Annoying North American words

Americans, I love you all, but some of your words really grind my gears. I heard these used recently:

burglarized : Please use the proper English word 'burgled'.
happenstance : Odd word I don't quite understand. Seems to be a blend of 'happening' and 'circumstance'.
drug : Not a past tense of 'drag'. You can't be drug from a crashed car.

I could go on. No offense intended.

I'm with you on 1 & 3 but I rather like 'happenstance' - it seems to fit the idea very well.

Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.

That's from the film - I can't lay my hands on my copy of the book but I wonder if Fleming used the word in print?

Well, I don't believe that most Americans think #3 is correct, so I'd hesitate to call it one of "our" words.

#2 is a wonderful word that has no real analogue (or analog if I'm going to be particularly American) that I know of. The fact that it's been around for a century and a half, and is still going strong, does tend to indicate a usefulness.

As for #1, well, I rather dislike burglarized myself. However, since it has made it into almost every dictionary (included a certain venerated British instance) as a valid American English word, I think the use of 'proper' a bit...parochial?

This from a Brit! We all know they're silly people who don't realize that a bonnet belongs on Jane Austen's head, not the front of an automobile!

And they can't spell, either, always sticking extra "u"s in where they don't belong.

>4 lilithcat:: LOL!

Burgle{d} isn't a 'real' verb -- it's a back-formation from burglar. In fact it's the first example of back-formation cited by the OED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation. Burglar-ize is just the common verbing of a noun by adding a suffix. I'm sure we could find countless -ize (excuse me, -ise) noun-to-verbs in British English if we drug them out.

Drug for dragged is acceptable usage nowhere in the U.S. It might be accepted as a humo{u}rous sub-colloquialism in some cases (Compare Dizzy Dean, broadcasting: "And the runner slud into third!")

Brits or Yanks -- when you find yourself in new surroundings do you attempt to 'orientate' yourself? This form seems to be ubiquitous, but makes me cringe. Why not just 'orient' oneself?

>6 Crypto-Willobie:

I 'orientate' (or, more often than not, fail to) but it feels like a usage that's falling out of fashion.

>7 housefulofpaper: I'm finding the opposite. It's becoming more and more common and it drives me nuts. I orient myself.

>7 housefulofpaper:,>8 Morphidae:

I wonder why the UK usage would be gaining ground in the US? Maybe it's a back-formation from 'orientation'?

> 9
I agree, it seems to be a back-formation from orientation.

Back-formations are not evil in themselves when they fill a need, but orientate is unnecessary since orient already exited as a verb.

I suppose orientation was necessary since who would want to say 'oriention'?

I kind of get hung up upon commonly-used phrase in corporate America of "incentivize" rather than "incent".

"Drug" for "dragged" isn't much worse than "et" for "ate." We speakers of English have a long history of messing with irregular verbs even to the point of iirregularizing (irregularising?) them. We like to make up verbs, too.

I suspect that "et" is an older pronunciation rather than a modern mispronunciation.

>11 TadAD: I imagine for many people "incent" stands a bit too close to "incest" or "incense," in the non-stinky sense of the word, for comfort.

And, as it happens, "incent" isn't in my dictionary. "Motivate" might be more useful and accurate.

>4 lilithcat:
And a boot is a kind of footwear, frequently worn in winter and/or rain, or for a few other special purposes and the odd regionalism. The thing in your car in which you transport heavy inanimate objects is the trunk.

>14 PhaedraB: How interesting! You caused me to go see what the situation is in the dictionaries I have.

"Incent" is in the oldest and the newest dictionary I have, but not the middle one (Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary, one I'm not particularly fond of using).

"Incentivize" is only in the newest (2001).

A quick Google seems to provide a consensus that it's (edit: incentivize, that is) a late-20th century addition to the language, global in nature but more often used in the U.K. than the U.S. Some sites speculate that it's popular because it's somewhat different that "motivate"...and I admit that I do see incent/incentivize so. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something to do with monetary reward as opposed to encouragement.

