Discussion:
Making and Taking decisions....
Add Reply
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-11 21:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...

One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.

My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...

DC

--
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-11 22:03:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-11 23:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits arguing
the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
Tony Cooper
2018-01-11 23:56:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:27:17 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits arguing
the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
I don't understand that. Help me out. What's the "toss" in what you
call football?

In the US, "the toss" is a toss of a coin* at the beginning of the
game. The team who correctly calls the toss chooses whether to start
the first half on offense or on defense. The loser chooses which goal
to defend.

I've never seen that argued.

*No simple coin, by the way, in pro or college football. It's usually
a planchet with some design added. In the case of a bowl game, a
design commemorating that bowl.

I've always wondered what happens to the "coin" afterwards. Who gets
it?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-12 00:13:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:27:17 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits arguing
the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
I don't understand that. Help me out. What's the "toss" in what you
call football?
In the US, "the toss" is a toss of a coin* at the beginning of the
game. The team who correctly calls the toss chooses whether to start
the first half on offense or on defense. The loser chooses which goal
to defend.
I've never seen that argued.
*No simple coin, by the way, in pro or college football. It's usually
a planchet with some design added. In the case of a bowl game, a
design commemorating that bowl.
I've always wondered what happens to the "coin" afterwards. Who gets
it?
"Arguing the toss" is simply a BrE expression for a vigorous but ultimately
trivial or pointless dispute. It may have roots in coin tossing (we also start
our football games with one) but I would have to delve further than is
possible this night.

I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 00:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Subject: Re: Making and Taking decisions....
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST)
Lines: 46
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:27:17 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
On Thursday, 11 January 2018 22:03:28 UTC, Peter T. Daniels
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:24:15 PM UTC-5,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is
any >> > difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a
decision'. >> >
Post by "Django Cat" <>
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses
two, or >> > at the very least they aren't invariably
interchangeable. I'd like to >> > hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a
decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits
arguing the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
I don't understand that. Help me out. What's the "toss" in what
you call football?
In the US, "the toss" is a toss of a coin* at the beginning of the
game. The team who correctly calls the toss chooses whether to
start the first half on offense or on defense. The loser chooses
which goal to defend.
I've never seen that argued.
*No simple coin, by the way, in pro or college football. It's
usually a planchet with some design added. In the case of a bowl
game, a design commemorating that bowl.
I've always wondered what happens to the "coin" afterwards. Who
gets it?
"Arguing the toss" is simply a BrE expression for a vigorous but
ultimately trivial or pointless dispute. It may have roots in coin
tossing (we also start our football games with one) but I would have
to delve further than is possible this night.
No, more likely the graphic 'I don't give a toss (about)....'

DC

--
Tony Cooper
2018-01-12 03:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:27:17 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits arguing
the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
I don't understand that. Help me out. What's the "toss" in what you
call football?
In the US, "the toss" is a toss of a coin* at the beginning of the
game. The team who correctly calls the toss chooses whether to start
the first half on offense or on defense. The loser chooses which goal
to defend.
I've never seen that argued.
*No simple coin, by the way, in pro or college football. It's usually
a planchet with some design added. In the case of a bowl game, a
design commemorating that bowl.
I've always wondered what happens to the "coin" afterwards. Who gets
it?
"Arguing the toss" is simply a BrE expression for a vigorous but ultimately
trivial or pointless dispute. It may have roots in coin tossing (we also start
our football games with one) but I would have to delve further than is
possible this night.
Ahhh...so nothing is tossed.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.

The coin is a product of a company right down the road from me:
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2018-01-12 04:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tony Cooper
2018-01-12 04:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it. If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.

