference.
Dialog should reflect actual usage. Characters should use that phrase wrong, unless they're the type to know about the difference.
Except, using the incorrect form adds nothing at all to the story. You might as well use the correct one, since even those using the wrong term will understand it.
Why promote ignorance, unless you're trying to mark a particular character as ignorant, in which case the majority of reader will miss the point.
Why promote ignorance, unless you're trying to mark a particular character as ignorant, in which case the majority of reader will miss the point.
Because that's how people speak. Dialogue reflects the way people speak. For instance, "She laid down on the bed" is wrong grammar, but if I were to use that in dialogue, that's how I would write it for 90% of my characters.
that's how I would write it for 90% of my characters.
That's interesting. What would the location of those 90% of characters be?
My in-person interactive language experience (not impersonal like TV and movies) gives me to believe that the correct 'lay' is used by far greater that 10% of the speakers.
Perhaps I mix in rarefied circles, but I sure don't think so :-)
That's interesting. What would the location of those 90% of characters be?
Just from personal experience. I never hear people say "lay down." I've stopped correcting them.
If you sleep on the top bunk of bunk beds, would you lay up instead of lay down? Or is that only for Basketball? If your bed is the same height as the center of your body would you just lay there? Or if you intend to sleep you have to lay down, or lie down if you intend to tell an untruth? If its for sex you are getting laid. Isn't a lay a kind of poetic story, like the Lay of the ancient mariner? You can't say the Lie of the ancient mariner without indicating he is not telling the truth. Lets lie about when it is necessary to say lay. Laydies. Not spelled that way but it is pronounced lay dies not lie dies. Too much to worry about. Lie or Lay, down if you prefer, and relax. Someone will tell you if you made a mistake. When is it a Mis take to take a miss?. A miss is as good as a mile. What is as good as a smile? Words are more trouble than they are worth. Wordsworth was an English poet. Poetry is not a kind of tree, although it sounds like it should be.
Nope. Brick layers lay up bricks too.
No, they lay a course as did the Ancient Mariner whilst his missus was a good lay or so they say but they also said an old saw.
No
Yes. Laying up bricks is a common term in the trade/craft. See:
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g424908-i22798333-Al_Minya_Al_Minya_Governorate.html
as one example of many.
Just from personal experience. I never hear people say "lay down." I've stopped correcting them
As an instruction it is wrong technically but it seems pretty normal in colloquial speech here.
As an instruction it is wrong technically but it seems pretty normal in colloquial speech here.
It can be correct depending on usage. "Carstairs, lay down a wine cellar for me." :)
AJ
"Carstairs, lay down a wine cellar for me."
I assume that means to build him a wine cellar (not to recline in the wine cellar) as "lay down bricks" means to place the bricks.
"He laid down on the bed" does not mean he reclined on the bed. It means he laid the feathers (down) in a down jacket on the bed.
I assume that means to build him a wine cellar
Not quite. Although building a cellar might be a necessary precursor, the laying down refers to the actual storing of wine - bottles are laid on their sides.
As part of the command 'lay down', lay must be present tense therefore it requires an object. Another example might be, "Lay down your weapons or we'll bombard you with thrash metal at full volume."
AJ
"I could care less."
Is correct when said in a sarcastic tone. I suspect some people forget to write the person is being sarcastic.
Never point out they're being sarcastic. As in real life, some will understand that and some won't. If you've written the characters well, readers will know.
Never point out they're being sarcastic.
"Sarcastically" is one adverb that I would use sometimes. It's hard to get it across that they're being sarcastic.
If you've written the characters well, readers will know.
My favourite quote (and I don't know where it comes from) - Against stupidity, even the Gods themselves strive in vain to which I add Never underestimate the power of human studpidity and also add The perversity of the universe tends towards the maximum. Take all three together and you're very safe to assume that a large number of readers will not get the sarcasm and will write to tell you about how you screwed up the phrase in line with the original post.
I have no problem with that. Just as some characters will misunderstand, so will some readers. I'm not going to treat everyone like idiots because of them.
I have no problem with that. Just as some characters will misunderstand, so will some readers. I'm not going to treat everyone like idiots because of them.
Sarcasm detection is based mostly on body language and tone of voice, both things that don't carry over well into text. You can be subtle about it, but if you don't give any tell at all, almost no one will get it.
In the German region called the Saar, there are coal mines. Some of them are pit or strip mines that leave a chasm. Those holes are Saar chasms.
My favourite quote (and I don't know where it comes from) - Against stupidity, even the Gods themselves strive in vain to which I add Never underestimate the power of human studpidity and also add The perversity of the universe tends towards the maximum.
My favorite along those lines is "As soon as you think you have made something foolproof, the universe will make a bigger fool."
My favourite quote (and I don't know where it comes from) - Against stupidity, even the Gods themselves strive in vain to which I add Never underestimate the power of human studpidity and also add The perversity of the universe tends towards the maximum.
Three excellent quotes, two from SF autors and one popularised by an SF author
Against stupidity... used as the title of the parts of a novel (The Gods Themselves) by Asimov, from a play by Friedrich Schiller
Never underestimate... by Heinlein
The perversity... from Niven
One of my (anti)favourites is using 'infer' instead of 'imply'.
A beligerent dullard may accuse, "Are you inferring I'm thick?", to which my only reply could be "I am now".
Never point out they're being sarcastic. As in real life, some will understand that and some won't. If you've written the characters well, readers will know.
In every instance I can think of where I've seen it written here at SOL with the not missing, it hasn't been used in a sarcastic context.
It's one of my pet peeves.
In every instance I can think of where I've seen it written here at SOL with the not missing, it hasn't been used in a sarcastic context.
It's one of my pet peeves.
I also hate it - saw it a few days ago and wondered what the author was trying to say.
I think that IN THEORY it could have the meaning that there are degrees of caring from love to hate and the phrase is being used for comparison.
That said I hope I never see it again because peeps seem never to say that phrase.
"I could care less." Is correct when said in a sarcastic tone. I suspect some people forget to write the person is being sarcastic.
EB I don't understand why being sarcastic makes 'I could care less' correct. I have thought about it and I don't get it. You are one of the more erudite folk on this forum so I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.
I think the sarcasm could be indicated by stressing the 'could', but implying that there isn't really that much interest initially. Not sure if it would work unless other context was clarified as well.
Otherwise I agree with the general comments, it is laziness and ignorance, but unfortunately it is also the way a lot of people use the phrase in the US (it was common use in Ohio when I was there, used incorrectly, not sarcastically). I haven't come across it in other countries though, or in the south.
EB I don't understand why being sarcastic makes 'I could care less' correct. I have thought about it and I don't get it. You are one of the more erudite folk on this forum so I would be grateful if you could explain it to me.
Speaking for Ernest, if said sarcastically, saying you "could care less" (when you actually couldn't) would make sense (for the character). However, I think it's a meaningless comment, since there's no way to denote sarcasm in fiction short of saying "he said sarcastically". I gave up on literary irony when I realized it never made any difference. Both sides of the ironic comments laugh at the joke, and both come away feeling superior to the other side. Irony is an empty attempt to relevance, and sarcasm is equally pointless in fiction.
