It drives me crazy to hear Brits drop articles...

I've come to hate lots of Britishisms. The worst is when Americans live there for a while, then come back using them.

"Did you get my text?" "I have done." Friend of mine has affectations like that.

"Put kettle on" is specific to the north.

“Catholics love Pope”

Referring to the Pope as “Pope” always sounds so strange to me.

Yet to Americans I doesn't sound strange when someone says "I'm going to school." Perhaps Americans have added articles rather than the Brits having dropped them?

Easy solution...stop watching our programmes!

The UK is over. Disregard it. Now that I'm out and it is mobbed with immigrants why bother?

If you think the Brits are bad with their dropped articles, talk to Russian speaking English.

[R7] Slavic languages don't have definite and indefinite articles, so at least they have an excuse.

I also find it disconcerting, but I don't think I would never criticize how a Brit speaks English.

[quote] but I don't think I would never criticize

Brits also add articles that are strange to Yank ears.

Would you like A coffee?

Thanks OP...I also recently watched LAST TANGO IN HALIFAX and thought the same thing. I've noticed it before to an extent in UK series..."She's in hospital" ... but never to the degree in LTIH. I wondered if it was specific to that region?

[quote]Started watching Last Tango in Halifax on a friend's recommendation.

It drives me crazy to hear Americans drop pronouns.

“I started watching....”

R11 How would you say it? I'm American and I usually say it like that, if offering a single serving. "Would like a coffee, a tea, a Coke, etc...?" I would only say "Would you like coffee?," if I was offering less limited amount, like a pot of coffee.

R10, my apologies.

"On holiday" really chaps my ass for some reason!

How about "On hols", R16?

R11, if Americans say "Would you like a coffee," where would Brits add an article? There is only one noun in the sentence. Or are you saying Brits drop the article?

"Would you like a coffee" and "Would you like coffee" are both said in America. R14 lays out the distinction in usage quite well.

Using plural verb conjugations for singular nouns.

"Do you know what the Government do with unemployed people?"

"Tesco have introduced a new compensation system."

[quote]It drives me crazy to hear Brits drop articles...

Drop articles??

[quote]Talk to cook.

Huh??

Look, when you only have one and a half chipped baked bean teeth you want to speak as little as possible. That's why we drop articles.

“I was sat there.”

Brits use baby talk for everything, too.

Telly, wellies, nappy...

“I was sat there.”

Brits use baby talk for everything, too.

Telly, wellies, nappy...

Actually it’s you Americans who insert the article unnecessarily - the rest of us don’t.

And no, I’m not a “Brit”.

But if you’d like to start a thread on how Americans continuously assault the English language, I’m there.

The funny thing is that Brits speak more and more like Americans every day. R24

I always thought “to bank” made a lot of sense. And I like”to hospital” as well, it is very direct and clear.

OP has too much of the time on his hands.

Last Tango in Halifax might not be the best house an an example. Northern English dialects drop definite and indefinite articles all over the place. Standard British/Estuary dialects don't as much.

It drives me crazy to hear Brits talk in any accent. Crazy like I want to fuck their sexy limey asses.

Cheers R29 Thanks for the love mate.

^^^R29 here, and I love when you call me mate! 😍 Damn, bro. How you doing?

I imagine the OP would have a massive heart attack if he heard some third world people speaking their localized English.

Brits loving using the word “banter” now.

R33 About five years ago maybe.

R31/R29 Very well, (aside from insomnia) & you? I'm sadly not a bottom, but there are always exceptions to contemplate! Always nice to know we don't annoy ALL the Yanks.

I think all languages have quirks like this. I was reading a book by an American author set in London and it drove me crazy how she’d get this wrong, like saying “we walked to High Street” then a page later “we got off the tube at the Knightsbridge station.”

Americans a resolute in their inability to fathom there are thousands of other languages and even more dialects out there. By the way it is called English, not American.

Brilliant!

R37, they invented the language and yet cannot speak it. It’s highly ironic.

[quote] “we walked to High Street”

What should it be?

Brits learns new phrase or word and then use it non-stop. They’re like retarded children.

R20,

Articles are "the," "an," and "a."

The sentence in "American" would be "Talk to the cook."

R40, "We walked to the High Street."

But I guess a British High Street isn't regarded like an American Main Street, so the phrasing would be closer to our saying, "We walked to the main drag."

As for "the Knightsbridge station," r36, it is correct grammar. It distinguishes Knightsbridge from the other stations. It is equally correct to say, "at Knightsbridge Station." All depends on capitalization.

"Going to school" and "going to college" sound "right" to American ears, whereas "going to university" does not. Who knows why?!

I adore British English in all her dialects. Almost all the tv I watch is British. While it took me a while to get use to "go to hospital", I don't mind, at all, the other examples listed here. They're better mannered, they speak through their throat, not their nose, and most speak with their indoor voice even when they're outside. It's completely ruined American tv for me.

Put the u's back into colour, spell centre correctly and know it is mathS not math and we can talk.

Fancy a wank?

I have noticed that more and more Americans are dropping articles of late. No one else seems to have noticed. I thought it was just me. Interesting thread...thanks, OP.

As an aside, the following constructions have always bothered me:

"Go to public school."

"Go to private school."

I can understand the general expression "go to school." But the other two should be "go to A public/private school."

As someone who still isn't confident in his use of articles after all these years, I very much welcome this development.

[quote]I think all languages have quirks like this.

Yup, if it's not articles, it's something else. We don't have articles, so we butcher noun declension in everyday language instead.

