So Brits, how accurate is this?

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Imralu »

Viktor77 wrote:Maybe I'm just ignorant of foods but I've never heard of muesli.
You've heard of granola. The only difference, apparently, is that granola is toasted in oil. Muesli can be toasted or untoasted.
Viktor77 wrote:I think what you're calling a wrench is this and what you're calling a spanner is also a wrench ie. this.
Yep.
Viktor77 wrote:So what then do you call a pipe wrench? A pipe spanner?
No. A pipe wrench. It's adjustable, so it's a wrench. A spanner is a one-piece thing. You understood that two sentences before. I don't buy this (US) 'wrench' = (UK) 'spanner' thing. It just seems to me that you're just lacking the word 'spanner'.
Wikipedia wrote:In British English, spanner is the standard term. The most common shapes are called open-ended spanner and ring spanner. The term wrench refers to various types of adjustable spanner.[1]
Viktor77 wrote:So do you guys have a residence called a condo? Here, we have a basic distinction between an apartment (rented) and a condo (owned), but both are generally units in a building.
No, but we recognise that as an American word, short for condominium. I've never really understood what a condo was. I thought it was a type of apartment. If we own an apartment, we own an apartment, or a flat, or whatever we call it. It makes no difference if it's owned or rented.
Viktor77 wrote:Also, Gulliver, it's Legos. I used to love Legos. The company is called Lego.
Uh, must be another weird American thing ... Can you say "I found a lego in the back of the couch."?
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
ivazaéun
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by ivazaéun »

Viktor77 wrote:I think what you're calling a wrench is this and what you're calling a spanner is also a wrench ie. this. In fact the latter is more a wrench, the other is an adjustable wrench. So what then do you call a pipe wrench?
Picture 1: Spanner
Picture 2: Spanner
Picture 3: Wrench
It might just be me, rather than Brits generally, but a spanner has a curved end to go around the nut, whereas a wrench is vice-like.
Viktor77 wrote:So do you guys have a residence called a condo? Here, we have a basic distinction between an apartment (rented) and a condo (owned), but both are generally units in a building.
No condos. I agree with Gulliver's cheap/old "flat" and a modern/expensive "apartment" distinction.
Viktor77 wrote:Also, Gulliver, it's Legos. I used to love Legos. The company is called Lego.
A single piece is a "Lego brick". If you've built something using the bricks, it's "made of Lego". Never, ever, "Legos".

User avatar
Gulliver
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 2:58 pm
Location: The West Country
Contact:

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Gulliver »

finlay wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:So do you guys have a residence called a condo? Here, we have a basic distinction between an apartment (rented) and a condo (owned), but both are generally units in a building.
we don't, no. I didn't really know what that was. Gulliver implies that some people might have a similar distinction between a cheap/old "flat" and a modern/expensive "apartment", although I wouldn't have come up with that.
I think "swanky and modern" is more apt than expensive. A floor of a Georgian house of a well-to-do area of London would be a flat, not an apartment.

I always assumed that a condo was a kind of house, I didn't know it was anything to do with owning it. I'd still call it a flat, or possibly an apartment, were it "swanky".

User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Viktor77 »

Imralu wrote:No. A pipe wrench. It's adjustable, so it's a wrench. A spanner is a one-piece thing. You understood that two sentences before. I don't buy this (US) 'wrench' = (UK) 'spanner' thing. It just seems to me that you're just lacking the word 'spanner'.
I mixed up wrench and spanner in that post. It's a hard distinction to make when you've never used it before.
Imralu wrote:No, but we recognise that as an American word, short for condominium. I've never really understood what a condo was. I thought it was a type of apartment. If we own an apartment, we own an apartment, or a flat, or whatever we call it. It makes no difference if it's owned or rented.
An apartment is any dwelling which is rented and at least semi-detached (ie. only a whole rented house would not be called an apartment). Some apartments are units in buildings such as you are familiar with, some are subdivided houses/warehouses or other converted structures, and some are townhomes.

