Americanisms

[Richard Waller]

Did! Didn't! Did to!
... couple things. (leaving out the of).
.. already .... at the end of a sentence

I have a nice feeling when I see these cute words. Are they common to all of the US or just certain areas. Already is a Jewish usage I know.

[George]

Did! Didn't! Did to!
... couple things. (leaving out the of).
.. already .... at the end of a sentence

I have a nice feeling when I see these cute words. Are they common to all of the US or just certain areas. Already is a Jewish usage I know.

These expressions are common everywhere as a part of casual speech--so common, perhaps, they are becoming trite, and we might predict their demise. However, speech like this, I think, makes a person feel uniquely American and in a positive way--we enjoy being common folk. And, anyhow, we can rely on the British to preserve proper English. I think colloquialism are dying out--the world is getting too small (so I don't "redd up" the house any more). However, as hard as it might be to imagine, Americans are focusing on language even less and less, and where the new generation might be going with it, I don't even want to think about. Still, in general, I don't think their language usage will descend to the level of communications in the medical field. Yesterday, I read a press release from a large national hospital system on how they responded to Katrina--hmm, but I'm pretty sure they can do treatments fairly well.

One thing I've always wanted to discuss with a Brit some time is, their use of simple expressions regarding everyday life to represent complex ideas in general regarding what living is all about. It seems to be a part of the culture. It was so evident in the music of the British Invasion--"Do you want to know a secret," "Mrs. Brown you've got a lovely daughter." I wonder, however, as an American, how well do I really understand it.

Regards,

George

[Richard Waller]

"Do you want to know a secret,"
"Mrs. Brown you've got a lovely daughter."

I think these both come from popular music-hall songs, and their beauty is that they say simple things in delightful words.

Urban slang is more complex to understand - there are a rash of books on the shelves, most of which I have acquired, that try to explain these. What I do first is to key a mystery phrase into Google and normally Wikipedia suggests something.

[ktinkel]

Did! Didn't! Did to!
... couple things. (leaving out the of).
.. already .... at the end of a sentence

I have a nice feeling when I see these cute words. Are they common to all of the US or just certain areas. Already is a Jewish usage I know.Leaving out the of in couple things is just casual speech — I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen it in print (outside of dialogue).

What is shocking is that we do see should of in print. Poor have — one of the most important verbs in English, losing out to a pathetic preposition!

You’re right about already — a lot of Yiddish English features inverted sentences, but I think already at the end of a sentence caught on because people liked the sound of it. It is now very common in New York, no matter what ethnic background you have (or how far back). All right already! is a very common way of giving up (crying uncle).

Now tell me: Why do the English say someone is “in hospital”? We say “in the hospital” here.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Why do the English say someone is “in hospital”? We say “in the hospital” here

Do you? Then we'll probably say it soon too: for some reason we pick up Americanisms as fast as we catch colds. We've long said 'we don't have', instead of 'haven't got' (which was puzzling to Americans); that's pure idiom, because grammatically it's simply 'haven't'; and although we've been saying 'railway station' for about 150 years, we now say (and write in the papers) 'train station', which though not universal in America (what is?), is a common Americanism.

To come back to your question: I don't know, but does there have to be a reason? And to muddy the waters, I would point out that 'in the hospital' is a Germanism ('im Spital'); 'already' is also a Germanism ('ich komme schon'), not confined to Yiddish, but any German or Yiddish speaker would translate it literally when introduced to English.

[Ian Petersen]

We say “in the hospital” here

You do? Isn't 'hospitalized' more common? But perhaps that has a subtly different meaning. In any case, I wouldn't think twice about 'in the hospital' or even 'train station', but that may be my Scottish upbringing. I have a feeling Scottish is closer to American in many respects, which is not surprising, of course, given the number of scots who emigrated to the US.

There's one Americanism I can't get used to, and that is 'momentarily'. As in 'the doctor will be with you momentarily'. Like is he going to just stick his head round the door and run away again? <g>

[Michael Rowley]

Ian:

or even 'train station'

If you think back, no one said 'railway station' either: it was always 'the station', unless the town had several. A bus station was always called that though, being anything up to a hundred years more recent.

[Candy Jens]

. . . As in 'the doctor will be with you momentarily'. Like is he going to just stick his head round the door and run away again? <g>

Yep, that's usually how it goes her in America <g>!