However, I think it's a meaningless comment, since there's no way to denote sarcasm in fiction short of saying "he said sarcastically".
Way back in late November I said: Is correct when said in a sarcastic tone. I suspect some people forget to write the person is being sarcastic.
The sarcasm aspect will only work if you state it is such or you've already developed the character to show a large streak of sarcasm and the context makes it clear they're being sarcastic. In general it won't work. But make the sarcasm clear and it would be like I said.
EB I don't understand why being sarcastic makes 'I could care less' correct.
In general, to say something heavy with sarcasm or in a very sarcastic way is to say something where the intended meaning conveyed is the exact opposite of the literal words used. Thus, to say, in a sarcastic away, "I could care less?" Is a short cut and heavy handed way to emphasis saying the opposite or, in this case, saying "How could I care less than I do now?" The sarcasm turns the meaning around 180 degrees.
"I could care less?"
Yes, I do know what sarcasm is and the effect that is intended, but thanks for the refresher.
But, the real difference in your explanation is the use of the interrogative. It is the first time in the discussion so far, and I can see how, as a question, it could be interpreted in the reverse if said in the NY Jewish style of sarcasm.
But I think the real explanation is that it is just poor usage of the English language (again) by popular demand. In the same way the U.S. speakers use 'lucked out' to mean good luck, when the rest of the world uses it to mean 'out of luck' or no luck.
In the same way the U.S. speakers use 'lucked out' to mean good luck,
U.S. speakers do not use "lucked out" to mean good luck at least not in a general sense.
"Lucked out" / "lucking out" refers to a singular instance of good luck, frequently a case where a person or group by means of highly unlikely circumstances not attributed to either skill or hard work either:
1 achieved victory(frequently over a superior opponent) / success
2 Avoided some form of injury or other serious trouble.
In other words, "lucked out" is frequently a backhanded compliment.
U.S. speakers do not use "lucked out" to mean good luck at least not in a general sense.
"Lucked out" / "lucking out" refers to a singular instance of good luck ...
Sorry DS, but that just confused me. 'Lucked out' to mean having experienced good luck (usually specifically) is used by U.S. writers with great frequency. I can only assume they are drawing on general conversation usage for that.
Even given your explanation, that usage is completely the opposite of the rest of the English speaking world, perhaps with the exception of Canada.
Sorry DS, but that just confused me. 'Lucked out' to mean having experienced good luck (usually specifically) is used by U.S. writers with great frequency. I can only assume they are drawing on general conversation usage for that.
Let me try again.
First, any given use of "lucked out" is only ever used to refer to a singular event of good fortune. You wouldn't ever use "lucked out" to describe someone as being generally lucky
Basically "lucked out" says that the subject, by pure luck got out of something bad (be it defeat, failure, punishment(literal or karmic), injury) usually in a seat of the pants fashion.
It may not agree with usage outside of the US, but it is a simple logical construction when understood correctly.
by pure luck got out of something bad
Hmmm. Is that like 'struck out' and 'lost out' and other negative uses of the construct? I think you might be grasping at meanings there.
Basically "lucked out" says that the subject, by pure luck got out of something bad (be it defeat, failure, punishment(literal or karmic), injury) usually in a seat of the pants fashion.
It may not agree with usage outside of the US, but it is a simple logical construction when understood correctly.
No; think of it as running out of luck
But it doesn't mean running out of luck, it means by means of good fortune one gets out of a bad situation.
I thought the unofficial "abbreviation" of Australia was Oz.
I thought the unofficial "abbreviation" of Australia was Oz.
No, that started in the US and hasn't been fully accepted here, although some younger folk accept it. Aus is the more common shot form for the country, but Oz is growing due to US media using it.
I thought the unofficial "abbreviation" of Australia was Oz.
The Australian national TLD is .au
Also, the way I, as an American, have always heard "lucked out" used, it's in the past tense, e.g. "You really lucked out that time." Whereas "good luck" is always used in future tense, "You're gonna try to break the one minute mile; well, good luck." Note, that last would probably be said sarcastically.
Whereas "good luck" is always used in future tense
Well, the very first reference I looked up at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/good+luck gave three examples of usage from classic literature. Two of them are in the past tense. I use it in the past tense, and it would seem many others do as well. Perhaps it is only in the US, where the past tense usage has been usurped by 'lucked out' :-)
DS's explanation of "lucked out" is correct in definition and usage, as found in American slang. I'm 75, life-long resident of the western US, and I've heard and used that expression since my teen years. We 'merkins generally "don't give a rat's ass" whether other countries agree with our slanguage; it's uniquely ours and we'll ignore anybody who talks like a "man with a paper asshole" who "fucks over" our speech. "Fuckin' A!" man, "get over it!" "Get a life!"
Look those up in your dictionary.
DS's explanation of "lucked out" is correct in definition and usage, as found in American slang.
That is exactly what I said.
Where do you get the idea I said it was wrong?
All I said was that it has the reverse meaning to the rest of the world.
Who knows - if one of us has to be wrong (not my idea), it's probably going to be the rest of the world again.
@graybyrd
DS's explanation of "lucked out" is correct in definition and usage, as found in American slang.
That is exactly what I said.
Then why did you say this:
Hmmm. Is that like 'struck out' and 'lost out' and other negative uses of the construct? I think you might be grasping at meanings there.
I was not grasping at meanings, I clearly described the exact meaning of "lucked out" in American slang usage. That this differs from usage in the rest of the English speaking world does not somehow make my explanation "grasping at meanings"
We 'merkins generally "don't give a rat's ass"
I'm amazed that an American should describe himself as something which is purely decorative and of no real use whatsoever! That is British newsgroup slang. A merkin is a pubic wig!!!
As for his full comment ROFL
I'm amazed that an American should describe himself as something which is purely decorative and of no real use whatsoever!
Hush now. You shouldn't fib on here ...
I love it when a specific topic leads to so many other topics. So, while we're at it, how about "literally" which seems to almost always be used incorrectly. I have a T shirt my daughter gave me that says, "When I hear people use literally incorrectly I figuratively lose my mind." The worst I ever heard was a local news anchor who said, "Today the stock market literally went through the roof." I used to work at that station and called the news director. He didn't seem to understand what my complaint was. Don't think I could work in journalism these days...for that a many other reasons.
Don't think I could work in journalism these days
The key is to understand that it is now more entertainment than it is journalism. I shudder to think how low that common denominator will eventually get.
So, while we're at it, how about "literally" which seems to almost always be used incorrectly.
You might enjoy this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
is a good one too :)
Interesting, but not nearly as entertaining as Weird Al Yankovic's Word crimes.
Just don't get lost while finding mistakes in a story. Use those to learn to make the next story better except for errors that have to be fixed right away. When I did hand made leather goods I used each and every project as a learning tool for future use.
Use the new knowledge and skills for a future or current story not a finished one. Just always keep in mind that the story is the main thing.
This comment should have come earlier in the topic. Its Grammar Nazis, but Homonym Police. I try not to be a Grammar Nazi about commas, but often issue citations for homonym abuse, or maybe just a warning if its a first offense. However for a story set in an American school, having the head teacher be a principle instead of the Principal requires maximum punishment. Hear my ple(a), its a matter of principle, your Principal is not your pal.
