Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Dec 19, 2013 - 12:40 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

"There's No Place Like Home for the Holidays" - Robert Allen and Al Stillman - (P) 1954, recorded (and quite successfully so) by Perry Como.

Predating, I believe, the concept of "political correctness." Christmas and New Years, and usually some time off of work associated therewith. It is an economy of words, pure and simple. Give it a rest.


That song could just as easily apply to Thanksgiving, or any holiday really. Some might say the pumpkin pie lyric fairly limits it to Thanksgiving and Christmas, though.

 
 Posted:   Dec 19, 2013 - 1:18 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)


Christmas and New Years, and usually some time off of work associated therewith. It is an economy of words, pure and simple. Give it a rest.



New year's what, Dana? Eve? Day? Economy of words is all very well, but surely not at the expense of clarity.


All the above. Economy good. Clarity not economical.

 
 Posted:   Dec 19, 2013 - 1:19 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

"There's No Place Like Home for the Holidays" - Robert Allen and Al Stillman - (P) 1954, recorded (and quite successfully so) by Perry Como.

Predating, I believe, the concept of "political correctness." Christmas and New Years, and usually some time off of work associated therewith. It is an economy of words, pure and simple. Give it a rest.


That song could just as easily apply to Thanksgiving, or any holiday really. Some might say the pumpkin pie lyric fairly limits it to Thanksgiving and Christmas, though.


Some might. Your point?

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 19, 2013 - 1:30 PM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)


Christmas and New Years, and usually some time off of work associated therewith. It is an economy of words, pure and simple. Give it a rest.



New year's what, Dana? Eve? Day? Economy of words is all very well, but surely not at the expense of clarity.


All the above. Economy good. Clarity not economical.



You just disproved that!

 
 Posted:   Dec 19, 2013 - 2:31 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)


Christmas and New Years, and usually some time off of work associated therewith. It is an economy of words, pure and simple. Give it a rest.



New year's what, Dana? Eve? Day? Economy of words is all very well, but surely not at the expense of clarity.


All the above. Economy good. Clarity not economical.



You just disproved that!


New Years Eve and New Years Day are both regarded as celebratory, though the latter may pass without much notice (or alternatively, through a haze of pain) depending upon the intensity of one's celebration on the former. On the other hand, being an enthusiastic aficionado of American college football, I tend to regard the latter as more the cause for celebration because of the proliferation of said athletic contests on New Years Day. As a parsimonious imbiber of alcoholic beverages, and one who attributes little significance to the illusory "passage" from one year to the next, New Years Eve is for me of but minor interest. Retracing our steps to the phrase in question, it would thus for me tend to be more a reference to New Years Day, while to many (most, perhaps) the presumption, regardless of my unspoken intent, would be of a reference to New Year's Eve.

Satisfied now??

 
 Posted:   Dec 19, 2013 - 5:46 PM   
 By:   Ron Hardcastle   (Member)

Graham S. Watt Re: "Ron, were you wearing suspenders too?"

Sorry to disappoint you, GSW, but I've never worn suspenders once in my life.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 4:36 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)


Christmas and New Years, and usually some time off of work associated therewith. It is an economy of words, pure and simple. Give it a rest.



New year's what, Dana? Eve? Day? Economy of words is all very well, but surely not at the expense of clarity.


All the above. Economy good. Clarity not economical.



You just disproved that!


New Years Eve and New Years Day are both regarded as celebratory, though the latter may pass without much notice (or alternatively, through a haze of pain) depending upon the intensity of one's celebration on the former. On the other hand, being an enthusiastic aficionado of American college football, I tend to regard the latter as more the cause for celebration because of the proliferation of said athletic contests on New Years Day. As a parsimonious imbiber of alcoholic beverages, and one who attributes little significance to the illusory "passage" from one year to the next, New Years Eve is for me of but minor interest. Retracing our steps to the phrase in question, it would thus for me tend to be more a reference to New Years Day, while to many (most, perhaps) the presumption, regardless of my unspoken intent, would be of a reference to New Year's Eve.

Satisfied now??



Oh, Dana - you don't half go on sometimes... smile

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 4:53 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

Graham S. Watt Re: "Ron, were you wearing suspenders too?"

