Americanisms

[Black Hole]

I think I may have worked out why they like their commas.

Telegraph Cars section, today:

Fast Bargain - Ford's Focus ST is great to drive but won't break the bank

For my money, the two clauses are both positive so it should be "and" not "but" (I appreciate others might see that differently - you could say the second clause is unexpected give the first, but there is an implied expectation in the prefix).

With the uncertainty in which would be correct, putting in a comma instead seems like a cautious approach!

 

[Deleted member 473]

£22,000 seems overpriced for such a boring Ford.

 

[gomezz]

We used to wind up a petrolhead who hated Ford cars with a passion that his RX7 was technically a Ford.

 

[Deleted member 473]

Yes, at one time you could do that for Mazda, Jaguar, Range Rover and Volvo owners to some extent.

I still say £22,000--26,000 is way too much for a Ford.

 

[Black Hole]

How about "pissed" (UK inebriated) and "pissed" (US angry)?

I have been compiling a list of things like that:

Pissed - British: drunk; American: cross, British equivalent: pissed off
Wasted - British: drunk; American: killed
Slaughtered - British: drunk; American: killed

Is there a pattern emerging?!

 

[EEPhil]

I have been compiling a list of things like that:

Pissed - British: drunk; American: cross, British equivalent: pissed off
Wasted - British: drunk; American: killed
Slaughtered - British: drunk; American: killed

Is there a pattern emerging?!

The British have too many words for drunk. The British are drunks?
The Americans have too many words for killed. The Americans are killers?

 

[Deleted member 473]

Muslims are over using the word "slaughter". Do they eat the victims?

 

[EEPhil]

Muslims are over using the word "slaughter". Do they eat the victims?

I doubt that cannibalism is Halal.
I suppose some victims may have been ritually killed in same way a cow is slaughtered. But in the same way a pig is not Halal, I suspect a human isn't.

 

[Deleted member 473]

Then why "slaughter" them rather than kill them?

 

[MikeSh]

Then why "slaughter" them rather than kill them?

Because it dehumanises the act (because you kill people but slaughter animals) and thus makes it easier to carry out?
Which would be the same as any organisation does when making war - dehumanise the enemy so your soldiers won't have an attack of conscience.

 

[Deleted member 473]

But humans are animals too.

 

[Trev]

That's just being picky. ;=)

 

[Luke]

But humans are animals too.

(If you are married) would your wife be OK with you saying that you are married to an animal?

 

[Black Hole]

How about "multi-cellular life form"?

 

[gomezz]

Such as a cabbage?

 

[Deleted member 473]

would your wife be OK with you saying that you are married to an animal?

Yes, I am married to a woman (why would a male's marriage partner have to be a wife?) and she might be offended at first, then take it as a compliment, and then finally be disappointed that I was being literal.

 

[MikeSh]

Muslims are over using the word "slaughter". Do they eat the victims?

But humans are animals too.

The context of the first post is that Muslims are using the word, which I took forward. Most religious groups (seem to me to) believe that humans are different from animals (and religious people often deny evolution to try and support that belief).

 

[Black Hole]

"to try and"???

 

[MikeSh]

"to try and"???

You're right. That implies success which isn't assured in the context, so it should have been "to try to"
OTOH this isn't Assume vs Presume

 

[Deleted member 473]

If the DPP try and convict you, it makes a difference.