Really, though, can't you apply your question to something you'll find
in just about everyone's home? Not the same something, but something.
Why would anyone pay good money for a plate with the Queen's image on
it and then not use it as a plate? Why would anyone pay good money
for an used ball just because someone signed it, and then put it
somewhere where no one can play with it? And so on.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
occam
2018-01-12 11:32:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it. If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.
I'm sorry, your turn to help us out now. In what way is "Will they pay
good money for it?" different to "Why would they want it?". They will
pay good money for it because they /want/ it. The buyers may have
different reasons for wanting something (e.g. sentimental reasons,
financial reasons, rarity factor...) but ultimately it is because they
want it. Money is just a metric (measure) for how much they want it.
Tony Cooper
2018-01-12 14:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it. If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.
I'm sorry, your turn to help us out now. In what way is "Will they pay
good money for it?" different to "Why would they want it?".
The "Why would they want it" is different because it asks to know the
motivation. The "Will they pay" question disregards motive. It is
saying "I don't care why".
Post by occam
They will
pay good money for it because they /want/ it. The buyers may have
different reasons for wanting something (e.g. sentimental reasons,
financial reasons, rarity factor...) but ultimately it is because they
want it. Money is just a metric (measure) for how much they want it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
occam
2018-01-12 15:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by occam
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it. If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.
I'm sorry, your turn to help us out now. In what way is "Will they pay
good money for it?" different to "Why would they want it?".
The "Why would they want it" is different because it asks to know the
motivation. The "Will they pay" question disregards motive. It is
saying "I don't care why".
"Will they pay?" disregards motive? As an American, I feel you have
missed the point of your American way of life. It is the question
foremost in the mind of every frigging salesman you have ever crossed
paths with.

Even if you do not have a motive- it is their job to give you a motive
first. "This car will make you look important", "This insurance will
give you peace of mind" etc.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by occam
They will
pay good money for it because they /want/ it. The buyers may have
different reasons for wanting something (e.g. sentimental reasons,
financial reasons, rarity factor...) but ultimately it is because they
want it. Money is just a metric (measure) for how much they want it.
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-12 17:17:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it.
Has any bearing on what? It has a lot of bearing on the strange desires
of sports fans.
Post by Tony Cooper
If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.
...

But "Will they pay good money for it?" wasn't the question. Neither
was "Is it good business to make it and sell it for 100 bucks?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-01-12 20:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:17:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
...
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it.
Has any bearing on what? It has a lot of bearing on the strange desires
of sports fans.
My comment applies buyers of any non-necessary product and not just
sports fans. The people who purchase an Elvis-on-velvet hanging, a
Franklin Mint tchotchke, or a Harry and Meghan tea towel when it comes
out are doing so for just as strange desires.

The seller doesn't care if your motive is to build a collection, buy
for a resale profit, or to give it as a gift. The seller is just
concerned with whether or not the product will sell.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Tony Cooper
If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.
...
But "Will they pay good money for it?" wasn't the question.
I'm suggesting that is the *better* question; the more important
question. It's the question that the maker of the "pet rocks" asked,
and he made out all right. I doubt if he considered what the motives
of the potential buyers would be.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Neither
was "Is it good business to make it and sell it for 100 bucks?"
That is the part of the question of "Will they pay good money for
it?".

Every convenience store I walk into lately has a display of those
fidget spinners on the counter. The salesman who sold that box of
fidget spinners to the store didn't go into the motives of the people
who are buying them. All he had to say was "These are selling like
hotcakes!".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 20:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:24:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist.
For >>> regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it
in >>> store for future use the next time the teams meet.
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000
replicas >> of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and
about 50 other >> items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses
the privilege and >> receives part of the proceeds.
Post by Peter Moylan
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the
actual coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a
replica?
I don't think the question of "Why would they want it?" has any
bearing on it. If the question is "Will they pay good money for it",
and the answer is "Yes", then whoever fills that need makes good
money.
Really, though, can't you apply your question to something you'll find
in just about everyone's home? Not the same something, but something.
Why would anyone pay good money for a plate with the Queen's image on
it and then not use it as a plate? Why would anyone pay good money
for an used ball just because someone signed it, and then put it
somewhere where no one can play with it? And so on.
A central theme of Don DeLillo's novel 'Underworld' is the obsessive
quest of various characters to own the ball used in the 1951 Dodgers vs
Giants "Shot Heard 'Round the World" game.

Goes on a bit, mind...