Candy

[Richard Waller]

Surely "in the hospital" means a specific hospital - meaning the one that everyone knows is the one. "in hospital" says generally he is really poorly and has been taken away to some healing place unspecified.

[Steve Rindsberg]

And why "in Suchandsuch Street" vs. "on SuchandSuch Street"?

I don't think I've ever heard anything but the latter and thought the former was strictly British English usage until I ran across it in a few Damon Runyon stories from the '30s

[annc]

Ian:

or even 'train station'

If you think back, no one said 'railway station' either: it was always 'the station', unless the town had several. A bus station was always called that though, being anything up to a hundred years more recent.We have bus stops, bus terminuses, and bus terminals, but never bus stations.

[Ian Petersen]

We have bus stops, bus terminuses, and bus terminals, but never bus stations.However, you do have sheep stations!

[ktinkel]

Surely "in the hospital" means a specific hospital - meaning the one that everyone knows is the one. "in hospital" says generally he is really poorly and has been taken away to some healing place unspecified.Nope. Makes sense, but in the States, we just say “she is in the hospital” for all occasions.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

in a few Damon Runyon stories from the '30s

Idioms in older American literature often strike one as very 'English'. But 'on' is often used in England if the street is described as 'road', and particularly in the USA many of the 'streets' existed in some councillor's street plan years before there were any buildings 'on' it.

Every schoolboy knows that the English call a 'railway' what Americans call a 'railroad', but fewer know that both terms coexisted in England and that 'railroad' was the at first the commoner term. I think that 'railway' became the preferred term as a consequence of numerous Railways Acts in the UK in the 19th century.

[Franca]

Surely "in the hospital" means a specific hospital - meaning the one that everyone knows is the one. "in hospital" says generally he is really poorly and has been taken away to some healing place unspecified.No, "in the hospital" here in the U.S. means exactly the same thing as "in hospital" to you. I grew up in San Francisco where there are many hospitals and no one would ever know for sure which was meant unless it was specified by name. "In hospital" doesn't exist as a phrase in "American" English.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

We have bus stops, bus terminuses, and bus terminals, but never bus stations

But you haven't got many railway stations either, so 'station' (in that sense) hasn't entered the Australian idiom.

[ktinkel]

And why "in Suchandsuch Street" vs. "on SuchandSuch Street"?Another good question.

In this case, the American way is much more sensible.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

the American way is much more sensible

I can't see anything 'sensible' about preferring 'on' to 'in': it's just another idiom that has grown up in to us inexplicable ways, though again the German idiom is either 'an', which tends to get translated as 'on', or 'in'.

[John Spragens]

And the new usages never end.

This summer I heard two teen-agers saying to each other, "Job!"

They didn't mean they'd just found employment. It was shorthand for "Good job!" after they'd finished a student concert.

[ktinkel]

And the new usages never end.

This summer I heard two teen-agers saying to each other, "Job!"

They didn't mean they'd just found employment. It was shorthand for "Good job!" after they'd finished a student concert.That’s like “way!” — a backwards formation from “No way!”

I think that one may be fading. (Or I wish? <g>)

[Howard White]

While you're about it, is "government" singular or plural?

US: The government has a plan
UK: The government have a plan

HW

[ElyseC]

We have bus stops, bus terminuses, and bus terminals, but never bus stations.Until one year ago we lived two blocks from what every English-speaking local called a Greyhound bus station. FWIW.

[annc]

Until one year ago we lived two blocks from what every English-speaking local called a Greyhound bus station. FWIW.We'd call that a bus (or coach) terminal. A bus stop is where you stand to catch a commuter bus, and a bus terminus is the end of the line for a commuter bus service, where it stops and turns around to go back to its base. That comes from the old trams, I think, where the driver would stop, switch the connectors, and climb into the cabin at the other end.

[Richard Waller]

There is a lot of sloppy speaking. The worst is to leave out the consonents in words like kettle making ke''le. And I fear TXT is creeping into speech. It is getting to the state where only Trevor McDonald (who comes from Jamaica) and Richard Waller speak proper.

[Richard Waller]

It occurs to me that words like ke''le are part of "Estuary English" favoured by the kids. It is a dialect like Welsh or Cornish, or even Birmingham. Most of them take cae to speak proper at home because the parents tick them off otherwise.

[ktinkel]

Most of them take cae to speak proper at home because the parents tick them off otherwise.Now there’s another British usage:

Here when someone is “ticked off” it means they are angry. It is not a transitive verb as in your example.

