| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » "us" for "me" and "f" for "th" in the UK
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marc |
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
make sense.
Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
Thanks,
Marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Quote: That's a rather common substitution, especially
word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
London.
In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks," "I
fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
Marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott |
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Marc
<marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:dde4a941-ad58-486d-9e9a-762cea2ee57b@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
Quote: Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal
speech? [...]
Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
That's a rather common substitution, especially
word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
London.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Herring |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message
<087d9820-1ef7-4629-8bfd-7e3a8b88117d@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Marc
<marc.adler@gmail.com> writes
Quote: On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
That's a rather common substitution, especially
word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
London.
In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks," "I
fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
You talk kinda funny too.
--
Richard Herring |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 3:58 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
Quote: In message
087d9820-1ef7-4629-8bfd-7e3a8b881...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Marc
marc.ad...@gmail.com> writes>On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
That's a rather common substitution, especially
word-finally, by no means limited to England, let alone
London.
In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks," "I
fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
You talk kinda funny too.
So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then? Or the "us"
for "me" thing either?
Marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| benlizro@ihug.co.nz |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 2, 12:31 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 01 May 2008 18:45:17 -0500, Patrick Karl
jpk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fvdkme$6dk$1@registered.motzarella.org> in sci.lang:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Marc
marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c-946c-80d1cbb4398d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.
Another example seems to be the Russian name
transliterated as "Fyodor"; it comes from the Greek
Theodore.
And quite a few others of this type, now that you mention
it, among them <Feofan> (masc.) and <Feofana> ~ <Feofanija
(fem.), <Feofilakt>, <Feofil>, and <Feodosija>, all of which
have been used.
Brian
Not to mention "arifmetika" and "orfografiya", though most commonly
Russian seems to reflect Gk /th/ as /t/: aptekar', matematika,
teodolit, etc.
Ross Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 30, 6:58 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
Quote: I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
make sense.
Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
pronounces mythical as miffickle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| benlizro@ihug.co.nz |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 2, 3:01 pm, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Quote: "Trond Engen" <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...
Marc skreiv:
[...]
Or the "us" for "me" thing either?
Isn't that a normal thing everywhere? A polite inclusive or something?
It's not that in my dialect.
In Norwegian it's been mocked as a "royal we" or a "me and my worm" --
and I think it used to be more widespread earlier. I think I use it in
simple expressions like 'la oss se' "let us (me) see", and to add
emphasis to pronouncements of some (quasi-)monumentality: 'Vi får vel
komme oss av gårde' "We (I) should be going", 'Vi fikk vel som
fortjent' "We (I) must have got what we (I) deserved".
"We" for "I" in English would be very marked, and would, like you say,
probably be a case of "royal we". "Us" for "me", however, is almost
standard in nonemphatic contexts, like your "let us see".
John.
"Almost standard"?? Not for me anyway.
But since I have no feel for this variety (it's not part of any
register of mine, and I notice it only occasionally on TV etc), can we
try to establish the facts a little more precisely? OED Online has
just two citations, the earlier from 1828, one "give us" and the other
"tell us". All the examples seem to be datives in the double-object
construction. Is it restricted to this? Can you so replace "me" as
object of a simple transitive? What about objects of prepositions?
Ross Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 5:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 10:33 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 30, 6:58 pm, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
make sense.
Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
pronounces mythical as miffickle.
Then your imagination needs retuning. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 6:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Quote: I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.
[f] and [T] may be similar-sounding, but going from "similar-sounding"
to allophonic is a pretty big leap. [m] and [n] are also similar-
sounding. Wouldn't you be surprised to hear someone say [nemi] for
"many"?
What I'm asking about is whether there is evidence of, say, some
Scandinavian tribe settled in the region where [T] is realized as [f],
which indeed didn't have [T] as part of their phonemic stock, and
therefore (like the Russians with Greek), used [f] for [T].
Just saying "well, they sound real similar" doesn't explain anything.
Marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 1, 9:33 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?
Well, it's "we" as in "me" and "you" - you're holding/doing something,
and I come upon this situation.
"Give us a go" is different - it's "me instead of you."
Quote: In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
pronounces mythical as miffickle.
That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
"Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
"feological." But who knows.
Marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian M. Scott |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Marc
<marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c-946c-80d1cbb4398d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
Quote: On May 1, 3:58 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message <087d9820-1ef7-4629-8bfd-7e3a8b881...@w7g2000hs
a.googlegroups.com>, Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com
writes
On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott"
b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
That's a rather common substitution, especially
word-finally, by no means limited to England, let
alone London.
In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks"
for "thanks," "I fink" for "I think," and so on. It's
very noticeable.
You talk kinda funny too.
So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.
[...]
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Patrick Karl |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Marc
marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c-946c-80d1cbb4398d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:
So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.
Another example seems to be the Russian name transliterated as "Fyodor";
it comes from the Greek Theodore. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Heidi Graw |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Marc" <marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dde4a941-ad58-486d-9e9a-762cea2ee57b@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?
This may have something to do with the Monarchy and how
a Monarch speaks using the plural form.
So, if you wish to put on airs about yourself and place
a great importance upon your person, then you would
use "us" and "we" instead of "me" and "I."
Usually, when someone wants to step in after having
watched a fool try numerous times to accomplish something,
one might step up to the plate and say, "Let us have a go."
It is used in a teasing manner to indicate one's superiority.
Quote: I'd expect to find a British dialect that uses "her" for "their,"
since this has a clear OE precedent, but "us" for "me"? It doesn't
make sense.
Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).
Did you notice this mostly used among younger people...age
30 and under? If you've mostly noticed it for the under 20
crowd, it may be baby-talk assumed on purpose to irritate
the older crowd. If you noticed it used mostly by young
women, it may be their way of demonstrating a kind of
immature helplessness.
Take care,
Heidi... We like our bubble baf after our hard day at work. ;-)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trond Engen |
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marc skreiv:
Quote: On May 1, 3:58 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
087d9820-1ef7-4629-8bfd-7e3a8b881...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Marc <marc.ad...@gmail.com> writes
On Apr 30, 9:01 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
That's a rather common substitution, especially word-finally, by
no means limited to England, let alone London.
In London (certain parts of London?) they say "fanks" for "thanks,"
"I fink" for "I think," and so on. It's very noticeable.
You talk kinda funny too.
So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?
It's just one of those things that happens to sounds. You've already got
the answer that it's quite widespread in English. It happened in Russian
(Fyodor, Timofey) recently enough for the letter <th> to be preserved up
to the revolution, and IIRC it's one of the possible routes for Latin f-
< *dh-.
Quote: Or the "us" for "me" thing either?
Isn't that a normal thing everywhere? A polite inclusive or something?
In Norwegian it's been mocked as a "royal we" or a "me and my worm" --
and I think it used to be more widespread earlier. I think I use it in
simple expressions like 'la oss se' "let us (me) see", and to add
emphasis to pronouncements of some (quasi-)monumentality: 'Vi får vel
komme oss av gårde' "We (I) should be going", 'Vi fikk vel som fortjent'
"We (I) must have got what we (I) deserved".
--
Trond Engen
- worming up |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:51 am
|
|