For the linguistic pedants!

[Jeff Smith]

I grew up in England reading science fiction most of which is written in American English by American writers. The style and grammar seemed somewhat appropriately exotic and other-worldly. I didn't however realize at the time that one of my favourite authors, Jack Vance, was in fact using British English words in order to sound exotic to American readers...eg. trousers not pants, lift not elevator, etc. Anyone familiar with Jack Vance will appreciate that he is a master of exotic writing in either form of English.

[Ozexpatriate]

Take the half-understood and so garbled sporting metaphors: "Throw a curved ball", "Out in left field", "Step on to the plate" I've heard, but I haven't heard "Bowl a googly", "Off the wall" or "Come to the crease" used as metaphors recently.

Americans like to use "sticky wicket" to affect an English persona. Most don't know what it means.

 

In the US, the borrowed baseball expressions are usually "curve ball" (also spelled "curveball") and "step up to the plate".

 

Sadly, the term "National pastime" isn't accurate any more for baseball. Football (meaning the NFL) is much more popular.

[Jeff Smith]

I nearly fell off my chair when I first saw a Master of Ceremonies referred to in print as the 'emcee' - it's obvious they don't know what it stands for...... 

 

I'm not a great sports fan but American football is in my opinion rather boring and predictable with all the set plays and the stop-start nature.  The Coach might as well have a set of radio controlled manikins doing what he commands - there appears to be no free-will involved on the pitch.  Many Americans follow soccer because the play is spontaneous and continuous but try explaining cricket and that's a 'whole 'nother ball game'.......a five day game ending in a draw (tie), Americans must have a result but the closer the better and preferably in the last seconds.

[Metr0Land]

  Many Americans follow soccer because the play is spontaneous and continuous but try explaining cricket and that's a 'whole 'nother ball game'.......a five day game ending in a draw (tie), Americans must have a result but the closer the better and preferably in the last seconds.

 

At the risk of taking this thread OT I'm slight perplexed that more Americans don't 'get' cricket.  I love baseball and back in 2000 it dawned on me that in essence the two are quite similar.  ie it's mostly a duel between batter and bowler and there aren't enough fielders to cover the whole field.  However, as even baseball commentators seem to think cricket games 'take a whole week' I think we're doomed Capt Mainwaring.

[Ozexpatriate]

 

... I'm slight perplexed that more Americans don't 'get' cricket.  I love baseball and back in 2000 it dawned on me that in essence the two are quite similar.  ie it's mostly a duel between batter and bowler and there aren't enough fielders to cover the whole field.

Yes, they are very similar in that regard and even similar in pace if not duration. There are times (changing pitchers) when baseball is even slower than cricket. Both are designed for long summer days. When I first came to the US (long before the internet) I grew to really appreciate baseball, in part as a substitute for cricket - it helps to live in a city with a major league team however.

 

The reason Americans don't 'get' cricket is that there is essentially zero motivation or opportunity for them to watch it to get the feel of the game but I know people who have picked up a rudimentary understanding.

 

... American football is in my opinion rather boring and predictable with all the set plays and the stop-start nature.  The Coach might as well have a set of radio controlled manikins doing what he commands - there appears to be no free-will involved on the pitch.

That would be true if the plays were executed flawlessly. They are not. The plays at the NFL level are much more complex than they might first appear and the offensive and defensive schemes are very difficult to learn. Many of them include options where players choose in the moment and broken plays present plenty of choice but I understand where you are coming from.

 

It is a modern gladiatorial contest and physical attrition is a big component. With a growing scientific understanding of the damage incurred by the almost constant head trauma it will be interesting to see how the game will survive.

[bluebottle]

I enjoy Twain, Runyon, Steinbeck, Miller and Williams because they present to me a picture of an exotic land through words and phrases that are part of the colour of that land. When some of those words are displaced across the Atlantic, they jar in their new surroundings, and often they are mangled and misused. Take the half-understood and so garbled sporting metaphors: "Throw a curved ball", "Out in left field", "Step on to the plate" I've heard, but I haven't heard "Bowl a googly", "Off the wall" or "Come to the crease" used as metaphors recently.