[Richard Waller]

Similar to ticked off, is pissed off, which means fed up or angry. Pissed by itself is usually drunk, but sometimes means that you like it. It has a lavatorial connotation which means that I don't use the word at all in front of my mother.

[ktinkel]

Similar to ticked off, is pissed off, which means fed up or angry. Pissed by itself is usually drunk, but sometimes means that you like it. It has a lavatorial connotation which means that I don't use the word at all in front of my mother.We use those terms as well. They are even used on TV now, though that is a change from just a few years ago.

[ElyseC]

Coach in the transportation industry here can mean bus, but it seems a term used more by those in that industry than by the public. Coach is also used to refer to standard and first class (a.k.a. "sleeper") cars of a passenger train. It is also in motorcoach, those large, recreational vehicles you drive instead of tow.

As for terminus, I've never heard it in use by the regular public; instead we use terminal.

[ElyseC]

And then there are the newscasters who should know better than to say "fermiliar" instead of "familiar" and "nooculer" instead of "nuclear". I've almost given up fussing at them during broadcast, but I can't help myself when I hear them butcher those two words. Big name veterans on the big networks, not just the local rookies. In fact, I could swear the local newsfolk do a much better job of it overall than the nationally famous ones.

[Michael Rowley]

Howard:

UK: The government have a plan

In the UK that's variable, but the papers (and the goverment) tend to use the plural. We pedants don't!

[Michael Rowley]

Richard:

words like ke''le are part of "Estuary English"

Sorry, that's rot: first there is no such thing as 'Estuary English', and second the omission or slurrring of consonants is a characteristic of careless speech almost everywhere, and is not confined to England.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Steve:

in a few Damon Runyon stories from the '30s

Idioms in older American literature often strike one as very 'English'. But 'on' is often used in England if the street is described as 'road', and particularly in the USA many of the 'streets' existed in some councillor's street plan years before there were any buildings 'on' it.

Every schoolboy knows that the English call a 'railway' what Americans call a 'railroad', but fewer know that both terms coexisted in England and that 'railroad' was the at first the commoner term. I think that 'railway' became the preferred term as a consequence of numerous Railways Acts in the UK in the 19th century.
--- But 'on' is often used in England if the street is described as 'road', and particularly in the USA many of the 'streets' existed in some councillor's street plan years before there were any buildings 'on' it.

Damon Runyon's stories would all have taken place in Manhattan (or on Manhattan? no, no, let's NOT go there) where, at least in the parts he wrote about, there are no roads, only streets and avenues. I wonder where that leaves us?

Not far from my house, though, there used to be an intersection of two paths in the woods, marked by a proper city-erected street sign. Clearly one of those "on the books if not on the ground" roads you mention.

[Steve Rindsberg]

Until one year ago we lived two blocks from what every English-speaking local called a Greyhound bus station. FWIW.
Ah, but did they say "G'day" too? (he says, having made roughly the same reply and then realized he had Australia on the line)

[Steve Rindsberg]

Corporations are spoken of in the plural in the UK though, no?
Here they're singular entities.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

Here they're singular entities

They should be everywhere, but people think of a company as 'them' far more often than they think of the artificial person a company is in law. And I'm not sure that in this predominantly American (I'm including Canadians here!) forum that I haven't seen the occasional 'Adobe are . . .'.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

Damon Runyon's stories would all have taken place in Manhattan

Wasn't Manhatten bought by the Dutch (always good businessmen) for beads and a couple of bottles of Geneva? It must be one of the oldest towns in the US. But of course, Damon Runyan might not have been brought up in Manhattan, so his English might have been learned anywhere.

I often see tables of words that the English (usually described as 'British') and US Americans use, and half of the entries are incorrect. The fact is, neither 'all' Americans or 'all' Englishmen (still less 'all' Britons) speak or write in a uniform way. But I've never heard 'on the High Street' in England, although I often stay in an inn that is 'on' Watling Street.

[ElyseC]

Ah, but did they say "G'day" too? (he says, having made roughly the same reply and then realized he had Australia on the line)No. "G'day" isn't exactly the norm for southern California, you see. <g>

[Richard Waller]

Just as a by-the-way, on the streets is the term used to describe a lady of easy virtue.

[Richard Waller]

Try this one. Brit houses have a ground floor, and go upstairs to the first floor. In the US there is no mention of ground and the front door leads to the 1st floor.

