Discussion:
"Yours Truly"
(too old to reply)
Rushtown
2005-02-04 22:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
Skitt
2005-02-04 22:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
Two stains are more annoying than one, that's for sure.

I hope someone edits your business letters.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Adrian Bailey
2005-02-04 23:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly".
Those wacky Americans...
Post by Rushtown
This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
I thought "Yours truly" was the norm for formal letters in the US. MS Word
is always trying to end my letters that way. In Britain this phrase is
reserved for letters between relatives, friends and/or lovers.
Post by Rushtown
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
obedient, disdainful
Post by Rushtown
attitude?
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that doesn't end with
either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything with "Regards" is
suspect.

Adrian
R H Draney
2005-02-05 00:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that doesn't end with
either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything with "Regards" is
suspect.
I've been known to send one or two off with "Hoping this finds you"...might be
especially appropriate if the letter is expected to pass through the hands of
Canada Post....r
Michael Nitabach
2005-02-05 12:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Bailey
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a
somewhat unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly".
Those wacky Americans...
Post by Rushtown
This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
I thought "Yours truly" was the norm for formal letters in the US.
MS Word is always trying to end my letters that way. In Britain
this phrase is reserved for letters between relatives, friends
and/or lovers.
Post by Rushtown
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than
"Sincerely". All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like
the archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
obedient, disdainful
Post by Rushtown
attitude?
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that doesn't
end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything
with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
--
Mike Nitabach
Robert Lieblich
2005-02-05 15:41:49 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that doesn't
end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything
with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding. The role of complimentary closing is served by such
as "Yours truly" or "Yours faithfully." There's nothing wrong with
making "Best regards" the last paragraph of the text, but it still
has to be followed by a complimentary closing where such is
required, as in a formal letter.

In contexts where complimentary closings are not necessary, e.g.,
e-mail or a usenet post, "Best regards" can still be the last line
of text. If so used, it should be followed by a period, not a
comma, But even when a period follows it, the subtle difference
between a last line of text followed by a period and a complimentary
closing followed by a comma is easily lost. In proper usage, this
post should not end

Best regards,

Liebs

but rather

Best regards.

Liebs

Got it?
--
Best regards;
Liebs
Tony Cooper
2005-02-05 16:13:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:41:49 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that doesn't
end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything
with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Wha? A suit is most certainly proper attire for a formal wedding.
Not on the members of the wedding party, but the rest of the men at
the wedding should be attired in something and a suit is a proper
choice.
Maria Conlon
2005-02-05 17:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Robert Lieblich
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Wha? A suit is most certainly proper attire for a formal wedding.
Not on the members of the wedding party, but the rest of the men at
the wedding should be attired in something and a suit is a proper
choice.
We went to a "black tie" anniversary party in June, and Brian wore a
tux. Almost all the male guests wore tuxes. The few who didn't probably
wished that they had.

A guide to wedding attire for guests:
http://tinyurl.com/6488r

Excerpt:
"*Black Tie*
This is the most formal attire. Men should plan to wear a tuxedo, and
women dress in formal dresses, usually floor length."

So I agree with what Bob said. (When Bob's right, he's right. Actually,
he's always right.)

Maria Conlon
Tony Cooper
2005-02-05 17:28:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 12:06:28 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Robert Lieblich
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Wha? A suit is most certainly proper attire for a formal wedding.
Not on the members of the wedding party, but the rest of the men at
the wedding should be attired in something and a suit is a proper
choice.
We went to a "black tie" anniversary party in June, and Brian wore a
tux. Almost all the male guests wore tuxes. The few who didn't probably
wished that they had.
http://tinyurl.com/6488r
"*Black Tie*
This is the most formal attire. Men should plan to wear a tuxedo, and
women dress in formal dresses, usually floor length."
So I agree with what Bob said. (When Bob's right, he's right. Actually,
he's always right.)
Bob is correct, with the statement he made, only when the invitation
states "black tie" or similar.
Maria Conlon
2005-02-05 18:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Robert Lieblich
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Wha? A suit is most certainly proper attire for a formal wedding.
Not on the members of the wedding party, but the rest of the men at
the wedding should be attired in something and a suit is a proper
choice.
We went to a "black tie" anniversary party in June, and Brian wore a
tux. Almost all the male guests wore tuxes. The few who didn't
probably wished that they had.
http://tinyurl.com/6488r
"*Black Tie*
This is the most formal attire. Men should plan to wear a tuxedo, and
women dress in formal dresses, usually floor length."
So I agree with what Bob said. (When Bob's right, he's right.
Actually, he's always right.)
Bob is correct, with the statement he made, only when the invitation
states "black tie" or similar.
Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional." ("Formal"
would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)

By the way, I would think that weddings in various parts of the country
(or in various economic or ethnic groups) adhere to differing rules and
customs. You just never know.

Maria Conlon
Tony Cooper
2005-02-05 18:44:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:13:50 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Robert Lieblich
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Wha? A suit is most certainly proper attire for a formal wedding.
Not on the members of the wedding party, but the rest of the men at
the wedding should be attired in something and a suit is a proper
choice.
We went to a "black tie" anniversary party in June, and Brian wore a
tux. Almost all the male guests wore tuxes. The few who didn't
probably wished that they had.
http://tinyurl.com/6488r
"*Black Tie*
This is the most formal attire. Men should plan to wear a tuxedo, and
women dress in formal dresses, usually floor length."
So I agree with what Bob said. (When Bob's right, he's right.
Actually, he's always right.)
Bob is correct, with the statement he made, only when the invitation
states "black tie" or similar.
Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional." ("Formal"
would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)
I would think that anyone planning a wedding where formal attire was
either required or expected would surely put that information on the
invitation in the form of "black tie", "black tie optional" or
somesuch. I don't know what the designation is for a white tie do.
I don't think I've ever seen or heard about the word "formal" being on
an invitation. If it's just a reference to being a "formal" wedding,
I would expect that this would pertain to the wedding party and not
the guests. Royal weddings excluded.
Maria Conlon
2005-02-05 18:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional." ("Formal"
would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)
I would think that anyone planning a wedding where formal attire was
either required or expected would surely put that information on the
invitation in the form of "black tie", "black tie optional" or
somesuch. I don't know what the designation is for a white tie do.
I don't think I've ever seen or heard about the word "formal" being on
an invitation. If it's just a reference to being a "formal" wedding,
I would expect that this would pertain to the wedding party and not
the guests. Royal weddings excluded.
As I said (in the part you snipped), customs vary.

Want to argue back about that?

Maria Conlon
Tony Cooper
2005-02-05 20:14:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:57:21 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional." ("Formal"
would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)
I would think that anyone planning a wedding where formal attire was
either required or expected would surely put that information on the
invitation in the form of "black tie", "black tie optional" or
somesuch. I don't know what the designation is for a white tie do.
I don't think I've ever seen or heard about the word "formal" being on
an invitation. If it's just a reference to being a "formal" wedding,
I would expect that this would pertain to the wedding party and not
the guests. Royal weddings excluded.
As I said (in the part you snipped), customs vary.
Want to argue back about that?
Sure. I don't think customs in the US in this regard vary. I'm not
even sure they vary in other countries. If there's an expected dress
code for the guests, I'd expect to see it on the invitation. Again,
royal weddings excluded.

What might vary are the customs of informal dress and the dress codes
in societies where invitations are not sent.

The invitation does not indicate what the guests *will* wear. It
indicates what the guests are *expected* to wear if it indicates
anything.
Mike Lyle
2005-02-05 19:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:13:50 -0500, "Maria Conlon"
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Robert Lieblich
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire
for
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Robert Lieblich
a formal wedding.
Wha? A suit is most certainly proper attire for a formal
wedding. [...]
We went to a "black tie" anniversary party in June, and Brian
wore
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
a tux. Almost all the male guests wore tuxes. The few who didn't
probably wished that they had.
http://tinyurl.com/6488r
"*Black Tie*
This is the most formal attire. Men should plan to wear a
tuxedo,
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
and women dress in formal dresses, usually floor length."
So I agree with what Bob said. (When Bob's right, he's right.
Actually, he's always right.)
Bob is correct, with the statement he made, only when the
invitation
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Tony Cooper
states "black tie" or similar.
Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional."
("Formal"
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Maria Conlon
would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)
I would think that anyone planning a wedding where formal attire was
either required or expected would surely put that information on the
invitation in the form of "black tie", "black tie optional" or
somesuch. I don't know what the designation is for a white tie do.
[...]

I don't think there's any occasion in Britain when you wouldn't look
weird, or be mistaken for a waiter, in "black tie" during the day.
Until this came up, I thought Bob was referring to morning dress
weddings. But actually I think a D-J is rather a good idea as a
replacement for a morning-coat, which hardly anybody actually owns.

(I think I've mentioned before that most of my son's generation in
the UK seem to have lost the expression "dinner jacket" in favour of
"tuxedo".)

Mike.
Alan Jones
2005-02-05 20:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lyle
[...]
I don't think there's any occasion in Britain when you wouldn't look
weird, or be mistaken for a waiter, in "black tie" during the day.
Until this came up, I thought Bob was referring to morning dress
weddings. But actually I think a D-J is rather a good idea as a
replacement for a morning-coat, which hardly anybody actually owns.
(I think I've mentioned before that most of my son's generation in
the UK seem to have lost the expression "dinner jacket" in favour of
"tuxedo".)
[...]
All agreed. It's true that hardly anyone owns a morning-coat, but they are
readily available on hire, sometimes with ties and waistcoats of great
brilliance. I suspect that those who otherwise never wear any of this garb
take the opportunity of doing the thing as sumptuously as possible! Yet the
posher the wedding, the less demonstrative the men's clothes (and the bigger
the ladies' hats). As an occasional stand-in church organist, I see all
sorts of dress for weddings. Some grooms wear ordinary suits: they are so
little worn in much of Britain that they have become conspicuously formal
dress.

One ought to say that the UK wedding ceremony itself is usually in late
morning or early afternoon; if there's an evening "do" as well as the
post-ceremony lunch, that's when the "tuxedo" may be worn. The sorts of US
wedding seen in films, whether very grand or quite modest, are to me very
strange in appearance and procedure, and the saying of "I do" is not the
least of the oddities to a British observer.