Here are two more that sound wrong to me : normalcy. (normality) and
alternate pronounced alter-nut (alternative)

I see motivation as much broader. Providing incentives is just one way to motivate people.

>4 lilithcat:
The Rolling Stounes are OK, though...

This isn't annoying, just peculiar to my British view. I have just re-read Treasure Island and was glancing through the many reviews. Two reviewers, I think from the USA, said that Jim Hawkins helped his 'mom' to run the Admiral Benbow, 'a bed and breakfast' near the sea.

What do Americans expect from a B & B?

Probably a place free of black spots ...

And welcoming for the visually impaired ...

... and pet friendly.

I think it is very sad that many American authors use "that" where it should be "who".

Do you not think it sounds crude to say “people that need people”? It suggests the person is an object. The correct term is “people who need people”, surely?

It's machines that need attention but it's people who need attention.

>23 Novak: it's people who need attention

For some reason that phrase always calls to mind one of those dreadful interlingual puns so beloved of a certain class of schoolteachers: the one about the German expat in London who wants to buy a small fir-tree (Tännchen) at Christmas time...

As you said, dreadful.

I like to point out that it is very helpful to pay attention to who the speaker is when trying understand sentences like:
"I'm mad about my flat!"

The meaning is very different if it is said by an enthusiastic young person in Britain just recently moved out from living with parents OR by an American who got to an appointment late because of glass on the road.

Why do I find it so annoying when i see 'gift' and 'author' used as verbs? Or 'wrote so-and-so' without 'to'? I know some of these have long distinguished histories in America but I can't stand books that use them. Sad or are they awful?

I recently read a book in which the author complained that in England most menus have a section called 'puddings' but most of the things offered weren't puddings and should have been called desserts.

Everyone in England who is not posh call every sweet thing at the end of the meal desserts. Strictly desserts are only fruit and nuts while puddings are cooked. Stick to desserts.

> 26

My Webster's says that "gift" as a verb is "Chiefly Scottish"!

>28 fredsmithx: I'd disagree with that - I'm British and not posh - I and my family have always used 'pudding' at home. 'Dessert', or 'sweet', are what you have when eating out.

>26 fredsmithx: A lot of nouns are becoming verbs now. "Text" is an obvious one. Another that is used a lot in science is image. For example, one might say "imaging" a house rather than taking a photograph of it.

>30 CDVicarage:,>31 krazy4katz:
But, interestingly, neither "pudding" nor "dessert" shows any sign of becoming a verb. Probably because "pudding" already looks like a present participle and "dessert" (from the French verb desservir) already has an unrelated homophone verb in English. The OED has a long discussion of the etymology of "pudding" - apparently it isn't quite certain that it's simply French boudin as I always assumed.

As is so often the case with these things, "text" and "image" both turn out to have been used as verbs since medieval times. Shakespeare uses "text" as a verb in Much ado about nothing - meaning to add a caption to a picture , rather than to send an SMS, of course. "Image" was mostly used to mean something like "create a mental image of", and from the examples in the OED it looks as though its main function was to allow poets to drop a syllable out of "imagine" when it wouldn't fit. The earliest scientific use they quote is from a 1925 patent. It does have some justification as a scientific term, because it isn't restricted to visible-light techniques as "photograph" is. You need a more general term to cover the process of making a 2D representation of something using infra-red, radar, gamma-rays, ultrasound, NMR, or whatever.

Don Pedro: But when shall we set the savage bull’s horns on the sensible Benedick’s head?
Claudio: Yea, and text underneath, ‘Here dwells Benedick the married man!’
(Much Ado, V.i)

I'm not convinced that 'text' there is used as a verb. The sentence is not complete. If the beginning of the sentence is filled from the previous sentence we have:

When shall we (set) text underneath?

Without the 'set' it would be acting as a verb, with it, as a noun.

>33 MarthaJeanne:
Yes, I agree it could be read either way. It's the editors of the OED who declare it a verb.