A condo is essentially any of the above structures except owned (and usually not a subdivided house because that'd be weird)*. Those townhomes could easily be condos. A popular condo where I live is called a garden condo (I guess, they don't really have a name though). If this type of building is rented it's more likely to be called a duplex. A condo is "usually" higher quality because it is owned.

The other big difference here is that since a condo is owned like a house you can alter a condo in almost any way you want (on the interior and somewhat the exterior), but an apartment can only have minor alteration (like paint), depending on the landlord or association. A condo also usually has HOA fees, so there can be a community pool, a community building, exterior maintenance, etc. (not to say apartments don't have that stuff, but it's factored into rent). Except in big cities, condos are usually for the older generation (who just buys them in cash) or for families just starting out. As you know, the American dream is to own a house, and except in big cities (except suburbs of course), people generally own a house once they start a family until they become too old to care for it, at which point they may get a condo or move into a nursing home, depending.
Imralu wrote:Uh, must be another weird American thing ... Can you say "I found a lego in the back of the couch."?
I suppose I would say 'I found a lego piece', or a 'lego brick'. We make an effort, AFAIK, to pluralise/possessise legos, so we may just say, 'I found some legos.'

We have a pluralisation/possession fetish here, especially in my state, Michigan. For example, stores such as Kroger, Meijer, Aldi, or JCPenny they become Kroger's, Meijer's, Aldi's, JCPenny's. But not WalMart.

*When I say a subdivided house I mean a building which was once a single family house which has been carved into units. This is typically cheap construction so it wouldn't really make sense as a condo.
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

User avatar
Lyhoko Leaci
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Not Mariya's road network, thankfully.

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Lyhoko Leaci »

Viktor77 wrote:
Imralu wrote:Uh, must be another weird American thing ... Can you say "I found a lego in the back of the couch."?
I suppose I would say 'I found a lego piece', or a 'lego brick'. We make an effort, AFAIK, to pluralise/possessise legos, so we may just say, 'I found some legos.'
"I found a lego in the back of the couch." sounds just fine to me. "Legos" would only be for more than one piece... but they usually appear in groups.
We have a pluralisation/possession fetish here, especially in my state, Michigan. For example, stores such as Kroger, Meijer, Aldi, or JCPenny they become Kroger's, Meijer's, Aldi's, JCPenny's. But not WalMart.
And that seems to be the case in Ohio as well, at least in my family.
Zain pazitovcor, sio? Sio, tovcor.
You can't read that, right? Yes, it says that.
Shinali Sishi wrote:"Have I spoken unclearly? I meant electric catfish not electric onions."

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by finlay »

and in britain too, and probably most english. many of the supermarkets just have it as part of their name (Sainsbury's, Morrison's), because they were named after a person, but I've definitely also heard Tesco's for instance.

of course it varies by person. i associate this 's thing with a kind of old or fuddy-duddy type of person.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by linguoboy »

ivazaéun wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:Also, Gulliver, it's Legos. I used to love Legos. The company is called Lego.
A single piece is a "Lego brick". If you've built something using the bricks, it's "made of Lego". Never, ever, "Legos".
Feel free to make up your own prescriptivist nonsense if you like, but my nephews between them have a collection of these with a retail value in the thousands and everyone around--them, their friends, their relatives, etc. calls them "legos". (And, yes, we're always finding a lego behind the couch or somewhere.) I don't think I've ever heard them called "bricks"; "blocks", perhaps, but never "bricks".

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by finlay »

right, but it's not necessarily prescriptive nonsense when it's something you'd never hear over here and we're explicitly talking about british/american differences.