Alan Jones
Tony Cooper
2005-02-05 21:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Jones
All agreed. It's true that hardly anyone owns a morning-coat, but they are
readily available on hire, sometimes with ties and waistcoats of great
brilliance. I suspect that those who otherwise never wear any of this garb
take the opportunity of doing the thing as sumptuously as possible! Yet the
posher the wedding, the less demonstrative the men's clothes (and the bigger
the ladies' hats). As an occasional stand-in church organist, I see all
sorts of dress for weddings. Some grooms wear ordinary suits: they are so
little worn in much of Britain that they have become conspicuously formal
dress.
One ought to say that the UK wedding ceremony itself is usually in late
morning or early afternoon; if there's an evening "do" as well as the
post-ceremony lunch, that's when the "tuxedo" may be worn. The sorts of US
wedding seen in films, whether very grand or quite modest, are to me very
strange in appearance and procedure, and the saying of "I do" is not the
least of the oddities to a British observer.
What are some of the differences you notice?
Lea V. Usin
2005-02-06 04:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria Conlon
Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional." ("Formal"
would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)
By the way, I would think that weddings in various parts of the country
(or in various economic or ethnic groups) adhere to differing rules and
customs. You just never know.
No kidding. To me, 'formal' means white tie, i.e. tails. 'Semi-formal'
means tuxedos. Sigh. . . my daughter informs me that at her highschool
'semi-formal' means the males should wear something 'good', such as
'chinos'. O tempore . . .

Cheers, Lea
--
Lea V. Usin
***@ncf.ca
R J Valentine
2005-02-06 05:42:25 UTC
Permalink
On 6 Feb 2005 04:06:20 GMT Lea V. Usin <***@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:

} "Maria Conlon" (***@hotmail.com) writes:
}>
}> Here's a thought: If the wedding is referred to as "formal," a guest
}> might want to ask someone (the bride's mother, perhaps) whether the
}> wedding is going to be "black tie" or "black tie optional." ("Formal"
}> would signal "black tie" to me; YMMV.)
}>
}> By the way, I would think that weddings in various parts of the country
}> (or in various economic or ethnic groups) adhere to differing rules and
}> customs. You just never know.
}
} No kidding. To me, 'formal' means white tie, i.e. tails. 'Semi-formal'
} means tuxedos. Sigh. . . my daughter informs me that at her highschool
} 'semi-formal' means the males should wear something 'good', such as
} 'chinos'. O tempore . . .

At last someone is getting close to serious. Judge Lieblich was right as
far as he went (about business suits not being formal), but there was no
telling where he might veer from there. Formal is indeed white tie, but
informal is black tie, and business suits don't even come close. And
that's for evening wear. Formal in the morning (i.e., while the sun is
presumptively out) involves some sort of tails and a funny tie. Informal
in the morning infolves a sack coat and striped pants and at least the
front of a vest. I've actually got informal morning wear in my closet,
but I don't think there's anything in the closet anything with tails on
it.

It's a rare wedding in America anymore that expects guests to dress
formally, or even informally. [Snippers beware: context is everything
here.]

Modern brides in movies tend to dress formally, so it behooves the groom
and groomsmen to dress at least informally, and it behooves someone in the
party to dress at most and at least informally to provide a continuum in
which guests can feel adequately dressed in suits.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:***@smart.net>
Rushtown
2005-02-06 17:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Judge Lieblich? Nobody told me he was a judge. Maybe I have not been
respectful enough.
Time for a war story. I got a call, on a Friday, from a judge's clerk
who said my client had been picked up on a warrant for failure to
appear. I said I'd be in court by 3pm to try and get him out (he had a
good excuse). She said "Wait a minute." and put another lady on the
phone (who I assumed was another clerk). The second woman said, "3pm
is too late, we want to close early." I got in a big argument where I
told her she was acting like a "Little Hitler." She said, "OK, come on
down." When I walked in the courtroom the first clerk was standing
there with a grin on her face. She said, "That second person you
talked to was the judge." I had to go in to chambers and grovel for
awhile and be told "You don't even speak to a clerk like that." to get
out of sanctions.
Would it have been better if I said she was acting like a "Little
Napoleon"?
Mike Lyle
2005-02-06 19:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Judge Lieblich? Nobody told me he was a judge. Maybe I have not been
respectful enough.
Time for a war story. I got a call, on a Friday, from a judge's clerk
who said my client had been picked up on a warrant for failure to
appear. I said I'd be in court by 3pm to try and get him out (he
had
Post by Rushtown
a good excuse). She said "Wait a minute." and put another lady on
the
Post by Rushtown
phone (who I assumed was another clerk). The second woman said, "3pm
is too late, we want to close early." I got in a big argument
where I
Post by Rushtown
told her she was acting like a "Little Hitler." She said, "OK,
come
Post by Rushtown
on down." When I walked in the courtroom the first clerk was
standing there with a grin on her face. She said, "That second
person you talked to was the judge." I had to go in to chambers
and
Post by Rushtown
grovel for awhile and be told "You don't even speak to a clerk like
that." to get out of sanctions.
Would it have been better if I said she was acting like a "Little
Napoleon"?
"A little Boadicea" would have left you an easier escape-route. Ditto
Cleopatra: there's a graphic Brit expression, "She thinks she's some
Cleopatra!"

Mike.
Robert Lieblich
2005-02-06 19:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Judge Lieblich? Nobody told me he was a judge. Maybe I have not been
respectful enough.
No worries, Andrew. As for what it's all about, I summarized that
part of my career in a post back in 2003:
<http://tinyurl.com/7yc3u>.
Post by Rushtown
Time for a war story. I got a call, on a Friday, from a judge's clerk
who said my client had been picked up on a warrant for failure to
appear. I said I'd be in court by 3pm to try and get him out (he had a
good excuse). She said "Wait a minute." and put another lady on the
phone (who I assumed was another clerk). The second woman said, "3pm
is too late, we want to close early." I got in a big argument where I
told her she was acting like a "Little Hitler." She said, "OK, come on
down." When I walked in the courtroom the first clerk was standing
there with a grin on her face. She said, "That second person you
talked to was the judge." I had to go in to chambers and grovel for
awhile and be told "You don't even speak to a clerk like that." to get
out of sanctions.
Would it have been better if I said she was acting like a "Little
Napoleon"?
How about "Little Catherine the Great"? Or would that be an
oxymoron?

As I used to say, back in my judgely days: "Being a judge means
never having to say you're sorry." Nothing succeds with a judge
like groveling.

You might want to look up my Pierson (or was it Pearson) Hall story
on Usenet, Andrew. No conflict with a judge, just a tale of a young
lawyer's remarkable stupidity.
--
Liebs
Rushtown
2005-02-06 21:52:56 UTC
Permalink
It's Pierson. Good Story. But I've got you beat by a mile for dumb
things done in court.
About my second week being a public defender the boss sent me down to
do a prelim. He said, "Get Mr. Cruz a good deal. He's cooperating
with the Feds and turning in some higher ups from Northern Mexico."
So I walked into the courtroom and when the judge took the bench I
repeated what the head PD had said and asked for a good deal. Everyone
in the courtroom got a funny look on their faces including the other
prisoners in the jury box. I knew I'd said something wrong, but what?
Another PD said, "You just killed him Andrew." I said, "Huh". Other
PD, "You gave him a snitch jacket." Me, "What's a snitch jacket?"
Well live and learn I guess.
Pat Durkin
2005-02-05 17:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that doesn't
end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything
with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding. The role of complimentary closing is served by such
as "Yours truly" or "Yours faithfully." There's nothing wrong with
making "Best regards" the last paragraph of the text, but it still
has to be followed by a complimentary closing where such is
required, as in a formal letter.
In contexts where complimentary closings are not necessary, e.g.,
e-mail or a usenet post, "Best regards" can still be the last line
of text. If so used, it should be followed by a period, not a
comma, But even when a period follows it, the subtle difference
between a last line of text followed by a period and a complimentary
closing followed by a comma is easily lost. In proper usage, this
post should not end
From M-W Online (just to show that I did look this up before replying).

2 entries found for complimentary.
To select an entry, click on it.
complimentarycomplimentary close

Main Entry: complimentary close
Function: noun
: the words (as sincerely yours) that conventionally come immediately before
the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for the
receiver -- called also complimentary closing
Robert:
You are certainly correct in your usage, and I was wrong in my original
judgment. I suppose one is truly complimenting his correspondent in these
closings, but I can't help it. To me, the closing is complementing the
letter--completing or filling it out with some formulaic phrase.

Not something I will lose sleep over, nor try to persuade the
(American-speaking) world to change. I suspect I have only had one or two
reasons to use the expression in the last 50 years, but teachers would need
it, of course. Otherwise, I suppose I would simply say "closing", or
"informal (or business, or formal) closing".

I really learn something new every day in these groups. Or shall I say
"relearn". I just remembered to spell "judgment" (changed it from my more
frequent "judgement") in the American style.
Maria Conlon
2005-02-05 17:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Durkin
the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for the
receiver -- called also complimentary closing
You are certainly correct in your usage, and I was wrong in my
original judgment. I suppose one is truly complimenting his
correspondent in these closings, but I can't help it. To me, the
closing is complementing the letter--completing or filling it out
with some formulaic phrase.
M-W online says:
Main Entry: complimentary close
Function: noun
: the words (as sincerely yours) that conventionally come immediately
before the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for the
receiver -- called also complimentary closing

So, no decision.

Complementarily yours,
Maria Conlon
Pat Durkin
2005-02-05 19:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Pat Durkin
the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for the
receiver -- called also complimentary closing
You are certainly correct in your usage, and I was wrong in my
original judgment. I suppose one is truly complimenting his
correspondent in these closings, but I can't help it. To me, the
closing is complementing the letter--completing or filling it out
with some formulaic phrase.
Main Entry: complimentary close
Function: noun
: the words (as sincerely yours) that conventionally come immediately
before the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for the
receiver -- called also complimentary closing
So, no decision.
Complementarily yours,
Maria Conlon
You managed to snip the part in which I also quoted M-W Online. I accept
the complimentary close. I just don't like it. Accepting reality is a bit
hard on me. I think I wasn't born for this world.

