tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post3297379910212274166..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: visiting lynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-6957665511344237922018-07-26T19:42:42.379+01:002018-07-26T19:42:42.379+01:00Re the Eliot example above: In the 1800s, if you &...Re the Eliot example above: In the 1800s, if you "visited with" a small group of gentry, that means that you made reciprocal formal social calls on one another. It's a way of saying that the group consists of people whom you consider socially acceptable. Jane Austen also uses "visit" in this sense when she says that the residents of the little market town near Pemberley regard the Darcy family as proud because they don't "visit" there - i.e. there are no families in that town whom the Darcy family regard as being socially equal to them. <br /><br />"Visit with", in the American sense, has a different meaning. It implies focused social connection - what we might call "quality time". However, when I hear my sister use it (she picked it up from her husband's family), it registers with me as very outmoded and sort of grandmotherly, at least in the northeastern US where I live. (My sister is only in her mid-40s so it seems particularly incongruous to me - it's a speech pattern that I think should belong to a much older person. It strikes my ear as being of the same era as "gal", "fellow", "gee", and "swell".) I find it particularly grating for some reason when my sister uses it to refer to spending time with her husband's parents, who live with her. Somehow when one lives in the same house with another person, it seems - to me - inappropriate to say one is "visiting with" that person. It feels kind of saccharine or precious. "Hanging out with them" would sound much more contemporary and authentic to me, and would still capture the sense that the time spent together is more focused and high-quality than simple daily functional conversations about chores or whatever. Perhaps that's just a regional usage/prejudice, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292347386358525828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-53778338949325414752017-11-27T07:42:23.910+00:002017-11-27T07:42:23.910+00:00To my mind 'visiting with John' implies th...To my mind 'visiting with John' implies that John accompanied me to call on a third party/parties. In AmE it would mean I called on John and we interacted socially, the social interaction being labelled 'visiting'. In BrE the act of calling on another at the second party's location is 'visiting', social interaction merely being implied as a possibility and not a necessity, as in 'an unpleasant visit to the office' or a 'visit to the loo'. Also 'visit upon' has the same meaning as 'to inflict upon' which is hardly social.... Paddybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10846383515507220664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-48373305743727050222017-01-31T15:13:30.898+00:002017-01-31T15:13:30.898+00:00My British mother described to me with amused asto...My British mother described to me with amused astonishment an occasion when her Mississippi cousin invited her to go (and) talk to someone across the room by saying "Why don't you visit with Becky?" The physical 'going-to' element of 'visit' necessary to her BrE ears involved a couple (of) yards!<br /><br />woolythinker waxed nostalgic about South African 'kuier' - a "kind of relaxed, spontaneous visit" - and said that in Britain "it feels like the word doesn't exist because people just don't do that". I suggest 'drop in (on)': 'I dropped in on X yesterday.' 'X dropped in yesterday for coffee and a chat.' 'Why don't you drop in when you're in the area'. Shorter such visits are often 'just passing by' or 'just popping in for a minute'. A drop in is longer than a pop in for me. (Irrelevant but funny: a Milton Jones one-liner: "My father said 'I'm just going to pop upstairs'. So he went upstairs, and he popped!")<br /><br />'Kuier', 'drop in', 'pop in' and 'visit' all have the essential BrE element of visitor physically moving to visitee's customary location. 'Customary' is important because it allows the customary resident to be used without mentioning the place: you can visit your doctor (at her unstated BrE surgery) but not your MP at his surgery; you can visit your aunt (at her own unstated home) but not when she is staying at your grandmother's.<br /><br />I suspect David Crosbie put his finger mainly on it when he suggested BrE dropped the label 'visit with' for people and began 'calling on' them instead, reserving 'visiting' for places. I say 'mainly' because 'calling on' was a short formal visit, so a different term would still have been needed for a longer stay. I wonder what that was: 'stay with', maybe, or 'be their house guest'. Prior to this divergence it seems that BrE 'visit with' still involved a journey plus socialising rather than indicating simply a good chat - David's "place constraint".