Discussion:
"quits" meaning "even"
(too old to reply)
Yurui Liu
2019-10-26 03:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?

Am I quits with you now?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
Tony Cooper
2019-10-26 04:55:49 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.

We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.

We could write that using "square", "even", or "straight" instead of
"quits".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
b***@shaw.ca
2019-10-26 08:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
We could write that using "square", "even", or "straight" instead of
"quits".
I'd avoid using "straight" in that context due to the other
possible interpretations.

bill
HVS
2019-10-26 10:52:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -

"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."

Cheers, Harvey
Spains Harden
2019-10-26 13:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
We could go double or quits?
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-26 16:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
We could go double or quits?
I've never seen or heard an American say any of those expressions except
"call it quits", which I take to mean "stop what we're doing" rather
than "call it even". I have seen them in British books. BrE "double or
quits" = AmE "double or nothing".
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-26 18:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Spains Harden
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
We could go double or quits?
I've never seen or heard an American say any of those expressions except
"call it quits", which I take to mean "stop what we're doing" rather
than "call it even". I have seen them in British books. BrE "double or
quits" = AmE "double or nothing".
"Why can't I quit you?" (the famous phrase from *Brokeback Mountain*)
struck most people as strange and probably dialectal.

Perhaps from biblical-type expressions like "quit this place"?
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-26 19:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Spains Harden
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
We could go double or quits?
I've never seen or heard an American say any of those expressions except
"call it quits", which I take to mean "stop what we're doing" rather
than "call it even". I have seen them in British books. BrE "double or
quits" = AmE "double or nothing".
"Why can't I quit you?" (the famous phrase from *Brokeback Mountain*)
struck most people as strange and probably dialectal.
Perhaps from biblical-type expressions like "quit this place"?
Or from "quit smoking", etc.? Though I haven't seen the movie.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-26 20:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Spains Harden
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
We could go double or quits?
I've never seen or heard an American say any of those expressions except
"call it quits", which I take to mean "stop what we're doing" rather
than "call it even". I have seen them in British books. BrE "double or
quits" = AmE "double or nothing".
"Why can't I quit you?" (the famous phrase from *Brokeback Mountain*)
struck most people as strange and probably dialectal.
Perhaps from biblical-type expressions like "quit this place"?
Or from "quit smoking", etc.? Though I haven't seen the movie.
(You don't like to cry? It's just so sad. Better than the original story,
not something one can often say about a movie version.)

There are also "quitclaim" and "quittance" over on the legal side.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-27 11:24:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 13:27:44 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Spains Harden
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
We could go double or quits?
I've never seen or heard an American say any of those expressions except
"call it quits", which I take to mean "stop what we're doing" rather
than "call it even". I have seen them in British books. BrE "double or
quits" = AmE "double or nothing".
"Why can't I quit you?" (the famous phrase from *Brokeback Mountain*)
struck most people as strange and probably dialectal.
Perhaps from biblical-type expressions like "quit this place"?
Or from "quit smoking", etc.? Though I haven't seen the movie.
(You don't like to cry? It's just so sad. Better than the original story,
not something one can often say about a movie version.)
There are also "quitclaim" and "quittance" over on the legal side.
I recognise, and might use, the senses listed here:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/quit

verb quits, quitting, quitted, quit

1 with object Leave (a place), usually permanently.
‘hippies finally quit two sites in Hampshire last night’

1.1 no object (of a tenant) leave rented accommodation.
‘the landlord issued a notice to quit’

1.2 informal Resign from (a job)
‘she quit her job in a pizza restaurant’
no object ‘he quit as manager of the struggling Third
Division team’

1.3 North American informal Stop or discontinue (an action or
activity)
‘quit moaning!’
‘I want to quit smoking’

[Note OUP's Lexico gives usages that are current, not historical or
obsolete.]

Back in the 1980s-90s I was employed by the Queens University (of
Belfast) in the university's Computer Centre. It had been decided that
the Computer Centre should be renamed. Various suggestions were made. I
thought of the name "Information Technology Services" purely so I could
suggest it by saying "Let's call it QUITS".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
b***@shaw.ca
2019-10-26 17:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
Cheers, Harvey
In my usage, calling it quits has taken on the meaning of ceasing
efforts to achieve something, giving up, rather than declaring
that we're even.

bill
Lewis
2019-10-26 22:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
Cheers, Harvey
In my usage, calling it quits has taken on the meaning of ceasing
efforts to achieve something, giving up, rather than declaring
that we're even.
Both, for me.
--
'I don't like to ask them questions.' 'Why not?' 'They might give me
answers. And then what would I do?'
Quinn C
2019-10-28 16:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by HVS
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 00:55:49 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe
money
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British
usage.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Yurui Liu
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Post by Yurui Liu
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Standard phrasing for me would be to "call it quits" -
"Shall we call it quits?"
"Let's just call it quits."
In my usage, calling it quits has taken on the meaning of ceasing
efforts to achieve something, giving up, rather than declaring
that we're even.
The Farlex Dictionary of Idioms has the other meaning only as the
fourth and last:

| 1. To stop working.
| I've still got a few jobs to do around the ranch before I can call it quits for the day.
| 2. To end a partnership of some kind, often a romantic relationship.
| I'm so sad to hear that Mara and John called it quits—I thought those two would be together forever.
| 3. To abandon a particular pursuit.
| Luke dreamed of playing pro basketball, but he had to call it quits after a serious knee injury.
| 4. To acknowledge that a debt has been paid.
| Thank you for paying me back—now we can call it quits.
--
Novels and romances ... when habitually indulged in, exert a
disastrous influence on the nervous system, sufficient to explain
that frequency of hysteria and nervous disease which we find
among the highest classes. -- E.J. Tilt
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-26 14:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 20:49:13 -0700 (PDT), Yurui Liu
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
It is used in American English with the meaning "not owe money or a
favor", too.
How much?
Post by Tony Cooper
We would normally phrase it "Are we quits now?" instead of your
phrasing.
Evidence?
Post by Tony Cooper
We could write that using "square", "even", or "straight" instead of
"quits".
I doubt that we would write it at all.
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-26 09:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in Spanish, but it's one of
those examples of where my English is getting corrupted by constant exposure to another
language. Not that I've yet actually said that in English, but it's there in my head
waiting to pop out one day.

Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.

"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."

For those that don't know (very few, I'm sure):

"El campo" "the countryside"
"el finde" "the weekend"
"escopetero" bloke with shotgun and usually very poor aim, on a mission to blow rabbits to
bits and so render them inedible.
--
Paul.
b***@aol.com
2019-10-26 18:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in
Spanish, but it's one of those examples of where my English is getting
corrupted by constant exposure to another language. Not that I've yet
actually said that in English, but it's there in my head waiting to pop
out one day.
Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.
"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."
"El campo" "the countryside"
"el finde" "the weekend"
"Wikén" in Chile: not at all a Spanish-looking word: "Huiquén" would be
better, though it would look more Mapudungún than Spanish. (Mapudungún
has both a w and a k, and that's what I thought it was the first time I
saw "wikén".) I suppose that "finde" is a contraction of "fin de
semana"? When we were first in France I used to say "la fin de
semaine", but when I noticed that no one else did I changed to "le
weekend": they could make it look more French by spelling it "Ouiquén",
but they don't.
"Ouiquène" more likely, as there are no French words ending in "én" and
<é> wouldn't reflect the correct pronunciation of the word, as it implies
[e] instead of [ε].
Post by Paul Carmichael
"escopetero" bloke with shotgun and usually very poor aim, on a mission
to blow rabbits to bits and so render them inedible.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-26 18:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in> >
Spanish, but it's one of those examples of where my English is getting>
Post by Yurui Liu
corrupted by constant exposure to another language. Not that I've
yet> > actually said that in English, but it's there in my head waiting
to pop> > out one day.
Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.
"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."
"El campo" "the countryside"
"el finde" "the weekend"
"Wikén" in Chile: not at all a Spanish-looking word: "Huiquén" would
be> better, though it would look more Mapudungún than Spanish.
(Mapudungún> has both a w and a k, and that's what I thought it was the
first time I> saw "wikén".) I suppose that "finde" is a contraction of
"fin de> semana"? When we were first in France I used to say "la fin
de> semaine", but when I noticed that no one else did I changed to "le>
weekend": they could make it look more French by spelling it
"Ouiquén",> but they don't.
"Ouiquène" more likely, as there are no French words ending in "én" and
<é> wouldn't reflect the correct pronunciation of the word, as it implies
[e] instead of [ε].
Ha. I thought of that, but rejected for some reason that I've
forgotten. Anyway, you're right, of course. We foreigners don't
distinguish as well as we should between é and è.
Post by b***@aol.com
"escopetero" bloke with shotgun and usually very poor aim, on a
mission> > to blow rabbits to bits and so render them inedible.
--
athel
--
athel
Lewis
2019-10-26 22:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in Spanish, but it's one of
those examples of where my English is getting corrupted by constant exposure to another
language. Not that I've yet actually said that in English, but it's there in my head
waiting to pop out one day.
Yep, different language, different idiom.