What about dropped titles? I listen to the BBC news most mornings, and the way they always refer to Theresa May as "Theresa May" is so annoying to me. Always full name, over and over, never "Prime Minister May," "Prime Minister Theresa May," or even just "The Prime Minister," because frankly, we all fucking know her name.

It reminds me of old soap operas when the characters would always reference one another by full names for the benefit of viewers who might be tuning in for the first time. No one talks like that in real life. (Except, of course, for the BBC news.)

In the US the media would never refer to a President, Senator, etc. by name without the title.

Americans would say "would you like a cup of coffee".

[quote]In the US the media would never refer to a President, Senator, etc. by name without the title.

It varies, really. I link to articles all the time here on DL and always edit out the title and just put "Donald Trump" instead as I'm a spiteful cunt like that. And while doing that, I have noticed over the years that some online articles just use his name.

WHILST!

It already had a while and then 'st' had to be added!

But I'm sure the American accent grates on their ears just as bad. Just like how I couldn't move to Australia because the accent is so annoying.

The Brits tend to shorten a lot of their words. Us yanks do the same thing but not to the degree of our cousins from the old world.

I'm watching telly

They told me to talk to the admin

I was having a convo with a mate

I'll be ready in a mo

And many more I can't remember.

I kind of like how they say someone is called - insert name. Like he's called John. In most latin languages the verb to call is used rather than named.

Brits stand for office. The Americans are so much more typically active and athletic when they run for one.

r55 I like that too. Naming is a one-time action; you're named with a name and then you're called by that name from that point on. Makes sense.

[Quote]Would you like A coffee?

In New York, we say "You want [italic]some[/italic] coffee?

OP, Halifax is in Yorkshire. What you are listening to is the Yorkshire dialect, a particular feature of which is dropped articles. In actual fact, ‘the’ would be expressed as ‘t’ ... as in ‘ Put t’kettle on’.

Accents in the US vary wildly. Why do some in the US have so much of a problem with other people not doing things their way ? We have the same people in the UK. They created the Brexit mess.

Don’t watch something set in Yorkshire if you can’t stand Yorkshire accents.

R43, "high street" is a term that in Britain means a major street with businesses etc. So you might go to high street. By capitalizing it has been transformed into the name of a street, making the article inappropriate.

Americans accept British usage because it’s quaint. However, Americans may need to engage in more public and private admonishment to hasten acceptance of American English.

Happy Valley does it too: "Why have I just had police knocking on door?" I don't mind it with Brits. Drives me nuts when Americans say they're going to "prom" instead of "the prom." It's regional I think.

R62 I think it's generational. I'm from Staten Island NY (originally), and we still called it "The Prom" back in the 1980s. My sister still lives there. Her children, however, simply call it "Prom."

Does anyone know when it became fashionable for young Americans to drop the article regarding "The Prom"?

[quote]Happy Valley does it too

The same woman (Sally Wainright) created and wrote both Happy Valley and Last Tango in Halifax.

R53, Same here! I cannot abide the Australian accent!

R60, Yes, I believe I just explained that.

R58, Yes, "some coffee/tea/soda."

But you and your fellows are incorrect in "standing on line." Is there, like on a two-lane road, an actual painted line you stand ON while/whilst you wait IN line?

"Get on line!" said no one ever.

[quote] The amount of dropped articles

The NUMBER of dropped articles is hardly your biggest problem.

New Yorker here who likes stand on line. I cringe when I hear stand in line and often look down on the person saying it.

R65, CERTAIN Aussie accents grate on me a bit as well, but Kiwis' even more so.

Let’s kill OP. Who’s keen?

[quote] often look down on the person saying it.

That's why "on line" sounds like an affectation to the anyone with an IQ over 70.

R71 thinks he's well clever.

[quote]"Get on line!" said the good citizens of the New York metropolitan area, since forever.

Fixed.

Let's kill "keen to..."

For R65

I have never heard anyone ever say stand "on" line. Do you stand on row or walk on single file? No.

Are you on formation or in formation?

I get more annoyed with the archaic way Brits spell some words.

Haemoglobin. Oesophagus. Foetus. Paedophile.

A little off topic...but does anyone know why Hyacinth Bucket's family add "our" before their siblings names: Our Rose, Our Daisy, Our Violet?

I watch Japan' NHK cable channel. Their news is written British-style.

R77, standing "on line" is strictly a NYC term . Everywhere else in the US one stands "in line."

An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him.

The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him.

One common language I'm afraid we'll never get,

Oh, why can't the English learn to

Set a good example to people whose

English is painful to your ears?

The Scots and the Irish leave you close to tears.

There even are places where English completely disappears.

In America, they haven't used it for years!

What do you British think about America's English dialects, such as Southern American English, and its counterpart, African American Vernacular English?

Features include the absence of the "be" verb. Examples: "You're crazy" would be rendered "You crazy," and "He thinks (that) he's smart" would be "He think he smart."

There are other distinctive grammatical variants, too, especially with subject-verb agreement. Example: "She goes to church every Sunday" would be "She [italic]go[/italic] to church every Sunday."

[quote]The sentence in "American" would be "Talk to the cook."

Not in my house!

[quote]"Did you get my text?"

I don't understand what is so British about this sentence. It sounds perfectly normal to these American ears. What would you propose is the US alternative to express this thought?

I aksed. Did you get my text?

I say "on line" because it's the shibboleth that we New Yorkers use to signal ourselves to one another.

To Staten Island upthread: Yes, I remember exactly that. Growing up I heard "the prom" (even though nobody went to it; it wasn't a big thing in Brooklyn public schools; kind of dorky to give a shit about it).

Go to the hell.

