I was reading a story the other day that takes place in I believe Ireland but could be Scotland. The MC referred to a person she was interviewing as a "sanctimonious git". I gather that "git" was a polite reference to a stronger word. Am I correct?
Cheers
Git is usually used in the UK as being someone who is a bit of an asshole, but more of an incompetent one rather than a total one.
Oxford Dictionary defines it as a "stupid or unpleasant man".
That confirms what @ustourist suggested, a bit of both.
Speakers would find something more specific for someone who was one but not the other.
Watch out for when they call someone a prat, it's on the same behaviour scale.
Oxford Dictionary defines 'prat' as a "stupid person".
So why should I "watch out"?. Only an Illiterate person would allege I was a "prat". A literate person would select the word "git".
I was alerting the original poster to watch out for when the word appears because an author who uses git is likely to use prat as well.
Okay.
So you accidentally replied to the last poster instead of to the topic. We all do that all the time.
I wonder how many Americans will figure out what my last post with a smiley face intentionally omitted means?
Only an Illiterate person would allege I was a "prat".
'Illiterate' with a capital 'I'? Hoisted by your own petard! ;)
AJ
'Illiterate' with a capital 'I'? Hoisted by your own petard! ;)
Okay, so I made a typo, but even if there was an error of not knowing what was right, if you think I am 'Hoisted by your own petard!' then you have totally missed the joke.
I'm tired of putting smileys after my jokes to tell people there is a joke in there somewhere. That's not the Australian, or British, style of humour. We make our jokes, and if some don't figure them out, then so be it. We dislike detract from the enjoyment of those who are capable of figuring them out by providing an explanation.
I'll give you a clue this time. Given the exchanges just before, if I thought I was addressing Aussies who were capable of detecting wit, I would not even have added, 'A literate person would select the word "git".' Adding that was a concession to Americans even though going that far to explain it stuck in my craw.
Adding that was a concession to Americans even though going that far to explain it stuck in my craw.
It should stick in your craw, as most Americans didn't think it worth commenting on. It's like bludgeoning those too insipid to understand they're in danger over the head.
It was rather dysonic :(
I can't find that anywhere.
Using possible alternatives suggested by dictionary.com ...
Perhaps dystonia in your ear, or some dysphonia somewhere?
More likely I suspect is you are substantially dysgenic.
Stick that lot up your petard. :-)
It was rather dysonic :(
I can't find that anywhere.
Maybe it's an "Americanism" (i.e. a made-up word, otherwise know as alt-vocabulary, or alt-dictionary entries).
P.S. Ross, since you're into subtle messages, this American didn't want you to miss that this jibe was directed as much against you as it was Awnlee (that's known as a double jibe).
AJ : It was rather dysonic :(
Me : I can't find that anywhere.
CW : Maybe it's an "Americanism" (i.e. a made-up word, otherwise know as alt-vocabulary, or alt-dictionary entries).
P.S. Ross, since you're into subtle messages, this American didn't want you to miss that this jibe was directed ... against you
BY ALL MEANS, do your dastardly worst with any put-downs aimed at me! If I can't stand the heat in the kitchen, I shouldn't be playing with petards.
* * *
But a little tip for when you want to insult someone ... don't talk complete effing gibberish. :-)
I can't find any mention of 'dysonic' in the Oxford Dictionary, dictionary.com, bing, Wiki.
If I respond with 'I can't find it', you look it up wherever, ifever, it does exist and quote its alleged definition to me ... that is if you want me to feel insulted ... and what reasonable person here does not want to do that sometimes given my frequently obnoxious style of humour?
Otherwise, I'm going to (not just) think you're a complete git. :-)
But a little tip for when you want to insult someone ... don't talk complete effing gibberish.
Follow your own advice then. If you can't follow the jibe, carefully explained, at some length, to you personally, then don't bitch about it. When I say 'partially', I didn't mean the comment about the made up word, rather the bit about Americans word usages. The initial jibe, about it being 'American', was making fun of the fact that the word 1) doesn't exist and 2) doesn't make a lick of sense. However, you didn't pick up on the first, second or third jibe, yet you continue to lecture everyone you stumble across how only Australians can appreciate subtlety.