DC

--
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-12 20:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
Actually, I can see why someone would pay for a souvenir of a football
game, even though it's less useful than a T-shirt. [*] But I can't
see paying a whole "bill" for a replica coin-toss planchet.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-01-12 21:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:54:43 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
Actually, I can see why someone would pay for a souvenir of a football
game, even though it's less useful than a T-shirt. [*] But I can't
see paying a whole "bill" for a replica coin-toss planchet.
I am, as you know, a sports fan and (American) football fan. While I
wouldn't buy a replica of the coin at any price, I'd be even less
likely to pay the average price of a ticket to the Super Bowl: $2,500
to $3,000. For the coming Super Bowl, the cheapest tickets are about
$3,000 and the re-sale offerings of those tickets are about $5,000.

I do have a sweatshirt I purchased at the Citrus Bowl here in 1997
when Northwestern played Tennessee. I paid $20 for it, so my cost has
worked out to less than a dollar a year of wearability. (It's still
wearable.)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-12 21:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
I do have a sweatshirt I purchased at the Citrus Bowl here in 1997
when Northwestern played Tennessee. I paid $20 for it, so my cost has
worked out to less than a dollar a year of wearability. (It's still
wearable.)
I don't even need to guess who won, do I?
Tony Cooper
2018-01-12 22:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:25:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
I do have a sweatshirt I purchased at the Citrus Bowl here in 1997
when Northwestern played Tennessee. I paid $20 for it, so my cost has
worked out to less than a dollar a year of wearability. (It's still
wearable.)
I don't even need to guess who won, do I?
Steve Spurrier, when he was the football coach at the University of
Florida once said about SEC rival University of Tennessee, "You can't
spell 'Citrus Bowl' without U T."
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Yates
2018-01-13 01:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:32:59 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:25:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
I do have a sweatshirt I purchased at the Citrus Bowl here in 1997
when Northwestern played Tennessee. I paid $20 for it, so my cost has
worked out to less than a dollar a year of wearability. (It's still
wearable.)
I don't even need to guess who won, do I?
Steve Spurrier, when he was the football coach at the University of
Florida once said about SEC rival University of Tennessee, "You can't
spell 'Citrus Bowl' without U T."
To which Phillip Fulmer replied "And you cannot spell 'University of
Florida' without 'F.U.' " (I'm sure I read that on the interweb
somewhere unless I just made it up.)
Tony Cooper
2018-01-13 03:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:56:06 -0800, Richard Yates
Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:32:59 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 13:25:49 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
I do have a sweatshirt I purchased at the Citrus Bowl here in 1997
when Northwestern played Tennessee. I paid $20 for it, so my cost has
worked out to less than a dollar a year of wearability. (It's still
wearable.)
I don't even need to guess who won, do I?
Steve Spurrier, when he was the football coach at the University of
Florida once said about SEC rival University of Tennessee, "You can't
spell 'Citrus Bowl' without U T."
To which Phillip Fulmer replied "And you cannot spell 'University of
Florida' without 'F.U.' " (I'm sure I read that on the interweb
somewhere unless I just made it up.)
I dunno about that. Fulmer was a great football coach, but he was
never noted for his wit. Tennessee was foolish to fire him, but
they've now hired him back as Athletic Director. Too little, too
late.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-12 23:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
It turns out - as one might expect - that Google reveals all. The
Super Bowl coin goes to the Football Hall of Fame after the game.
Highland Mint in Melbourne, FL. They will make about 100,000 replicas
of the actual coin and sell them for $99.95 each, and about 50 other
items using the coin's design. The NFL licenses the privilege and
receives part of the proceeds.
I can see how some football fans would pay good money for the actual
coin used in some famous game, but why would anyone want a replica?
Actually, I can see why someone would pay for a souvenir of a football
game, even though it's less useful than a T-shirt. [*] But I can't
see paying a whole "bill" for a replica coin-toss planchet.
[*] I think that was supposed to be "Can you use them for coasters?"
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-01-12 12:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:27:17 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits arguing
the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
I don't understand that. Help me out. What's the "toss" in what you
call football?
In the US, "the toss" is a toss of a coin* at the beginning of the
game. The team who correctly calls the toss chooses whether to start
the first half on offense or on defense. The loser chooses which goal
to defend.
I've never seen that argued.
*No simple coin, by the way, in pro or college football. It's usually
a planchet with some design added. In the case of a bowl game, a
design commemorating that bowl.
I've always wondered what happens to the "coin" afterwards. Who gets
it?
"Arguing the toss" is simply a BrE expression for a vigorous but ultimately
trivial or pointless dispute. It may have roots in coin tossing (we also start
our football games with one) but I would have to delve further than is
possible this night.
The OED puts the phrase in the same section as coin tossing.