"We are at peace" would likely be misunderstood in English, at least
somewhat.
Post by Paul Carmichael
Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.
"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."
When my siblings were young (under 13 or so) they mixed Enlgish and
Spanish like that a lot. Or used one languiages grammar in the other
language.

The story I have heard many times was my sister complaining, "where do
she put it, Carmella, my book." which is perfectly understandable if
said in Spanish, but sounds very broken in English.
Post by Paul Carmichael
"El campo" "the countryside"
"el finde" "the weekend"
And most English speaker, in Spanish, would say "en el fin de semana" to match
the English grammar "on the weekend", even if their Spanish was quite
good. "fin de semana" is OK, but "en el fin..." not so much.
Post by Paul Carmichael
"escopetero" bloke with shotgun and usually very poor aim, on a mission to blow rabbits to
bits and so render them inedible.
That's a new one to me, and I suspect it is Spanglish in origin?

(But my Spanish is poor to the point of nearly non-existence anymore)
--
Granny Weatherwax didn't hold with looking at the future, but now she
could feel the future looking at her. She didn't like its expression at
all.
Peter Moylan
2019-10-26 23:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not
owe money to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a
British usage. Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or
"straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in
Spanish, but it's one of those examples of where my English is
getting corrupted by constant exposure to another language. Not
that I've yet actually said that in English, but it's there in my
head waiting to pop out one day.
Yep, different language, different idiom.
"We are at peace" would likely be misunderstood in English, at least
somewhat.
Yes, we'd probably take it to mean "we are dead".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-27 07:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in Spanish, but it's one of
those examples of where my English is getting corrupted by constant exposure to another
language. Not that I've yet actually said that in English, but it's there in my head
waiting to pop out one day.
Yep, different language, different idiom.
"We are at peace" would likely be misunderstood in English, at least
somewhat.
Post by Paul Carmichael
Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.
"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."
When my siblings were young (under 13 or so) they mixed Enlgish and
Spanish like that a lot. Or used one languiages grammar in the other
language.
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she
was completely trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the
languages. Sometimes when speaking English she would insert a French
word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English word, but when she
did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused.
She did occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of
English or Spanish synonyms like use/utilize and usar/utilisar she
would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser. ("User" exists
in French, but it means something different.)
Post by Lewis
The story I have heard many times was my sister complaining, "where do
she put it, Carmella, my book." which is perfectly understandable if
said in Spanish, but sounds very broken in English.
Post by Paul Carmichael
"El campo" "the countryside"
"el finde" "the weekend"
And most English speaker, in Spanish, would say "en el fin de semana" to match
the English grammar "on the weekend", even if their Spanish was quite
good. "fin de semana" is OK, but "en el fin..." not so much.
Post by Paul Carmichael
"escopetero" bloke with shotgun and usually very poor aim, on a mission
to blow rabbits to
bits and so render them inedible.
That's a new one to me, and I suspect it is Spanglish in origin?
(But my Spanish is poor to the point of nearly non-existence anymore)
--
athel
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-27 09:30:45 UTC
Permalink
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she was completely
trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the languages. Sometimes when speaking
English she would insert a French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English
word, but when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused. She did
occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of English or Spanish synonyms like
use/utilize and usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser.
("User" exists in French, but it means something different.)
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.

They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
--
Paul.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-27 11:27:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she was completely
trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the languages. Sometimes when speaking
English she would insert a French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English
word, but when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused. She did
occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of English or Spanish synonyms like
use/utilize and usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser.
("User" exists in French, but it means something different.)
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ken Blake
2019-10-27 15:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she was completely
trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the languages. Sometimes when speaking
English she would insert a French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English
word, but when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused. She did
occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of English or Spanish synonyms like
use/utilize and usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser.
("User" exists in French, but it means something different.)
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
--
Ken
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-27 15:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she was completely
trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the languages. Sometimes when
speaking
English she would insert a French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English
word, but when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused. She did
occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of English or Spanish synonyms
like
use/utilize and usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser.
("User" exists in French, but it means something different.)
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
Every day is a schoolday.
--
Paul.
Quinn C
2019-10-28 16:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
--
It gets hot in Raleigh, but Texas! I don't know why anybody
lives here, honestly.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.220
Lewis
2019-10-28 21:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.

Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
--
Silence filled the University in the same way that air fills a hole.
Night spread across the Disk like plum jam, or possibly blackberry
preserve. But there would be a morning. There would always be another
morning. --Sourcery
Quinn C
2019-10-28 23:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?

My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.

Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)
charles
2019-10-29 08:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
like calling man who mends your fridge an "engineer".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter Moylan
2019-10-29 11:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Quinn C
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and
list monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that
it's "not used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon
in professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the
obnoxious.
like calling man who mends your fridge an "engineer".
The Australian immigration people have some sort of priority occupation
list, where would-be migrants can get preferred treatment if they have
skills that are in short supply in this country.

Two or three decades back "electrical engineer" was added to the list,
on the grounds that there was a shortage of people to repair television
sets.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-29 15:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by charles
Post by Quinn C
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and
list monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that
it's "not used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon
in professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the
obnoxious.
like calling man who mends your fridge an "engineer".
The Australian immigration people have some sort of priority occupation
list, where would-be migrants can get preferred treatment if they have
skills that are in short supply in this country.
Two or three decades back "electrical engineer" was added to the list,
on the grounds that there was a shortage of people to repair television
sets.
My supervisor at Oxford moved to Harvard in about 1970. He was admitted
to the USA under the quota for plumbers. When Harvard protested that he
was a Professor of Chemistry, not a plumber, they were told that the
USA had plenty of Professors of Chemistry, but a shortage of plumbers.
Later on he was (twice) Dean of Arts and Sciences, so he wasn't just
any old Professor of Chemistry.
--
athel
Dingbat
2019-10-30 05:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
The Australian immigration people have some sort of priority occupation
list, where would-be migrants can get preferred treatment if they have
skills that are in short supply in this country.
Two or three decades back "electrical engineer" was added to the list,
on the grounds that there was a shortage of people to repair television
sets.
I ask: Did graduates in Electrical Engineering take this lying down?

