Discussion:
"to call it for someone"
(too old to reply)
Stefan Ram
2020-01-12 16:16:22 UTC
Permalink
"to call it for someone"

as in

|It might be wishful thinking, but I’m calling it for her.
|She will leave next, ...

The above is the context wherein I actually would like
to know the meaning of "I’m calling it for her.".

Does it mean "I’m calling it /quits/ for her." above?

Some other appearances are:

|DRUDGE says it's a Schwarzenegger landslide, and that the
|networks will call it for him as soon as the polls close.

|Whereupon Mrs. Veal said, "Well, let's honor your wife and
|call it for her. You'll never have anything to surpass it
|on this continent. Elberta is its name.

|“And I'm glad they're calling it for him.” Nash had a trip to
|the line for three foul shots Saturday, not off a fake, but
|an attempted 3.

|They look like the very same BS as the contact experienced by
|any other player, but the refs call it for him 4x as much.

|On Tuesday, Trump will pass the margin of bound delegates he
|needs to clinch officially — but the AP was very comfortable
|calling it for him

|If your QB doesn't read defenses well, take the read out of
|his hands and call it for him with a hand signal.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-12 17:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
"to call it for someone"
as in
|It might be wishful thinking, but I’m calling it for her.
|She will leave next, ...
The above is the context wherein I actually would like
to know the meaning of "I’m calling it for her.".
Does it mean "I’m calling it /quits/ for her." above?
No, it means that "I'm declaring that she is the winner or predicting
that she will be the winner.".

During an election, for example, before the final vote-counting,
someone may say "I'm calling it for Jones" meaning the speaker thinks
Jones will be the winner. (That is not always right as the Chicago
Tribune found in 1948 when they called Dewey the winner over Truman.)

In an argument, where there is not a definable winner, when someone
says "I'm calling it for Jones", the speaker thinks Jones won the
argument.

In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That is
a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one player
being *not* being called for the foul four times more than other
players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for that
player.
Post by Stefan Ram
|They look like the very same BS as the contact experienced by
|any other player, but the refs call it for him 4x as much.
In the below example, Nash's opponent was given the foul but the
implication of ref favoritism is not there. It's more an implication
that the refs noticed he was fouled.
Post by Stefan Ram
|“And I'm glad they're calling it for him.” Nash had a trip to
|the line for three foul shots Saturday, not off a fake, but
|an attempted 3.
|DRUDGE says it's a Schwarzenegger landslide, and that the
|networks will call it for him as soon as the polls close.
The election example I used.
Post by Stefan Ram
|Whereupon Mrs. Veal said, "Well, let's honor your wife and
|call it for her. You'll never have anything to surpass it
|on this continent. Elberta is its name.
The argument example I used.
The one below is completely different. It's statement that someone
other than the QB will send in the signal for the play. This one
doesn't belong in your list of examples even though the "call it for
him" words are used.
Post by Stefan Ram
|If your QB doesn't read defenses well, take the read out of
|his hands and call it for him with a hand signal.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2020-01-12 22:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.

Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-12 23:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.
Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
I'm grateful our CanE sportscasters have not picked that one up.
But a few of our (ice) hockey play-by-play announcers, when
a goaltender shows quick reactions to stop a shot, will declare
that he has made "a reactionary save". I always grumble at the
television for one of those.

bill
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-13 01:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.
Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
I'm grateful our CanE sportscasters have not picked that one up.
I haven't heard that one down here either, not that I watch sports much.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
But a few of our (ice) hockey play-by-play announcers, when
a goaltender shows quick reactions to stop a shot, will declare
that he has made "a reactionary save". I always grumble at the
television for one of those.
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.

A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third Law
is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary." They
don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and they don't
know that meaning of "reactionary".
--
Jerry Friedman
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-13 06:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.
Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
I'm grateful our CanE sportscasters have not picked that one up.
I haven't heard that one down here either, not that I watch sports much.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
But a few of our (ice) hockey play-by-play announcers, when
a goaltender shows quick reactions to stop a shot, will declare
that he has made "a reactionary save". I always grumble at the
television for one of those.
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third Law
is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary." They
don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and they don't
know that meaning of "reactionary".
I looked in my home Oxford and sampled several online dictionaries.
None of them suggested any definition for "reactionary" other than
the political one: opposing change, especially political change.
Noun and adjective.

bill
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-14 23:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.
Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
I'm grateful our CanE sportscasters have not picked that one up.
I haven't heard that one down here either, not that I watch sports much.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
But a few of our (ice) hockey play-by-play announcers, when
a goaltender shows quick reactions to stop a shot, will declare
that he has made "a reactionary save". I always grumble at the
television for one of those.
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third Law
is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary." They
don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and they don't
know that meaning of "reactionary".
I looked in my home Oxford and sampled several online dictionaries.
None of them suggested any definition for "reactionary" other than
the political one: opposing change, especially political change.
Noun and adjective.
I'd say that in the strict political sense it means "wanting to change
back."

The sense "having to do with any kind of reaction" is in the on-line
OED. The earlier citations, except the one from Lawrence, aren't clear
to me without context but the last one is pretty definite.