6.
a. An act of tossing a coin: see toss v. 9, to toss up at Phrasal
verbs; a decision arrived at by this means: see toss-up at sense
10, and cf. pitch-and-toss n.
b. to argue the toss, to dispute a decision or opinion.
c. fig. In negative contexts: a jot, a whit, a very small amount.
Usually in phr. not to care (or give) a toss. colloq.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
I believe the Super Bowl 'coin' is returned to the NFL archivist. For
regular season games I imagine the home team simply keeps it in
store for future use the next time the teams meet.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-12 13:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:13:15 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:27:17 -0800 (PST), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
No we don't! We make decisions. Just listen to football pundits arguing
the toss about referees to eliminate doubt!
I don't understand that. Help me out. What's the "toss" in what you
call football?
In the US, "the toss" is a toss of a coin* at the beginning of the
game. The team who correctly calls the toss chooses whether to start
the first half on offense or on defense. The loser chooses which goal
to defend.
I've never seen that argued.
*No simple coin, by the way, in pro or college football. It's usually
a planchet with some design added. In the case of a bowl game, a
design commemorating that bowl.
I've always wondered what happens to the "coin" afterwards. Who gets
it?
"Arguing the toss" is simply a BrE expression for a vigorous but ultimately
trivial or pointless dispute. It may have roots in coin tossing (we also start
our football games with one) but I would have to delve further than is
possible this night.
The OED puts the phrase in the same section as coin tossing.
6.
a. An act of tossing a coin: see toss v. 9, to toss up at Phrasal
verbs; a decision arrived at by this means: see toss-up at sense
10, and cf. pitch-and-toss n.
b. to argue the toss, to dispute a decision or opinion.
c. fig. In negative contexts: a jot, a whit, a very small amount.
Usually in phr. not to care (or give) a toss. colloq.
Makes sense. Arguing over the result of a coin toss is the ultimate in
pointless exercises as is arguing over a referee's decisions.
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 00:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:24:15 PM UTC-5,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
Nope. Both are used in BrE.

DC

--
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-12 04:28:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:24:15 PM UTC-5,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
Nope. Both are used in BrE.
You just don't use "make" in our hearing, then.
Janet
2018-01-12 16:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by "Django Cat" <>
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:24:15 PM UTC-5,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
Nope. Both are used in BrE.
You just don't use "make" in our hearing, then.
cloth ears.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zp6mmp3/revision

Janet.
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 20:12:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 7:19:17 PM UTC-5,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:24:15 PM UTC-5,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is
any difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a
decision'. My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light
between theses two, or at the very least they aren't invariably
interchangeable. I'd like to hear what you lot think...
Yes. In Britain, you take a decision; in America, we make a decision.
Nope. Both are used in BrE.
You just don't use "make" in our hearing, then.
It's true. We phone each other up when we know you're listening.

DC

--
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-11 22:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Viv redivivus!

In America, I don't know of any difference, but I believe we got
"take a decision" from you lot and don't use it much, so that's
probably not very helpful.
--
Jerry Friedman
bert
2018-01-11 22:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Okay. If I hear someone say he's taken a decision, then
I imagine he's chosen it from a fairly small set - maybe
as small as two - of possible decisions that most people
around him could have listed. However, when he says
he's made a decision, there's a suggestion that he might
have thought of something that will surprise everybody.
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
--
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 00:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Post by "Django Cat" <>
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
Okay. If I hear someone say he's taken a decision, then
I imagine he's chosen it from a fairly small set - maybe
as small as two - of possible decisions that most people
around him could have listed. However, when he says
he's made a decision, there's a suggestion that he might
have thought of something that will surprise everybody.
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...

DC

--
Peter Moylan
2018-01-12 04:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I see
that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.