Grammar Nazi! Commas or apostrophes, those corrections are made by German National Socialists who also Heil Hitler.
those corrections are made by German National Socialists who also Heil Hitler.
And some who aren't. :-)
Even worse than that is the growing number of people who say "I would of done that", or similar. Makes me just want to slap them while yelling about verbs.
Even worse than that is the growing number of people who say "I would of done that", or similar
Typo; "I would'a done......." Get me fed up and I'll write cockney or summat loike tha.
In fact there are people who routinely speak like that and, I assume, do not know any better
there are people who routinely speak like that and, I assume, do not know any better
It's because the contraction of "would have" is "would've" which sounds like "would of."
It's because the contraction of "would have" is "would've" which sounds like "would of."
That pronouncing "would've" as "would of" makes so much sense that hearing someone say it should probably be interpreted as "would've" unless the context dictates otherwise.
It's because the contraction of "would have" is "would've" which sounds like "would of."
See also "For all intensive purposes". I.e. picking up a term or phrase contextually and using it on that basis even while radically misunderstanding what actual words are being used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
See also "For all intensive purposes"
Now I have to wonder how long that misuse has been going on. I'd not heard it in that form until the late 1960s when some friends and I started to to say for all intensive care purposes while talking about the damage suffered by someone who was hurt - usually another friend after the school bullies had finished with them. After a few weeks it got cut to for all intensive purposes because we all knew what it really meant. I now wonder if one of us had picked it up from somewhere else without realising ti and expanded it, or if we started it.
@sejintenej
Feel free to write in Cockney, West Country, Welsh, Northumbrian, or whatever dialect you wish. I'm fine with dialects in used in speech, in fact in many ways I prefer them; I like for anything inside speech marks to represent sound rather than meaning.
You can even use patois for the entire story, though that would take a bit of planning to do well. Patois based stories can be amazing, though they are a bit difficult to pull off, and may have trouble finding an audience.
I'm just saying that while I understand how the corruption happens phonetically, as @Switch Blayde explains, it takes a special kind of obliviousness to actually write that down in a story without it being dialogue, and not catch it in editing. Presumably the author had something that they wanted to express going into the sentence, but after writing that down why did they never clue in to the grammar issue?
Subject-verb-object is such a basic rule of English that it should be second nature even to casual speakers.
I'm fine with dialects in used in speech,
as long as I can read them.
There have been one or 2 stories where i ended up giving up because it was such a struggle to read through the local dialect.
Fair enough if a character has a really strong accent or regional dialect- start it off that way, but quickly tone it down to something more readable. Don't get rid of it completely, just make it possible to read it.
Yes, I know what you mean. Initially, I wrote my Western stories with a strong dialect, but I received so many complaints from people for whom English was a second language that I have cut way back. Mostly, all I use now are "y'all," "must of," and "gonna." No more complaints on that subject now.
as long as I can read them.
There have been one or 2 stories where i ended up giving up because it was such a struggle to read through the local dialect.
Fair enough if a character has a really strong accent or regional dialect- start it off that way, but quickly tone it down to something more readable. Don't get rid of it completely, just make it possible to read it.
That's typically how I'll do it. Introduce a character, let him rattle off a couple of sentences to get a feel for who he is, then dial it back while sprinkling a couple pet phrases, to remind readers who's speaking. But an entire book written in a specific dialect can be extremely difficult to read. Heck, even the most famous book who did that were incredibly hard to read!
Heck, even the most famous book who did that were incredibly hard to read!
In a thread complaining about various author's bad grammar, there is something very wrong with that sentence.
A book is not a who. A book didn't do anything.
And you missed one, a singular noun doesn't take a plural verb. Though I suspect that was a typo, I think he meant "books".
A book is not a who. A book didn't do anything.
Heck, even the most famous book who did that were incredibly hard to read!
We had to read original Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare at school. Ow! (Even worse for 14 year olds they bowdlerised Chaucer!)
Dicrostonyx
@sejintenej
Feel free to write in Cockney, West Country, Welsh, Northumbrian, or whatever dialect you wish. I'm fine with dialects in used in speech, in fact in many ways I prefer them; I like for anything inside speech marks to represent sound rather than meaning.
Don't worry; when I went to school in southern England I couldn't understand what they were saying and they didn't understand me - a few good beatings and I lost the Devonian. I do appreciate when writing approximates local sounds
I like the eggcorn (for acorn) idea. Reminded me of using acorn flakes for a breakfast cereal, and by extension oakmeal cereal. Puns and word play are good. Or at least groan worth.
Puns and word play are good.
Piers Anthony has an entire world (Xanth) based on puns that, the last I looked, was 33 or so books.
Piers Anthony has an entire world (Xanth) based on puns that, the last I looked, was 33 or so books.
Ah yes, the trilogy that refuses to die. He ended up changing publishers over it. His original publisher got miffed over him publishing volume 20 of a trilogy. He quickly found another publisher that was willing to ignore his innumeracy as long as the books sell.
Ah yes, the trilogy that refuses to die.
Considering he does it for a living. You sure cannot blame him for continuing something that gives him a good income. Its just common sense to keep doing what makes him money, of course it also makes the publishers money as well. I wonder how many extended series came about because of how popular they became with the buyers. Not all the best sellers were ever considered for the top 10 lists. At one time if it was a series or a part of a series it was definitely not considered. Some of those sold better than the so-called best seller from my observation. I remember one bookstore where the owner ordered 2-3 hundred copies to start with of a particular series but only 10 of the best sellers. The series sold out before the bestseller supply was cut in half.
Considering he does it for a living. You sure cannot blame him for continuing something that gives him a good income.
No, but despite the fact that the series is now over 30 volumes he still subtitles it as a trilogy. That's what the dispute with the original publisher was about.
So he has nearly a dozen trilogies. Every 3 books is a trilogy. Authors get to decide. I might question an author who only had two books for a trilogy, but once they get 3 or more, let the author and his readers decide what to call a series of books. Lets not let jealousy get in the way of deciding what is a good thing. I suspect most authors would be pleased to have over 30 books well received by the paying public. My recollection is that most of the books have different main characters. There are some supporting characters in most of the books, often from earlier books that had them as the protagonist. Its economical to recycle characters. Books with puns, should be encouraged.
Authors get to decide. I might question an author who only had two books for a trilogy, but once they get 3 or more, let the author and his readers decide what to call a series of books.
I quite agree. However, I do find it quite amusing that despite the fact that they sold very well Piers Anthony's original publisher threw a hissy fit over it.
I quite agree. However, I do find it quite amusing that despite the fact that they sold very well Piers Anthony's original publisher threw a hissy fit over it.
The publisher was stupid. That had to be a best selling series considering how popular it was. Sure because of the series factor at that time it would never be considered for a New York Times best seller list.
The misuse of common phrases brought a memory back and made me smile. Decades ago there was a TV show, I think a remake of Name that Tune. The show's singer, (Kathy Lee Gifford, although not Gifford yet) would hum a number of notes and you had to guess the tune. Terrible show, btw.