I had a quick look at other uses of "text" in Shakespeare (there seem to be ten or so, if Bartleby.com is telling the truth): it looks as though all of them use "text" in the sense of a verse of Scripture, either in itself or as a subject that is to be expounded. There doesn't seem to be any other example that uses "text" simply for words on paper. Which doesn't prove anything, but at least gives a hint that there's something different going on in this example.

>32 thorold: Claudio: Yea, and text underneath, ‘Here dwells Benedick the married man!’

Hm. I would have interpreted text there as a noun, with an elided 'with' before it. Yea, and (with) text underneath...

As a regular viewer of 'Judge Judy', I've learnt new and fascinating Americanisms such as 'love seat' and 'lean' (I think this means a loan?)
But as previous comment says, you do have to watch out for one nationality misunderstanding the other...I recall telling an American penpal that my husband was seeing a solicitor, and they thought I meant a lady of the night, and offered their sympathies!

"Lean" might be "lien", a right to keep possession of property belonging to another person until a debt owed by that person is discharged (thank you, Google, for the succinct definition.) I don't think that's an Americanism, though.

"Text", like "image" serves new purposes. A long time ago, I used a type of software called a text editor, which was a plain-text typing program into which you could insert formatting codes. Think prehistoric HTML. So "plain text" has evolved into plain "text", and the formatted words produced with Word, for example, are something else. Probably a document.

>36 starbox:

The word you're hearing as "lean" is "lien" and it's a claim against property for an unpaid debt.

I enjoy the differences between British English and American English. I also enjoy regional differences within the state in which I live.

The native population say "Why come" instead of "Why" or "How come". Also, they ask you where you "stay", not where you "live" (as in an apartment/flat).

Anyone here ever read The Story of English or see the television series? It's highly enjoyable. :)

Thanks, fuzzy! Looks like an interesting book from the small amount I was able to read on Amazon. I may order a copy. Not being a language scholar, I always forget about the Indo origins of Indo-European languages.

k4k

>40 fuzzi: I enjoy the differences between British English and American English. I also enjoy regional differences within the state in which I live.

One of the best comments I have seen here on the whole of LT. It's fun to moan, complain, criticise, poke fun at,compare and dissect, but most of all it is fascinating and enjoyable exploring the source and reasons within the language.

Thank you fuzzi, you made my day.

>41 krazy4katz: >42 Novak: you're welcome. English and the study of language, its origins and development, are interesting to me. I hope you enjoy the book.

I still own a small book I bought years ago on a bargain table, Sumer is Icumen In. Fascinating read.

Americanism or Englishism?

I heard my favourite when I lived briefly in Texas. An Englishman was explaining that in an emergency he needed late in the night to waken a neighbour , for whom he had no telephone number.

"I had to go and bang her up in the middle of the night!"

Now that one silenced all ongoing conversations!

Oh, Englishism definitely. That would never work in the heart of Texas. He'd be arrested for sure!

None are as bad as the Australian horror that is "onforwarding".

>14 PhaedraB: The first time I heard "incentivize" I cringed and thought to myself, "What happened to good old 'motivate'?" I heard it in the 70s and it was said by a UK news presenter.

>44 CliffordDorset: "I had to go and bang her up in the middle of the night!"

Americanism or Englishism? Not quite.

I'm sure some of my Oz friends would regard it as an "ice braker" leading up to a first date. :o)

Thanks for a really good laugh.

>44 CliffordDorset:, >49 Novak:
I've never come across "to bang (someone) up", except as British slang for putting in jail. The OED lists an American use meaning to defeat in battle.

To "knock (someone) up" is current in Britain both for waking someone and for making someone pregnant - that was perhaps what the person in the anecdote really said. Before the days of cheap alarm-clocks, there used to be knocker-uppers in industrial towns who were employed to go round waking factory hands in time for the early shift (they had a stick for knocking on upstairs windows).

>50 thorold: Exactly ! .. .. .. The knocker-upper then knew which husbands were at the workplace.. .. .. Probably where the saying originated. :)

>50 thorold:: Agree with "bang up" for putting in jail but it seems (in UK) to be often used with the sense of "making pregnant" — just like "knock up". And "banging" (without the "up") a woman seems to be often used as a subsitute for "screwing"/"shagging".