P.S. The punny meaning is: take down this lying
(about what an Electrical Engineer is).
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My supervisor at Oxford moved to Harvard in about 1970. He was admitted
to the USA under the quota for plumbers. When Harvard protested that he
was a Professor of Chemistry, not a plumber, they were told that the
USA had plenty of Professors of Chemistry, but a shortage of plumbers.
Later on he was (twice) Dean of Arts and Sciences, so he wasn't just
any old Professor of Chemistry.
I say: One who plumbs Chem and is on the move would be plumb loco:-)

P.S. Not much of a pun but I couldn't think of a better one.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-30 07:19:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 8:59:43 PM UTC+5:30, Athel
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
The Australian immigration people have some sort of priority occupation
list, where would-be migrants can get preferred treatment if they have
skills that are in short supply in this country.
Two or three decades back "electrical engineer" was added to the list,
on the grounds that there was a shortage of people to repair television
sets.
I ask: Did graduates in Electrical Engineering take this lying down?
P.S. The punny meaning is: take down this lying
(about what an Electrical Engineer is).
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
My supervisor at Oxford moved to Harvard in about 1970. He was
admitted> to the USA under the quota for plumbers. When Harvard
protested that he> was a Professor of Chemistry, not a plumber, they
were told that the> USA had plenty of Professors of Chemistry, but a
shortage of plumbers.> Later on he was (twice) Dean of Arts and
Sciences, so he wasn't just> any old Professor of Chemistry.
I say: One who plumbs Chem and is on the move would be plumb loco:-)
P.S. Not much of a pun but I couldn't think of a better one.
No. It's incredibly bad.
--
athel
Lewis
2019-10-29 13:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
--
'People need vampires,' she [Granny] said. 'They helps 'em remember what
stakes and garlic are for.' --Carpe Jugulum
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-29 15:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the
road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct
English usage are more than just obnoxious.
--
athel
charles
2019-10-29 15:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down
the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates
in German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in
professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an
monkey not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will
correct you; it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English
speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct English
usage are more than just obnoxious.
I can remember taking a party of German students and their lecturer round
BBC TV Centre. The lecturer was a know-all, I was hardly needed, it
appeared. However when we passed a sign that read "Bridge Lounge" he said
"Ah, zat is where you English play Bridge", I had great pleasure intelling
him "No, it's part of the staff restaurant which is a bridge between two
buildings".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-29 16:39:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:54:03 GMT, charles <***@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

[]
Post by charles
I can remember taking a party of German students and their lecturer
round BBC TV Centre. The lecturer was a know-all, I was hardly needed,
it appeared. However when we passed a sign that read "Bridge Lounge"
he said "Ah, zat is where you English play Bridge", I had great
pleasure intelling him "No, it's part of the staff restaurant which is
a bridge between two buildings".
There was an institution not too far away from Here, named the [redacted]
Bridge Club, sadly, the members were more into darts and cribbage. It was
explained to me that it was the proximity of [redacted] Bridge that
inspired the name.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-29 18:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
I can remember taking a party of German students and their lecturer round
BBC TV Centre. The lecturer was a know-all, I was hardly needed, it
appeared. However when we passed a sign that read "Bridge Lounge" he said
"Ah, zat is where you English play Bridge", I had great pleasure intelling
him "No, it's part of the staff restaurant which is a bridge between two
buildings".
Not named for a wealthy industrialist, a Mr (later Sir) Bridge, who
donated it?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-30 10:49:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:54:03 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down
the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates
in German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in
professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an
monkey not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will
correct you; it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English
speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct English
usage are more than just obnoxious.
I can remember taking a party of German students and their lecturer round
BBC TV Centre. The lecturer was a know-all, I was hardly needed, it
appeared. However when we passed a sign that read "Bridge Lounge" he said
"Ah, zat is where you English play Bridge", I had great pleasure intelling
him "No, it's part of the staff restaurant which is a bridge between two
buildings".
Were Bridge Rolls on the menu?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bridge-roll

British
a soft bread roll in a long thin shape
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-30 11:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:54:03 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down
the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates
in German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in
professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an
monkey not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will
correct you; it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English
speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct English
usage are more than just obnoxious.
A sentence in the English edition of El País today: "The tour, which
had aimed to take in Gibraltar’s famous monkeys, was cut short when
Narváez’s three colleagues entered a supermarket for the cheese and
chocolate." Apparently the translator knows that they are monkeys.
--
athel
charles
2019-10-30 11:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:54:03 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just
down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds
really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys,
not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The
cognates in German and other Germanic languages still include all
the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset,
but a survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also
called "apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and
list monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that
it's "not used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon
in professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the
obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an
monkey not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will
correct you; it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English
speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct
English usage are more than just obnoxious.
I can remember taking a party of German students and their lecturer
round BBC TV Centre. The lecturer was a know-all, I was hardly needed,
it appeared. However when we passed a sign that read "Bridge Lounge" he
said "Ah, zat is where you English play Bridge", I had great pleasure
intelling him "No, it's part of the staff restaurant which is a bridge
between two buildings".
Were Bridge Rolls on the menu?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bridge-roll
British a soft bread roll in a long thin shape
I never ate there, it was 'waitress service' so only for those who had the
time & money. Although my leaving party was held there, but I wasn't paying.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-30 13:19:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:49:56 GMT, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:54:03 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just
down
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul Carmichael
the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds
really
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Paul Carmichael
weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually
monkeys,
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The
cognates
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
in German and other Germanic languages still include all the
monkeys.
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply
wrong.
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset,
but a
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also
called
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and
list
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's
"not
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in
professional circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the
obnoxious.
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an
monkey not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will
correct you; it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English
speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct
English
Post by charles
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
usage are more than just obnoxious.
I can remember taking a party of German students and their lecturer
round
Post by charles
BBC TV Centre. The lecturer was a know-all, I was hardly needed, it
appeared. However when we passed a sign that read "Bridge Lounge" he
said
Post by charles
"Ah, zat is where you English play Bridge", I had great pleasure
intelling
Post by charles
him "No, it's part of the staff restaurant which is a bridge between two
buildings".
Were Bridge Rolls on the menu?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bridge-roll
British
a soft bread roll in a long thin shape
(drift)
There is a sandwich shop in Brissle (place of the bridge) called Royce
Rolls.
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/web/st-nicholas-markets/royce-rolls-cafe
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Quinn C
2019-10-29 16:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the
road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct
English usage are more than just obnoxious.
Indeed. Alert us when you see one.

Another species to look out for is native English speakers who
understand all the words, but have no sense of context, speech acts and
nuance, possibly because they've lived abroad too long.
--
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just
wait for next year's model.
Andrew Tanenbaum, _Computer Networks_ (1981), p. 168.
Dingbat
2019-10-30 05:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the
road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
Moreover, Germans who lecture native English speakers on correct
English usage are more than just obnoxious.
Visiting Taiwan, Professor Slattery, author of one of my Chem Eng textbooks,
corrected a Chinese Professor's incorrect usage of Chinese. He was
applauded for not just knowing Chinese but knowing how to use it correctly.
The narrator didn't say which Chinese language Slattery could use but
I presume that it was China's standard Mandarin since other Chinese
languages are hardly if ever taught in the West. (Taiwanese Mandarin is a
little different from China's Mandarin).
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-29 18:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
Desk dictionaries -- such as MW's "Collegiate" and the AHD -- try to
include all vocabulary in KJV and Shakespeare, down to recent times.
They are most certainly not revised to remove either popular senses
that are overtaken by specialist applications (such as "ape") or words
that are no longer current, for whatever reason (phlogisthon, phrenology).

It is not "reluctance"; it is _usefulness_.

Watch a movie or a TV show featuring a chimpanzee. You will hear it
referred to as a "monkey" quite frequently. On *Nova* or NatGeog you
will be taught the technical senses of various words for Primates.
They do not figure in ordinary usage.
Sam Plusnet
2019-10-29 20:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
I still don't see what the problem is.
The traditional description of those monkeys is "Barbary Apes". That
doesn't comply with modern thinking, but it's simply a hold-over from
earlier times.
BrE doesn't (generally) use "gotten" but that word still appears in the
phrase "ill-gotten gains". Another hold over.
--
Sam Plusnet
Lewis
2019-10-30 06:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
I still don't see what the problem is.
The traditional description of those monkeys is "Barbary Apes". That
doesn't comply with modern thinking, but it's simply a hold-over from
earlier times.
Barbary Apes are a tiny part of the discussion.

Someone brought them up, then Quinn said the distinction is new and
brought up German.

