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

Groups > alt.usage.english > #1145773 > unrolled thread

Receipts

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

Contents

  Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-26 17:00 +0200
    Re: Receipts athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-26 15:01 +0000
      Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-26 19:17 +0100
        Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-27 05:02 +0200
          Re: Receipts The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 06:10 -0400
            Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 03:29 +0200
            Re: Receipts Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-29 02:17 -0300
        Re: Receipts Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-27 15:47 +1000
          Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-27 11:15 +0100
            Re: Receipts nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-27 13:25 +0200
            Re: Receipts Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-06-28 08:29 +0100
              Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 17:09 +0200
          Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:49 +0200
          Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 11:30 -0400
            Re: Receipts richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-06-27 18:49 +0000
              Re: Receipts liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-06-27 21:58 +0100
              Re: Receipts Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-28 11:21 +1000
                Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-28 05:51 +0100
              Re: Receipts Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2026-06-28 18:57 +1200
                Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-28 11:46 +0100
                  Re: Receipts Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 19:40 -0700
                    Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-01 07:19 +0100
                      Re: Receipts Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 03:21 -0700
                        Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-01 11:49 +0100
                        Re: Receipts Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-01 21:16 +1000
                          Re: Receipts athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-07-01 12:57 +0000
                            Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-01 15:40 +0100
                              Re: Receipts Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-02 09:44 +1000
                      Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-07-02 05:16 +0200
                        Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-02 06:11 +0100
                          Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-07-03 08:28 +0200
                            Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-04 11:55 +0100
        Re: Receipts occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-06-27 14:22 +0200
          Re: Receipts Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> - 2026-06-27 18:18 +0100
            Re: Receipts ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-27 18:35 +0000
              Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:05 -0400
      Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-27 04:44 +0200
        Re: Receipts nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-27 13:25 +0200
          Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 03:39 +0200
            Re: Receipts nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-28 11:01 +0200
              Re: Receipts Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-28 21:21 +1000
              Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-28 15:48 +0200
                Re: Receipts nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-28 21:32 +0200
                  Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-29 17:45 +0200
            Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-28 15:42 +0200
    Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-26 18:13 +0200
      Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:57 -0400
        Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:40 +0200
          Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 11:01 -0400
            Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 03:53 +0200
              Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 23:26 -0400
          Re: Receipts Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-28 11:37 +1000
            Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-28 05:51 +0100
            Re: Receipts nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-28 11:01 +0200
      Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-26 19:24 +0100
        Re: Receipts liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-06-27 12:23 +0100
        Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:41 +0200
          Re: Receipts Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:39 +0100
      Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-27 05:04 +0200
    Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-26 12:46 -0400
      Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-27 05:25 +0200
        Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 00:31 -0400
          Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-27 19:00 +0200
            Re: Receipts The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 13:16 -0400
              Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-27 19:33 +0200
              Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 04:09 +0200
                Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 23:25 -0400
            Re: Receipts Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 14:51 -0400
        Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:58 +0200
          Re: Receipts Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 04:16 +0200
            Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-28 10:16 +0200
      Re: Receipts "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-06-27 13:31 +0200
    Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 12:10 +0800
      Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-27 19:05 +0200
        Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-06-27 15:01 -0400
          Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 12:54 +0800
        Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-27 23:10 +0200
          Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-06-28 04:21 +0200
            Re: Receipts ... ignore threads? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 12:53 +0800
            Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-06-28 09:35 +0200
              Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 18:19 +0800
                Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-06-28 21:28 +1000
                  Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-06-29 08:16 +0200
                    Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:18 +0800
            Re: Receipts <-- mis-dictation? cursed? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-06-28 11:01 +0200
          Re: Receipts ... forcing delta updates to old NNTP servers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-28 12:46 +0800
    Re: Receipts vs Magical Talisman??? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 14:42 +0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#1145948

With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
> Le 28/06/2026 à 07:57, Ross Clark a écrit :
>> 
>> I don't think I'd ever heard it before, but I was in no doubt about its 
>> meaning and origin when I saw it here. "Receipts" are such a common and 
>> crucial type of evidence in cases where someone is accused of receiving 
>> stolen goods, misappropriation of public funds, etc. A proper receipt will 
>> show not only that you bought it, but when, where, for how much, and from 
>> whom. [...]
>
>
> The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked like an 
> error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better plain English 
> than a limping attempt at decoration.

Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.  Sometimes 
plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.

There is also the impact the phrase has had on the speaker ... if a 
bunch of recent usages has moved the phrase to the front, it might have 
displaced the plain English, and seem clearer to the speaker.

And there was a time when "evidence" and "proof" weren't plain English. 
 Language evolves despite curmudgeons best efforts.

[Proof is interesting, because some of the meanings that aren't 
applicable in the discussed context are still around.  Maybe we should 
test that idea again.]

> Anyway, when buying a new metaphor it's wise to keep the receipt. Then if it 
> doesn't suit, you can return it for a refund.

Most return policies have a time limit.  But one of occam's favored 
streamers has collaborated on a stream about English words that have 
been lost but would be useful if brought back.

/dps

-- 
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night.  I do not know 
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
  _Roughing It_, Mark Twain

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

#1145953

Le 01/07/2026 à 03:40, Snidely a écrit :
> With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
>>
>> The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked 
>> like an error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better 
>> plain English than a limping attempt at decoration.
> 
> Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.  Sometimes 
> plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.


In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces 
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration. 
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers 
and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting 
children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of 
receipts?

> There is also the impact the phrase has had on the speaker ... if a 
> bunch of recent usages has moved the phrase to the front, it might have 
> displaced the plain English, and seem clearer to the speaker.


Metaphors are dangerous, because they so often die or become clichés or 
both. Standard words generally have a much longer life.

In a world where so many try to ginger up their sentences, plain English 
has great power.

> And there was a time when "evidence" and "proof" weren't plain English. 
> Language evolves despite curmudgeons best efforts. [...]


Is it only curmudgeons, surly miserly people, who object to linguistic 
misuse? What about the good people of aue and aeu, who love the language 
and would rather not see it come to harm?

Would it be curmudgeonly to object to someone using our carefully 
sharpened chisels as screwdrivers?

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

#1145962

Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously?  That was Tuesday:
> Le 01/07/2026 à 03:40, Snidely a écrit :
>> With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
>>>
>>> The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked like 
>>> an error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better plain 
>>> English than a limping attempt at decoration.
>> 
>> Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.  Sometimes plain 
>> English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
>
>
> In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces deliberately 
> choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration. Trying to enliven it 
> with non-standard words risks distracting readers and weakening it. If one 
> has evoked an image of soldiers shooting children, does it help to overlay 
> that with a picture of a stack of receipts?

You mean a stack of register papers.  Try to get it right.

[that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at you]

You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're 
having.  While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to 
support either claim.  I am going to assume that there were enough 
people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should 
consider it acceptable in the context.

>> There is also the impact the phrase has had on the speaker ... if a bunch 
>> of recent usages has moved the phrase to the front, it might have displaced 
>> the plain English, and seem clearer to the speaker.
>
>
> Metaphors are dangerous, because they so often die or become clichés or both. 
> Standard words generally have a much longer life.
>
> In a world where so many try to ginger up their sentences, plain English has 
> great power.
>
>> And there was a time when "evidence" and "proof" weren't plain English. 
>> Language evolves despite curmudgeons best efforts. [...]
>
>
> Is it only curmudgeons, surly miserly people, who object to linguistic 
> misuse? What about the good people of aue and aeu, who love the language and 
> would rather not see it come to harm?

Is it only the curmudgeons that get to decide what is misuse and harm?

> Would it be curmudgeonly to object to someone using our carefully sharpened 
> chisels as screwdrivers?

There are times when that is entirely appropriate.