My compliments to you, too. Maria.
Maria Conlon
2005-02-05 21:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Pat Durkin
the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for the
receiver -- called also complimentary closing
You are certainly correct in your usage, and I was wrong in my
original judgment. I suppose one is truly complimenting his
correspondent in these closings, but I can't help it. To me, the
closing is complementing the letter--completing or filling it out
with some formulaic phrase.
Main Entry: complimentary close
Function: noun
Post by Pat Durkin
the words (as sincerely yours) that conventionally come immediately
before the signature of a letter and express the sender's regard for
the receiver -- called also complimentary closing
So, no decision.
Complementarily yours,
Maria Conlon
You managed to snip the part in which I also quoted M-W Online. I
accept the complimentary close. I just don't like it. Accepting
reality is a bit hard on me.
Looks like I need to re-read things before I post a reply.
Post by Pat Durkin
..... I think I wasn't born for this world.
That reminds me a little of a hymn I learned years ago (when I was a
Baptist):

This world is not my home,
I'm just a-passing thru,
My treasures are laid up
Somewhere beyond the blue;
The angels beckon me
From heaven's open door.
And I can't feel at home
In this world any more.
[...]

Midi at: http://tinyurl.com/6qft9
Post by Pat Durkin
My compliments to you, too. Maria.
<smile>

Maria Conlon
Pat Durkin
2005-02-06 04:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria Conlon
Post by Pat Durkin
You managed to snip the part in which I also quoted M-W Online. I
accept the complimentary close. I just don't like it. Accepting
reality is a bit hard on me.
Looks like I need to re-read things before I post a reply.
Post by Pat Durkin
..... I think I wasn't born for this world.
That reminds me a little of a hymn I learned years ago (when I was a
This world is not my home,
I'm just a-passing thru,
My treasures are laid up
Somewhere beyond the blue;
The angels beckon me
From heaven's open door.
And I can't feel at home
In this world any more.
[...]
Midi at: http://tinyurl.com/6qft9
Thanks for the site. I wouldn't go as far as being ready for heaven. Not
just yet. Keep those angels away from that doorway. I wouldn't want them
to feel rejected.
Steve Hayes
2005-02-06 18:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria Conlon
That reminds me a little of a hymn I learned years ago (when I was a
This world is not my home,
I'm just a-passing thru,
My treasures are laid up
Somewhere beyond the blue;
The angels beckon me
From heaven's open door.
And I can't feel at home
In this world any more.
[...]
It reminds me of the Incredible String Band (can never remember if they were
Mormons or Scientologists)

Farewell sorrow, praise God the open door
I ain't go no home in this world any more.

But for kitsch religious doggerel, the following from an Anglican children's
hymn book takes the cake:

Through meadow and wood
the cattle are good
the rabbits are thinking no evil
the anenomes white
are refined and polite
and the primroses all very civil

But perhaps you may rememvber this from your Baptist stage:

Can you wonder at the people being envious
When they see that we're as happy as can be?
For the glory of the Lord is all around us
We're happy as the birds up in a tree
Hallelujah! Hallejuljah!
Hallelujah for my sins are all forgiven
Very precious is Jesus
And my heart's a little Hallelujah Heaven.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Django Cat
2005-02-06 18:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Maria Conlon
That reminds me a little of a hymn I learned years ago (when I was a
This world is not my home,
I'm just a-passing thru,
My treasures are laid up
Somewhere beyond the blue;
The angels beckon me
From heaven's open door.
And I can't feel at home
In this world any more.
[...]
It reminds me of the Incredible String Band (can never remember if they were
Mormons or Scientologists)
Farewell sorrow, praise God the open door
I ain't go no home in this world any more.
But for kitsch religious doggerel, the following from an Anglican children's
Through meadow and wood
the cattle are good
the rabbits are thinking no evil
the anenomes white
are refined and polite
and the primroses all very civil
Can you wonder at the people being envious
When they see that we're as happy as can be?
For the glory of the Lord is all around us
We're happy as the birds up in a tree
Hallelujah! Hallejuljah!
Hallelujah for my sins are all forgiven
Very precious is Jesus
And my heart's a little Hallelujah Heaven.
My Great Grand Uncle was responsible for 'There's a Friend for Little
Children', which now I look at it isn't really all that bad.

DC
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-06 20:05:20 UTC
Permalink
On 06 Feb 2005, Steve Hayes wrote

-snip-
Post by Steve Hayes
But for kitsch religious doggerel, the following from an Anglican
Through meadow and wood
the cattle are good
the rabbits are thinking no evil
the anenomes white
are refined and polite
and the primroses all very civil
Do "evil" and "civil" rhyme in any known dialect?
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Steve Hayes
2005-02-07 03:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Do "evil" and "civil" rhyme in any known dialect?
That may vary according to values of "vil".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Michael Nitabach
2005-02-05 17:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that
doesn't end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours
faithfully". Anything with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Could you point me to some sources (preferably on-line) that explain
this convention in some detail?
Post by Robert Lieblich
The role of complimentary closing is served by
such as "Yours truly" or "Yours faithfully." There's nothing
wrong with making "Best regards" the last paragraph of the text,
but it still has to be followed by a complimentary closing where
such is required, as in a formal letter.
In contexts where complimentary closings are not necessary, e.g.,
e-mail or a usenet post, "Best regards" can still be the last line
of text. If so used, it should be followed by a period, not a
comma, But even when a period follows it, the subtle difference
between a last line of text followed by a period and a
complimentary closing followed by a comma is easily lost. In
proper usage, this post should not end
Best regards,
Liebs
but rather
Best regards.
I close all of my business correspondence--hard-copy and e-mail--as
follows:

Best regards,
Mike Nitabach

Do you really think this gives the wrong impression?
--
Mike Nitabach
Areff
2005-02-05 21:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that
doesn't end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours
faithfully". Anything with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Could you point me to some sources (preferably on-line) that explain
this convention in some detail?
Post by Robert Lieblich
The role of complimentary closing is served by
such as "Yours truly" or "Yours faithfully." There's nothing
wrong with making "Best regards" the last paragraph of the text,
but it still has to be followed by a complimentary closing where
such is required, as in a formal letter.
In contexts where complimentary closings are not necessary, e.g.,
e-mail or a usenet post, "Best regards" can still be the last line
of text. If so used, it should be followed by a period, not a
comma, But even when a period follows it, the subtle difference
between a last line of text followed by a period and a
complimentary closing followed by a comma is easily lost. In
proper usage, this post should not end
Best regards,
Liebs
but rather
Best regards.
I close all of my business correspondence--hard-copy and e-mail--as
Best regards,
Mike Nitabach
Do you really think this gives the wrong impression?
I do. I'm shocked, *shocked* that you do this. Great Scott, you should
know better. In e-mail it's perfectly fine. But in a *letter*? That
deserves a big fat Oy!

It would be like using a comma instead of a colon after the greeting, you
dig? Not proper, yo. You don't have to go full Liebsian on this -- a
"Sincerely yours" should be fine for the close.
--
Steny '08!
Robert Lieblich
2005-02-06 02:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal letter that
doesn't end with either "Yours sincerely" or "Yours
faithfully". Anything with "Regards" is suspect.
What's wrong with "Best regards"?
As a matter of convention, "Best regards" is not regarded as a
proper complimentary closing for a formal letter, in the same way
that even the most dapper business suit is not proper attire for a
formal wedding.
Could you point me to some sources (preferably on-line) that explain
this convention in some detail?
Here's one: <http://tinyurl.com/5hrkg> The key language: "Ending
(complimentary close) If the letter begins Dear Sir, Dear Sirs,
Dear Madam, Dear Mesdames or Dear Sir or Madam, the COMPLIMENTARY
CLOSE should be Yours faithfully.When writing to American firms,
Respectfully yours(very formal) or Yours truly (less formal) should
be used."

Remember, we're talking *formal* correspondence.

Here are some others of varying coverage and authority:

http://www.kelleycom.com/hl_archives/hl1996/hl_1996_btrbusletters.html
("Complete your letter by using a complimentary closing. If you want
a formal close, use Respectfully yours, or Very truly yours. A less
formal close is Sincerely or Sincerely yours. An informal closing,
between you and a colleague or friend might be As ever or Regards.
Include your signature, followed by your printed name and title."

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/letters/l/bl_mblock_p_2.htm
("Complimentary Close: ... What you type here depends on the tone
and degree of formality. For example, Respectfully yours (very
formal);
Sincerely (typical, less formal); Very truly yours (polite,
neutral);
Cordially yours (friendly, informal))."

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rmf8a/gaskell/Ltr_Wrtg.htm ("The
Complimentary Close is the phrase of courtesy, respect or endearment
used at the end of a letter. Social letters admit of an almost
infinite variety of forms of complimentary closing, and are
generally prompted by the feeling of the moment, and should be
nicely adopted to the relation of the parties, not too familiar, or
too formal. Business letters, or letters of any kind written to
strangers or mere acquaintances, the customary form is 'Yours truly,
'Yours respectfully,' 'Yours very truly,' 'Truly yours,' etc.")

http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/handbook/hb/431-2-h/chap4.html (how
one US Govt agency does it).

I could go on.

[ ... ]
Post by Michael Nitabach
I close all of my business correspondence--hard-copy and e-mail--as
Best regards,
Mike Nitabach
Do you really think this gives the wrong impression?
Depend who you're trying to impress. It's kinda like the rules for
the use of "whom," innit?

We know, because he told us, that even an old fart like The Coop
doesn't know from borscht about formal and informal dress (formal in
the US is ordinarily black tie; informal is business suit) -- and
the kids don't even own ties, let alone formal dress. So most of
your audience, particularly for e-mail, are utterly ignorant of the
formalities. It's not hard to impress people who have no
standards. Hell, there are a few scattered souls who think I'm a
good lawyer.

Styles evolve much as languages evolve. It's all a matter of
observing (or changing) the conventions. There was a time when
observing the conventions of correspondence marked one as aware of
the proprieties and obedient to them -- just as there was a time
when men wore jacket and tie to athletic events, for plane and train
travel, and to informal parties. Now you're lucky if the guy
sitting next to you isn't wearing shorts and a tank top. Maybe this
is progress; there's much to be said for comfort. But if some
deluded soul is still interested in what's formal, let's try to come
up with the right answer.
--
Liebs
Alan Follett
2005-02-05 18:46:12 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com (Adrian=A0Bailey) wrote:

<snip>
Post by Adrian Bailey
Well, I raise an eyebrow if I receive a formal
letter that doesn't end with either "Yours
sincerely" or "Yours faithfully". Anything with
"Regards" is suspect.
And anything with "Yours in Cthulhu" is downright unsettling.

