Proof Americans and Brits speak a different language

1123124126128129

Comments

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Different insurer?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 22
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Something different... "Runs good, never wrecked" is a common phrase in second-hand car adverts in the USA. I had always understood "wrecked" to mean destroyed, (e.g. ship wreck, train wreck) but in the USA it will commonly be taken to mean anything needing a body repair. Perhaps I've been away too long, but is it ever so used in the UK now?
    Not in my experience. In the UK, I'd translate that slogan as meaning 'it's never been a write off', i.e. damaged so badly in an accident that it has to be scrapped.

    There are always alleged to be cases of cars that are write offs but somehow get reinstated. That's likely to imply some sort of insurance fraud. There was one classic case in the law books of a second hand car that turned out to be the front half of one car welded onto the back half of another.

    It is possible to legally drive a car which insurance had written off - paid the full value for, which was less than the repair cost - as long as you can get third party insurance for it. You would be insured for any damage you caused to others in an accident but not your own repair costs. Some years ago, when it was probably easier, my sister-in-law wrote off a family car (bodywork was too expensive) but it was used again on third party after my f-i-l fixed the dents. Perfectly legal, no fraud implied or inferred.

    It's perfectly possible to get a written off car repaired, back on the road and insured fully comp. I know because I've got one.

    Total loss just means the market value was less than the repair cost plus the salvage value. It doesn't mean irrepairable.

    What can happen is that the salvage is bought by someone who repairs it more cheaply than the insurance estimate (e.g. third party parts, local garage rather than main dealer labour rates) and then sells it in the used market. Entirely legal.

    I'm surprised that an insurer will offer fully comp for a vehicle on which it has already paid out the full value, but agreed that its totally legal..

    Well, the car in question wasn't written off when under my ownership, but it makes no odds to the insurance company as long as you're paying an annual premium covering their risk whether the car is one they've already paid out on or an identical one bought to replace it. It's still the same risk for them.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    A new question for this thread. One quite often hears in BrEnglish variants of,
    'I'm sat on this chair outside a pub when ..... '.
    'Was anyone sat outside when you came in?'


    This is not grammatically correct, but it's widespread enough to hear people complaining when it's used on the BBC which some expect to be the guardian of all that is good and proper, both in behaviour and grammar.

    The correct forms of those particular samples would have been,
    I am/was sitting ...
    Was there anyone sitting... ?


    Less frequent but quite widespread is the same construction with 'stood'.

    Are these usages found at all in the US? My suspicion is that they are not.

  • SparrowSparrow Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    A new question for this thread. One quite often hears in BrEnglish variants of,
    'I'm sat on this chair outside a pub when ..... '.
    'Was anyone sat outside when you came in?'


    This is not grammatically correct, but it's widespread enough to hear people complaining when it's used on the BBC which some expect to be the guardian of all that is good and proper, both in behaviour and grammar.

    The correct forms of those particular samples would have been,
    I am/was sitting ...
    Was there anyone sitting... ?


    Less frequent but quite widespread is the same construction with 'stood'.

    Are these usages found at all in the US? My suspicion is that they are not.

    The construction that infuriates me is "sits" referring to a building. "The church sits on the corner of the High Street and Blank Lane." I scream at the TV - "It stands! A building STANDS!"

    And the location of, say, a village: "Little Dribbling sits in a bend of the River Thames in Oxfordshire". No, it doesn't. It "LIES".

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 26
    Enoch wrote: »
    A new question for this thread. One quite often hears in BrEnglish variants of,
    'I'm sat on this chair outside a pub when ..... '.
    'Was anyone sat outside when you came in?'


    This is not grammatically correct, but it's widespread enough to hear people complaining when it's used on the BBC which some expect to be the guardian of all that is good and proper, both in behaviour and grammar.

    The correct forms of those particular samples would have been,
    I am/was sitting ...
    Was there anyone sitting... ?


    Less frequent but quite widespread is the same construction with 'stood'.

    Are these usages found at all in the US? My suspicion is that they are not.