[Franca]

They should be everywhere, but people think of a company as 'them' far more often than they think of the artificial person a company is in law.Not here. A company is an "it".

And I'm not sure that in this predominantly American (I'm including Canadians here!) forum that I haven't seen the occasional 'Adobe are . . .'.Only if it was typed by one of our many esteemed members from across The Pond. Adobe is a corporation. Microsoft is either a corporation or it's Bill Gates, but either way, it's singular. ;-)

[Franca]

Yes - here the ground floor and the first floor are the same thing. Depending on the type of building it might be called the ground floor or the lobby or the first floor - but they are all the same floor. We go up to the second floor.

[ElyseC]

And to ascend and descend between them you take a lift and we take an elevator. Now, if we're talking about a large retail establishment we might also be able to take an escalator. Do those on the east side of the pond have a different name for motorized stairs?

[Michael Rowley]

Franca:

Only if it was typed by one of our many esteemed members from across The Pond

From Japan? All right, I know that you are using a metaphor coined years ago when eveyone in the US naturally meant the Atlantic, but it seems strange (to me) when you use it. It should be strange for every Englishman too, unless he lives on the north Cornish coast, but habits of speech die hard.

You'll have to read Fowler, writing before 1926, to get a rational account of the use of the plural in England. As I've said, I (nearly)always regard a government, a company, the British cabinet as 'it', but then I've acquired a lot of German habits.

[Michael Rowley]

Elyse:

Do those on the east side of the pond have a different name for motorized stairs?

If you mean Britons, the answer is no. However, strictly speaking the only people east of the Atlantic at your latitude are Portuguese, Africans, etc. However, the older 'moving stairs' is not uncommon. We generally avoid more high faluting words.

[ElyseC]

However, the older 'moving stairs' is not uncommon. We generally avoid more high faluting words.Reminds me of the old term moving pictures which eventually became movies.

Do you happen to know the etymology of lorry (did I spell that correctly?) which, here, is a truck? First time I ever encountered the word, way back when, I didn't understand it, but eventually figured it out from context.

[Michael Rowley]

Elyse:

Reminds me of the old term moving pictures which eventually became movies

Yes, we dropped 'moving', and you shortened 'moving'. We also called them 'flics' (the early moving pictures flickered noticeably).

Lorry was originally a flat vehicle used particularly in mines, though they weren't flat then; and they usually ran on rails. You must have seen them in American films involving old silver mines, usually in a dangerous condition. However, goods wagons on railways were 'trucks' in England, so I suppose the word lorry was taken for the much later road vehicles.

The origin of the word lorry is not known.

'Filling-in forms' is something we in Britain learned to do during WW2, but Americans fill forms 'out' (as do the Germans). You will, no doubt, be pleased to know that younger Britons now conform to the AMWoL.

[ElyseC]

Yes, we dropped 'moving', and you shortened 'moving'. We also called them 'flics' (the early moving pictures flickered noticeably).They've been called "flicks" here, as well.

Lorry was originally a flat vehicle used particularly in mines, though they weren't flat then; and they usually ran on rails. You must have seen them in American films involving old silver mines, usually in a dangerous condition. However, goods wagons on railways were 'trucks' in England, so I suppose the word lorry was taken for the much later road vehicles.

The origin of the word lorry is not known.Since my son began his passion for all things Thomas the Tank Engine three years ago, I learned of truck as a railroad term. I wonder if we applied the railroad term to commercial road vehicles that carried goods and, from there, to any non-passenger road vehicle designed to transport a load.

I wonder if lorry is a shortened eponym.

[Michael Rowley]

Elyse:

I wonder if we applied the railroad term to commercial road vehicles that carried goods and, from there, to any non-passenger road vehicle designed to transport a load

It seems likely, and in fact it seems strange that in the UK we should have gone back to essentially a forgotten word (except in mining circles). 'Lorry' has no connection with anything, as far as is known, but 'truck' may come from 'truckle'; on the other hand it may be related to 'truck' meaning trade.

[ElyseC]

'Lorry' has no connection with anything, as far as is known, but 'truck' may come from 'truckle'; on the other hand it may be related to 'truck' meaning trade.Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lorry) suggests that it may be related to a dialectical word for lug or haul.

Maybe I'll drop a request to Anu Garg at wordsmith.org (http://www.wordsmith.org) to feature words like lorry and truck. I looked through his A Word A Day archives and found neither has been featured before.