User avatar
Pthagnar
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Location: Hole of Aspiration

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Pthagnar »

linguoboy wrote:a collection of these with a retail value in the thousands and everyone around--them, their friends, their relatives, etc. calls them "legos"
ah, both the golden rule *and* mob rule. why come out and crudely say 'don't say X' when you can just say 'look, a rich person and all their friends say Y'

User avatar
Pinetree
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Pinetree »

ivazaéun wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:Also, Gulliver, it's Legos. I used to love Legos. The company is called Lego.
A single piece is a "Lego brick". If you've built something using the bricks, it's "made of Lego". Never, ever, "Legos".
It's more complicated than this. Lego, in it's proper usage, as set out by the company, is not inherently a noun. It is an adjective. The items in question could be called "bits", "bricks", "pieces", "doohickeys", usw., but so that people know that you're talking about the products of the Lego company, you apply the adjective to the noun. So no, there is never an <-s> affixed to the term Lego, but neither can you find "a Lego".

User avatar
Melteor
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Melteor »

Gulliver wrote:Baps are fun, because baps also means boobies.
Am I right in thinking buns stay 'buns'?

User avatar
Pinetree
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Pinetree »

meltman wrote:
Gulliver wrote:Baps are fun, because baps also means boobies.
Am I right in thinking buns stay 'buns'?
I wanna date a baker, 'cause... you know...

User avatar
faiuwle
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:26 am
Location: MA north shore

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by faiuwle »

Imralu wrote:I had often heard the word granola (bar) on American TV shows and in movies, but I didn't know what it was until recently. That word is absent here. It's all muesli, whether it's boring or interesting. Was the muesli your father used to eat imported? Everyone I know who's been to the US says food there is really over the top - ridiculously big portions, higher sugar, salt and fat content than anywhere else, so the boringness might just be the taste of food in the rest of the world. *shrugs* ... or it's just a boring tasting brand.
I don't believe it was imported, but it was almost certainly produced by and for the tasty-food-hating contingent that linguoboy was talking about. (FWIW, though, granola <i>bars</i> seem to have significantly more sugar and/or honey than loose granola used as cereal, and are really too sweet, IMO.)
It's (broadly) [faɪ.ˈjuw.lɛ]
#define FEMALE

ConlangDictionary 0.3 3/15/14 (ZBB thread)

Quis vult in terra stare,
Cum possit volitare?

User avatar
clawgrip
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1723
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:21 am
Location: Tokyo

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by clawgrip »

In Canada I would say these words are mostly the same as American English, with the following exceptions:

jelly - jam
sneakers - running shoes
freeway - highway, usually
faucet - tap

I also treat Lego as an uncountable noun, and will say Lego blocks, or maybe bricks.

User avatar
Radius Solis
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1248
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Si'ahl
Contact:

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Radius Solis »

Imralu wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:Also, Gulliver, it's Legos. I used to love Legos. The company is called Lego.
Uh, must be another weird American thing ... Can you say "I found a lego in the back of the couch."?
Absolutely. What else would I call it? Bow to corporate brand-name prescriptivism and use the name solely as an adjective as they demand, i.e. "a lego brick" or "these lego blocks"? Ewww. And yeah, "lego" is never a mass noun. That would be bizarre indeed, like referring to a pile of boxes as a pile of box. But "legos" can be a mass noun when this names the activity, for instance "we're busy playing legos right now" (c.f. "we're busy playing checkers right now").

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by jmcd »

Salmoneus wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:On the US end, I didn't see the difference with dinner jacket. Unless Brits consider the entire ensemble a dinner jacket (which I highly doubt), I'd argue we would use the same terminology here, if not just jacket or maybe tuxedo or suit jacket. On the same note, autumn is quite popular here as well. I think people tend to default to fall, but we use autumn frequently enough.
Maybe TV and cinema have lied to me, but I'm always hearing people with American accents talking about tuxedos, or even just about a 'tux'. Here, people would say 'dinner jacket', or just 'DJ' instead. A tuxedo is an entirely different garment - for a start, a DJ is usually black, or at least a dark colour, whereas a tuxedo is white.
I've certainly never anyone use dj to mean that and not 'disc jockey'. If anyone would, it probably be because they are old and/or live in a bubble.

