I agree. 'Wait on' and 'wait for' have different meanings. 'Wait on' means something like 'attend upon without actually doing anything' or 'being available while awaiting instructions'.
It also has another usage. Going back to an earlier sentence. One 'waits on the platform for a train', but one waits for the train on the platform'.
Using 'wait on' for 'wait for' deprives 'wait on' of its precision.
I'm grateful that I've never heard 'mentee' before this morning and I hope it's an experience I won't repeat. However, I can see that if it existed, it would be a word that doesn't overlap any other word. So I suppose it is entitled to exist. So that makes it one better than 'in excess of', an abomination which one hears far too often.
In British standard English waiting for means being ready for something to happen while waiting on means being in attendance on and running errands for. The Shakespeare / AV quotes above are I think the second sense.
Being aware of both meanings, I looked at those quotes carefully before posting them, and they all appear to be the sense of being ready or expectant for something to happen, or needing something to happen before something else can happen. That is clearly the meaning in both psalms, as can be seen by looking at other translations, which have, for example, “wait for the Lord,” or “the eyes of all look to thee.”
"Mr Bennet was among the earliest of those who waited on Mr Bingley." "Waiting on" seems, around 1800, to have meant a formal introductory visit - probably not used so much now.
So when Mssrs. Jagger and Richards are waiting on a friend, do you mean us to believe they intend to run errands for this friend, rather than that they're hanging out, awaiting their arrival?
They may not be using standard British English. (It sounds to me like they're trying to sound trans-Atlantic: wikipedia tells me that song was much more successful in the States than the UK.)
So when Mssrs. Jagger and Richards are waiting on a friend, do you mean us to believe they intend to run errands for this friend, rather than that they're hanging out, awaiting their arrival?
They may not be using standard British English. (It sounds to me like they're trying to sound trans-Atlantic: wikipedia tells me that song was much more successful in the States than the UK.)
I remember you being fussed about "standard". I believe I asked you who gets to define that. I'm not sure you answered.
I remember you being fussed about "standard". I believe I asked you who gets to define that. I'm not sure you answered.
I think it's the normal way of referring to the dialect used across Britain which is perceived as belonging to a wealthier social class and or level of education than more local dialects. There is probably a way of describing it that doesn't imply that the more local dialects are somehow inferior and if I could think of that term I'd use that.
Someone has posted this message on our local Facebook page: "A friend is trying to rent, long term, a 2 bed house, with garden suitable for a toddler". Why do they want to confine the toddler to the garden? Isn't it house-trained?
Someone has posted this message on our local Facebook page: "A friend is trying to rent, long term, a 2 bed house, with garden suitable for a toddler". Why do they want to confine the toddler to the garden? Isn't it house-trained?
They don't. They are setting as a requirement that the house has a garden suitable for a toddler to play in (flat grass to run around on, possibly fenced in, no pond), because a lot of gardens are less suitable for toddlers (patio / ornamental gravel / ponds / unkempt mass of stinging nettles etc.)
I do realise that, of course. But there still seems to be a bit of unintentional double-meaning - i.e. the aduls will live in the house, the toddler in the garden.
I do realise that, of course. But there still seems to be a bit of unintentional double-meaning - i.e. the aduls will live in the house, the toddler in the garden.
I don't think so - looking for a garden suitable for wheelchairs doesn't imply that you're going to keep grandma in the garden - it just says that grandma would like to enjoy the garden, and as grandma can't walk far, the garden would need to be wheelchair accessible.
(And depending on grandma's needs, the house may or may not need to be wheelchair-accessible.)
I think the use you're objecting to has the same structure.
(And the poster is drawing particular attention to the garden, because that's important to the parents in question. They don't want to be offered particulars of houses with brightly-decorated Bob the Builder bedrooms and a garden entirely given over to patio.)
More interesting is the requirement that the house must have two beds. No mention of which rooms they might be placed in.
And one wonders if other furniture besides the two beds might also be required. A davenport, perhaps? Oops, I mean a settee. No, make that a divan. What . . . a couch? A sofa? The mind boggles.
More interesting is the requirement that the house must have two beds. No mention of which rooms they might be placed in.
And one wonders if other furniture besides the two beds might also be required. A davenport, perhaps? Oops, I mean a settee. No, make that a divan. What . . . a couch? A sofa? The mind boggles.
"2 bed house" is standard UK shorthand for a house with two bedrooms.
I do realise that, of course. But there still seems to be a bit of unintentional double-meaning - i.e. the aduls will live in the house, the toddler in the garden.
The American "waiting on" is taking over from "waiting for" in Australia. I'm still just waiting on the platform for a train, though I might be waiting on the train for it to arrive at the next station.
"Waiting on" is regional in the US. It's primarily Southern, but also common among Black Americans.
Yes, “waiting on” seems quite unremarkable to this American Southerner.
There is, however, the curious usage in New York and environs of "waiting on line." In most of the rest of the USA the idiom is "waiting in line." I've spent enough time in New York that it no longer jars quite as much as it used to, but still...