/dps

-- 
Courage is knowing it might hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same.
And that's why life is hard.
                   -- the World Wide Web

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

#1145964

Le 01/07/2026 à 11:21, Snidely a écrit :
> Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously?  That was Tuesday:
>> Le 01/07/2026 à 03:40, Snidely a écrit :
>>>
>>> Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.  Sometimes 
>>> plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
>>
>> In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces 
>> deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration. 
>> Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers 
>> and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting 
>> children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of 
>> receipts?
> 
> You mean a stack of register papers.  Try to get it right.
> 
> [that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at you]


I fear there may be a mismatch between what you've sent and what I've 
received. I think I'd say that if one has to add a comment to words to 
explain them, then they may not be the right ones.

(It's a universal problem. There's not much I write that I wouldn't 
revise later. What you see from me in aue is first drafts, I'm afraid.)

> You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're 
> having.  While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to 
> support either claim.  I am going to assume that there were enough 
> people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should 
> consider it acceptable in the context. [...]


I have made no claim. I have looked at it from the writer's (or 
speaker's) point of view, thinking how best to express an idea. If the 
metaphor is live, it will in this case evoke a distracting image. If 
it's dead, then what is the reason for using it?

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

#1145965

On 01/07/26 20:21, Snidely wrote:
> Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously?  That was Tuesday:

[Topic: the use of "receipts" to mean "proof" or "evidence".]

>> In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
>> deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
>>  Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting
>> readers and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers
>> shooting children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a
>> stack of receipts?
>
> You mean a stack of register papers.  Try to get it right.
>
> [that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at
> you]
>
> You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're
> having.  While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to
>  support either claim.  I am going to assume that there were enough
> people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should
> consider it acceptable in the context.

Enough information flows around the world that we're usually aware of
words that are used differently in different countries. So, for example,
if I hear someone using "gas" for a liquid fuel, I know that that is
perfectly normal AmE. I wouldn't say it myself, but I understand it when
I hear it.

That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages, people
who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of at least some
of the other dialects.

The present case is unusual because the non-Americans among us had never
heard "receipts" being used in that way. We were completely blindsided
by it. For whatever reason, that usage had not escaped the borders of
north America. And the explanations were slow in coming. When we heard
that that meaning was understood by one person in Flanders and another
in Florida, it wasn't yet clear that a lot of Americans understood it.

I, like Hibou, am still uncomfortable with it. The news that started
this discussion was revelations by doctors of large numbers of young
children who had been killed by a single shot to the head. (Something
that doesn't often happen accidentally.) Using a cash register metaphor
for that sounds tasteless, and an attempt to trivialise the incidents.

We wouldn't be disagreeing if the meaning "recieipts"="evidence" was
widespread in the English-speaking world; but it isn't.

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

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

#1145969

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:

> On 01/07/26 20:21, Snidely wrote:
> > Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously?  That was Tuesday:
> 
> [Topic: the use of "receipts" to mean "proof" or "evidence".]
> 
> >> In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
> >> deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
> >>  Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting
> >> readers and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers
> >> shooting children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a
> >> stack of receipts?
> >
> > You mean a stack of register papers.  Try to get it right.
> >
> > [that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at
> > you]
> >
> > You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're
> > having.  While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to
> >  support either claim.  I am going to assume that there were enough
> > people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should
> > consider it acceptable in the context.
> 
> Enough information flows around the world that we're usually aware of
> words that are used differently in different countries. So, for example,
> if I hear someone using "gas" for a liquid fuel, I know that that is
> perfectly normal AmE. I wouldn't say it myself, but I understand it when
> I hear it.
> 
> That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages, people
> who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of at least some
> of the other dialects.