HOW FRICKIN' SUBTLE IS EXPLAINING THE SAME TEASE THREE SEPARATE TIMES TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE ANYONE SHOULD EXPLAIN THEIR TEASING COMMENTS?
What I mean about "not explaining" jokes is when they are first delivered - as I have stated, to avoid detracting from the enjoyment of those who get it without needing it explained.
If explicitly asked, I will explain.
* * *
I've no objections to made-up words, but they need to suggest something to the reader.
I cannot think of any possible interpretation of 'dysonic'.
I may see the joke if someone explains what they think it implies, but without that, a string of letters with no possible meaning is just gibberish as far as I'm concerned.
Do you have Dyson vacuums where you are located?
If so, dysonic could easily be interpreted as "it sucks"
Do you have Dyson vacuums where you are located?
If so, dysonic could easily be interpreted as "it sucks"
No. I've never heard of that brand name.
If that name had been mentioned I could then look on 'dysonic' as something other that gibberish.
No. I've never heard of that brand name.
If that name had been mentioned I could then look on 'dysonic' as something other that gibberish.
I see ads for the useless cleaner (never tried one though) all the time, but even I never considered that as a possible source of the comment.
Again, using a private thought to express an idea to others isn't very useful is no one understands what you're talking about. It's the exact same reason why you don't use invented words: you're trying to communicate, not prove to everyone how clever you are.
The initial jibe, about it being 'American', was making fun of the fact that the word
CW,
Have you ever run across the phrase "Kidding on the Square".
These types of comments are often used by someone who wants to claim "I was just kidding" if their comment offends whomever hears the comment.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-kid1.htm
Stick that lot up your petard. :-)
Petard: a small bomb made of a metal or wooden box filled with powder, used to blast down a door or to make a hole in a wall.
The saying hoist by your own petard comes from the fact that the poor souls charged with delivering the petard to the castle wall had frequent problems with premature detonation.
Me : Stick that lot up your petard. :-)
You : Petard: a small bomb made of a metal or wooden box filled with powder, used to blast down a door or to make a hole in a wall.
The saying hoist by your own petard comes from the fact that the poor souls charged with delivering the petard to the castle wall had frequent problems with premature detonation.
I did not know what a 'petard' was, but I knew how to use the expression it usually appears in.
AJ had used it, correctly, against me earlier for the "crime" of a letter incorrectly in upper case.
The bomblet I used to return his word mangled its usage horribly, but quite intentionally.
The saying hoist by your own petard comes from the fact that the poor souls charged with delivering the petard to the castle wall had frequent problems with premature detonation
I heard that in the old days of muzzle loaded cannon a small amount of black powder had to be poured into the small hold at the back to fire the cannon. That was the petard which occasionally would blow back as the firing charge was being poured in thus killing the gunner
That was the petard which occasionally would blow back as the firing charge was being poured in thus killing the gunner
Wrong - check this about petards in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
However, the most commonly used petard which resulted in the expression was an iron semi-sphere on the end of a pole of several feet in length - think of a giant toilet plunger with a metal end on it. A charge was placed in the bowl area, the fuse lit, and a person would race up and push the petard against the door or gate they wish to blow a hole in. If the charge was calculated right the door or gate would have a hole in it after the explosion. However, if the charge wasn't big enough, the door or gate would hold, and the force of the charge would throw the petard, and the person leaning on the end of the pole, up in the air in a backward direction - thus they were hoisted on their own petard.
check this about petards in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
I recall reading once that the British and Allied Forces in WWI were the "first army" to NOT lose more troops to typhoid than all other caused combined. The British gave all their troops the new vaccine; the Germans did not.
The claim sounds very dubious (What period? What area? What is the definition of a war) but you get the drift: it was the one thing all foot soldiers were most terrified of.
My guess is, for a long time, the second most terrifying thing for soldiers, possibly more than all the remaining causes combined, was death from accidents with their own munitions.
I recall reading once that the British and Allied Forces in WWI were the "first army" to NOT lose more troops to typhoid than all other caused combined. The British gave all their troops the new vaccine; the Germans did not.
and the American army (and I suspect their allies but this IS propaganda) was the first army ever to reach Rome from the south because they could control malaria.