<br /><br />Makes me wonder whether in George Eliot's time people would have distinguished between a short 'visit' (maybe just paying respects) and a longer (typical for the class and time) 'visit with' including probably more than one overnight stay. Just wondering.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-44799714953771016982016-07-20T10:05:05.120+01:002016-07-20T10:05:05.120+01:00As a Colonial I grew up in the British English env...As a Colonial I grew up in the British English environment of South Africa, and I too find the AmE 'Visit with' baffling. As I was taught, one could visit someone else by paying a call on them ( for social or even business purposes. The actual physical location of the visitor has to change to the premises or location of the visited party. Therefore to "visit with" someone means to be accompanied by that someone on a call to a third party's location for social or business purposes. <br />What the AmE usage implies is that the participants had a good talk. <br /><br />The earlier exanple "You kids go play now; the adults are going to visit" has the implication that the children will be left at home while the adults will go together to call on an unnamed person/s at an unnamed location. <br /><br />Divided by a commn language indeed!Paddybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10846383515507220664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-56689291964069878342016-04-11T15:35:45.974+01:002016-04-11T15:35:45.974+01:00What we call a half bath is more of a real estate ...<br />What we call a half bath is more of a real estate description of a room: it really signifies no bath: just a toilet and sink. I don't think people would refer to a half bath except to describe the rooms in a house. As for "visit with," I don't recall hearing it during the 30 years I lived in New Jersey or the 6 I lived in Massachusetts, only the past 25 in Virginia. And the first time I remember hearing it was from a native of Canada, though he may have picked it up while living in the USA.Steve Dunhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970801099772755392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28906300784024871732015-01-28T16:51:37.149+00:002015-01-28T16:51:37.149+00:00I have come across the "visit with" usag...I have come across the "visit with" usage in a contemporary play, "Outside Mullingar" about rural Ireland, written by the Irish American playwright John Patrick Shanley. I am English, and wondered if "visit with" is really used in Ireland, or is an anomaly. Can any anyone advise?Deucharmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623956364579459034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-35859335341476307082013-05-22T08:36:36.142+01:002013-05-22T08:36:36.142+01:00We had a good visit - phrase my Scottish relations...We had a good visit - phrase my Scottish relations would use. British English has variations from different areas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61289764308559222052012-11-22T15:31:19.067+00:002012-11-22T15:31:19.067+00:00Interesting post and comments! My aunt (81) from M...Interesting post and comments! My aunt (81) from Minnesota will say, "I'm glad we had a nice visit." when we've finished speaking by phone (I'm in the UK), or "I had a long visit with Sarah." (my sister, who's in Australia). My sister and I have commented on this to each other, as definitely find this usage baffling, although we are used to many Americanisms, as our father is from the US. So it can definitely be used when speaking by phone.Valeriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17779127079465401314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-77105927600147030202012-11-19T10:28:59.174+00:002012-11-19T10:28:59.174+00:00Whereas here it is the normal euphemism for the do...Whereas here it is the normal euphemism for the downstairs room containing loo and basin, that I understand Americans refer to as a "Half bath". It is, or was in my day, not only the normal euphemism in schools, but where you would expect to find them.Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-65545472703769563522012-11-18T23:04:18.419+00:002012-11-18T23:04:18.419+00:00Mrs. Redboots, despite being a relatively regular ...Mrs. Redboots, despite being a relatively regular reader of British books, I needed context to realize that you meant anything other than the closet/coat-hanging area when you said "cloakroom," and you can imagine that it would be completely inappropriate to "pay a visit" in that way there! ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-67490116878084338922012-11-16T21:13:00.906+00:002012-11-16T21:13:00.906+00:00I've lived in the US for the last 15 years, an...I've lived in the US for the last 15 years, and until now I have never heard, or heard of, this usage of "visit with".<br /><br />Do you think it might be something said mostly by or to women?vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-69278059986667597662012-11-16T19:18:04.559+00:002012-11-16T19:18:04.559+00:00Mrs Redboots, I would not say visit or visit with ...Mrs Redboots, I would not say visit or visit with for anything over the phone. (St. Louis)<br /><br />Mindynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-71553256572106330422012-11-16T01:33:08.713+00:002012-11-16T01:33:08.713+00:00Rachel