 

Americans like to use "sticky wicket" to affect an English persona. Most don't know what it means.

 

In the US, the borrowed baseball expressions are usually "curve ball" (also spelled "curveball") and "step up to the plate".

 

Sadly, the term "National pastime" isn't accurate any more for baseball. Football (meaning the NFL) is much more popular.

 

I was, of course, quoting the mangled versions I've heard on TV, Michael; I think that those following this topic either know the originals, like yourself, or look them up, as I do when necessary. However, being a student of Charles Schultz's guide to American culture, "Peanuts", I did know the provenance of those expressions, and chose British ones with similar meanings. "Out in left field" should be "Out of left field", of course.

Figures of speech are fascinating things, and it does irritate me when someone allowed to appear in front of the TV cameras devalues them by misusing them.

[Jeff Smith]

At the risk of taking this thread OT I'm slight perplexed that more Americans don't 'get' cricket.  I love baseball and back in 2000 it dawned on me that in essence the two are quite similar.  ie it's mostly a duel between batter and bowler and there aren't enough fielders to cover the whole field.  However, as even baseball commentators seem to think cricket games 'take a whole week' I think we're doomed Capt Mainwaring.

Yes we are in danger of drifting OT but I discovered Watch ESPN.com which I can get on my tablet as I have ESPN cable.  I watched all five England/India tests live and a number of one day and limited over matches - there's actually quite a lot of cricket played and televised from various Caribbean islands as well as a dedicated cable channel for Indian cricket.  However I would have thought that cricket would be ideal for US TV as you could have a commercial break between every over - far more opportunity than in soccer!

 

 

Yes, they are very similar in that regard and even similar in pace if not duration. There are times (changing pitchers) when baseball is even slower than cricket. Both are designed for long summer days. When I first came to the US (long before the internet) I grew to really appreciate baseball, in part as a substitute for cricket - it helps to live in a city with a major league team however.

 

The reason Americans don't 'get' cricket is that there is essentially zero motivation or opportunity for them to watch it to get the feel of the game but I know people who have picked up a rudimentary understanding.

 

That would be true if the plays were executed flawlessly. They are not. The plays at the NFL level are much more complex than they might first appear and the offensive and defensive schemes are very difficult to learn. Many of them include options where players choose in the moment and broken plays present plenty of choice but I understand where you are coming from.

 

It is a modern gladiatorial contest and physical attrition is a big component. With a growing scientific understanding of the damage incurred by the almost constant head trauma it will be interesting to see how the game will survive.

I found baseball more interesting to watch at the stadium as you can more easily see the overall play rather than being limited to the TV camera view.

 

I get rather frustrated when a receiver is passed the ball and charges into the defensive line with very little chance of breaking through.....

 

Gladiatorial is a good description - most would suffer greatly if trying to play rugby.....and then having to stay on the pitch and run both ways, and maybe kick the ball as well! 

[Ozexpatriate]

I was, of course, quoting the mangled versions I've heard on TV, Michael

Which is exactly what I thought. I wasn't presuming to correct you Gordon. Perhaps I could have expressed myself better?

 

It's curious that you bring up Peanuts in the context of baseball.

 

Famously the December 22 1962 and January 28, 1963 strips contain Charlie Brown exclaiming exasperatedly "Why couldn't McCovey have hit the ball even three* feet higher"

 

* "two" in January.

 

This strip is particularly memorable for me. Growing up in Australia I had one of these strips in a Peanuts comic book, but other than a presumed reference to baseball, I had absolutely no idea what significance it had and it puzzled me for years.

 

The reference is to the 1962 World Series where the San Francisco Giants lost in game seven, 1-0, at home, to the NY Yankees. McCovey of course was the final out in the bottom of the ninth inning. At the time Charles Schultz was living in Northern California and, we presume, was a Giants fan. The Sonoma County airport in Santa Rosa, CA is named for him. The gate lounge is full of framed prints of Peanuts strips.

 

The Giants did not return to the world series for 27 years.  They won it this year though!

[Ozexpatriate]

I found baseball more interesting to watch at the stadium as you can more easily see the overall play rather than being limited to the TV camera view.