    They are perfectly grammatically correct. A past participle such as 'sat' can be grammatically considered an adjective describing a current state:

    The telly is broken
    The telly is stood on the telly stand
    The cat is dead
    The cat is sat on the mat

    I think you're saying "grammatically incorrect" when you mean "not part of the prestige dialect".

    It is however at least as common as the present participle in the dialect where I live. In fact, there can even be a nuanced semantic difference; "I was sitting there" is a simple statement of fact; "I was sat there when the phone rang" indicates a state that was already in force from the point in time the speaker is narrating.
  • TrudyTrudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    "I was sat on the chair" is quite common in Newfoundland dialect, which shares many quirks with some UK dialects.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 27
    AFAIK the usage "I was sat on the chair" does not exist in the U.S. As for grammatically correct, that is surely a function of local rules. Everywhere I've lived in the U.S., "It was stood outside" would get you funny looks and a mark-down on your essay, if included. The proper construction here would be "was standing."
  • The cat it's sitting on the matt.
    That man he's driving too fast.
    Fred you what are you doing?
    -- not unusual.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate

    AFAIK the usage "I was sat on the chair" does not exist in the U.S. As for grammatically correct, that is surely a function of local rules. Everywhere I've lived in the U.S., "It was stood outside" would get you funny looks and a mark-down on your essay, if included. The proper construction here would be "was standing."

    Both can be correct. At to the first, you're referring to how people at an event had been arranged, and the arrangement for you were that you were sat outside rather than standing inside. In the second, a lamp was stood outside to show people the path.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The cat it's sitting on the mat.
    That man he's driving too fast.
    Fred you what are you doing?
    -- not unusual.
    @NOprophet_NØprofit those aren't examples of what I was asking about, which makes me think what I was asking about isn't found in the rest of Canada apart from Newfoundland at all.

    They're OK as dialogue. I suppose strictly, if you were writing them down they would be,
    The cat, it's sitting on the mat.
    That man, he's driving too fast.
    Fred, you, what are you doing?

    What @Trudy has described fits with what I'm asking about perfectly.


  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 27
    Gee D wrote: »
    AFAIK the usage "I was sat on the chair" does not exist in the U.S. As for grammatically correct, that is surely a function of local rules. Everywhere I've lived in the U.S., "It was stood outside" would get you funny looks and a mark-down on your essay, if included. The proper construction here would be "was standing."

    Both can be correct. At to the first, you're referring to how people at an event had been arranged, and the arrangement for you were that you were sat outside rather than standing inside. In the second, a lamp was stood outside to show people the path.

    Fine, but are you speaking from a U.S. context? Because if you are, I'd be fascinated to know where in the U.S. this is actually correct.

    I accept that it is correct in the U.K.

    ETA: In your first example of arrangement, U.S. usage requires "set" (meaning "to be placed in a position by someone else").
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I'm not sure it is accepted as correct in the UK as a whole.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    I'm not sure it is accepted as correct in the UK as a whole.

    Accepted by whom? Who gets to decide? Why are they an authority?

    It's definitely accepted around here because lots of people use it.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The point I'm making is that despite @KarlLB's protestations, and whatever he may say, in the UK the usage is pretty widespread, but is either dialect or regarded as not quite OK as standard English. Perhaps teachers and editors are more indulgent these days but I'm fairly sure it's not normally OK in written BrEnglish.

    It's possible, but I'm not sure about this, that it may be more prevalent in some parts of the country than others.

    The question I was asking was whether the usage exists at all elsewhere. The impression I've got from peoples' comments is that it's unknown in North America apart from Newfoundland, where the situation is much as in the UK.

    Am I right on that?

    I'm not clear from @Gee D's comments whether it's found in Australia or not. From his examples, I'm wondering if it would mean there that one had been put on a chair in a particular place specifically by someone else, such as the organiser of the meeting. That would also fit his lamp example.

    Can anyone comment from anywhere else in the Anglosphere?

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited August 27
    You ought to know by now I don't give a fig what prescriptive grammarians think. It's not their language; it's everyone's. They need to stick to writing style guides where they can dictate what varieties of language they arbitrarily approve of and which they don't, and stop thinking that they're doing linguistics.

