Two occasions where I have adopted a British term and (mostly) dropped the American equivalent

By -
"Trousers" and "shop." Why? Maximum comprehensibility.

All Americans understand what trousers and shops are, and they have no second meaning here. But "pants" in the U.K. are underwear, and "stores" are warehouses. So I just settled on the usage that is comprehensible to both audiences. Seems practical, right?

Comments

  1. Anonymous11:24 PM

    Just don't say "fag".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:46 PM

      Joe, It is the fag end of the evening: let's not go into this now.

      Delete
  2. Andy9:58 AM

    I've started using the word "trousers" more since my boys learned the British meaning of "pants" on our last trip there, and have therefore turned it into a running joke.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more