[Stephen Owades]

Yes - here the ground floor and the first floor are the same thing. Depending on the type of building it might be called the ground floor or the lobby or the first floor - but they are all the same floor. We go up to the second floor.My condominium building has a ground floor lobby and a first floor above it, and we're not very unusual in that. The building also has a "PH" (penthouse) floor at the top. Since most builders avoid a floor #13 at all costs, these two steps allowed for a 14-story building with no skipped numbers and no 13th floor!

[Shane Stanley]

Since most builders avoid a floor #13 at all costs

Now that strikes me as a very American thing; at least, I don't remember seeing it anywhere else. I'm surprised that such a public display of superstition sits comfortably with a supposedly religious population. Or am I?

Shane

[Richard Waller]

*** a rational account of the use of language ***

How is it that English language is so used when there are so many illogiocal spellings and pronounciations. Why don't we move to a more logical and economical language like Spanish?

[Ian Petersen]

How is it that English language is so used when there are so many illogiocal spellings and pronounciations.
Or even illogical spellings and pronunciations. <g>
Why don't we move to a more logical and economical language like Spanish?Probably because the majority of English speakers don't speak Spanish. <g> Or Esperanto or whatever ... English is really no more illogical than any other language and it does have a fairly simple grammar. What people find 'illogical' is the fact that English simply has an awful lot of words. And, due to the way English has evolved, they come from an awful lot of different places - Celtic, Norse, German, French, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Hindi etc. - and many of these words with 'foreign' roots still retain their etymological identity and haven't been anglicised. This is the English language's major strength, IMO, compared to languages that assimilate foreign words into local spelling conventions. It makes words perhaps a little harder to spell, but a damn sight easier to figure out what they mean. Not to mention a level of nuance that is unavailable in other languages.

[ktinkel]

… the fact that English simply has an awful lot of words. And, due to the way English has evolved, they come from an awful lot of different places - Celtic, Norse, German, French, Latin, Greek, Arabic, Hindi etc. - and many of these words with 'foreign' roots still retain their etymological identity and haven't been anglicised. This is the English language's major strength, IMO, compared to languages that assimilate foreign words into local spelling conventions. It makes words perhaps a little harder to spell, but a damn sight easier to figure out what they mean. Not to mention a level of nuance that is unavailable in other languages.And English is economical, as one knows who has had to typeset brochures in several different languages. All those words allow us to speak with greater specificity.

French, for one example — and for all its beauty both in speech and writing — needs a third to a half more space than English to make the same point.

[Steve Rindsberg]

I don't know where Runyon was born and raised but he was known for writing dialog that captured the speech of a particular segment of NYC people (horserace gamblers, gangsters, nightclub regulars). Not at all typical American speech, but hardly typical English speech either. ;-)

Oh, and I think the Dutch held onto the Geneva. No fools they.

[Steve Rindsberg]

"Adobe are ..."

We have lots of folks who come from towns like yours, though. "The one in England ..." Referring to a company in the plural would be very unusual here in the US.

Which raises the opposite question: if a business is not incorporated here, it's not considered an independent entity. It might be a partnership and the partners liable for all obligations of the company. In that case, it'd be reasonable to refer to it (or them?) in the plural.

Being unreasonable, we don't.

[Steve Rindsberg]

There've been many attempts to rationalize English spelling, some quite reasonable, others the work of utter crackpots, or of otherwise reasonable people who had odd notions about spelling.

We cheerfully ignore 'em all. Have for hundreds of years. Why change now?

[ElyseC]

How is it that English language is so used when there are so many illogiocal spellings and pronounciations. Why don't we move to a more logical and economical language like Spanish?I think of that a lot these days when trying to convince my 5 year old that his schoolmate's nose did not bleeded but it bled. <g>

Now, as for Spanish being more economical, I agree that it's a great one for predictable pronunciation and spelling. When it comes to setting type, however, it isn't as economical as English -- Spanish text runs 30% longer than the English equivalent. <g>

[annc]

And English is economical, as one knows who has had to typeset brochures in several different languages. All those words allow us to speak with greater specificity.

French, for one example — and for all its beauty both in speech and writing — needs a third to a half more space than English to make the same point.And all those German portmanteau words are hell to typeset in small spaces.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

We cheerfully ignore 'em all. Have for hundreds of years. Why change now?

Yes: they make me laff!

