You also have the scenario of “I gave Fred a talkies to.”, when poor Fred needs to be remonstrated with.
"Talking to" here
And here.
And I realized that with regards to the connotations of “talking to” and “talking with” I mentioned above, I should have added that “talking to” can also carry the implication of talking about a specific topic.
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
Where did Bill come from? He was not in my question.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
But if turned upside-down will soon run out of the jar. Vegemite and the antipodean imposter won't.
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
I wouldn't call it yummy either. I mean, I don't call anything yummy but even if I did, marmite wouldn't be it.
Jumping him means being pretty serious about bumping him and likely throwing yourself at him. Which all means about the same as "shagging", which isn't a word here, except we know if from media.
Shagging isn't throwing yourself at someone; it is what you end up doing if your throw is successful.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Of course 'visit with' makes loads less sense than 'talk with or 'chat with.'
'Visit with' only makes sense in British English if it involves being accompanied by someone on a visit to a location.
As in, 'Bill and I visited Fred.'
Boogie nailed it upthread.
'Visit with Fred' makes no sense whatsoever unless it involves being accompanied by Fred on a visit somewhere.
'I visited Hampton Court with Fred.'
'I visited Aunt Ethel with Fred.'
'I visited New York with Fred.'
That's how it works in UK English. I'd get into trouble if I said that this is Proper English.
But 'visit with Fred' meaning to chat with Fred makes no semantic sense at all unless you change the meaning of the word 'visit'.
Perhaps that's what's going on. 'Visit' means something different in North America to its meaning here in the UK.
But something tells me that it doesn't, that it means the same thing in some contexts but not others and you have to be in on it in order to understand ...
It's pretty simple. "to visit with" (in places that use it) means "to engage in friendly, non-pressured chitchat, of the sort you might have on a friendly visit."
So: "I visited with Bill during my visit to California." Two separate verbs with related but not identical meanings. Think of "visited with" as "visited-with" (imagine the hyphen) and it might be easier. You'll never mix it up with "visited [a place] with [in the company of] so-and-so", because that formation requires you to insert a place noun between the verb "visit" and the preposition "with," and it is not permitted to delay the object to follow the "with" phrase. Unless you want to sound like a German who has taken a wrong turn: "I visited, with Bill, California." Just.Wrong.
Ah, shagging. Here, that means doing a particular kind of local dancing, done to a style of R&B we call “beach music.” When I was in college, you could often tell where in Eastern NC a person was from, or where they went to college, by how they shagged.
BTW, shagging is the official state dance of South Carolina. North Carolina has two official state dances: shagging is the official state popular dance, while clogging is the official state folk dance.
We do know what shagging means elsewhere, or at least many of us do. Sometimes we have fun with the potential ambiguity.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Of course 'visit with' makes loads less sense than 'talk with or 'chat with.'
'Visit with' only makes sense in British English if it involves being accompanied by someone on a visit to a location.
You’re confusing two similar but different assertions: makes no sense at all and makes no sense in the context of British English.
I’ve got no problem if you want to say it makes no sense in the context of English as spoken in Britain. That’s fine.
But you can’t assert it makes no sense full stop. There are too many people who speak English in something other than a British context for whom it makes perfect sense.
@Firenze, I used ‘have words with’, or, more probably, just ‘have words’ just the other day. I’m a teacher, and it is used as a warning. “ Keep going, and I am going to have words...”. “Watch out, or Mr H will have words - and they will not be kind ones!”
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Not in Britain. Talking to would imply a discussion here.
‘I am visiting Fred’ is correct English in the UK.
‘I am visiting the museum with Fred’ is also correct.
‘I am visiting with Fred’ is wrong as it’s missing a location. Where are you both visiting?
"Do you live here?"
"Oh no - I'm visiting with Fred."
In the UK, Fred and the speaker are both guests of someone who lives in the establishment. In the US, Fred is presumably the resident, and the speaker is having a good old chinwag with him.
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Not in Britain. Talking to would imply a discussion here.
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
But if turned upside-down will soon run out of the jar. Vegemite and the antipodean imposter won't.
After reading this, I turned my jar of Marmite upside down (500g jar, about a third full). After a bit less than two hours, about a teaspoonful had found its way to the inside of the lid, with some more slowly oozing in that direction. Bovril would I think have been almost entirely in the top of the jar within seconds, and from my limited experience of Vegemite I can believe that it would stay put.