Alan Follett
Tony Cooper
2005-02-04 23:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
The words used in the salutation or complimentary close of a letter
are seldom paid attention to. I would not be surprised at all to see:

Dear Mr Richguy:

We have your wife. Leave $100,000 in small bills in your mailbox at
midnight if you want to see her again. Do not call the police.

Enclosed please find her left ear.

With kindest personal regards,

Barking Mad Terrorist Cell #156
John Dean
2005-02-04 23:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
We use:

"You are, Sir, my most humble and obedient servant"

Especially apposite writing to MPs.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-04 23:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dean
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a
somewhat unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would
be the ending to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than
"Sincerely". All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like
the archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
"You are, Sir, my most humble and obedient servant"
Especially apposite writing to MPs.
Ah, yes: from "The Guide to English Manners". Along the lines of "It
is customary to engage your fellow passengers on public transport and
in elevators in personal conservation; a common approach is to ask
them how much they earn".
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
John Dean
2005-02-04 23:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by John Dean
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a
somewhat unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would
be the ending to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than
"Sincerely". All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like
the archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
"You are, Sir, my most humble and obedient servant"
Especially apposite writing to MPs.
Ah, yes: from "The Guide to English Manners". Along the lines of "It
is customary to engage your fellow passengers on public transport and
in elevators in personal conservation; a common approach is to ask
them how much they earn".
"Do not omit to test the famous echo in the British Museum reading Room"
--
John Dean
Oxford
Rushtown
2005-02-05 00:04:16 UTC
Permalink
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
old.
1). Told someone he had bad teeth when he was beating me in a debate at
Hyde Park Corner. Even my, until then, supporters in the audience
thought that was bad form.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I and two American friends in soccer, "But you guys are
cheating." They really looked hurt. The "just kidding" barely
unruffled the feathers.
3). Taking a slice from the middle of the sliced pound cake.
4). Talking politics without checking what people believed. I told my
Protestant cousins in Newry that we Americans would one day get them
their freedom from the British.
5). Turned off the bathroom light in the "loo" at a pub. After I sat
down some guy came up and said, "Did your mother teach you always to do
that." When I sobered up I figured out what I had done.
6). Bragging about my car and how much I as a Spec 4 in the Army.
Rushtown
2005-02-05 00:15:56 UTC
Permalink
ps, I mean "how much I made as a Spec 4". I didn't even mention all
the Americans who have loudly asked, when first alighting on the soil
of the mother country, "Do they speak English here.?" (One of my kids
friends asked that as we left for a trip together to the British Isles.)
Gistak
2005-02-05 16:29:57 UTC
Permalink
On 2/4/05 7:15 PM, in article
Post by Rushtown
ps, I mean "how much I made as a Spec 4". I didn't even mention all
the Americans who have loudly asked, when first alighting on the soil
of the mother country, "Do they speak English here.?" (One of my kids
friends asked that as we left for a trip together to the British Isles.)
Kids often don't know much. How many adults with a high school education
would ask that?

P
Adrian Bailey
2005-02-05 01:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
old.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I
Oy!
Post by Rushtown
and two American friends in soccer, "But you guys are
cheating." They really looked hurt. The "just kidding" barely
unruffled the feathers.
6). Bragging about my car and how much I [made] as a Spec 4 in the Army.
If an American mentions to me how much they earn, they are surprised to find
themselves in a long discussion on the economics and ethics of overpay. I'm
a nice guy though: I do throw in a free pack of Prozac.

Adrian
Tony Cooper
2005-02-05 01:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Bailey
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
old.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I
Oy!
Post by Rushtown
and two American friends in soccer, "But you guys are
cheating." They really looked hurt. The "just kidding" barely
unruffled the feathers.
6). Bragging about my car and how much I [made] as a Spec 4 in the Army.
If an American mentions to me how much they earn
You phrase that as if it's a regular occurrence. Is it?
Post by Adrian Bailey
they are surprised to find
themselves in a long discussion on the economics and ethics of overpay. I'm
a nice guy though: I do throw in a free pack of Prozac.
I am often tempted to throw in a long discussion on the economics and
ethics on the under-utilization of staff when Europeans start talking
about how much vacation/holiday time they get.
Philip Holman
2005-02-05 06:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Bailey
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
old.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I
Oy!
Post by Rushtown
and two American friends in soccer, "But you guys are
cheating." They really looked hurt. The "just kidding" barely
unruffled the feathers.
6). Bragging about my car and how much I [made] as a Spec 4 in the Army.
If an American mentions to me how much they earn, they are surprised to find
themselves in a long discussion on the economics and ethics of
overpay.
Depending on who's listening that could backfire into a pay cut. You
could console yourself with the notion of helping the economy and being
ethically superior.

Phil H
Gistak
2005-02-05 16:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian Bailey
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
old.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I
Oy!
Post by Rushtown
and two American friends in soccer, "But you guys are
cheating." They really looked hurt. The "just kidding" barely
unruffled the feathers.
6). Bragging about my car and how much I [made] as a Spec 4 in the Army.
If an American mentions to me how much they earn, they are surprised to find
themselves in a long discussion on the economics and ethics of overpay. I'm
a nice guy though: I do throw in a free pack of Prozac.
What if a non-American does it? By the way, you may have something here. A
spec-4 isn't exactly a mogul. This was a 19 year old kid doing the bragging.

P
Maria Conlon
2005-02-05 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Rushtown wrote:...
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19
years old.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I
Oy!
I would have said "Oy! Oy!"

Maria Conlon
Phil C.
2005-02-05 12:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
<details snipped>

It does work the other way round. I knew of somebody who, having lived
in continental Europe, was sent by his firm to a Bible Belt area of
the USA. When the family were invited to a barbecue his pre-pubescent
daughter just stripped off to go in the pool, as was her custom. Bad
idea.

When I ran a market stall in Cambridge I had a lot of American tourist
customers in the summer months. Nearly all were pleasant and polite -
as was I even though many just wanted directions. We're all tourists
sometimes.
--
Phil C.
Gistak
2005-02-05 16:27:44 UTC
Permalink
On 2/4/05 7:04 PM, in article
Post by Rushtown
We Americans do not need to be taught how to behave in a way that is
considered really rude, or dumb, to the Brits. It's in our genes.
Speak for yourself. If you had done any of those things in MY part of the
US, you would considered rude or stupid. Maybe you're just joking in
implying that these things are rude in the U.K. but not in the US?
Post by Rushtown
Things I did or said on my first trip to the British Isles at 19 years
old.
1). Told someone he had bad teeth when he was beating me in a debate at
Hyde Park Corner. Even my, until then, supporters in the audience
thought that was bad form.
2). Said, jokingly, to a group of 13 year olds that were beating my
brother and I and two American friends in soccer, "But you guys are
cheating." They really looked hurt. The "just kidding" barely
unruffled the feathers.
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The British,
forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons, often say that
Americans don't understand sarcasm. I think that when they come to the US,
their sarcasm is misunderstood because people know that they're from a
slightly different culture, and aren't sure what they mean.
Post by Rushtown
3). Taking a slice from the middle of the sliced pound cake.
4). Talking politics without checking what people believed. I told my
Protestant cousins in Newry that we Americans would one day get them
their freedom from the British.
5). Turned off the bathroom light in the "loo" at a pub. After I sat
down some guy came up and said, "Did your mother teach you always to do
that." When I sobered up I figured out what I had done.
6). Bragging about my car and how much I as a Spec 4 in the Army.
To any non-Americans reading this, don't get too excited about how rude the
Yanks are. The above examples are out of line anywhere.

P
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-05 17:00:56 UTC
Permalink
On 05 Feb 2005, Gistak wrote

-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
John Dean
2005-02-05 17:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
I think Gistak was being ironic ...
--
John Dean
Oxford
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-05 17:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dean
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
I think Gistak was being ironic ...
It'd be nice to think so....
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Gistak
2005-02-06 23:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by John Dean
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
I think Gistak was being ironic ...
It'd be nice to think so....
No such luck.

I just searched Google groups for the phrase, "Americans don't understand
sarcasm," and got 44 hits. That's searching for the EXACT phrase, mind you,
which obviously limits the results considerably.

In having a look at some of them, I'd say that there is a mix of British
people using "irony" and "sarcasm" more or less as synonyms, as well as
those who seem to specifically be talking about sarcasm.

You did qualify your post by saying, "as far as I know." Now you know more.

P
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-06 23:31:46 UTC
Permalink
On 2/5/05 12:18 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by John Dean
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed
not to understand.
I think Gistak was being ironic ...
It'd be nice to think so....
No such luck.
I just searched Google groups for the phrase, "Americans don't
understand sarcasm," and got 44 hits. That's searching for the
EXACT phrase, mind you, which obviously limits the results
considerably.
In having a look at some of them, I'd say that there is a mix of
British people using "irony" and "sarcasm" more or less as
synonyms, as well as those who seem to specifically be talking
about sarcasm.
You did qualify your post by saying, "as far as I know." Now you know more.
You must be new here: I'm careful when I write, and always qualify my
posts when I'm not 100% certain.

You, on the other hand, didn't qualify your first one -- that "The
British...often say..." -- in any way whatsoever.

So since you've google, let's look at that. Let's use the UK google
site, as that was the group to which your generalisation applied.
(That was the one about "the British", remember: not "some/many
British people I have met".)

If I google for your phrase at www.google.co.uk and choose "UK sites",
I get 2 hits, one of which is omitted due to duplication. Google the
same way for "Americans don't understand irony", and there are 109
hits. That doesn't suggest that the "sarcasm" version qualifies as
"often".

Now you know more, too.
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Michael Mendelsohn
2005-02-06 23:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
I just searched Google groups for the phrase, "Americans don't
understand sarcasm," and got 44 hits. That's searching for the
EXACT phrase, mind you, which obviously limits the results
considerably.
If I google for your phrase at www.google.co.uk and choose "UK sites",
I get 2 hits, one of which is omitted due to duplication. Google the
same way for "Americans don't understand irony", and there are 109
hits. That doesn't suggest that the "sarcasm" version qualifies as
"often".
Ironically, Gistak turning to google has profited Harvey. ;)

Cheers
Michael
--
It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend
in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country
and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.
-- Ronald Reagan, October 10, 1965
Gistak
2005-02-06 23:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 12:18 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by John Dean
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed
not to understand.
I think Gistak was being ironic ...
It'd be nice to think so....
No such luck.
I just searched Google groups for the phrase, "Americans don't
understand sarcasm," and got 44 hits. That's searching for the
EXACT phrase, mind you, which obviously limits the results
considerably.
In having a look at some of them, I'd say that there is a mix of
British people using "irony" and "sarcasm" more or less as
synonyms, as well as those who seem to specifically be talking
about sarcasm.
You did qualify your post by saying, "as far as I know." Now you know more.
Not at all. But then, this has been cross-posted.
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
I'm careful when I write, and always qualify my
posts when I'm not 100% certain.
"always"? Heh heh. I guess you're 100% certain of that.
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
You, on the other hand, didn't qualify your first one -- that "The
British...often say..." -- in any way whatsoever.
You're absolutely right. Many of the British whom I've spoken with or read
on Usenet or other places have said so. My mistake and I admit it without
irony or sarcasm.