Sorry to disappoint you, GSW, but I've never worn suspenders once in my life.



Always a full pair of tights, eh? Passion killer!

So far, I don't think anyone's mentioned an Amercian expression which is guaranteed to raise eyebrows in the UK - "I could care less". Literally the opposite of what is meant! A rare case of omitting a vital word instead of shoehorning in a superfluous one?

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 5:07 AM   
 By:   Graham S. Watt   (Member)

I always thought that the "I could care less" expression was just millions of people making the same mistake. Is it actually acceptable in the US of A?

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 5:13 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

I always thought that the "I could care less" expression was just millions of people making the same mistake. Is it actually acceptable in the US of A?

That's what I've always thought as well. (Kind of like saying {or writing} "should of" instead of "should have". In other words, just laziness with words during the course of a conversation.)

 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 5:39 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

There's a bit of misconception about the 'I could care less' thing, gents.

It's usually delivered in a particular ironic sounding way. It's really in the tradition of New York imported Jewish humour, which is always ironic. LISTEN TO HOW THEY ACTUALLY SAY IT.




On the surface, in THAT context, although the MEANING is, 'I could care more', actually it should be read:

(a) as a shortening of, 'AS IF I could care less!' (that's how it's always EMPHASISED, when you hear it),

(b) 'I could care LESS?' with that all-essential question-mark at the end.

(c) 'I could care less if I really tried, I suppose, but ...'

(d) 'I could care less?' or 'You think I of all people could care less about this?'



You have to imagine it with a NY accent, and listen to how Americans actually SAY it.


Who says the Americans don't have irony? In this case, more than UK folk give them the credit for .... 'I couldn't care less' has no irony, and isn't a funny statement, 'I could care less' is funny and ironic, which is the purpose. Think of it as, 'I could care less, are you kiddin'?'

 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 6:03 AM   
 By:   DOGBELLE   (Member)


sorry lost my thought.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 20, 2013 - 7:14 AM   
 By:   Graham S. Watt   (Member)

There's a bit of misconception about the 'I could care less' thing, gents.

It's usually delivered in a particular ironic sounding way. It's really in the tradition of New York imported Jewish humour, which is always ironic. LISTEN TO HOW THEY ACTUALLY SAY IT.




On the surface, in THAT context, although the MEANING is, 'I could care more', actually it should be read:

(a) as a shortening of, 'AS IF I could care less!' (that's how it's always EMPHASISED, when you hear it),

(b) 'I could care LESS?' with that all-essential question-mark at the end.

(c) 'I could care less if I really tried, I suppose, but ...'

(d) 'I could care less?' or 'You think I of all people could care less about this?'



You have to imagine it with a NY accent, and listen to how Americans actually SAY it.


Who says the Americans don't have irony? In this case, more than UK folk give them the credit for .... 'I couldn't care less' has no irony, and isn't a funny statement, 'I could care less' is funny and ironic, which is the purpose. Think of it as, 'I could care less, are you kiddin'?'


Now, there's another thing I've learned. Thank you Mr Crum. It makes sense now when I hear it in my head with the right accent.

Here's a crap joke (literally):

A bandy-legged man from the Bronx catches the attention of an Englishman on holiday. Noticing his strange gait, the Englishman asks, "Excuse me sir, have you soiled your trousers?", to which the Nooyorker replies, "SOILED 'em? I only just BOIGHT 'em!"

Mind you, they could have stretched things out a bit more with some pants misunderstandings.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 4:51 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)

There's a bit of misconception about the 'I could care less' thing, gents.

It's usually delivered in a particular ironic sounding way. It's really in the tradition of New York imported Jewish humour, which is always ironic. LISTEN TO HOW THEY ACTUALLY SAY IT.




On the surface, in THAT context, although the MEANING is, 'I could care more', actually it should be read:

(a) as a shortening of, 'AS IF I could care less!' (that's how it's always EMPHASISED, when you hear it),

(b) 'I could care LESS?' with that all-essential question-mark at the end.

(c) 'I could care less if I really tried, I suppose, but ...'

(d) 'I could care less?' or 'You think I of all people could care less about this?'



