tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post354033416872062181..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: by cashlynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-55889049154382200372015-04-01T12:51:27.293+01:002015-04-01T12:51:27.293+01:00The 'different' conversation is back here:...The 'different' conversation is back here: <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/different-fromthanto.html" rel="nofollow">http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/different-fromthanto.html</a>.lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-55962680846459114822015-04-01T08:59:00.803+01:002015-04-01T08:59:00.803+01:00Matt - I thought "different to" was AmE!...Matt - I thought "different to" was AmE! I too find it jarring, but I had thought of it as one of those annoying Americanisms that are creeping into BrE as a result of films and TV.<br />Dru - Surely if you say a TV programme "was on" it implies "was on TV"?Kate Buntinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17223976536411967222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-13474295219846554492015-04-01T04:13:47.799+01:002015-04-01T04:13:47.799+01:00Pay by card/cash/credit etc is very common in Aust...Pay by card/cash/credit etc is very common in Australia. I'd even say its the most common way to phrase it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-41160919737822539632015-04-01T00:25:32.936+01:002015-04-01T00:25:32.936+01:00Boris
Lynne was challenged over on analogy not lo...Boris<br /><br />Lynne was challenged over <i>on analogy</i> not long ago on <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/2014-us-to-uk-co-word-of-year-bake-off.html" rel="nofollow">the bake off thread</a>.<br /><br />It turns out to be a term used a lot in American Linguistics. The nearest BrE would appear to be <i>on an analogy</i>, though I must say I find that strange too.<br /><br />PS I'd rather that you called <i>by pay by cash</i> <b>'unidiomatic'</b> rather than 'ungrammatical'.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60321476519006360312015-03-31T18:04:30.551+01:002015-03-31T18:04:30.551+01:00I (US) find "pay by cash" to be ungramma...I (US) find "pay by cash" to be ungrammatical, so I don't think I ever say it. "Pay by Card" sounds wrong to me as well, but because "Credit" is omitted there. I would say "Pay by Credit" if I'm feeling lazy.<br /><br />This has all been largely academic for me as paying cash has been exceedingly rare, but with the recent rise of different price of gasoline (petrol) depending on cash vs credit in my part of the world (New Jersey), I talk about this a lot more than before. Incidentally, this forced me to modify my usual "Regular, fill up please" to the attendant (self service is illegal in NJ) to "Regular, fill up please, cash" (or more rarely credit). I've always wondered whether I was putting "cash" in the right place in my requests.<br /><br />Incidentally, is your use of "on analogy" British? I would say "by analogy" there.Boris Zakharinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16560756640621720539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-50220828200325390272015-03-31T12:25:35.232+01:002015-03-31T12:25:35.232+01:00Back on this thread there was another preposition ...Back on <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/anti-americanismism-part-2.html?showComment=1427736840047" rel="nofollow">this thread</a> there was another preposition vs no preposition clash. In this case it's AmE that has the extra word: <br /><br />BrE <b>free</b> vs AmE <b>for free</b>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-73932263563422590872015-03-30T00:42:24.749+01:002015-03-30T00:42:24.749+01:00Dru
it would be quite feasible for a person to sa...Dru<br /><br /><i>it would be quite feasible for a person to say 'the programme/gram was on on Tuesday'</i><br /><br />I'm not sure it would be feasible to say anything else in my speech.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28032851781397091352015-03-29T22:11:17.093+01:002015-03-29T22:11:17.093+01:00When one says of a television programme that it &#...When one says of a television programme that it 'was on', that is is verbal phrase. The 'on' is not a preposition. It doesn't get turned into one by being followed by a word like 'Tuesday' which in BrEng is often preceded by 'on' used as a preposition.<br /><br />As evidence of that, it would be quite feasible for a person to say 'the programme/gram was on on Tuesday'.Drunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-20839319431584020552015-03-29T04:01:41.975+01:002015-03-29T04:01:41.975+01:00I'm mentally pretending shake my finger at you...I'm mentally pretending shake my finger at you, David Crosbie. You broke Lynne's rule again – we all did, earlier, although I thought it was okay because my original point was to the wording in <i>this</i> post – just so you could provide me with a quote that I'd already acknowledged in my first comment! <br /><br />I am also sorry, Lynne. I really did think it wasn't rule-breaking since I was questioning the way the example was presented <i>here</i>.<br /><br />– AiNJ Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-72138879339798471532015-03-28T12:00:17.826+00:002015-03-28T12:00:17.826+00:00Matt