Now that I've searched a bit, I will say that apparently many British people
have made the claim about sarcasm, even those I haven't personally spoken or
dealt with. "Many" meaning, "quite a bit more than a few." "Quite a bit" and
"few" can be defined as you like. "As you like" can as well.
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
So since you've google, let's look at that. Let's use the UK google
site, as that was the group to which your generalisation applied.
Wait a moment, please. I said that I searched google GROUPS, which includes
all kinds of newsgroups, with all sorts of people, including British people.

I also said that I read a few of the posts, which is kind of important.
There are plenty of people who seem to be (claim to be) British who say what
you didn't realize that any British person ever claimed.
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
(That was the one about "the British", remember: not "some/many
British people I have met".)
If I google for your phrase at www.google.co.uk and choose "UK sites",
I get 2 hits, one of which is omitted due to duplication.
Wait a minute. Now it has to be only UK Web sites? On Usenet you have lots
of posts by lots of British people talking to and about Americans. THAT'S a
good place to look, which is why I looked there.
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Google the
same way for "Americans don't understand irony", and there are 109
hits. That doesn't suggest that the "sarcasm" version qualifies as
"often".
Heheh. Wow, I forgot to define "often." Well, I can admit that UK Web sites
don't make the claim often. Can you admit that there are more than a handful
of British people making the EXACT claim that you previously though NONE
would?

P
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-07 08:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
If I google for your phrase at www.google.co.uk and choose "UK
sites", I get 2 hits, one of which is omitted due to duplication.
Wait a minute. Now it has to be only UK Web sites?
Ummm...because that provides a likely sample of British usage? Which
is what you were claiming knowledge of.
Post by Gistak
On Usenet you have lots of posts by lots of British people talking
to and about Americans. THAT'S a good place to look, which is why
I looked there.
But if you wish to examine what "the British" say, merely stating that
"there are a lots of posts in there by British posters" is a lot less
focussed than "these are statements which are *llikely* to have been
made by from British writers".
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Google the same way for "Americans don't understand irony", and
there are 109 hits. That doesn't suggest that the "sarcasm"
version qualifies as "often".
Heheh. Wow, I forgot to define "often." Well, I can admit that UK
Web sites don't make the claim often.
Good to see you're beginning to twig as to the nature of the objection;
well done.
Post by Gistak
Can you admit that there are more than a handful of British people
making the EXACT claim that you previously though NONE would?
More than a handful? Not really: I found a total of one on UK
websites. The proportion of the "irony" to "sarcasm" versions even in
google groups makes it a very small handful -- and there's less
certainty that those statements can be ascribed to British writers.

But now that you've dropped the "often", and seemingly changed your
statement ("The British...often say...") to "Some British people appear
sometimes to say..." -- well, I have no difficulty with that
formulation.
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Michael Mendelsohn
2005-02-06 23:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
I just searched Google groups for the phrase, "Americans don't understand
sarcasm," and got 44 hits. That's searching for the EXACT phrase, mind you,
which obviously limits the results considerably.
From my side of google.de, I get the following numbers:
-web--groups-
"Americans don't understand irony" 456 415
"Americans understand irony" 87 86
"Americans don't understand sarcasm" 77 91
"Americans understand sarcasm" 17 26

Harvey seems to be right.

Cheers
Michael
--
It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend
in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country
and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.
-- Ronald Reagan, October 10, 1965
Gistak
2005-02-07 00:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Mendelsohn
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
I just searched Google groups for the phrase, "Americans don't understand
sarcasm," and got 44 hits. That's searching for the EXACT phrase, mind you,
which obviously limits the results considerably.
-web--groups-
"Americans don't understand irony" 456 415
"Americans understand irony" 87 86
"Americans don't understand sarcasm" 77 91
"Americans understand sarcasm" 17 26
Harvey seems to be right.
Right about what? He said that, as far as he knew, the British NEVER claim
that Americans don't understand sarcasm. Now, he may not be wrong, in that I
can't prove what he knew. But anyone drawing the conclusion that the British
never make this claim IS wrong.

My claim was that the British often say it about sarcasm. If we only go by
your numbers, then I think my claim was valid. Anyway, to be strictly
accurate, all I can REALLY claim is that British people have said it to me
enough times to say that they have often said it to me.

P
Carmen L. Abruzzi
2005-02-05 18:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-05 19:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Gistak
2005-02-06 23:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.

P
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-06 23:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.

(Then again, the omission of any irony in a discussion of irony might
be no irony might be ironic.)
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Gistak
2005-02-06 23:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you think that
the previous statement was true? Well, there you have it. I assumed that you
were using irony, saying words of agreement, but actually disagreeing.

If you agreed, then where was the sarcasm? Just in agreeing?
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
(Then again, the omission of any irony in a discussion of irony might
be no irony might be ironic.)
Now you're treading deep waters.

P
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-06 23:36:54 UTC
Permalink
On 2/6/05 6:14 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was
no irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you
think that the previous statement was true? Well, there you have
it. I assumed that you were using irony, saying words of
agreement, but actually disagreeing.
That's the point: "saying words of agreement, but actually
disagreeing" is sarcasm. It's not irony.
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Gistak
2005-02-07 00:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/6/05 6:14 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was
no irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you
think that the previous statement was true? Well, there you have
it. I assumed that you were using irony, saying words of
agreement, but actually disagreeing.
That's the point: "saying words of agreement, but actually
disagreeing" is sarcasm. It's not irony.
You have it exactly wrong, and if you're serious, then this situation is
remarkably ironic, and verges on surreal.

Irony is exactly what you say it isn't (it also means other things, like a
turn of events that would not be expected from the circumstances).

Sarcasm is a biting or stinging remark (that often uses irony, but doesn't
have to).

Some help:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+irony&btnG=Search

P
Carmen L. Abruzzi
2005-02-07 01:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/6/05 6:14 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was
no irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you
think that the previous statement was true? Well, there you have
it. I assumed that you were using irony, saying words of
agreement, but actually disagreeing.
That's the point: "saying words of agreement, but actually
disagreeing" is sarcasm. It's not irony.
You have it exactly wrong, and if you're serious, then this situation is
remarkably ironic, and verges on surreal.
Irony is exactly what you say it isn't (it also means other things, like a
turn of events that would not be expected from the circumstances).
I can see how the subtle distinction might be elusive, but
statements such as "yeah, right" are not ironic if everyone
understands that the opposite of what is said is what is
meant. Now, if someone does not grasp that what is meant is
the opposite of what is said, that would be ironic, and one
might say "ironically, she didn't catch the sarcastic tone
and thought they were in complete agreement".
Post by Gistak
Sarcasm is a biting or stinging remark (that often uses irony, but doesn't
have to).
No, no. Saying, "you're a fat, drunken slob" to a fat
drunken slob is not sarcasm, it's just being blunt. Saying,
"How charming you are" to a fat, drunken slob is sarcasm.
It would be ironic only if the fat drunken slob takes it as
a compliment.
Post by Gistak
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+irony&btnG=Search
Yes, that page is egregiously setting forth a great deal of
misinformation. But I think there's a clue there as to how
this all became so terribly confused over there in Britain.
It's the bit about irony being an "expression that comes
across contrary to the intended meaning, often *because the
audience knows what the speaker does not*." Now that
_would_ be irony, and I can see how this might lead to the
misuse of the term to mean *any* instance in which words
convey the opposite of their literal meaning.
Gistak
2005-02-07 05:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/6/05 6:14 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was
no irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you
think that the previous statement was true? Well, there you have
it. I assumed that you were using irony, saying words of
agreement, but actually disagreeing.
That's the point: "saying words of agreement, but actually
disagreeing" is sarcasm. It's not irony.
Not according to my dictionaries, which I'll quote below.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
You have it exactly wrong, and if you're serious, then this situation is
remarkably ironic, and verges on surreal.
Irony is exactly what you say it isn't (it also means other things, like a
turn of events that would not be expected from the circumstances).
I can see how the subtle distinction might be elusive, but
statements such as "yeah, right" are not ironic if everyone
understands that the opposite of what is said is what is
meant.
According to my dictionaries, irony is when you intend the person to know
that you mean the opposite of what you say. When you intend this to be
hurtful, that's sarcasm.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Now, if someone does not grasp that what is meant is
the opposite of what is said, that would be ironic, and one
might say "ironically, she didn't catch the sarcastic tone
and thought they were in complete agreement".
Post by Gistak
Sarcasm is a biting or stinging remark (that often uses irony, but doesn't
have to).
No, no.
Yes! Yes!
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Saying, "you're a fat, drunken slob" to a fat
drunken slob is not sarcasm, it's just being blunt.
I would agree with that.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Saying,
"How charming you are" to a fat, drunken slob is sarcasm.
AND irony. According to the dictionaries below. I don't know which ones
you're using.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
It would be ironic only if the fat drunken slob takes it as
a compliment.
I completely understand what you're saying the word means. I think you may
be wrong. Or at least, I don't think that I'm wrong.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+irony&btnG=Search
Yes, that page is egregiously setting forth a great deal of
misinformation.
That page is merely google's aggregation of definitions for the word that
exist on the Web.

Mind you, I'm not saying that your definition is wrong. It isn't. It's just
that the word ALSO refers to saying one thing, while intending the reader or
listener to understand that you mean the opposite.

So here are some dictionary definitions. Interestingly, the British sources
seem to say that sarcasm is a biting remark that ALWAYS uses irony (the
saying of one thing while intending to convey the opposite). The American
sources seem to say that sarcasm often or usually does, but doesn't have to.

Note that BOTH American and British sources say that a main definition of
irony is to say one thing, but intend to convey the opposite.