I was not talking about the Barbary Apes, but about Quinn's implied claim
that it is perfectly OK to call apes monkeys and monkeys apes because
German.
--
Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying/And dying to me don't
sound like all that much fun.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-30 07:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the
road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
I still don't see what the problem is.
The traditional description of those monkeys is "Barbary Apes". That
doesn't comply with modern thinking, but it's simply a hold-over from
earlier times.
Barbary Apes are a tiny part of the discussion.
Someone brought them up, then Quinn said the distinction is new and
brought up German.
I was not talking about the Barbary Apes, but about Quinn's implied claim
that it is perfectly OK to call apes monkeys and monkeys apes because
German.
Because French, also (though you can say "grands singes" for apes if
you want to make the distinction). What Quinn appears not to have
understood is that German and French are different from English.
--
athel
Lewis
2019-10-30 13:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the
road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
I still don't see what the problem is.
The traditional description of those monkeys is "Barbary Apes". That
doesn't comply with modern thinking, but it's simply a hold-over from
earlier times.
Barbary Apes are a tiny part of the discussion.
Someone brought them up, then Quinn said the distinction is new and
brought up German.
I was not talking about the Barbary Apes, but about Quinn's implied claim
that it is perfectly OK to call apes monkeys and monkeys apes because
German.
Because French, also (though you can say "grands singes" for apes if
you want to make the distinction). What Quinn appears not to have
understood is that German and French are different from English.
I wonder if he thinks Spider Monkeys are arachnids?
--
No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us.
It's Them that do the bad things.
Katy Jennison
2019-10-30 08:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Dictionaries often keep out of date usage in them (probably out of
reluctance). The simple fact is if you refer to a chimpanzee as an monkey
not only are you wrong, but random people in earshot will correct you;
it is wrong and it is wrong to the majority of English speakers.
I still don't see what the problem is.
The traditional description of those monkeys is "Barbary Apes". That
doesn't comply with modern thinking, but it's simply a hold-over from
earlier times.
Barbary Apes are a tiny part of the discussion.
Someone brought them up, then Quinn said the distinction is new and
brought up German.
I was not talking about the Barbary Apes, but about Quinn's implied claim
that it is perfectly OK to call apes monkeys and monkeys apes because
German.
I didn't think that was what Q was claiming at all, simply pointing out
that in some languages there's no distinction and that that was also
true of English not all that long ago. Perfectly reasonable.

I recall the bemusement of some AmE posters when it was pointed out that
BrE distinguishes between hares and rabbits.
--
Katy Jennison
Quinn C
2019-10-29 17:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
It seems to be a little more complex than that.

| In traditional usage, ape describes any tailless, larger, and more
| typically ground-dwelling species of catarrhine.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini>

So it seems there was an intermediate stage when "ape" didn't apply to
any monkey, but did to the Barbary macacques and some other species now
called monkey.
--
Smith & Wesson--the original point and click interface
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-30 08:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Do you two know each other? I ask because calling somebody obnoxious is a pretty strong
insult to use on a stranger.
--
Paul.
Lewis
2019-10-30 13:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Quinn C
Post by Lewis
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Current usage only, we don't do diachronics?
My point was that "Barbary ape" is not an error from the outset, but a
survivor from the time not so long ago when monkeys were also called
"apes" in English.
Besides, both Merriam-Webster and Collins disagree with you, and list
monkey as a still current meaning of "ape", just noting that it's "not
used technically". Calling usages that are frowned upon in professional
circles "simply wrong" is the hallmark of the obnoxious.
Do you two know each other? I ask because calling somebody obnoxious is a pretty strong
insult to use on a stranger.
Have you met Quinn?

* where "met" = seen his posts over the last few years
--
Train Station: where the train stops. Work Station: ...
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-29 09:13:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 21:57:27 GMT, Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down
the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
And you don't want to upset the Librarian, pshurely?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Dingbat
2019-10-30 05:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Are humans apes?
Lewis
2019-10-30 06:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Are humans apes?
Yes, but not normally referred to as apes in normal conversation.
--
The only reason for walking into the jaws of Death is so's you can steal
His gold teeth. --Colour of Magic
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-30 07:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the
road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Are humans apes?
Yes, but not normally referred to as apes in normal conversation.
Exactly. Likewise, when people refer to "animals" in normal
conversation they don't usually include humans.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-30 11:01:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 06:30:43 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Post by Lewis
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes,
They are known as "Barbary Apes," but they are actually monkeys, not apes.
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
We're not speaking German here.
Calling an ape a monkey or a monkey an ape in English is simply wrong.
Are humans apes?
Yes, but not normally referred to as apes in normal conversation.
However, if the conversation relates to this book, written for the
general public....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape

The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal (Hardback:
ISBN 0-07-043174-4; Reprint: ISBN 0-385-33430-3) is a 1967 book by
zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris that looks at humans as a
species and compares them to other animals. The Human Zoo, a
follow-up book by Morris that examined the behaviour of people in
cities, was published in 1969.

Summary
The Naked Ape, which was serialised in the Daily Mirror newspaper
and has been translated into 23 languages, depicts human behaviour
as largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as a
hunter (see Nature versus nurture). The book was so named because
out of 193 species of monkeys and apes, only humans (Homo sapiens
sapiens) are not covered in hair. Desmond Morris, the author, who
had been the curator of mammals at London Zoo, said his book was
intended to popularise and demystify science.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-30 13:31:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:01:46 GMT, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 06:30:43 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
[]
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Are humans apes?
Yes, but not normally referred to as apes in normal conversation.
However, if the conversation relates to this book, written for the
general public....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape
ISBN 0-07-043174-4; Reprint: ISBN 0-385-33430-3) is a 1967 book by
zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris that looks at humans as a
species and compares them to other animals. The Human Zoo, a
follow-up book by Morris that examined the behaviour of people in
cities, was published in 1969.
Summary
The Naked Ape, which was serialised in the Daily Mirror newspaper
and has been translated into 23 languages, depicts human behaviour
as largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as a
hunter (see Nature versus nurture). The book was so named because
out of 193 species of monkeys and apes, only humans (Homo sapiens
sapiens) are not covered in hair. Desmond Morris, the author, who
had been the curator of mammals at London Zoo, said his book was
intended to popularise and demystify science.
Follow-on speculation about an Aquatic Ape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-10-29 07:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
In Danish, we use "abe" for both apes and monkeys. I would like
to be able to translate ape as "menneskeabe" (en: human monkey/ape),
but apparently the English "ape" covers more broadly:

* There are only a handful of ape species, while there are hundreds
* of species of monkeys. If the primate you’re trying to place is not
* a human, gibbon, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, or gorilla
* (or a lemur, loris, or tarsier), then it’s a monkey.
<URL:https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-monkeys-and-apes>

In Danish, the apes in parenthesis are not "menneskeaber".

/Anders, Denmark.
Quinn C
2019-10-29 12:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
In Danish, we use "abe" for both apes and monkeys. I would like
to be able to translate ape as "menneskeabe" (en: human monkey/ape),
* There are only a handful of ape species, while there are hundreds
* of species of monkeys. If the primate you’re trying to place is not
* a human, gibbon, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, or gorilla
* (or a lemur, loris, or tarsier), then it’s a monkey.
<URL:https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-monkeys-and-apes>
In Danish, the apes in parenthesis are not "menneskeaber".
I think you're misreading this. The ones in parentheses aren't apes,
but they're excluded from being "monkeys" on the other end, so to
speak. A somewhat dated German term for that group is "Halbaffe",
"half-monkey".
--
Java is kind of like kindergarten. There are lots of rules you
have to remember. If you don't follow them, the compiler makes
you sit in the corner until you do.
Don Raab
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-10-29 18:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates in
German and other Germanic languages still include all the monkeys.
In Danish, we use "abe" for both apes and monkeys. I would like
to be able to translate ape as "menneskeabe" (en: human monkey/ape),
* There are only a handful of ape species, while there are hundreds
* of species of monkeys. If the primate you’re trying to place is not
* a human, gibbon, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, or gorilla
* (or a lemur, loris, or tarsier), then it’s a monkey.
<URL:https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-monkeys-and-apes>
In Danish, the apes in parenthesis are not "menneskeaber".
I think you're misreading this. The ones in parentheses aren't apes,
but they're excluded from being "monkeys" on the other end, so to
speak. A somewhat dated German term for that group is "Halbaffe",
"half-monkey".
And indeed the Danish term for those is "halvabe". I should have noticed.

