Proof Americans and Brits speak a different language

1121122124126127129

Comments

  • I take it fanny means "front bummy" to UK people. Is it rude to say fanny for you?

    Specifically, it means (ahem) 'lady's front bottom'. It's a somewhat vulgar term: one would be surprised to hear in a sermon, less so to hear it in a pub. There are other terms for the same area which might get one thrown out of the pub.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 11
    I have one, wear in front mostly or to the side. Useful for carrying alternative eyeglasses and other little things when in a canoe, when skiiing. I take it fanny means "front bummy" to UK people. Is it rude to say fanny for you?

    Only inasmuch as it just means female genitalia*, unlike other terms which are also used as derogatory terms for people upon whose character or intelligence one wishes to cast doubt. Bit like willy, really.

    *there is, however, the phrase "fannying about" implying time-wasting activity. "They spent hours fannying around with the DNS settings but it was a routing issue in the end". In a spirit of equality, "dicking about" has the same meaning.
  • I do hear fanny pack occasionally, mostly waist pack. The single strap over the shoulder diagonally are generally called sling or sling packs.

    Because the word sling reminds me of the word thong... The foot wear now called flip-flops were always called thongs when I was young. Thong means now (usually) female underwear with a wee strap going down between the buttock cheeks flaring to a larger triangle to cover the front. Which has always has me thinking that sitting must be uncomfortable many times on things like leather, vinyl, something hot or cold, something rough.

    My middle school (in the Northeast US) issued a dress code in the 1990s (before "The Thong Song" - about the underwear or bikini bottom - was released) in which "thongs" were banned. There was some confusion, at least among parents, as to whether that referred to the underwear or the footwear. I haven't heard flip flops called thongs in a long time, though.
  • Perhaps "fannying about" means the same as "farting around" as in wasting time.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    I take it fanny means "front bummy" to UK people. Is it rude to say fanny for you?

    Specifically, it means (ahem) 'lady's front bottom'. It's a somewhat vulgar term: one would be surprised to hear in a sermon, less so to hear it in a pub. There are other terms for the same area which might get one thrown out of the pub.

    And most definitely not to be confused with the FANY or First Aid Nursing Yeomanry, Commandant in Chief The Princess Royal (of course).

  • I have one, wear in front mostly or to the side. Useful for carrying alternative eyeglasses and other little things when in a canoe, when skiiing. I take it fanny means "front bummy" to UK people. Is it rude to say fanny for you?

    Yes, "fanny" means ladyparts. It's somewhat rude and vulgar by virtue of being a reference to genitals, but not nearly as offensive as the 4-letter words beginning with t and c for that same part. On the scale of the male equivalents, it's more offensive than "willy", about as offensive as talking about a man's dick, and marginally less offensive than cock.
  • This always cracks me up. Here of course it's a prissy word suitable for sweet old ladies (if there really are such beings) who wouldn't be caught dead saying anything so vulgar as "butt," let alone "ass." As in, "Sit your fanny down and stay a while."
  • My middle school (in the Northeast US) issued a dress code in the 1990s (before "The Thong Song" - about the underwear or bikini bottom - was released) in which "thongs" were banned. There was some confusion, at least among parents, as to whether that referred to the underwear or the footwear. I haven't heard flip flops called thongs in a long time, though.

    The footwear, I hope. (If schools are concerning themselves with their pupils' underthings beyond "they're undergarments - we shouldn't be able to see them", then that's a bit troubling.)
  • This always cracks me up. Here of course it's a prissy word suitable for sweet old ladies (if there really are such beings) who wouldn't be caught dead saying anything so vulgar as "butt," let alone "ass." As in, "Sit your fanny down and stay a while."
    Yep, or suitable for children.

  • This always cracks me up. Here of course it's a prissy word suitable for sweet old ladies (if there really are such beings) who wouldn't be caught dead saying anything so vulgar as "butt," let alone "ass." As in, "Sit your fanny down and stay a while."

    In UK parlance, "bottom" probably occupies this niche, if one were to be sufficiently indelicate as to refer to that area at all. UK bum is mostly equivalent to US butt, and ass / arse are pretty equivalent.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 11
    My middle school (in the Northeast US) issued a dress code in the 1990s (before "The Thong Song" - about the underwear or bikini bottom - was released) in which "thongs" were banned. There was some confusion, at least among parents, as to whether that referred to the underwear or the footwear. I haven't heard flip flops called thongs in a long time, though.

    The footwear, I hope. (If schools are concerning themselves with their pupils' underthings beyond "they're undergarments - we shouldn't be able to see them", then that's a bit troubling.)