Merriam-Webster "IRONY"

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irony

"the use of words to express something other than and especially the
opposite of the literal meaning"

Merriam-Webster "SARCASM"

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sarcasm

"a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give
pain"

American Heritage Dictionary "IRONY"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony

"The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to
their literal meaning"

American Heritage Dictionary "SARCASM"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

"A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound"

And here are some British dictionaries:

Cambridge "IRONY"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD

"a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous or
angry, meaning for the words used:
Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were able to
stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not pleased)."

Cambridge "SARCASM" [note: this dictionary seems to say that the only
difference is that sarcasm is always intended to hurt, whereas irony isn't]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=69834&dict=CALD

"the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite of what they say, and
which are made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something
in an amusing way"

The Compact Oxford Dictionary (sorry, no link, since it's on my desk)
"IRONY"

Only two definitions. I'll include them both, since you can't go see them
online:

1. The expression of meaning through the use of language which normally
signifies the opposite, typically for humorous effect.

2. A state of affairs that appears perversely contrary to what one expects.

The Compact Oxford Dictionary "SARCASM" (again, like the Cambridge, the only
distinction seems to be in the USE of the irony):

"The use of irony to mock or convey contempt"

I haven't looked up any others.

P
Gistak
2005-02-07 05:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
It would be ironic only if the fat drunken slob takes it as
a compliment.
I completely understand what you're saying the word means. I think you may
be wrong. Or at least, I don't think that I'm wrong.
Let me clear this part up. I don't think you're wrong in your definition of
the word. I think that you're wrong in saying that it doesn't ALSO mean to
purposely express the opposite of the literal words you're using.

P
Carmen L. Abruzzi
2005-02-07 06:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/6/05 6:14 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 2:59 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was
no irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you
think that the previous statement was true? Well, there you have
it. I assumed that you were using irony, saying words of
agreement, but actually disagreeing.
That's the point: "saying words of agreement, but actually
disagreeing" is sarcasm. It's not irony.
Not according to my dictionaries, which I'll quote below.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
You have it exactly wrong, and if you're serious, then this situation is
remarkably ironic, and verges on surreal.
Irony is exactly what you say it isn't (it also means other things, like a
turn of events that would not be expected from the circumstances).
I can see how the subtle distinction might be elusive, but
statements such as "yeah, right" are not ironic if everyone
understands that the opposite of what is said is what is
meant.
According to my dictionaries, irony is when you intend the person to know
that you mean the opposite of what you say.
Lord, that's like saying that a secret is when you intend
the person to know that you're keeping something from him.
Post by Gistak
When you intend this to be
hurtful, that's sarcasm.
And when you intend him to be hurt by his lack of knowledge,
that's a surprise.

Where do they come up with these "definitions"?
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Now, if someone does not grasp that what is meant is
the opposite of what is said, that would be ironic, and one
might say "ironically, she didn't catch the sarcastic tone
and thought they were in complete agreement".
Post by Gistak
Sarcasm is a biting or stinging remark (that often uses irony, but doesn't
have to).
No, no.
Yes! Yes!
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Saying, "you're a fat, drunken slob" to a fat
drunken slob is not sarcasm, it's just being blunt.
I would agree with that.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Saying,
"How charming you are" to a fat, drunken slob is sarcasm.
AND irony. According to the dictionaries below. I don't know which ones
you're using.
I have no need of that hypothesis. Anyway, it's well known
that dictionaries are forced by the council to carry
obsolete and unaccepted meanings.
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
It would be ironic only if the fat drunken slob takes it as
a compliment.
I completely understand what you're saying the word means. I think you may
be wrong. Or at least, I don't think that I'm wrong.
No one thinks they're wrong.
Yeah, right, some help!
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+irony&btnG=Search
Yes, that page is egregiously setting forth a great deal of
misinformation.
That page is merely google's aggregation of definitions for the word that
exist on the Web.
Mind you, I'm not saying that your definition is wrong. It isn't. It's just
that the word ALSO refers to saying one thing, while intending the reader or
listener to understand that you mean the opposite.
So here are some dictionary definitions. Interestingly, the British sources
seem to say that sarcasm is a biting remark that ALWAYS uses irony (the
saying of one thing while intending to convey the opposite). The American
sources seem to say that sarcasm often or usually does, but doesn't have to.
Note that BOTH American and British sources say that a main definition of
irony is to say one thing, but intend to convey the opposite.
Merriam-Webster "IRONY"
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irony
"the use of words to express something other than and especially the
opposite of the literal meaning"
Bah!
Post by Gistak
Merriam-Webster "SARCASM"
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sarcasm
"a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give
pain"
Stuff and nonsense! Sure, sarcasm can be painful, but it
need not be.
Post by Gistak
American Heritage Dictionary "IRONY"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony
"The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to
their literal meaning"
Nonsense, that's sarcasm.
Post by Gistak
American Heritage Dictionary "SARCASM"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
"A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound"
Well, that's a bit harsh. It's perfectly possible to be
sarcastic in a gentle and friendly way.
Post by Gistak
Cambridge "IRONY"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD
"a means of expression which suggests a different, usually humorous or
Her voice heavy with irony, Simone said, "We're so pleased you were able to
stay so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not pleased)."
The only thing ironic about this is the use of the word
"irony" to mean "sarcasm". It would be sarcastic if they
were deliberately using the word "irony" to mock the British
misuse of the term, but I don't think that's what's going
on. If it is, then it's ironic that I'm arguing that this
is an example of the misuse of the term "irony".
Post by Gistak
Cambridge "SARCASM" [note: this dictionary seems to say that the only
difference is that sarcasm is always intended to hurt, whereas irony isn't]
Pfft! Fiddlesticks!
Post by Gistak
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=69834&dict=CALD
"the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite of what they say, and
which are made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something
in an amusing way"
"Or to criticize something in an amusing way". Well now,
we're getting somewhere. They seem to be at least admitting
that sarcasm need not be intended to hurt, and may be
amusing, but "criticize" does put a bit more of a damper on
the term than we should like.
Post by Gistak
The Compact Oxford Dictionary (sorry, no link, since it's on my desk)
"IRONY"
Only two definitions. I'll include them both, since you can't go see them
1. The expression of meaning through the use of language which normally
signifies the opposite, typically for humorous effect.
That's sarcasm.
Post by Gistak
2. A state of affairs that appears perversely contrary to what one expects.
Leave out the bit about perversion and you've got it.
Post by Gistak
The Compact Oxford Dictionary "SARCASM" (again, like the Cambridge, the only
"The use of irony to mock or convey contempt"
I haven't looked up any others.
P
Look, I will never accept the use of "irony" to refer to
merely saying the opposite of what one means as a jocular
way of pointing out the obvious. The usage might be loosely
described as ironic, but the effect is sarcasm, and sarcasm
need not be intended to mock or convey contempt, let alone
cut or wound. In fact it's rather ironic that the
dictionaries attribute these abilities to mere words in the
first place. No, sarcasm is often intended merely to prod,
to test, to see how one's friends will respond to one
pointing out that they obviously are in a situation just the
opposite of what one is saying. Those who do take offense,
who do believe that one meant to be hurtful, those are the
dangerous ones. The ones who accept it cheerfully and dish
it right back in the same manner are more or less OK.

Would you really say that someone telling a friend who's
just climbed out of a mudhole after slipping and falling in,
"my, you're looking fine tonight" was being 'ironic', rather
than 'sarcastic'? Speaking personally for myself, I can't
imagine doing so.
Alan Jones
2005-02-07 10:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Look, I will never accept the use of "irony" to refer to merely . The
usage might be loosely described as ironic, but the effect is sarcasm, and
sarcasm need not be intended to mock or convey contempt, let alone cut or
wound. In fact it's rather ironic that the dictionaries attribute these
abilities to mere words in the first place. No, sarcasm is often intended
merely to prod, to test, to see how one's friends will respond to one
pointing out that they obviously are in a situation just the opposite of
what one is saying. Those who do take offense, who do believe that one
meant to be hurtful, those are the dangerous ones. The ones who accept it
cheerfully and dish it right back in the same manner are more or less OK.
Would you really say that someone telling a friend who's just climbed out
of a mudhole after slipping and falling in, "my, you're looking fine
tonight" was being 'ironic', rather than 'sarcastic'? Speaking personally
for myself, I can't imagine doing so.
I used to think there was a Pondian issue here, but the US dictionary
definitions (which you so gaily dismiss) appear to back the BrE position, at
least as an option. To us speakers of BrE, "sarcasm" is by definition a
remark meant to be hurtful. Your mud-hole example is not sarcastic at all -
it's using mild irony to express friendly amusement: as you put it "saying
the opposite of what one means as a jocular way of pointing out the
obvious". The muddy friend (on the stiff-upper-lip principle) is expected
ruefully to agree, and the two will go off together to find some means of
getting the mud cleaned off. One brutally sarcastic remark, on the other
hand, could destroy a friendship. As a school teacher, I learned very early
that young pupils found it hard to grasp the difference, and took little
ironies as sarcasm: they soon learned, with practice, when irony is likely
to amuse the "victim" and when it hurts, and for their own part to respond
appropriately to the irony of others. But to be sarcasm, the hurt must be
intended.

As someone else pointed out, a non-ironic verbal attack, however vicious, is
not sarcasm, at least in BrE usage.

Alan Jones
Carmen L. Abruzzi
2005-02-07 01:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you think that
the previous statement was true? Well, there you have it. I assumed that you
were using irony, saying words of agreement, but actually disagreeing.
See, that's what I mean. Saying the opposite of what you
really mean is not irony, it's sarcasm.
Post by Gistak
If you agreed, then where was the sarcasm? Just in agreeing?
In using words of agreement to indicate he does not agree.
I can see how it might be thought ironic to do this, but
it's not irony if it's done in a fully conscious manner.

Now if he'd really meant to agree, but happened to use a
phrase that is normally taken as a sarcastic indication of
disagreement (i.e., "yeah, right"), *that* would be ironic.
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
(Then again, the omission of any irony in a discussion of irony might
be no irony might be ironic.)
Now you're treading deep waters.
P
Gistak
2005-02-07 05:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you think that
the previous statement was true? Well, there you have it. I assumed that you
were using irony, saying words of agreement, but actually disagreeing.
See, that's what I mean. Saying the opposite of what you
really mean is not irony, it's sarcasm.
Please see my other post. Basically, every single dictionary I consulted
says that a main definition of irony is to express a meaning that is the
opposite of the literal words you use.

