In the same vein as "break a leg": I recently learned that in France the saying used before performances is simply "merde". This dates back to when people arrived at the theatre in horse-drawn carriages. The more "merde" out front, the more people inside, indicating a popular show.
people still refer to someone as sounding like a broken record. Which come to think of it, never made sense because a broken record wouldn't play at all. A scratched record would repeat itself.
Terminology has changed over time. The 'broken record' expression has come from the pre-vinyl era, when 'records' were made of shellac.
A shattered record won't play at all.
However, a disc which is cracked or broken will still play, as long as the parts are still largely intact.
The playing needle will generally skip back to an earlier part of the groove and play the same section indefinitely, or until the listener gets sick of it and knocks the playing arm along a bit.
As far as a 'scratched record' goes, much will depend on the depth or angle of the damage relative to the groove it's crossing as to whether the needle will jump out of the groove and skip back a bit.
people still refer to someone as sounding like a broken record. Which come to think of it, never made sense because a broken record wouldn't play at all. A scratched record would repeat itself.
Terminology has changed over time. The 'broken record' expression has come from the pre-vinyl era, when 'records' were made of shellac.
A shattered record won't play at all.
However, a disc which is cracked or broken will still play, as long as the parts are still largely intact.
The playing needle will generally skip back to an earlier part of the groove and play the same section indefinitely, or until the listener gets sick of it and knocks the playing arm along a bit.
As far as a 'scratched record' goes, much will depend on the depth or angle of the damage relative to the groove it's crossing as to whether the needle will jump out of the groove and skip back a bit.
OK: to ‘couch’ a phrase or term - what’s furniture got to do with it???
(I’m so missing Tom Reingold right now.)
You are gonna make me cry if you are not careful. I miss him too, but never got to know him half as well. Oh man! What does that mean? Half As Well, Half the Man, Twice the Man.....
I've got Shpilkas in the Ginicktazoid right now......
don’t get us started on Yiddish-isms!! . For one thing, I’ve got to try sleeping (it’s well after 1 a.m. here, so it’s even later where marksierra is), and for another, I can’t sleep late this morning. i love you all, and your enquiring minds!
Old beds had bottoms that were ropes tied across. You can still see these in colonial era museum houses. The ropes would loosen and have to be tightened with a special key.
Hence, sleep tight.
Make hay while the sun shines. Cut hay that got wet would turn septic.
Folk is derived from a Germanic word with two meanings: both "people" and a "host of warriors", so it was used to describe a group of lower fighters, such as those who were typically farmers outside of battle season.
Fawkes is a Norman name derived from the town of Vaux, in Normandy.
Guy, to describe a man, definitely derives from the burning of an effigy of Guy Fawkes on the bonfire during November 5th "penny for the guy" being the typical cry from kids begging money to buy fireworks for that night. But I did read a couple of things about "guys" being used to be gender-neutral. First, it's region-specific. And second, it fills a hole English has regarding second-person plural. Our second-person plural should be "you all", which is why we get "y'all" in some regions, and they would never use "you guys" there.
I can't hear "guys" as anything BUT gender-neutral, unless the speaker is also saying "girls" (or, ugh, "gals") at the same time -- i.e., "hey guys, dinner is almost ready" is gender-neutral, but "guys and girls, dinner is almost ready" not only isn't gender-neutral, but also excludes anyone nonbinary. But I almost feel like folks objecting to "guys" are going out of their way to take offense when none is intended.
Same with "dude," which I think of as a singular, non-gendered version of "guys."
Guy, to describe a man, definitely derives from the burning of an effigy of Guy Fawkes on the bonfire during November 5th "penny for the guy" being the typical cry from kids begging money to buy fireworks for that night. But I did read a couple of things about "guys" being used to be gender-neutral. First, it's region-specific. And second, it fills a hole English has regarding second-person plural. Our second-person plural should be "you all", which is why we get "y'all" in some regions, and they would never use "you guys" there.
I am still hung up (to dry) on the idea of businesses that fine comb hair to remove nits. Does this business person need a certificate or license? Do you take college courses on this and would the degree be a BS in biology or an MA in psychology or even a journalism degree since so many news pundits seem to be nit-pickers?