Can the Brits explain about the dialects going on in a Hollyoaks, they seem to be all over the place? And characters like Goldie’s seems to be totally made up.

R83 - you in danger, girl!

Yoko Ono used to drive the Beatles crazy with her refusal to refer to them as The Beatles. That must be a Japanese thing. "I remember when I first saw Beatles on tv...." It grates on my ears, too. Or rather, nerves.

R89 Hollyoaks employs actors for their looks, that means they get them from all over the country.

[quote]Brits learns new phrase or word and then use it non-stop. They’re like retarded children.

As the eyes of every black American, both alive and dead, roll straight out of their heads. White Americans, straight and gay, are THE worst about this.

R90 I might be in danger, but the British seemed to love our country's southern and soul accents. Here's Dolly being interviewed some ten years ago, and although her grammar is cleaned up, the audience seem very charmed by her accent and Tennessee mountain southerisms.

R83 Dropping the "be" is not a feature in Modern Southern American English, even in Older South American English it was more the dropping of "are" than "be." It might occur in some sub-dialects, but it is far from universal.

You are right, however, that it is a feature of African-American Vernacular English.

From what I understand, many British actors find the American Southern accent the easiest accent to emulate. Probably because region was influenced by a lot of English whereas the Midwest is so nasal and more influenced by Scandinavian immigrants. I recall someone saying they were a relic of old ancient England. Like how American Japanese today might speak with an accent or manners people in the 1920s spoke, passing down the language from the time their grandparents immigrated. Because the US born Japanese go to visit Japan and speak an old fashioned sort of Japanese.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between Australian and British. Sound the exact same.

[quote]I say "on line" because it's the shibboleth that we New Yorkers use to signal ourselves to one another.

It's a pronunciation rather than a shibboleth, but I signify my NYness by pronouncing "horrible" HAH-ruh-bull (I pronounce my Rs, and only say "cawfee," "wawk," or "tawk" if I'm really tired).

I thought the New York shibboleth was Houston?

Nobody says "Houston" wrong after their first week in NY.

I fucking hate this sort of recent, pretentious phrase "on set". It pushes me to edge!

What is most insufferable is when they drop titles.

They also use brand names for devices , like Tannoy for loudspeaker. Why? Tannoy me, of course.

My family still calls any refrigerator a Frigidaire, regardless of brand.

[quote] —It may be difficult to stand ON a line, but it's impossible to stand IN a line?

We’re talking about people lined up one behind the other, a line of people. It’s very possible to be in that line of people, standing. “On line” is retarded.

Except that it's not, r106.

Maybe the northern Brit dialects dropping articles more, according to some posters, could have to do with when the first Angles came over to the British Isles, and then eventually migrated/move further inland to the north and west, they kept their Germanic language syntax in place to a greater degree, from when Old English declined nouns with cases instead of needing to modify them with the indefinite and definite articles as became the case with later English stages.

[quote]Except that it's not, [R106]

Yes it is. Standing "on" something literally means you are on top of it.

You don't stand on a row or on a line. You stand in a line.

What old ass, "slacks" style fuckery is this "on line" shit?

Queue up please:

^ Oops, wrong pic:

You cunts wanna slag off my language? Fine. Whatever. But let’s not forget whose language it was first. x

[quote]But let’s not forget whose language it was first.

Doesn't that make it more embarrassing?

Very entertaining to see Americans - of all people - criticising others’ use of the English language.

Love this thread . I’m a native New Yorker married to a Brit who now lives in London and I hear these used all of the time . Yes, it is correct as someone stated above: We say “go to school.” It still ruffles my feathers to hear “go to Uni or hospital “ however . It’s not regional . Almost every Brit I know uses these terms.

R44 has clearly never been to the U.K..

"A little off topic...but does anyone know why Hyacinth Bucket's family add "our" before their siblings names: Our Rose, Our Daisy, Our Violet?"

R79 I know that everyone I ever spoke to when I was in Yorkshire did that.

Makes sense when everyone in the village has the same name. Our John as opposed to the John next door.

Go to hospital? Not heard it said that way unless I'm up north at the time, were there is commonly a definite article reduction and 'the' is implied, as vocally there's an unvoiced 't' followed by a glottal stop, it's often written as "Go t'hospital" but the 't' is never said. On the other hand, go to school/work/uni are all normal enough usage without any 'the'.

R108 Most of northern England and therefore the accent was heavily influenced by the Danes, have a look at the Danelaw regions of the UK. The oldest surviving true Anglo Saxon accent would be found in the Black Country, an area in the West Midlands, it's a very interesting accent that rarely gets heard in the media.

Watched this Youtube video years ago, was quite taken aback how in some areas of the USA people still talk with a regional British accent.

To whoever expressed surprise that we don't call Theresa May 'Prime Minister May' - it isn't a question of the newsreaders being lazy or disrespectful, it's that the title would never be used in Britain in that way.

Americans seem very fond of honorifics, such as 'President X', 'Principal X' or 'Coach X', but we don't use titles in that way that in our country, so to do so would be wrong.

She may be referred to as THE Prime, Minister Theresa ,where the first part acts as an explanation rather than an honorific (in this sense it is Americans who are 'dropping' the article - except no-one is because the languages are different). Similarly a Headmaster (principal to you) would be the headmaster X if you needed to explain, but when referring to them in the third person they would just be Mr./Mrs X.

The newsreader can be confident that the audience knows who Theresa May is so there is no need for the explanation of her role, hence just 'Theresa May', and thereafter she can be referred to as 'Mrs May'.