When you do this to be cutting, then it's sarcasm.

I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Irony ALSO a definition
referring, more or less, to a turn of events that's not what would be
expected.

P
Django Cat
2005-02-07 07:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you think that
the previous statement was true? Well, there you have it. I assumed that you
were using irony, saying words of agreement, but actually disagreeing.
See, that's what I mean. Saying the opposite of what you
really mean is not irony, it's sarcasm.
Please see my other post. Basically, every single dictionary I consulted
says that a main definition of irony is to express a meaning that is the
opposite of the literal words you use.
When you do this to be cutting, then it's sarcasm.
I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Irony ALSO a definition
referring, more or less, to a turn of events that's not what would be
expected.
P
Isn't this quite easily resolved?

British people believe that smart arse remarks are often cool, and
therefore ironic.

American people think smart arse remarks are generally a pain in the
butt, and therefore sarcastic.

DC
Carmen L. Abruzzi
2005-02-07 08:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Django Cat
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you think that
the previous statement was true? Well, there you have it. I assumed that you
were using irony, saying words of agreement, but actually disagreeing.
See, that's what I mean. Saying the opposite of what you
really mean is not irony, it's sarcasm.
Please see my other post. Basically, every single dictionary I consulted
says that a main definition of irony is to express a meaning that is the
opposite of the literal words you use.
When you do this to be cutting, then it's sarcasm.
I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Irony ALSO a definition
referring, more or less, to a turn of events that's not what would be
expected.
P
Isn't this quite easily resolved?
British people believe that smart arse remarks are often cool, and
therefore ironic.
American people think smart arse remarks are generally a pain in the
butt, and therefore sarcastic.
Unfortunately it's nowhere near this simple. We Americans,
at least many of us, certainly do appreciate smart-ass
remarks, though we don't revere them as quite the height of
wit that our British cousins seem to consider them. No, for
us, they are more personal, friendly sorts of remarks,
nothing that one would say in public, outside of a fairly
intimate circle of friends. Certainly it wouldn't do to
subject a friend to (what the British would call) a bit of
"irony" in a public pub, merely to show how witty one can be.

On the other hand, I've met and become friends with certain
of my fellow-countrymen who seem to have no appreciation
whatsoever of the friendly use of sarcasm, be it ever so
intimate. They are shocked at the merest hint of anything
other than simple and direct compliments. And I'm not
talking about stuck up bastards, either, these are people
who just don't seem to "get it" with regard to sarcasm/irony.
Django Cat
2005-02-07 09:17:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:32:14 -0800, "Carmen L. Abruzzi"
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Django Cat
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Gistak
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Yeah, right.
Which is irony AND sarcasm. They're often used together.
They are indeed, but that comment was pure sarcasm -- there was no
irony in it at all. Not even a bit.
So, when you said, "yeah, right" you actually MEANT that yes, you think that
the previous statement was true? Well, there you have it. I assumed that you
were using irony, saying words of agreement, but actually disagreeing.
See, that's what I mean. Saying the opposite of what you
really mean is not irony, it's sarcasm.
Please see my other post. Basically, every single dictionary I consulted
says that a main definition of irony is to express a meaning that is the
opposite of the literal words you use.
When you do this to be cutting, then it's sarcasm.
I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Irony ALSO a definition
referring, more or less, to a turn of events that's not what would be
expected.
P
Isn't this quite easily resolved?
British people believe that smart arse remarks are often cool, and
therefore ironic.
American people think smart arse remarks are generally a pain in the
butt, and therefore sarcastic.
Unfortunately it's nowhere near this simple. We Americans,
at least many of us, certainly do appreciate smart-ass
remarks, though we don't revere them as quite the height of
wit that our British cousins seem to consider them. No, for
us, they are more personal, friendly sorts of remarks,
nothing that one would say in public, outside of a fairly
intimate circle of friends. Certainly it wouldn't do to
subject a friend to (what the British would call) a bit of
"irony" in a public pub, merely to show how witty one can be.
Trading wit with equals is one of life's pleasures whatever culture
you come from, and the mainstay of a lot of what AUE/EU is about.
Putting people down makes you a shit in any language. Doing it in the
pub can sometime invoke the 'smack in the mouth' sanction, and is not
always well advised.


DC. rec.org.mensa? Don't know & I don't care.
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-07 09:16:54 UTC
Permalink
-snip-
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Django Cat
Isn't this quite easily resolved?
British people believe that smart arse remarks are often cool,
and therefore ironic.
American people think smart arse remarks are generally a pain in
the butt, and therefore sarcastic.
Unfortunately it's nowhere near this simple. We Americans,
at least many of us, certainly do appreciate smart-ass
remarks, though we don't revere them as quite the height of
wit that our British cousins seem to consider them. No, for
us, they are more personal, friendly sorts of remarks,
nothing that one would say in public, outside of a fairly
intimate circle of friends. Certainly it wouldn't do to
subject a friend to (what the British would call) a bit of
"irony" in a public pub, merely to show how witty one can be.
I'd never thought of it in that context, but now that you mention it
the banter amongst my regular pub friends -- including the landlord --
could be taken in the wrong light as being pretty strong stuff.
Interesting.
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
On the other hand, I've met and become friends with certain
of my fellow-countrymen who seem to have no appreciation
whatsoever of the friendly use of sarcasm, be it ever so
intimate. They are shocked at the merest hint of anything
other than simple and direct compliments. And I'm not
talking about stuck up bastards, either, these are people
who just don't seem to "get it" with regard to sarcasm/irony.
For what it's worth -- and in spite of what may seem to be the case in
this thread -- I would strongly dispute the generalised statement that
"Americans don't get irony". That's way too sweeping a statement; it
should always be framed in the qualified manner you've suggested:
"Some Americans just don't seem to understand irony".

I think it's probably also fair to say that, on balance, a larger
proportion of British than American people are comfortable with both
irony and sarcasm.
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Richard Maurer
2005-02-07 10:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
For what it's worth -- and in spite of what may seem to be the case in
this thread -- I would strongly dispute the generalised statement that
"Americans don't get irony". That's way too sweeping a statement; it
should always be framed in the qualified manner you've suggested:
"Some Americans just don't seem to understand irony".


I usually translate this as:
"Americans don't get irony -- when performed by Brits using British
cultural references."
and say to myself "Of course not." We are struggling
to hear the words right, trying to fathom whether paying six shillings is
way too much or way too little, and can't hear the slight alterations
from expected public speech because we don't know the expected
public speech.

Lies, lies, it is all lies anyway. Don't want to overdo the
telling of lies (saying the opposite of what you mean).

-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Beautiful downtown Burbank ... well, you had to see it)
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-07 10:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
For what it's worth -- and in spite of what may seem to be the
case in this thread -- I would strongly dispute the
generalised statement that "Americans don't get irony".
That's way too sweeping a statement; it should always be
framed in the qualified manner you've suggested: "Some
Americans just don't seem to understand irony".
"Americans don't get irony -- when performed by Brits using
British cultural references."
and say to myself "Of course not." We are struggling
to hear the words right, trying to fathom whether paying six
shillings is way too much or way too little, and can't hear the
slight alterations from expected public speech because we don't
know the expected public speech.
Lies, lies, it is all lies anyway. Don't want to overdo the
telling of lies (saying the opposite of what you mean).
I think you're lying, there...
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Donna Richoux
2005-02-07 12:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
See, that's what I mean. Saying the opposite of what you
really mean is not irony, it's sarcasm.
In the US, that is called now, mostly, "sarcasm." In the UK-Plus, it is
called "irony."

The US mostly uses the word "irony" for something else, and the UK-Plus
uses the word "sarcasm" for something else. Pondal confusion.
Post by Gistak
Please see my other post. Basically, every single dictionary I consulted
says that a main definition of irony is to express a meaning that is the
opposite of the literal words you use.
It is true that the dictionary definitions do not straighten out this
problem. No dictionaries can reflect current use instantly and exactly.
I believe it to be a case where the US dictionaries have not yet caught
up with current usage (even though -- ironically -- most critics accuse
them of being too fast to reflect current usage).
Post by Gistak
When you do this to be cutting, then it's sarcasm.
That's the UK-Plus use of "sarcasm," and the idea of "cutting" still
shows up in the US dictionaries. I suspect that "cutting, wounding" idea
will be the next thing to go.
Post by Gistak
I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: Irony ALSO a definition
referring, more or less, to a turn of events that's not what would be
expected.
That's the US "irony". The poetic-justice thing.

This problem, with its confusing overlap, comes up (in
alt.usage.english) about every two months. I guess it's time to hash out
a FAQ entry acceptable to all.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Django Cat
2005-02-06 23:16:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:36:15 -0800, "Carmen L. Abruzzi"
Post by Carmen L. Abruzzi
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
Sure, they say "irony", but they mean "sarcasm".
Ah, so you *don't* know the difference then.
DC
Steve Hayes
2005-02-06 02:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
Americans understand it OK. They just call it sarcasm.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Gistak
2005-02-06 22:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not to
understand.
MY British friends complain about sarcasm. They dutifully exclude me from
the rest of the Americans on the planet, of course, when making the
complaint.

But, if you like, I can rephrase. Certainly each of those shows use a large
helping of irony as well:

I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The British,
forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons, often say that
Americans don't understand IRONY.

P
Harvey Van Sickle
2005-02-06 23:10:34 UTC
Permalink
On 2/5/05 12:00 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand IRONY.
But that merely raises the question as to what attribute you're
claiming that Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons exhibit: sarcasm, or
irony?
--
Cheers, Harvey

Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Gistak
2005-02-06 23:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
On 2/5/05 12:00 PM, in article
Post by Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
Post by Gistak
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand sarcasm.
As far as I know, the British *never* say that Americans don't
understand sarcasm: it's *irony* that Americans are supposed not
to understand.
I think that jokes by a foreigner are often misunderstood. The
British, forgetting about Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons,
often say that Americans don't understand IRONY.
But that merely raises the question as to what attribute you're
claiming that Seinfeld, Friends, and the Simpsons exhibit: sarcasm, or
irony?
I'm claiming that they exhibit both. Wouldn't you agree?