Yes, but misunderstandings can still arise. The common everyday word for
baby is "guagua" in Chile, Peru and Ecuador; in Cuba and the Canary Islands
the same word means bus. Elsewhere the word isn't used, but is understood 
with the bus meaning, and confusion can arise if you ask for the sección de
guaguas in a shop in Madrid, as my wife once did. She wasn't interested in
buying a bus.
> 
> The present case is unusual because the non-Americans among us had never
> heard "receipts" being used in that way. We were completely blindsided
> by it. For whatever reason, that usage had not escaped the borders of
> north America. And the explanations were slow in coming. When we heard
> that that meaning was understood by one person in Flanders and another
> in Florida, it wasn't yet clear that a lot of Americans understood it.
> 
> I, like Hibou, am still uncomfortable with it. The news that started
> this discussion was revelations by doctors of large numbers of young
> children who had been killed by a single shot to the head. (Something
> that doesn't often happen accidentally.) Using a cash register metaphor
> for that sounds tasteless, and an attempt to trivialise the incidents.
> 
> We wouldn't be disagreeing if the meaning "recieipts"="evidence" was
> widespread in the English-speaking world; but it isn't.
> 


-- 
athel

Living in Marseilles for 39 years; mainly in England before that,
with long periods in Singapore, California, Chile and Canada 

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

#1145970

Le 01/07/2026 à 13:57, athel.cb@gmail.com a écrit :
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:
>>
>> That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages, people
>> who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of at least some
>> of the other dialects.
> 
> Yes, but misunderstandings can still arise. The common everyday word for
> baby is "guagua" in Chile, Peru and Ecuador; in Cuba and the Canary Islands
> the same word means bus. Elsewhere the word isn't used, but is understood
> with the bus meaning, and confusion can arise if you ask for the sección de
> guaguas in a shop in Madrid, as my wife once did. She wasn't interested in
> buying a bus.


"I'm gasping for a fag!"

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

#1145987

On 02/07/26 00:40, Hibou wrote:
> Le 01/07/2026 à 13:57, athel.cb@gmail.com a écrit :
>> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:
>>>
>>> That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages,
>>> people who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of
>>> at least some of the other dialects.
>>
>> Yes, but misunderstandings can still arise. The common everyday
>> word for baby is "guagua" in Chile, Peru and Ecuador; in Cuba and
>> the Canary Islands the same word means bus. Elsewhere the word
>> isn't used, but is understood with the bus meaning, and confusion
>> can arise if you ask for the sección de guaguas in a shop in
>> Madrid, as my wife once did. She wasn't interested in buying a
>> bus.
>
> "I'm gasping for a fag!"

I was once shocked by "I could murder a Paki".

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

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

#1145993

On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 07:19:19 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>Le 01/07/2026 à 03:40, Snidely a écrit :
>> With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
>>>
>>> The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked 
>>> like an error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better 
>>> plain English than a limping attempt at decoration.
>> 
>> Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.  Sometimes 
>> plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
>
>
>In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces 
>deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration. 
>Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers 
>and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting 
>children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of 
>receipts?

I suppose that depends on who the writer imagines the readers will be.
I take it that the writer is a journalist, and assumes that the
readers, or most of them, will be familiar with the idiom. 

The problem that occurs to me is that apparently most of those who are
familiar with the idiom are in the US, but it is the US media that
have done most to hide the events referred to, so that those most
familiar with the facts would find the idiom unfamiliar, and those
familiar with the idiom would find the facts incredible. 


-- 
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]

#1146001

Le 02/07/2026 à 04:16, Steve Hayes a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
>> deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
>> Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers
>> and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting
>> children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of
>> receipts?
> 
> I suppose that depends on who the writer imagines the readers will be.
> I take it that the writer is a journalist, and assumes that the
> readers, or most of them, will be familiar with the idiom.
> 
> The problem that occurs to me is that apparently most of those who are
> familiar with the idiom are in the US, but it is the US media that
> have done most to hide the events referred to, so that those most
> familiar with the facts would find the idiom unfamiliar, and those
> familiar with the idiom would find the facts incredible.


An unfamiliar metaphor can work well, and is probably (always?) a live 
one. A familiar one may be worn out, dead or moribund, but there may 
still be reason to use it. It may, for example, have become a common or 
the usual way to say something (brand new¹, falling in love, cut 
corners…) and quite unremarkable.


¹Glowing new, as if fresh from the furnace (OED: "New bodyes, new 
myndes, … and all thinges new, brande new" - Foxe, 1570). 'Neuf/neuve' 
en français.