From this I conclude that, at least in my kitchen, Zappa's last statement would be correct if 'soon' was replaced by 'eventually'. Maybe even the 'correct' version in the Antipodes isn't quite the same as it is here.
I tried Googling the subject; this paper looked promising, but it turned out to be about Australian 'Marmite'. There must be some data somewhere out there on the viscosities of these substances, though.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Here, “talk to” could well mean something slightly different than “talk with.” “Talk with” can carry the implication that we shared in conversation. “Talk to” can carry the implication that I did the talking and Fred did the listening, perhaps on a specific subject.
Or "I had a talk to him about what he'd done" carries - at least here - the connotation of a reprimand.
Does non-US English ever use "shag" for a kind of carpet/rug? (Rugs Direct) Deep pile, can dig your toes in. The really deep stuff is like a floppy lawn. If you drop anything in it, might take a while to find it!
Twenty-odd years ago, my youngest daughter came home on vacation from her university. 'Mum and Dad, I want to have words with you.' We waited apprehensively. 'You're too reasonable!' Apparently, when her flatmates were complaining about their parents, she had nothing to contribute. As I said, that was more than twenty years ago.
Does non-US English ever use "shag" for a kind of carpet/rug? (Rugs Direct) Deep pile, can dig your toes in. The really deep stuff is like a floppy lawn. If you drop anything in it, might take a while to find it!
Yes, I've heard shagpile regularly as a description of carpet. So often, in fact, it hardly even generates an internal snigger.
And, "I was talking to (my oldest friend) last night," is also very common. I don't think I've heard, "I was talking with," over here, but I'm old and miss a lot.
Australian usage pretty much follows UK here (as is the general trend).
This whole thread is about perceptions, in many ways. When I lived in Australia for three years I was struck by how American the language was. Then again, the bits that were the same as the UK I probably accepted without comment as they were "normal".
Australian usage pretty much follows UK here (as is the general trend).
This whole thread is about perceptions, in many ways. When I lived in Australia for three years I was struck by how American the language was. Then again, the bits that were the same as the UK I probably accepted without comment as they were "normal".
Yes, no doubt you'd be tuned to the differences.
I'm not being terribly scientific about it, but I certainly get the impression that when there's a US/UK divide we fall more often on the UK side. But it's also definitely true that we don't fall on the same side all of the time.
And then of course we have all the examples where we just make other stuff up that completely bamboozles English-speakers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Everyone bamboozles others in some way of course. The fascinating thing about language is that you can get very specific about variations. I'm aware of at least a couple of things that are quite local to this city, with place names that make zero sense to anyone visiting (though most will be too polite to point this out).
And then of course we have all the examples where we just make other stuff up that completely bamboozles English-speakers on both sides of the Atlantic.
I know the term ‘shag-pile’ for that kind of carpet, but I don’t know how much it is used.
Depends how many people around have retained fourth-form senses of humour, like me.
I obviously have and mix with people with the 'wrong' sort of sense of humour. Yes, I've heard of 'shag-pile' used of carpets, but it would be difficult here to get away with using the term without somebody suggesting it's describing just the sort of carpet for an enjoyable romantic interlude in front of a nice blazing fire.
I know the term ‘shag-pile’ for that kind of carpet, but I don’t know how much it is used.
Depends how many people around have retained fourth-form senses of humour, like me.
I obviously have and mix with people with the 'wrong' sort of sense of humour. Yes, I've heard of 'shag-pile' used of carpets, but it would be difficult here to get away with using the term without somebody suggesting it's describing just the sort of carpet for an enjoyable romantic interlude in front of a nice blazing fire.
A fourth form sense of humour is fairly standard in Brits. I mean we invented Those Seaside Postcards, Viz, Carry On and as far as I can tell, toilet jokes.
The alternate use of "shag" (is that Australian? UK? Both?) would have amused my dad. Back when he was working he had what was then called a "shag haircut", and his nickname at the firehouse was "Shag."
A fourth form sense of humour is fairly standard in Brits. I mean we invented Those Seaside Postcards, Viz, Carry On and as far as I can tell, toilet jokes.
And, of course, Captain Blackadder does a rather good line in rough shag.
