Nations divided by a common language

[Ray]

Dave just a Question If the Iranians thought that they might have been blown out of the water do you think that they would have taunted the navy in the first place. "speak softly and carry a big stick" But the big stick is of no use if your enemy knows you ain't gonna use it. Just like the Iranians were afraid of what Regan might due . We are not going to get anywhere with them if they don't fear us.

Okay. I tried to get things back on topic. It failed.

To this Iranian thing, then. I hadn't heard anything about this, but it's hardly news outside of the US and Iran. So some small vessels got to within two ship lengths of a US vessel. So what? That's brinkmanship. Happens all the time with Russian aircraft approaching UK airspace. The UK scrambles Typhoons and they shadow the TU95s. It's a game.

You mentioned fear. I'd politely suggest that fear is not the reaction you want. That's bullying. Respect is a better emotion to evoke. In the world stage, taunting happens all the time. Mature, self confident countries deal with it without rancour or overt aggression, responding only in extremis. You'll get respect that way. According the other party some respect at the outset is no bad thing either.

[oldsalt1]

Ray sorry I disagree. Respect doesn't come from being a nice guy. You are dealing with military extremest . They don't understand niceness.But they do understand fear. If the fear factor is there you don't have to act. And it is more than buzzing a ship go back a couple of months when they boarded a us navy service vessel and took the took the crew hostage..

[Ray]

So you are suggesting you advocate the projection of fear?

[Ray]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U. ... l_incident

You mean the above?

Reading the information, it's not quite how you portray it....the US vessel (inadvertently) entered Iranian territorial waters. I'm sure the US would also board a vessel in similar circumstances, would it not? So I'm not sure how this issue is germane to the discussion at hand.

[oldsalt1]

The proper Nato procedure in such an event is to notify the vessel that they have entered their waters and give the vessel a chance to respond with an reason and than they are given a chance to leave. Then the vessel is escorted out. Not just board and take hostages

[crfriend]

Okay, back on topic:

OK, let's give this one more go.

UK - bottom/bum. US - fanny (which is uk slang for a lady's private parts, or Scots English slang for an idiot, fool etc)

The term "bum" is also used in US English. The confusion of "fanny" is somewhat hilarious as it's also a (fairly obsolete) woman's name.

UK - my fault. US - my bad ( which if said in the UK would get the response "my bad what?"

In US English the proper statement is "My fault." "My bad" is very colloquial and quite recent. I'm not sure of its genesis.

UK - do the maths. US - do the math

In the US, that's very occasionally invoked as "do the sums" but that form is becoming obsolete. I'll occasionally use the UK version, but that's because I'm me.

UK - nursery school. US - kindergarten (that's German! How?)

"Nursery school" in the US refers to something pre-kindergarten, usually now called "day care" but for children beyond neo-nates and toddlers. There are quite a few German words that have made it into both US and UK English. That's just one of them, albeit primarily US mainly to disambiguate it from the US version of "nursery school". (I was sent to both, mainly to get me out of the house and from under my family's feet during the day. In most places in the US, neither are mandatory, unlike grades 1 through 12.)

Also, on the petrol/gasoline level are gear-head/motor-head for folks who enjoy cars (perhaps a wee bit too much).

I particularly enjoy the minefield that everybody here gets to navigate in the clothing arena where the same word can mean something completely different depending on which side of the Atlantic one happens to be on, perhaps the simple word "pants" being the prime example. I know I've used that for humour and shock effect a few times.

Mixing idioms can also be fruitful ranging from "Knickers in a twist over something?" to the almost sublime, "Pants are pants" (which relies on the US definition for the first and the UK slang for the second).

[oldsalt1]

Cr your right. Lets get back on topic I guess that when people like Ray Dave and myself really care and are concerned about a subject we tend to get a little emotional. I think I will post another skirted photo on pic and looks and lighten up.

[hoborob]

Since we're on topic again, here's another one:

US. Line, UK. queue both are similar in meaning just a quirk of the language.

[crfriend]

US. Line, UK. queue both are similar in meaning just a quirk of the language.

I had a bit of fun with this one back in the 1990s in a Computer Science context when getting lectured by an IBM mainframe operator about the differences between "queues" and "lines" and responded, "Well, queues are what people and objects wait in, and lines are what yuppies snort." (entirely sarcastically, mind). Sadly the joke was lost in translation and all I got back was a vacant stare. (As was the time I needed something done promptly with the mainframe and was told that they, "had to drain the lines" and I suggested that the men's room was "over there".)