Why are people assuming that just because something is not American-style then it is wrong? that is a very strange way to approach the rest of the world. Btw. nothing wrong with 'going to hospital' or 'going to university either - since they refer to hospitals and universities in general. 'Going to a/the university' would be incorrect unless you were talking about a specific one (even 'a' indicates one among many). That's an odd one to dislike since it is the same as your 'going to school'.

^^ just to clarify, when writing 'the headmaster x' above, that should have been 'the headmaster, Mr/Mrs X', or their full name. The point is, we would never just use Title Last Name as in 'President Trump' or 'Principal Quellar'. That would be most incorrect.

I don't even know why English has the article "the". It made sense to have articles when Middle English lost inflections. An article could have helped with the grammatical gender. But if the article is just one word for all genders, what's the point? Maybe a DL hobby linguist can explain, please? The only purpose left that I could see is the distinction between definite (the) and indefinite (a) nouns.

Isn't the difference between the definite and indefinite article sufficient R122? There is a difference between 'a (insert noun)' and 'the (insert noun)' that is very useful for everyday communication.

OP, they're not saying "put kettle on" but "put 't kettle on" and you can't hear the soft 't. They're Northeners, it's how they talk up there.

In any case, if anyone is mangling the English language, it's Americans.

[quote]In any case, if anyone is mangling the English language, it's Americans.

Believe it. It’s evidenced right here in this very thread.

R117 They were always saying "Our Lille" and "Our Tegan" on Hollyoaks, which drove me crazy, thankfully they are both dead and hopefully we won't have to hear that again.

I think the dropping of articles, the diminutives, and the "our" is all part of the same infantilizing tendency in British English.

This is how one speaks to toddlers. It is all babytalk among adults.

I think that is why it creeps me out.

Radio 4’s Word of Mouth just did an episode on the history of the word “the” and why it even exists. I don’t know if the link will work for listeners outside the UK though.

Thanks, R128. Works for me in the US.

It drove me nuts in Last Tango when Alan would say "were" instead of "was". It made him sound like such a rube. "It WERE a long time ago..."

America, where people can't tell the difference between "Should have, would have, could have" and "Should of, would of, could of" as if they only had second grade educations?

I love these regional differences. I say "on line" (New Yorker) and I love it. I love dropped "the" (I'll listen for t'kettle instead of kettle).

R131 I'm an American, and I have never once said "should of, would of, or could of".

R131, that is a difference in accent not in actual word usage. In many American accents "have" and "of" frequently sound alike.

Well, OP got exactly what OP wanted -- the Brits and Americans went to the handbags, as the Brits might say.

The funny thing is, most of us bitching at each other in this thread probably LOVE the variations of communication between the two countries. I know I do.

By the way, Brits, don't get all mad when we call you that, when you call us "septics." lol

I'm confused R135 - 'went to the handbags' isn't a British phrase, and we use 'Brits' about ourselves, well a lot of us do anyway - it isn't offensive.

Speaking of articles.

[quote]"On holiday" really chaps my ass for some reason!

Would "on the holiday" or "on a holiday" sound better to you? The Brits don't "drop" articles, they just don't use them in certain phrases.

[quote]R131, that is a difference in accent not in actual word usage. In many American accents "have" and "of" frequently sound alike.

Yeah, but I've seen people write "could of," "would of," etc., so -- no.

Agreed R139. It takes a very high degree of self-importance to describe people who speak differently to you as 'dropping' parts of speech that they don't use in the first place. The examples on this thread are either perfectly correct in Britain or are colloquial ways of speaking in specific regions. How odd for people to get worked up about that.

Many British also write "could of/would of, r138. They also have the same confusion with your/you're. It all depends on how you were educated, and the literacy skills your social group expect of you.

They write "could of," etc... because they are going by what they hear. There has been too much of an emphasis in English education on going by what one hears, instead of focusing on rules.

[quote]the Brits and Americans went to the handbags, as the Brits might say.

I don’t go to my handbag, I just remove my earrings.

[quote]The funny thing is, most of us bitching at each other in this thread probably LOVE the variations of communication between the two countries. I know I do.

Kidding aside, I agree with you. I, too, love hearing Brits speak, and for some reason get a kick out of when they say, “...the victim was sent to hospital.”

It depends on how want to define the English language. In some areas of New England English is spoken in a way that most closely resembles an earlier form of English.

Most British people do not.

But no version is inherently right or wrong R143, and the is something that OP and others on this thread don't seem to understand. The English spoken in New England is not the same as earlier forms of English, neither is the English spoken in Britain (whichever region). And that is fine, languages evolve, there is no need to define the language so narrowly - it's all English.

Oh, you're so cheeky! Can I have a word?

you know what makes me feel a bit ill R145? words like 'barf'. Also, I really hate the way it is apparently still acceptable to use 'retard' as an insult over there, which looks and sounds so wrong and is really quite embarrassing to see.

Speaking this Queen's English (aka Scouse) - Miss Lily Savage.

My partner, born and raised in Los Angeles, has started doing that randomly. We're both writers and he's writing about a character who's in a coma. He keeps says, "So, Joe's in coma..." or "Emily needs to go visit Joe, maybe he'll have mystical insight because he's in coma".

It's driving me insane.

I'm not so sure R144, did you see my Youtube video in R119?

[img]I'm confused [R135] - 'went to the handbags' isn't a British phrase,

Seriously?

^^^ wrong tag, lol.

