I'm not sure that this has been raised before here: use of the word 'through'. Scenario: Someone is talking on the phone. A bystander asks ''Have you got through?' The phone user replies : Yes.' In the UK, that means 'I am connected to the person I am trying to call.' In the US, I understand, it means 'I have finished my call.' Why the difference, and does it cause problems in transatlantic communication?
I'm not sure that this has been raised before here: use of the word 'through'. Scenario: Someone is talking on the phone. A bystander asks ''Have you got through?' The phone user replies : Yes.' In the UK, that means 'I am connected to the person I am trying to call.' In the US, I understand, it means 'I have finished my call.' Why the difference, and does it cause problems in transatlantic communication?
In my experience in the US, “Have you gotten through?” or “Did you get through?” always means “Have you connected with the person you’re trying to reach?” It’s “Are you through?” that means “Are you finished?”
"Are you through?" is short for "Are you through (with that call/task)?" meaning, finished.
In this case, "through" functions as an adjective modifying "you" and meaning "finished" (e.g. "I'm all through now.").
The example "Did you get through (the phone system to the person you wanted)?" has "through" acting as a preposition to a noun or noun phrase which is omitted.
In my experience in the US, “Have you gotten through?” or “Did you get through?” always means “Have you connected with the person you’re trying to reach?” It’s “Are you through?” that means “Are you finished?”
Through to vs through with. Omit the preposition, and you need context to tell which one the person means.
In my experience in the US, “Have you gotten through?” or “Did you get through?” always means “Have you connected with the person you’re trying to reach?” It’s “Are you through?” that means “Are you finished?”
Through to vs through with. Omit the preposition, and you need context to tell which one the person means.
Not necessarily, as the verb also matters: “to be” vs. “to get.” In my experience, it’s always “get through to” and “be through with.” The only exception to that I can think of is a statement like “I’ve just got to plow ahead and get through this,” or “You’ll get through this.” But I’ve never heard “I’ve gotten through” to mean I’m finished; that’s always (in my experience) “I am through.”
But I’ve never heard “I’ve gotten through” to mean I’m finished; that’s always (in my experience) “I am through.”
I've heard "I've just gotten through with X" (or possibly "I've just got through with X" - my brain just maps gotten on to got, so I don't notice which one people use) to indicate that the speaker has only recently completed X.
I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone say they’ve gotten through or just gotten through with anything either. I’m sure it’s possible I’ve heard it over the last six decades, but both sound strange to my ears.
Perhaps regionalisms are at play here? For recently completed things, what I’d expect to hear here is “I (or I’ve) just finished,” “I/I’ve just gotten done,” or “I just got done.”
Scenario: Someone is talking on the phone. A bystander asks ''Have you got through?' The phone user replies : Yes.' … In the US, I understand, it means 'I have finished my call.'
is not, in my experience, accurate. I would not understand the “yes” there to mean that the speaker has finished the call.
@Nick Tamen agree. Also an American would be far more likely to say "have you gotten" rather than the newfangled "have you got".
It's the "gotten" that is so US to our ears - we'd simply use "got". I can't remember which one the Canadians use.
Depending who you are, either. As is often the case in Canada, regional, generational, originational, class. I mostly use "got" - more UK-ish, which is not to say more correct.
Thanks to you both. I knew "gotten" was the original, but probably between the earliest British settlements in N America and those here the British usage changed. As to Pangolin Guerre's last sentence, surely each usages is correct in that country?
A small general tangent from Dictionary.com: "the “standard” language in a given country—which we often conflate with the language itself—is the particular dialect used by institutions. (It has been said that a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy. But I typically find it more helpful to think of things this way: A language is just a dialect with standard-issue textbooks and a disapproving glare.) " ~Elizabeth Little, commenting on The Dictionary of American Regional English
A small general tangent from Dictionary.com: "the “standard” language in a given country—which we often conflate with the language itself—is the particular dialect used by institutions. (It has been said that a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy. But I typically find it more helpful to think of things this way: A language is just a dialect with standard-issue textbooks and a disapproving glare.) " ~Elizabeth Little, commenting on The Dictionary of American Regional English
Yes, standard English used to be described as a class dialect, not a regional one. I assume this description is still used, although it irritates some people, who I suppose think it's "correct" English.