Just been reading up. The Knocker-up's job was very popular but they never seemed to live very long.

I quite like the way that Americans use the word 'garnished'. Having my wages garnished sounds like something I would want to happen. :-D

>54 darrow:
Hmm. I'm not sure how much more I'd look forward to the envelope at the end of the month if it came with two slices of cucumber and a sprig of parsley...

It's odd how many old legal terms that have dropped out of use or are only used in a very narrow, professional context in Britain are effectively mainstream in the US - "lien", "escrow", "real estate", etc.

I suppose it's partly simply the effect of the separation of the two legal systems since the 18th century, partly a sign of how central to American life the law industry is.

>55 thorold: Ho ho! I once received a "garnishee" notice myself. While my mouth was watering I had to go and look up what it meant. I was disappointed. :(

I think we're influenced by what we read. I find myself using "British" words in conversation, and I have GOTTEN (>57 white-van-man: haha) many strange looks over their usage.

If you like Britishisms, try ordering a book or two from Book Depository:

*** THANK YOU ***
ever so much for placing an order with us here at Book Depository

I get a laugh from that every time.

Thanks awfully for that >59 MarthaJeanne:!

I remember telling a friend from Alabama, when we were still living in England, that "gotten" was a dreadful "Americanism". I had forGOTTEN that she was an English teacher and my ill-GOTTEN pride led to my downfall as she smoothly displayed her OED to show it was pure (and old) English.
The only residue in common use is that same ill-gotten!

>59 MarthaJeanne: I'm surprised it doesn't say "Thank you for your custom."

>59 MarthaJeanne: That's simply spiffing, what?

>60 John_Vaughan: Misbegotten ?

>62 Novak: Well done Lord Lucan! Yes. I'd forgotten that one. (Bet it was your cat that typed that.)

my frustrations with americanisms seem to be all concentrated on "anymore". here is an example from Leviathan Wakes

“Sure, OPA. Anymore, you swing a dead cat in this station, you’ll hit three OPA guys. Just no good information.”

> 64

I've never heard anyone use "anymore" in that way. I wonder if it's a regionalism? It's certainly not used where I am.

>64 SimonW11: I would expect 'anyway'. Which can really get on my nerves.

>65 lilithcat: The usage is spreading. For some people it is becoming synonymous with "now" rather than "nowadays". "Anymore" was itself a midwestern regionalism. but it is spreading, and as it spreads, well "Rules change with the Reaches".

< 67

"Anymore" was itself a midwestern regionalism.

There's midwest, and then there's midwest. Because I have lived in the midwest all my life, and I've never heard "anymore" used to mean "now" or "nowadays" (indeed, I've rarely heard people actually use "nowadays" in common speech). It's always used as in sentences such as "We don't do that anymore", meaning "we don't do that any longer".

nods since nowadays means

"at the present time, in contrast with the past."

Then "We don't do that anymore", "We don't do that nowadays", and "We don't do that any longer". are all synonymous.

Unless you can show me difference? An example where anymore and nowadays are not interchangeable?

>68 lilithcat: Same here. I've been in the midwest for 25 years and have never heard "anymore" used that way.

They're not exactly synonymous:

'Nowadays everyone has a TV'
You couldn't replace nowadays with anymore,

Seems to only work with negative form.
It makes you wonder how foreigners ever learn English!

"'Nowadays everyone has a TV'
You couldn't replace nowadays with anymore",
Nowadays people do.

But yes you are right. It would not have been acceptable even ten years ago. And while I find it unacaeptable such usages are creeping in.That is why I have taken such a dislike to the word. Its frequent misuse has destroyed its meaning. It has become a word to actively avoid.

In college (oh so many years ago) we were encouraged to use “nowdays” to express the present time. Now-a-days was regarded as a very old-fashioned expression.