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

I don't know where Runyon was born and raised

You haven't looked at the Web! He was born in Manhattan (Manhattan, Kansas) but brought up in Pueblo, Colorado. His father was a printer and publisher of small-town papers. He worked as a newspaper reporter for some time in Europe and places in America, so his contact with New York city was quite late.

[Michael Rowley]

Elyse:

trying to convince my 5 year old that his schoolmate's nose did not bleeded but it bled

I hope though that you told him that 'bled' was irregular and that otherwise his formation of the past tense was correctly observed.

In that connexion, I should point out that the American formation of the past of 'dive' and 'fit' regularly causes consternation among British readers.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

the partners liable for all obligations of the company

No, they're liable for all the obligations of the firm. In the UK, a company has been incorporated, usually under the Companies Act. Usually, but not always, a company has limited liability.

A firm (i.e. a partnership) does not have personality in England, but it does under Scottish law. Nevertheless, it can sue and be sued, so in that respect it is regarded as an entity.

[annc]

Elyse:

trying to convince my 5 year old that his schoolmate's nose did not bleeded but it bled

I hope though that you told him that 'bled' was irregular and that otherwise his formation of the past tense was correctly observed.

In that connexion, I should point out that the American formation of the past of 'dive' and 'fit' regularly causes consternation among British readers.And 'spit' (for Australians, anyway) - can't speak for the other English-speaking countries.

[ElyseC]

I hope though that you told him that 'bled' was irregular and that otherwise his formation of the past tense was correctly observed.I put it in age-appropriate language, but yes I did. I explained that people will understand him if he says 'bleeded' but it's really like the word 'feed': "You wouldn't say you feeded the cats, would you?" "No, I'd say I fed the cats." "Right and 'bleed' and 'bled' is just like 'feed' and 'fed'." "Oh. OK." (His job around here is to keep the cat bowls filled with food and water. :-))

In that connexion, I should point out that the American formation of the past of 'dive' and 'fit' regularly causes consternation among British readers.Really? "He dove into the pool" would be "he dived..." rolling off a British tongue? As for 'fit' I think I use different past tenses for it depending on the situation. How do you say it?

[Richard Waller]

*** of the past of 'dive' and 'fit' ***

Yes. I now cannot work out how I as a Brit would do it.

[Richard Waller]

*** Now, as for Spanish being more economical ***

Maybe it was Portugese I am thinking of. I worked in an International centre when I was with IBM and had to do some language dubbing on a movie and I know one of the versions was about half as long as in English. And yes we did have difficulty with the French.

[Michael Rowley]

Elyse:

The past of dive is dived in England, and the past of fit is fitted, i.e. both verbs are regular. We have particular difficulty with a sentence such as, 'She tried on the shoes to see if they fit'. 'Dove' seems to be understandable to English ears, though clearly 'wrong', since we can imagine it as possibly a survival of 17th century English.

Don't be surprised if your son comes out with, 'I ned to go to the bathroom'!

[ElyseC]

The past of dive is dived in England, and the past of fit is fitted, i.e. both verbs are regular. We have particular difficulty with a sentence such as, 'She tried on the shoes to see if they fit'. 'Dove' seems to be understandable to English ears, though clearly 'wrong', since we can imagine it as possibly a survival of 17th century English.That is interesting. I read your usage example of "fitted" and it sounds wrong, but now that I know it's absolutely correct elsewhere in the world, it won't bother me. I'll simply recognize it as a Britishism.

Don't be surprised if your son comes out with, 'I ned to go to the bathroom'!Actually, I'd be quite surprised, because that (with 'need' of course) is a prominent line sang (in an opera parody) in one of his favorite kid videos. He sings it often. <g>

[Michael Rowley]

Elyse:

that (with 'need' of course)

No, with 'ned'. If the past of bleed is 'bled' and the past of feed is 'fed' (not to forget the past of lead—'led'), why shouldn't the past of need be 'ned'?

[ElyseC]

Elyse:

that (with 'need' of course)

No, with 'ned'. If the past of bleed is 'bled' and the past of feed is 'fed' (not to forget the past of lead—'led'), why shouldn't the past of need be 'ned'?No worries, he already understands that "need" and "needed" go together, probably because no one has ever "corrected" him when he said 'needed.'

[Richard Waller]

OK so that is dived and fed sorted. What about lay or lie. Lied looks like an untruth, laid sounds sexual. He lies down is OK. But does it have to be was lying down? It seems to be a case for a double verb.