    If you study whales, and you write a book on what whales should be like, and you then discover that lots of whales aren't how you described them, is it the whales who are wrong or the book? Prescriptive grammarians are basically saying the equivalent of the whales being the ones who have got it wrong.

    I don't take issue with asking whether the usage is current in other English speaking areas. I do take issue with the idea that it's somehow inherently "wrong", as if rules of English grammar are given from on high, rather than deduced from observation of the actual language as it is actually used by its speakers.
  • Stupid whales.
  • I'll have you know I am very intelligent
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm not clear from @Gee D's comments whether it's found in Australia or not. From his examples, I'm wondering if it would mean there that one had been put on a chair in a particular place specifically by someone else, such as the organiser of the meeting. That would also fit his lamp example.

    Pretty much as you set out - I am a second-ranker at a meeting and so I'm not sat in the front rows, but the organiser has placed me some distance back. You could also say seated. Does that help you also Lamb Chopped?
  • Yes, in my experience, people in the US would say “I was seated outside” and “A lamp was placed outside.”

  • I'll have you know I am very intelligent

    We'd say brilliant. But I understand that brilliant means awesome in the UK not smart.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm not clear from @Gee D's comments whether it's found in Australia or not. From his examples, I'm wondering if it would mean there that one had been put on a chair in a particular place specifically by someone else, such as the organiser of the meeting. That would also fit his lamp example.

    Pretty much as you set out - I am a second-ranker at a meeting and so I'm not sat in the front rows, but the organiser has placed me some distance back. You could also say seated. Does that help you also Lamb Chopped?

    Ugh. No. Look, the verb in the U.S. for "to be placed on a chair (or elsewhere) by a third party) is "to be set." It is NOT "to be sat." You may not (in the U.S.) say, "I was sat on a chair" unless you want to reveal the fact that you speak some other flavor of English than U.S. You may say "I was seated on a chair" or "I sat on a chair" or even (shudder) "I sat myself on a chair", but never, no never, may you say "I was sat/ He was sat / They were sat." "Sat" never takes a "to be" verb in front of it that way. It just doesn't. Not here.
  • I'll have you know I am very intelligent

    We'd say brilliant. But I understand that brilliant means awesome in the UK not smart.

    It can mean smart. Can smart mean well and fairly formally dressed in Canada the way it does in the UK? That use doesn't seem common in the US: I hear "sharp" here in places where I'd expect "smart" in the UK.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited August 28
    Gee D wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    I'm not clear from @Gee D's comments whether it's found in Australia or not. From his examples, I'm wondering if it would mean there that one had been put on a chair in a particular place specifically by someone else, such as the organiser of the meeting. That would also fit his lamp example.

    Pretty much as you set out - I am a second-ranker at a meeting and so I'm not sat in the front rows, but the organiser has placed me some distance back. You could also say seated. Does that help you also Lamb Chopped?

    Ugh. No. Look, the verb in the U.S. for "to be placed on a chair (or elsewhere) by a third party) is "to be set." It is NOT "to be sat." You may not (in the U.S.) say, "I was sat on a chair" unless you want to reveal the fact that you speak some other flavor of English than U.S. You may say "I was seated on a chair" or "I sat on a chair" or even (shudder) "I sat myself on a chair", but never, no never, may you say "I was sat/ He was sat / They were sat." "Sat" never takes a "to be" verb in front of it that way. It just doesn't. Not here.

    But it is used in that manner here. I'd also spell in "flavour" and my computer has a red line under your "flavor". Here, we do speak a different English to that in the US. I'm not sure why that gets you all hot under the collar, as your last post certainly shows you.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 28
    Dude! Look, the original question was
    Enoch wrote: »

    Are these usages found at all in the US? My suspicion is that they are not.

    My answer has been "No" each time because I'm answering the damned original question (only to be "corrected" every single fucking time). No, these usages are not found at all in the U.S. At which point various people keep brightly chiming in to correct me: "Oh, but they ARE found here" (for values of "here" never specified) and occasionally condescending to point out to me that these usages are in fact correct (apparently in all times and in all places) because [mutter mutter participles used as adjectives].