Going back a few posts, I'm not persuaded that the average Brit would grasp the distinction between 'Have you got/ten through/' and 'Are you all through?' Though I suppose that doesn't matter so much as it would have done in the days of operator-controlled calls.
Though I suppose that doesn't matter so much as it would have done in the days of operator-controlled calls.
These days, I’d say “Have you gotten through” is quite applicable for calls that start off with “Your call is important to us. For business hours, please press 1, . . . .” It can be quite a challenge sometimes to get through to a real person who can help you.
Another word... After a routine burglary when we lived for a short time in Texas, my wife told the police officer that she'd seen a gaggle of teenage girls hanging around outside. He thought for a moment and said, "No, ma'am - you mean a passel" (parcel, I think).
Passel is correct if you are from the Deep South. I wonder what they were fixin to do.
The loss of the sound of "r" after a vowel and before another consonant in the middle of a word is common in spoken English. This linguistic idiosyncrasy has given our language a few new words, such as cuss from curse, bust from burst, and our featured word passel from parcel. The spelling passel originated in the 15th century, but the word's use as a collective noun for an indefinite number is a 19th-century Americanism. It was common primarily in local-color writing before getting a boost in the 1940s, when it began appearing in popular weekly magazines such as Time, Newsweek, and Saturday Review.
As an aside about 'luggage' my partner (Hungarian/Romanian) is the only person I know who uses a plural for it, as in 'bring the luggages' etc. (Her use of plurals in general is a little idiosyncratic though, as she might say 'bring me that trouser' etc for words that are always plural normally.)
This isn't about luggage OR baggage but in Canada, apparently the French speaking folks say "percussions" instead of just percussion when talking about drum sets and other percussion instruments. I was watching a video from Cirque Du Soleil, discussing the preparations for "Dralion", a Cirque show from the mid 1990's. One of the musical directors kept mentioning all the "percussions". I guess that's a French thing as I have heard percussion instruments, collectively called percussion. Interesting. The RE-percussions are unthinkable! I'll get my coat...
I have recently been catching up with Donna Leon's Venetian novels featuring Comissario Brunetti, recommended by a former Bishop here as the only detective stories he knew of containing recipes. I have noticed how frequently in casual speech between the characters the first word is omitted completely, as in 'You like a coffee?' This grates on the British ear - we would say 'Would you like a coffee?' or 'D'you (do you) want a coffee?' It sounds brusque to me. Donna Leon is American, of course, recounting a conversation supposedly between Italian police officers. Presumably this is regular usage in the US rather than in Italy. Would any American shipmate care to comment?
It sounds brusque to me. Donna Leon is American, of course, recounting a conversation supposedly between Italian police officers. Presumably this is regular usage in the US rather than in Italy. Would any American shipmate care to comment?
It sounds like a usage I have heard in native speakers of Italian with imperfect English. I think I've heard it in native speakers of other romance languages, but I know I've heard it from Italians. It is not a use I have heard in native speakers of American English.
This American has never heard “You like a coffee?” in normal speech. I rarely hear anyone refer to “a coffee.” It’s just “coffee” or “some coffee.”
“You like coffee?” would mean “Do you like coffee?” “Would you like some coffee?” would be “You want coffee?,” “Want some coffee” or “Like some coffee?”
My thought as well. I've never heard "Like a coffee?" but often "Want a coffee?" Although that would imply the speaker was going to treat. If not it would be worded "Wanna go get a coffee?"
I rarely hear anyone refer to “a coffee.” It’s just “coffee” or “some coffee.”
Even if they're talking about purchasing it from a coffee shop? "I'm just gonna go grab a coffee on the way to work," or "I'm getting a coffee, you want one?" sounds very natural to me -- but then I am Canadian not American.
I came across this column about how archaic some phrases and words have become in our language. It is a good laugh.
A number of years ago, two Shipmates came here for a visit. (Chukovsky and Mad Ferret.) During the course of some of our conversations, Chukovsky told me that my English was very archaic! Well, to tell the truth, some of my friends have mentioned that to me, but not in so many words!
I came across this column about how archaic some phrases and words have become in our language. It is a good laugh.
From UK,
'Staples', to mean basic foodstuffs, flour, rice etc I'd regard as normal, distinguished from the paper-joiners by context.