Before and after the invention of the post...Rachel<br /><br />Before and after the invention of the post, the class of people we're taking about would have <i>visiting cards</i> aka <i>calling cards</i>. The (would be) visitor would present a card to a servant in the residence of the (intended) visitee.<br /><br />I believe the <i>visit</i> or <i>call</i> served primarily as a consolidation of social relationships. If one of the social circle had something serious to convey to another, they would simply send a written message with a servant — no need for the technology of postage or telephony.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64089565410760067032012-11-15T18:10:09.116+00:002012-11-15T18:10:09.116+00:00This is true, although here in the UK we have neve...This is true, although here in the UK we have never said "calling" about using the phone; we ring people up or telephone them. <br /><br />And do people not visit, or visit with, people over the telephone in the USA?Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-80566101105434607272012-11-15T10:20:37.937+00:002012-11-15T10:20:37.937+00:00I would like to flag in the possibility of it bein...I would like to flag in the possibility of it being skewed by technology. The nineteenth/twentieth century rules about "At Home" days etc assumed communication. So I wonder if the earlier usage pre-dated the Penny Post. Visit then was the only form of communication, whereas after that, you could communicate your intent to call/visit. And telephony enabled an alternate form of calling (though not visitation).Rachel Ganzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16512329333010333925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-53691673014459737142012-11-14T16:13:05.009+00:002012-11-14T16:13:05.009+00:00rachel
But I am willing to be overruled.
Not by ...rachel<br /><br /><i>But I am willing to be overruled.</i><br /><br />Not by me, Rachel. That's what I assumed too — the equivalent of <i>on visiting terms</i>.<br /><br />But that leaves a puzzle. The practice of making semi-formal visits to social peers did not die out until long after the term <i>visit with</i> was lost. Why lose the label when the practice labelled was still current among a social class which included many published writers?<br /><br />I have a hunch that speakers of that class developed a distinction between <i>visiting</i> <b>places</b> and <i>calling on</i> <b>people</b>. <br /><br />I may be wrong about the <b>place</b> constraint of <i>visit</i>. But I'm pretty sure the <i>with</i> was dropped because it would be grotesque to speak of <i>people we call on with</i> or <i>people with whom we call on</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-22008301146724727862012-11-14T15:24:59.154+00:002012-11-14T15:24:59.154+00:00@rachel
You wrote:
the "with" in this ...@rachel<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>the "with" in this case is required because it represents a social connection to a group. Mutual visiting took place. So it was not a case of I visit a, b and c, but I am in a network of a, b,c and myself, who all visit one another...</i><br /><br />That is the concept I ineptly attempted to convey in my earlier comment. <br /><br />I agree with you 100%.<br /><br />Anonymous in NJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60311864775092926892012-11-14T11:10:34.322+00:002012-11-14T11:10:34.322+00:00@DavidCrosbie: I believe that the "with"...@DavidCrosbie: I believe that the "with" in this case is required because it represents a social connection to a group. Mutual visiting took place. So it was not a case of I visit a, b and c, but I am in a network of a, b,c and myself, who all visit one another...<br /><br />Hence the strange construction of "with whom"<br /><br />But I am willing to be overruled.Rachel Ganzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16512329333010333925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-50218465789905878282012-11-14T00:53:20.788+00:002012-11-14T00:53:20.788+00:00Anonymous
