Category Archives: Yanks vs. Brits

We like to like like Tina Charles loves to love

And I’m not, like, talking about kids who, like, can’t get through a sentence without, like, saying like. That scourge is so, like, 20th-century.

No, I’m talking about when the word like is used before a clause (as a conjunction).

The universally accepted and undisputed usage of like is as a preposition (ie. governing nouns and pronouns): “She looks like her daughter.” “He sounds like a bird.”

It’s when like is used as a conjunction (ie. connecting two clauses) that swords are drawn, tempers start to flare, and trans-Atlantic disagreement comes into play.  In the US, the colloquial use of like as a conjunction is now reasonably commonplace and accepted, especially when like simply replaces as (which more appropriately governs phrases and clauses). “We now have brunch every Sunday like we did in Sweden.” Such a sentence generally grates on English ears, which prefer, “We now have brunch every Sunday as we did in Sweden.”

Fowler, in his Modern English Usage, tackled this “most flagrant and easily recognizable misuse of like,” referring to the OED which similarly and roundly condemned the misuse as “vulgar or slovenly”.  The OED colorfully used a sentence written by Darwin (“Unfortunately few have observed like you have done”) to illustrate the abuse.

More egregious – and even more grating to British English speakers – is when like replaces as if or as though, masquerading even more  boldly as a conjunction. Fowler cites this lovely OED example: “The old fellow drank of the brandy like he was used to it.” Nowadays, the Oxford American Dictionary recognizes the “informal” usage of like as a conjunction to replace as; however, it clearly forbids using the word to mean as if or as though.

If you want to delve into the even more complicated arguments about the use and misuse of this overused word that we love to like (especially once we get into ‘disguised conjuntional use’, when there is no subordinate verb), Fowler’s your man.

Meanwhile, Strunk and White summarize the tussle over ‘like’ in their characteristically eloquent fashion, using it as a case study to argue more generally about the evolution of language:

“The use of like for as has its defenders; they argue that any usage that achieves currency becomes valid automatically. This, they say, is the way the language is formed. It is and it isn’t. An expression sometimes merely enjoys a vogue, much as an article of apparel does. Like has long been widely misused by the illiterate; lately it has been taken up by the knowing and the well-informed, who find it catchy, or liberating, and who use it as though they were slumming. If every word or device that achieved currency were immediately authenticated, simply on the ground of popularity, the language would be as chaotic as a ball game with no foul lines. For the student, perhaps the most useful thing to know about like is that most carefully edited publications regard its use before phrases and clauses as simple error.”

 

NPR’s just sayin’: when push comes to shove, Downton’s lingo is ahead of its time …

Anyone (like me) who can’t get enough of Downton Abbey should check out NPR’s fabulous segment on the British period piece’s linguistic anachronisms. I guess nothing – not even ‘Downton’ – is perfect …

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146652747/im-just-sayin-there-are-anachronisms-in-downton?ft=3&f=111787346&sc=nl&cc=es-20120219

I’m Just Sayin’: There Are Anachronisms In ‘Downton’

February 13, 2012

NPR STAFF

Listen Carefully: Some phrases have made it into Downton Abbey that are a little ahead of their time. Above, Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) tries out a newfangled gadget with Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery).  

Listen Carefully: Some phrases have made it into Downton Abbey that are a little ahead of their time. Above, Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) tries out a newfangled gadget with Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery). Carnival Film & Television Limited/Masterpiece

PBS’s hit series Downton Abbey has been praised for its subtle and witty dialogue. But a few anachronisms have slipped into the characters’ conversations, and spotting them has become a hobby for many fans.

Linguist Ben Zimmer, executive producer of Visual Thesaurus and language columnist for theBoston Globe, talked with NPR’s Renee Montagne about snippets of dialogue that British people of the time would’ve been very unlikely to say.

 

Watch more historically questionable lines Ben Zimmer has found in season two of Downton Abbey, and click here to read Zimmer’s explanations

“I’m just sayin’.”
—Ethel, the maid, to Mrs. Patmore, the cook

“That expression, ‘I’m just saying,’ is a modern expression that we use to couch what we’re saying so that the person doesn’t take offense or isn’t annoyed by what we’re saying … We hear that all the time now, but it’s hard to find examples of it, really, before World War II. That stand-alone expression, ‘I’m just saying,’ is pretty modern and out of place in 1916.”