/Anders, Denmark.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-10-29 21:23:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 18:07:19 GMT, "Anders D. Nygaard"
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
The restricted modern meaning of "ape" is rather new. The cognates
in German and other Germanic languages still include all the
monkeys.
In Danish, we use "abe" for both apes and monkeys. I would like
to be able to translate ape as "menneskeabe" (en: human monkey/ape),
* There are only a handful of ape species, while there are hundreds
* of species of monkeys. If the primate you’re trying to place is
not * a human, gibbon, chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, or gorilla
* (or a lemur, loris, or tarsier), then it’s a monkey.
<URL:https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-mo
nkeys-and-apes>
In Danish, the apes in parenthesis are not "menneskeaber".
I think you're misreading this. The ones in parentheses aren't apes,
but they're excluded from being "monkeys" on the other end, so to
speak. A somewhat dated German term for that group is "Halbaffe",
"half-monkey".
And indeed the Danish term for those is "halvabe". I should have noticed.
Issat you, Eric?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-10-27 20:33:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:47:14 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 10:30:45 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she was completely
trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the languages. Sometimes when speaking
English she would insert a French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English
word, but when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused. She did
occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of English or Spanish synonyms like
use/utilize and usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser.
("User" exists in French, but it means something different.)
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Is "they" the humans or the monkeys?
Actually, I believe they are apes, but I didn't speak to any while I was there. And I'm
not in any hurry to go there again. Heh, nothing wrong with starting a sentence with and.
Nor ending with one :-)
I checked with Wikip before posting because I had a distant memory that
they were not apes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar#Flora_and_fauna

Most of the Rock's upper area is covered by a nature reserve which
is home to around 230 Barbary macaques, the famous "apes" of
Gibraltar, which are actually monkeys. These are the only wild apes
or monkeys found in Europe. This species, known scientifically
as Macaca sylvanus, is listed as endangered by the IUCN Red List and
is declining.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2019-10-27 17:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she
was completely trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the
languages. Sometimes when speaking English she would insert a French
word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English word, but when
she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused.
She did occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of
English or Spanish synonyms like use/utilize and usar/utilisar she
would prefer the word that resembled French utiliser. ("User" exists
in French, but it means something different.)
I went a couple of times to Gibraltar. Horrible place, just down the road from here.
They actually speak Spanglish the whole time. It sounds really weird.
Especially so when you see a quintessentially British-looking policeman
speaking fluent Spanglish.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2019-10-27 09:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she
was completely trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed
the languages. Sometimes when speaking English she would insert a
French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English word, but
when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that
she knew perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never
confused. She did occasionally calque French expressions, and with
pairs of English or Spanish synonyms like use/utilize and
usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French
utiliser. ("User" exists in French, but it means something
different.)
My number 2 son impressed me when he was four years old. In a group of
mixed English- and French-speaking people, he would change language
depending on who he was looking at. Sometimes this happened in the
middle of a sentence. It seemed to be completely unconscious.

In the same environment, his Belgian (francophone, but multilingual)
cousins would accidentally address me in Dutch. They knew I didn't speak
French well, and that automatically triggered their Flemish reflex. Then
they self-corrected and switched to English, but Dutch was the automatic
choice in the non-French category.

That reminds me that I should have a word with my daughter. She has two
young children, and I've never heard her talking to them in French. She
had the advantage of being raised in two languages, and it would be a
pity if she didn't give her children the same advantage. Their
grandmother, my ex-wife, probably speaks to them in French, but a mother
can be so much more influential.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-27 10:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she
was completely trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed
the languages. Sometimes when speaking English she would insert a
French word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English word, but
when she did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that
she knew perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never
confused. She did occasionally calque French expressions, and with
pairs of English or Spanish synonyms like use/utilize and
usar/utilisar she would prefer the word that resembled French
utiliser. ("User" exists in French, but it means something
different.)
My number 2 son impressed me when he was four years old. In a group of
mixed English- and French-speaking people, he would change language
depending on who he was looking at. Sometimes this happened in the
middle of a sentence. It seemed to be completely unconscious.
I'm not sure if my daughter switched in mid-sentence, but she certainly
adapted her language to the person she was talking to (and still does).
I think that it was unconscious likewise.
Post by Peter Moylan
In the same environment, his Belgian (francophone, but multilingual)
cousins would accidentally address me in Dutch. They knew I didn't speak
French well, and that automatically triggered their Flemish reflex. Then
they self-corrected and switched to English, but Dutch was the automatic
choice in the non-French category.
My wife speaks English to me and Spanish to her relatives and friends
in Chile and Spain. I'm always aware of which language I'm trying to
speak, but she isn't, and French is the automatic choice for people she
doesn't know. Several times I've heard her addressing waiters in French
in Spain or Chile.
Post by Peter Moylan
That reminds me that I should have a word with my daughter. She has two
young children, and I've never heard her talking to them in French. She
had the advantage of being raised in two languages, and it would be a
pity if she didn't give her children the same advantage. Their
grandmother, my ex-wife, probably speaks to them in French, but a mother
can be so much more influential.
I agree. I don't think our daughter is doing all that much to expose
her twins to English and Spanish. Her father-in-law is Syrian, but
never tried to familiarize his four children with Arabic.
--
athel
Lewis
2019-10-27 11:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in
Spanish, but it's one of
those examples of where my English is getting corrupted by constant exposure to another
language. Not that I've yet actually said that in English, but it's there in my head
waiting to pop out one day.
Yep, different language, different idiom.
"We are at peace" would likely be misunderstood in English, at least
somewhat.
Post by Paul Carmichael
Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.
"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."
When my siblings were young (under 13 or so) they mixed Enlgish and
Spanish like that a lot. Or used one languiages grammar in the other
language.
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she
was completely trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the
languages.
My theory (based on the sample size of one family) is that it depends on
ho you grew up with the languages. I treated English and Spanish as two
entirely different things and like your daughter never switched between
them without a goof reason.

My sibling both grew up using English and Spanish all the time in all
situations, whilst I grew up speaking only English at home and Spanish
outside the home. Or at least nearly everyone I dealt with spoke one of
the two languages to me, even if they knew both.

Also, they went to primary school with a bunch of bilingual students,
while I went to a bilingual school (that is to say, everyone in my
school was learning a second language, everyone in their school
already knew two).

There are no funny language stories about me as a child.
--
Kid 1: What are the four horsemen of the apocalypse?
Dad: War, death, famine and pestilence.
Kid 2: You forgot flatulence!
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-10-27 16:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[...]
Post by Lewis
When my siblings were young (under 13 or so) they mixed Enlgish and
Spanish like that a lot. Or used one languiages grammar in the other
language.
That depends on the individual person. When my daughter was eight she
was completely trilingual (as she still is), but she _never_ mixed the
languages. Sometimes when speaking English she would insert a French
word into a sentence, if she didn't know the English word, but when she
did that it was always obvious from the brief pauses that she knew
perfectly well that it wasn't an English word. She was never confused.
She did occasionally calque French expressions, and with pairs of
English or Spanish synonyms like use/utilize and usar/utilisar she would
prefer the word that resembled French utiliser.  ("User" exists in
French, but it means something different.)
I read a lot, and tend not to notice whether text I read is Danish
(native) or English (acquired at an early age).
I have on occasion handed over and recommended a book I've read to
my wife who will then complain that she can't read it (she's
exaggerating, but it would be a chore).