No. I do not have an IBM background.

[skirted_in_SF]

US. Line, UK. queue both are similar in meaning just a quirk of the language.

I had a bit of fun with this one back in the 1990s in a Computer Science context when getting lectured by an IBM mainframe operator about the differences between "queues" and "lines" and responded, "Well, queues are what people and objects wait in, and lines are what yuppies snort." (entirely sarcastically, mind). Sadly the joke was lost in translation and all I got back was a vacant stare. (As was the time I needed something done promptly with the mainframe and was told that they, "had to drain the lines" and I suggested that the men's room was "over there".)

No. I do not have an IBM background.

The last time I was in the IBM world was the early '80s in a System 38 shop. I don't remember hearing the word line used as a synonym for queue. We had queues for print jobs coming out of the computer and I remember they gave me a single initiator queue so I could submit a number of jobs and have them process in order submitted rather than hog all the resources by trying to run at the same time.

Heck, in the US even line is used differently between the coasts. People in New York (for all I know the whole east coast) stand on line. Out here on the left coast we stand in line. Useful to tell if someone you're talking to isn't "from here".

[Fred in Skirts]

Heck, in the US even line is used differently between the coasts. People in New York (for all I know the whole east coast) stand on line. Out here on the left coast we stand in line. Useful to tell if someone you're talking to isn't "from here".

In Pa and in the South we say in line not on line. That is unless we are actually standing on the line, you know the one drawn in the sand. When I am on line I'm at my computer reading the posts here.

Fred

[Uncle Al]

What about Your and You're. Your is the possessive form of You. You're
is the contraction of You are. Some have said(written) brought[to bring]
when they meant bought[to purchase]. I brought the items which I recently
bought. Wear and Ware are transposed as well. You wear an article of
clothing yet set the table with dinner & silver ware.

I do keep a dictionary next to my computer as to avoid spelling errors.

Uncle Al

[Disaffected.citizen]

What about Your and You're. Your is the possessive form of You. You're
is the contraction of You are. Some have said(written) brought[to bring]
when they meant bought[to purchase]. I brought the items which I recently
bought. Wear and Ware are transposed as well. You wear an article of
clothing yet set the table with dinner & silver ware.

I do keep a dictionary next to my computer as to avoid spelling errors.

Uncle Al

Those are not differences in either language, they're the result of genuine mistake, general laziness, or poor education, on the part of the writers. Sometimes, I wonder whether or not local dialects and colloquialisms have an effect; or if, for some, it's a case of "writing how we speak"?

Often, I read a post and see errors and wonder whether or not the words appearing were intentional. I've even read some of my posts which, despite proof reading before pressing "submit", still contain errors. Thank goodness for the "edit" button.

I will, however, state that the writing standards within this café are considerably "ahead of the curve"! I have noticed changes from members' initial postings to their later submissions. I believe the general standards here raise the bar; and the members strive to improve. Thank you, gentlemen, it's a pleasure to read your submissions, even where I disagree with the content.

[Tor]

You wear an article of clothing yet set the table with dinner & silver ware.

Interesting. I was under the impression that ware referring to goods was only used in the plural, and that when used for silver or other such things was combined as one word. Of course, there is also ware as in to be aware or wary, though that appears to be obsolete even as of my computer 1913 Webster. Back to the goods form, it looks like the non-s mass noun version used alone does exist, though the only quotation I immediately recognize an approximate date on is from Chaucer.

Then there is this obsolete form:

Ware \Ware\, obs. imp. of {Wear}.
Wore.
[1913 Webster]

The 2006 WordNet 3.0 has a meaning of "spend extravagantly", but there isn't enough description there for me to feel I understand the usage (or else it doesn't fit with my perception of proper English usage).

Perhaps I'd better look at my Compact OED later.

Isn't language fun?

[Disaffected.citizen]

.... but there isn't enough description there for me to feel I understand the usage (or else it doesn't fit with my perception of proper English usage).

And, of course, the language evolves such that what is now considered to be proper usage, used not to be; and what used to be correct is now archaic!

Isn't language fun?

Yep!