I'm from Yorkshire I've never heard anyone say 'Put t'kettle on' that just sounds wrong. In Yorkshire dialect 't' is a contraction of 'to the' or 'to'. We don't shorten 'the' to 't'. So 'the' would be ommited entirely, it would be 'Put kettle on' not 'Put t'kettle on'. This is a common error non-speakers seem to make. It could be the case of in old Yorkshire dialect where 'the' was sometimes expressed as 't' but we don't really hear that in modern Yorkshire dialect.

^ I meant omitted.

R150, are you R135 replying to my post where I told you that is not a British phrase? I think so. The link you posted doesn't say anything about 'went to the handbags'. It has 'handbags at twenty paces', which is a phrase I'd recognise, as is the phrase 'handbags at dawn', which is probably the best known variant (to me at least), but 'went to the handbags' is both grammatically incorrect and nonsensical.

I'm not being pedantic here. - you got the handbags bit right, but I don't know where you go the rest from.

They say on holiday, we say on vacation. Big dif.

Christmas is a holiday. Vacation is vacation.

In America, but not in Britain R156. Are you genuinely confused/annoyed about other countries using language differently? I imagine the world is quite a confusing place all-round for you really?

What is Christmas, then, in Britain, r157?

It's also a holiday R157. As in 'the Christmas holidays', because the schools have time off and most people have annual leave, which is sometimes just referred to as your 'holiday' as in 'I have x amount of holiday left this year', or having a day off you might say 'I took it as holiday'. It is also something that we go on, like your vacation. We also have 'Bank Holidays' which are national days off on top of your annual leave, like your Labour Day is I think? Christmas day and Boxing day are both Bank Holidays (Boxing day is the day after Christmas). It is all of those things and no-one gets confused.

This is one way in which it is used, as described above.

Sorry, I'll try that again.

"Vacation" has no meaning in your language, r159?

r162 It had better!

The U.S. Federal government uses "annual leave" to refer to an employee's vacation time allotment.

Don't drop bombs.

A holiday is a holy day, including secular holidays. A vacation should not be considered a holy day, although one might take a vacation on a holiday.

I hate it when the Brits say, "I have AIDS," instead of "I have THE AIDS"

It drives me crazy when Americans, who are famous for their ongoing assault on the English language, are incapable of considering that it is spoken differently (and usually comparatively correctly) in other countries.

[quote] Talk to cook.

Talk to Cook. In households that can afford a cook, the cook is actually properly addressed as "Cook". If you employed a chef, the chef would be addressed as "Chef". You don't say "Talk to the nanny". It's "Talk to Nanny".

R162 - We are familiar with the word from American TV and films but no-one would ever use it. R166 - I have explained that the languages are different. I know that holiday derives from 'Holy Day' - it is no the same word, it is a derivation that has evolved to mean something more. Why are you still pretending that the American way is the only correct way? the US-centric arrogance on this thread is so strange to me.

I love when Brits say “me” for “my,” like, “It's so hot I took me shirt off.”

It's not arrogance in this case; it's simple confusion.

In the US, "holiday" means an actual named Holiday: Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, etc. "Vacation" is time off from work, usually accompanied by a trip, but does not always coincide with a named Holiday.

Brits don't make this distinction. It's an imprecise use of the language and we want to know why you don't distinguish between the two.

R169, you do not see the condescension in referring to someone as their function? I may be a cook, but when you refer to me as "cook" rather than "the cook" or "Bill" you dehumanize me. I am no longer someone doing a job for you, but rather I am the job.

I've spent quite a bit of time in London and worked with a lot of foreign folks. I love some of their express and am one of those annoying Americans who use them. A few of my favorites:

Wank Snog Chat up Meat and two veg Shag

Phases I find myself using in America:

Ring me on Put in my diary Comfort break

It felt like arrogance R172, because you (assuming you are R166) were responding to a conversation in which I had explained the various usage of the term 'holiday' and you felt the need to impose your definition as the better/correct one. If you had framed it as 'in America we can do this, but I can see it's different with you' then it wouldn't have come across that way, but you imposed your own meaning.

Just to be clear - I wasn't calling the person who asked a simple question arrogant - I was responding to the person who was imposing their definition.

It isn't imprecise to us - that is how our language has evolved, for reasons that are petty obvious. The only time people used to have off was Holy Days, then that was extended, and it was the only time people could go on trips - thus the same word can be used interchangeably for all. Plus, the UK is far more secular that the US so connotations to actual Holy Days these days is not something that most people think about.

Again, it may be confusing to you but it isn't at all for us. It isn't really a homophone since the two meanings are intertwined, but if you waned to regard it as such, then don't be concerned, other homophones exist. As with them, people can tell which meaning is being used depending on the context.

I like it when they refer to their close relative with the endearment "our" as in our Daisy or our Hyacinth.

[quote]it is no the same word

Saying "no" instead of "not"...that's from Scotland, right?

Haha, no, it's a typo in this case R177, my finger didn't strike the 't' button hard enough. But yeah, people from Scotland do say that, just not me. I'm from Wales.

It must have been an index finger holiday, r178.

Haha true R179.

It stuck out on that show for me, too, OP . . . but I think it's just a colloquialism.

The Netflix subtitles for Last Tango in Halifax often re-insert the articles that the characters omit.

Do Americans use female nouns such as adulteress and lioness?

Senatrice

T183, absolutely not.

My favorite dropped article line from British drama, "He's got hold wrong end of stick."

Two nations separated by a common language...

Whose stick he got hold of, r186?

R185 I see what you did there with the floating “T” hehe.

Vacation! Holiday! Let’s not argue and just call them Red Letter Days!

[quote]Do Americans use female nouns such as adulteress and lioness?

I do, especially when referring to something in which the gender is particularly relevant, like adulteress and seductress.