This is usually not a problem, but recently I was asked by one of my
Polish collagues to provide a Danish translation of a(n abbreviated
English) text appearing in a bit of code, and explained that the text
appearing there actually appears twice in the code base, and could he
just go there and find it. He said he could not, so I copy-pasted the
relevant bit, and said, in effect, "there; could you really not find it?".
I'm afraid I have to admit it took a couple of messages more before
it dawned on me that the text I had carefully copy-pasted was, in fact,
in English; not in Danish. Quite embarassing, really, and I had managed
to confuse the poor guy no end during the exchange.

/Anders, Denmark.
Mark Brader
2019-10-27 18:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
I read a lot, and tend not to notice whether text I read is Danish
(native) or English (acquired at an early age).
I have on occasion handed over and recommended a book I've read to
my wife who will then complain that she can't read it (she's
exaggerating, but it would be a chore).
Now *that's* a bilingual person!
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
This is usually not a problem, but recently I was asked by one of my
Polish collagues to provide a Danish translation of a(n abbreviated
English) text appearing in a bit of code, and explained that the text
appearing there actually appears twice in the code base, and could he
just go there and find it. He said he could not, so I copy-pasted the
relevant bit, and said, in effect, "there; could you really not find it?".
I'm afraid I have to admit it took a couple of messages more before
it dawned on me that the text I had carefully copy-pasted was, in fact,
in English; not in Danish. Quite embarassing, really, and I had managed
to confuse the poor guy no end during the exchange.
You've managed to confuse *me*. By "actually appears twice", do you mean
that you thought it was already there in both English and Danish, but
actually it was in English in both places? Please explain in more detail,
if you don't mind.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... pure English is de rigueur"
***@vex.net -- Guardian Weekly

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-10-28 16:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
I read a lot, and tend not to notice whether text I read is Danish
(native) or English (acquired at an early age).
I have on occasion handed over and recommended a book I've read to
my wife who will then complain that she can't read it (she's
exaggerating, but it would be a chore).
Now *that's* a bilingual person!
<blush/>Why, thank you. But no, not really: My command of contemporary
idiom is less than stellar, and, as you comment on below, my production
of English (spoken or written) leaves quite a bit to be desired.
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
This is usually not a problem, but recently I was asked by one of my
Polish collagues to provide a Danish translation of a(n abbreviated
English) text appearing in a bit of code, and explained that the text
appearing there actually appears twice in the code base, and could he
just go there and find it. He said he could not, so I copy-pasted the
relevant bit, and said, in effect, "there; could you really not find it?".
I'm afraid I have to admit it took a couple of messages more before
it dawned on me that the text I had carefully copy-pasted was, in fact,
in English; not in Danish. Quite embarassing, really, and I had managed
to confuse the poor guy no end during the exchange.
You've managed to confuse *me*. By "actually appears twice", do you mean
that you thought it was already there in both English and Danish, but
actually it was in English in both places? Please explain in more detail,
if you don't mind.
In - perhaps too - excruciating detail:

We are currently working on adding a major feature to two similar
systems (call them System 1 and System 2).

Our datastructures and their UI are defined by XML tags similar to this:

<d:Field
Name="DoesCustomerPriceIncludePriceForBenefitIndexationWhenDisbursing"
UIName="Kundeprisen indeholder betaling for indeksregulering af
udbetalende ydelse" Type="NullableBool" Description="Specifies whether
the customer price includes the price for benefit indexation when the
product atom is disbursing."/>

where "Name" is locally unique, "UIName" is used as a label in the UI,
and "Description" is used as MouseOver-text.
As both systems are to be used by Danish clients, we want both UIName
and Description to contain Danish text.

During review of a change to System 1, I noticed that the Description
included a Danish-looking text containing a word which was not, in fact,
Danish, and asked the Polish developer where he got it, and the answer
was "from the analogous field in system 2".

Now, the "Name" given appears twice for similar fields in different
contexts, and I noticed that the text in the *other* context looked
right, and suggested he use that - and copy-pasted the fragment shown
above.

... where the "Description" is a correct text, but in English, not
Danish. Bummer.

OK?

/Anders, Denmark.
Mark Brader
2019-10-28 21:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
This is usually not a problem, but recently I was asked by one of my
Polish collagues to provide a Danish translation of a(n abbreviated
English) text appearing in a bit of code, and explained that the text
appearing there actually appears twice in the code base, and could he
just go there and find it. He said he could not, so I copy-pasted the
relevant bit, and said, in effect, "there; could you really not find it?".
I'm afraid I have to admit it took a couple of messages more before
it dawned on me that the text I had carefully copy-pasted was, in fact,
in English; not in Danish. Quite embarassing, really, and I had managed
to confuse the poor guy no end during the exchange.
You've managed to confuse *me*. By "actually appears twice", do you mean
that you thought it was already there in both English and Danish, but
actually it was in English in both places? Please explain in more detail,
if you don't mind.
We are currently working on adding a major feature to two similar
systems (call them System 1 and System 2).
<d:Field
Name="DoesCustomerPriceIncludePriceForBenefitIndexationWhenDisbursing"
UIName="Kundeprisen indeholder betaling for indeksregulering af
udbetalende ydelse" Type="NullableBool" Description="Specifies whether
the customer price includes the price for benefit indexation when the
product atom is disbursing."/>
where "Name" is locally unique, "UIName" is used as a label in the UI,
and "Description" is used as MouseOver-text.
As both systems are to be used by Danish clients, we want both UIName
and Description to contain Danish text.
Okay...
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
During review of a change to System 1, I noticed that the Description
included a Danish-looking text containing a word which was not, in fact,
Danish, and asked the Polish developer where he got it, and the answer
was "from the analogous field in system 2".
Now, the "Name" given appears twice for similar fields in different
contexts, and I noticed that the text in the *other* context looked
right, and suggested he use that - and copy-pasted the fragment shown
above.
... where the "Description" is a correct text, but in English, not
Danish. Bummer.
Ah! So he didn't ask you to translate it, you noticed yourself that it
needed translating, but then didn't notice that the other copy *also*
needed translating. Klar.

"Product atom" is an interesting expression. And then there's that
type "NullableBool": what's that mean, its only possible values are
"True", "False", and null?
--
Mark Brader | Moreover, as experts, we... deserve certain courtesies,
Toronto | like high rates of pay, and blind trust in our competence
***@vex.net | on the part of John Q. Public. --Geoffrey K. Pullum

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-10-29 07:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
This is usually not a problem, but recently I was asked by one of my
Polish collagues to provide a Danish translation of a(n abbreviated
English) text appearing in a bit of code, and explained that the text
appearing there actually appears twice in the code base, and could he
just go there and find it. He said he could not, so I copy-pasted the
relevant bit, and said, in effect, "there; could you really not find it?".
I'm afraid I have to admit it took a couple of messages more before
it dawned on me that the text I had carefully copy-pasted was, in fact,
in English; not in Danish. Quite embarassing, really, and I had managed
to confuse the poor guy no end during the exchange.
You've managed to confuse *me*. By "actually appears twice", do you mean
that you thought it was already there in both English and Danish, but
actually it was in English in both places? Please explain in more detail,
if you don't mind.
We are currently working on adding a major feature to two similar
systems (call them System 1 and System 2).
<d:Field
Name="DoesCustomerPriceIncludePriceForBenefitIndexationWhenDisbursing"
UIName="Kundeprisen indeholder betaling for indeksregulering af
udbetalende ydelse" Type="NullableBool" Description="Specifies whether
the customer price includes the price for benefit indexation when the
product atom is disbursing."/>
where "Name" is locally unique, "UIName" is used as a label in the UI,
and "Description" is used as MouseOver-text.
As both systems are to be used by Danish clients, we want both UIName
and Description to contain Danish text.
Okay...
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
During review of a change to System 1, I noticed that the Description
included a Danish-looking text containing a word which was not, in fact,
Danish, and asked the Polish developer where he got it, and the answer
was "from the analogous field in system 2".
Now, the "Name" given appears twice for similar fields in different
contexts, and I noticed that the text in the *other* context looked
right, and suggested he use that - and copy-pasted the fragment shown
above.
... where the "Description" is a correct text, but in English, not
Danish. Bummer.
Ah! So he didn't ask you to translate it, you noticed yourself that it
needed translating,
Not quite: I noticed that the ("Danish-looking") 'translation' needed
some more work, and he asked for a usable text.
Post by Mark Brader
but then didn't notice that the other copy *also*
needed translating. Klar.
"Klar"? Sounds German to me - is it used in English?
Post by Mark Brader
"Product atom" is an interesting expression.
Yes, and it is actually too technical, IMHO, to escape to the end users.
But that is not my decision.
Post by Mark Brader
And then there's that
type "NullableBool": what's that mean, its only possible values are
"True", "False", and null?
Yes. Where null means something like "does not make sense here".