I will never forget one guy. She was clearly doing My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean. He guessed, "My body flies over the ocean". Stupid, but I got a chuckle out of the memory. And then of course us old folks remember the comic Norm Crosby whose entire routine was mangling words in this manner.
Conan Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes off but had to bring him back because of demand. David Weber wanted to kill off or retire Honor Harrington but his fan base objected. Seems to me that Star Trek might have had multiple lives, there are many stories that won't die. Just ask Ian Fleming or Marvel Comics.
Conan Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes off
What a coincidence, I killed him off too only last week :)
(Short story for a group of friends, not suitable for publication.)
AJ
Bad Habit by the Grammar Police.
Do they try to dress like Nuns but omit parts of garments or otherwise make it look like a Halloween costume?
Its ok for nuns and priests to kiss, as long as they don't get into the habit.
I think its like the usage of the term "Y'all". Its funny how many times its used to greet just one person when its really just shorthand for "you all". That all takes it out of the singular classification.
Then again spoken language has similar things happen in all cultures and dialects. Its one of the things that makes it fun to meet people from different cultures and backgrounds. As long as everyone keeps an open mind, its a great way to learn new things.
Its funny how many times its used to greet just one person when its really just shorthand for "you all".
Well, you see, the people who use it aren't referring to a number of people because y'all is for one person and y'all y'all is for two or more, so I'm told. when using y'all they're referring to the sense or brains the person has - as in having all their attention and not just half of it.
y'all y'all is for two or more
I have been told that (much to my amusement) whilst visiting Atlanta, but there is also "all y'all" which apparently means the maximum plural, such as a whole group instead of just a few of them.
"all y'all" which apparently means the maximum plural,
As near as I can make out via long distance communication y'all y'all means the same thing as all y'all just that one is said in the states south of Georgia and the other in Georgia and north but south of Maryland; not sure which is which.
Ernest, I hope that you weren't serious about the "y'all y'all" reference, because that is a bunch of bullshit! What causes me concern is that I often have occasion to use y'all in my writing, and several people have seriously questioned my use based on the number of people included within the thought.
I know that my usage is absolutely correct because I lived in south Alabama for many years, including when I was learning to speak the language.
I've lived in Middle Tennessee for twenty four years, and I hear "y'all" and "all y'all" spoken frequently. I have never heard "y'all y'all".
In my area at least, "y'all" can be either singular or plural based upon the number of people addressed. "all y'all" is always plural.
"y'all" can be either singular or plural
I suspect it is just like "you" which has similar characteristics. Even "all (of) you", which is why I asked if "all y'all" was specifically "everyone" not just more than one.
Ernest, I hope that you weren't serious about the "y'all y'all" reference, because that is a bunch of bullshit!
Aubie, I'm only recounting what some people from the south-eastern part of the USA have told me in chats and email on the subject. It's possible they were pranking me, but they don't usually do that, and I've no way of confirming it one way or the other.
Yawl is a kind of ship, with two masts, if I remember correctly. Perhaps they were referring to a plural number of yawls when they said y'all yawl.
Yawl is a kind of ship, with two masts, if I remember correctly. Perhaps they were referring to a plural number of yawls when they said y'all yawl.
First, I get the joke, but it's based on a false premise. The form of address to multiple people in places where "y'all" is singular is "all y'all" not "y'all y'all".
Of course, part of the problem is that "you" is plural to start with, the singular, "ye" or "thee" or "thou" having fallen out of the language.
Of course, part of the problem is that "you" is plural to start with, the singular, "ye" or "thee" or "thou" having fallen out of the language
American perhaps but not in Britain. Just as Spanish has VD (that's "Vuestra Merced not STD or even Subscriber Trunk Dialling) and French "vous" so English English has two forms of polite address as well as the more common "hey you!". For the Royal Family it is the third person (as in Spanish) and for the deity "thee" "thou" and "thy" are used.
"Ye" is still used by Town Criers when announcing the news and I suspect it might still be used in the higher courts
"Ye" is still used by Town Criers when announcing the news and I suspect it might still be used in the higher courts
And all the old fogies use "Ye 'ol whippersnappers! Get off me damn lawn!"
And all the old fogies use "Ye 'ol whippersnappers! Get off me damn lawn!"
No, no, no. The whippersnappers are supposed to be young, not old
"Ye" is still used by Town Criers
I can hear the town crier, "Boo, hoo, boo, hoo, ye useless sods, shouldn't bully me. Ye leave me alone. Boo hoo, boo hoo."
I seem to remember hearing others quote them as Hear Ye, Hear Ye.
Court Bailiffs may say, All Rise, Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Court is now in session. Honorable Judge (name) presiding.
I seem to remember hearing others quote them as Hear Ye, Hear Ye.
Court Bailiffs may say, All Rise, Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Court is now in session. Honorable Judge (name) presiding.
Oh, ye?
Looks like ye was once used for the second-person plural subject (nominative), and you for subject.
Oh, ye of little faith.
I prefer her bigger sister, Charity, but her other sister, Hope isn't too bad, either.
Oh, ye of little faith.
I prefer her bigger sister, Charity, but her other sister, Hope isn't too bad, either.
You can laugh; my wife went to school with those three sisters. Obviously the parents were optimists and found out they were wrong
Oh, ye of little faith.
I prefer her bigger sister, Charity, but her other sister, Hope isn't too bad, either.
I don't know -- having Faith was always fun.
I don't know -- having Faith was always fun.
And politicians have been screwing charity for hundreds of years (not bad for such an old broad).
Ernest, they must have been transplanted Yankees.
Some of them may have been, but one was born and bred in Texas and another from Florida, don't know about the rest.
I hope that you weren't serious about the "y'all y'all" reference, because that is a bunch of bullshit!
Well, my reference for "y'all y'all" came face to face from a native Alabaman(?) about 30 years of age. It is possible I was being pranked, but the circumstances would have made that unlikely. I know I wasn't mishearing "all y'all" because I confirmed it twice, never having heard it before. Who knows ...
Well, my reference for "y'all y'all" came face to face from a native Alabaman(?) about 30 years of age. It is possible I was being pranked, but the circumstances would have made that unlikely. I know I wasn't mishearing "all y'all" because I confirmed it twice, never having heard it before. Who knows ...
There are no hard and fast rules concerning "y'all", as various locations use it differently. I've heard "all y'all" often, but not "y'all y'all". It's possible that Ernest misheard (or it was mistyped via email). But then again, the variations are fairly flexible, though each region insists that their usage is the only legitimate one.
Is it being used in dialog? If so would you not have to give the author a pass on that? People do talk that way, so if you're trying to be realistic I'm not sure there is a problem. Using it in the narration is another matter. While using local colloquialisms and idioms should be kept to a minimum so you don't confuse the reader, I would be hard pressed to write about someone from the Southern USA not saying "y'all" or a Canadian not using "eh?" at the end of a sentence. Neither of these are grammatical correct. Just a thought.
@Lostlady
or a Canadian not using "eh?" at the end of a sentence.
Be careful with that one if you plan to use it. Most modern Canadians don't use the word "eh" very often, if at all. Firstly, it's more common in the East than the West, although certainly you'll find pockets of people, usually friend groups or sub-cultures who use it, and secondly, it's been fading out of use in the past few decades.