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Imralu »

Radius Solis wrote:
Imralu wrote:
Viktor77 wrote:Also, Gulliver, it's Legos. I used to love Legos. The company is called Lego.
Uh, must be another weird American thing ... Can you say "I found a lego in the back of the couch."?
Absolutely. What else would I call it? Bow to corporate brand-name prescriptivism and use the name solely as an adjective as they demand, i.e. "a lego brick" or "these lego blocks"? Ewww.
If I had to specify one piece of lego, I'd say "a piece of lego". I'm not bowing to any prescriptivism. I'm using the word the way it's used here and apparently also in Britain and Canada. Until this thread, I'd never heard of a plural form of 'lego'.
Radius Solis wrote:And yeah, "lego" is never a mass noun.
Incorrect ... in many places, it's ALWAYS a mass noun.
Radius Solis wrote:That would be bizarre indeed, like referring to a pile of boxes as a pile of box.
... or going into IKEA, pointing at the furnitures and saying "Look at all this furniture". How weird! :P
Radius Solis wrote:"we're busy playing legos right now"
I've just noticed a consistent difference in how we.INCL use the word 'play'. For you guys, it seems to be able to take an object which is either the name of the game or a piece of play equipment (maybe you would just say "a play equipment"? :P ). For us, the object of 'play' is always the name of a game. With play equipment we need to use something like 'with'.

We're playing legos seems really weird to me. If an American said "We're playing legos" I'd assume "legos" was the name of a game and I'd ask "Cool, what's legos? How do you play it?"

US: Let's play ball.
Au: Let's play with a/the/this ball. / Let's throw/kick a ball around.
("Let's play ball" is possible if 'ball' is the name of the game, like if it's a weird shortening of basketball or football.)

US: The girls played jump rope.
Au: The girls played with a/the skipping rope, eh!

US: We're playing legos.
Au: We're playing with lego.

US: Did you play Barbie/Barbies/Barbie dolls when you were a child?
Au: Oi, did you play with Barbie dolls when you were a kid, cunt?


Are these also correct sentences for you?
Let's play frisbee.
Let's play Tonka trucks.
Let's play remote controlled car.
Let's play lightsabers.
Let's play toy trains.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
Shrdlu
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Location: hinter schwedischen Gardinen

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Shrdlu »

So are you two just speaking different dialects or different languages? because both of your countries have a standing army. That's the question of today.
If I stop posting out of the blue it probably is because my computer and the board won't cooperate and let me log in.!

JasonK
Niš
Niš
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Melbourne, AUS

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by JasonK »

I'm always amazed at how fired up people get over the whole "Lego/Legos" thing... Personally I've lived in both England and Australia and have never heard someone use "Legos" in real life. Of course I'd understand what it means because of exposure to Americans, but it still sounds odd.

Also Imralu, do people really say "trousers" in Brisbane? Everyone I've met in Melbourne says "pants".

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Imralu »

JasonK wrote:Also Imralu, do people really say "trousers" in Brisbane? Everyone I've met in Melbourne says "pants".
It's not common. My mum is the only person I'm sure I've heard say it. She's Australian but she lived briefly in Ireland and England when she was a kid, and her father was Irish, so it might be from there. I grew up with that word, so it's somewhere in my mental dictionary but it's a bit hazy, so I may only know it from one source. I think my mum uses it to describe any long pants that aren't jeans or trackie dacks. It's not in my active vocabulary, but I have been exposed to it from a non-British source, so I counted it.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Viktor77 »

Imralu wrote:... or going into IKEA, pointing at the furnitures and saying "Look at all this furniture". How weird! :P
Wait, is there suppose to be something wrong with that sentence? Who says "furnitures?" If you said "furnitures" here they'd assume you uneducated! Heck, my spell check doesn't even recognise it!
Imralu wrote:I've just noticed a consistent difference in how we.INCL use the word 'play'. For you guys, it seems to be able to take an object which is either the name of the game or a piece of play equipment (maybe you would just say "a play equipment"? :P ). For us, the object of 'play' is always the name of a game. With play equipment we need to use something like 'with'.