Don't know whether that use (for rolling tobacco) is current - don't know anyone that smokes the stuff any more.
There are some interesting differences in the use of plurals versus singular.
People here get addicted to drugs, but they are drug addicted, not drugs addicted. They take math in school, not maths.
I also wondered about driving. Do you have a driver's licence or a driving licence? and do you spell licence the noun with the "c" at the end? I see people using license for the noun I think in the US but not sure.
I also wondered about driving. Do you have a driver's licence or a driving licence? and do you spell licence the noun with the "c" at the end? I see people using license for the noun I think in the US but not sure.
Here, almost everyone calls it a driver’s license (yes, with an s), except the relevant statutes and the government agency that issue them. Per the statutes and the agency, it’s a driver license.
There are some interesting differences in the use of plurals versus singular.
People here get addicted to drugs, but they are drug addicted, not drugs addicted. They take math in school, not maths.
I think your drugs thing is universal. The question of how one abbreviates mathematics (nobody AFAIK calls it mathematic) isn't really about singular and plural at all - "maths" isn't the plural of "math".
Practice is always with a c in American English. In British English the verb is with an s. I remember it by comparing it with advice and advise where the difference is pronounced. I think the same thing is true of licence, license.
My driving licence says "Driving licence" on it, but I think in NZ, they call it a driver's licence. I'm guessing it would be the same in Aus.
Having been on these British boards for a while, when I first saw the term shag-pile the first thing that came to mind was orgies. Just a dirty mind today.
Yes, I remember shag carpets--they were very dirty. The main reason why they went out of style.
Here, you study maths at school, not math. I don't recall heRing math used in any context.
Nick Tamen - we use licence/practice for the noun and license/practise for the verb.
Jonah the Whale - I have just checked and the card I have is called a Driver Licence. No idea about the other States or Territories and I've not checked what the legislation says of the correct name, if anything. If I were speaking or writing, I'd normally call it either a driver's licence or driving licence without thinking which term I was using, nor why I'd use one and not the other.
Getting tired, again, of Brits thinking they're the only people in the world who use words correctly.
Well, it's bizarre to criticize "visit with" in the US sense. I might as well say that "put up with" doesn't make sense, because what is up? Language is not like arithmetic.
Comments
"Talking to" here
And I realized that with regards to the connotations of “talking to” and “talking with” I mentioned above, I should have added that “talking to” can also carry the implication of talking about a specific topic.
Where did Bill come from? He was not in my question.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Got it.
But if turned upside-down will soon run out of the jar. Vegemite and the antipodean imposter won't.
I wouldn't call it yummy either. I mean, I don't call anything yummy but even if I did, marmite wouldn't be it.
Of course 'visit with' makes loads less sense than 'talk with or 'chat with.'
'Visit with' only makes sense in British English if it involves being accompanied by someone on a visit to a location.
As in, 'Bill and I visited Fred.'
Boogie nailed it upthread.
'Visit with Fred' makes no sense whatsoever unless it involves being accompanied by Fred on a visit somewhere.
'I visited Hampton Court with Fred.'
'I visited Aunt Ethel with Fred.'
'I visited New York with Fred.'
That's how it works in UK English. I'd get into trouble if I said that this is Proper English.
But 'visit with Fred' meaning to chat with Fred makes no semantic sense at all unless you change the meaning of the word 'visit'.
Perhaps that's what's going on. 'Visit' means something different in North America to its meaning here in the UK.
But something tells me that it doesn't, that it means the same thing in some contexts but not others and you have to be in on it in order to understand ...
So: "I visited with Bill during my visit to California." Two separate verbs with related but not identical meanings. Think of "visited with" as "visited-with" (imagine the hyphen) and it might be easier. You'll never mix it up with "visited [a place] with [in the company of] so-and-so", because that formation requires you to insert a place noun between the verb "visit" and the preposition "with," and it is not permitted to delay the object to follow the "with" phrase. Unless you want to sound like a German who has taken a wrong turn: "I visited, with Bill, California." Just.Wrong.
BTW, shagging is the official state dance of South Carolina. North Carolina has two official state dances: shagging is the official state popular dance, while clogging is the official state folk dance.
We do know what shagging means elsewhere, or at least many of us do. Sometimes we have fun with the potential ambiguity.