    AFAIK that was the time when the whole "whaletail" fad was going on (think: girl wearing a thong under jeans very low-slung in the back, so the whole waistband bit was visible as well as some of the vertical before it disappeared in, er, the crack). So yes, it could very definitely have been a reference to underwear. And the whole point would have been "We don't WANT to see them, Ah! Ahhh! My EYESSSSSSS!!!!"

    ETA I still call flipflops thongs, because I'm older than dirt, and it gives my son a giggle.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited August 11
    AFAIK that was the time when the whole "whaletail" fad was going on

    Isn't that mostly a function of the cut of one's trousers, though? You could wear the same trousers with granny pants and have acres of visible underwear, surely?

    Mind you, I'm being amused by school rules at the moment, having just glanced at the rules for our local high school and realized that the vast majority of kids are in permanent breach of them.

    (There's a rule against being at a party where alcohol is present. The vast majority of those kids are present at family, church, and neighbourhood parties where alcohol is present on a regular basis. We know what kind of parties they mean (and that "but I wasn't drinking - I was just standing next to a group of pissed kids with a coke in my hand" doesn't get you off the hook), but that's not what they actually say....)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    It does seem many most all of the dress codes I am familiar with have something to do with females covering up their bodies since we don't want to excite h--ney boys. But what about the males? What dress codes for guys would you like to see to prevent getting turned on by them?
  • Yes, but you’re not going to find teens who wear low cut jeans with the goal of exposing granny panties. “No visible thongs” would deal with the whole issue.
  • Yes, but you’re not going to find teens who wear low cut jeans with the goal of exposing granny panties. “No visible thongs” would deal with the whole issue.

    But it's the wrong solution, because the "thong" is irrelevant. "No visible underwear" has the merit of both covering female thongs, and men who choose to show off several inches of boxer short above their waistbands.

    And if the rule is "no thongs", do you just invite young women to select a marginally more generously-cut high-cur bikini brief to produce much the same effect without technically being a thong?

    You really don't want to be concerned with the details of what underwear schoolchildren are wearing. In fact, the whole point is that you don't (and shouldn't) want to know what underwear schoolchildren are wearing, and you don't want to see it.

    My preferred dresscode is quite simple:

    1. No visible underwear.
    2. Sleeves. High school kids are often stinky. They don't wash as much as they should, and they often aren't offered the opportunity to shower after a PE lesson. So "sleeves" is an entirely practical rule to aid the confinement of stinky teenage armpits.
    3. I could go for "no exposed midriffs" as a rule. There probably has to be some kind of "garment coverage" rule to prevent someone from wearing a v-neck that comes down to crotch level.

    This has nothing to do with teens being turned on by classmates in skimpy clothes. Teens are quite capable of being turned on by attractive classmates whatever they are wearing. Not getting turned on is an unreasonable expectation. What is reasonable is to expect kids not to do anything about it.

  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 12
    There's no need to be promulgating an ideal dress code here. Somebody upthread was trying to figure out if and why a high school might have been talking about thongs-the-underwear in their dress code, and I explained why. If you want to fight with them about the non-ideal nature of their wording, go for it. The person who wrote it might not be retired already...

    ETA: I see it was you, worrying about the use of the word "thong" and finding it inappropriate and unlikely. I've explained it, and you can do whatever you like with it.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    .

    Because the word sling reminds me of the word thong... The foot wear now called flip-flops were always called thongs when I was young.

    Still does here.
  • I wonder what my old Aunt Frances - always known to the other grown-ups as Fanny - would have thought of all this? Likely something along the lines of, "Yes, my dear, another glass of burgundy would be most agreeable".
  • Any of you shopped with cool young men? As in adolescents. Gotta have gotch which show off your package (underwear that prop up your wiener and beans). I'm not sure if this is more to show other guys where their antlers place them in the deer herd or if the young women are truly interested in their junk.
  • Ewwwwwww. Speaking as a former young woman, I never was.

    D'ye think you could talk him into a codpiece?
  • Nephews. Can't do other than buy 'em cheeseburgers and 2 litre slurpees. Maybe the bulge is for liquid.
  • D'ye think you could talk him into a codpiece?

    The Black Russian, perhaps?
    </Blackadder>
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Got it in one, Noprophet!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Yes, but you’re not going to find teens who wear low cut jeans with the goal of exposing granny panties. “No visible thongs” would deal with the whole issue.

    But it's the wrong solution, because the "thong" is irrelevant. "No visible underwear" has the merit of both covering female thongs, and men who choose to show off several inches of boxer short above their waistbands.