It drives me crazy when Americans insert “So,” and “OK” at the start of sentences.

Why do people do that, apart from wanting to sound like a fourteen year old schoolgirl from the Valley?

It’s a mechanism to give us more time to think of an answer.

It drives me crazy when Brits insert “..init” at the end of sentences.

Why do people do that, apart from wanting to sound like they had not decided to ask a question until after they started speaking?

What I've learned in this thread is that the Brita are ultra sensitive and easily offended. So tender to the touch.

*Brits

Lol, R186. I watched Last Tango twice just to hear more of Alan & Jillian.

I am not criticizing the way Brits talk; I just really find the variations interesting. I know we have many different regional English variations here in the US as well.

I love watching UK series and seeing the differences. LAST TANGO did drive me crazy at first, especially the use of "owt" as a sub for "anything" or "nothing" (I think?), but I grew to find it endearing.

I just binged W1A, and while I don't think any actual humans speak like those characters, I do plan from now on in any staff meetings to use a lot of "yes, exactly, yes", "brilliant", "very strong" and of course, "bollocks".

I've begun sentences with "So..." for as long as I can remember, and I'm at least as old as Bronzie. And I'm no Valley girl.

Brits often say that Americans don't speak proper English, but they speak more like Americans every year. What does that say about Brits?

Funny how you Americans are assuming that anybody not American who is posting is a “Brit”.

And what should we absolutely, positively know you are, r201?

"But Nanny wasn't responsible, was she?"

I love W1A R198, it's absolutely hilarious.

I’m not sure why that’s relevant, R202.

I suspect that R195 has had his own behaviour on this thread rebuked and is now smarting about it.

Can I have a word?

Can I have a word?

Can I have a word?

Why'd you bring it up then, r205?

R198, I love W1A (and Twenty Twelve, the show it is a sequel to). It is like a parade of British vocal tics, but it is aware that it is mocking the poverty of some Brits sentence construction and vocabulary.

Anna Rampton is probably my favorite. She thinks that "I don't want that" and her other verbal affectations make her sound posh--and maybe it does in Britain--but as an American the distance between what she feels and what she expresses is hilarious.

I don't think 'I don't want that' is meant to make her think she is sounding posh R209, but more like she is being overly authoritative and has no idea, or doesn't care, how acerbic she is being, and how that might effect others. If they wanted her to sound as though she thought she was posh she would probably be using stylized or overly formal speech and speaking in an affected accent. If anything she is doing the opposite of that.

Petty is not pretty, r154.

R210, what you describe seems like posh from the 70s. Today wealthy Brits seem to affect a brusque rudeness to show how important they are.

Hmm, see I wouldn't say that was 'poshness', more the assertion of power by those who have it, which may easily intersect with other markers of class or status by virtue of the fact that many people in positions of power have those other markers, but it's not the same thing. As a Brit, poshness means something quite different to me. What we're taking about is a naked assertion of power, which is not a claim to, or pretence of, poshness. If someone was trying to sound posh then I don't think this is what they would be doing.

I'm not being petty R211. This whole thread is about language differences, and when I, politely enough, picked you up on attributing a phrase to us that we never use, and that would make literally no sense - with no ire or malice, you responded by telling me that I was wrong about my own country, with 'evidence' that wasn't really evidence. You could have just said 'oh right, well you learn something new every day', or not said anything at all, but you said 'Seriously?' and tried to 'disprove' my information. So I told you that what you linked didn't say what you thought it said. Now your pride has been pricked, that is all.

How they can drop any articles with all those signs in the tube warning them to carry their rubbish is beyond me.

[quote]carry their rubbish

Another word I like. Sounds so much nicer to the ears than our “garbage.”

I guess I am confused. What is posh if not about class, power, and wealth.

Upper class people demonstrating their wealth and power is what posh is, isn't it?

For the Americans who have a sense of humor

[quote]Upper class people demonstrating their wealth and power is what posh is, isn't it?

I think you mean init?

Poshness is accent, embodiment, education, class - it is things and people and ways of acting that are afforded social value or worth in a symbolic way. That often intersects with power and wealth, but it is not the same thing. people can be powerful without being, or performing, 'poshness', and people can have a 'posh' accent or education without being powerful or rich. If someone was trying to perform their idea of posh I just don't think they would do it through asserting naked power, although their abruptness might be partly a consequence of having been brought up 'posh' and all that entails. It's more like the Anna Rampton's character is a bit posh and is also quite oblivious to social norms so she is very abrupt and doesn't couch things in any kind of niceness.

OP/R209 has got it back to front I think. As a non-Brit, they seem to think that she is trying to sound, that she 'thinks' she sounds posh, but I think she 'is' posh and is not that reflexive about her effect on others - part of being posh AND powerful means that she doesn't have to care.

R220, I understand that people who are upper class may not have upper class manners and that some poor non-powerful person can pretend to be of a class above them.

But having met a number of wealthy Brits, that kind of faux-sensitive, genteel thing you referred to seems to have gone the way of the dodo. I have not found it anywhere outside of BBC period dramas. The people genuinely at the top of the business world are much more Anna Rampton-like today. I have not lived in Britain, but as an outsider the class markers of wealth appear to me to have changed.

There are always outliers, but have I only met outliers?

Referring to the nanny as "Nanny" is condescending and ridiculous. That's exactly what the insufferable Mrs. X did in the Nanny Diaries. She couldn't be bothered to learn her real name, so she always just called her "Nanny", even though her actual name was...Annie.

I think I have it now. Posh is a style but it is not correlated to class. So you can be wealthy and not act posh. You can be a poor, lower-class person and be posh.