You’re confusing two similar but different assertions: makes no sense at all and makes no sense in the context of British English.
I’ve got no problem if you want to say it makes no sense in the context of English as spoken in Britain. That’s fine.
But you can’t assert it makes no sense full stop. There are too many people who speak English in something other than a British context for whom it makes perfect sense.
@Lamb Chopped has it exactly right.
Not in Britain. Talking to would imply a discussion here.
"Do you live here?"
"Oh no - I'm visiting with Fred."
In the UK, Fred and the speaker are both guests of someone who lives in the establishment. In the US, Fred is presumably the resident, and the speaker is having a good old chinwag with him.
Unless you are giving someone a talking to.
After reading this, I turned my jar of Marmite upside down (500g jar, about a third full). After a bit less than two hours, about a teaspoonful had found its way to the inside of the lid, with some more slowly oozing in that direction. Bovril would I think have been almost entirely in the top of the jar within seconds, and from my limited experience of Vegemite I can believe that it would stay put.
From this I conclude that, at least in my kitchen, Zappa's last statement would be correct if 'soon' was replaced by 'eventually'. Maybe even the 'correct' version in the Antipodes isn't quite the same as it is here.
I tried Googling the subject; this paper looked promising, but it turned out to be about Australian 'Marmite'. There must be some data somewhere out there on the viscosities of these substances, though.
Or "I had a talk to him about what he'd done" carries - at least here - the connotation of a reprimand.
Only because I have been on this British board long enough.
Depends how many people around have retained fourth-form senses of humour, like me.
To be fair, I think there's only one actually doing that.
"Talk to" can be a conversation in UK usage - "Perhaps I can offset those costs against tax - I need to talk to my accountant about that".
Yes, I've heard shagpile regularly as a description of carpet. So often, in fact, it hardly even generates an internal snigger.
And, "I was talking to (my oldest friend) last night," is also very common. I don't think I've heard, "I was talking with," over here, but I'm old and miss a lot.
This whole thread is about perceptions, in many ways. When I lived in Australia for three years I was struck by how American the language was. Then again, the bits that were the same as the UK I probably accepted without comment as they were "normal".
Yes, no doubt you'd be tuned to the differences.
I'm not being terribly scientific about it, but I certainly get the impression that when there's a US/UK divide we fall more often on the UK side. But it's also definitely true that we don't fall on the same side all of the time.
And then of course we have all the examples where we just make other stuff up that completely bamboozles English-speakers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Everyone bamboozles others in some way of course. The fascinating thing about language is that you can get very specific about variations. I'm aware of at least a couple of things that are quite local to this city, with place names that make zero sense to anyone visiting (though most will be too polite to point this out).
The rest of us find that part of your charm.
A fourth form sense of humour is fairly standard in Brits. I mean we invented Those Seaside Postcards, Viz, Carry On and as far as I can tell, toilet jokes.
And, of course, Captain Blackadder does a rather good line in rough shag.
Don't know whether that use (for rolling tobacco) is current - don't know anyone that smokes the stuff any more.
People here get addicted to drugs, but they are drug addicted, not drugs addicted. They take math in school, not maths.
I also wondered about driving. Do you have a driver's licence or a driving licence? and do you spell licence the noun with the "c" at the end? I see people using license for the noun I think in the US but not sure.
I think your drugs thing is universal. The question of how one abbreviates mathematics (nobody AFAIK calls it mathematic) isn't really about singular and plural at all - "maths" isn't the plural of "math".
My driving licence says "Driving licence" on it, but I think in NZ, they call it a driver's licence. I'm guessing it would be the same in Aus.
Yes, I remember shag carpets--they were very dirty. The main reason why they went out of style.
Nick Tamen - we use licence/practice for the noun and license/practise for the verb.
Jonah the Whale - I have just checked and the card I have is called a Driver Licence. No idea about the other States or Territories and I've not checked what the legislation says of the correct name, if anything. If I were speaking or writing, I'd normally call it either a driver's licence or driving licence without thinking which term I was using, nor why I'd use one and not the other.
Well, it's bizarre to criticize "visit with" in the US sense. I might as well say that "put up with" doesn't make sense, because what is up? Language is not like arithmetic.
Unlike prophecy/prophesy.