one reason for this surprise (so much g...Anonymous<br /><br /><i>one reason for this surprise (so much greater than with many other AmE-isms) is, I suggest, simple lack of prior exposure</i><br /><br />Perhaps we <b>have</b> been exposed without realising it. I can imagine hearing <i>I visited with her</i> on a TV show and automatically translating it into BrE <i>I visited her</i>. The character and the American viewers would know that the TV characters had a chat, but I wouldn't. There would be nothing to make me suspect that I hadn't perfectly understood.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64195238373803614832012-11-13T13:44:42.711+00:002012-11-13T13:44:42.711+00:00Well this one has run and run and run so surely th...Well this one has run and run and run so surely there's not much left to say. I can only observe that while in common with all(?) the other BrE speakers here I am completely flabbergasted by this hitherto unanticipated usage of such an innocent and apparently well-understood verb, one reason for this surprise (so much greater than with many other AmE-isms) is, I suggest, simple lack of prior exposure, and that in itself is quite unusual given the normal degree of exposure (both ways). In my long-winded way I'm saying that I don't think I've ever heard the expression "visit with" (or indeed "visit" used to mean "chat") on any US TV show, which is, let's face it, where we get most of our exposure from. Maybe I should watch more TV and/or pay closer attention. What we need is the televisual equivalent of BNC and COCA :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-62080131228910224362012-11-13T13:43:47.261+00:002012-11-13T13:43:47.261+00:00Well this one has run and run and run so surely th...Well this one has run and run and run so surely there's not much left to say. I can only observe that while in common with all(?) the other BrE speakers here I am completely flabbergasted by this hitherto unanticipated usage of such an innocent and apparently well-understood verb, one reason for this surprise (so much greater than with many other AmE-isms) is, I suggest, simple lack of prior exposure, and that in itself is quite unusual given the normal degree of exposure (both ways). In my long-winded way I'm saying that I don't think I've ever heard the expression "visit with" (or indeed "visit" used to mean "chat") on any US TV show, which is, let's face it, where we get most of our exposure from. Maybe I should watch more TV and/or pay closer attention. What we need is the televisual equivalent of BNC and COCA :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-27015520429332218942012-11-12T22:49:08.175+00:002012-11-12T22:49:08.175+00:00Rachel
Referrring to the Eliot /Austen class mean...Rachel<br /><br /><i>Referrring to the Eliot /Austen class meanings of visit, I would still claim that it has the UK English meaning of pay a visit to their location. </i><br /><br />I'm sure all British speakers agree with you about the <b><i>meaning</i></b>. What's so very different from present-day British English is the <b><i>form</i></b> — not the one-word verb <i>visit</i> but the two-word verb <i>visit with</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64446139559444189492012-11-12T15:58:53.765+00:002012-11-12T15:58:53.765+00:00Referrring to the Eliot /Austen class meanings of ...Referrring to the Eliot /Austen class meanings of visit, I would still claim that it has the UK English meaning of pay a visit to their location. There was a social hierarchy of whether you called or were called upon. And in such a context, there is no requirement to have any conversation with the person you visited at all.....Rachel Ganzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16512329333010333925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-48831620255171305802012-11-11T01:49:05.872+00:002012-11-11T01:49:05.872+00:001. On that meet with thread, there are two observa...1. On that <i>meet with</i> thread, there are two observations that it's not as strange to British speakers as <i>visit with</i>.<br /><br />2. It's just occurred to me what happens if you turn them into nouns.<br /><br />• <i>a meeting with Fred</i> is fine in BrE<br />• <i>a visit with Fred</i> is weird in BrE — unless the speaker and Fred made a visit somewhere together<br />• <i>a visit to Fred</i> would be normal in BrE<br /><br />I can also say<br />• <i>a meeting at Fred's</i><br />This would usually mean a formal/planned meeting of an unstated number of people at Fred's house. But in the right context, it could mean what you Americans seems to call <i>a visit</i>. Thus:<br /><br /><i>I haven't seen Fred since our last meeting at his place.</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-52142894752586029182012-11-11T01:42:46.241+00:002012-11-11T01:42:46.241+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com