To think that, for the past few years, people in western London have been catching malaria; so much so that the original prophylactic does not even require a doctor's prescription
I recall reading once that the British and Allied Forces in WWI were the "first army" to NOT lose more troops to typhoid than all other caused combined. The British gave all their troops the new vaccine; the Germans did not.
Stupid Krauts. Apparently the first vaccine was introduced for military us in 1896 - nearly two decades before the WWI started. Wikipedia suggests that the development occurred later but that enough vaccine was produced during WWI.
The developer, Almroth_Wright (died 1947) . warned early on that antibiotics would create resistant bacteria. If only people had listened to him; my wife had to have 3 months of anti-MRSA resistant antibiotics (plus other scary treatment) for a simple spider bite!!!
Stupid Krauts.
Stupid everyone, treating vital life-saving medicines like they're Skittles (for those not from here, those are U.S. candies, popular with kids)!
Stupid everyone, treating vital life-saving medicines like they're Skittles (for those not from here, those are U.S. candies, popular with kids)!
Here in the U.S. the massive industrial/agricultural uses of antibiotics for poultry, pork, beef, etc. production is a crime against the planet... but the profit margins of increased weight gain and reduction of illness in massed animal populations squeezed into absurdly confined spaces, has resulted in a blind eye to the issue by government. If it makes money (that pays lobbyists and fills political campaign chests) it's good business.
Here in the U.S. the massive industrial/agricultural uses of antibiotics for poultry, pork, beef, etc. production is a crime against the planet
Let's not forget about the growth hormones and other additives put into their food. A portion of those additives are passed onto everyone who eats the flesh of those animals.
I recall reading once that the British and Allied Forces in WWI were the "first army" to NOT lose more troops to typhoid than all other caused combined. The British gave all their troops the new vaccine; the Germans did not.
The claim sounds very dubious (What period? What area? What is the definition of a war) but you get the drift: it was the one thing all foot soldiers were most terrified of.
You're right to question the claim, as the majority of casualties on the war fields of WW I were due to Typhoid, including 25% of Americans (infected, not who died), and the American life span dropped 12 years in a single calendar period. So Americans, and American services, were NOT spared many deaths, and I don't believe the Brits were any more protected than we were (though I don't doubt the Germans, already stretched financially, suffered even greater losses).
You're right to question the claim
I didn't research typhoid all that closely. I was curious after spending 10 days on intravenous drips being treated for a case of it.
It didn't seem like that big of deal, I caught it despite having an up-to-date vaccination. I was glad I had that when I read about the typical course of the disease in the days before effective antibiotics.
The name comes from a word meaning delirium which sets in during the third week. In the fourth week you either die or begin to recover.
It didn't seem like that big of deal, I caught it despite having an up-to-date vaccination. I was glad I had that when I read about the typical course of the disease in the days before effective antibi
You cheerful so-and-so. I had a little session with Doctor Friend (I kid you not - that was his name); 12 injections plus polio drops in one session the day before I flew out. Of course many of then require a second dose weeks later to be effective! Luckily I was already pumped full of everything including smallpox so it was just the company covering their arses.
Of course the stupid idiots forgot malaria which was the potentially most likely!!!!!!!
You cheerful so-and-so.
I didn't bother mentioning my stay in hospital was extended another five days on drips to treat a case of multi-resistant Golden Staph in the urinary tract!?
You're right to question the claim, as the majority of casualties on the war fields of WW I were due to Typhoid, including 25% of Americans (infected, not who died), and the American life span dropped 12 years in a single calendar period. So Americans, and American services, were NOT spared many deaths, and I don't believe the Brits were any more protected than we were (though I don't doubt the Germans, already stretched financially, suffered even greater losses).
From a recent work/
In the event, Osler's arguments won the day and soon 97% troops were being vaccinated. It is worth pointing out that by 1911, vaccination against typhoid was mandatory for American troops and one of the reasons for the low mortality from disease in the 1904-5 Russo-Japanese War was that the Japanese vaccinated all their troops against typhoid. By 1914 there were also vaccines against cholera, anthrax, rabies, typhoid and plague but they appear to have been used randomly without any obvious strategic plan
Osler was British and the 97% refers to a date well before the war. However there was Typhus (I assume a different disease) and Trench Fever caused by lice. Remember that doctors and bacteriological specialists did not go voluntarily to the front when there were plenty of well paying jobs at home
Disease was always a problem in war but in this case I wonder if it was actually typhoid.