Even when and where it is popular, "eh" isn't used in speech as often as it is in TV or film. It would be like saying that baseball is America's past-time, then writing a story where it is more popular than basketball in Indiana, or football in Texas.
It would be like saying that baseball is America's past-time,
This typo makes this a true statement. Baseball is America's past time, it's present time is (American) football and basketball. It's future time might include soccer, but it's unlikely.
If you meant to say the baseball is America's pass-time then you're out of date.
It might be best to define what activities by what kind of people are deciding what a pass-time is. Viewers of televised sports might be "football" the American or Canadian type. In terms of numbers attending games, Baseball may still have more paid or unpaid observers, as there are so many more games played. In terms of who participates, things like running and jogging, or softball and baseball might lead the way, considering little league and high school sports, and sponsored teams. What territory might make a difference. Hockey looks more dominant in Canada than the USA. "Soccer" might predominate in Brazil. As far as I know, in parts of Argentina it might be polo. If by America you mean the United States of America, baseball and softball may have the lead in number of participants. But Canada, Mexico, and a number of nations south of Mexico are in the Americas. North and South.
If you meant to say the baseball is America's pass-time then you're out of date.
Actually, I meant pastime, which is the actual spelling. And being out of date was actually my point.
Baseball may be known as "America's pastime", but it's not generally the most popular sport today outside a few small areas. Likewise, Canadians may be known for saying "eh?" a lot, but doing so in a story wouldn't be an accurate representation.
Baseball may be known as "America's pastime", but it's not generally the most popular sport today
Isn't that a simplification; shouldn't it be WATCHING (or playing) baseball........
it's present time is (American) football and basketball. It's future time might include soccer, but it's unlikely.
We are seeing a change in contact sports around the world.
Those that are aggressively addressing concussive injuries are flourishing at the grass roots level. Those that are not will begin to die off as the mothers of the kids learn what the risks really are.
As I understand it, the NFL is still trying as hard as it can to play down concussive injuries and sweep the statistics under the carpet.
The mums will eventually lift the carpet, take an emotive look at what is found there, and say, "NO!!"
Then you will see a huge surge in other forms of football, including 'soccer', that take the causes of CTE seriously.
The mums will eventually lift the carpet, take an emotive look at what is found there, and say, "NO!!"
Pops are making a huge difference too. While they enjoy watching Pro football, they're reluctant to see their kids suffer brain damage. If a kid turns pro (unlikely) they'll potentially earn millions, but if they get injured in pop football, they'll be taking care of the kids for the rest of their lives. That's a huge disincentive.
Pops are making a huge difference too.
That is good to hear. I focussed on the mums because I hope they have less 'football is great' ingrained into them from childhood. Not none, just less.
And I know I invite criticism by saying it, but I think mums can be a tad more protective of their direct offspring. Sometimes seemingly irrationally so.
The NFL may be rescued by technology.
There is a show on SCI called All American Makers. Each episode a single venture capitalist sees four people pitching products. He has 2 techs that test the products, after testing, one may be eliminated from consideration. The remaining products go to a focus group and then to independent subject matter experts to see if the any problems revealed by the focus group or testing can be fixed.
The latest episode on yesterday at 9 CST they tested and he made an offer to a product called 2nd Skull. It's a skull cap to go under any helmet and will reduce impact forces on the skull. The inventor claimed 30% reduction. The testing confirmed at least 25% reduction in g-forces on the head.
http://2ndskull.com/index.php
The testing confirmed at least 25% reduction in g-forces on the head.
Would be interesting to see just what, and how, they are doing those measurements.
Conservation of energy is a difficult law to get around.
Would be interesting to see just what, and how, they are doing those measurements.
Conservation of energy is a difficult law to get around.
They took a manikin, put 50g Shockwatch sticker ( http://shockwatch.com/products/impact-and-tilt/impact-indicators/impact-and-tilt/impact-indicators/shockwatch-label ) on it's head. put a baseball helmet on it and beaned it in the head with a base ball from a pitching machine set for 60mph
The without the 2nd Skull cap the shockwatch sticker was triggered.
Then they put a fresh shock watch sticker on the dummy, put the 2nd Skull cap on it and the baseball helmet again, hit a second time at the same speed and the shock watch sticker wasn't triggered. They had to ramp up to 85 - 90MPH before they could get the shockwatch sticker to pop with 2nd Skull + helmet.
ETA:
According to the inventor the 2nd Skull cap works kind of like a Kevlar bullet proof vest. It reacts to impact in a way that spreads the force over a greater area.
Would be interesting to see just what, and how, they are doing those measurements.
Conservation of energy is a difficult law to get around.
From what I've read, there's not a direct relationship between force of Impact and brain injuries. Instead, it's the shaking of the brain (i.e. some minor hits will bounce the head around, depending on angle, while some major blows won't have much impact). Thus it's difficult to draw direct comparisons (i.e. building better helmets may help, but it also may have no effect whatsoever). When you factor in the cost of the new helmets, there's questionable impact. Instead, the general aim is to eliminate blows to the head entirely, though the NFL focuses on spending money on minor items of no import.
When you factor in the cost of the new helmets, there's questionable impact.
2nd Skull is relatively inexpensive (~$50) and will fit under existing helmets.
2nd Skull is relatively inexpensive (~$50) and will fit under existing helmets.
The point wasn't the cost, but that the NFL keeps financing new helmets, despite a complete lack of supporting evidence they're doing any good. They might, but it's not yet understood what the limitations are. However, the NFL wants to shut down the discussion, so any claims they're 'addressing the problem' is all they're interested in.
However, the NFL wants to shut down the discussion, so any claims they're 'addressing the problem' is all they're interested in.
Perhaps, but unless NFL rules prohibit it, there is nothing stopping any individual player from buying and wearing a 2nd Skull. Their target market is the athletes, not the leagues.
From what I've read, there's not a direct relationship between force of Impact and brain injuries. Instead, it's the shaking of the brain (i.e. some minor hits will bounce the head around, depending on angle, while some major blows won't have much impact).
It's a combination of both.
More force generally results in more injury for a given type of impact.
Of course certain impacts can result in significant injury, with relatively little force. More force will make the injury worse (up to the point of death at least), even though that level of force in a different type of impact may result in little if any injury.
It's a combination of both.
Understood. My point--and I did have one--was that the emphasis on new helmets bypasses the argument that football players shouldn't be targeting other players' heads. Revising the rules of contact would eliminate the most injuries, but it's a topic the NFL isn't interested in. It's easier being seen addressing the problem, even if you never resolve it.
By the way, the reason why I'm so opinionated about the topic, is my sister is a medical researcher dealing with brain trauma for the Army. The parallels between traumatic brain injury from IUDs and from football are remarkably similar. Rather than addressing the similarities, the topic is danced around concerning football (i.e. the NFL pays for new research on unrelated products, rather than heeding research already conducted and proven valid from battlefield injuries).
It's easier being seen addressing the problem, even if you never resolve it.
Just like the politicians dealing with all the important issues in life.
My point--and I did have one--was that the emphasis on new helmets bypasses the argument that football players shouldn't be targeting other players' heads.