The American "waiting on" is taking over from "waiting for" in Australia. I'm still just waiting on the platform for a train, though I might be waiting on the train for it to arrive at the next station.
"Waiting on" is regional in the US. It's primarily Southern, but also common among Black Americans.
Yes, “waiting on” seems quite unremarkable to this American Southerner.
There is, however, the curious usage in New York and environs of "waiting on line." In most of the rest of the USA the idiom is "waiting in line." I've spent enough time in New York that it no longer jars quite as much as it used to, but still...
One of the things you realise as you learn foreign languages is that prepositions are actually pretty arbitrary.
There is, however, the curious usage in New York and environs of "waiting on line." In most of the rest of the USA the idiom is "waiting in line." I've spent enough time in New York that it no longer jars quite as much as it used to, but still...
To wait on line here used be used to indicate that someone who had telephoned was waiting to talk with a particular person - particular either by name or by function (eg a person in hardware).
One of my pet peeves is the confusion of "reticent" with "reluctant". I've just heard a prime example on TV this afternoon while watching horse racing. The commentator said that a horse was "reticent " to accelerate. Now as far as I know, horses have not recently gained the power of speech.
I bet you never watched Mr. Ed. It was an American television comedy about a horse that could talk back in the 60s.
One of my pet peeves is the confusion of "reticent" with "reluctant". I've just heard a prime example on TV this afternoon while watching horse racing. The commentator said that a horse was "reticent " to accelerate. Now as far as I know, horses have not recently gained the power of speech.
I bet you never watched Mr. Ed. It was an American television comedy about a horse that could talk back in the 60s.
Yes I did!
Was it Harry Enfield who parodied that with "Mr Dead! He's dead of course!" starring a talking corpse?
It's lovely to see someone use the word "queueing", the only word in English (of which I am aware) to contain five consecutive vowels.
The "word" euouae is found in the dictionary, and contains six vowels (and nothing else). There are other words with five consecutive vowels, but queueuing is the best.
The American "waiting on" is taking over from "waiting for" in Australia. I'm still just waiting on the platform for a train, though I might be waiting on the train for it to arrive at the next station.
"Waiting on" is regional in the US. It's primarily Southern, but also common among Black Americans.
Yes, “waiting on” seems quite unremarkable to this American Southerner.
There is, however, the curious usage in New York and environs of "waiting on line." In most of the rest of the USA the idiom is "waiting in line." I've spent enough time in New York that it no longer jars quite as much as it used to, but still...
One of the things you realise as you learn foreign languages is that prepositions are actually pretty arbitrary.
Why do we wash up?
Why does the alarm go off - when if anything, it goes on?
Perhaps not exactly English, but a consonant-less conversation is possible in the Doric. NEQ might know if I've remembered this correctly:
Man to shopkeeper: Oo? Shopkeeper : Aye, oo Man: A' oo? Shopkeeper : Aye, a' oo Man : A' ae oo? Shopkeeper : Aye a' ae oo.
(Man to shopkeeper: Wool? Shopkeeper : Yes, it's made of wool. Man: All wool? Shopkeeper : Yes, all wool. Man : All the same wool? Shopkeeper : Yes, all the same wool.)
We're about to reach the proposition that the word "buffalo" repeated any number of times is a syntactically correct sentence, aren't we?
Well, linguistics has tended to distinguish syntactic correctness, and acceptability. Thus, a technically incorrect sentence may well be acceptable. Of course, it may also be correct in a different dialect, e.g., multiple negatives. Hence, "buffalo buffalo!" may be considered syntactically incorrect, but acceptable. Of course, it may be considered syntactically correct in context.
There was an old "Two Ronnies" bit in which a man comes into a general-goods shop. He and the shopkeeper have a hard time communicating because of a thick accent. Eventually he says he needs to buy "billhooks" and the shopkeeper tosses him out for using foul language.
The American "waiting on" is taking over from "waiting for" in Australia. I'm still just waiting on the platform for a train, though I might be waiting on the train for it to arrive at the next station.
"Waiting on" is regional in the US. It's primarily Southern, but also common among Black Americans.
Yes, “waiting on” seems quite unremarkable to this American Southerner.
There is, however, the curious usage in New York and environs of "waiting on line." In most of the rest of the USA the idiom is "waiting in line." I've spent enough time in New York that it no longer jars quite as much as it used to, but still...
One of the things you realise as you learn foreign languages is that prepositions are actually pretty arbitrary.
Why do we wash up?
Why does the alarm go off - when if anything, it goes on?
English is weird and long may it remain so.
All languages are weird when it comes to prepositions.
In Welsh I go yn (in) the house but I'd go mewn (in) a house. I cut food efo or gyda (with) a knife, but I talk â (with) someone.
In French I go par avion (by aeroplane) but en voiture (by car) or á pied (by foot).