/Anders, Denmark.
Mark Brader
2019-10-29 07:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
but then didn't notice that the other copy *also*
needed translating. Klar.
"Klar"? Sounds German to me - is it used in English?
No, it's not English.

I knew it from Norwegian, so I figured it was probably Danish too,
and when I typed the word into Google Translate, it thought so
too. Doesn't mean I had the right word, of course.
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
And then there's that
type "NullableBool": what's that mean, its only possible values are
"True", "False", and null?
Yes. Where null means something like "does not make sense here".
Or "not applicable". Yeah, I had that in mind.
--
Mark Brader | "Hitler made an elementary error when he chose not to
Toronto | dress his young National Socialists in lime-green catsuits
***@vex.net | laced with twinkling fairy lights." --Anthony Lane
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-10-29 18:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
but then didn't notice that the other copy *also*
needed translating. Klar.
"Klar"? Sounds German to me - is it used in English?
No, it's not English.
I knew it from Norwegian, so I figured it was probably Danish too,
and when I typed the word into Google Translate, it thought so
too. Doesn't mean I had the right word, of course.
I'm not into the subtleties of Norwegian, but your usage above
is somewhat off in Danish. We could say "Det er klart", and
possiby even abbreviate that to "Klart"; but the more natural
expression (to me at least) would be "Nu forstår jeg det"
(now I understand) or perhaps better "Forstået" (understood).

/Anders, Denmark.
Mark Brader
2019-10-29 19:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
I knew it from Norwegian, so I figured it was probably Danish too,
I'm not into the subtleties of Norwegian, but...
For greater clarity: neither am I.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Abel was I ere I saw non-Abelian groups"
***@vex.net | --Roland Hutchinson
Quinn C
2019-10-29 21:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
but then didn't notice that the other copy *also*
needed translating. Klar.
"Klar"? Sounds German to me - is it used in English?
No, it's not English.
I knew it from Norwegian, so I figured it was probably Danish too,
and when I typed the word into Google Translate, it thought so
too. Doesn't mean I had the right word, of course.
I'm not into the subtleties of Norwegian, but your usage above
is somewhat off in Danish. We could say "Det er klart", and
possiby even abbreviate that to "Klart"; but the more natural
expression (to me at least) would be "Nu forstår jeg det"
(now I understand) or perhaps better "Forstået" (understood).
And for good measure: in German, you could say "alles klar" to indicate
understanding, or more formally "jetzt ist es mir klar", but "klar" on
it's own usually means "of course", so that wouldn't work, either.
--
I'll call you the next time I pass through your star system.
-- Commander William T. Riker
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-30 09:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
And for good measure: in German, you could say "alles klar" to indicate
understanding, or more formally "jetzt ist es mir klar", but "klar" on
it's own usually means "of course", so that wouldn't work, either.
When I've used klar Duolingo has corrected me to natürlich.
--
Paul.
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-27 09:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
"escopetero" bloke with shotgun and usually very poor aim, on a mission to blow rabbits to
bits and so render them inedible.
That's a new one to me, and I suspect it is Spanglish in origin?
https://dle.rae.es/?id=GIFCX3e

escopetero

1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.

2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.

My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at point blank range because
that's the only way they can be sure of a kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long
as you can see to sign your name on the form.
--
Paul.
Peter Moylan
2019-10-27 10:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.

Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-27 11:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.
Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the leftpondians use
shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred metres, so I doubt they are the same as
our shotguns.
--
Paul.
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-27 14:52:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 12:01:22 +0100, Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the leftpondians use
shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred metres, so I doubt they are the same as
our shotguns.
What kind of shotgun would that be? Shotguns have an effective range
of about 50 meters at most.
We seem to have resolved our problems with Indians and rarely shoot
them anymore. Oh, if they happen to be in the line of fire of one of
our mass shooters, some may be shot. Our mass shooters, though, have
access to much more effective killing-machine weaponry than the
shotgun so it would be an unlikely choice.
Shotguns, in our Old West, were the favored weapon of the stagecoach
guard. The guard sat up on the seat at the driver's right. This gave
us the term "shotgun" to mean sitting in the front seat of an
automobile at the driver's right.
Ah:

https://www.guns.com/news/2011/12/12/shotguns-the-guns-that-really-won-the-west
--
Paul.
Lewis
2019-10-27 16:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.
Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the
leftpondians use shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred
metres, so I doubt they are the same as our shotguns.
Where did you get that idea? A shotgun is a relatively short range
weapon, and certainly not used at several hundred meters. I'd be
surprised to see it used at 50m, in fact.
--
Updated to be PRCE compatible after 400 years: /(bb|[^b]{2})/
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-27 17:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.
Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the
leftpondians use shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred
metres, so I doubt they are the same as our shotguns.
Where did you get that idea? A shotgun is a relatively short range
weapon, and certainly not used at several hundred meters. I'd be
surprised to see it used at 50m, in fact.
On USA telly. Prolly cops and robbers as well as cowboy films. They refer to shotgun
"wounds" and they hear "shotgun fire" which is quite plainly not the sound of a shotgun
going off. It's normally the crack of a winchester. Maybe it is a kind of slang or summat.
--
Paul.
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-27 19:48:30 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the
leftpondians use shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred
metres, so I doubt they are the same as our shotguns.
Where did you get that idea? A shotgun is a relatively short range
weapon, and certainly not used at several hundred meters. I'd be
surprised to see it used at 50m, in fact.
On USA telly. Prolly cops and robbers as well as cowboy films. They
refer to shotgun "wounds" and they hear "shotgun fire" which is quite
plainly not the sound of a shotgun going off. It's normally the crack of
a winchester. Maybe it is a kind of slang or summat.
Or maybe it's the same reason that when they show a Bald Eagle or a
Turkey Vulture, the sound effect is a Red-tailed Hawk call.

Though a) I wouldn't be able to tell the sound of a rifle from that of a
shotgun, and b) I associate the U.S. Army in the old days so strongly
with rifles that I'm surprised to hear that the scripts refer to shotguns.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-27 20:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the
leftpondians use shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred
metres, so I doubt they are the same as our shotguns.
Where did you get that idea? A shotgun is a relatively short range
weapon, and certainly not used at several hundred meters. I'd be
surprised to see it used at 50m, in fact.
On USA telly. Prolly cops and robbers as well as cowboy films. They
refer to shotgun "wounds" and they hear "shotgun fire" which is quite
plainly not the sound of a shotgun going off. It's normally the crack of
a winchester. Maybe it is a kind of slang or summat.
Or maybe it's the same reason that when they show a Bald Eagle or a
Turkey Vulture, the sound effect is a Red-tailed Hawk call.
Though a) I wouldn't be able to tell the sound of a rifle from that of a
shotgun, and b) I associate the U.S. Army in the old days so strongly
with rifles that I'm surprised to hear that the scripts refer to shotguns.
Shotguns are for convincing young men who despoil young ladies to marry
them. I can't imagine them being used by either cops or robbers.