especially considering that the preposition ...Matt<br /><br /><i>especially considering that the preposition is one of the most fundamental components of the language</i><br /><br />Surely not. A preposition typically 'joins the dots' where some syntactic relationship is already weakly suggested by word order or (not so much in English) by 'case' forms.<br /><br /><i>Pay cash</i> makes sense to me, even though it's not what I usually say. Inserting <i>in</i> or <i>with</i> or <i>by</i> doesn't alter the sense, and any phrase has the potential to be effortlessly intelligible — once users have become familiar with it.<br /><br /><i>Pay by</i> will, I'm pretty sure, persist in my lexicon whatever new-fangled means are developed for settling a bill face-to-face in full. <br /><br />I don't and won't say <i>pay by online</i>. But I do and will (probably) use <i>pay by </i>with different mechanisms of online payment in full: BACS, CHAPS, EFT or whatever. Similarly I use <i>pay by</i> with mechanisms of scheduled payments: <i>standing order, direct debit</i><br /><br />I see nothing to stop me saying <i>pay by phone</i>. (Though I probably won't be doing it.) If different apps are developed, I see nothing wrong with <i>pay by [NAME OF APP]</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-77985094773915821692015-03-28T11:29:24.349+00:002015-03-28T11:29:24.349+00:00AiNJ
It would be a little convoluted for me to an...AiNJ<br /><br />It would be a little convoluted for me to answer on the <a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/on-on.html" rel="nofollow"> on on</a> thread your point made here. (Sorry, Lynne!) But I don't need to, since Lynne has already answered you there:<br /><br />QUOTE<br />Some temporal <i>on</i>s are often pointed out to me. AmE speakers can do something <b><i>Wednesday</i></b> or <b><i>on Wednesday</i></b> but BrE speakers need the <i>on</i>.<br />UNQUOTEDavid Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-87666863739619592892015-03-28T02:22:06.449+00:002015-03-28T02:22:06.449+00:00The fascinating thing I find is how mutable the pr...The fascinating thing I find is how mutable the preposition is — especially considering that the preposition is one of the most fundamental components of the language. I (an American) probably would never say “paid by cash”, but I’ll admit it’s not as jarring as something like the (BrE) “different to”. <br /><br />My real question is — what will the prepositions be in the future (cash, credit cards, and certainly checks becoming quite passé)? Three out of my five financial transactions today were with my (AmE) (cell) phone (BrE) mobile. Will the different dialects converge or diverge on the preposition? Will we say “paid by app”, “pay with apple pay”, “bitcoin to it” (yeah the last example sounds ridiculous)? Is there a difference in the preferred preposition between something that is novel and something that is institutionalized?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12319942981396129418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-78201584200112090932015-03-28T01:28:26.787+00:002015-03-28T01:28:26.787+00:00There is a link to where I discuss 'on Tuesday...There is a link to where I discuss 'on Tuesday'. I think the discussion of time phrases would be better archived there! lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60763397355344735572015-03-27T23:04:24.430+00:002015-03-27T23:04:24.430+00:00@David Crosbie
Lynne wrote: But BrE has an awful...@David Crosbie<br /><br />Lynne wrote: <i> But BrE has an awful lot of prepositions where AmE doesn't--e.g. in expressions of time (</i>on Tuesday<i>)</i> <br /><br />But AmE <i>does</i> have that preposition in that place. We do say things like, "I'll [do something] on Tuesday." And for this AmE speaker, omitting the "on" makes the phrase sound somehow wrong, although I hear it said that way often enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-68431064228920979842015-03-27T17:12:02.826+00:002015-03-27T17:12:02.826+00:00AiNJ
Perhaps, then, the solution would be to omit...AiNJ<br /><br /><i>Perhaps, then, the solution would be to omit any sort of example using "on".</i><br /><br />The solution to what problem?<br /><br />I have a feeling that this dialogue of the deaf is down to some starting point that was clear to you but not to Dru, Biochemist or me.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-27556734507207641172015-03-27T15:39:36.901+00:002015-03-27T15:39:36.901+00:00Biochemist wrote: can an American say 'my favo...Biochemist wrote: <i>can an American say 'my favourite TV programme was on a week ago but it was cancelled this week'?</i><br /><br />Yes, but I'd think it would be unlikely. For one thing, an American would be far more likely to write about their "<b>favorite</b> TV <b>show</b>" having been "<b>canceled</b>" <br /><br />Still, that's not the sort of thing when I said AmE doesn't have an "on one week ago construction". The "on" and the "one week ago" in your example are each part of separate constructions. See David Crosbie's response to that statement; he explained that it's not an available construction in BrE, either. I think his explanation shows what I meant.<br /><br /><i>Or even 'it was off last night because of a big football match'?</i><br /><br />Again, possible but unlikely. I'd say you'd be more likely to see "it <b>wasn't on</b> last night because of a big football <b>game</b>". I think we use "it was off" slightly differently. At least, that's the case in the dialects of AmE I'm most familiar with.<br /><br />– AiNJ<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-27399982562268540762015-03-27T15:29:16.648+00:002015-03-27T15:29:16.648+00:00@David Crosbie,