'Britches', used here specifically of trousers specifically for riding a horse in.
'Gallivant', used only mockingly.
'Smitten', used here only normally to mean attracted romantically to someone.
'Swell', means to grow fatter or of the sea as to how rough it is. Referring to someone as 'a swell' is definitely archaic. 'Swell' as in 'Wouldn’t it be swell to know someone like that?' we'd hear as an Americanism.
'Slacks', slightly old-fashioned word for women's trousers only. NB 'pants' does not mean trousers in the UK but underwear.
'the wrath of the whoop-de-doo', never heard that one. Likewise, 'more money than Quaker has oats', 'getting all fizzed up', and 'as independent as a hog on ice'. Mind, we don't use 'hog' much here, but I've never heard of a pig on ice either.
I rarely hear anyone refer to “a coffee.” It’s just “coffee” or “some coffee.” “I'm just gonna go grab a coffee on the way to work,” or “I'm getting a coffee, you want one?” sounds very natural to me -- but then I am Canadian not American.
Even if they're talking about purchasing it from a coffee shop? "
Yes. Maybe elsewhere in America it’d be “a coffee,” but here I just hear “I’m just gonna go grab some coffee,” or “I’m getting coffee, you want any?”
"Swell" as an adjective expressing approval is very dated. It is dated to the 1950s at the most recent, I believe.
.
Do Brits say "Pardon my French" when they say something naughty?
"Swell" as an adjective expressing approval is very dated. It is dated to the 1950s at the most recent, I believe.
.
Do Brits say "Pardon my French" when they say something naughty?
I think that that usage of swell here dates back to the 20's at least, perhaps more. Swell was used as a description of an over-smart man, usually young often with a moderately perjorative overtone. That usage goes back to the 1890's or so.
"Swell" as an adjective expressing approval is very dated. It is dated to the 1950s at the most recent, I believe.
.
Do Brits say "Pardon my French" when they say something naughty?
I think that that usage of swell here dates back to the 20's at least, perhaps more. Swell was used as a description of an over-smart man, usually young often with a moderately perjorative overtone. That usage goes back to the 1890's or so.
We we have a no earlier than and a no later than. Looks like we've pinned it.
I've quickly skimmed some of Banjo Paterson's poems online, but can't find "swell" in there - I thought it was in The Man from Ironbark, but it's not. Paterson was writing from the 1890's.
I’d say ‘britches’ strikes me as a US spelling with the UK version being ‘breeches’. In older literature, a boy moving from nursery clothing to more grown up wear might be said to be ‘breeched’.
"Swell" as an adjective expressing approval is very dated. It is dated to the 1950s at the most recent, I believe.
.
Do Brits say "Pardon my French" when they say something naughty?
Casserole. I came across a difference of meaning while trying to find the best setting for reheating one in the microwave. To me, a casserole is very like a stew, but cooked in the oven or a slow cooker (like Piglet's beef one for tonight) instead of on the hob. But all the ones I found online were not like that. A few sites advised slicing it before reheating, which implies a totally different texture. Another referred to the problem with the topping not being at its best, and there were pictures of casseroles with what looked like grated cheese or breadcrumbs on top.
So I'm wondering if this is a pond difference.
I came across this column about how archaic some phrases and words have become in our language. It is a good laugh.
From UK,
'Gallivant', used only mockingly.
I use "gallivant" with no tone, mocking or otherwise. I'd use it to mean going somewhere new, interesting and fun. Going somewhere with a suggestion of exploring or discovering. In my case, gallivanting might involve an exhibition, or historical attraction.
'Off gallivanting' would have an overtone of disapproval in my upbringing. It suggested the gallivanter was engaged careless enjoyment to the neglect of serious employment.
Some other odd differences of meaning, syntax and usage I've noticed over the last few years and which it's easy not to pick up on:-
1. USEnglish, 'River' follows the name, e.g. the Jordan River; BrEnglish it precedes the name or is omitted altogether e.g just, the Jordan or the River Jordan. I think Australia follows US usage on this. The reason may be that rivers here already had their names before anyone spoke English, whereas in the US and Australia, rivers were discovered and then named. So in BrEnglish 'River' is an adjective and the name is a noun, but in USEnglish the name is an adjective and 'River' is a noun.