Incidentally, American Civil War 56% of deaths from disease, 44% of deaths caused by combat. In the American Indian Wars of the 1760s it appears that smallpox was deliberately used as a weapon. That concept was also used centuries earlier using plague according to claims.
Osler was British and the 97% refers to a date well before the war. However there was Typhus (I assume a different disease) and Trench Fever caused by lice. Remember that doctors and bacteriological specialists did not go voluntarily to the front when there were plenty of well paying jobs at home
The Typhoid epidemic, that wiped out so many across the globe, was a new version of the diseases which hadn't been encountered before. Not long ago, they finally excavated several bodies frozen in permafrost during the period--despite fears they'd rerelease the original disease which isn't found anywhere today--and identified the strain. I don't think much came from the discovery, but it demonstrates how devastating an unexpected, quick acting, new disease can be.
There's a great book (non-fiction) on the WW II Influenza epidemic. If interested, I suggest you read it.
There's a great book (non-fiction) on the WW II Influenza epidemic
Typo CW?
The flu pandemic immediately after WWI is infamous.
I don't recall talk of one in WWII but I do remember the post WWII Polio epidemic and the flu ones in about 1957 and in the 1980s
There's a great book (non-fiction) on the WW II Influenza epidemic
Typo CW?
Yep, a typo. Typing "WW II" has been ingrained into my muscle memory over the years, so I invariably type WW II when referring to ANY of the two World Wars. Again, the "flu" in WW I killed more soldiers than the combined wars across the globe did! In fact, most of the battlefield deaths were actually flu caused or flu related.
I don't have the stats, but from what I recall most of the wars in history had a high death toll due to poor sanitation and other health related issues such as dysentery.
I don't have the stats, but from what I recall most of the wars in history had a high death toll due to poor sanitation and other health related issues such as dysentery.
Which was where I started this exchange by noting the worst health related issue before vaccines and antibiotics was typhoid.
It evolved from salmonella and is still transmitted by poor sanitation.
It's "advance" was it found a way to get from the digestive tract into the blood stream via the lymph system.
With salmonella the bacteria and poisons are essentially 'self-eliminating'. It's not really lethal, but many die from dehydration.
I think with typhoid it was essentially a race for whether the immune system could create antibodies fast enough to overcome the bacteria's multiplication rate - before poisons from the bacteria killed the patient!
I don't have the stats, but from what I recall most of the wars in history had a high death toll due to poor sanitation and other health related issues such as dysentery.
True but I think CW was referring to the flu pandemic which occurred after the WWI.
Incidentally, and as for health related deaths, at Agincourt and other battles the British archers would push their arrows into the ground so they could be quickly retrieved an nocked. The soil sometimes had the tetanus bacilli (or whatever) in it so anyone hit by such an arrow would have a long painful death afterwards.
'Illiterate' with a capital 'I'?
Definition: Someone made ill by reading too much. Or more likely, when their latest novel ends and they're left adrift, morning the loss of the latest character.
'Illiterate' with a capital 'I'?
Definition: Someone made ill by reading too much. Or more likely, when their latest novel ends and they're left adrift, morning the loss of the latest character.
That definition requires three L's in succession, as in ill-literate.
Ill-iterate (with or without a fucking capital, AJ :-) requires repeating some action frequently enough until you become ill ... as in the expression, 'Stop it, or you'll go blind.'
As far as I know 'git' is just a different pronunciation of 'get' which in Old English was an animals offspring - so could probably have been the forerunner of SOB
As far as I know 'git' is just a different pronunciation of 'get' which in Old English was an animals offspring - so could probably have been the forerunner of SOB
I didn't know that one but a polite translation of git orff is go fu*k off
As far as I know 'git' is just a different pronunciation of 'get' which in Old English was an animals offspring - so could probably have been the forerunner of SOB
My dictionary lists the etymology of 'git' as being a variant of 'get', originating in the 1940s.