    It's like nobody even reads the thread anymore. (Yeah, I know, dumbass me for assuming they did) Do whatever the fuck you like in the U.K. But allow me to answer Enoch's question, will you?


  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited August 28
    Have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.

    I'm not correcting you, but rather setting out usage here - the thread is not as limited as you suggest, but has taken twists and turns as it often has in the past. It's the nature of Ship threads to divert from time to time. Currents, the wind, and waves change.

    BTW, I am not in the UK.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down.

    I'm not correcting you, but rather setting out usage here - the thread is not as limited as you suggest, but has taken twists and turns as it often has in the past. It's the nature of Ship threads to divert from time to time. Currents, the wind, and waves change.

    BTW, I am not in the UK.
    But to be fair, it can be difficult to remember where “here” is for every shipmate. I know you’re Australian, but it’s easy enough to imagine that others might not know or remember that, which is why it can be helpful to be clear about where “here” is rather than assuming everyone knows.

    Meanwhile, a Bex?

  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Nick Tamen:

    Bex is a now discontinued compound analgesic powder once widely used in Oz as a panacea for headache and a constellation of other symptoms. The ad “ a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down” was well known on billboards and on the radio from at least the 1950s to the 1970s. The Bex factory was in Surry Hills ( an inner Sydney suburb) for many years and the ladies who worked there were given free access to powders to keep them
    pepped up at work( caffeine was an ingredient). Kidney failure was a common complication of long term use; as a student in the 70sI recall many a Mavis, Doris and Beryl with “Bexy kidneys” on the dialysis waiting list.
  • Thanks, @Sojourner. And yikes about the “Bexy kidneys.”

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Nick Tamen:

    Bex is a now discontinued compound analgesic powder once widely used in Oz as a panacea for headache and a constellation of other symptoms. The ad “ a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down” was well known on billboards and on the radio from at least the 1950s to the 1970s. The Bex factory was in Surry Hills ( an inner Sydney suburb) for many years and the ladies who worked there were given free access to powders to keep them
    pepped up at work( caffeine was an ingredient). Kidney failure was a common complication of long term use; as a student in the 70sI recall many a Mavis, Doris and Beryl with “Bexy kidneys” on the dialysis waiting list.

    From memory, the ingredients were aspirin, phenacitin (spelling?) and caffeine. The phrase "a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down" also formed the title of a review in a mid-city theatre in the late 50's. I can remember my mother and aunts going to see it with a group of the Girls, to use the then description. Its rival was Vincents APC, which was seen as upmarket (for what that was worth). I can't remember where Vincents was made.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Just had a look around the web: the firm Nicholas & Co manufactured Vincents powders & their factory was in South Melbourne.

    Just a bit of Antipodean trivia to remind us all that the use of English as she is spoke isn’t exclusive to the British Isles and that part of North America known as the US of A😜
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    'Smart' (the adjective) is not generally understood as meaning 'clever' in the UK. It is usually taken to mean 'well-dressed'. Of course, if pronounced in a transatlantic accent, folk would understand, nowadays, what was meant.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    You’ve never heard of “smarter than the average duck”?
    Daffy was not exactly a snappy dresser😂
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Just had a look around the web: the firm Nicholas & Co manufactured Vincents powders & their factory was in South Melbourne.

    Just a bit of Antipodean trivia to remind us all that the use of English as she is spoke isn’t exclusive to the British Isles and that part of North America known as the US of A😜

    Yes, English is global and usage diverse. I read here but don't comment often. My own English usage is Zimbabwean and sounds on the whole very British public school because that is how many of us were educated. Current Zimbabwean English usage is more hybrid with numerous Ndebele and Shona phrases incorporated.

    In South Africa, the situation is more complicated and usage is often tied to media influence.

    Before the 1980s, most English-speaking whites spoke a UK-derived English due to English schooling and radio programmes syndicated from the |BBC. Television was only permitted in 1976. As the international academic and cultural boycott against apartheid gathered momentum, most British radio and TV shows and series were replaced by north American shows ands soap operas. Other shows and performers from the UK were banned by the South African govt for expressing opposition to apartheid or featuring multiracial casts.

