Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.usage.english > #1145874 > unrolled thread

Receipts - But a new slant

Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english

Contents

  Receipts - But a new slant Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 10:34 -0400
    Re: Receipts - But a new slant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 17:36 +0200
    Re: Receipts - But a new slant richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-28 17:03 +0000
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-29 06:04 +0200
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-06-29 20:26 +0100
    Re: Receipts - But a new slant Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-29 06:27 +0100
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 17:33 -0700
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-02 10:38 +1000
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-07-02 05:37 +0200
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-07-02 19:33 +0100
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-07-02 05:36 +0200
    Re: Receipts - But a new slant Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-29 02:33 -0300
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-06-29 16:51 +0200
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-30 01:59 -0300
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-06-30 07:25 +0200
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-30 10:32 +0200
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:40 -0700
    Re: Receipts - But a new slant "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:53 +0200
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 12:26 -0400
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-06-29 20:30 +0100
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-29 21:54 +0200
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-29 20:38 +0000
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-30 10:12 +1000
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 23:00 -0400
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-06-30 09:26 +0100
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:40 -0700
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 20:26 -0700
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-30 02:12 -0300
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-06-30 08:34 +0200
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-30 10:36 +0200
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:40 -0700
      Re: Receipts - But a new slant athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-29 16:59 +0000
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-29 19:17 +0000
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-30 07:03 +0100
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-30 07:46 +0000
        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 16:36 -0400
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-30 07:03 +0100
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-06-30 08:44 +0200
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-30 09:13 +0000
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-06-30 10:16 +0100
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-30 09:36 +0000
                  Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-06-30 11:44 +0200
                    Re: Receipts - But a new slant Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-06-30 11:13 +0100
                  Re: Receipts - But a new slant nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-30 14:46 +0200
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-06-30 11:43 +0200
                  Re: Receipts - But a new slant Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-06-30 11:07 -0400
                    Re: Receipts - But a new slant richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-30 16:34 +0000
                      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-06-30 13:59 -0400
                      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2026-07-01 09:01 +1200
                        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 18:20 -0400
                        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-07-01 08:51 +0200
                          Re: Receipts - But a new slant Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2026-07-01 22:09 +1200
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-30 16:50 +1000
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-30 08:17 +0100
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-30 17:55 +1000
                  Re: Receipts - But a new slant Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-30 14:43 +0100
                    Re: Receipts - But a new slant occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-07-03 08:13 +0200
                      Re: Receipts - But a new slant Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:30 +0100
                        Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-05 17:15 +1000
                          Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-07-05 10:36 +0200
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-06-30 09:30 +0200
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-06-30 08:41 -0400
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-30 14:48 +0200
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-06-30 14:11 -0400
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-06-30 20:17 +0100
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-06-30 09:26 +0100
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-30 11:52 +0000
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-07-04 09:38 +0000
                  Re: Receipts - But a new slant Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-07-04 21:13 -0400
                    Re: Receipts - But a new slant nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-07-05 09:22 +0200
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 13:53 -0400
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-07-02 18:35 -0300
              Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-03 10:21 +1000
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-07-03 02:05 -0300
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-07-03 12:08 +0200
                Re: Receipts - But a new slant Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-07-03 10:13 -0400
                  Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-05 17:25 +1000
          Re: Receipts - But a new slant Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-06-30 20:07 +0100
            Re: Receipts - But a new slant Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-01 10:16 +1000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#1145874 — Receipts - But a new slant

The meaning and the subject of "Who uses it"? has been covered, but
what has not been covered is "Why use it?".

That question is more interesting to me.

When someone says/writes "I have the receipts", to indicate that they
have proof or evidence of a situation or crime, why do they say that
instead of the simpler and more understandable "I have proof of this"
or "I have the evidence that proves this."?

It seems that people pick up on new phrases or word usage just because
others have, and not because it expresses the thought better.

Most here who are not Americans seem to think that "receipts" in this
context is an Americanism, a mistake, and an inappropropriate usage.

However, my bottom dollar would be bet on the belief that if some -
say, British or even South African - popular writer would use
"receipts" in this context that it would spread.  Some other writer
would use it, and then another, and finally it would no longer be an
Americanism but recognized as common usage in that sphere.

There are quite a few "Americanisms" or "Britishisms" that are now
used commonly in writings and speech in places that are not the US or
the UK.

Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.