I notice that my spellchecker does not like “nowdays”. Then again it doesn't like “spellchecker” either. :)

> 73

I'm sorry to hear that your spellchecker is lacking in self-esteem. Perhaps it needs therapy?

>Novak
Where did you go to college? Is "nowdays" a regionalism?

As a native Californian, my English is perfect.

>75 IreneF: As a native Californian, my English is perfect.?

I think you forgot to append "Dude" to that sentence.

>75 IreneF: No, you are not from Boston. That is where perfect English is spoken.

Ahem.

>75 IreneF: / Boston

Except for those stray R's everyone else have to chase.

>63 John_Vaughan: (Bet it was your cat that typed that.)

I am worried about my cat using my laptop and a few other things. I may need some help.

**Just ignore him, prrrr. **

>78 AnnaClaire: those stray R's can be found in some areas of the US mid west, where they "warsh" their clothes. ;)

I'm not casting stones, by any means. I lived in New England (Connecticut) for over 20 years, and still drop an "r" occasionally.

"I cut the apple into four pieces, so that each of us could have a quatter. ("quarter") LOL.

Reading this thread reminded me of something I once read - "There are two kinds of people in the world; good people and bad people ... and the good people decide which is which." (Which are which?)

The Americanism which really gets to me is "in back".

(Which ARE which?)

I believe "which IS which" is correct, even though "kinds" (pl.) appears earlier in the sentence. The understood antecedent of "which" is "kind" (sing.) , not "kindS" (pl.) because only one of the two kinds can actually BE a particular one of the two.

I always assumed that it was 'which is which' but on this particular forum I didn't want to be wrong-footed if I could help it.

Or is the antecedent 'people'?

>84 MarthaJeanne: I don't think so, because "people" is in a prepositional phrase. It would be two kind/kinds.

Thinking of regional differences of language in the US, I have just enjoyed reading Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris. He describes his speech therapist (trying to cure his lisp) as speaking with a heavy western North Carolina accent. "Here was a person for whom the word 'pen' had two syllables. Her people undoubtedly drank from clay jugs and hollered for Paw when the vittles' were ready."

I think it was Sedaris who also wrote about a Yale alumnus from N.C. being asked by a friend at home, "Are you at Harvard?" "Yale" said the student. "ARE YOU AT HARVARD?" shouted the pal.

>80 fuzzi:

My in-laws are from Springfield, Mass., and they have issues with Rs. "Warsh" for "wash", "sahr" for "saw", and "pitcher" for "picture". Completely different from Boston.

I think these Rs originated somewhere in England.

More on "warsh" and its friends:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/160117/where-does-the-intrusive-r-com...

>86 abbottthomas: A perfect example of bigotry against the US South. When I first moved from Chicago to Mobile AL many long years ago, I was shocked to hear PhDs talking in a way which in the North we associated with the uneducated. That's probably because waves of immigration to the Midwest by poor Southerners in search of work associated the accent with poverty, lack of education, and "trash." In fact, in their homes of origin, those blue-collar Southerners didn't sound all that different from their "betters."

Parts of the Southern states, especially in the Appalachians which historically have been somewhat isolated, have accents which are much closer to the English of the original colonists than what you hear anywhere else today, much influenced by Scots-Irish and Anglo-Irish. (I suppose a pedant might argue that those are not Anglo-English accents.)

Some say that in parts of Virgina you can hear an accent close to that of Shakespeare. It's not substantiated, but I know when I spent time around Lynchburg VA, I heard an unusual, musical accent unlike any I'd heard elsewhere. It would be easy to believe it had 16th-17th century roots.

This is a nice essay on the subject of mountain accents:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/appalachian-chronicles/2012/...

I must say, the writer got the use of "bless her/his heart" just right. The usage is not restricted to the mountains, however; I've heard it all over the South.

