Language

"Anything dainty or derived from French (serviette, toilet, pardon?) she decreed non-U, spoken by aspirational people anxious to appear naice and refained."

http://www.lady.co.uk/people/8352-pardon-that-s-practically-a-swear-word

That cracked me up. So Americans are this weird mix of U and non-U vocabulary?

That cracked me up. So Americans are this weird mix of U and non-U vocabulary?

I found out about this (not being a big Jilly Cooper reader) while witnessing an online free-for-all regarding the word "pardon" when used by someone who didn't quite understand something someone else said. 

According to one person....only people like Hyacinth Bucket say "pardon"....trying so hard to be correct. A true upper class person (U) would just say "What?" They have no reason to affect a faux Frenchness...why should they?

It is interesting that this concept sort of joins the upper class with the working class....a true working class person feels no need to try and impress...so would say "What?" also...

Only us poor schmucks in the middle....unhappy with our station and seeking to claw our way up, would adopt all these little niceties....while ironically damning ourselves as what we are....not truly upper class. 

I hate to sound thick, but what's wrong with growler?  I was gonna ask for one the other day.

You might get away with it in the south of England, but certainly not in Glasgow!  It's slang for the same thing 'fanny' is slang for.... 'lady-parts' of the lower torso.     For my sins, I worked (mercifully, it was only for only a couple of months) for Whole Foods when they were opening their store in Giffnock.  They had sent all these frighteningly enthusiastic people over from their HQ in the US, who were training us, and they advised that these bottles to be filled from these beer taps were called Growlers.  Every one of us at that training session went (almost in unison!) 'we are NOT calling them that'.  We tried to explain,  but we were quoted that it was company policy to call these vessels 'growlers'.  Pretty sure none of us ever did! 

I found out about this (not being a big Jilly Cooper reader) while witnessing an online free-for-all regarding the word "pardon" when used by someone who didn't quite understand something someone else said. 

According to one person....only people like Hyacinth Bucket say "pardon"....trying so hard to be correct. A true upper class person (U) would just say "What?" They have no reason to affect a faux Frenchness...why should they?

It is interesting that this concept sort of joins the upper class with the working class....a true working class person feels no need to try and impress...so would say "What?" also...

Only us poor schmucks in the middle....unhappy with our station and seeking to claw our way up, would adopt all these little niceties....while ironically damning ourselves as what we are....not truly upper class. 

I don't mean to bring sex into it, but I'm pretty sure most women in the US were taught to be EXTRA polite to people. I know I was raised to apologise if someone needs to repeat themselves and I would apologise if someone said they didn't catch what I said and then repeat it.

I wonder if that's the same case here in the UK?

Man, I thought I knew a little bit about Scotland but I think I'm wrong!   Growler in that context is a funny mind picture.

I don't mean to bring sex into it, but I'm pretty sure most women in the US were taught to be EXTRA polite to people.

Sugar and spice...

You know, I'm always catching myself being an idiot these days. How can you not bring sex into it?

Some friends and I the other day were having a discussion about whether the US Constitution is superior to the UK's uncodified assortment of bits and bobs.

Clearly to me, it is stronger to have rights spelled out plainly (well...) for anybody to point to. But this guy asks about the first seventy years or so when slavery was allowed, and when women didn't have the right to vote. 

I think the counter argument is that times were different or whatever....but really that is a showstopper of a question. Adjusting your viewpoint changes everything.

Women didn't have the right to vote in the UK at the time either, and anyway that's entirely irrelevant to the question of which style of constitution works better. It's not about what laws are encoded, it's how effectively they can be interpreted and administered and how easy it is to make necessary changes. It's hard to change the US constitution because the Founders didn't want it fluctuating with the tides of public opinion, which imo is a flaw of the UK system. OTOH, some things that need to be changed like the 2nd amendment, are untouchable. Slavery predated the Constitution and is also irrelevant to the argument. Your friend successfully distracted you with sophistry .

Sugar and spice...

You know, I'm always catching myself being an idiot these days. How can you not bring sex into it?

Some friends and I the other day were having a discussion about whether the US Constitution is superior to the UK's uncodified assortment of bits and bobs.

Clearly to me, it is stronger to have rights spelled out plainly (well...) for anybody to point to. But this guy asks about the first seventy years or so when slavery was allowed, and when women didn't have the right to vote. 

I think the counter argument is that times were different or whatever....but really that is a showstopper of a question. Adjusting your viewpoint changes everything.

It really does, doesn't it?