However the dictionary doesn't have the verbal meaning, something like 'get away with you' - which might be used, say, when your neighbour's cat is digging in your seed bed :(
Another less surprising omission is 'git car'. At one time European car manufacturers had a culture of giving a standard model more poke, painting go faster stripes on the side, and badging it as GT, for Gran Turismo. Since the drivers were usually inconsiderate oiks, in some circles GT variants became known as git cars.
AJ
I didn't know that one but a polite translation of git orff is go fu*k off
Not if used as a noun (see my comment about the American "git").
By the way, why the frig are you editing your text on an SOL forum?
Just as a counter warning: don't confuse the Brit "git" with the American one (mainly in Westerns), which is an abbreviation for "get along". Example: "Git along little doggie."
It was a VERY regional usage, and has fallen completely out of usage other than in historical Western stories (or at least I don't recall hearing it recently, but then I don't spend much time in those regions either).
I don't spend much time in those regions either
G'wan, git'cher butt outa hyar.
(Go on, get your butt out of here.)
God love rural Okies. The only problem is a lot of the metro ones aren't much better.
God love rural Okies. The only problem is a lot of the metro ones aren't much better.
Thanks. I didn't really need the translation, but the next time I have a rural Okie in a story, I'll be sure to call you as source.
So, keeping on the theme, is 'git' still used much?
So, keeping on the theme, is 'git' still used much?
Where I live (Mid-Atlantic) 'git' is still used quite a bit as in 'git offa yer ass and go outside'
Where I live (Mid-Atlantic) 'git' is still used quite a bit as in 'git offa yer ass and go outside'
Mid-Atlantic? You mean somewhere in the Mariana Trench, or it's only spoken on deep-sea fishing boats? 'D
Where I live (Mid-Atlantic) 'git' is still used quite a bit as in 'git offa yer ass and go outside'
Mid-Atlantic? You mean somewhere in the Mariana Trench, or it's only spoken on deep-sea fishing boats? 'D
Sorry, I stay away from deep-sea boating. Last time I went out (three day trip) I spent the entire trip feeding the fish.
or at least I don't recall hearing it recently
It's still used but these days, but more in the sense of "Get Lost!" than "get long"
"Git, scat, scram!"
which is an abbreviation for "get along
I recall git also being used in reference to a person's kids. As in, the boy is just one of their git (kids).
I recall git also being used in reference to a person's kids. As in, the boy is just one of their git (kids).
I believe that's a Scottish (origin) usage.
REP
I recall git also being used in reference to a person's kids. As in, the boy is just one of their git (kids).
I believe that's a Scottish (origin) usage.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Perhaps it comes from the Viking 'gutt' which means boy
I hadn't thought of it that way.
That's why it's valuable to post these issues to the forum. Then you gain bragging rights to annoy friends and family for years!
Another good Olde expletive was "Ye whores melt" which originated from the Irish, I believe
Another good Olde expletive was "Ye whores melt" which originated from the Irish, I believe
Isn't that a good thing? 'D
This seemed as good a place as any to post a simple question.
I want to avoid using 'hunk' too often to describe well-built attractive males.
The word I keep thinking of is 'spunk', which to an Australian mean precisely that.
That slang use has apparently evolved from a British and Australian slang use of 'spunk' to mean 'semen'.
Thesaurus.com is useless. It has 'hunky' meaning the same thing, but all the alternatives it offers are too formal for my need.
Thesaurus.com is useless. It has 'hunky' meaning the same thing, but all the alternatives it offers are too formal for my need.
Macho, machismo, masculine, built, studly, rugged, "build like a wooly mammoth jacket" (tusks not included), bear (if you're into that kind of gay man), or "a body to die for but a mind to fall asleep with".
Most of the alternatives that come to my mind are those referring to muscular or musclebound, but not suggesting attractive, and there may be problems with differences between Australian, English and US meanings.
I think sexy would work, even though not specifically hunky, plus you could refer to someone as a *** look alike. Otherwise, dishy, well toned, husky, walking wet dream, even bronzed (if applicable), though I think a female reader would probably be able to come up with better answers due to mindset.
Most of the alternatives that come to my mind are those referring to muscular or musclebound, but not suggesting attractive, and there may be problems with differences between Australian, English and US meanings.
Masculine doesn't always mean "muscle bound", often it means "mature, adult and able to take care of his family". For those who prefer people who don't pump steroids, you're focusing on the wrong kind of words.