“Sorry to keep you waiting, but we’re going to have to step on it.”
—Lord Grantham, to his chauffeur

” ‘Step on it’ is another Americanism. … It was in use in the 1910s, but it really was unlikely to have been heard on the British side that early. There were chauffeur expressions being used to describe acceleration: ‘Step on it,’ ‘Step on her,’ ‘Step on her tail,’ … Sort of imagining the pedal to be like the tail of an animal, like a cat that you would step on and it would jerk forward.

Housekeeper Mrs. Hughes describes Lady Mary (right) as an "uppity minx who's the author of her own misfortunes" — never mind that in 1919, it's unlikely anyone would have said "uppity minx." 

EnlargeNick Briggs/Carnival Film & Television Limited/MasterpieceHousekeeper Mrs. Hughes describes Lady Mary (right) as an “uppity minx who’s the author of her own misfortunes” — never mind that in 1919, it’s unlikely anyone would have said “uppity minx.” 

“Those were American expressions, and they would eventually get across the Atlantic, but to imagine that Lord Grantham was up on the latest American slang in 1917 strains the imagination just a bit.”

“When push comes to shove, I’d rather do it myself.”
—Mrs. Patmore, to the servant staff

“She would definitely not have been familiar with that expression. It does date to the late 19th century, but it was a strictly African-American expression for at least a few decades. The Oxford English Dictionary has examplesback to 1898, but if you look through the early 20th century, all the examples that we can find of the expression ‘when push comes to shove’ come from African-American newspapers and other sources.

“It really isn’t until after World War II or so that it spreads to more widespread usage. So it’s extremely unlikely that Mrs. Patmore would’ve been familiar with that expression and have used it in 1919.”

 

The English pleaded, the Scots pled

NewsOK ran this interesting article earlier today about the past participles and past tenses of weak and strong (or irregular) verbs, and variations in their usage amongst the Brits.

I’ve been meaning to write a post on ‘hung’ and ‘hanged’, ‘sung’ and ‘sang’, ‘lighted’ and ‘lit’, and other treacherous conjugations. Stay tuned for more on this murky subject of the past tense … Continue reading

What’s the problem with “no problem”?

Almost no one says “you’re welcome” when thanked these days. The exceedingly rude-sounding “no problem”, or — much worse — “no worries”, is the usual response (if ANY) to the simple “thank you”. “No problem” is tossed back with utter lack of care or notice – appropriately enough, since it indicates brain-death like a flatline. If you know enough to respond to thanks offered you for a task or deed, you should know enough to say “you’re welcome”.

Whenever a shop assistant (aka “team-member”, “associate” — of what or whom?, I ask myself) answers my thanks with “no problem”, I reply “I should HOPE there’s no problem; it’s your JOB” upon deaf ears and to a blank stare. But I’ve noticed that when I congratulate (and thank) the utterer of “you’re welcome” for her or his usage of the appropriate response to thanks, I get a pleasant reply. I rest my case.

PS. What, I wonder, will replace thank you, or thanks? Oh, that’s already happened: no thanks!

Keep to the right, please!

Not that I want to see serried ranks of humanoid bots, but… (actually, that’s not a bad idea)

We city walkers are speedy, as the Times tells us, but why does no one keep to the right on the sidewalk these days?  Subway platforms and pavements and stairways are more crowded than ever, but we pedestrians and stair-climbers (and -descenders) would all be better off if we kept – for the most part – to the right.  I am not talking about politics, mind you.   The prevalence of sidewalk bridges and scaffolding exacerbates the problem.  Such distractions as store windows, vendors, interesting sights and sites to check out, intersections to cross, and dog-poop to avoid (don’t get me on a sidetrack), frequently call for a move to the left, and might, on occasion, be excused.

I’ve made a casual study of the predicament, and I trace it, like so many problems of today, to bad schooling at home and away from home.  Can you imagine such a thing – difficult, isn’t it?  Most of the little ones in our crowded schools – and even the bigger kids – are no longer instructed to keep to the right in hallways, on stairs, or outdoors, not even during fire drills!  I often plow through the crowds on the pavements of my neighborhood shouting “Keep to the right, keep to the right”, and of course people pay no attention; who would want to give the impression she pays heed to street-loonies?  My first grade teacher is probably whirling in her grave, as is YOURS!

But seriously: even the London Underground, a paragon system, has well-placed signs on the long, steep escalators at some stations requesting that riders keep to the RIGHT (not LEFT).  I would love to see sparkly new city-posted signs reading PLEASE KEEP TO THE RIGHT along the busiest sidewalks of New York City.  They’d be a sight for the sore eyes of this city walker, and probably for a few hundred thousand of her fellow pedestrians.