I may be dense, but I always thought posh was about upper-class behavior. It took me awhile to catch on here.

Hey kind of R223! - it is a style but it's also related to class, but I think we define class differently to you. By class I mean education, accent, and general way of being in the world more than anything. So someone who went to Eton and to Oxford and whose dad was a 'Lord' would be posh, but they may have not much money now.

In Britain class is not defined by wealth and power, but it is definitely not unconnected to it either. I would see class and poshness on the one hand and money and power on the other as two independent but related variables - connected to each other but definitely not the same thing.

Although a lot of 'posh' people have disproportionate amounts of wealth and power, you can be powerful and wealthy and not be posh. You can't be 'lower-class' in the way we think of class and be posh. But if by 'lower-class' you literally mean not have much money then yes that's possible. A 'posh' peRSON may be down on their luck or have inherited a draughty old mansion with not enough money to care for it. In Britain having a lot of money doesn't necessarily make you 'upper-class' in the way we would think of it, it just makes you rich.

I hope all of that makes sense? I know it sounds odd...

How is class not defined by wealth and power? That is not class then. This is a little silly.

It is like saying wealth is not defined by money. Or your diet is not defined by what you eat.

Some concepts just go together.

I don't have time to explain anymore R225, but if you want to read more about it then Andrew Sayer is great - he wrote something called 'The Moral Significance of Social Class', which you can get on Amazon quite cheaply I think, if you're interested. I'm not saying that class isn't intimately connected to money and power but it is not the same thing - two separate, but often intertwined, variables. There is a difference between concepts going together and mutually defining each other.

In fact, economic capital is often a component of class if we are measuring it, or if we are researching how people understand and live within it, but the two are not reducible to each other. You can be upper-class and have very little money (but probably have benefited from your parents' money in terms of education etc in the past), and be rich and not be considered upper-class. If you want to read more about it then best to look up Andrew Sayer, or any book about class and the British perhaps,, I think there are a lot out there.

This is starting to get into that weird area where the wealthy claim not to be rich because they know other people with more money than them. That seems to be another British thing. The wealthy Brits I know usually claim that they are not rich but merely upper class because there are so many others who are wealthier. It makes them feel better to think that class is not tied to their wealth.

But no poor person could do the activities and live like an upper class person does. They cannot have a social life with other upper class people. So what really do you think class is?

I suspect for many it is just someone you like. And the wealthy people you do not like are not upper class.

I have only read a little Sayer, but my colleagues say he has the same issue. He tries to describe the operation of class but is slippery on defining what class is. I think that maybe the British get more mystical about class rather than wanting to examine the mechanisms of how it works. (i.e. the reason what school you went to matters because it says what your parents likely economic position was--but in Britain choice of school is seen as "cultural affiliation" rather than a choice based on economic resources.)

Not at all R227 - I know I said i didn't have time - I'm meant to be writing something else, but i saw your comment. I certainly think class and wealth are intimately intertwined, and I'm not suggesting that school is a matter of cultural affiliation or independent choice. I said that a person may not have much money now but have benefited from their parents money in terms of education - it costs a lot to go to a public school so having had that education is a marker of money, but it is, again, not reducible to it, and does not mean that a person is wealthy now.

The system is absolutely underpinned by money, but the interpersonal day to day workings - who is regarded as 'posh' and who isn't to those around them, is not reducible to economics. Many of the things that are to do with class - symbolic value etc. gain their worth from a connection to money but they are part of a system that is an emergent property of it and 'can' therefore, on an individual basis, exist independently of it in terms of how someone acts and how they are perceived. The economic and the symbolic economies are connected but are not the same thing.

Remember, this all started in a discussion about Anna Rampton's character and someone thinking that she was trying to be posh, so we are looking at this on a micro-level of interactions and what significance is attributed to people's actions and way of being in the world.

I do think that some people can be slippery about defining class but I also think it is important to remember that class, as experienced and understood by people in Britain, is not reducible to economic capital and economic lack, even though the variables are intertwined. This does not mean that I think we should take it seriously when someone who has benefited from a lot of education and has a very well paying job calls themselves 'working-class' because there are objective markers also.

You speak about class as if it were fixed. You describe how "a person may not have much money now but have benefited from their parents money in terms of education - it costs a lot to go to a public school so having had that education is a marker of money, but it is, again, not reducible to it, and does not mean that a person is wealthy now. "

But surely if the person is not wealthy now he is no longer upper class. You speak as if one's class is established in childhood and never changes. But it certainly does change with changing economic fortune.

You describe "markers" but again, I would be surprised if those markers were not clothing, home, car, possessions, job, etc.--meaning that they are all connected to income. If the markers do not signify wealth and power, what do they signify? Spiritual growth and gastric health? I do not think so.

I don't think class is fixed but the ways in which it is understood on an interpersonal level goes beyond fluctuating economic fortunes - that's my point. If we're talking about 'poshness' and upper-classness etc., someone could be perceived to be those thing and feel themselves to be those things even if their income had made a dramatic turn downwards, and likewise, if someone won a lot on the lottery they wouldn't necessarily describe themselves as upper-class, or be immediately regarded as 'posh' etc. just because they had a lot of money in the bank. Although, as I have said repeatedly, the two things are related.

This does not mean that there is no such thing as social mobility - a lot of people have been socially mobile, and recognise themselves to have been and are seen by others to be of a different class then their original class. But it is not just about money - that's my point.

Did you read the bit at the end of my last post about how it would not be reasonable for someone with a lot of education and a good income to call themselves working class even though they may have been born so? that's what I'm talking about. And that was where I said 'there are objective markers', where yes, I was referring to home, possessions, income etc., I thought that was clear when I said 'with a good income'?