It's possible that Paul-of-Spain uses the word "shotgun" for something
other than what the rest of us use the word for.
Paul Carmichael
2019-10-28 08:45:28 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the
leftpondians use shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred
metres, so I doubt they are the same as our shotguns.
Where did you get that idea? A shotgun is a relatively short range
weapon, and certainly not used at several hundred meters. I'd be
surprised to see it used at 50m, in fact.
On USA telly. Prolly cops and robbers as well as cowboy films. They refer to shotgun
"wounds" and they hear "shotgun fire" which is quite plainly not the sound of a shotgun
going off. It's normally the crack of a winchester. Maybe it is a kind of slang or summat.
Or maybe it's the same reason that when they show a Bald Eagle or a Turkey Vulture, the
sound effect is a Red-tailed Hawk call.
Though a) I wouldn't be able to tell the sound of a rifle from that of a shotgun, and b) I
associate the U.S. Army in the old days so strongly with rifles that I'm surprised to hear
that the scripts refer to shotguns.
I hear both, what with living in el campo and all.

A shotgun makes kind of a pop sound as opposed to the crack of a rifle. Very different.
--
Paul.
Lewis
2019-10-28 11:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Lewis
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.
Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
Yeah, after posting that last message, I suddenly remembered that the
leftpondians use shotguns for shooting Indians at several hundred
metres, so I doubt they are the same as our shotguns.
Where did you get that idea? A shotgun is a relatively short range
weapon, and certainly not used at several hundred meters. I'd be
surprised to see it used at 50m, in fact.
On USA telly. Prolly cops and robbers as well as cowboy films. They refer to shotgun
"wounds"
Yes, shotguns can wound.
Post by Paul Carmichael
and they hear "shotgun fire" which is quite plainly not the sound of a
shotgun going off. It's normally the crack of a winchester. Maybe it
is a kind of slang or summat.
I don't think I have ever seen accurate sound depiction of gunfire in a
movie or TV show. Ever.

That has nothing at all to do with several hundred meters.
--
And I'm nor insane, my mother had me tested.
Katy Jennison
2019-10-27 17:26:04 UTC
Permalink
When two or more passengers are going to ride in an automobile, one
may say "I claim shotgun" thus relegating the other passenger(s) to
the back seat.
Now I wonder what the call would be in those places where the driver
of the vehicle sits on the right.
Should it matter, in those countries that are not fascinated by guns?
AFAIAA we don't have a particular name for that position, other than
'the front passenger seat'.

As a child we might have said "Bags I sit in the front!", but it
wouldn't have worked because my mother always drove and my father always
sat in the front.
--
Katy Jennison
CDB
2019-10-28 15:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
When two or more passengers are going to ride in an automobile,
one may say "I claim shotgun" thus relegating the other
passenger(s) to the back seat.
Now I wonder what the call would be in those places where the
driver of the vehicle sits on the right.
Should it matter, in those countries that are not fascinated by guns?
AFAIAA we don't have a particular name for that position, other than
'the front passenger seat'.
As a child we might have said "Bags I sit in the front!", but it
wouldn't have worked because my mother always drove and my father
always sat in the front.
Could be "suicide seat". That's how it would feel to me.
--
(apprehensive passenger that I am) Incoming!
b***@aol.com
2019-10-28 16:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
When two or more passengers are going to ride in an automobile,
one may say "I claim shotgun" thus relegating the other
passenger(s) to the back seat.
Now I wonder what the call would be in those places where the
driver of the vehicle sits on the right.
Should it matter, in those countries that are not fascinated by guns?
AFAIAA we don't have a particular name for that position, other than
'the front passenger seat'.
As a child we might have said "Bags I sit in the front!", but it
wouldn't have worked because my mother always drove and my father
always sat in the front.
Could be "suicide seat". That's how it would feel to me.
French has "la place du mort", which is close.
Post by CDB
--
(apprehensive passenger that I am) Incoming!
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-28 08:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.
Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
I was struck by the number of shot-up road signs that I saw when I
lived in Californa, as I didn't remember seeing any like that in
England. When I got back to England I confirmed my impression that
there weren't any. Being young and naive I didn't immediately think of
the reason. As this was in the USA it wasn't just in rural areas. I saw
them also in the Bay Area.
--
athel
RH Draney
2019-10-28 11:00:41 UTC
Permalink
I was struck by the number of shot-up road signs that I saw when I lived
in Californa, as I didn't remember seeing any like that in England. When
I got back to England I confirmed my impression that there weren't any.
Being young and naive I didn't immediately think of the reason. As this
was in the USA it wasn't just in rural areas. I saw them also in the Bay
Area.
You ought to visit rural New Mexico some time, where it's generally
understood that road signs are for shooting at, especially signs that
say "No Shooting"....r
Peter Moylan
2019-10-28 13:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I was struck by the number of shot-up road signs that I saw when I
lived in Californa, as I didn't remember seeing any like that in
England. When I got back to England I confirmed my impression that
there weren't any. Being young and naive I didn't immediately think of
the reason. As this was in the USA it wasn't just in rural areas. I
saw them also in the Bay Area.
You ought to visit rural New Mexico some time, where it's generally
understood that road signs are for shooting at, especially signs that
say "No Shooting"....r
A vague and distant memory: a sign saying "Do not throw rocks at this sign".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
2019-10-28 20:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Paul Carmichael
escopetero
1. m. Soldado armado de escopeta.
2. m. Hombre que sin ser soldado va armado con escopeta.
My added bits refer to the fact that these guys shoot rabbits at
point blank range because that's the only way they can be sure of a
kill. You can get a shotgun licence here as long as you can see to
sign your name on the form.
The comparable people here shoot up road signs, mostly in rural areas.
They would be doing a public service if they killed rabbits, but I
suppose the road signs don't run as fast.
Judging from the holes, I think they use rifles rather than shotguns.
I was struck by the number of shot-up road signs that I saw when I
lived in Californa, as I didn't remember seeing any like that in
England. When I got back to England I confirmed my impression that
there weren't any. Being young and naive I didn't immediately think of
the reason. As this was in the USA it wasn't just in rural areas. I saw
them also in the Bay Area.
I think the fad for shooting up road signs in California is
dying out. When I was young almost every sign had a hole or
two. Now even here in the Emerald Triangle - still considered
quite wild by city folk - shot-up signs are rare today.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-10-27 13:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
When my siblings were young (under 13 or so) they mixed Enlgish and
Spanish like that a lot. Or used one languiages grammar in the other
language.
The story I have heard many times was my sister complaining, "where do
she put it, Carmella, my book." which is perfectly understandable if
said in Spanish, but sounds very broken in English.
That's most unusual. Ordinarily, children growing up bilingual never mix
their languages; they acquire both of them perfectly and with no foreign
accent.

Or was English a school subject, not a language heard in the surrounding
community?
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-27 03:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
Where I live we say "We are at peace". Obviously that is said in
Spanish, but it's one of those examples of where my English is getting
corrupted by constant exposure to another language. Not that I've yet
actually said that in English, but it's there in my head waiting to pop
out one day.
Perhaps we should have a new dialect en-es.
"I don't go out into the campo any more el finde because of the escopeteros."
We could call it Spanglish, or around here, "mocho". Half en español y
la mitad in English.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2019-10-26 11:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Yes, from French 'quitte', perhaps by way of Dutch,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-26 14:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Yes, from French 'quitte',
Maybe, but "quit" is a perfectly ordinary word in English.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-10-26 15:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Yurui Liu
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Yes, from French 'quitte',
Maybe, but "quit" is a perfectly ordinary word in English.
Although what I wrote was true, I meant "perfectly ordinary verb".
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2019-10-26 17:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
Hi,
In the following example sentence, "to be quits" means "to not owe money
to someone or to each other now." This seems to be a British usage.
Could "quits" be replaced by "square," "even," or "straight"?
Am I quits with you now?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quits
For me in the U.S., "even" would be normal and "square" would be strange
but understandable. "Are we even now?" seems the most likely, and
"square" wouldn't seem as strange there.

"Am I straight with you now?" seems like a remote possibility. "Are we
straight now?" would work in context, and I may have said it or heard
it. It can also mean "Have we resolved our misunderstanding?" Some
QUILTBAG people might avoid those.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...