[Steve Rindsberg]

There isn't TIME to look up everything on the web! Or if there is, then there isn't time for laundry and cat-box maintenance. I know which I prefer, but I also know which, if neglected, will get my head removed. So thanks for filling in the blanks.

It makes sense that he came to NYC later on. If he'd been raised there, the speech patterns wouldn't have seemed unusual. Having moved there once myself, I can understand what a jolt it can be.

Note to native New Yorkers: CHILL. I didn't say it was a BAD jolt, just a jolt.

[Michael Rowley]

Steve:

It makes sense that he [Runyon] came to NYC later on

Yes, it does, but we're no nearer finding why Runyon wrote 'in the street'. My present explanation is that people from Colorado don't have very pronounced American accents and might use English expressions too, but that explanation rests on only one family I knew in Germany. They had one English characteristic: they lived i a German village remote from other American service families.

[Stephen Owades]

Until one year ago we lived two blocks from what every English-speaking local called a Greyhound bus station. FWIW.The distinction between a bus "station" and a bus "terminal" should be clear from the words themselves. A "terminal" is a place at which trips "terminate," while a "station" is a stop along the way. New York City has two main passenger train facilities: Grand Central Terminal, which is the end of the line for all the trains that service it, and Penn Station, which many (but not all) trains pass through.

Of course, this distinction is not observed carefully in practice. Both of Boston's train facilities are called "stations," but neither has trains passing through.

[donmcc]

Interesting concept. But where do you find a place where trips cannot terminate. Is there a bus or train station anywhere that forces people to go on to another place, even if they want to get off.

We have a bus terminal in London (Ontario) which is a small city and very few of the bus runs through it do not continue on to another city.

Don McCahill

[Stephen Owades]

Interesting concept. But where do you find a place where trips cannot terminate. Is there a bus or train station anywhere that forces people to go on to another place, even if they want to get off.

We have a bus terminal in London (Ontario) which is a small city and very few of the bus runs through it do not continue on to another city.

Don McCahill
Your trip may terminate at any station, but the bus is likely to continue on to the end of the line. At a terminal, all trips must terminate (or you must change to another bus/train), since there's no through service. At New York's Grand Central Terminal, all the train tracks physically end and the trains reverse direction for their next run, while at Penn Station many of the trains (at least the long-distance ones) enter at one end and exit at the other, enroute to their final destinations.

The relevant definition of "station" at Merriam-Webster.com is "a regular stopping place in a transportation route," while the definition of "terminal" is "either end of a carrier line having facilities for the handling of freight and passengers." I agree that these terms can be mixed up, but in general a "terminal" should terminate most or all lines, while the lines that service a "station" should generally continue through.

[groucho]

I suppose the in/on split is probably tied into a more common question here in the US:

In some cities we stand *in* line. In others, the natives stand *on* line. (And of course, Americans simply never queue up.)

The first time I heard "couple" without "of" was on PBS's "This Old House" show. Their carpenter keeps saying he's going to put something together with "a couple screws" or "a couple nails" and every time I hear it, it grates on my ears as being so totally bad YnGlitch. In the past year or two, I think his attempt at being quaint and authentic has infected too many other users. (Or abusers, one could say?)

[ktinkel]

I suppose the in/on split is probably tied into a more common question here in the US:

In some cities we stand *in* line. In others, the natives stand *on* line. (And of course, Americans simply never queue up.)Only in NYC does anyone stand on line. That was one of the things that really startled me when I arrived in 1964 — it was utterly distinctive, and very strange.

Almost as weird as using the term regular coffee to refer to a cup of coffee diluted by white stuff (rarely milk or cream — usually some plasticky stuff). I got caught by that a few times before I learned the local lingo.

Out west, where I hail from, regular coffee is plain black coffee (or was in those pre-Starbucks days).

[Michael Rowley]

'Groucho':

Americans simply never queue up

But they don't stand in line abreast either: they form a file.

[Michael Rowley]

Don:

But where do you find a place where trips cannot terminate

Anywhere where the railway necessarily teminates. In Germany they call it a 'Kopfbahnhof'; you can't travel onward without reversing, because the railway doesn't go any further. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to have a bus terminus unless it's in a dead-end road.

[groucho]

Remember, KT, N'Yawk is the only American city with a Dutch ancestry. Not just Spanish or English Crown, but Dutch. Apparently our first language crisis was what official language to use after the Brits took over; English, German, or Dutch.