Do the rules actually require that they target each others heads? If not, what keeps the players from stopping targeting opponents heads without a change in rules?
Why is all of the onus on the league and none on the players themselves?
Do the rules actually require that they target each others heads? If not, what keeps the players from stopping targeting opponents heads without a change in rules?
As someone who's only knowledge of American Football is from reading stories here & elsewhere, it's not that they are specifically targeting the other players head (although I'm sure on occasion it does occur), but there is no penalty for contact where the head takes the majority of the impact. That's probably the difference between NFL & most other ball contact sports.
In Australian Rules & Rugby (both types) you play the ball, not the man.
The only player you can tackle, is the one with the ball. You are not allowed to hit or grab at the head or neck; it's shoulders down. When you tackle the player, driving them head first into the ground is a no-no. Not only is bad for the head, the spine doesn't appreciate it much either.
Likewise doing a coat hanger on someone (hanging your arm out to catch the player around the throat) will get you sent off, fined & suspended.
In Aussie Rules you can shepherd the player with the ball, but you must be within 5 metres (I think it is) and you can't grab the opposing player, just block them.
In the NFL players without the ball are fair game- it's the way the game is structured, and there is no disincentive for knocks to the head, or driving the head in to the ground.
I don't know where you learned about football, but your message is so full of errors that I could not read it without becoming irate!
Have you ever watched a game on TV and paid attention when an official called for a rule infraction? There are many rules about what can not be done to a man not carrying the ball, and most of the penalties that are called are for such infractions.
I don't regard the NFL as blameless, but I do resent someone broadcasting what amounts to stupid lies about the rules of the game. You should be ashamed of yourself!
I don't know where you learned about football, but your message is so full of errors that I could not read it without becoming irate!
If you read the first line of my post that you are responding to, you will find where I learnt about NFL.
Have you ever watched a game on TV and paid attention when an official called for a rule infraction?
See above.
but I do resent someone broadcasting what amounts to stupid lies about the rules of the game. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Not as much as I resent someone falsely accusing me of being liar when they didn't even pay attention to what I posted, other than the parts that they had issue with.
For someone that has written as many stories as you have, I would have hoped you'd know what a liar is.
It's a tragedy that after all this time you are ignorant of that.
Saying or posting something that is incorrect does not make someone a liar.
For your edification- a Liar is someone that tells lies.
Now what is a Lie?
A few quick online dictionaries all give similar results "to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive."
What I posted was what I knew based on the sources I had. Those sources may or may not have been accurate, but as my limited knowledge is based on them, and what I posted was based on them then there is no way in which I was lying as what I posted was accurate as I knew it & there was no intent to deceive.
You should be ashamed of yourself for making defamatory remarks about someone's character based on nothing other than your own failure to read what was posted, and not knowing what lying is.
This isn't a playground so don't go around accusing people of lying just because they post something you disagree with.
Now you know what lying is, maybe you will able to use it appropriately; calling people out for when they are lying, and not just for saying something you take issue with.
Please, grow up.
"Elsewhere" is not a reference point! SOL stories cannot be used as a rules reference.
You are full of bullshit, and this is the last I will say on this subject.
Elsewhere" is not a reference point!
It was in this case.
SOL stories cannot be used as a rules reference.
Sure they can.
Of course their accuracy will depend on the author's knowledge & story telling skills, and whether the rules are portrayed accurately or modified slightly because that's what was required for the story.
You are full of bullshit,
I only aspire to reach your abilities.
and this is the last I will say on this subject.
That's a shame; as if you were as concerned as you claim to be about my lack of knowledge, you could have used the opportunity to inform not only myself but many others just what the general rules are relating to tackles or hits on players without the ball and hits to the head.
Instead all you've done is defame me publicly by calling me a liar & then saying I'm full of bullshit.
An adult would have used the opportunity to educate; all you can do is hurl abuse and then take you bat & ball and go home like a child in the play ground.
Your choice. Shame on you.
He should have said BS. Then you could agree you have a Bachelor of Science degree. Perhaps he has a PhD, piled higher and deeper. All achieved at a university that plays football.
You are full of bullshit, and this is the last I will say on this subject.
My goodness! Who is having a little hissy fit then?
Really glad you won't be serving up any more abuse to those you clearly see as poor ignorant plebes who have the audacity to challenge the intrinsic rightness of your religion.
Are you trying to start a flame war, or are you just pouring more fuel on the fire? And where did you get that "religion" comment?
No, I don't think that they were ignorant, so much as I think that they were stupid.
Are you trying to start a flame war, or are you just pouring more fuel on the fire?
You had already started the fire. I was just adding more fuel for you. I just wanted to show you that it was in fact not 'the last you would say on this subject' at all.
As far as 'religion' is concerned, NFL is no different to lots of sports worshiped by many of their followers. The characteristics of that worship includes, but is not limited to, ferocious defence of the sport against all attackers, often characterised by abuse and unreasoned responses.
That's why I called it your religion.
Are you trying to start a flame war, or are you just pouring more fuel on the fire? And where did you get that "religion" comment?
Again, Aubie, Zom was in the right here. The "religious" reference was regarding football, which many see as an 'American' religion of sorts (no one dares to speak ill of it for fear of attack by the 'true believers').
Personally, I'm willing to believe that you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Did your favorite team lose recently?
For you, I will explain my position.
No, I am not a football fanatic, though my wife is. I watch a few minutes of the Patriots games with her, but I can rarely last through a whole game from boredom.
My reaction, and it definitely was that, about the foolish (I withdraw the "stupid" adjective) comments on professional football and the NFL was based on the same way I would react to any criticism of a person, organization, or activity by anyone who had no real idea of what he was talking about.
However, I cannot understand why someone would launch an attack over something he obviously had no knowledge of, but appeared from his words to be taking the position of an expert. That was really what aggravated me.
Let me state absolutely that I would have felt the same if someone had made similar unfounded remarks over any subject, from sports to politics, about which I had some personal knowledge, peripheral as it was. I just abhor baseless attacks, no matter where they are directed.
Now, if you want to talk about current USA politics...
However, I cannot understand why someone would launch an attack over something he obviously had no knowledge of, but appeared from his words to be taking the position of an expert.
W.T.F ?????
I will repost part of what I posted earlier that prompted the name calling.
"As someone who's only knowledge of American Football is from reading stories here & elsewhere"
H.T.F can anyone in any way construe what I posted there as me passing myself off as an expert?
Seriously? How is that possible?
"As someone who's only knowledge of American Football is from reading stories here & elsewhere" That qualifies as a claim of expertise????
"In the NFL players without the ball are fair game- it's the way the game is structured, and there is no disincentive for knocks to the head, or driving the head in to the ground."
And you consider that an attack??? Even with my statement of my source of knowledge?
Good thing I didn't comment on any other aspects of the game or I'm sure it would have been considered an act of war.
Let me state absolutely that I would have felt the same if someone had made similar unfounded remarks over any subject, from sports to politics, about which I had some personal knowledge, peripheral as it was. I just abhor baseless attacks, no matter where they are directed.
So you then attack a defame the person making those statements you have issue with?
No attempt to clarify or educate, or understand their position?