    And if the rule is "no thongs", do you just invite young women to select a marginally more generously-cut high-cur bikini brief to produce much the same effect without technically being a thong?

    You really don't want to be concerned with the details of what underwear schoolchildren are wearing. In fact, the whole point is that you don't (and shouldn't) want to know what underwear schoolchildren are wearing, and you don't want to see it.

    My preferred dresscode is quite simple:

    1. No visible underwear.
    2. Sleeves. High school kids are often stinky. They don't wash as much as they should, and they often aren't offered the opportunity to shower after a PE lesson. So "sleeves" is an entirely practical rule to aid the confinement of stinky teenage armpits.
    3. I could go for "no exposed midriffs" as a rule. There probably has to be some kind of "garment coverage" rule to prevent someone from wearing a v-neck that comes down to crotch level.

    This has nothing to do with teens being turned on by classmates in skimpy clothes. Teens are quite capable of being turned on by attractive classmates whatever they are wearing. Not getting turned on is an unreasonable expectation. What is reasonable is to expect kids not to do anything about it.

    Only problem there is that long sleeves are pretty much unbearable in exactly the sort of weather that exacerbates the armpit problem.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Only problem there is that long sleeves are pretty much unbearable in exactly the sort of weather that exacerbates the armpit problem.

    I didn't say "long" sleeves. A t-shirt would be fine. The difference between a t-shirt and an athletic shirt in the confinement of stinky armpits is quite dramatic.

    (Also, our high schools are air conditioned, so indoor temperatures aren't problematic in that way.)
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    A good, healthy dose of underarm deodorant needs to be encouraged--along with daily showers.
  • TrudyTrudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    Gentle reminder that this is a thread for discussing language differences. While a comparison of the different usages of "thong" vs "thong" may naturally lead to a discussion of when and where the underwear type of thong should or should not be viewed, once we have gotten as far off-topic as discussing school dress codes, it's my Hostly duty to direct you back to the subject of the thread.

    Trudy, Heavenly Host
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    I take it fanny means "front bummy" to UK people. Is it rude to say fanny for you?

    Specifically, it means (ahem) 'lady's front bottom'. It's a somewhat vulgar term: one would be surprised to hear in a sermon, less so to hear it in a pub. There are other terms for the same area which might get one thrown out of the pub.

    And most definitely not to be confused with the FANY or First Aid Nursing Yeomanry, Commandant in Chief The Princess Royal (of course).

    My grandmother was a FANY - when I have to say that out loud it in no way causes mirth...
  • Gill HGill H Shipmate
    I'm about to go on a Disney cruise, and one thing that is being discussed in the cruise Facebook group is a dress-up/makeover package for children. This is done by a member of staff called the Fairy Godmother In Training (yes, I know...) The Americans can't understand why we fall about laughing when they suggest contacting the F-GITs.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Could it be that some of them are F-GITS? (Meant in jocularity).
  • Git - this is a new word here if it's a noun. Made popular I think by the Harry Potter books. Previously only heard in the context of "git 'er done".
  • Git - this is a new word here if it's a noun. Made popular I think by the Harry Potter books. Previously only heard in the context of "git 'er done".

    I think Wikipedia's summary is reasonable. I suspect the bit in there about Turkish is nonsense, though.
  • The Beatles taught me that Sir Walter Raleigh was a stupid get.
  • 'Git' and 'get' are interchangeable. My impression is that neither are as common as they were.

    I use 'git' a fair bit, perhaps because it is milder than terms like 'bastard' and worse.

    It does get commented on.
    'I've not heard that in years ...'
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    'Get' is used too, in some parts of the UK, sometimes a bit gentler in meaning than 'git.' I remember 'you soft get' from the musical Blood Brothers (also written by a Liverpudlian, and set in Liverpool).
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    “And curse Sir Walter Raleigh he was such a stupid get” from one of the numbers on the Beatles’ White Album ( think it was “‘I’m so tired”)
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    That will teach me for not scrolling back to see MT’s contribution😂
  • fineline wrote: »
    'Get' is used too, in some parts of the UK, sometimes a bit gentler in meaning than 'git.' I remember 'you soft get' from the musical Blood Brothers (also written by a Liverpudlian, and set in Liverpool).

    Isn't it the same word, but with a regional accent? To be honest if you say 'get' and aren't from e.g. Liverpool or somewhere else where it's common then it comes across to me as an affectation.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    fineline wrote: »
    'Get' is used too, in some parts of the UK, sometimes a bit gentler in meaning than 'git.' I remember 'you soft get' from the musical Blood Brothers (also written by a Liverpudlian, and set in Liverpool).