We're playing legos seems really weird to me. If an American said "We're playing legos" I'd assume "legos" was the name of a game and I'd ask "Cool, what's legos? How do you play it?"
Imralu wrote:US: Let's play ball.
Au: Let's play with a/the/this ball. / Let's throw/kick a ball around.
("Let's play ball" is possible if 'ball' is the name of the game, like if it's a weird shortening of basketball or football.)
"Let's play ball" is a phrase which is said just before a baseball game.
Imralu wrote:US: The girls played jump rope.
Au: The girls played with a/the skipping rope, eh!
No, I wouldn't say this. It sounds like jump rope is some sort of competitive game. Also, we don't say "skipping rope" AFAIK.
Imralu wrote:US: We're playing legos.
Au: We're playing with lego.
Contrary to Radius, I would say "We're playing with Legos."
Imralu wrote:US: Did you play Barbie/Barbies/Barbie dolls when you were a child?
Au: Oi, did you play with Barbie dolls when you were a kid, cunt?
Either one is acceptable. I'd imagine the difference here would be that the first is like you played a game with Barbie like house, or doctor, or something. The second is just general playing.
Imralu wrote:Are these also correct sentences for you?
Let's play frisbee.
Absolutely. I wouldn't say it any other way.
Imralu wrote:Let's play Tonka trucks.
Either or.
Imralu wrote:Let's play remote controlled car.
This sounds like it's a specific game. I'd use "with" and an article.
Imralu wrote:Let's play lightsabers.
This also sounds like a specific game. I'd use "with."
Imralu wrote:Let's play toy trains.
Either or.
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Imralu »

Viktor77 wrote:
Imralu wrote:... or going into IKEA, pointing at the furnitures and saying "Look at all this furniture". How weird! :P
Wait, is there suppose to be something wrong with that sentence? Who says "furnitures?" If you said "furnitures" here they'd assume you uneducated! Heck, my spell check doesn't even recognise it!
*Whoosh* That was a big chunk of irony. Lucky you ducked. :P
If you said "legos" here, people would think you sounded uneducated too.

And don't get me started on spell check. My phone's spell check, for some reason, includes 'phonecrastinate' but not 'procrastinate'. I added the latter. And I keep having to re-add 'fuck'. Stupid prudish people at the Taiwanese factory obviously programmed it to delete 'fuck' after a while. Duck you, spell check!
Viktor77 wrote:they'd assume you uneducated!
More irony?

Viktor77 wrote:"Let's play ball" is a phrase which is said just before a baseball game.
Yeah, and that's fine for me, because then the object is the name of the game, not just the play equipment. I've heard Americans use "play ball" to mean just throwing a ball around.
Viktor77 wrote:
Imralu wrote:US: The girls played jump rope.
Au: The girls played with a/the skipping rope, eh!
No, I wouldn't say this. It sounds like jump rope is some sort of competitive game. Also, we don't say "skipping rope" AFAIK.
Yeah, I was going to write 'skipping rope' in the American sentence and then I realised it's 'jump rope'. Voicing an American accent in my head helps me remember what's our dialect and what's yours. Obviously I don't have a complete American dialect file in my head because I've never come across 'legos'.

From this and the rest of your comments, it sounds like your use of the word 'play' is a little bit more similar to mine, with the object tending to be the name of the game, not the equipment. It's just occured to me, though, that maybe this is not about the argument structure of 'play' at all, but possibly just that in some American dialects, people are more likely to designate a name for anything that they're playing than we are. I don't know. If the end result is the same, maybe it doesn't even make sense to ponder the question.

<reminiscing> And I remember back to primary school, when my friends and I used to play 'trains'. That was a game that one of my friends and I invented one day when we were bored at lunch time. We looped a giant skipping rope around ourselves and even tied ourselves in, and then the leader would just run as fast as possible, and usually weave in and out of trees and do crazy things like jump off the retaining walls at the school while the kids in the middle or back of the train had to run and avoid all the obstacles. If you were at the back and playing with the kids in the older grades who were bigger and could run a lot faster, it felt like you actually spent most of your time in the air. The craze swept the school for about a month until it was banned and all the big skipping ropes were hidden all because one kid smashed his head on a rock and had to go to hospital and another broke his arm. Bummer! As one of the co-inventors, I felt like I was going to get in a lot of trouble, which is weird child logic. </reminiscing>
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
Viktor77
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Location: Memphis, Tennessee

