Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: lite, nite, etc

As a followup to the recent question about "lite", I'd like
to list a few other words which are not real English, along with
their correct spelling:
lite - light
nite - night
rite - right (rite is a word meaning "rito"(it.)
lo - low
u - you
r - are
b - be
c - see
2 - to, too
b4 - before
4 - for
thru - through
I'm sure I've missed quite a lot. None of these forms are
acceptable during intercourse with the average Englishman
or Australian. (Nor, indeed, with most below-average 
Englishmen or Australians).
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[

 or Australian.
May I suggest you rephrase that before PaoloF sees it?
Mary
(remove "nospam" to reply)
---
"Do you smoke after intercourse?" "I don't know, I've never looked."

Englishmen or Australians).
Phew! I'm so lucky I don't talk a lot during intercourse.
Thanks, Ray. You sure you can't make it to Bologna on October 3rd?
(Just a thought. Remember the plate on O.J. Simpson's wife car during the
infamous chase? It read 'L8 4 A D8').
Love,
Isa
Work like you don't need money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
And dance like no one's watching

[[[[[[[[[[[[
bye
Gennaro
--
Per rispondere eliminare ".HELL" dall'indirizzo.
To reply remove ".HELL" from the end of the address.

Thanks, Ray. You sure you can't make it to Bologna on October 3rd?
I'm afraid not. Maybe next year - who knows?
Ciao, 
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[

Englishmen or Australians).
Raymot, may I ask you what the differences are between British and
Australian English ?
Thanks
Bye Asoka xx'82
<< However fast you may run, you will never overreach the ball >>





<sigh> I'm afraid explaining jokes ruins them. But since you asked (and since I
don't know which words you don't know):
"Intercourse" does mean conversation, but the first meaning that springs to mind
nowadays, at least in the UK, is sex (it's short for "sexual intercourse").
"Smoke" can mean either "fumare (sigarette)" or "emettere fumo".
Mary
(remove "nospam" to reply)
---
98% of all constipated people don't give a shit!

Englishmen or Australians).
Regardless of the type of intercourse, as long as verbal communication is the
mode, I doubt that a person truly involved in the intercourse would be able to
tell the difference.
By the way, thanks for inadvertently giving me insight into my own personality.
I find that I resist accepting changes in English grammar through popular use
but look forward to accepting simplifications in English spelling. Recently,
I've also been wondering if a person's tolerance of variations of usage in
language has any relationship to tolerance of variations in social conduct in
general? (Just thinking to myself).
Ciao,
Ron
USA

 I'll write again when I've had more time to think about it.
Please do.
Peltio
PS
Are you telling me that Australians don't write upside down?
: )


No, it isn't. You're quite right - I was going to comment on it as well.
You should only abbreviate "have" to " 've" when it's used as an auxiliary
verb, not as the main verb (denoting possession, and in some idiomatic
phrases).
When talking about possession the British usually say "I've got" whereas the
Americans say "I have". I'm not sure of the Australian usage in this case.
In Paolo's phrase above, I'd've said "I've got a feeling".
The big difference between UK and Aussie English, as Raymot says in his other
post, lies in the slang and idiomatic expressions. The Australians have some
very colourful ones.
A few examples that come to mind:
It's looking a bit black over Bill's mother's (it looks as though it might
rain)
Beyond the black stump (out in the sticks)
Don't come the raw prawn with me (can't think how to explain that one exactly;
I'll leave Raymot to paraphrase it.)
A technicolour yawn (vomit)
They don't sound quite the same without the drawling Australian accent, though.
The Australians call the British "pommies" or "poms".
According to my dictionary the origin of the word's uncertain, but it may
derive from the acronym P.O.M.E. (Prisoner of Mother England) which many of the
original settlers indeed were.
*My* ancestors, of course, emigrated during the Great Irish Potato Famine. They
were *not* convicts.
Mary
(remove "nospam" to reply)
---
Australians do it down under.

you are probably right in some respects.
Nationalism is a characteristic that exists in most countries, but it is not a
characteristic that I extol so you won't find me defending the diverse mixture
of social dispositions we call American culture. Outside of the US I typically
encounter more resistance to all things American than embracement (at least
espoused resistance). This has always seemed to me to be a very understandable
human reaction to the dominant economic and military position of the US in the
world today. In fact, it's rather like the American predisposition for favoring
the underdog and being suspicious towards those in positions of power. Sometimes
I like to wonder, "suppose this power and influence were in the hands of another
country instead of the US, would things be any different?" Probably not, as long
as we keep it out of the hands of those damn Frenchies, or we'll all be eatin'
cream sauces with dinner.
Ciao,
Ron
USA
(the preceeding announcements have all been entered with tongue firmly in cheek,
o come gli italiani dicono, in chiave ironica)