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

#1146093

On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 06:11:45 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

>Le 02/07/2026 à 04:16, Steve Hayes a écrit :
>> Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>> In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
>>> deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
>>> Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers
>>> and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting
>>> children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of
>>> receipts?
>> 
>> I suppose that depends on who the writer imagines the readers will be.
>> I take it that the writer is a journalist, and assumes that the
>> readers, or most of them, will be familiar with the idiom.
>> 
>> The problem that occurs to me is that apparently most of those who are
>> familiar with the idiom are in the US, but it is the US media that
>> have done most to hide the events referred to, so that those most
>> familiar with the facts would find the idiom unfamiliar, and those
>> familiar with the idiom would find the facts incredible.
>
>
>An unfamiliar metaphor can work well, and is probably (always?) a live 
>one. A familiar one may be worn out, dead or moribund, but there may 
>still be reason to use it. It may, for example, have become a common or 
>the usual way to say something (brand new¹, falling in love, cut 
>corners…) and quite unremarkable.

I wouldn't say "always" -- claiming to have receiptts for dead
children, if one is not familiar with the metaphor, suggests that they
were receipts for bounty paid or something like that. And yes,
historically bounties have been paid for exidence of the death of
people of certain ethnic backgrounds, Bushmen in southern Africa, for
example. 


-- 
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]

#1146188

Le 03/07/2026 à 07:28, Steve Hayes a écrit :
> Hibou wrote:
>>
>> An unfamiliar metaphor can work well, and is probably (always?) a live
>> one. A familiar one may be worn out, dead or moribund, but there may
>> still be reason to use it. It may, for example, have become a common or
>> the usual way to say something (brand new, falling in love, cut
>> corners…) and quite unremarkable.
> 
> I wouldn't say "always" -- claiming to have receiptts for dead
> children, if one is not familiar with the metaphor, suggests that they
> were receipts for bounty paid or something like that.


I hadn't thought that far. In a presentation, that would make a good 
bullet point.

> And yes,
> historically bounties have been paid for exidence of the death of
> people of certain ethnic backgrounds, Bushmen in southern Africa, for
> example.

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

#1145812

On 26/06/2026 20:17, Hibou wrote:
> Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there
> for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
> networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
> this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
> in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
> as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what
> the original might be, though.

One possible interpretation of "receipt" is "proof".   The word for both
"proof" and 'receipt' in Greek is απόδειξη (apódeixi).

 So it is possible that the author was thinking in Greek and writing in
English or that he was writing in Greek and the AI translated it as
'receipt' in English.


[Twitter is not a source I'd trust, it is full of illiterate morons.]

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

#1145822

On 27/06/2026 13:22, occam wrote:
> On 26/06/2026 20:17, Hibou wrote:
>> Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there
>> for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
>> networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
>> this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
>> in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
>> as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what
>> the original might be, though.
> 
> One possible interpretation of "receipt" is "proof".   The word for both
> "proof" and 'receipt' in Greek is απόδειξη (apódeixi).
> 

Yes, this. In my (BrE) understanding, 'having the receipts' can mean 
having the proof, if required, that certain works have been carried out 
as specified, for example. In this case, it doesn't seem to be being 
used quite in that sense, but it seems like a logical extension thereof.

-- 
Phil B

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

#1145824

Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>Yes, this. In my (BrE) understanding, 'having the receipts' can mean 
>having the proof

  When someone accuses a person of having stolen some goods,
  the person might say, "I have the shopping receipts!".
  Those receipts /prove/ that the person has not stolen those
  goods. 

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

#1145828

On 27 Jun 2026 18:35:41 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:

>Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>>Yes, this. In my (BrE) understanding, 'having the receipts' can mean 
>>having the proof
>
>  When someone accuses a person of having stolen some goods,
>  the person might say, "I have the shopping receipts!".
>  Those receipts /prove/ that the person has not stolen those
>  goods. 
>

True, but the security person who accuses the person can say "He's a
thief, and I have the receipts." when his meaning is that security has
video footage of the theft.

