Live data from Hacker News

The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

theguardian.com

101–110 of 255 posts

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#101

There's two I like in particular as an American, but mostly because their counterparts are ruined. 'Good on you' is the biggest one. 'Good for you', especially in text, to me comes across as bitter or sarcastic because of how often it's used that way, whereas the other doesn't. 'Mate', while I don't use it, is a solid word. We have buddy, pal, guy, etc, but again, they can each have their own negative connotation. Ma…

> Maybe 'mate' does too, but it always seemed like a neutral, friendly word. It can be negative, definitely, if said with the right intonation.

I think in both British and Australian English, it's what you call someone when you are a hair's breadth away from walloping them.

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#102
post #27

Having grown up in the US with what I would consider a higher than average exposure to the early 2000s internet, at least compared to other peers my age, much of my ability to read and write actually came directly from social media, instant messengers and online games rather than books. This meant I often found myself struggling with spelling errors in English class which sadly resulted in deducted points from my ess…

> Unfortunately my teachers were a little unreasonable about this and would still deduct points when I pointed this out... I can see the teacher's perspective here. I don't think it's unreasonable for teachers to mark this down, though I don't think your request to get back the points was unreasonable either. Communicating effectively with your particular audience (the local American audience one in this case) is arg…

I personally don't care much for small misspellings and they add zero friction to my reading, I'm more interested in the message and how it is delivered to some extent. What adds friction are some styles of writing which diverge too much away from the essential.

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#103
post #27

Having grown up in the US with what I would consider a higher than average exposure to the early 2000s internet, at least compared to other peers my age, much of my ability to read and write actually came directly from social media, instant messengers and online games rather than books. This meant I often found myself struggling with spelling errors in English class which sadly resulted in deducted points from my ess…

I can never remember if I should use grey or gray

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#105
post #3

I once was talking wit some british people whilst in california and said "oh you can throw that garbage in the trash". They laughed and said it sounded really coarse, what did you do with it after? "It goes into a truck which takes it to the dump. Why, what do you say?" "We say you put your rubbish in the bin and the lorry takes it to the tip" which did sound more pleasant.

I'm fairly certain "dump" is the more commonly used word in the UK. There's the classic children's novel "Stig of the Dump" published in 1963. There's definitely cases where UK English has adopted a new word but American English hasn't. I was surprised to see the word "coupon" used in old UK literature. "Voucher" is the more common word nowadays. People would accuse you of being Americanised if you said coupon.

I’ve never met a fellow Brit who would say ‘dump’ instead of ‘tip’ in this context.

I also call my discount-loving fellow Brit friend ‘coupon boy’ rather than ‘voucher boy’!

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#106
post #3

I once was talking wit some british people whilst in california and said "oh you can throw that garbage in the trash". They laughed and said it sounded really coarse, what did you do with it after? "It goes into a truck which takes it to the dump. Why, what do you say?" "We say you put your rubbish in the bin and the lorry takes it to the tip" which did sound more pleasant.

I'm fairly certain "dump" is the more commonly used word in the UK. There's the classic children's novel "Stig of the Dump" published in 1963. There's definitely cases where UK English has adopted a new word but American English hasn't. I was surprised to see the word "coupon" used in old UK literature. "Voucher" is the more common word nowadays. People would accuse you of being Americanised if you said coupon.

Tip is definitely more common everywhere I've lived in the UK.

Stig of the Dump is set in an informal place people dump rubbish, if I remember correctly, which is where people are more likely to use the term (e.g: "what a dump"), but if you are talking about a managed place it is taken to be disposed of properly, tip is by far the more common term I hear used.

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#107
post #84
post #3

I once was talking wit some british people whilst in california and said "oh you can throw that garbage in the trash". They laughed and said it sounded really coarse, what did you do with it after? "It goes into a truck which takes it to the dump. Why, what do you say?" "We say you put your rubbish in the bin and the lorry takes it to the tip" which did sound more pleasant.

That reminds me of a phrase I've seen on signs in both the UK and in Aus/NZ (IIRC): "No fly tipping". I'm not sure if this is actually correct usage in those countries, or slang, but it certainly feels much more like slang, and felt virtually impenetrable, even to someone who's been exposed to a fair but of UK-isms in his life.

I wouldn't call it slang, it is the common way to refer to the act in media, and the government uses it, e.g: https://www.gov.uk/report-flytipping (they do define it, however, as you say, it would be unclear if you aren't familiar).

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#108
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just because you understand something that doesn't mean it can't slow you down, distract you, or be detrimental some other way Sure. I'm just sceptical that errant signal isn't lost in the background of the American dialect's regional heterogeneity. If I ask someone in San Francisco "what colour pop" they want, the friction won't come from the "u."

A better example for why regionality matters: what does "pants" refer to?

Rubbish / nonsense / drivel / twaddle / claptrap etc. Virtually unknown outside the UK.

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#109
post #78

Brit living in the US here. Despite being here 7 years now i'll every so often have an American point out how odd something I say is. Recently it was me saying "I'll need to head home and get my swimming costume before heading to the pool". To which the response was "wow wow wow, "swimming costume"? Really? A costume. Not a uniform but a costume; something you wear for halloween? OMG that's adorable" Turns out Americ…

I'm not sure about other Americans, but I'll sometimes say "swim[ming] trunks" if I'm specifically referring to male swimming attire. Otherwise, yeah, it's often "swim[ming] suit" or "bathing suit" here.

Since male swimming attire comes in different shapes (ahem designs), I hear people use «swimmers» more and more.

Save for one singular design which, it would seem, distinguishes itself with such remarkable uniqueness as to warrant the bestowal of its very own appellation: «budgie smugglers» (AusE).

Re: The other British invasion: how UK lingo conquered the US

#110
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what a tired dog does.

No, they only pant. ----------------- OK, at this point I really need to explain what on earth is going on here: "what does "pants" refer to?" - pants refers to trousers and pants refers to underpants and of course pants refers to pants as a noun. Pants also refers to heavy breathing as a verb. I have absolutely no idea how we ended up with this situation, where pant(s) is a noun and a verb and really odd. I'm going…

> how we ended up with this situation, where pant(s) is a noun and a verb and really odd. I'm going to blame Britain, US and Italy (via Latin) and not necessarily in that order.

Because (in English) adding -s(/-es) makes plurals of (most regular) nouns, and also makes 3rd person singular declension of (most regular) verbs.

Other examples of noun+verb collocations: books, shows, scents, raises, views, votes, comments, dates, dogs, aims, bugs, ends, grades, hunts, launches, lifts, marks, moves, posts, rains, rates, records, rows, sets, signals, tracks... Examples with -es: searches, watches, punches

(This is going to be much more common in English than Italian/Spanish/Latin because English uses -s/-es for both nouns and verbs.)

Post reply on HN