I see what you mean about not hav...@David Crosbie,<br /><br />I see what you mean about not having the "on one week ago" construction. Perhaps, then, the solution would be to omit any sort of example using "on".<br /><br />– AiNJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8775620323828210682015-03-27T12:37:22.724+00:002015-03-27T12:37:22.724+00:00Probably not connected, but "by cash" wa...Probably not connected, but "by cash" was a phrase used in double-entry book-keeping. I can't remember what it meant.Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28710707255780691252015-03-27T10:08:08.929+00:002015-03-27T10:08:08.929+00:00AiNJ
OK, I see what you mean. But we don't ha...AiNJ<br /><br />OK, I see what you mean. But <b><i>we</i></b> don't have an <i>on one week ago</i> construction either. <br /><br />We have a <i>change on / advance on / improvement on</i> construction, which can be followed a wide range of time expressions — though <i>next week</i> is pushing it a bit.<br /><br />We also have an <i>on Tuesdays construction</i> for regular events. So it's weird but not entirely impossible to say<br /><br /><i>On Wednesdays takings have seen an advance on on Tuesdays.</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-17667372501287555152015-03-27T09:50:30.302+00:002015-03-27T09:50:30.302+00:00Anonymous - can an American say 'my favourite ...Anonymous - can an American say 'my favourite TV programme was on a week ago but it was cancelled this week'? Or even 'it was off last night because of a big football match'? Each of these would be ok in BrE, and also likely to happen.<br /><br />And - I might say 'can I use cash?' Or ' can I pay cash' or in/with cash, equally, when asked if I want to pay with my credit card. Perhaps we phrase it to correspond with the question asked by the assistant. I remember when all credit cards seemed to be known as Barclay cards in the UK, by analogy with the Irish usage of Laser as a generic debit card.Biochemistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-89561802995214109182015-03-26T19:18:44.937+00:002015-03-26T19:18:44.937+00:00Your blog is amazing. Keep up the great work1Your blog is amazing. Keep up the great work1Rafael, Brazilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-13159915217903247452015-03-26T16:54:13.688+00:002015-03-26T16:54:13.688+00:00@David Crosbie, I understood that.
Take a closer...@David Crosbie, I understood that. <br /><br />Take a closer look at both of my comments. I was only questioning whether Lynne's example might cause confusion since while we <i>do</i> use "on Tuesday" as an expression of time, American English doesn't have the "on one week ago" construction under <i>any</i> circumstances. <br /><br />— AiNJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16836761637266239672015-03-26T12:12:58.892+00:002015-03-26T12:12:58.892+00:00Anonymous
Look more closely at the thread. The ph...Anonymous<br /><br />Look more closely at the thread. The phrase <i>on one week ago</i> is only possible because it follows the word <i>change</i>. It isn't an expression of time, but of <b>comparison</b>.<br /><br /><i>an incorrect set of figures for the percentage change on one week ago</i><br /><br />means something entirely different from<br /><br /><i>an incorrect set of figures for the percentage change one week ago</i><br /><br />The former means that the change happened <b>after</b> the figures were calculated last month. The latter means that the the change happened (or was discovered) last month.<br /><br />It's difficult to extend this 'by comparison with' meaning to phrases of <b>future time</b>. That makes <i>on next week</i> unlikely even after words such as <i>change, advance</i> or <i> improvement</i>.<br /><br />I suppose it's just about possible to say<br /><br /><i>We expect that next weeks figures will show a only small improvement. After that we expect a surge in productivity, so that the results for July could be a 25% advance on next week.</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28131463033364788992015-03-26T01:31:54.822+00:002015-03-26T01:31:54.822+00:00@Dru, I used the "on next week" example ...@Dru, I used the "on next week" example because I thought it was used in Lynne's earlier post (http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/on-on.html). It wasn't. I should have typed something else entirely, such as the phrase that inspired the post: "on one week ago".<br /><br />– AiNJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-86201227319977931012015-03-26T00:42:38.249+00:002015-03-26T00:42:38.249+00:00Come to think of it, there is a single-word trans...Come to think of it, there <i><b>is </b></i> a single-word transitive verb <b>protest</b> in BrE. Largely obsolete (except in Scottish Law, according to the OED) it means 'assert strongly'. With an added sense of 'by way of contradiction' it survives in <i>protest one's innocence</i>.<br /><br />And I must recognise a fourth single-word transitive verb <b>pay</b> with OBJECT = recipient <i>pay informers, pay the cashier</i> etc.<br /><br />This concept allows for single-word verd <b>pay</b><br /><b>ditransitive</b> INDIRECT OBJECT = recipient DIRECT OBJECT = payment. <br /><br />When Humphrey Littleton asked Duke Ellington how he'd managed to keep his musicians with him for so long, he replied <i>Well Humphrey, I have this gimmick. I pay them money.</i><br /><br />I don't think <b>pay by</b> can be use this way — not in my speech, that is. I can't say <i>*pay the plumber by cash</i> or even *<i>He was paid by cash</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com