    Isn't it the same word, but with a regional accent? To be honest if you say 'get' and aren't from e.g. Liverpool or somewhere else where it's common then it comes across to me as an affectation.

    Well, it's not accent, because a Liverpudlian person wouldn't say het for hit. It's an alternative way of saying it, it is spelt get, but it is specific to certain places, so you aren't likely to get a Londoner saying it. Like how Irish people say 'feck' for 'fuck.' But whether people say it will depend on the people around them. Someone's unlikely to say 'get' out of the blue as an affectation.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited August 13
    fineline wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    'Get' is used too, in some parts of the UK, sometimes a bit gentler in meaning than 'git.' I remember 'you soft get' from the musical Blood Brothers (also written by a Liverpudlian, and set in Liverpool).

    Isn't it the same word, but with a regional accent? To be honest if you say 'get' and aren't from e.g. Liverpool or somewhere else where it's common then it comes across to me as an affectation.

    Well, it's not accent, because a Liverpudlian person wouldn't say het for hit. It's an alternative way of saying it, it is spelt get, but it is specific to certain places, so you aren't likely to get a Londoner saying it. Like how Irish people say 'feck' for 'fuck.' But whether people say it will depend on the people around them. Someone's unlikely to say 'get' out of the blue as an affectation.

    true - I just didn't know what the word was I was looking for instead of accent given we're talking about spelling as well as pronunciation. I would imagine it was spoken before it was written down so thought maybe accent would cover it given it's an alternative of the same word? Idiomatic might be a bit closer potentially?

    On the last bit, I bet there are some - there're a couple of very famous professional Brummies (my heartland) who say things publicly in a way that they don't behind closed doors. I expect the same people exist around Merseyside who want to say 'look at me, I'm one of you'...
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Female agents of SOE (British fore-runner of the CIA during WWII) were given rank in the FANY before being dropped into occupied Europe in the fondly misguided hope that this might give them some protection if/when they were picked up by the Gestapo.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Female agents of SOE (British fore-runner of the CIA during WWII) were given rank in the FANY before being dropped into occupied Europe in the fondly misguided hope that this might give them some protection if/when they were picked up by the Gestapo.

    AIUI it was more that telling the volunteers that salved consciences all round (on the Allied side, not the German one)... I don't think SOE actually thought it was going to make a blind bit of difference, but it was a nice fiction...
  • Isn't it the same word, but with a regional accent? To be honest if you say 'get' and aren't from e.g. Liverpool or somewhere else where it's common then it comes across to me as an affectation.

    'get' is probably the origin of 'git'.

    https://www.etymonline.com/word/git
  • We sometimes said 'get' in my native South Wales but generally it was 'git'.

    For some reason I tend to associate 'get' with northern England - which would make our South Walian usage an anomaly.

    There are some parallels between South Walian and Liverpudlian speech, although the Welsh influence in Liverpool comes from North Wales of course.

    There are south western English influences on South Walian speech, but that's another story.
  • Gill HGill H Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    'Get' is used too, in some parts of the UK, sometimes a bit gentler in meaning than 'git.' I remember 'you soft get' from the musical Blood Brothers (also written by a Liverpudlian, and set in Liverpool).

    “Our Sammy burned the school down
    Well, it’s very easily done
    If the teacher lets
    The silly gets
    Play with magnesium”

    Definitely a regional form of ‘git’.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Yes, Betjemaniac, that was my thinking too.
  • "Get" was used when I was growing up in rural Lancashire. I used to think "git" was an Americanism because it sounded so alien to me. A joke I heard when I was younger:

    Two guys were looking in a shop window. One of them points something out, saying "That's the one I'd get". Just then a cyclops comes round the corner and beats him to a pulp.
  • And 'guys' isn't an Americanism?

    Eh, lad, if tha wor reet Lanky lahrk, tha wouldn't be coomin' aht wi' this "guys" shite ...

    (Cod approximation of a Yorkshire accent)
  • And 'guys' isn't an Americanism?

    Eh, lad, if tha wor reet Lanky lahrk, tha wouldn't be coomin' aht wi' this "guys" shite ...

    (Cod approximation of a Yorkshire accent)

    The most common use of "guys" in my hearing is South African immigrants. Every collection of anything is "these guys". My part of the world has been poaching South African medical professionals for decades.
  • I'm surprised. Perhaps this a regional variation, but I heard "guys" all the time growing up in northern Ontario from people who'd never seen a South African, and pretty frequently now in Toronto. I'll have to think about my time in SA.
Sign In or Register to comment.