2. USEnglish 'named' takes 'for', e.g. 'she was named for her mother's sister'; BrEnglish 'named' takes 'after' e.g. 'she was named after her mother's sister'.
3. USEnglish 'ship' (verb) used to mean send e.g. in adverts, 'shipping now'; BrEnglish 'ship' (verb) has, until influenced by international internet sites, meant specifically 'send by boat'.
4. BrEnglish uses the verb tense formed with 'have' much more than USEnglish. There was a discussion a few years ago about this on the Ship. The computer message 'did you forget your password?' in BrEnglish would be 'have you forgotten your password?'. 'Did you forget?' here refers to something that has happened in the past, even if very recent past like an hour ago. 'Have you forgotten?' refers to something that has happened and is still happening.
5. This one and the next come from Bible translations that have been anglicised using a spelling-checker but not read by a native BrEnglish speaker. USEnglish 'immorality' means specifically sexual misconduct. BrEnglish 'immorality' is more general and includes anything that is morally wrong, e.g. theft, dishonesty.
6. The curious expression a 'bushel-basket'. BrEnglish doesn't use that. A 'basket' is a shopping basket or any other sort of container made of straw. A 'bushel' is an obsolete measure of volume, 8 UK gallons.
7. Finally, in BrEnglish 'twice' and 'fortnight' are the normal words a person would say. I get the impression, but USians may want to correct me on this, that in USEnglish they sound a bit quaint and one would normally say 'two times' and 'two weeks'. On this, I've also picked up that Australians don't refer to fractions, a half, a third, a quarter, a fifth, three eighths etc as readily as we do, but have no idea whether the same applies to USians.
Comments
In this case, "through" functions as an adjective modifying "you" and meaning "finished" (e.g. "I'm all through now.").
The example "Did you get through (the phone system to the person you wanted)?" has "through" acting as a preposition to a noun or noun phrase which is omitted.
Through to vs through with. Omit the preposition, and you need context to tell which one the person means.
I've heard "I've just gotten through with X" (or possibly "I've just got through with X" - my brain just maps gotten on to got, so I don't notice which one people use) to indicate that the speaker has only recently completed X.
Perhaps regionalisms are at play here? For recently completed things, what I’d expect to hear here is “I (or I’ve) just finished,” “I/I’ve just gotten done,” or “I just got done.”
In any event, what @Eirenist posited: is not, in my experience, accurate. I would not understand the “yes” there to mean that the speaker has finished the call.
It's the "gotten" that is so US to our ears - we'd simply use "got". I can't remember which one the Canadians use.
Yes. The Brits use the newer form; the Yanks use the original form just like the Bard and the first Elizabeth.
Depending who you are, either. As is often the case in Canada, regional, generational, originational, class. I mostly use "got" - more UK-ish, which is not to say more correct.
Yes, standard English used to be described as a class dialect, not a regional one. I assume this description is still used, although it irritates some people, who I suppose think it's "correct" English.
Passel is correct if you are from the Deep South. I wonder what they were fixin to do.
Source Merriam Webster online Dictionary
And, known use of the word in literature from the 1500s
This isn't about luggage OR baggage but in Canada, apparently the French speaking folks say "percussions" instead of just percussion when talking about drum sets and other percussion instruments. I was watching a video from Cirque Du Soleil, discussing the preparations for "Dralion", a Cirque show from the mid 1990's. One of the musical directors kept mentioning all the "percussions". I guess that's a French thing as I have heard percussion instruments, collectively called percussion. Interesting. The RE-percussions are unthinkable! I'll get my coat...
It sounds like a usage I have heard in native speakers of Italian with imperfect English. I think I've heard it in native speakers of other romance languages, but I know I've heard it from Italians. It is not a use I have heard in native speakers of American English.
This American has never heard “You like a coffee?” in normal speech. I rarely hear anyone refer to “a coffee.” It’s just “coffee” or “some coffee.”
“You like coffee?” would mean “Do you like coffee?” “Would you like some coffee?” would be “You want coffee?,” “Want some coffee” or “Like some coffee?”
My thought as well. I've never heard "Like a coffee?" but often "Want a coffee?" Although that would imply the speaker was going to treat. If not it would be worded "Wanna go get a coffee?"
