Joined
·
14,377 Posts
They didn't speak english though.Also used on one caeser/general's own legion for failure to put down a slave rebellion.
They didn't speak english though.Also used on one caeser/general's own legion for failure to put down a slave rebellion.
some cultures say the equivalent of its nothing. agreed a simple your welcome would do.Whenever I talk to a waiter, even in a fast food joint, I always ask for what I want, as in "may I please have a burrito". Never, ever demand, like "gimme a cheese danish and a bottle Capt. Morgan", always request. It goes a long way, and I like the civil exchange with whoever is handling my food. To that end, the thing I hate is when I say "thank you" to a waiter or anyone else, and they come back with "no problem". I didn't ask you if it was difficult or inquire about the level of your effort... I don't even really care if what you did was easy for you, I was expressing gratitude. This correct and expected response is "You're welcome".
Hate it hate it hate it.
Carry over from the days of stagecoaches and horseback, maybe?In Northern New Mexico, we have some really interesting colloquialisms:
Instead of "I got out of my truck" it is "I got down from my truck."
"These ones?"
"Bueno, bye."
I think you hit it with the German heritage.mostly coloquialisms amuse me more than anything and I know I am and have been guilty of them as well so hard to fault others too much.
in two midwestern cities many liked to ask: are you coming with? should I bring my notebook with? my kids' teachers and many people spoke this way particularly in MN but also somewhat in WI.
I wonder if it has to do with german or scandahoovian sentence structure -- the heratage of these areas?
Worked with an educated and well spoken fellow who asked me "we're going to lunch do you want to come with?" I waited silently, looking him in the eye. He said well?! I am just waiting for you to finish your sentence. (he knows the same old jokes I know) and said: We are going to lunch, would you like to come with, ass****? Why thank you, I'd be delighted!:supergrin: we both had a good laugh -- I set him up for the old where is the harvard library at joke.
I'm neither advocating nor supporting ignorance.Glotin -
Are you saying we should give a break to the journalist, who is a gun layman, that calls a magazine a clip. We, as experts in firearms, don't.
Dictionary entries are driven by common use, not technical correctness. Dictionaries even promote ignorance. Recently, several derogatory slang words have been added.
Lots of mistakes out there in all areas. Some people call a spider an insect. Or to an entomologist, ladybugs are not bugs.
I learn by listening to people on firearms forums. There are several details I've misunderstood for years that have been cleared up. For example, I assumed recoil springs are designated by their spring rate. Turns out that's not true. The rate can be derived from the spring's "weight" and the configuration of the gun the spring is designed for.
Advocating and supporting ignorance just because it's common is not what this thread is about.
I will admit I SAY it this way "should ov, would ov, could ov", but I never, EVER write it that way.I've thought of another one, but you'd only ever notice it written.
"I should/would of..." instead of I should/would have...
Depending on who it is I'm speaking with, I'll say "should'v", or "should have":rofl:I will admit I SAY it this way "should ov, would ov, could ov", but I never, EVER write it that way.
More likely, a carryover from mexican spanish.Carry over from the days of stagecoaches and horseback, maybe?