The argument of 'it was a different time' is really the only argument you can say in regards to that. As I've gotten older I can't say I'm proud of the constitution as it was originally written (including slavery, excluding women, blacks and indigenous peoples). It was great for white men and their families, which is who it was written for... It was a step up from how they were being treated under the monarchy as a colony.

But I would have to say, I am proud of where our Constitution is now. The amendments that have been made (other than prohibition, that was stupid) were much needed!

Now if only we could get all of the populations beliefs to match up to what the constitution actually says.

I'm not for complete freedom with guns though. The Second Amendment was written in a time when you only had 1 shot in your gun at a time and then you had to reload. I don't think our forefathers would feel the need to have semi-automatics available for everyone. Especially when there is such a high rate of gun violence. It would be interesting to know their take.

Women didn't have the right to vote in the UK at the time either, and anyway that's entirely irrelevant to the question of which style of constitution works better. It's not about what laws are encoded, it's how effectively they can be interpreted and administered and how easy it is to make necessary changes. It's hard to change the US constitution because the Founders didn't want it fluctuating with the tides of public opinion, which imo is a flaw of the UK system. OTOH, some things that need to be changed like the 2nd amendment, are untouchable. Slavery predated the Constitution and is also irrelevant to the argument. Your friend successfully distracted you with sophistry .

History, you are right.

Except for - and this is something I am thinking about - ethics and morals.

I know these don't really hold up in a serious logical debate confined within positive law....but if we step back......serious, fundamental flaws in rule of law appear. I don't know if Justice is Blind covers all sins.

I am not saying the US Constitution is bad or even flawed (again, if viewed within the parameters of the rules of such arguments)....only that it allowed for something that is, by any definition, immoral.

It is what it is, and procedures were built in to correct these things (women were eventually given the right to vote for example).

For the record, I still feel the US codified Constitution is better. I like the idea that certain rights are not so much granted by some authority but are inherent in humanity,,,and are thus untouchable.

My point is that whether the US constitution is flawed is a separate argument to whether having laws enshrined in a single document is preferable to basing laws on a collection of statutes and judgements. Both systems will inevitably produce flawed laws because they are designed by flawed people who are subject to their own norms and prejudices and the mores of their time. So arguing that constitutions are bad because the US one originally protected slavery and disenfranchised women is a straw man, entirely irrelevant. Arguing that constitutions are bad because the second amendment enables Americans to shoot each other en masse and the political makeup of the country means that changing it is effectively impossible is relevant and valid.

The whole idea of democracy as a viable means of governance relies on people being politically active and advocating for themselves. This is also why it's such a difficult system to maintain. So I would disagree with you that there are fundamental flaws in the rule of law. There are flawed laws, but there are also procedures in place to change them. The rule of law is the only thing that keeps a democracy afloat. We need to be able to trust that the majority of our fellow citizens will respect the laws, even if they don't like them. Not liking a law isn't in itself a reason to disregard it, though disregarding laws as a means of political protest to draw attention to how abusive they are is something I respect. It's led to the Civil Rights Act, increased women's rights, and the end of the draft, among others. But the only reason that breaking laws as a political protest works to change things is because we normally follow the rule of law. So overall, the principle of having encoded laws that most everyone who lives in the country consents to follow, whether they are good laws or bad ones, is sound policy and essential for democracy.

But, being aware of other peoples' perspectives and trying to see familiar things through different eyes is something everyone should strive for. Social media is great for this. Movements like Black Lives Matter, which is almost entirely social media driven, are great for raising awareness and getting dialogues going, even if a lot of that dialogue is argument. At least people are becoming aware of a different point of view. That's also irrelevant to the constitution argument, though

My point is that whether the US constitution is flawed is a separate argument to whether having laws enshrined in a single document is preferable to basing laws on a collection of statutes and judgements. Both systems will inevitably produce flawed laws because they are designed by flawed people who are subject to their own norms and prejudices and the mores of their time. So arguing that constitutions are bad because the US one originally protected slavery and disenfranchised women is a straw man, entirely irrelevant. Arguing that constitutions are bad because the second amendment enables Americans to shoot each other en masse and the political makeup of the country means that changing it is effectively impossible is relevant and valid.