You abhor baseless attacks, unless it's you making them. Awesome.
We really are back in primary school.
Un-fucking believable.
Seriously? How is that possible?
Don't loose it Grant. Don't get sucked down to the same level. Everyone else here understands.
Again, Aubie, Zom was in the right here. The "religious" reference was regarding football, which many see as an 'American' religion of sorts (no one dares to speak ill of it for fear of attack by the 'true believers').
Change "Football" to "Sports" and remove "American" and this is a true statement, sports fandom is a religion of sorts with the sects being the team(s) the adherent supports.
You are full of bullshit, and this is the last I will say on this subject.
Now, now. Play nice boys. I hate to point fingers, but you're at fault here, Aubie. Grant clearly stated that he didn't understand the rules of American football, and was only reporting his impressions of what was happening. As far as that's concerned, he's not that far off. While the NFL (and other football organization) do have specific rules regarding specific behavior, the focus is on hard hits against players, not specifically on the ball.
Do the rules actually require that they target each others heads?
Not directly, and there are rules against head to head contact. But the rules do require they stop the player with the ball still. That means very hard hits to stop the momentum, and the players often have their heads down, so contact with the head in a hard hit is a natural result. If the player with the ball can keep moving the play is still alive, so then more players pile on, which doesn't make life any easier.
Just like the politicians dealing with all the important issues in life.
The way I look at politicians is simple. They spend 99 percent of their time trying to place the blame on the other party or some other politician and at best 1 percent of their time trying to fix a problem.
Heck if they would only at least try and solve the problem first, even if its not a perfect fix.
They spend 99 percent of their time trying to place the blame on the other party or some other politician and at best 1 percent of their time trying to fix a problem.
Heck if they would only at least try and solve the problem first, even if its not a perfect fix.
No, that's 80% on blaming, 19% trying to find/make up/create a problem to fix with some law/program that they want to create for other reasons. 0.95% trying to look like they are "doing something" about a real problem. 0.05% trying to find a real solution to a real problem.
No, that's 80% on blaming, 19% trying to find/make up/create a problem to fix with some law/program that they want to create for other reasons. 0.95% trying to look like they are "doing something" about a real problem. 0.05% trying to find a real solution to a real problem.
Its probably the reason none of them probably have the ability to even change a light bulb without getting expert advice and instructions.
re politicians
Its probably the reason none of them probably have the ability to even change a light bulb without getting expert advice and instructions.
They wouldn't be allowed; they created the multi day (or is that multi week?)training course to comply with 'elf & safty' which they haven't done (oh and that requires a course on step ladder safety and a first aid certificate that they can thump a dummy on the sternum).
The vast majority of politicians believe, perhaps correctly, their most important job is to get re-elected. To do that they need to raise money, lots of money. They spend most of their time on that, since it is what makes it possible for them to continue to be politicians. Unless solving problems helps them raise money and get favorable publicity that helps them get re-elected, solving problems is left to staff, or ignored. Just running for office takes more and more of their time. If they are trying to maintain one elected office and run for another (say President) they just barely have time to breathe.
The NFL may be rescued by technology.
Maybe, but probably not.
The energy distribution properties of such a product would certainly mitigate the effects of a small area applied contact force, like that produced by a baseball, but would have negligible effect for a whole of skull applied contact force, like that produced by a helmet to helmet high speed collision. The type that causes the brain to move around like a dropped blancmange.
Grant is right in suggesting that conservation of energy is the key issue in the latter, and the latter is the key issue for the NFL.
Other codes are successfully mitigating head contact by onerous rules with fierce penalties, and have stringent at-the-time testing and benching protocols for players who do receive possible concussive injuries. Until the NFL implements similar regimes they wont address the problem effectively.
The catch 22 for the NFL of course is that the contact types the NFL promotes as spectacular and integral to the game are the same ones the other codes have banned and penalise heavily.
The NFL may be rescued by technology.
The flip-side though is that science marches on making the sport more dangerous, too.
The average weight of newly drafted players has been rising steadily for years, and the main culprit is human growth hormones (and previously steroids).
These days, if someone doesn't use them they probably won't even reach the pros, but if they did they'd be squished. Of course if you do use them, then even aside from the drug's side-effects, you've got a pretty basic formula:
More weight = more force = more severe injuries.
So the better equipment basically just means that football will, at best, remain just as dangerous as it is today.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-the-average-weight-of-nfl-rookies-by-position-a-1490494148
The flip-side though is that science marches on making the sport more dangerous, too.
Seems to apply to cars & roads as well.
Both cars and roads have improved greatly over the last 50 years, and the stupidity of drivers along with them.
Both cars and roads have improved greatly over the last 50 years
Definitely; saw a BMW M3 go head on into the steel Armco barrier (the stuff alongside freeways etc) at a measured velocity of between 95 and 98mph. The driver got out and walked away; he raced that car the net day.
The science of driving. Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one!
Never let Sir Isaac Newton drive your car. :-)
I may be weird or crazy, but its those differences in cultures that make life fun and interesting. At least as long as the difference isn't judged based on what is common in my culture or background. I have seen people who say "that is wrong or bad" just because it is a different in cultures. It can be as basic as a recipe or just looks.
Its the differences which makes life interesting. That not only holds true for cultures but also dialects and geographical variations. Those differences help me learn new things even if I only managed to go to the 9th grade.
I was born in Arkansas, live in Texas, all my relatives live around the south. Never heard anyone in my life say Ya'll Ya'll. Think perhaps they were pulling your boomerang.
A girl from Texas explained to me that "y'all" is singular while "all y'all" is plural.
She was a certifiable ignoramus!
Actually, she's not. But, evidently, that's how they speak where she was from.
She was a certifiable ignoramus!
More likely she's from the southeast, rather than the southwest (think east of the Appalachian mountains, as in Atlanta or North and South Carolina).
But in most cases, it's a case of degrees. "Y'all" is generally applied either singularly or plural, while "all y'all" applies to a large group (as in "all of y'all' (i.e. all of you plural groups)).
More likely she's from the southeast, rather than the southwest (think east of the Appalachian mountains, as in Atlanta or North and South Carolina).
Nope, west Texas.
You guys are pretty funny trying to apply logical grammar rules to slang. Y'all is certainly used to mean single or group in common usage in the places I've lived. All Y'all if typically used to make the phrase larger in meaning. And from my experience isn't something you hear very often. And now that I've tried to use rules, lol, it means whatever the user wants it to mean at the time.
That is what makes different dialects so interesting. There is formal language and regional variations of it. The regional variations are potentially enormous with many potential meanings depending on the area. Its the reason learning a different language can become harder than it seems. We are taught the formal version then when we need it, we need to understand the regional variations. Every part of the world or country and sometimes city have its own variations which are used.
Y'all, y'all, the gang's all here!
EDITED: Oops. That's:
Hail, hail, the gang's all here!
Its December, in the northern hemisphere, Winter. Snow, snow is more likely than Hail, hail.
Its December, in the northern hemisphere,
It's not December in the southern hemisphere? (Oh, right, it's June there, I forgot.)