You have to imagine it with a NY accent, and listen to how Americans actually SAY it.


Who says the Americans don't have irony? In this case, more than UK folk give them the credit for .... 'I couldn't care less' has no irony, and isn't a funny statement, 'I could care less' is funny and ironic, which is the purpose. Think of it as, 'I could care less, are you kiddin'?'


Thanks for all that, William. Except I'm not buying it. That may well be how it started, and it may well still be said ironically by a few people in Noo Yoik or wherever, but it's in too common usage now for that always to be the case. I've just searched for the phrase "could care less" in a couple of random FSM years, and there are dozens of entries, the vast majority using the phrase conversationally - dismissively, perhaps, but not with any obvious cause for irony.

If you are right (and I'm not saying you aren't) the use of the phrase is now habitual. I've long argued that Americans have a better-developed sense of irony than often thought, but I still don't think it's the default attitude during normal discussion.

TG

 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 5:20 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

That may well be how it started, and it may well still be said ironically by a few people in Noo Yoik or wherever, but it's in too common usage now for that always to be the case. I've just searched for the phrase "could care less" in a couple of random FSM years, and there are dozens of entries, the vast majority using the phrase conversationally - dismissively, perhaps, but not with any obvious cause for irony.

If you are right (and I'm not saying you aren't) the use of the phrase is now habitual. TG





What you're saying, Tallguy, is that the phrase has so entered normal parlance that it's now become a catchphrase that people no longer think about, and have no 'irony' as they say it. And many who grew up with it no longer understand it as they use it. That's probably true, but the phase ITSELF is still ironic. Phrases still mean the same even when people who use them don't understand them.

In the internet generation, there's this thing of abbreviating stuff: 'lol' is easier to write than what it means. So people use an economy of lingo when they speak, a sort of shorthand, and this phase is one of those shorthands, people use it without thinking about its meaning.

But y'know, that's the story of ALL language, it develops. Not necessarily, or inherently better, it just evolves, and yes, it sometimes degenerates. People say 'awesome' as a shorthand too, without bothering re what it used to mean. It was at one time ironic and witty when used that way, exaggeration, nowadays some people just think it's the word to use. The first time anyone said, 'Awesome' in that way, or 'I could care less ...' it was very funny, and that's exactly why it would've caught on. Now they've lost their fun value, but they're with us.

But all language is shorthand anyway. It's easier to say 'spade' than 'entrenching tool'.

Another Jewish/NY thing is the use of '...already' to finish sentences, especially if you're slightly exasperated. I'm not sure if it came out of a translated Yiddish phrase, but it has a meaning, namely a shorthand for 'as you already know', or 'as you should know already', or 'I shouldn't need to tell you this...' or 'as everybody (already) knows ...', 'it goes without saying' ... 'You shouldn't need to ask me this, I did it already ...' etc.. Eventually it becomes a habit, and if you ask people why they say it, they'll not really have an answer, they always just did it.

In the UK, especially London there's this phrase, '...innit?' which people use the same way NY people use 'already'. It's short for 'isn't it?' or 'isn't that so?', or 'n'est-ce pas?' in French. People may bemoan it's overuse, but it's wrong to call it 'wrong', it's a logical colloquialism, just overused. People don't really know why they add it nowadays.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 8:59 AM   
 By:   The Beach Bum   (Member)

The UK has "Royal Mail", the US has "US Mail" and we both say post office.

But the British refer to the letters and parcels they receive as their "post" while Americans call it "mail".

 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 9:05 AM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

American: twofer or two-fer.

English: two for one.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 12:52 PM   
 By:   The Beach Bum   (Member)

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 1:44 PM   
 By:   Clark Wayne   (Member)

American: twofer or two-fer.

English: two for one.


Actually, I would say the English version is Bogof (Buy One Get One Free)!

Pronounced Bog Off (so also usable as an insult).

Bog being slang for a toilet in this instance.

And I see someone has mentioned Fanny already and the wildly different meanings, so I shall also mention Bum...

 
 Posted:   Dec 21, 2013 - 2:05 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Clearly, Bogof doesn't have the 1890's vintage of Twofer!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.