In Welsh I go yn (in) the house but I'd go mewn (in) a house. I cut food efo or gyda (with) a knife, but I talk â (with) someone.
...aaaaand that's why I just quit trying to learn Welsh on Duolingo.
It's no worse than any other language. Only one conjugation, about six irregular verbs, gender only marked in the singular (and then not always), subjunctive only in the written language, no noun declension. The difficult bits are the syntax (VSO word order), all the different words for is (mae, ydy, sy, oes) and unpredictable plurals.
There are harder languages. Icelandic for one, despite being much more closely related to English than Welsh is.
Comments
I think they should carry on using the words they are.
Or perhaps we should use whatever makes sense to us.
OK, but process doesn't mean that; in fact, thinking can lead you astray. My wife mentioned "working through", which is equivalent.
It also has another usage. Going back to an earlier sentence. One 'waits on the platform for a train', but one waits for the train on the platform'.
Using 'wait on' for 'wait for' deprives 'wait on' of its precision.
I'm grateful that I've never heard 'mentee' before this morning and I hope it's an experience I won't repeat. However, I can see that if it existed, it would be a word that doesn't overlap any other word. So I suppose it is entitled to exist. So that makes it one better than 'in excess of', an abomination which one hears far too often.
It means processing.
Find my fabulous what???
I've been told to "eat healthy" for decades. Which means I'm now immune to adverts, because my parser is still waiting for the closing noun.
working through
I remember you being fussed about "standard". I believe I asked you who gets to define that. I'm not sure you answered.
That's helpful, thank you.
I will show myself out
They don't. They are setting as a requirement that the house has a garden suitable for a toddler to play in (flat grass to run around on, possibly fenced in, no pond), because a lot of gardens are less suitable for toddlers (patio / ornamental gravel / ponds / unkempt mass of stinging nettles etc.)
I don't think so - looking for a garden suitable for wheelchairs doesn't imply that you're going to keep grandma in the garden - it just says that grandma would like to enjoy the garden, and as grandma can't walk far, the garden would need to be wheelchair accessible.
(And depending on grandma's needs, the house may or may not need to be wheelchair-accessible.)
I think the use you're objecting to has the same structure.
(And the poster is drawing particular attention to the garden, because that's important to the parents in question. They don't want to be offered particulars of houses with brightly-decorated Bob the Builder bedrooms and a garden entirely given over to patio.)
And one wonders if other furniture besides the two beds might also be required. A davenport, perhaps? Oops, I mean a settee. No, make that a divan. What . . . a couch? A sofa? The mind boggles.
"2 bed house" is standard UK shorthand for a house with two bedrooms.
Nah. No double meaning.
There is, however, the curious usage in New York and environs of "waiting on line." In most of the rest of the USA the idiom is "waiting in line." I've spent enough time in New York that it no longer jars quite as much as it used to, but still...
One of the things you realise as you learn foreign languages is that prepositions are actually pretty arbitrary.
To wait on line here used be used to indicate that someone who had telephoned was waiting to talk with a particular person - particular either by name or by function (eg a person in hardware).
Yes I did!
Was it Harry Enfield who parodied that with "Mr Dead! He's dead of course!" starring a talking corpse?
That's the wonder of Woolworths the Ship.
The "word" euouae is found in the dictionary, and contains six vowels (and nothing else). There are other words with five consecutive vowels, but queueuing is the best.
I’m making a mental note that with 6 letters, it could perhaps show up in Byrdle.
Why do we wash up?
Why does the alarm go off - when if anything, it goes on?
English is weird and long may it remain so.
Man to shopkeeper: Oo?
Shopkeeper : Aye, oo
Man: A' oo?
Shopkeeper : Aye, a' oo
Man : A' ae oo?
Shopkeeper : Aye a' ae oo.
(Man to shopkeeper: Wool?
Shopkeeper : Yes, it's made of wool.
Man: All wool?
Shopkeeper : Yes, all wool.
Man : All the same wool?
Shopkeeper : Yes, all the same wool.)
Well, linguistics has tended to distinguish syntactic correctness, and acceptability. Thus, a technically incorrect sentence may well be acceptable. Of course, it may also be correct in a different dialect, e.g., multiple negatives. Hence, "buffalo buffalo!" may be considered syntactically incorrect, but acceptable. Of course, it may be considered syntactically correct in context.
All languages are weird when it comes to prepositions.
In Welsh I go yn (in) the house but I'd go mewn (in) a house. I cut food efo or gyda (with) a knife, but I talk â (with) someone.
In French I go par avion (by aeroplane) but en voiture (by car) or á pied (by foot).
...aaaaand that's why I just quit trying to learn Welsh on Duolingo.
It's no worse than any other language. Only one conjugation, about six irregular verbs, gender only marked in the singular (and then not always), subjunctive only in the written language, no noun declension. The difficult bits are the syntax (VSO word order), all the different words for is (mae, ydy, sy, oes) and unpredictable plurals.
There are harder languages. Icelandic for one, despite being much more closely related to English than Welsh is.