I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2018-01-12 11:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I see
that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
Same here. "Smidgen" appears to have a sibling "simdgin" both of which
have the look of pidgin English to me. ("Pigeon English" surely?)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-12 13:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
Same here. "Smidgen" appears to have a sibling "simdgin" both of which
have the look of pidgin English to me. ("Pigeon English" surely?)
No, Pidgin. Usually said to be < "business."
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-12 13:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I see
that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
Same here. "Smidgen" appears to have a sibling "simdgin" both of which
have the look of pidgin English to me. ("Pigeon English" surely?)
OED declines to give a definitive spelling. Smidgeon, smidgen, smidgin,
and even smitchin (which may be the original) are all noted as
acceptable.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-12 20:41:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
OED declines to give a definitive spelling. Smidgeon, smidgen, smidgin,
and even smitchin (which may be the original) are all noted as
acceptable.
No, they are noted as extant. Dictionaries don't do "acceptable."
David Kleinecke
2018-01-12 18:19:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I see
that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
Skosh is shorter and even harder to spell.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-14 12:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling
of smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I
see that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more
right to me.
Skosh is shorter and even harder to spell.
Skosh is almost unknown in Australia. I guess we don't have much of a
Japanese population.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-14 14:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling
of smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I
see that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more
right to me.
Skosh is shorter and even harder to spell.
Skosh is almost unknown in Australia. I guess we don't have much of a
Japanese population.
It was almost unknown in the eastern United States before Levi Strauss (the jeans company,
based in San Francisco) started using it in commercials advertising "a skosh more room" in
their trousers that were cut for the spreading butts of the aging baby boomers (1988).

(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Richard Tobin
2018-01-14 17:02:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.

-- Richard
David Kleinecke
2018-01-14 18:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel. Most of the non-levis are "slacks". I
suppose a suit has "pants". "Trousers" is known but
little used.
Snidely
2018-01-15 06:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Post by David Kleinecke
Most of the non-levis are "slacks". I
suppose a suit has "pants". "Trousers" is known but
little used.
For me, "pants" and "trousers" are nearly interchangeble words. I
prefer "pants" as the supra of "jeans", but then I tend to consider
"trousers" as being a touch old-fashioned, but with a strong survival
on clothing labels.

Oh, and the brand name "Dockers", from Levi Strauss, had taken the
place of "slacks" for some people, even when they buy Haggar.

When I was a kid, a lot of my jeans were "Sears" brand. And that was
before Levis' price went through the roof in the mid-60's.

/dps "yes, I had rolled-up cuffs"
--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)
Tony Cooper
2018-01-15 07:12:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Post by David Kleinecke
Most of the non-levis are "slacks". I
suppose a suit has "pants". "Trousers" is known but
little used.
For me, "pants" and "trousers" are nearly interchangeble words. I
prefer "pants" as the supra of "jeans", but then I tend to consider
"trousers" as being a touch old-fashioned, but with a strong survival
on clothing labels.
Oh, and the brand name "Dockers", from Levi Strauss, had taken the
place of "slacks" for some people, even when they buy Haggar.
When I was a kid, a lot of my jeans were "Sears" brand. And that was
before Levis' price went through the roof in the mid-60's.
/dps "yes, I had rolled-up cuffs"
Is "kaks" or "kacks" still used at all in the UK/Ireland? Never
figured out how that came about. I used to see "kaks" in
soc.culture.irish.

