View Full Version : LOOSE TALK!!!

5th Oct 2001, 15:45
Fellow ppruners,

When posting, please observe the following English dictionary guidelines!

LOOSE:- (lu:s) a. 1. not tight, fastened, fixed or tense 2.slack 3. vague 4. dissolute -vt. 5. free 6. unfasten 7. slacken -vi.

LOSE:- (lu:z) vt. 1. be deprived of, fail to retain or use 2. let slip 3. fail to get 4. suffer loss

It's alright nurse i'm better now.

tony draper
5th Oct 2001, 16:02
Doing you loaf a bit Mr Hovis?. ;)

Four Seven Eleven
5th Oct 2001, 16:41

I heartily agree with your sentiments. The lack of understanding of basic spelling and grammar displayed by some is appalling.

Just don't lose your sense of humour!

5th Oct 2001, 17:27

Loost your medication on the last stopover, mate? :D


5th Oct 2001, 17:34
HOVIS - I can see you're an educated guy:


well, never mind :D

5th Oct 2001, 18:30
Hovis may have a screw lose at the moment ... Meaning he has lost it.
(past tense of lose)

There, how was that? :D

5th Oct 2001, 22:14
Here`s a toast to Mr Hovis....

Oh crumbs, did I really say that?

6th Oct 2001, 05:56
Loki plus Hovis = toast

6th Oct 2001, 06:22
Then of course there is "lowse", a derivative of or variant from "loosen", used in Scottish farming, and in fact industrial, circles to signal the end of the shift. "Lowsin'", or "Lowsin' time'", q.v.

It came from the loosening of the harness on the horses or, as we may say, the cuds. And why cuds, you ask? Glad you did. Comes from St Cuthbert. I could give you the whole story. Another time, perhaps.

And what is the opposite of lowsin? Well that one is simple. It is "yokin'" or yoking the horses. And what is that sandwich eaten in the pouring rain around 11:00 AM? No, it is not "elevenses", it is "wur mud yokin'", or snack at mid-yoking. If yese were only here I could do it fur yese in the Angus dialect. I could go on about shawin' the neeps, pucklin' the oats and doing -- in any language -- unspeakable things (for my experience as farm labourer was wide) to the bestial (well, that one is from the law books, and is a noun, not an adjective), but perhaps I might lose, loose, or loss (as I have heard it put) the attention of the philologists in the readership.

Is it OK, Tony D, if I assert that not many people know this? It is your line, I acknowledge that, but just this once? As a matter of fact, I think actually that no one at all, far less not many, knows it but me and, now, of course, all of youse.

It is a whole renaissance, really.

[ 06 October 2001: Message edited by: Davaar ]

6th Oct 2001, 10:17
It isn't the way you spell a word or even how you say it that matters, as long as the meaning is accurately transmitted.

For example, there is Lowes, called out by the SWO on an AOC's annual parade practice at Waddington as "Louse!"

That poor ignorant uneducated SWO got it right first time. Everyone on the parade knew exactly who he meant - Geoff certainly was a character...

Through difficulties to the cinema

tony draper
6th Oct 2001, 15:06
Roger that Mr Daavar, Lowse was still in common use here just a few years ago and indeed did mean the end of the shift.
Lots of words seem to have dissapeared this last couple of decades.
Another one I remember was to Coin, ie to turn ,as in
"Go up there and coin to the left"
"I watched her until she coined the corner"

6th Oct 2001, 16:31

Ref. They're/their.

i woz inn mid rant at the time, sorry.

it's really hard to type with your nose with this jacket on!

6th Oct 2001, 20:33
Oh dear Hovis, did you lose your loaf for a moment - I thought at first you were a crusty ol' fellah, but now I see you are a very well-bred chap.

I remember when Hovis was sliced into soldiers, buttered and served with a nice boiled egg.

Not sure I care for this new white Hovis though, doesn't seem right some how.

pax anglia
6th Oct 2001, 23:52
Your/you're is the one that causes me to become slighty tetchy.I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before

7th Oct 2001, 13:26
And how about the misuse of 'impact' as a verb?

My other non-favourite is the use of 'absolutely' for 'yes' in conversation.

The many non-native English speakers contributing to this forum can be forgiven their errors but I agree with HOVIS the standard of English displayed by many is truly appalling.

Ah! That feels better.

7th Oct 2001, 18:11
Jesus, what a bunch of loosers...

7th Oct 2001, 20:58
I hate the use of "losers" meaning inadequate people.

7th Oct 2001, 22:01
Me too, Loki. It derives from those inadequate people who think that, while winning isn't everything, losing isn't anything.