When I was younger, I was a typical tall skinny guy, but I looked like a surfer, had a nice tight ass, worked out (surfing or hiking through the forest) everyday, and was in great shape. The teachers in my daughters' schools (all the way through high school) would stop to admire me walking away to the great embarrassment of the kids. Not everyone likes "hunky".
For myself, I prefer the typical Bear (broad, a slight paunch and lots of body hair) over hunky anyway, as they're big and comfy, easy to hug and much more relaxed than people who only focus on their looks. Best of all, they don't know just how many people find them attractive, which in a weird way, makes them even more attractive. Unfortunately, Bears have never been popular among straights, which accounts for their underestimating their appeal.
My cousin always insisted she appreciates middle-aged men with a decent (but not obese) paunches (fat around the belly) for much the same reasons. She claims "they look like men, not boys pretending to be men".
Masculine doesn't always mean "muscle bound",
I never suggested it did, nor did Ross at Play. He asked a question relating to well-built, attractive males and alternative descriptions of such.
Thanks all.
The word I knew was there, but was being blocked out by the Australian alternative is 'stud'.
If I need another I'll go with 'beefcake'. That has connotations of (nearly) nude photographs, but it'll work okay for the little piece of filth I'm planning.
If I need another I'll go with 'beefcake'. That has connotations of (nearly) nude photographs, but it'll work okay for the little piece of filth I'm planning.
Again, "beefcake" implies 'musclebound', since that's the definition of 'beef' in the phrase. If that's not what you're going for, I'd keep looking. The same is true for "Adonis". ("Stud" works, regardless of body type, as long as someone finds them sexy.)
Of course, if that's what you were going for, then have at it. It wasn't clear given your vague description of what you were looking for.
It wasn't clear given your vague description of what you were looking for.
I thought 'well built, attractive males' was pretty specific, and requires muscles.
The actual context was an explanation to a girl she would find all the boys appealing because one of the requirements for their selection is they must be "excellent athletes".
And besides, surely you know by now that nothing I write is going to be serious, and I will include some deliberate exaggerations for humorous effect. If I choose to use 'beefcake', it would be obvious to all non-Americans that it was not meant to be interpreted literally.
I thought 'well built, attractive males' was pretty specific, and requires muscles.
The actual context was an explanation to a girl she would find all the boys appealing because one of the requirements for their selection is they must be "excellent athletes".
Excuse me, but "excellent athletes" and "muscular" are generally mutually exclusive. Weightlifters are not know for being fast, and when boxers move up in their weight classes, they generally get slower, not faster. Many exceptional athletes aren't muscle bound, instead they're well-toned (think of runners). The 'muscle bound' morons you're imagining are the few idiots who pop steroids, thinking it makes them into 'super athletes'. Most football teams and major players explicitly push taking steroids if they want to remain on the team, despite it's being illegal to do so. These are not "natural athletes".
Excuse me, but "excellent athletes" and "muscular" are generally mutually exclusive.
I don't care.
I've found the word I needed for my story, 'studs', which I could not think of because I kept on thinking of the alternative Australians would use.
Thesaurus.com wasn't helping me, because it's not very good at listing alternatives to slang expressions.
"Stud" works, regardless of body type, as long as someone finds them sexy.
'Stud' refers to procreative capability, which in athletes tends to be somewhat reduced.
AJ
Just recalled the name of an actor I'd been trying to remember. In the 'Carry On' films, Charles Hawtrey usually portrayed a puny weed who actually got more nookie than the more manly actors. He qualified as a stud, but not as well-built or (to most eyes) attractive.
AJ
"Stud" works,
a 'stud' is a short bit of thick wood - often an otherwise useless cutoff - used to keep two uprights the correct distance apart.
a 'stud' is a short bit of thick wood - often an otherwise useless cutoff - used to keep two uprights the correct distance apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_stud
Actually, If you are referring to building framing, the studs are the uprights Typically 2"x4"x8' or 2"x6"x8'
x8'
From what I've seen, for an 8' ceiling, they are shortened slightly to adjust for the header and footer, so two 4' wide pieces of sheetrock cover the wall without a gap at the top or bottom. :)