I used to have a pair DAKS trousers - beltless whipcords with an
adjustable waistband - that I purchased at Clery's in Dublin. I
thought it was a play on "kaks", but the name is actually from DAD and
SLACKS in honor of Simeon Simpson, the founder of the firm who was
called "Dad" by the employees.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Katy Jennison
2018-01-15 09:17:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Post by David Kleinecke
Most of the non-levis are "slacks". I
suppose a suit has "pants". "Trousers" is known but
little used.
For me, "pants" and "trousers" are nearly interchangeble words. I
prefer "pants" as the supra of "jeans", but then I tend to consider
"trousers" as being a touch old-fashioned, but with a strong survival
on clothing labels.
Oh, and the brand name "Dockers", from Levi Strauss, had taken the
place of "slacks" for some people, even when they buy Haggar.
When I was a kid, a lot of my jeans were "Sears" brand. And that was
before Levis' price went through the roof in the mid-60's.
/dps "yes, I had rolled-up cuffs"
Is "kaks" or "kacks" still used at all in the UK/Ireland? Never
figured out how that came about. I used to see "kaks" in
soc.culture.irish.
It's more usually "kecks", and it's dialect northern, although my
impression is that it's been spreading. It's apparently from kicks, an
old word for breeches.
--
Katy Jennison
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-15 11:52:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Post by David Kleinecke
Most of the non-levis are "slacks". I
suppose a suit has "pants". "Trousers" is known but
little used.
For me, "pants" and "trousers" are nearly interchangeble words. I
prefer "pants" as the supra of "jeans", but then I tend to consider
"trousers" as being a touch old-fashioned, but with a strong survival
on clothing labels.
Oh, and the brand name "Dockers", from Levi Strauss, had taken the
place of "slacks" for some people, even when they buy Haggar.
When I was a kid, a lot of my jeans were "Sears" brand. And that was
before Levis' price went through the roof in the mid-60's.
/dps "yes, I had rolled-up cuffs"
Is "kaks" or "kacks" still used at all in the UK/Ireland? Never
figured out how that came about. I used to see "kaks" in
soc.culture.irish.
It's more usually "kecks", and it's dialect northern, although my
impression is that it's been spreading. It's apparently from kicks, an
old word for breeches.
--
Yup, kecks is pretty well known over the whole country now. As usual
you can attribute this to TV.
Janet
2018-01-15 14:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <p3hril$7le$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@spamtrap.kjennison.com
says...
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Post by David Kleinecke
Most of the non-levis are "slacks". I
suppose a suit has "pants". "Trousers" is known but
little used.
For me, "pants" and "trousers" are nearly interchangeble words. I
prefer "pants" as the supra of "jeans", but then I tend to consider
"trousers" as being a touch old-fashioned, but with a strong survival
on clothing labels.
Oh, and the brand name "Dockers", from Levi Strauss, had taken the
place of "slacks" for some people, even when they buy Haggar.
When I was a kid, a lot of my jeans were "Sears" brand. And that was
before Levis' price went through the roof in the mid-60's.
/dps "yes, I had rolled-up cuffs"
Is "kaks" or "kacks" still used at all in the UK/Ireland? Never
figured out how that came about. I used to see "kaks" in
soc.culture.irish.
It's more usually "kecks", and it's dialect northern, although my
impression is that it's been spreading. It's apparently from kicks, an
old word for breeches.
Not to be confused with cack = shit, noun and verb.

try not to cack in your kecks, chaps.

Janet.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-15 19:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?

I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-15 21:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Levi's is a brand of levis.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-16 03:22:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces
giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Levi's is a brand of levis.
+1
RH Draney
2018-01-16 11:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Levi's is a brand of levis.
I used to know a guy for whom the generic term was "dungarees"....r
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-16 11:58:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Levi's is a brand of levis.
I used to know a guy for whom the generic term was "dungarees"....r
An odd thing to call a human being!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-16 13:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Levi's is a brand of levis.
I used to know a guy for whom the generic term was "dungarees"....r
We mutated that to "dungajeans," presumably in grade school in the late 50s.
David Kleinecke
2018-01-16 17:22:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Levi's is a brand of levis.
I used to know a guy for whom the generic term was "dungarees"....r
That's what we called them in the navy. Maybe the parlance of
sailors everywhere.
Snidely
2018-01-16 09:21:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Snidely
On Sunday, David Kleinecke pointed out that ...
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
In my world "levis" is the default name for that kind of
wearing apparel.
I take it you don't wear Wranglers.
Aren't Wranglers a brand of levis?
I don't know brands. I buy mine at Costco.
Even at Costco, pants, trousers, and underwear will labels. Including
those sewn in or printed on the waistband. You can check the brand of
your trews at anytime prior to disintegration.