Those who are incapable of taking part without being able to accept the possibility of losing, accepting losing with good grace and learning from the experience are, IMHO, the losers themselves, yet it is they who generally use the term "loser" as an insult.

PS Sorry, Binos - not having a go at you - appreciate you were being ironic. ;)

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

Bally Heck
7th Oct 2001, 22:18
What about the US inability to differentiate the words "insure" and "ensure".

Or does "ensure" even exist in the Webster's dictionary.

"To insure your safety please fasten your seatbelt"

Surely the only way to insure your safety is to pay a premium to an insurance company?

Any comments from the colonies?

tony draper
8th Oct 2001, 00:07
Ah, something else Draper has just found, see it is only us poor Geordies that still speak the lanuage of Shakespeare. ;)

The Angles and Saxons brought with them to Britain a language which was the forerunner of modern English and indeed it was the Angles of Denmark that gave England its name - meaning the Angle land. Over the centuries the old Anglo Saxon language changed beyond recognition with the gradual introduction of Latin, Norman-French and other foreign influences.

Today the only part of England where the original Anglo-Saxon language has survived to any great extent is of course the North East. Here the old language survives in a number of varieties, the most notable of which are Northumbrian and Geordie. It is from the ancient Germanic and Scandinavian language of the Angles that the unique local dialects of Northumberland, Durham and Tyneside, all primarily owe their origins.


Distinctively Geordie and Northumbrian words are more than 80 % Angle in origin, compared to standard English, where the figure is less than 30 %. Modern English words by comaprison are predominantly of Latin origin because modern English derives from the dialects of southern England which were continuosly influenced by the Latin and Norman French favoured by the educated classes of Oxford, Cambridge and London.

Geordie words should not therefore be seen as sloppy pronounciation or a poor use of language, as they are in fact of great antiquity. Indeed many old words and phrases commonly used in the old works of Chaucer and Shakespeare which are no longer used in other parts of Britain have survived as common usage in the North East.

Of course some Geordie words are of more recent origin or are corruptions or words borrowed from other regions, but often the similarities between Anglo-Saxon and Geordie can be quite surprising. For example Geordies in the same way as the Anglo-Saxons use the word `WIFE' as term for a woman whether she is married or not, while the Anglo-Saxon word ALD (OLD) is similar to the Geordie (AAD). Thus in Anglo-Saxon ALD WIFE literally meant `Old Woman' .

Sometimes a Geordie may appear to be using words incorrectly , but this may not always be the case. For example a Geordie may say Aaal Larn yer (meaning I'll teach you) as in the Anglo Saxon Laeran which meant teach. Other Geordie words of Anglo Saxon origin include Axe (ask) from the Anglo-Saxon Acsian, Burn meaning stream, Hoppings meaning fayre andGan which is the Geordie and Anglo saxon word meaning to go.

The unique way in which Geordies and Northumbrians pronounce certain words is also often Anglo-Saxon in origin. Thus Geordie words like Dede, Coo, Cloot, Hoos, Wrang, Strang and Lang are in fact the original Anglo-Saxon pronounciations for Dead, Cow, Clout, House, Wrong, Strong and Long.

These old words have survived in the North East for a number of reasons primarily associated with the region's historical remoteness and isolation from southern England. The turbulent border history of this region was also a major factor in discouraging outside influence although some Viking words have crept into the local dialect from the neighbouring Viking settled areas of Yorkshire, South Durham and Cumbria.

8th Oct 2001, 00:09
There's an auto repair business here whose slogan is 'TIME - To Insure Motoring Excellence'. I used them once and (jokingly) asked about the insurance policy. They had no clue what I was on about.

As a fully paid up member of the anal retentive society, I am used to gritting my teeth at the N.American mangling of the English language, but this 'insure' thing continues to really get on my t*ts. Or boobs if you will, but that's another story...

8th Oct 2001, 00:13
Re: You did good.

I have heard this Americanism explained as being a contraction of 'you did good work', rather than the misuse of an adjective.
And before anyone looks up my posts, yes I do use it :)

8th Oct 2001, 00:56
Actually, Loki and Huggy, Binos said 'what a bunch of loosers', which neatly and rather subtlely brought us back to the start of the thread. Perhaps he loosely meant the term 'loser'.

It would, therefore, follow that we are not tight rather than inadequate, a much more apt description don't you think.

Whilst 'looser' cannot be normally be employed as a noun, Australian linguistic shifts have resulted in a looser interpretation of grammar than is current in England. ;)

Does that mean Tony, that all Geordies speak as if 'All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players'. Would that be the English before, or after, he wrote his plays?