I'd note that I'm originally from the Midwest, I've lived all over the US, mostly in the East and South: Boston area, outside NYC, Alabama, the Florida panhandle (AKA Southern Alabama), several places in North Carolina, and now Oregon. I'm fascinated by the different ways that people talk, and find many accents charming. I also have a bit of a chameleon ear, in that I'll pick up the accents of people I'm talking to. I'll pick up the NY/NJ accent, then get on the phone with my son in Mobile and suddenly I've got a Southern accent again.

(edited to re-add URL that somehow disappeared)

>80 fuzzi: My former brother-in-law, from the Chicago area, used to pronounce "grease" as "greaze." I asked him about that once, because previously I'd only heard it from people from the western United States. He said, "That's because I'm from the western suburbs."

(Probably funnier if you're familiar with the Chicago area.)

>89 PhaedraB:
I think the Appalachian accent being Elizabethan was long ago debunked. When I heard "original accent" Shakespeare performed it sounded more like a regional English accent. Reminded me of a friend's husband who is a former coal miner from the Derby or Cheshire area.

Overall, I think American English is "more authentic" than British English. The "proper" English accent (RP) seems to be fairly new.

My mother had a Boston accent but I spent my growing years in upstate New York where she was known as "the lady with the accent". This was pretty funny considering that my father was from Austria and had a noticeable German accent that no one ever mentioned. I used to compensate for her perceived lack of "Rs". For example, when she said "garage" I assumed it should be pronounced "gararge" so that is what I did. Also "clark" instead of "clock". My mother said the worst thing she ever did was to send me to school where I lost my "beautiful Boston accent".

ETA: Now I live in the South and I sense that I am losing more consonants.

>92 IreneF: Speaking as a Brit I am inclined to agree. I think without the American influence (particularly during the Rock n Roll years) English English would have become very stale and boring. As it is maturing and blending it is proving fascinating. Nice period to be listening to.

>89 PhaedraB:
I liked your link - two words which the author found inexplicable were 'dun' (for a bill) and 'poke' (for a bag). I've not heard 'dun' used for a while but it used to be a common expression in the UK for a persistent chase after money owed - what a debt collector did. As for 'poke', the phrase 'a pig in a poke' is still in current usage here although I can't think of any other use of the word to mean 'bag'. It is said that to buy a pig in a poke is to buy the animal unseen, only to find a cat in the bag when opened.

>90 PhaedraB: Yes, the "Shakespearean" accent in America is far more romanticism than reality. But the accent in that area in Virginia is very distinctive.

Many people don't realize how many different "Southern" accents there are. NC itself has at least three distinctive ones: mountain, Piedmont, and coastal. Stop in a diner in Kentucky and you'll hear pure Loretta Lynn (or Sissy Spacek doing a very good Loretta Lynn in Coal Miner's Daughter). My son in Mobile tells me he got a new "dawg," which you wouldn't hear in NC. The east side of the Appalachians sound different than the west side. Tennessee is not like Kentucky. Texas doesn't sound at all like Louisiana.

That's why one can't judge how "Southern" Shakespeare sounded based on a too-broad assumption of what "Southern" sounds like. I'm referring to a specific area right around Lynchburg VA. I've never heard another Southern accent quite like it.

Here's a couple of interesting sound files about Shakespearean Original Pronunciation (OP).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/03/24/149160526/shakespeares-accent-how-...

http://www.openculture.com/2013/09/what-shakespeare-sounded-like-to-shakespeare....

After listening, I conclude that if the Lynchburg-area accent (I wish I could find a sound file for it) isn't really Elizabethan, it is certainly a closer cousin to it than anything I've heard anywhere else. Question is, I suppose, is how distant a cousin it may be.

>95 abbottthomas: Dunning for payment is also used here, although not usually to mean the bills themselves. It's possible the author mistook complaints about late notices (certainly common in economically-depressed areas) with complaints about the bills themselves.

We do caution about pigs in pokes here too, but using "poke" outside of that adage is very regional.

I didn't link to some other articles because I thought that there was an even larger gap between what was "unexplainable" and reality. As in, those writers need to get out of their own little world more before they decide what is inexplicable and what is not.