/dps "your mother may have added your name, also"
--
Trust, but verify.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-14 22:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
Over Here, that's far too formal a word for them. Is "trousers" used, for
instance, in advertising for jeans?
Katy Jennison
2018-01-15 09:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Can jeans be called "trousers" in the lands where "pants" produces giggles?)
Jeans are a kind of trousers.
Over Here, that's far too formal a word for them. Is "trousers" used, for
instance, in advertising for jeans?
No, they're almost invariably just called jeans, not only in advertising
but for all other purposes. They're still a sub-set of the generic
"trousers", although it's hard to think of a context. A department
store, perhaps, with overhead signs pointing to "jackets", "trousers",
"shirts", etc, or possibly a child's picture-book about getting dressed.
--
Katy Jennison
Richard Bollard
2018-01-14 22:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:30:31 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I see
that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
There's always "poofteenth". I have seen that defined as "a bit less
than a smidgeon and a smidgeon less than a bit".
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Peter Moylan
2018-01-15 01:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Bollard
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:30:31 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Post by bert
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
Hmm, I think you're on to something. I also checked the spelling of
smidgen - I'd originally gone with 'smidgeon'...
This is the first time I've ever seen the "smidgen" spelling, but I see
that a number of on-line dictionaries support it.
I think I'll stick with "smidgeon" anyway. Somehow it looks more right
to me.
There's always "poofteenth". I have seen that defined as "a bit less
than a smidgeon and a smidgeon less than a bit".
But somewhat more than a RCH.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Tobin
2018-01-12 00:24:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bert
Okay. If I hear someone say he's taken a decision, then
I imagine he's chosen it from a fairly small set - maybe
as small as two - of possible decisions that most people
around him could have listed. However, when he says
he's made a decision, there's a suggestion that he might
have thought of something that will surprise everybody.
Indeed, it's just a smidgen (smidgeon?) of a difference.
That's pretty well the opposite of how it seems to me.

-- Richard
LFS
2018-01-11 22:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
Hi Mr Cat, good to see you!

To me, taking a decision hints that there may be several options and,
possibly, that the decision taker may be under pressure.

Making a decision sounds more straightforward. And...decisive.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Peter Moylan
2018-01-12 04:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses
two, or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable.
I'd like to hear what you lot think...
Hi Mr Cat, good to see you!
+1
Post by LFS
To me, taking a decision hints that there may be several options and,
possibly, that the decision taker may be under pressure.
Making a decision sounds more straightforward. And...decisive.
It's hard to see whether I'm imagining this, but to me it seems that
"take a decision" is something that only happens in the future.

"The government is expected to take a decision on this next month,
unless it can find another excuse for procrastinating."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mark Brader
2018-01-12 10:07:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by "Django Cat" <>
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
I say the only difference is that some people don't ever use "take".
Post by Peter Moylan
It's hard to see whether I'm imagining this, but to me it seems that
"take a decision" is something that only happens in the future.
I still remember hearing a radio news report to the effect that the
"Toronto Telegram" was going to be folding, not immediately but
"the decision has been taken".
--
Mark Brader | "I don't have to stay here to be insulted."
Toronto | "I realize that. You're insulted everywhere, I imagine."
***@vex.net | -- Theodore Sturgeon
Richard Tobin
2018-01-11 22:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
I don't see much difference, but making a decision seems to go more
with deciding between alternatives, while taking a decision seems more
likely for deciding to act. That's just a feeling, I haven't tested
it with data.

-- Richard
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 00:24:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
I don't see much difference, but making a decision seems to go more
with deciding between alternatives, while taking a decision seems more
likely for deciding to act. That's just a feeling, I haven't tested
it with data.
Ah... yes, that's sort of the way my mind was working. Time to think
on't...

DC



--
s***@my-deja.com
2018-01-12 00:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
DC
--
Personally I believe that in normal speech there is no difference. One just
decides. The word used may depend on the student's own first language.