Fortunately for English, it is subject to change by common usage and is flexible enough to incorporate foreign words without, as the French are wont to do, throwing teddy out the pram at the mere thought.

The term 'he did good' is concise and conveys exactly what is meant - surely, the very essence of communication - which after all is what language is for.

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: Velvet ]

tony draper
8th Oct 2001, 01:04
No Miss V, they would say,

"Aal the walds i stedge, an aal the men ind wimin meea playa's,"

The way Shakespeare meant it to be read.
Nobody spoke like Richard Burton, or Sir Larry,in the 15 century, facinating isn't it. ;)

8th Oct 2001, 01:28
Losen up, loosers!

I attended U.S. public schools, and you are right, they didn't teach me English - they tought me how to feel about English.

One small thing, though - why do so many folks on the BBC get to the point with "at the end of the day...."?

8th Oct 2001, 02:15
You are quite right Huck, annoying isn`t it?

It`s a sort of verbal tick, similar to saying "like" every other word or "you know".

Trouble is, once you start, right, it`s difficult to , like, stop, you know? But, at the end of the day, right, the bottom line, is, like , whether or not you are understood, ok?

henry crun
8th Oct 2001, 03:43
You are also right Loki, it is irritating.

Imagine what the conversations would be like if everytime someone said "you know" the interviewer said 'no I don't, please explain."

8th Oct 2001, 04:45
This grieves me, but I do differ from Velvet on “good”. Her explanation is too kindly.

I heard it well put once:
Senior partner: Good morning! Good morning! And how are we today?
Articled student: Good.
Senior partner: Well! Well! Well!
Articled student: [unaware to this day].

The solecism of the age, though, that burns me up is the correlation of plural pronoun to singular noun. A posting in another thread, for example, approves of a picture that had appeared earlier, and continues: “... but the kid who drew it seems overly sensitive about making sure everyone knows it is theirs. Theirs? Whose? To whom does the plural pronoun “theirs” relate? There is no plural antecedent. From the context, we might supply a notional antecedent by "reading in" “the United States”, but that makes no grammatical sense. Aha! The antecedent noun is “the kid”, singular, and the subsequent pronoun should be “his”, singular. Some may object that “the kid” is of unknown sex (no, not gender), and use of "his" would be very upsetting to the sensitive. To that objection the answer is that English, admired by Tony D, 4711, Biscuit, others, and me (or, as the usage of the day has it, I) in such a case does by convention use the masculine. This offends the Feminist Tendency, and to preserve their empty-headed creations we have the bastardisation of a majestic language by, inter alia, the enforced link of plural pronoun to singular noun, that, presumably, giving less offence, and striking a valiant blow for herstory.

Orwell’s “1984", when cited in these threads, is usually introduced to illustrate some evil of thought or usage. Sometimes it is not guilty. At pages 170-171 of the Penguin edition there is a sentence: “If you loved someone, you loved him, and when you had nothing else to give, you still gave him love”. If written by many today, “him” would read “them”. “If you loved someone, you loved them”!!!!! Does anyone seriously imagine that in Orwell’s usage “him” did not include “her”?

Let me conclude my rant by agreeing with Tony D and the Shakespeareans save insofar as any may believe those calumnies about MacBeth. Duncan was in fact a rotten king, ruled for a year or so, and was defeated in battle by MacBeth. MacBeth then reigned as king for 17 years (1040 - 1057), well and securely enough to take a sabbatical (1050) to go and visit the Pope in Rome and buddies along the way. He done real good. There is no reason to think Lady MacBeth was any but a lovely girl. Remember, you read it here.

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: Davaar ]

8th Oct 2001, 05:45
BC, work can function both as a verb or a noun as in The Complete Works of Shakespeare herein quoted by Mista Dreypa.

One more peeve - the use of alternate to mean alternative. Ack !

8th Oct 2001, 09:50
One more thing - do they do this in the UK? - the use of "product" for "products." For example: "The home office shipped 4 boxes of product to our store."

8th Oct 2001, 10:32
Ah, but the reason that English is so widely spoken is that it absorbs any mis-use and turns it to common use. That is the secret -English is a living language.

The French try to tie their language down and protect it from abuse. In doing so they destroy that which they would nurture. English is whatever English speakers commonly accept. In the North-East of England, the continued use of Anglo-Saxon verbage, so well explained above by Geordie Draper (Wor Toe-knee,) reflects the isolation and neglect that we have endured from so many years of Norman rule. Perhaps its time for independance?

Through difficulites to the cinema

tony draper
8th Oct 2001, 12:37
Whats in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. ;)