    After the end of apartheid in 1994, viewers were used to watching US cable entertainment and that has remained more popular. Because of this and the influence of social media, younger South Africans speak a more US-inflected English. On the other hand, the most popular news provider has been Al-Jazeera, so those are the common acronyms used (ISKP rather than Isis-K, for example). Almost everyone watches local Cape Malay cookery shows, so we talk about borrie and dhania rather than turmeric or coriander.

    In the majority English-speaking province of KwaZulu-Natal, on the other hand, the English usage is different from elsewhere. One of the largest Indian diaspora communities is found in KZN, so the most watched TV station is Dstv Indian with 24-hour Bollywood specials. In Durban, people are proud of their Bollywood English.

    No rights or wrongs, just the usual evolution and adaptation of language spoken in different places.

  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Thank you.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    'Smart' (the adjective) is not generally understood as meaning 'clever' in the UK.
    “Smart” isn’t really a synonym for “clever” in American English either. It’s more a synonym for “intelligent.” “Clever,” at least as I hear it used in the US, usually carries a connotation of skillful, resourceful or witty that “smart” or “intelligent” don’t necessarily carry.

    Sojourner wrote: »
    You’ve never heard of “smarter than the average duck”?
    Or “smart alec,”

    Sojourner wrote: »
    Just a bit of Antipodean trivia to remind us all that the use of English as she is spoke isn’t exclusive to the British Isles and that part of North America known as the US of A😜
    Indeed. I have often wished the title of this thread had been changed early on to reflect the whole Anglosphere instead of just the UK and the US. But I guess 126 pages in, it’s a little late for that.

    And yes, thank you, @MaryLouise. Very interesting!

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Yes, we do know 'smarter than the average duck' and 'smart-alec' but that isn't the primary meaning of the word. And 'dumb' means 'unable to speak' rather than 'stupid'.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    But secondary usage has largely taken over, even in Blighty
  • I have never heard "smarter than the average duck." I have heard "smarter than the average bear" from Yogi.
  • Smart means intelligent to me. Also can mean well dressed but carrying the conotation of wanting to appear well dressed.

    If you bang your thumb with hammer you could say "that smarts". Which is derived I think from German "schmerz".

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited August 28
    If you bang your thumb with hammer you could say "that smarts". Which is derived I think from German "schmerz".
    It’s actually derived from the related Old English/Anglo-Saxon smeortan and smeart, which mean “to be painful” and “sharply painful.” It’s cognate with the German schmerz. The sense of clever, witty or (mentally) quick came about in the 14the C from the idea of “cutting” words.

    “Sharp” (scearp in Old English) carries a similar double meaning of keenly edged and of keen intellect, and has done so since Old English.

  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I think 'smart' is one of those words coloured by context. ' Smart work' I would take as positive: 'smartarse' obviously not.

    When you get lemon juice in a cut it doesn't just hurt, it smarts.

    'Smarten yourself up' is about appearance, particularly dress, rather than raising your standard of thinking.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Dude! Look, the original question was
    Enoch wrote: »

    Are these usages found at all in the US? My suspicion is that they are not.
    My answer has been "No" each time because I'm answering the damned original question (only to be "corrected" every single fucking time). No, these usages are not found at all in the U.S. At which point various people keep brightly chiming in to correct me: "Oh, but they ARE found here" (for values of "here" never specified) and occasionally condescending to point out to me that these usages are in fact correct (apparently in all times and in all places) because [mutter mutter participles used as adjectives].

    It's like nobody even reads the thread anymore. (Yeah, I know, dumbass me for assuming they did) Do whatever the fuck you like in the U.K. But allow me to answer Enoch's question, will you?
    Thank you @Lamb Chopped. You've understood what I was asking about. It's not a question of 'my English is just as good as yours' or 'my English is better than yours'.


    On 'smart', it isn't used here for the sensation you get when you bang your thumb with a hammer. That really hurts. Here, it's used the way @Firenze says, something that is sore or stings.


