zompist bboard

Sglod wrote:Here in Britain, we tend to use 'you lot' or, more commonly, just 'you'. However my friend, who has lived in the country all his life, tends to use 'you guys' instead... I like to use 'you lot' when talking to one person just to confuse them...

Vijay wrote:Y'allyinzour's guypeoplelots's!

(Adding in <ou> because it's used in both "you lot" and "you guys" and thus reinforced )

Magb wrote:You don't feel that the second one could be read as "It's impossible to wait around for the ball"?

I think it could. I mean, I wouldn't say these things IMD, but I think it might be possible for some speakers to have that interpretation.

Spotted today: "Restore Ronald Reagan airport's name back to Washington National Airport".

Does this work for anyone? I can restore something to a previous owner--even a name--but I can't restore that object to an earlier form of itself.

linguoboy wrote:Spotted today: "Restore Ronald Reagan airport's name back to Washington National Airport".

Does this work for anyone? I can restore something to a previous owner--even a name--but I can't restore that object to an earlier form of itself.

To me the odd part about that is the use of "back" - I would "restore something back to its previous owner" but not "restore something back to its previous self". However, I would say "restore something to its previous self", even though I would probably prefer "revert something back to its previous self".

linguoboy wrote:Does this work for anyone?

I think this may be another thing where I probably wouldn't say it, but seeing other people saying it doesn't make me bat an eyelid.

It is completely fine to me, the only change I would make is taking out the "back" as Travis has said. But even that is fine, since redundancies akin to this are common in natural speech.

I started thinking of bits of linguistic creativity I've seen in an Indian context, then remembered that there are soooooo many there.

Maybe I'll pick this one: On the road from one of the two nearest airports to my parents' hometown, I remember one (actually, probably more like a few) of the signs on the road reading "left is right," presumably meaning "the left side of the road is the right side to drive on."

Vijay wrote:Maybe I'll pick this one: On the road from one of the two nearest airports to my parents' hometown, I remember one (actually, probably more like a few) of the signs on the road reading "left is right," presumably meaning "the left side of the road is the right side to drive on."

Did the next sign say "Freedom is slavery"?

Sglod wrote:Here in Britain, we tend to use 'you lot' or, more commonly, just 'you'. However my friend, who has lived in the country all his life, tends to use 'you guys' instead... I like to use 'you lot' when talking to one person just to confuse them...

"You lot" is something I use quite often when translating second person plurals, though it feels to me more like a northern thing. I can't imagine it appearing in the speech of, say, a Scot. "You all", on the other hand, sounds awfully American, and I think it stuck out for me when we were doing To Kill a Mockingbird at school.

When I'm at school I'll often use "you people" to refer to my classmates when I converse with them, and they seem to take it as a sign of me seeing "myself" as being separate from "them",which it kind of is.

And now for something completely different. While watching Flog It! on the TV, I heard the presenter Chris Martin utter the sentence "The auction room is in full swing," which jarred with me as I conceive the phrase "in full swing" as being applicable to events, not locations. I would thus render it as "the auction is in full swing". Anyone else noticed this or is this just a one-off.

Karero wrote:"You lot" is something I use quite often when translating second person plurals, though it feels to me more like a northern thing. I can't imagine it appearing in the speech of, say, a Scot. "You all", on the other hand, sounds awfully American, and I think it stuck out for me when we were doing To Kill a Mockingbird at school.

Is "you lot" really as neutral as "you all"? It's always had a slightly deprecatory tinge to me (as a native speaker of American English).

"You all" (or, rather, "y'all") used to be heavily marked as Southern and nonstandard in this country, but it's become more mainstream over the last decade or so--surprisingly so, I would say. I now hear it from people who haven't ever spent time in the South and don't have any personal or professional ties to it.

Karero wrote:When I'm at school I'll often use "you people" to refer to my classmates when I converse with them, and they seem to take it as a sign of me seeing "myself" as being separate from "them",which it kind of is.

One has to be careful with "you people" in the USA. For speakers who naturally have "y'all" as their preferred plural, it can have a racial dimension. That is, if I said it to a Black person, it could easily be taken to mean all Black people rather than just whatever particular group I'm associating that individual with at the moment.

Karero wrote:And now for something completely different. While watching Flog It! on the TV, I heard the presenter Chris Martin utter the sentence "The auction room is in full swing," which jarred with me as I conceive the phrase "in full swing" as being applicable to events, not locations. I would thus render it as "the auction is in full swing". Anyone else noticed this or is this just a one-off.

That just strikes me as ordinary metonymy, using the physical location as a stand-in for the people in it or associated with it. See also "The room went wild", "The joint was jumping", etc.

linguoboy wrote:

Karero wrote:When I'm at school I'll often use "you people" to refer to my classmates when I converse with them, and they seem to take it as a sign of me seeing "myself" as being separate from "them",which it kind of is.

One has to be careful with "you people" in the USA. For speakers who naturally have "y'all" as their preferred plural, it can have a racial dimension. That is, if I said it to a Black person, it could easily be taken to mean all Black people rather than just whatever particular group I'm associating that individual with at the moment.

I take your point, but I live in the UK, just so you know.

Karero wrote:I take your point, but I live in the UK, just so you know.

Which is exactly why I mentioned it, since it's not something you'd be likely to pick up on otherwise.

linguoboy wrote:

Karero wrote:I take your point, but I live in the UK, just so you know.

Which is exactly why I mentioned it, since it's not something you'd be likely to pick up on otherwise.

True, but I don't really use it outside of school, so there's little danger of it coming up like that, but thanks for the heads up anyway.