It ain't Kansas.<G>

Although, I'm *SO* glad to find out I'm not the only one who couldn't figure out why "regular" coffee has things besides coffee in it. And I'm a native! I figure that must be something to do with the Greeks, after all every coffee shop and diner used to be Greek here.

[ktinkel]

Remember, KT, N'Yawk is the only American city with a Dutch ancestry. Not just Spanish or English Crown, but Dutch. Apparently our first language crisis was what official language to use after the Brits took over; English, German, or Dutch.I decided that the usage of standing on line derived from Yiddish, i.e. a form of German. Not sure it is old enough to be Dutch, really. What would they have had to line up for in the early days? They didn’t have movies or Chinese restaurants!

I'm *SO* glad to find out I'm not the only one who couldn't figure out why "regular" coffee has things besides coffee in it. And I'm a native! I figure that must be something to do with the Greeks, after all every coffee shop and diner used to be Greek here.First time I ran into it was at a Schraft’s — not run by Greeks.

[groucho]

What, you never knew that Onassis Schraftopolis was the real found of Schraft's? <VBG>

In the real early days, New Yorkers lined up for the fire brigade and bucket lines. This city actually burned to the ground, halfway one time, 1/3 of the way a second time (during the Revolution and the British invasion) back before the city fathers figured out that wood was not necessarily the right way to go.

Rome, London, New York, Chicago, SF...can't be a great city until after it has burned to the ground once or twice.

I don't really consider Yiddish to be a language in and of itself. More of a bastard language, a patois, which effectively may be a language--but has roots in a dozen others spread across a couple of thousand years and miles. AFAIK anything you can find in Yiddish, you can find in one of the root sources it came from as well. Maybe not the colorful phrasing and attitude, but patois always has authentic color.<G>

[BigJohnD]

Remember, KT, N'Yawk is the only American city with a Dutch ancestry. Not just Spanish or English Crown, but Dutch. Apparently our first language crisis was what official language to use after the Brits took over; English, German, or Dutch.

Interesting. I was always under the impression that Geordies had had a big influence in North East of the Americas, naming many of their new homes after where they used to live on Tyneside and in County Durham.

http://bigjohnd.250free.com/dtpforum/washington.gif

http://bigjohnd.250free.com/dtpforum/newyork.gif

Maybe they bunked a ride on a passing ship from Holland…

[groucho]

I should have said "major American city". Find me another city, anywhere on the planet, that encompasses five counties and several major islands and you'll know what I meant.<G>

[Paul]

This is not quite universal. In my neighborhood in Los Angeles, it is typical for the first floor of apartment buildings to be one flight of stairs up from the street entrance. This is because buildings are raised to accommodate garages (the "basement garage" in my building is about a foot below street level), and so only the entrance lobby and the utility room are on the ground floor.


Yes - here the ground floor and the first floor are the same thing. Depending on the type of building it might be called the ground floor or the lobby or the first floor - but they are all the same floor. We go up to the second floor.

[ktinkel]

Now that strikes me as a very American thing; at least, I don't remember seeing it anywhere else. I'm surprised that such a public display of superstition sits comfortably with a supposedly religious population. Or am I?Isn’t in consistent? The shibboleth against 13 comes from Christian tradition, I am pretty sure — from the number at table during the Last Supper.

[annc]

Now that strikes me as a very American thing; at least, I don't remember seeing it anywhere else. I'm surprised that such a public display of superstition sits comfortably with a supposedly religious population. Or am I?

ShaneI disinctly remember one of the first tall buildings on Circular Quay in Sydney was missing a 13th floor - I went there on a tour in the mid-sixties, and the tour guide carefully mentioned it.

And in the mid-eighties, i worked in a newly-constructed Robin Gibson designed building in Brisbane that had the plant room where the 13th floor would have been.

[groucho]

13th floor...We suffer from, what is is called? trishadecahexaphobia [sic] or something? here in the US as well. Which is most peculiar, since we started with 13 colonies and 13 should be a lucky number here. Unless you're a Tory.<G>

I've always wondered how stupid people had to be, to think that because a button in the elevator says "14" it isn't really going to the 13th floor once it gets one above the 12th.

Which brings to mind the odd little floor in "Inside John Malcovich".<G>

[ElyseC]

Wikipedia's listing for triskaidekaphobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskaidekaphobia). That page also has a pic of some building's elevator buttons with no '13' option.