P
Richard Chambers
2005-02-06 23:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gistak
To any non-Americans reading this, don't get too excited about how rude the
Yanks are. The above examples are out of line anywhere.
American tourists gained their reputation for rudeness during the 1950s. At
that time I was a schoolboy in Warwick, a tourist centre with its
magnificent castle. Even at the age of fifteen, I could see how rude some (a
significant minority) of the American tourists were, making loud comments on
the state of a country that was working hard to recover from the battering
it had received during the war. Many (again, a significant minority) of the
tourists struck me as not actually interested in the country they were
visiting. They seemed more interested in accruing the count of how many
countries they could visit during their two-week vacation, than in learning
anything at all about any one of these countries. In a few insensitive
individuals, they appeared to be tasteless flaunters of wealth.

A reputation, once won, is hard to lose. The public perception of another
nation is usually 40 or 50 years out of date, and will often focus upon the
actions of a highly visible minority. In those 50 years, somebody has
(apparently) been educating American tourists about what is, and is not,
acceptable in a foreign country. Nowadays, you hardly ever see an American
tourist behaving badly in this country. Yet the bad reputation remains.

In the meantime, the British have become more affluent and are going abroad
in large numbers. Certain elements of these British tourists have earned,
for all of us, the reputation of boorishness, rudeness, drunkenness, being
sick in the street, and fighting. A reputation now far worse than that of
the US Americans of the 1950s.

Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
don groves
2005-02-06 23:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Chambers
Post by Gistak
To any non-Americans reading this, don't get too excited about how rude
the
Post by Gistak
Yanks are. The above examples are out of line anywhere.
American tourists gained their reputation for rudeness during the 1950s. At
that time I was a schoolboy in Warwick, a tourist centre with its
magnificent castle. Even at the age of fifteen, I could see how rude some (a
significant minority) of the American tourists were, making loud comments on
the state of a country that was working hard to recover from the battering
it had received during the war. Many (again, a significant minority) of the
tourists struck me as not actually interested in the country they were
visiting. They seemed more interested in accruing the count of how many
countries they could visit during their two-week vacation, than in learning
anything at all about any one of these countries. In a few insensitive
individuals, they appeared to be tasteless flaunters of wealth.
A reputation, once won, is hard to lose. The public perception of another
nation is usually 40 or 50 years out of date, and will often focus upon the
actions of a highly visible minority. In those 50 years, somebody has
(apparently) been educating American tourists about what is, and is not,
acceptable in a foreign country. Nowadays, you hardly ever see an American
tourist behaving badly in this country. Yet the bad reputation remains.
In the meantime, the British have become more affluent and are going abroad
in large numbers. Certain elements of these British tourists have earned,
for all of us, the reputation of boorishness, rudeness, drunkenness, being
sick in the street, and fighting.
Yes, and the football fans are even worse!
Post by Richard Chambers
A reputation now far worse than that of
the US Americans of the 1950s.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Gistak
2005-02-06 23:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Chambers
Post by Gistak
To any non-Americans reading this, don't get too excited about how rude
the
Post by Gistak
Yanks are. The above examples are out of line anywhere.
American tourists gained their reputation for rudeness during the 1950s. At
that time I was a schoolboy in Warwick, a tourist centre with its
magnificent castle. Even at the age of fifteen, I could see how rude some (a
significant minority) of the American tourists were, making loud comments on
the state of a country that was working hard to recover from the battering
it had received during the war. Many (again, a significant minority) of the
tourists struck me as not actually interested in the country they were
visiting. They seemed more interested in accruing the count of how many
countries they could visit during their two-week vacation, than in learning
anything at all about any one of these countries. In a few insensitive
individuals, they appeared to be tasteless flaunters of wealth.
Of course there are still (and always will be) "stereotypical" American (or
any other) travelers around.

I did a lot of traveling in Europe (spending well over a year there), and
always felt a cultural cringe when overhearing LOUD Americans speaking
negatively of some place in contrast to the good ol' USA.

But then, I was traveling for a long time with an Australian (now my wife)
who felt the same cringe when she heard Aussies doing "Aussie" things. I'm
sure the same holds true for others.

P
Don Phillipson
2005-02-05 06:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
That is precisely the point. Standard phrasing was developed
for business letters in the 19th century when speed and clarity
are more important than the emotional freight you nowadays
impose on the wording.
Post by Rushtown
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
Not among standard formulae, for the reasons given above.
Of course we are free to recycle putdowns wherever we like
and whenever our subjective expression is what matters most.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
James Silverton
2005-02-05 13:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a
somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the
ending to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than
"Sincerely". All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
That is precisely the point. Standard phrasing was developed
for business letters in the 19th century when speed and clarity
are more important than the emotional freight you nowadays
impose on the wording.
Post by Rushtown
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
Not among standard formulae, for the reasons given above.
Of course we are free to recycle putdowns wherever we like
and whenever our subjective expression is what matters most.
It could be said to be OT but the 20th century cartoonist, Ronald
Searle, had a series of drawings illustrating many terminations. IMHO,
"Your most obedient servant" (a formidable cigar-smoking tycoon type)
and "Yours faithfully" (a little begging dog with a man's face) are
particularly good. These appeared in "The Penguin Ronald Searle",
(1960), a book that, unfortunately, may be hard to find.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
James Silverton
2005-02-05 13:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Silverton
It could be said to be OT but the 20th century cartoonist, Ronald
Searle, had a series of drawings illustrating many terminations. IMHO,
"Your most obedient servant" (a formidable cigar-smoking tycoon type)
and "Yours faithfully" (a little begging dog with a man's face) are
particularly good. These appeared in "The Penguin Ronald Searle",
(1960), a book that, unfortunately, may be hard to find.
It appears that I described Ronald Searle inaccurately. To the best of
my knowledge, he is still flourishing, with many books in print.
Unfortunately, the Penguin book does not seem to be one of these. He
is also a remarkable artist, not simply a cartoonist.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Bill McCray
2005-02-06 01:39:23 UTC
Permalink
All of the discussion on this topic convinces me that I may have made
a wise decision some years ago. The salutation and closing carry no
really useful information, but apparently can cause offense where no
offense is intended. It seems to me to be safest to just omit them.

Bill

Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address.
Gistak
2005-02-05 16:28:14 UTC
Permalink
On 2/4/05 5:51 PM, in article
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
Interesting. I've never thought so at all.

P
Steve Hayes
2005-02-05 18:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
Back in the days when people pondered the meaning of such things (pre-1950, I
think)

the formal ending was

Yours faithfully,

the more intimate form was

Yours sincerely,

and others were distingtly informal.

Nowadays people use just about anything -- "Take care", "Ciao" and many others
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Pat Durkin
2005-02-05 19:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Rushtown
Having written many business letters I know that to convey a somewhat
unfriendly tone I should sign "Yours Truly". This would be the ending
to a letter about a past due account.
A more friendly letter ends "Sincerely". But why?
If you think about it "Yours Truly" seems friendlier than "Sincerely".
All "Sincerely" means is that I mean what I say.
"Yours Truly" is like "Yours Faithfully" or maybe a little like the
archaic "Your obiedient servant."
BTW, Do the British have an ending phrase (what's it called, the
opposite of a salutation?) that conveys a superior and distainful
attitude?
Back in the days when people pondered the meaning of such things (pre-1950, I
think)
the formal ending was
Yours faithfully,
the more intimate form was
Yours sincerely,
and others were distingtly informal.
Nowadays people use just about anything -- "Take care", "Ciao" and many others
I can remember arguing with my teacher about my use of "Very truly yours"
(and even "Sincerely yours") as being more "very sincerely his" than "Yours
truly" or "Yours sincerely". She thought that meanings in openings and
closings was very considerably wrong. The last thing one wants to do in any
business or formal letter is tell the truth. Impression and diplomacy
grease the wheels of business, especially between strangers. That was in
(or near) 1954, but I am sure that instructions in the formalities of
letter-writing continued much longer. Of course, private and informal
letter-writing never required the rigid formulas.
Steve Hayes
2005-02-06 03:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Durkin
I can remember arguing with my teacher about my use of "Very truly yours"
(and even "Sincerely yours") as being more "very sincerely his" than "Yours
truly" or "Yours sincerely". She thought that meanings in openings and
closings was very considerably wrong. The last thing one wants to do in any
business or formal letter is tell the truth. Impression and diplomacy
grease the wheels of business, especially between strangers. That was in
(or near) 1954, but I am sure that instructions in the formalities of
letter-writing continued much longer. Of course, private and informal
letter-writing never required the rigid formulas.
When I first joined AUE there was a regular contributor with the name "Truly
Donovan", and I thought it might be derived from the "Yours truly" letter
closing favoured by word processors like MS Word.

I later discovered that it was a real name and that it was a she not a he.

Where *is* Truly, by the way?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Robert Lieblich
2005-02-06 04:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Steve Hayes wrote:

[ ... ]
Post by Steve Hayes
Where *is* Truly, by the way?
On Amazon: <http://tinyurl.com/4r9uf>, and in the FAQ:
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhowdid.html>.

And probably somewhere in Colorado.

She do get around.
--
Liebs
Laura F Spira
2005-02-06 22:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Steve Hayes wrote:
.
Post by Steve Hayes
Where *is* Truly, by the way?
Fit and well and currently moving house somewhere in Colorado.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Robert Lieblich
2005-02-06 23:28:22 UTC
Permalink
[mensa taken off the table]
Post by Laura F Spira
.
Post by Steve Hayes
Where *is* Truly, by the way?
Fit and well and currently moving house somewhere in Colorado.
Tell her to put that house down (must be murder on her back) and
return to the fold.
--
Lieb
Bill McCray
2005-02-07 00:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Post by Pat Durkin
I can remember arguing with my teacher about my use of "Very truly yours"
(and even "Sincerely yours") as being more "very sincerely his" than "Yours
truly" or "Yours sincerely". She thought that meanings in openings and
closings was very considerably wrong. The last thing one wants to do in any
business or formal letter is tell the truth. Impression and diplomacy
grease the wheels of business, especially between strangers. That was in
(or near) 1954, but I am sure that instructions in the formalities of
letter-writing continued much longer. Of course, private and informal
letter-writing never required the rigid formulas.
When I first joined AUE there was a regular contributor with the name "Truly
Donovan", and I thought it might be derived from the "Yours truly" letter
closing favoured by word processors like MS Word.
I later discovered that it was a real name and that it was a she not a he.
I had the pleasure of having dinner one evening with Truly and some
other e-friends.
Post by Steve Hayes
Where *is* Truly, by the way?
In Colorado last I heard, but that was several years ago.

Bill

Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...