The whole idea of democracy as a viable means of governance relies on people being politically active and advocating for themselves. This is also why it's such a difficult system to maintain. So I would disagree with you that there are fundamental flaws in the rule of law. There are flawed laws, but there are also procedures in place to change them. The rule of law is the only thing that keeps a democracy afloat. We need to be able to trust that the majority of our fellow citizens will respect the laws, even if they don't like them. Not liking a law isn't in itself a reason to disregard it, though disregarding laws as a means of political protest to draw attention to how abusive they are is something I respect. It's led to the Civil Rights Act, increased women's rights, and the end of the draft, among others. But the only reason that breaking laws as a political protest works to change things is because we normally follow the rule of law. So overall, the principle of having encoded laws that most everyone who lives in the country consents to follow, whether they are good laws or bad ones, is sound policy and essential for democracy.

But, being aware of other peoples' perspectives and trying to see familiar things through different eyes is something everyone should strive for. Social media is great for this. Movements like Black Lives Matter, which is almost entirely social media driven, are great for raising awareness and getting dialogues going, even if a lot of that dialogue is argument. At least people are becoming aware of a different point of view. That's also irrelevant to the constitution argument, though

I think we are in agreement. For the most part.

I approach things like a babe in the woods, or that dude in Plato's cave that just sees shadows flitting amongst the stalactites. Or an alien on a craft zipping past the edge of the Milky Way and scanning Earth and saying, "Oh look Zorton, here is one with some thing they call a 'constitution'....how peculiar."

You don't want me as your defence attorney...I might say, "Crap, you know, they have a point there..."

Man, I thought I knew a little bit about Scotland but I think I'm wrong!   Growler in that context is a funny mind picture.

 

I am way late to the party here and I definitely use a mix of American and British terms. Some of it is intentional and some of it isn't.

Lately though, something about British usage has been absolutely driving me up the wall with how blatantly incorrect it is grammatically. I've tried long and hard to just let it go and stop getting myself wound up over grammar, but this one is like a pebble in my shoe.

Anyone else notice the plague of misuse of reflexive pronouns (myself, yourself, etc) by the British?  I hear it constantly and it boils my blood. It's said with the same sort of underlying striving to be 'correct' while being hopelessly incorrect that you get when someone uses the pronoun 'I' in every instance because they think it is somehow inherently always more correct than 'me.'

I thought it was just me noticing it because I hadn't really heard anyone else mention it before. I had to google it make sure I wasn't making it up. Lo and behold, I found an article!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/english-for-yourself.html?0p19G=c

I am saying this all in good humour. Certainly not railing against the brits for using poor grammar. I am southern, after all, and regularly still use words like ain't and the like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am way late to the party here and I definitely use a mix of American and British terms. Some of it is intentional and some of it isn't.

Lately though, something about British usage has been absolutely driving me up the wall with how blatantly incorrect it is grammatically. I've tried long and hard to just let it go and stop getting myself wound up over grammar, but this one is like a pebble in my shoe.

Anyone else notice the plague of misuse of reflexive pronouns (myself, yourself, etc) by the British?  I hear it constantly and it boils my blood. It's said with the same sort of underlying striving to be 'correct' while being hopelessly incorrect that you get when someone uses the pronoun 'I' in every instance because they think it is somehow inherently always more correct than 'me.'

I thought it was just me noticing it because I hadn't really heard anyone else mention it before. I had to google it make sure I wasn't making it up. Lo and behold, I found an article!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/opinion/english-for-yourself.html?0p19G=c

I am saying this all in good humour. Certainly not railing against the brits for using poor grammar. I am southern, after all, and regularly still use words like ain't and the like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've yet to run into that at all here in the East Midlands. Out of curiosity where are you located?

I have gotten into arguments with my husband over whether or not 'I' or 'me' is the proper word to use in a given situation. He said 'I' where I said it was 'me'.

What drives me nuts is how different the actual grammar is in the UK vs US. They use commas differently, use (') instead of (") most of the time. Not to mention the (') goes INSIDE the end of sentence punctuation. I had to take a course to really get a handle on it... it really opened my eyes.

I've yet to run into that at all here in the East Midlands. Out of curiosity where are you located?

I have gotten into arguments with my husband over whether or not 'I' or 'me' is the proper word to use in a given situation. He said 'I' where I said it was 'me'.

What drives me nuts is how different the actual grammar is in the UK vs US. They use commas differently, use (') instead of (") most of the time. Not to mention the (') goes INSIDE the end of sentence punctuation. I had to take a course to really get a handle on it... it really opened my eyes.

I am equally confused by UK grammar rules. Not sure how you can argue over I and me though as one is clearly an objective pronoun and Ines is subjective.

I'm in Cardiff and I hear the reflexive pronoun thing all the time from people generally and then especially in work. Not sure if it's regional or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk