Conference thebay::joyoflex

> To show how silly these people sound I retort with meaningless counterphrases.

Is "counterphrases" a word in the English language?


				-- edp

Why wouldn't it be? It was perfectly intelligible.

Re .2:

Being intelligible does not make something English.  "Counterphrases" is not in
my dictionary; do you have one it is in?

I wouldn't have bothered with this in most notes files, but this is JOYOFLEX.


				-- edp

And now, can we proceed to lambaste "No problem"?  I'd exchange any
number of "Right's" and "Okay's" for one single, offending "No prob-
lem."  "No problem" always makes me pause to review where the alleged
nonproblem originated.  Oh well, I'm slowly getting used to it, anyway.

'Question is, is [<see previous note!] this a new coinage?  I don't
remember growing up with "No problem's"!

Re .1:

I, too, cannot find the word "counterphrases" in my dictionary.
I should have put quotes around the word, or something indicating
its artificialness.

-gad

Re .4:

Yes, "artificialness" is also artificial.  I hope you caught that one, too.
It should be artificiality.

-gad

My theory on the "right?" interjection has to do with an effort
on the part of the speaker to ascertain that the listener is
picking up the import of the speech.  The speaker may perceive
himself to be perfectly lucid, while the listener may perceive
that the speaker is being incredibly opaque.  The speaker prods
the listener to make sure that what is going out is going in as
intended.  If the listener is lost, the speaker has to try a new
way of getting his message across. 

Certainly there are more elegant ways of assuring one's self than
with "right?"  The role of the interjection, however, remains the
same.  There is an Anglicism (that I have seen in print but have
never heard in real life) that does the same sort of thing --
"eh, what?"  And then there are the examples that are more direct
-- "understand?" 

I'm not trying to defend it, really, just trying to account for 
it.  

Mark

Re .7:

I have to disagree with you.  The interjection of "right" might be part of an
attempt to ensure the listener is following, but only if the speaker actually
pauses and waits for an answer.  The purpose or purposes are more likely to
be to stall for time, while the speaker prepares to continue, or to serve as an
impromptu transition.


				-- edp

re .3:

Being absent from a dictionary does not make something not English. 

I wouldn't have bothered with this (either) in most note files, but this is
JOYOFLEX. 

	Jon

Re .9:

> Being absent from a dictionary does not make something not English.

No, but it is a fairly good indication.


				-- edp

re: 8

Your point is well taken, except that I take it as an addition 
rather than a refutation to my point.  I don't usually hear 
people saying "right?" in an effort to marshal their thoughts; I 
usually hear them say "uh..." (the schwa marches on through 
history!) and then continue with their thought.  Perhaps others 
of you have heard "right?" used in this context.  I still 
maintain that right is used, perhaps not exclusively, to get a 
reaction from the listener.  The reaction can be brief, and even 
a reaction of "wrong" indicates that the listener is paying 
attention.  So a "wrong," unless the listener really rebuts the 
originally speaker, provides all the reaction the speaker needs 
to keep on going.  

Mark

Re: .6

My dictionary has "artificialness" in it, so I guess that makes it English.
It is said to have the same meaning as "artificiality".
Fowler sais in his book that "any adjective can be made into a noun by adding
-ness to it", but that in the majority of the cases the addition of -ty (or
-ety or -ity) is preferred.

Rien.

Re .10:

>> Being absent from a dictionary does not make something not English.

> No, but it is a fairly good indication.

Sorry, Eric, but you can't have it both ways.  In another note, you mention
that the American Heritage Dictionary does not list "tesseract".  Now, if
you had never encountered "tesseract" before, and looked it up in the AHD,
you would have to conclude (based on your above argument) that "tesseract"
was not English.

Being absent from a dictionary can indicate many things, including the fact
that a word may not be English; it may also indicate that it's a cruddy 
dictionary.

					andrew

Re .13:

>> No, but it is a fairly good indication.

> Sorry, Eric, but you can't have it both ways.  In another note, you mention
> that the American Heritage Dictionary does not list "tesseract".  Now, if
> you had never encountered "tesseract" before, and looked it up in the AHD,
> you would have to conclude (based on your above argument) that "tesseract"
> was not English.