This is why MOL is great and fun. We can go off on so many tangents just like we used to have crazy in-person conversations with our friends.
"You guys" sounds very American to my ears -- it is used in Australia and the UK? There's no implication or association with fireworks, mannequins, or gunpowder plots in the phrase, so if it does trace to Guy Fawkes, that's intriguing and very roundabout. It sounds so contemporary too that it's hard to imagine it being that long-standing of a phrase.
So on the 'You Guys' thing - I actually learned about the whole Guy Fawkes thing from a woman who was substituting with me in a school in Rochester NY about ten years ago. She actually lectured me about using it as a negative connotation, which is why I sometimes replace 'guys' with 'folks'. It's awkward any way you slice it, but one of those terms we don't think much of when we try to address other people in a group. It's vernacular, but doesn't hold much meaning to most people either way. Same with the phrase 'God Bless You', or when someone does NOT say it on purpose. When I sneeze around my teenage kids, I say it for them to me.
I'm pretty sad.
On this whole 'you all' thing, I have an additional term that was a thing when I lived in New Orleans over 20 years ago. If you were referring to a group of people, you could say 'All y'all' as the plural of 'y'all'. I'm not kidding, someone actually told me that and I bought it.
Let me mess with 'all y'all' even further - how can you 'buy in' to something someone else says? Where did that come from? How do you trade your soul? What does it mean to stand united?
It sounds so contemporary too that it's hard to imagine it being that long-standing of a phrase.
The earliest example of the "man, fellow" meaning in the OED is from 1847, in Swell's Night Guide, a London guidebook for fashionable young men in search of prostitutes. Of this definition, however, the OED says: "orig. U.S."
I am still hung up (to dry) on the idea of businesses that fine comb hair to remove nits.
Having picked nits not just on MOL, but also after a classroom outbreak years ago, I can attest to the value that experienced, faster, more fastidious fingers would have brought to the task.
I am still hung up (to dry) on the idea of businesses that fine comb hair to remove nits. Does this business person need a certificate or license? Do you take college courses on this and would the degree be a BS in biology or an MA in psychology or even a journalism degree since so many news pundits seem to be nit-pickers?
This is why MOL is great and fun. We can go off on so many tangents just like we used to have crazy in-person conversations with our friends.
When I was at school we had someone called a "nit-nurse" who would go from school to school, checking all the kids for nits, and if she found them, we'd get sent home and we'd have to buy one of those steel combs and wash our hair with bad-smelling medicated shampoo for a couple of weeks until they were gone. No idea if they had a particular qualification, though.
I was in a meeting and one of my co-workers said he would like to acknowledge all of the woman in the group for International Woman's Day. My boss replied, "Yes, thanks you guys."
On language evolving to be more inclusive, I think it's always a bit messy and my general rule of thumb is to take my cues from my interlocutors. Dropping "man" and "makind" for "humans" or "humanity" seems obvious and easy to me, but "guys" doesn't strike me as being obviously gendered, yet I've definitely seen it called out as such. It's really not a huge inconvenience to make the shift and use it less, so rather than insist that I must be the arbiter of what language should be, seems more respectful to just reduce my use of "you guys" in broader contexts and move on with my life. I'll still say "guys" at home and with friends, but rarely at work these days, and if I slip and someone says something, it's really not a huge deal to say "thanks, I'll use a different phrase next time" and move on.
One change I'm unsure about these days is "latinx" instead of "latino/a". If someone identifying as such goes with "latinx" I'll follow suit, but I'm not yet convinced that's the general expected default. But really not a big deal -- language changes and in the process sometimes we get the context wrong, update our understanding of how to speak in that context, and move on.
On language evolving to be more inclusive, I think it's always a bit messy and my general rule of thumb is to take my cues from my interlocutors. Dropping "man" and "makind" for "humans" or "humanity" seems obvious and easy to me, but "guys" doesn't strike me as being obviously gendered, yet I've definitely seen it called out as such. It's really not a huge inconvenience to make the shift and use it less, so rather than insist that I must be the arbiter of what language should be, seems more respectful to just reduce my use of "you guys" in broader contexts and move on with my life. I'll still say "guys" at home and with friends, but rarely at work these days, and if I slip and someone says something, it's really not a huge deal to say "thanks, I'll use a different phrase next time" and move on.