Just because it isn't exactly the same thing as being rich doesn't mean that social mobility isn't possible or that it isn't intimately related to money. I'm beginning to think that perhaps very few people indeed understand the concept of inter-related but independent variables. Perhaps if you an American you will never entirely understand this, I don't know.

Again - we were talking about interpersonal interaction, what class someone is seen to embody and how that is unconsciously performed. The only reason this cam up was about the embodiment of poshness and the assumption that class purely meant power or money (in it's entirety) when it is actually more complicated than that.

Never mind, my explanation is here for anyone interested, including all of the lurkers who may be following this conversation.

Another Brit chiming in here - and it is basically true that your class doesn’t change. Over generations, yes, there is movement from working to middle class. But if you are born upper class, then that really doesn’t change, though it’s entirely possible that you might not be cash rich. The previous poster has already explained it all very well.

One example is the writer Diana Athill, who died this year aged 101. Very much born into the upper class, but often - as in her case - the actual money is tied into assets that some other family member inherits.

So Diana Athill was upper class and posh, with all the education and connections that come with it, but not rich as an individual. She worked in publishing all her life and had very little money. Lots of working class and middle class people would have been far wealthier. But she was posh in a way that you can only really be born into.

^^ By the way, if we are talking of embodied, non-economic markers, it has just occurred to me that as an American you may not be aware of how accent places a person socially in Britain. I'm not saying that is right or the way it ought to be, but accent is regarded as a classed thing, as is manner of speaking in general.

When someone met me and my friend in London for the first time he told us, unprompted, that he could tell that we had gone to a 'good state (government) school surrounded by grass', and he was absolutely right. By this he was partly recognising us as middle-class but without the kind of economic capital that would be needed for a public (private) school education. Again, this is not all that class is, but there is no getting away from the fact that it is part of how people perceive each other and how people perceive themselves. You can say 'oh, that's just about money' but it really isn't, it's about class as an embodied and visceral thing. Hence Anna Rampton being perceived as posh in W1A.

Thanks R231! I honestly felt like I was going a bit mad out here by myself. Also, I do think it's a bit arrogant of people, when someone is trying to thoroughly and painstakingly explain intricate social differences to them to just say 'no, you're wrong', when they just don't understand, never mind.

By the way, R232 was me too - me being the person who has been explaining all of this for many posts. I put the ^^^ thinking it would point up to post R230 but it didn't in the end.

Anyhoo, relieved to have someone to back me up on all of this, cheers fellow Brit!

I appreciate the time you took, R230. But I do feel you are twisting yourself in knots to separate class and money. I find it interesting, but bizarre.

And not to reduce you, but I have seen other British people do the same. It is hard to understand why you do it.

I am trying to understand what in your culture makes it so important to separate the two, when to the rest of the world it looks like you are just in denial about something so basic.

You're doing it again 234 - telling me I'm wrong because you don't understand it. I'm not twisting myself in knots, I'm explaining how our society works. I don't think it should work like this but it does. If I were trying to explain hierarchical systems of status that are not reducible to money in another country such as Japan or India would you imply we were wrong? I hope you wouldn't, I hope you would understand that that is how things work.

If you've listened to other Brits explaining it and you still don't understand, and you think it's their fault for trying to do something that makes no sense to you, then I think it's pretty clear you will never understand it. We're not making this up - it's how it works, and by 'works' I mean, this is how people interact/understand each other, and understand the world around them. It is real.

You're starting from the point of view that our world is the same as your world and we are just twisting things around to be different. You need to really engage your imagination and begin with the premise that what you mean by class is not the same as what we mean by class.

However, we are passed the point where this conversation ceased to be productive, but perhaps you should think about why all the Brits you have talked to about class have said the same thing, and the objective reality they were painstakingly trying to help you understand.

Responses like this make me feel like I have wasted my time here, explaining the whole thing in detail when you seemed to have no desire to see it from anything other than a US-centric POV, to understand that class is literally different in other countries. But I'm sure there are others who have read it and appreciated it, like R231.

I am sorry that you feel that way, R235.

Most societies have odd blind spots. (Talk about how class works in America to Americans--you will hear the same tropes over and over. Yet none of them hold up under scrutiny. We are in greater denial about class, economics, politics, and race than any other country.)

Probably I should have asked other questions.

And I do sincerely thank you.

Thank you R236, and you are welcome.

Just pointing out American parochialism, R208.

I'll just post to thread then.

"I suspect that [R195] has had his own behaviour on this thread rebuked and is now smarting about it."

Nope. Wrong again stupid obese frau. But do put your money where your smelly mouth is and try to prove it.

Goodness R240 you have a lot of anger don't you? 'stupid obese frau....smelly mouth', you sound terribly immature, how embarrassing. I didn't bother checking because your behaviour wasn't that important to me, which is why I wrote 'I suspect'. I have now checked and see that you have a strange and irrational vendetta against the British so there you go, I'm rebuking you now for it. God knows where it came from, did you have a British teacher that was mean to you or something? usually there is a reason for these strange festering resentments.

Obviously you will show your immense wit by replying with more of the same, 'obese, smelly, frau, fat, frau etc. etc.' ad infinitum. Such a charming man, I'm sure that you have many friends.

But now I'm going to block you, just for the sake of expediency. I imagine that when you come back with another charming retort I may feel compelled to reply, and in that way we could both waster quite a lot of valuable time.

Lol, you sure wrote a long post to me considering your claim that my behavior was not important to you. Block away, coward.