'you people' only i m o has a racial dimension inasmuch as it sounds naturally snobby, sneery and withdrawn. in British English it could equally have a racial dimension, or a class dimension, or just a generally offputting dimension

if I was you I'd get rid of that because even if it started as innocent ur gonna get misread as a shit

But yeah, 'you lot' is definitely neutral - and I know people who seem to have it as a compulsory plural (i.e. all plural referents are 'you lot'), or at least uses it more frequently than me. And uses it even for two people, which for me is weird.

In Teach Yourself Swahili, jamani! is translated as: "you lot! y'all! (only used in informal situations, to people you know well)." Although tbh, at least the way they use it in their dialogs, I think I'd translate it as something more like "hey guys!" ("Hey guys! Are you still here?" "Hey guys, sorry I'm late!").

linguoboy wrote:

Vijay wrote:Maybe I'll pick this one: On the road from one of the two nearest airports to my parents' hometown, I remember one (actually, probably more like a few) of the signs on the road reading "left is right," presumably meaning "the left side of the road is the right side to drive on."

Did the next sign say "Freedom is slavery"?

Nah, they were all obviously about driving. Another was "two-wheeler is for two not for too many." Then again, there was another that just randomly said, "Donate your blood." Maybe they should have put up a sign saying, "Freedom will ruin you," and then it could be interpreted as a reminder to middle-class people that if they're too mean to their drivers, they'll quit, and then they won't be able to go anywhere.

In reality, what would be nice, as my dad once pointed out, is if there were instead signs actually indicating what road you were on.

Vijay wrote:I started thinking of bits of linguistic creativity I've seen in an Indian context, then remembered that there are soooooo many there.

Maybe I'll pick this one: On the road from one of the two nearest airports to my parents' hometown, I remember one (actually, probably more like a few) of the signs on the road reading "left is right," presumably meaning "the left side of the road is the right side to drive on."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KThlYHfIVa8

To me, you people is quite pejorative, and has definite us versus them connotations. I would not use it unless I were deliberately using it pejoratively.

About you all versus y'all, I would treat the two quite differently. To me, you all is neutral register-wise (or even somewhat high-register) and dialect-wise (at least within NAE), but y'all is very dialectically marked. I would not use you all in informal speech because it feels a bit too high-register, as if I were trying to avoid saying you guys, while I would not use y'all because it is overtly foreign to my dialect, as if I were deliberately trying to sound like a Southerner.

Pole, the wrote:

Vijay wrote:I started thinking of bits of linguistic creativity I've seen in an Indian context, then remembered that there are soooooo many there.

Maybe I'll pick this one: On the road from one of the two nearest airports to my parents' hometown, I remember one (actually, probably more like a few) of the signs on the road reading "left is right," presumably meaning "the left side of the road is the right side to drive on."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KThlYHfIVa8

Aww, they didn't say left is right! But at least they did say 2+2=BUTT!

You lot can have a slightly pejorative sound and I'd probably only use it with people I know. We like to be lovingly horrible to each other over here...

"Drop me home" as in "I told Joger to drop me home first" (i.e. "...drop me off at home...").

I just used it in a text and realised that it may only be on account of The Smiths that it sounds like such a natural formulation to me. Is there anyone for whom it's not idiomatic?

That's definitely not something I'd say.

Karero wrote: And now for something completely different. While watching Flog It! on the TV, I heard the presenter Chris Martin utter the sentence "The auction room is in full swing," which jarred with me as I conceive the phrase "in full swing" as being applicable to events, not locations. I would thus render it as "the auction is in full swing". Anyone else noticed this or is this just a one-off.

Not acceptable to me: the auction is in full swing, not the room. The room could be swinging, though.




One I recently heard:
It will have by then have been done

This seemed perfectly natural to me at the time and only a few moments later did I realise the 'error'.

Yeah, you lot has a negative twinge to it, as does you people.

I'm kinda inconsistent with these plurals of you - I probably don't use them as often as I do. But if I'm speaking semi-formally and need to make the distinction I'd say you guys, mainly by influence of TV. I guess I prefer yous in more informal places maybe??

"Physical" instead of "fiscal" - is that really a thing?

linguoboy wrote:"Drop me home" as in "I told Joger to drop me home first" (i.e. "...drop me off at home...").

I just used it in a text and realised that it may only be on account of The Smiths that it sounds like such a natural formulation to me. Is there anyone for whom it's not idiomatic?

I forgot to say this earlier, but I'm totally unfamiliar with The Smiths, and it sounds fine to me.

hwhatting wrote:"Physical" instead of "fiscal" - is that really a thing?

Never heard of it until you posted that article.

L’Union européenne connaît une crise économique depuis plus de deux ans et ne parvient pas à en sortir alors que les Etats-Unis ont retrouvé la croissance et battent même des records depuis quelques mois.
The European Union has been going through/undergoing/experiencing an economic crisis for two years now and does not manage to get out of it whereas the US economic activity has bounced back and has even reached all time highs for a few months.


The above is an excerpt from a book I'm supposed to be using to teach French to English translation, but I'd like to know how this book got published because there are two very obvious errors for me in the proposed English translation. This is not the first time the book has given weird translations.

The European Union has been going through/undergoing/experiencing an economic crisis for two years now and does not manage has not managed to get out of it whereas the US economic activity has bounced back and has even reached all time highs for a few months.

What do you all think? While "has not" does not correspond to the French as well as the present "does not" you simply cannot use "does not" for me here. The underlined also sounds a bit awkward though I can't put my finger on why.