No question here.  Just an observation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145877

On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>The meaning and the subject of "Who uses it"? has been covered, but
>what has not been covered is "Why use it?".
>
>That question is more interesting to me.
>
>When someone says/writes "I have the receipts", to indicate that they
>have proof or evidence of a situation or crime, why do they say that
>instead of the simpler and more understandable "I have proof of this"
>or "I have the evidence that proves this."?
>
>It seems that people pick up on new phrases or word usage just because
>others have, and not because it expresses the thought better.
>
>Most here who are not Americans seem to think that "receipts" in this
>context is an Americanism, a mistake, and an inappropropriate usage.
>
>However, my bottom dollar would be bet on the belief that if some -
>say, British or even South African - popular writer would use
>"receipts" in this context that it would spread.  Some other writer
>would use it, and then another, and finally it would no longer be an
>Americanism but recognized as common usage in that sphere.

Maybe it will spread, maybe it won't. 

I think, thanks to this discussion, that I now have a fairly good Idea
of what people who use the expression mean by it. 

One observation:

I'm not sure that it is desirable that it should spread. 

People have said that it means "evidence or proof" -- in which case I
think it would be better to say evidence when you mean evidence and
proof when you mean proof, and not a vaguer term that could mean
either. 

We have enough problems with people claiming to have refuted something
when they have done nothing of the kind. 





-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145878

In article <mqa24ltljg7qpg1h3tn7a9lilv3gj10qd9@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper  <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>something to do with cricket.

The same is true of many British people.

-- Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145882

On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:03:52 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <mqa24ltljg7qpg1h3tn7a9lilv3gj10qd9@4ax.com>,
>Tony Cooper  <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>>conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>>something to do with cricket.
>
>The same is true of many British people.

I've heard cricket commentators speak of a batsman "stepping up to the
plate" without apparently realising that that's a whole 'nother ball
game. In cricket a batsman "steps up the the crease". 


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145902

On 29/06/2026 05:04, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:03:52 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> 
>> In article <mqa24ltljg7qpg1h3tn7a9lilv3gj10qd9@4ax.com>,
>> Tony Cooper  <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>>> something to do with cricket.
>>
>> The same is true of many British people.
> 
> I've heard cricket commentators speak of a batsman "stepping up to the
> plate" without apparently realising that that's a whole 'nother ball
> game. In cricket a batsman "steps up the the crease".

But might spend time between deliveries by 'doing some gardening' before 
returning to the crease.

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145884

Le 28/06/2026 à 15:34, Tony Cooper a écrit :
> 
> The meaning and the subject of "Who uses it"? has been covered, but
> what has not been covered is "Why use it?".
> 
> That question is more interesting to me.
> 
> When someone says/writes "I have the receipts", to indicate that they
> have proof or evidence of a situation or crime, why do they say that
> instead of the simpler and more understandable "I have proof of this"
> or "I have the evidence that proves this."?
> 
> It seems that people pick up on new phrases or word usage just because
> others have, and not because it expresses the thought better.
> 
> Most here who are not Americans seem to think that "receipts" in this
> context is an Americanism, a mistake, and an inappropropriate usage.
> 
> However, my bottom dollar would be bet on the belief that if some -
> say, British or even South African - popular writer would use
> "receipts" in this context that it would spread.  Some other writer
> would use it, and then another, and finally it would no longer be an
> Americanism but recognized as common usage in that sphere.
> 
> There are quite a few "Americanisms" or "Britishisms" that are now
> used commonly in writings and speech in places that are not the US or
> the UK.
> 
> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
> 
> No question here.  Just an observation.


I think that's right. People learn language from those around them (and 
have done since we lived in caves), and don't usually analyse or 
question what they learn. Expressions that have what it takes to spread 
do so; they are 'memes' in Dawkins' original sense. People express 
themselves by assembling building blocks, and don't stop to look inside 
them, to question 'road map', or 'lowest common denominator', or (chez 
vous Over There) 'I could care less'.

There is a difference between cultures, I think. The French are often 
scared to play with language, because of the Académie and all it stands 
for. They will ask "Is this allowed?" I think this question would make 
Americans scoff; they are at the opposite end; they treat language as a 
plaything. Why do they do this? Perhaps because of 'status anxiety' and 
the need to impress others. We British are somewhere in between.

My guess is it's American playfulness that means so many expressions 
originate there. Unfortunately, the inventors aren't always skilled or 
logical - or don't prioritise logic - whence, perhaps, 'horseback 
riding' for horse riding. (This could be a reminder to put the saddle on 
its back and not its head.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145990

Hibou asserted that:

> My guess is it's American playfulness that means so many expressions 
> originate there. Unfortunately, the inventors aren't always skilled or 
> logical - or don't prioritise logic - 

Contra rhyming slang

> whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for 
> horse riding. (This could be a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not 
> its head.)

Or it could be a generalization of bareback riding.