"Receipts", in current usage, doesn't necessarily mean paper proof.

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

#1145788

On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

>
>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
>
>> Receipts - English usage                            24 June 2026
>>     "In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
>>     before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
>>     the receipts are there for all to see..."
>> 
>>     What does "receipts" mean in this context?
>> 
>Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
>anything.

It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
asking the question here.

To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
sense in that context:

1. A written acknowledgement of payment received. 

2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion. 





-- 
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]

#1145805

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
> <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
> >
> >> Receipts - English usage                            24 June 2026
> >>     "In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
> >>     before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
> >>     the receipts are there for all to see..."
> >> 
> >>     What does "receipts" mean in this context?
> >> 
> >Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
> >anything.
> 
> It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
> asking the question here.
> 
> To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
> sense in that context:
> 
> 1. A written acknowledgement of payment received. 
> 
> 2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
> ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion. 

OT, because relating to the matter at hand:
(from a Dutch newspaper)
<https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2025/gunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>

While deliberate intent is of course hard to prove,
the material evidence certainly points that way,

Jan

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

#1145835

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:25:50 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
>> <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
>> >
>> >> Receipts - English usage                            24 June 2026
>> >>     "In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
>> >>     before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
>> >>     the receipts are there for all to see..."
>> >> 
>> >>     What does "receipts" mean in this context?
>> >> 
>> >Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
>> >anything.
>> 
>> It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
>> asking the question here.
>> 
>> To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
>> sense in that context:
>> 
>> 1. A written acknowledgement of payment received. 
>> 
>> 2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
>> ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion. 
>
>OT, because relating to the matter at hand:
>(from a Dutch newspaper)
><https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2025/gunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>
>
>While deliberate intent is of course hard to prove,
>the material evidence certainly points that way,

That link led me to this one, where the result is too out of focus to
read:

<https://myprivacy.dpgmedia.nl/consent?siteKey=PUBX2BuuZfEPJ6vF&callbackUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkskrant.nl%2Fprivacygate-confirm%3FredirectUri%3D%252Fkijkverder%252Fv%252F2025%252Fgunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649%252F%253Freferrer%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.google.com%25252F&isLoggedIn=false>

Are you saying that Dutch has a similar trope to the AmE one?


-- 
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]

#1145861

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:25:50 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
> 
> >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
> >> <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
> >> >
> >> >> Receipts - English usage                            24 June 2026
> >> >>     "In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
> >> >>     before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
> >> >>     the receipts are there for all to see..."
> >> >> 
> >> >>     What does "receipts" mean in this context?
> >> >> 
> >> >Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
> >> >anything.
> >> 
> >> It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
> >> asking the question here.
> >> 
> >> To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
> >> sense in that context:
> >> 
> >> 1. A written acknowledgement of payment received. 
> >> 
> >> 2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
> >> ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion. 
> >
> >OT, because relating to the matter at hand:
> >(from a Dutch newspaper)
> ><https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2025/gunshot-palestine-children-israe
l-war~v1819649/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>
> >
> >While deliberate intent is of course hard to prove,
> >the material evidence certainly points that way,
> 
> That link led me to this one, where the result is too out of focus to
> read:
> 
> <https://myprivacy.dpgmedia.nl/consent?siteKey=PUBX2BuuZfEPJ6vF&callbackUrl=ht
tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkskrant.nl%2Fprivacygate-confirm%3FredirectUri%3D%252Fkijkverder%252Fv%252F2025%252Fgunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649%252F%253Freferrer%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.google.com%25252F&isLoggedIn=false>

That's just a larger version of the same article.

> Are you saying that Dutch has a similar trope to the AmE one?

Of course not. It seems to be a typically American abuse of language.

Dutch has 'reçu' for 'receipt' with the meaning of proof of having given
something/having delivered something. (same as 'bewijs van ontvangst')
From French of course.
It has 'recept' for English 'recipe', (usually culinary)

Jan

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web