Just to add my two cents worth here; "lucked out" used in conversation around this part of the country usually implies that someone averted disaster or achieved success by the slimmest of margins due strictly to luck and not by any effort on their own part. Referring to averting disaster or injury is the most common. "Boy, you really lucked out on that one" could refer to anything from learning that a potentially major car repair expense actually being something very minor and inexpensive to fix to some life-threatening injury narrowly missed.
It's American slang. Don't try to filter it through British or Australian word usage. It will not work any better than trying to filter British/Au. slang through American English. :D
It's American slang. Don't try to filter it through British or Australian word usage. It will not work any better than trying to filter British/Au. slang through American English. :D
You, Beauty, that's a bonza bit of advice.
Ask a man who is in a position to know. Is Au. a recognized way to indicate Australia or Australian?
I though it was the chemical symbol for Gold, Latin aurum. Like Na for Sodium (Latin natrium) or Cl for chlorine. Likely they got Cl from the English word. Table salt is NaCl. Sodium Chloride. I bring that up because I want to take Au as an abbreviation for Australia with a grain of salt.
If Au. is correct, Australia must be a rich country.
Ask a man who is in a position to know. Is Au. a recognized way to indicate Australia or Australian?
AU is the recognised International two letter abbreviation for Australia (example: www.nsw.gov.au) with AUS being the recognised three letter abbreviation. Most Australians accept Aussie and Aussies as the shorthand for the people. Au is general seen as the chemical signal with AU or au for the two letter one above.
So, Au for gold and Australia, Ag for silver (Latin, Argentum) and Argentina, Cu for copper (Latin, Cuprum, maybe, spell check didn't like cuprium) (not sure there is a nation for copper) maybe Scotland Yard since police are coppers.
What would that make USA. Uranium, Sulphur and Argon. Don't think you could make a viable compound with those chemicals. Uranium Sulphide maybe but Argon is a noble gas and mostly won't join in to make compounds. Its selfish and doesn't want to share electrons.
Cu for copper (Latin, Cuprum, maybe, spell check didn't like cuprium) (not sure there is a nation for copper)
Cuba?
What would that make USA. Uranium, Sulphur and Argon. Don't think you could make a viable compound with those chemicals. Uranium Sulphide maybe but Argon is a noble gas and mostly won't join in to make compounds. Its selfish and doesn't want to share electrons.
There isn't an element with symbol A. Argon is Ar what might make sense for the USA is Americium (Am)
http://periodic.lanl.gov/95.shtml
Uranium, Sulfur and Americium would give you USAm I don't know if that is chemically possible, but it works.
It would be radioactive and decay, I am not sure of the half life. Probably pretty short.
I don't want to make any unnecessary political statements, but since we have the best government money can buy, likely the decay has been happening right along.
It would be radioactive and decay, I am not sure of the half life. Probably pretty short.
Up to seven thousand years but some isotopes are for far shorter lived. You don't want to be around it without good protection
Up to seven thousand years but some isotopes are for far shorter lived. You don't want to be around it without good protection
The shorter the half life the more dangerous it is. Radioactive elements with long half-lives aren't particularly dangerous.
The shorter the half life the more dangerous it is. Radioactive elements with long half-lives aren't particularly dangerous.
Of course; I did write "some isotopes are for far shorter lived" Americum 237 has a half life of about 80 minutes.
That is shorter than any isotope of plutonium, some of whose isotopes are pretty stable with half lives of over a million years
It would be radioactive and decay, I am not sure of the half life. Probably pretty short.
The Honesty half-life of a radio-active congress (which is most) is about half an elected term.
Congressmen are like beer. In theory you buy them, but in actuality they/it is just rented and returned to the nearest latrine.
Lucked out is used in more places than just the USA, and the meaning is the same, as far as I know, and it's: to have safely got through a situation solely due to unexpected luck. I once remember seeing somewhere you lucked out is the modern short form of you lucked your way out of that problem and usage has see most of the words dropped but still assumed in the statement.
typo edit
Lucked out is used in more places than just the USA
Yeah, I suppose it is filtering to other parts by now. Can you say where?
I have confidence I am not the only one with this understanding:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LUCKED+OUT
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck_out
But elsewhere opinion is clearly divided about the scope of the differences, so usage must be changing, which is to be expected for idioms.
Yeah, I suppose it is filtering to other parts by now. Can you say where?
It's had the meaning for great unexpected good luck here in NSW, parts of Victoria, and parts of Queensland for thirty years or more. Not sure about the rest of Australia.
Well that's a surprise. I lived in NSW for half my life and Victoria for the other half, and have always heard and used 'lucked out' in the negative, apart from the last decade of so. Perhaps I associate with the wrong circles.
Perhaps I associate with the wrong circles.
Could be, I associated a lot with people who needed to luck out on many things on an almost daily basis. I grew up in Burwood, NSW, and spent a lot of time in the Canterbury District on weekends due to sports commitments. I lived in Melbourne for a short while, but not long, and took many holidays in Queensland. Also knew a lot of people in rural NSW, Victoria, and Queensland - and all used the term in the same way. Although, I must admit, I never heard it used at all by those I knew who came from the more affluent parts of town.
Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference. Unless you want the worst, most disgusting definition of something.
Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference.
It has often helped me with more obtuse usages not found easily elsewhere.
I suspect I am less reliable. I certainly have a smaller audience.
Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference. Unless you want the worst, most disgusting definition of something.
It can be useful for idiom and slang usage, especially for regionalisms and words shifting meaning quickly. I think of UD as similar to wikipedia: fine as a starting point for research, but I wouldn't quote it for any academic purpose.
Besides, pretty much everything has a "disgusting meaning" to someone. As George Carlin said: any plural noun can be a reference to breasts.
I have confidence I am not the only one with this understanding:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=LUCKED+OUT
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck_out
To my ears, the British usage is a bass ackwards version of out of luck. The US usage makes more sense.
To my ears, the British usage is a bass ackwards version of out of luck. The US usage makes more sense.
That's ok, DS. To the "British" speakers, *WE* are bass ackwards!
LOL!
To my ears, the British usage is a bass ackwards version of out of luck
I know what a bass is (a type of musical instrument - noun and adjective) but as a speaker of more original English, what in blazes is a bass ackwards?
I know what a bass is (a type of musical instrument - noun and adjective) but as a speaker of more original English, what in blazes is a bass ackwards?
In the US, a bass is also a type of fish popular with fishermen.
bass ackwards is a deliberate Spoonerism.
Bass ackwards = ass backwards.
I know what a bass is (a type of musical instrument - noun and adjective) but as a speaker of more original English, what in blazes is a bass ackwards?
No, it's a type of fish. (As to "bass ackwords" Earnest already answered that.)
There is an interesting (non-academic) research outcome and discussion at:
http://www.word-detective.com/2011/03/luck-out/
It makes sense to me that the idiom is relatively new, and that the meaning has changed over time, and the change has promulgated at different rates to different places.
Personally, I have stayed with the meaning I originally knew, and find usage of the opposite meaning clangs with me. I think I am probably too staid in my ways to embrace the change, even if I wanted to.
The last comment at that site suggests a good solution, but it presupposes the writer even knows there is ambiguity/confusion for others. Something that seems to be failing.