There's a phenomenon where both languages and practices can become more entrenched the farther they are from the source. A colony may be more invested in preserving something than the mother country, for good or ill. Some say that explains how invested some Euro-Americans are in Christianity, far more than the countries from which their ancestors hailed.

>97 PhaedraB:

Or it could be that colonists have fewer outsiders to talk to, so they don't pick up new words from the mother country or imitate a cool new accent.

Also, many colonists in what was to become the US were Dissenters, and came here to escape the Church of England.

>89 PhaedraB: I really enjoyed this post.

I try to guess where people are from, or where they used to live, based upon their accent. The only times people were upset with my game was when I thought someone was from Australia, but they were from England...and another time when it was the opposite...oops! Sorry... ;)

>98 IreneF: Yes, that's certainly a factor initially, but sometimes persists for centuries.

>99 fuzzi: Thank you. A colleague of mine managed to offend a visiting vice president when she asked him if he was from England. He took great umbrage, then told us he was from Hong Kong--British Hong Kong, if it needs to be said--because of course living in Chicago we would have heard that accent often enough to easily distinguish it!

My accent is often mistaken, even by Pommies, for an English accent but in fact I speak a dialect called 'Adelaide Posh' which only a South Australian would appreciate - or not!

I suspect the range of British accents in shakespearean London would confound any time traveller from today.

Somewhere there is an online quiz that tries to pinpoint you in the US by your vocabulary. We have lived outside the US for so long that its results for us were hilarious.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/12/20/sunday-review/dialect-quiz-map.htm...

>103 MarthaJeanne: We have lived outside the US for so long that its results for us were hilarious.

"Ain't that the truth". If you are a constant traveller, whenever you phone home friends claim you are "talking strange".

In my own case, returning to London after being away has my family claiming I am "talking posh" because they (who do not travel) can detect a lesser accent.

Returning to the Westcountry from London, friends claim they can tell where I have been because "you're using a London accent.. .. again"

In each case I am totally unaware.

>103 MarthaJeanne: Doesn't matter. I live *inside* the US and the results were hilarious. I live in Minnesota and grew up in Florida. It gave me Alaska and coastal mid-California!

My closest manner of speech is West Coast America, just north of San Francisco, which is fair enough since I am an Australian and have always lived in Australia.

Mine came out as Boston. As a former Brit I find it hard to believe that I sound as "Oirish" as Paul Revere!

Fun.

Boston, Springfield, New York. Based on my use of the word "sneakers".

Ha--the quiz totally pegged me (Boston, Providence, Worcester). I think it was "bubbler" and "sneakers" that did it.

>109 Marissa_Doyle:
Ditto here, but I've lived in California for most of my life and I think I speak a generic American dialect.

Boston/Providence/Worcester? Boston is not at all like Western Mass.

>110 IreneF: You have to take account of the type of people you have been mixing with on LT.

>110 IreneF: Worcester isn't considered western MA--and it's just a bit west (and north, of course) of Providence.

There are a few other words I'm surprised the quiz didn't include, like what word one uses for a type of sandwich made on baguette-type bread--that's highly regionalized (sub--hoagie--etc.)

>112 Marissa_Doyle: The quiz I took did. Maybe the questions are random?

We played with this a lot, and there are different questions - which can move you around a lot.

I found the sandwich one hard, as I tend to call cold ones subs, and hot ones grinders.

>113 Morphidae: Must be, Morphy--I didn't get that one. I wonder if they did the milkshake/frappe one?

I think the problem is that for those of us who move around a lot, we may use multiple words for the same thing depending on where we are. There were a few that I never use because I don't talk about those objects so I picked the one I thought was most familiar. I have used both submarine sandwich and hoagie. I suppose if I were initiating the conversation, I would use submarine. I don't remember what I said for that one. I think hoagie might move me closer to Philadelphia rather than Boston?

True. I always have used soda and soda comes naturally to me. But since moving to Minnesota I use pop because the first time I asked for a soda I got club soda!

My father used to forget and say 'tonic' now and again.