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Viktor77 »

Imralu wrote:Yeah, and that's fine for me, because then the object is the name of the game, not just the play equipment. I've heard Americans use "play ball" to mean just throwing a ball around.
Oh yeah, you can say that, too. Don't you love American English. :P

So you don't say "furnitures?" Because some Google results were like

http://www.australianhardwoordfurnitures.blog.com/

http://www.ostamyy.com/furnitures/Australia.htm
Falgwian and Falgwia!!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

User avatar
Imralu
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Imralu »

Viktor77 wrote:
Imralu wrote:Yeah, and that's fine for me, because then the object is the name of the game, not just the play equipment. I've heard Americans use "play ball" to mean just throwing a ball around.
Oh yeah, you can say that, too. Don't you love American English. :P
Some varieties yes, some: hell no.
So you don't say "furnitures?"
No, definitely not.
That's weird. As part of my irony, I chose a word I was sure was uncountable to everyone.

The second site seems to be run by Finnish people though. As for the first one, the only way I can explain it (other than "What an uneducated moron!") is that uncountable nouns often become countable when talking about various types. Sometimes yoghurt tubs will say 'with three fruits' to mean 'three kinds of fruits' and there are places called '______ Fine Foods'. Lots of butcher's shops' names end in 'meats'. 'Furnitures' could be an analogy to that kind of thing, I guess, but it still doesn't sound right to me. Trust me, I wasn't bringing it up as something we Australians say. Its ridiculousness was my whole point. That's what 'legos' sounds like to me.

Edit: I clicked on the first link but didn't look at until now. I just assumed it was an Australian site because I didn't see anything weird in the first second and a half. It's obviously written by non-native speakers. At first glance it looks OK, but then when you actually try to take meaning from it, it makes your head hurt.
Australian hardwood furniture is identified and classified because of its good quality and finest of lumber.
Carpenters and sculptors consider this [Australian Hardwood Furniture(s)] a fantastic artwork especially in making images and making elegance furniture for household and office use
Australian Hardwood Furniture is an artwork?? Elegance furniture? Is that furniture for being elegant in?
The Australian furniture industry is getting the best so far in global recognition due to aggressive rate, quality and superb finished products in the furnishing industry.
Due to aggressive rate?
One of the significant contributions is that the Australian hardwood furniture can be used primarily for having the best household furniture
Hey, do you know how I'm using the Australian hardwood furniture? I'm using it for having the best household furniture. And one of the significant contributions to what? I think they meant "One of the best things about AHF is that you can have it in your home and everyone who visits will have inferior furniture. Life is a competition. Buy the best furniture!"
clients like it because of the unique moldings and elegant designed.
Oh, I like it because of the skillful manufactured
Australian hardwood furniture is manufactured by regions mostly manufactured finished goods.
What the fuck does that supposed to mean!?!1!
2. It uses the best equipments in making the furniture.
There's another uncountable noun in the plural.


My overall hunch from the weird phrasing and the kind of mistakes made is that it was written by someone from China, or if not China, somewhere in Asia. The kind of authoritative, slightly over the top but completely serious way they're trying to sell it seems Asian to me. Can't quite put my finger on why but sentences like this really make me think it's Asian: 3. It has the best and finest timber you can ever imagine.
Glossing Abbreviations: COMP = comparative, C = complementiser, ACS / ICS = accessible / inaccessible, GDV = gerundive, SPEC / NSPC = specific / non-specific
________
MY MUSIC

User avatar
Melteor
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:26 pm

Re: So Brits, how accurate is this?

Post by Melteor »

Hubris Incalculable wrote:
meltman wrote:
Gulliver wrote:Baps are fun, because baps also means boobies.
Am I right in thinking buns stay 'buns'?
I wanna date a baker, 'cause... you know...
...She's so sweet?

Post Reply