Even if they're talking about purchasing it from a coffee shop? "I'm just gonna go grab a coffee on the way to work," or "I'm getting a coffee, you want one?" sounds very natural to me -- but then I am Canadian not American.
A number of years ago, two Shipmates came here for a visit. (Chukovsky and Mad Ferret.) During the course of some of our conversations, Chukovsky told me that my English was very archaic! Well, to tell the truth, some of my friends have mentioned that to me, but not in so many words!
'Staples', to mean basic foodstuffs, flour, rice etc I'd regard as normal, distinguished from the paper-joiners by context.
'Britches', used here specifically of trousers specifically for riding a horse in.
'Gallivant', used only mockingly.
'Smitten', used here only normally to mean attracted romantically to someone.
'Swell', means to grow fatter or of the sea as to how rough it is. Referring to someone as 'a swell' is definitely archaic. 'Swell' as in 'Wouldn’t it be swell to know someone like that?' we'd hear as an Americanism.
'Slacks', slightly old-fashioned word for women's trousers only. NB 'pants' does not mean trousers in the UK but underwear.
'the wrath of the whoop-de-doo', never heard that one. Likewise, 'more money than Quaker has oats', 'getting all fizzed up', and 'as independent as a hog on ice'. Mind, we don't use 'hog' much here, but I've never heard of a pig on ice either.
Or in the phrase "too big for his britches". Or breeks, as my Scots Granny would have it.
Thank you. I suspected that was the case.
.
Do Brits say "Pardon my French" when they say something naughty?
I think that that usage of swell here dates back to the 20's at least, perhaps more. Swell was used as a description of an over-smart man, usually young often with a moderately perjorative overtone. That usage goes back to the 1890's or so.
We we have a no earlier than and a no later than. Looks like we've pinned it.
It's current but fairly uncommon.
So I'm wondering if this is a pond difference.
I use "gallivant" with no tone, mocking or otherwise. I'd use it to mean going somewhere new, interesting and fun. Going somewhere with a suggestion of exploring or discovering. In my case, gallivanting might involve an exhibition, or historical attraction.
only a pig in clover? As in "happy as a .."
1. USEnglish, 'River' follows the name, e.g. the Jordan River; BrEnglish it precedes the name or is omitted altogether e.g just, the Jordan or the River Jordan. I think Australia follows US usage on this. The reason may be that rivers here already had their names before anyone spoke English, whereas in the US and Australia, rivers were discovered and then named. So in BrEnglish 'River' is an adjective and the name is a noun, but in USEnglish the name is an adjective and 'River' is a noun.
2. USEnglish 'named' takes 'for', e.g. 'she was named for her mother's sister'; BrEnglish 'named' takes 'after' e.g. 'she was named after her mother's sister'.
3. USEnglish 'ship' (verb) used to mean send e.g. in adverts, 'shipping now'; BrEnglish 'ship' (verb) has, until influenced by international internet sites, meant specifically 'send by boat'.
4. BrEnglish uses the verb tense formed with 'have' much more than USEnglish. There was a discussion a few years ago about this on the Ship. The computer message 'did you forget your password?' in BrEnglish would be 'have you forgotten your password?'. 'Did you forget?' here refers to something that has happened in the past, even if very recent past like an hour ago. 'Have you forgotten?' refers to something that has happened and is still happening.
5. This one and the next come from Bible translations that have been anglicised using a spelling-checker but not read by a native BrEnglish speaker. USEnglish 'immorality' means specifically sexual misconduct. BrEnglish 'immorality' is more general and includes anything that is morally wrong, e.g. theft, dishonesty.
6. The curious expression a 'bushel-basket'. BrEnglish doesn't use that. A 'basket' is a shopping basket or any other sort of container made of straw. A 'bushel' is an obsolete measure of volume, 8 UK gallons.
7. Finally, in BrEnglish 'twice' and 'fortnight' are the normal words a person would say. I get the impression, but USians may want to correct me on this, that in USEnglish they sound a bit quaint and one would normally say 'two times' and 'two weeks'. On this, I've also picked up that Australians don't refer to fractions, a half, a third, a quarter, a fifth, three eighths etc as readily as we do, but have no idea whether the same applies to USians.