That's pretty true of most sports - particularly basketball for me, which I simply cannot/will not watch on television, but enjoy at the stadium.

 

Even with the advantage of replays, the constant interruption of commercials in a baseball or even a football game is annoying.  The NFL employs TV time outs to make sure that they accommodate advertising.

 

The exception might be cricket. Few have the patience/stamina to watch five days of cricket in the stadium for seven hours or so a day and commercials during the over break weren't really disruptive. As a University student, on the couch at home, in summer holidays, I managed. Plus the action is so far away in a big match.

[bluebottle]

Which is exactly what I thought. I wasn't presuming to correct you Gordon. Perhaps I could have expressed myself better?

 

 

No, that's fine Michael. I was trying not to overelaborate, then wondered if I'd been too terse. Anyway, we've covered the matter now.

[bluebottle]

All TV newspeople and programme presenters should have it drummed into them that they must say "between A and B" and not "between A to B". I thought that the former was self-evidently correct, but that I'd better see if Eric Partridge provided a formal explanation.

In his forthright manner, however: "between [noun] to [noun] is incorrect - and silly - for between ... and ...  as in "Between London to Manchester, there are several large cities".

[Jeff Smith]

Another pet peeve is someone saying 'either A, B, or C'. Either is a choice between two options.

[Pacific231G]

All TV newspeople and programme presenters should have it drummed into them that they must say "between A and B" and not "between A to B". I thought that the former was self-evidently correct, but that I'd better see if Eric Partridge provided a formal explanation.

In his forthright manner, however: "between [noun] to [noun] is incorrect - and silly - for between ... and ...  as in "Between London to Manchester, there are several large cities".

Remember though that presenters and reporters are often speaking ad lib and sometimes in very difficult and rapidly changing situations so they're unlikely to achieve the same grammatical level that they would (or should) when reading from Autocue*. Some people might criticise a reporter for saying "There's shells and mortars landing just yards from here" instead of "There are artillery and mortar shells landing just a few yards from here" but I probably wouldn't.

 

 

* Other television prompting devices are also available.

[TheQ]

They may be not reading from autocue but I wish they'd stop saying they were ACROSS everything these days!.

[Jeff Smith]

And WORKING the story.

[bluebottle]

Remember though that presenters and reporters are often speaking ad lib and sometimes in very difficult and rapidly changing situations so they're unlikely to achieve the same grammatical level that they would (or should) when reading from Autocue*. Some people might criticise a reporter for saying "There's shells and mortars landing just yards from here" instead of "There are artillery and mortar shells landing just a few yards from here" but I probably wouldn't.

 

 

* Other television prompting devices are also available.

 

If he or she somehow survived a mortar shell exploding just a few yards away, I would doubt that whatever was said would be fit to broadcast. 

[janner]

Another pet peeve is someone saying 'either A, B, or C'. Either is a choice between two options.

 

A similar pet peeve of mine is someone saying 'there are several alternatives'  there can only be one alternative.

[Jeff Smith]

A similar pet peeve of mine is someone saying 'there are several alternatives' there can only be one alternative.

I guess I might have been guilty of that - probably should be 'there are several choices'.

[96701]

I would of thought somebody would of mentioned my pet hate.

[Jeff Smith]

Would have? Mentioned my pet hate that is.....

[BR60103]

I will admit to having a bit of difficulty with "twice as small". Is that supposed to mean "half as big"?

[Bernard Lamb]

"Better than half price"

Where did that come from?

I equate dearer with (usually) better.

Bernard

 

PS Well I hope so in the case of the Hornby K1 and J15.

[Devo63]

You know, one of the most annoying things for me, you know, is the number of sporting identities being interviewed by television reporters, you know, who say "you know" a number of times in one sentence, you know? If the reporter knew the answer, you know, the question would not have been asked in the first place. You know what I mean, mate? This is usually seen in the, you know, post match/game interviews, you know, but also occurs during organised, you know, press conferences. Who else, you know, finds this irritating? 

 

Dave  

[petethemole]

That's sort of like so aggravating.

[TheQ]

Actually the reporter quiet often knows the answer as,

A they may have discussed the questions before the interview

B They are often leading questions trying to get the answer the reporter wants.