Bye Asoka xx'82
Certainly, although the answer could run into several
volumes.
Simply put, though, they are almost identical, except
that naturally we have our own slang words and phrases,
and we are probably a little more influenced by AmEng
than the British are, since half of our TV shows come from
the US.
Similarities:
1) We spell our words the same as the British, eg:
favour, honour ... ( not favor, honor)
paediatrician, oestrogen ... (not pediatrician, estrogen)
arse ... (not ass)
2) The grammar is the same as in BrEng, eg.
"I've already eaten breakfast" (not "I already ate breakfast",
which is common in the US)
...
I can't think of any major differences, apart from the accent,
of course. I'll write again when I've had more time to think about it.
Ciao, 
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, Oz
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

it's another example of different cultures ... [...]
I'll leave it to others to explain the joke.
Permit me to comment on the use of "I've" here. There is a habit
which I've noticed that many Italians have acquired, and which
sounds strange to me.
Generally, we would write "but I have the feeling ..."
When "to have" is the main verb, it's usually given its full
value. It's contracted to "I've" when "have" is an accessory.
"I've a new car" (strana)
"I have a new car" (corretta)
"I've bought a new car. (corretta)
There are some circumstances where "I've" alone sounds OK,
but in general I think it should be avoided. I'd like to hear 
opinions from others, as this might be one of those Australian
differences that I couldn't think of a few minutes ago.
Ciao, 
Raymot
======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

 or Australian.
Ray, this is very funny!  better than the last few jokes.
Usually, I don't spell words out during intercourse, but should I
stumble upon an English or an Australian gentleman who requires me to
do so, I will be sure not to use those abbreviated forms.
Bye
Arianna
Sent via Deja.com 
http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

USA
If you are asking whether my distaste for some aspects of American 
usage of English is influenced by my distaste for some aspects of
American culture, this is a hard question to answer.
It's true, as you know, Ron, that there is a lot about American
popular culture that I don't like (esp. the gun culture, the entrenched
racial hatred, the glorification of violence by much of Hollywood, the
pathological love of litigation, young kids wearing their baseball caps 
back to front ... I won't go on.).
But I'm not sure whether this is the cause of my dislike for "lite,
nite, etc."
You make a good point about spelling reform. "Lite" is simpler and
makes more sense than "light" as it is pronounced these days. But
why not go the whole hog and spell it "lait"
"Favor" does not offend me at all, and I must confess that even I
am beginning to use "e" and "a" in place of the old digraphs "oe"
and "ae" in words such as oedema, haematology, paediatrican.
The US has produced some wonderful things, and I'm in general
agreement with the values which your society espouses, such
as democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, thought etc.
(at least as they appear in the rhetoric, if not always so
obvious "on the ground", so to speak).
What concerns me is the uncritical acceptance of all things
American as being superior, a tendency which is evident in
many of the youth in Australia. 
I think this is why being called "u" offends me so much, so
you are probably right in some respects.
Ciao, 
Raymot
=======
Brisbane, OZ
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

: )
Of course we do! We have to install special software just
so that you can read this !  :)
Raymot
[[[[[[[[




were *not* convicts.
So they were Irish, weren't they ?


very colourful ones.
Thanks to Raymot and you. You satisfied my curiosity ! :-)


 but in general I think it should be avoided.
Ok, roger, but what about "to have to"?
Buon vento

Ok, roger, but what about "to have to"?
Always "I have to ...; He has to ..."
Never "I've to ..; he's to ..."
There is a possible complication, however.
You might see/hear: "He's to do as I say". This is a 
contraction of "He is to ..." not "He has to ..." as
one can see in the corresponding phrases:
"I'm to do as he says" / "You're to do as he says" 
Admittedly this means almost the same thing as "I have to...;
You have to ..."
It's less common, and you'll never have to use it, but it's
worth knowing about simply because the contracted third person
singular may be confusing.
Raymot
[[[[[[[[[[[[


Yes, they were. Cassidy is a common Irish name.
I'm afraid this is an exception to the usual question-tag rule that a positive
sentence takes a negative question tag and vice versa.
You have to say either:
"So your ancesters were Irish, were they?
or:
"Your ancestors were Irish, weren't they?
C'è una piccola sfumatura di significato: il secondo suggerisce che conosci già
la risposta, ma stai chiedendo la conferma; il primo che non la conosci.
Mary
(remove ""nospam" to reply)
---
Ancestors run in my family.

la risposta, ma stai chiedendo la conferma; il primo che non la conosci.
Grazie Mary, avevo letto una volta questa regola, ma non ci avevo fatto
molto caso...
Ma la si può usare *sempre* quando non si conosce qualcosa ?



I still don't quite see what you mean; I assume you were trying to translate
"sfiga", but AFAIK that means "sfortuna" or "iella", and I can't quite see what
that has to do with your reading Raymot's message.
"Sfiga" is usually translated as "bad luck". "Jinx" is a bit of an old-fashioned
word, and anyway, as the English aren't as superstitious as the Italians, it's
not often used.
There isn't an equivalent swear word that I can think of.
Mary
(remove "nospam" to reply)
---
Do dyslexics have bad luck on Friday the 31st?


No.
Se non sai niente dell'argomento in questione, bisogna cominciare con
una domanda normale, tipo "Were your ancestors Irish?" (i tuoi antenati
furono irlandesi?) o "Where did your ancestors come from?" (di dove
provenivano i tuoi antenati?).
Useresti una forma come: "So your ancestors were Irish, were they?",
(allora, i tuoi antenati furono irlandesi!) se ti sembra di averlo
capito da qualcosa che ho detto, ma vuoi una conferma.
Invece useresti "Your ancestors were Irish, weren't they?" (i tuoi
antenati furono irlandesi, vero?) per iniziare il discorso quando sei
abbastanza sicuro di conoscere già la risposta.
Probabilmente tu non avevi bisogno delle traduzioni tra parentesi, ma
magari servono ad altri che leggono questo post.
Mary
(remove "nospam" to reply)
---
God created whiskey to keep the Irish from ruling the world.

magari servono ad altri che leggono questo post.
Here I am!
Presente!
Grazie ^_^.
Ciao
Mariuccia