2. gen. Of, or relating to, or characterized by reaction, or a reaction
(in various senses); that constitutes a reaction or reversal.
1847 G. Grote Hist. Greece IV. ii. xxxvi. 497 The intensity of the
subsequent displeasure would be aggravated by this reactionary sentiment.
1879 J. McCarthy Hist. our Own Times II. xviii. 40 The results of the
year that followed were decidedly reactionary.
1920 D. H. Lawrence Women in Love xvi. 219 A liaison was only another
kind of coupling, reactionary from the legal marriage. Reaction was a
greater bore than action.
1979 Morning News (Karachi) 24 May 7/6 The Karachi rapeseeds market
turned reactionary here yesterday.
2003 Business Jrnl. (Nexis) 7 Feb. 1 We want to practice
preventative health care and not just reactionary medicine.
--
Jerry Friedman wonders where else the Karachi rapeseeds market could
have turned reactionary.
Peter Moylan
2020-01-13 13:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third
Law is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary."
They don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and
they don't know that meaning of "reactionary".
I don't know who Newt is either. Is this the person who allowed ice-nine
to destroy the world?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
HVS
2020-01-13 14:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting
without having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's
Third Law is "For every action there is an equal and opposite
reactionary." They don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat
understandable) and they don't know that meaning of
"reactionary".
I don't know who Newt is either. Is this the person who allowed
ice-nine to destroy the world?
It's the first name of that guy who wrote "Fantastic Beasts and Where
to Find Them", innit.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-13 15:26:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:59:30 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third
Law is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary."
They don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and
they don't know that meaning of "reactionary".
I don't know who Newt is either. Is this the person who allowed ice-
nine
Post by Peter Moylan
to destroy the world?
I feel under-read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Cradle
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-14 22:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 13:59:30 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third
Law is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary."
They don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and
they don't know that meaning of "reactionary".
I don't know who Newt is either. Is this the person who allowed ice-
nine
Post by Peter Moylan
to destroy the world?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Cradle
No guarantees, but I feel that you might like that book.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-14 23:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
I hear "reactionary" as the opposite of "proactive"--reacting without
having made a plan before the necessity to react.
A few years ago I gave up on telling my students that Newt's Third
Law is "For every action there is an equal and opposite reactionary."
They don't know who Newt is (which is somewhat understandable) and
they don't know that meaning of "reactionary".
I don't know who Newt is either.
That's totally understandable. Newt Gingrich, American academic and
politician, Speaker of the House of Representatives for four years
during the Clinton administration until he resigned in disgrace,
author of, among others,

/To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine/, with
Joe DeSantis

/A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters/
Post by Peter Moylan
Is this the person who allowed ice-nine to destroy the world?
Let's say I wouldn't trust him with it (either ice-nine or the
world), though he actually is or has been more of an environmentalist
than a lot of right-wing Americans.
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-15 17:35:12 UTC
Permalink
[ … ]
Post by Jerry Friedman
That's totally understandable. Newt Gingrich, American academic and
politician, Speaker of the House of Representatives for four years
during the Clinton administration until he resigned in disgrace,
author of, among others,
/To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine/, with
Joe DeSantis
/A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters/
Post by Peter Moylan
Is this the person who allowed ice-nine to destroy the world?
Let's say I wouldn't trust him with it (either ice-nine or the
world), though he actually is or has been more of an environmentalist
than a lot of right-wing Americans.
Interesting. I didn't realize that there was anything good to be said of him.
--
athel
Quinn C
2020-01-14 22:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.
Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
I'm grateful our CanE sportscasters have not picked that one up.
But a few of our (ice) hockey play-by-play announcers, when
a goaltender shows quick reactions to stop a shot, will declare
that he has made "a reactionary save".
When it was only a conservative save? Yes, that'd be disparaging, then.
--
- It's the title search for the Rachel property.
Guess who owns it?
- Tell me it's not that bastard Donald Trump.
-- Gilmore Girls, S02E08 (2001)
Ross
2020-01-13 04:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
In your sports example below, the meaning is a bit different. That
is a reference to deciding which player committed the foul and one
player being*not* being called for the foul four times more than
other players. It implies favoritism on the part of the refs for
that player.
What a pleasure to see "favoritism" used correctly.
Too often, I hear sports reporters saying things like "Team A has the
favouritism", meaning that A is expected to win. There is no suggestion,
apparently, that the referees will help A to win.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
I heard this usage on the radio in 2003 and commented
on it here. You were prepared to admit Australian
responsibility. "There are some Australian sports
reporters who have been using the word that way for
some time now. It drives me crazy."

Then somebody noticed it was allowed by the Macquarie
Dictionary. So I checked OED:

Favouritism 2. The state or condition of being a favourite; favour. Also, of a race horse: Relative position in public favour.
[citations 1808-1893, but obviously alive and well in Australasia anyway]

Just checked: still no more recent citations. Entry
has not been fully revised since 1895.
Stefan Ram
2020-01-13 02:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
|It might be wishful thinking, but I'm calling it for her.
|She will leave next, ...
No, it means that "I'm declaring that she is the winner or predicting
that she will be the winner.".
Thanks!

In this case, "She will leave next" (quoted above) means
that she will leave the reality show. This is not equal to
"winning" in the above context, since this reality show has
no winners, and especially this young lady he talks about
is not considered to be a winner (nor a loser). Leaving this
show is neither considered to be a win nor to be a loss.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-13 02:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
Post by Tony Cooper
|It might be wishful thinking, but I'm calling it for her.
|She will leave next, ...
No, it means that "I'm declaring that she is the winner or predicting
that she will be the winner.".
Thanks!
In this case, "She will leave next" (quoted above) means
that she will leave the reality show. This is not equal to
"winning" in the above context, since this reality show has
no winners, and especially this young lady he talks about
is not considered to be a winner (nor a loser). Leaving this
show is neither considered to be a win nor to be a loss.
Sorry, I didn't know the context. In this case, the speaker is
gleefully calling for her to lose, not win. It's the same concept of
declaring or predicting, but in the opposite sense. It's not the
usual use of the phrase.

If she's leaving the show, it seems to me that this would be a form of
losing. I don't watch any of those reality shows, but I have the
impression that the last one standing is the winner and those that
leave are the losers.

Kinda depends on what you call "winning" and what you call "losing".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Loading...