"Fairly good indication" does not mean "proof".  The fact that uncommon words
are omitted from many dictionaries means that being absent from a dictionary
is not proof, which is why I used the word "indication", which means "sign" or
"symptom".


				-- edp

My dictionary has "ipse dixit," "sang-froid," "brou-ha-ha," and "meshuga."
None of these are English.

	/.[

Re .15:

1)	They are now.

2)	The fact that a dictionary might list words that are not English does
	not affect what we are discussing.  If I had a dictionary which listed
	everything which was a word in any language, the fact that a word was
	not in it would be a good indication that it was not English,
	regardless of the other entries.


				-- edp

I mean that: all English words are not in a dictionary and not all words in a
dictionary are English. A word's being in a dictionary is a good indication of
its being in a dictionary but not much else.

	Jon

This is one of the strangest discussions I've come across!  As a former
English teacher (let's hear from all others!), determination of whether 
a "word" is a word or not largely depends on common usage.  Witness the
evolution of words such as prioritize (ugh), or "interface" used as a
verb.  According to E.B. White, as long as the new coinage is clearly
understood by the majority of its users, it is considered correct.

Now, as to the use of words such as "right," or "y'know," in conversation,
my impression has always been that they've been included as sort of a
verbal pause, or (more likely) because of a nervous habit in the speaker.
(Sort of a lexical twitch, right?)

*Sandy*

Re .17:

> A word's being in a dictionary is a good indication of its being in a
> dictionary but not much else.

I disagree with that.  Being in a dictionary can be a strong or a weak
indication of a number of things -- it depends on who prepared the dictionary,
when it was prepared, why it was prepared, and how well the job was done.


				-- edp

My thoughts precisely. I think we are in violent agreement.

	Jon

re .4 :

I'd guess that "no problem" comes from France - either people who have
been there and "imported" the words after hearing them spoken so often
there, or from French who come to America and find that "no problem"
expresses the same sentiment as it does there, where it is accepted and
grammatical, although spelled differently.  Non French-speaking American
travellers in France hear it even more because the French they encounter
in the Tourisme offices use it as the preferred affirmative answer that
Anglais - types will understand.

re .21, re (my) .4:  A-hA!  Bet you're right--I can surely recognize
that phenomenon!  And, like the other discussion in this file about
the full extension of "What the problem is, is..", I realize [now]
that "pas de probleme" probably has a fuller extension.  

..Never did understand "Pas de quoi" fully; nor did I get the hang
of the full formal letter closing, "Priez d'etre assurer de mes..."
The first case is probably also an ellipsis; the second is the most
cumbersome full extension this side of Japan, 

                              .. " R I G H T "  !?

richtig.

while we're on the topic, I've an observation about "right" - it is apparently
used in IRELAND a lot.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that our usage has 
the ethnic origin, though, because I didn't hear "right" used all the time
in Ireland like "no problem" was in France.   BUT, the equivalent of our
Polish jokes are "Kerryman" jokes in Ireland - about someone from Kerry.
Now, Kerrymen are supposedly known for saying 
		"ROIGHT!"
often and in a thick brogue.  I saw a poster for a nightclub entertainer
which showed the performer in a white tuxedo getup, sans shirt, with a large
balloon from his mouth proclaiming "ROIGHT!" - and appended to his name was
"of Kerry".  

All this means nothing, of course, except that given your aversion to this
word, should you find yourself in Ireland, *avoid Kerry*!

MLP

Re: .4

	'Question is, is [<see previous note!] this a new coinage?

I believe you left out an "is."  Try:

	What the question is is "Is this a new coinage?".

re .24:

> Re: .4  ('Question is, is [<see previous note!] this a new coinage?)

> I believe you left out an "is."  Try:
>	What the question is is "Is this a new coinage?".

No, he didn't.  (Or if he did, he also left out the corresponding "what".)
The apostrophe replaces the implied word "the".  Thus:
	The question is "Is this a new coinage?".

    I'm surprised that no Brits commented on "No problem."  I always
    thought it was English.  It is passable Canadian, though not as
    popular as "You're welcome."  I guess Joe McCarthy would have had
    a field day with it.

    Of course in Japan we have a "no problem."  Which "yes" means "yes"
    and which "yes" means "no".....