    I agree with @Eirenist that here 'dumb' means 'unable to speak' rather than 'stupid'. It's become a bit unPC these days. I'm not sure what you're supposed to say. 'Mute' possibly. The NRSV tends to have 'mute' where the AV and REB have 'dumb'.


  • Gee D wrote: »
    From memory, the ingredients were aspirin, phenacitin (spelling?) and caffeine.

    Phenacetin. It's a precursor of paracetamol, which is why it works as a painkiller ('cause your body makes paracetamol from it). Unfortunately, your body will also (with a relatively low probability) make p-phenitidine from phenacetin, which is carcinogenic, and really quite toxic for kidney function.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592552/
  • Paracetamol is called acetaminophen in North America. Most common brand Tylenol and that is generally what it is called even when not the brandname. (It's hard on your liver, and the most common cause of liver failure and drug overdoses.)
  • Paracetamol is called acetaminophen in North America. Most common brand Tylenol and that is generally what it is called even when not the brandname. (It's hard on your liver, and the most common cause of liver failure and drug overdoses.)
    And yet after my heart attack and bypass surgery, I was told that it’s the only analgesic that I should take as a general rule. That was a bummer, as I’ve never found it to work as well as ibuprofen or, particularly, naproxen.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And yet after my heart attack and bypass surgery, I was told that it’s the only analgesic that I should take as a general rule. That was a bummer, as I’ve never found it to work as well as ibuprofen or, particularly, naproxen.

    I try to avoid ibuprofen, because it does a number on my digestive system. For headaches and the like, paracetamol / acetaminophen works just fine.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    And yet after my heart attack and bypass surgery, I was told that it’s the only analgesic that I should take as a general rule. That was a bummer, as I’ve never found it to work as well as ibuprofen or, particularly, naproxen.
    I try to avoid ibuprofen, because it does a number on my digestive system. For headaches and the like, paracetamol / acetaminophen works just fine.
    Yeah, I always figure these are things that vary from person to person—different medicines work better for different people. For me, naproxen works best, followed by ibuprofen with acetaminophen a distant third.

    Oh well. Back to language.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    From memory, the ingredients were aspirin, phenacitin (spelling?) and caffeine.

    Phenacetin. It's a precursor of paracetamol, which is why it works as a painkiller ('cause your body makes paracetamol from it). Unfortunately, your body will also (with a relatively low probability) make p-phenitidine from phenacetin, which is carcinogenic, and really quite toxic for kidney function.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592552/

    Thanks for the correct spelling. The rest of your post is why we as children were not allowed take either a Bex or a Vincents, but ordinary aspirin was ok.
  • deletoiledeletoile Shipmate Posts: 12
    I have been enjoying this thread for 2 years now - having experience on both sides of the Atlantic! but I don't know why it has taken until now to remember two wonderful TV series: "The Story of English" in the 80's, and "The Adventure of English (?)" around 2002. Both took broad views; I think I remember that somebody predicted that the English spoken in India (note I did not say Indian English..) would soon be the dominant version...

    The books can certainly be found, and I expect the videos also.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    'Smart' (the adjective) is not generally understood as meaning 'clever' in the UK.
    “Smart” isn’t really a synonym for “clever” in American English either. It’s more a synonym for “intelligent.” “Clever,” at least as I hear it used in the US, usually carries a connotation of skillful, resourceful or witty that “smart” or “intelligent” don’t necessarily carry.

    Sojourner wrote: »
    You’ve never heard of “smarter than the average duck”?
    Or “smart alec,”

    Sojourner wrote: »
    Just a bit of Antipodean trivia to remind us all that the use of English as she is spoke isn’t exclusive to the British Isles and that part of North America known as the US of A😜
    Indeed. I have often wished the title of this thread had been changed early on to reflect the whole Anglosphere instead of just the UK and the US. But I guess 126 pages in, it’s a little late for that.

    And yes, thank you, @MaryLouise. Very interesting!

    The title of this thread was from a YouTube video that has since disappeared in which an English comedian made some hilarious comparisons. I certainly did not think the thread would take on a life of its own. But I have enjoyed the comparisons from other English-speaking countries.
Sign In or Register to comment.