Then I looked it up, and a business consultant explained that when the
choices are already clear, as at a crossroads, you take a decision, but
if the future is cloudy then it may take you some time to make a
decision- ie there is a creation element.
m***@att.net
2018-01-12 01:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@my-deja.com
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
DC
--
Personally I believe that in normal speech there is no difference. One just
decides. The word used may depend on the student's own first language.
Then I looked it up, and a business consultant explained that when the
choices are already clear, as at a crossroads, you take a decision, but
if the future is cloudy then it may take you some time to make a
decision- ie there is a creation element.
I would not recognize that distinction. The whole thread reminds me of the
difference between BrE 'having a crap' and AmE 'taking a crap'. At first
hearing it sounds like one is eating it and the other is carrying it around.
s***@my-deja.com
2018-01-12 11:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@att.net
Post by s***@my-deja.com
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
DC
--
Personally I believe that in normal speech there is no difference. One just
decides. The word used may depend on the student's own first language.
Then I looked it up, and a business consultant explained that when the
choices are already clear, as at a crossroads, you take a decision, but
if the future is cloudy then it may take you some time to make a
decision- ie there is a creation element.
I would not recognize that distinction. The whole thread reminds me of the
difference between BrE 'having a crap' and AmE 'taking a crap'. At first
hearing it sounds like one is eating it and the other is carrying it around.
As I said, I believe there is no difference in normal speech. Any gap
is so minute as to be of little useful purpose unless attending a
business seminar on decision taking. Nobody really needs to have both
forms in their primary vocabulary.

Of more use would be reaching a decision, coming to a decision or
deferring/postponing a decision as these can give some
(possibly helpful) information about the prior process.
Katy Jennison
2018-01-12 09:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@my-deja.com
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
DC
--
Personally I believe that in normal speech there is no difference. One just
decides. The word used may depend on the student's own first language.
Then I looked it up, and a business consultant explained that when the
choices are already clear, as at a crossroads, you take a decision, but
if the future is cloudy then it may take you some time to make a
decision- ie there is a creation element.
Ah yes, this is the interpretation which rings true to me.
--
Katy Jennison
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-12 20:14:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 9:24:15 PM UTC,
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
DC
--
Personally I believe that in normal speech there is no difference.
One just decides. The word used may depend on the student's own first
language.
Then I looked it up, and a business consultant explained that when
the choices are already clear, as at a crossroads, you take a
decision, but if the future is cloudy then it may take you some time
to make a decision- ie there is a creation element.
Yes, I'm leaning gently towards that idea...

DC

--
the Omrud
2018-01-13 08:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
I wrote this (here) in 2005:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/make$20take$20decision$20omrud$20true%7Csort:date/alt.usage.english/72qWUSPZPaM/jQuh3SSaME0J

/
I'm sorry to say that I think there's a difference and I might use
either. I'm sorry, because now I have to try to enunciate the
difference.

"take" seems very formal, and I would use it where the decision is to
be published or recorded. "make" seems more personal and I would use
it where the decision is not relevant to others.

So, at work, where money is involved and other people are affected, I
might take a decision, but if I go for a walk and could turn left or
right at the end of the road, I would make the decision.
/
--
David
"Django Cat" <>
2018-01-13 16:23:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the Omrud
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there is a smidgen of light between theses two,
or at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd
like to hear what you lot think...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.usage.english/make$20ta
ke$20decision$20omrud$20true%7Csort:date/alt.usage.english/72qWUSPZPaM
/jQuh3SSaME0J
/
I'm sorry to say that I think there's a difference and I might use
either. I'm sorry, because now I have to try to enunciate the
difference.
"take" seems very formal, and I would use it where the decision is to
be published or recorded. "make" seems more personal and I would use
it where the decision is not relevant to others.
So, at work, where money is involved and other people are affected, I
might take a decision, but if I go for a walk and could turn left or
right at the end of the road, I would make the decision.
/
Hi David - yes, that sounds plausible....

DC

--
Joy Beeson
2018-01-17 21:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by "Django Cat" <>
Evening all, it's been a while, hope you're all on good form...
One of my advanced ESL students asked me this week if there is any
difference between 'to make a decision' and 'to take a decision'.
My feeling is that there *is* a smidgen of light between theses two, or
at the very least they aren't invariably interchangeable. I'd like to
hear what you lot think...
I can't imagine a situation in which I would say "take a decision" --
unless maybe "He did not take the court's decision calmly."
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Loading...