Page 4 of 16

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 17:33
by IpseDixit
Is there any difference between "meet someone up" and "meet up with someone"?

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 17:55
by Dormouse559
IpseDixit wrote:Is there any difference between "meet someone up" and "meet up with someone"?
I haven't heard the first one before. Do you have context for it? It's possible that "up" belongs to a different phrase.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 18:01
by IpseDixit
Dormouse559 wrote:
IpseDixit wrote:Is there any difference between "meet someone up" and "meet up with someone"?
The main difference is that the first one doesn't exist. Do you have context for it? It's possible that "up" belongs to a different phrase.


In this song at 1:11 I understand:

"Amy told me that she's gonna meet me up"

Or am I wrong?

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 18:09
by Dormouse559
Sorry about how I put my comment the first time. I should know not to speak in absolutes. You understood the video correctly. I personally wouldn't say "meet someone up", but I don't see any difference in meaning between it and "meet up with someone".

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 18:11
by IpseDixit
Dormouse559 wrote:Sorry about how I put my comment the first time. I should know not to speak in absolutes.

Don't worry. ;)

Dormouse559 wrote:You understood the video correctly. I personally wouldn't say "meet someone up", but I don't see any difference in meaning between it and "meet up with someone".

Ok, I see.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 18:22
by IpseDixit
"Amy told me that she's gonna meet me up"

I have another question related to that sentence. A prescriptivist would say that that sentence is wrong because it should be "Amy told that she was going (not sure if was gonna exists, and don't know if a prescriptivist would accept it anyway) to meet me up", right? But in reality, how common is it to use the present is the subordinate clause even if the the main clause is in the simple past?

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 18:25
by linguoboy
IpseDixit wrote:I have another question related to that sentence. A prescriptivist would say that that sentence is wrong because it should be "Amy told that she was going (not sure if was gonna exists) to meet me up", right?
's can be an abbreviation of was as well as is (and has and does). Abbreviating was this way is less common, however.

And, yes, was gonna exists. This is what happens to is gonna when it gets put in the past.

ETA: Looking at it again, I noticed another wrinkle. I can't tell without more context whether the time when the meetup was supposed to take place has passed or not. If it hasn't, then present tense still makes sense. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_of_tenses#English.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-14, 18:39
by IpseDixit
However it is also possible to use the natural sequence even if the main verb is past or conditional:

Batman said that he needs a special key for the Batmobile.

This option is more likely to be used when the circumstance being expressed remains equally true now as it did when the speech act took place, and especially if the person reporting the words agrees that they are true or valid.


That's exactly what I wanted to know. I wasn't sure whether that was just a "technically incorrect" colloquialism or something accepted in other registers as well.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 13:02
by IpseDixit
Where's the difference between saying he's a Christian and he's Christian? Does one of the two sound ruder?

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 17:51
by linguoboy
IpseDixit wrote:Where's the difference between saying he's a Christian and he's Christian? Does one of the two sound ruder?
Here the difference is negligible, but there's a much-noted politeness cline for describing persons along which adjectives are more polite than nouns and verbal expressions are the most polite of all. Consider:

(1) She's a Jew.
(2) She's Jewish.
(3) She identifies as Jewish./She practices Judaism./etc.

(2) is the most neutral and common statement to make IMD. (1) is impolite; it would generally only be used among people who know each other well enough to know it wouldn't cause offence. (The dated expression, "She's a Jewess" is so rude as to be off the charts.)

What explains the difference between "He's a Christian" and "She's a Jew"? History, I would argue. The vast majority of speakers did not and do not view identifying as Christian negatively. For instance, in 2008, only 3% of USAmericans surveyed reported "unfavorable" views of Christians generally and I'd wager that's an all-time high. In the same survey, 7% reported unfavourable views of Jews, which on the other hand represents an all-time low. (In 2002, it was 9%.)

Compare:

(4) He's a gay.
(5) He's gay.
(6) He has sex with men.

Again, (4) is so dated and offensive to be off the charts. (5) is neutral and (6) is only one possible way this could be formulated (since it includes men who have sex with men but do not identify as gay, for any number of reasons).

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 18:21
by IpseDixit
Thanks for the thorough explanation! So it's basically like Italian.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 18:29
by linguoboy
IpseDixit wrote:Thanks for the thorough explanation! So it's basically like Italian.
Good to know!

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 18:31
by IpseDixit
linguoboy wrote:
IpseDixit wrote:Thanks for the thorough explanation! So it's basically like Italian.
Good to know!

Was that ironical? :(

http://it.urbandictionary.com/define.ph ... od+to+know

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 22:36
by Koko
IpseDixit wrote:
linguoboy wrote:
IpseDixit wrote:Thanks for the thorough explanation! So it's basically like Italian.
Good to know!

Was that sarcastic? :(

http://it.urbandictionary.com/define.ph ... od+to+know

I don't think he meant it that way. I find it a good thing to know too: I don't want to accidentally offend somebody in another language. Since linguo seems to have an interest in Italian lately, I don't think he was being sarcastic.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 22:57
by IpseDixit
That's like good for you... I still have to understand whether it's only sarcastic or can also be meant in a serious way.

The Italian version buon per te is only sarcastic and means I couldn't care less.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 23:06
by Koko
In speech, it can be serious. But it's a little harder to know how to take it in writing. It's an intonation dependent phrase.

What's the non-sarcastic Italian version? Buon di/da sapere?

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 23:13
by IpseDixit
Koko wrote:Buon di/da sapere?

It's buono a sapersi but it's still sarcastic.

A non-sarcastic way would be to say bene!, complimenti! or sono contento/a per te! (the latter is stronger).

Of course the intonation is very important.

If you have other questions, ask them in the Italian forum. :)

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-18, 23:59
by linguoboy
IpseDixit wrote:That's like good for you... I still have to understand whether it's only sarcastic or can also be meant in a serious way.
"Good for you" can only be sarcastic.

"Good to know" can be either sarcastic or serious, depending on context and intonation.

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-21, 14:59
by IpseDixit
What does due mean here?

"What had probably been a church to some forgotten god crumbled under millennia of creeping growth and rot due north of their target."

Re: IpseDixit - English

Posted: 2015-03-21, 15:19
by Dormouse559
"Due" followed by a cardinal direction means "to the [cardinal direction]". So "due north" = "to the north".