-d

-- 
Who, me?  And what lacuna?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145991

On 29/06/26 15:27, Hibou wrote:

> whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for horse riding. (This could be
> a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not its head.)

There's something tickling at my memory, of a culture where people ride
on the shoulder/neck area of the horse. Is that just my imagination?

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145995

On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 10:38:51 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

>On 29/06/26 15:27, Hibou wrote:
>
>> whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for horse riding. (This could be
>> a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not its head.)
>
>There's something tickling at my memory, of a culture where people ride
>on the shoulder/neck area of the horse. Is that just my imagination?

Withers?


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146066

On 02/07/2026 01:38, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 29/06/26 15:27, Hibou wrote:
> 
>> whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for horse riding. (This could be
>> a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not its head.)
> 
> There's something tickling at my memory, of a culture where people ride
> on the shoulder/neck area of the horse. Is that just my imagination?
> 
A jockey tends to do something like that.  Once the race is under way 
they seem to leave the saddle and balance their weight in the stirrups.

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145994

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 06:27:12 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>My guess is it's American playfulness that means so many expressions 
>originate there. Unfortunately, the inventors aren't always skilled or 
>logical - or don't prioritise logic - whence, perhaps, 'horseback 
>riding' for horse riding. (This could be a reminder to put the saddle on 
>its back and not its head.)

Some quickly become universal, others hang around their country of
origin.

I recall "gobsmacked", which was probably confined to the UK. and
perhaps a small area in the UK before about 1990, but by the end of
the decade seemed to have reached most English-speaking countries. 

"Uni", on the other hand, which I believe began in Australia, has been
taken up in the UK, but not in most other English-speaking countries.
Here in South Africa we still use "varsity". One former South African
author, who emigrated to the UK, put it in the mouths of South African
students in a book set in the 1990s, and it looked horribly
inauthentic.[1]

Maybe in five years' time we'll all be using "receipts" to mean proof
and/or evidence, or maybe we won't. I still have to do a web search to
verify the usage of "red-pilled" and "blue-pilled" and "black-pilled"
every time I come across them. 

Notes

[1] "Sex and Stravinsky" by Barbara Trapido. My review here:

<https://ondermynende.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/sex-and-stravinsky/>




-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145885

Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:

> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.

But not LBW.  I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.

> No question here.  Just an observation.
> 

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145895

On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
>> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
>> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
>> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
> 
> But not LBW.  I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
> 
>> No question here.  Just an observation.
>>
> 
Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came
along.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145909

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> writes:

> On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>>> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
>>> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
>>> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
>>> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
>> 
>> But not LBW.  I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
> 
> Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came
> along.

No.  Enlightenment awaited.

I knew about the googol long before Google morphed and coopted it but
nothing like that ever came up with my Brit informant.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145911

On 30/06/2026 06:59, Mike Spencer wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> writes:
> 
>> On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>>>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>>>> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
>>>> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
>>>> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
>>>> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
>>>
>>> But not LBW.  I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
>>
>> Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came
>> along.
> 
> No.  Enlightenment awaited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googly

> 
> I knew about the googol long before Google morphed and coopted it but
> nothing like that ever came up with my Brit informant.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145923

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:51:07 +0200, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:

>> But not LBW.  I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
>> 
>>> No question here.  Just an observation.
>>>
>> 
>Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came
>along.

And "Chinaman"?


-- 
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145949

With a quizzical look, occam observed:
> On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>>> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
>>> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
>>> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
>>> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
>> 
>> But not LBW.  I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
>> 
>>> No question here.  Just an observation.
>>> 
>> 
> Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came
> along.

So did the eyes of Barney Google.

/dps

-- 
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought 
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. -- 
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145898

On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

8< snip >8
> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.

I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often
enough.

One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145899

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:53:49 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>8< snip >8
>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
>> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
>> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
>> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
>
>I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
>wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
>pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often
>enough.
>
>One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
>At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
>was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.


I didn't know that was a Britishism.  I also see/hear a variation of
that:  I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.

I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an ox,
let alone an Off one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145903

On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:53:49 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> 8< snip >8
>>> Consider, for example, "sticky wicket".  Most Americans have no real
>>> conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
>>> something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
>>> sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
>>> a difficult situation".  American readers/hearers will not consider
>>> this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
>>
>> I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
>> wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
>> pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often
>> enough.
>>
>> One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
>> At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
>> was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
> 
> 
> I didn't know that was a Britishism.  I also see/hear a variation of
> that:  I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
> 
> I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an ox,
> let alone an Off one.
> 
Good point.  One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the invention 
of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english

csiph-web