|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 21, 2023 7:45:53 GMT
“Horse’s doover” for hors d’oeuvre and “sparrow’s guts” for asparagus were already certainly in common use here in the UK when I was a kid, in the 60s. They are fairly neutral, whereas some of the examples in the article don’t exactly make one want to eat the item!
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 21, 2023 8:56:53 GMT
We used to call hors d’oeuvres “horses hooves” which I prefer. I am happy for Aussies to keep the rest for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 22, 2023 2:22:12 GMT
“Horse’s doover” for hors d’oeuvre and “sparrow’s guts” for asparagus were already certainly in common use here in the UK when I was a kid, in the 60s. They are fairly neutral, whereas some of the examples in the article don’t exactly make one want to eat the item! Same for me: common terms in '50s rural Oz – even though such highfalutin' foodstuffs weren't part of our agrarian diet.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 22, 2023 5:57:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 24, 2023 6:30:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 24, 2023 6:48:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 24, 2023 6:54:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 24, 2023 8:18:19 GMT
The dictionary of slang and colloquialisms is very interesting. I had not realised how many such terms I use in every day life. Some of the expressions are described as “informal”. Surely they are all informal, or have I not read the introduction sufficiently carefully? It is often difficult to distinguish slang from colloquialisms and idioms and cant and dialect. I sometimes say “on the hoof” meaning “on foot”. But is this idiomatic, or informal, or, even, a metaphor? Or something else? Does “cant” still exist or is it 19th century?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 26, 2023 20:40:42 GMT
I learned a word – a collective noun – previously unknown to me:
passel | ˈpas(ə)l | noun informal, mainly US a large group of people or things: a passel of journalists. ORIGIN mid 19th century: representing a pronunciation of parcel.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 27, 2023 21:05:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 30, 2023 22:59:13 GMT
I don’t know why this is hilarious. Maybe I don’t have a sense of humour!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 31, 2023 0:37:23 GMT
I don’t know why this is hilarious. Maybe I don’t have a sense of humour! LJH: While I found it interesting, I, too, didn't find it 'hilarious' – but perhaps that's because it's American 'humour' (humor), which is something I rarely find funny. I've more than once come across the following explanations of the main differences between US and UK/AU humour (one such explanation being from Stephen Fry, though there've been others). 1. In American humour, the joke is on the audience, while in UK/AU humour it's more often on the teller (self-deprecating – something American humorists seem incapable of). 2. UK/AU humour is often scatological; Americans have such a hygiene complex that they fail to find scatological matters funny. When they do try scat humour all they manage is to be crude without being clever or funny. (OTOH, Benny Hill managed to be both.)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 31, 2023 9:01:48 GMT
I suspect that the article was headed “hilarious” not because the writer of the heading actually thought it was, but because of the growing tendency to overplay whatever is being proffered. Youtube, etc, clips are often headed with such drivel as “this is hilarious”, “you won’t stop laughing”, “the world’s cutest cat”, or “funniest ~~~ ever”. I suppose it gets more clicks, but it doesn’t tell much truth …
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 31, 2023 10:28:26 GMT
I suspect that the article was headed “hilarious” not because the writer of the heading actually thought it was, but because of the growing tendency to overplay whatever is being proffered. Youtube, etc, clips are often headed with such drivel as “this is hilarious”, “you won’t stop laughing”, “the world’s cutest cat”, or “funniest ~~~ ever”. I suppose it gets more clicks, but it doesn’t tell much truth … Indeed so, Dave. The over-use of superlatives – even double superlatives – in YouTube video titles irritates me no end. One will often see the likes of "the most unique blah blah blah" … . Clickbait seems to what it's all about. YT is, after all a social medium, so truth is not to be expected as a default. And there are those titles that include "… you've never seen" or "… that you didn't know", when quite often I've seen, or known, the matter to which they refer.
|
|