One change I'm unsure about these days is "latinx" instead of "latino/a". If someone identifying as such goes with "latinx" I'll follow suit, but I'm not yet convinced that's the general expected default. But really not a big deal -- language changes and in the process sometimes we get the context wrong, update our understanding of how to speak in that context, and move on.
Replacing "man" and "mankind" with "human" and humanity does not solve the problem. History is another word that is problematic.
On language evolving to be more inclusive, I think it's always a bit messy and my general rule of thumb is to take my cues from my interlocutors. Dropping "man" and "makind" for "humans" or "humanity" seems obvious and easy to me, but "guys" doesn't strike me as being obviously gendered, yet I've definitely seen it called out as such. It's really not a huge inconvenience to make the shift and use it less, so rather than insist that I must be the arbiter of what language should be, seems more respectful to just reduce my use of "you guys" in broader contexts and move on with my life. I'll still say "guys" at home and with friends, but rarely at work these days, and if I slip and someone says something, it's really not a huge deal to say "thanks, I'll use a different phrase next time" and move on.
One change I'm unsure about these days is "latinx" instead of "latino/a". If someone identifying as such goes with "latinx" I'll follow suit, but I'm not yet convinced that's the general expected default. But really not a big deal -- language changes and in the process sometimes we get the context wrong, update our understanding of how to speak in that context, and move on.
Guys, is now common usage for both m and f, with wait staff.
Introduction goes somewhat like, "Hi, my name is, ----- can I start you guys off with something to drink?"
This, no matter the gender of the people I am with.
My 2 vol OED says, on p907, that the first recorded use was in 1806 and in relation to effigies of Guy Fawkes, followed by recorded US usages in 1836 of the term for ‘a person of grotesque looks or dress; a fright’. By 1872, a ‘guy’ was an object of ridicule in either country (and also the reason I was taught not to use it) In 1896 in US slang, it had evolved to mean a man, a fellow.
It’s not used often in Australia apart from Cracker Night/Guy Fawkes Night (which has fallen out of fashion because we can’t easily get firecrackers these days), but using ‘guys’ the old way usually means as a ‘figure of derision or cruel fun’. I’ve seen it that way in some British novels, too. However in normal speech we use ‘guys’ the way we hear it used in American entertainment which has saturated our TV and cinema for decades.
It sounds so contemporary too that it's hard to imagine it being that long-standing of a phrase.
The earliest example of the "man, fellow" meaning in the OED is from 1847, in Swell's Night Guide, a London guidebook for fashionable young men in search of prostitutes. Of this definition, however, the OED says: "orig. U.S."
Replacing "man" and "mankind" with "human" and humanity does not solve the problem. History is another word that is problematic.
Is the etymology the same there? I never looked it up for history, but I always assumed it was coincidence not actually connected to the pronoun his.
As for human, you arguably have the same problem with woman. I have on occasion see womyn, but that's rare enough that it calls attention to itself. To my mind, inclusive language ideally is a way of subtly reframing the flow of words to make more room where previously there was not; if it's too jarring it makes itself the focus rather than the surrounding words and sentences, and so narrows rather than expands.
Human is a Middle English word, that comes from both the Old French humaine (with several alternative spellings) and the Latin humanus and was originally stressed and spelt ‘humane’. (My OED, vol 1 p994)
The change in spelling came about in the 17th century thanks to the poet Dryden and had nothing to do with gender just ease of spelling and use.
My 2 vol OED says, on p907, that the first recorded use was in 1806 and in relation to effigies of Guy Fawkes, followed by recorded US usages in 1836 of the term for ‘a person of grotesque looks or dress; a fright’. By 1872, a ‘guy’ was an object of ridicule in either country (and also the reason I was taught not to use it) In 1896 in US slang, it had evolved to mean a man, a fellow.
The citation I referred to was for definition (d.): "A man, fellow."
. For one thing, I’ve got to try sleeping (it’s well after 1 a.m. here, so it’s even later where marksierra is), and for another, I can’t sleep late this morning. 
In the same vein as "break a leg": I recently learned that in France the saying used before performances is simply "merde". This dates back to when people arrived at the theatre in horse-drawn carriages. The more "merde" out front, the more people inside, indicating a popular show.