As an Englishman, I took the quiz and, unsurprisingly, was put in a thin edge of the Eastern seaboard with, less obviously, a warm spot in Oregon. I have no idea why that should be.

>103 MarthaJeanne: it identified me with New England...must have been the "grinder" that did it...

I think some of the differences are as much chronological as geographical. Even in the same area, even if they have never moved, people of different generations will use different words for the same thing. Sometimes because of advertising, or a new sandwich chain moving in. Sometimes just because kids don't want to sound like their parents.

There are also several questions which I would answer differently depending on context. Normally I would use 'you'. But I can easily imagine saying to my kids when they were smaller, 'All right, you guys, time to clean up now.' And I have been in language classes where we used 'you all' to indicate plural. That's a very special case, of course, but I have used it, and would again in informal translation.

Crayon can be one or two sylable for me depending on emphasis.

>112 Marissa_Doyle:
I figured Worcester would group with Western Mass. because my husband went to school there after growing up in Springfield. He eventually wised up and moved west (Calif.) for real.

I picked up "y'all" from a Southern boyfriend. I suppose "you guys" is the functional equivalent. Or "youse"? Strangely, English has no second person plural.

Actually, it does. It has lost the second person singular (Thee, thou) because the plural was used for anyone you considered your equal or superior. I checked Shakespeare once - even grown children are called 'you' by their parents. Once you get to that point it starts to be an insult.

The only place it survives today is in some churches. Strangly enough, those who want to retain it there consider 'you' too everyday for God, and want to show respect by using a special pronoun only for divine persons.

>123 MarthaJeanne:
On the contrary, it does have a second person plural. The second person singular dropped out of normal usage, though it hung on a bit longer among certain groups (such as the Quakers).

That is what I said.

>122 IreneF: No, Worcester's more in the Boston sphere than the western MA sphere.

>118 MarthaJeanne: Yes! The localism I love but haven't heard for a long time is "cabinet" for milkshake in SE Mass/Rhode Island.

From what I understand, the use of "thee/thou" vs. "you" in the Quaker tradition was meant to be egalitarian--using the (then) more informal thee/thou for everyone meant that you weren't differentiating by "quality" because everyone was supposed to be equal in the sight of God. Funny how the underlying reason for the usage changed.

Actually, thou and thee are not the singular but the informal for you -- compare tu/usted or du/zie). Ye is the plural of you. but has faded into being just an archaic alternative for it.

>121 MarthaJeanne: My sister says crayon with one syllable, but I say it with two, and we grew up in the same house.

My sister also says Saturday as "sah er day" which drives me nuts. But she's my sister, so I hold my tongue. After all, she's over 50 now, so I doubt if there would be anything I could do to change her mind about it at this point. Perhaps I'll merely decline to invite her to "t" early on the weekend.

>127 Crypto-Willobie:
Why would a perfectly useful word fade away without being replaced?

Because people stopped using it.

I studied both German and French in school. I recall that the plural "you" was used as the polite/respectful form.

I have noted the use of "Thou" and "Thee" in church when speaking to God. I believe it is not only used to offer respect, but by those who use the King James bible.

It's nice to have the distinction between plural and singular "you". :)

'Ye' hangs on in there, just. Hymns - 'Ye Holy angels bright', 'Ye choirs of new Jerusalem' and others. Town criers still call out "Hear, ye!" The expletive "Ye gods!" (with or without "...and little fishes!")

There must be other current uses.

> 132

Town criers still call out "Hear, ye!"

Where are there still town criers?

However, another current use is in courtrooms, as in "Hear ye, hear ye, this Honorable Court is now in session."

>133 lilithcat:
They still exist in the UK:

http://www.ahgtc.org.uk/

> 134

Oh, very cool, indeed!

My 10 year old grandchild got hooked on watching the Dr. Who series, and quite easily slips a few Britishisms into his speech, leaving the kids who watch only American television a little befuddled. I imagine more and more cross-pollination is in the offing!

It's rare, this use of "anymore" in my neck of the woods; all we ever seem to do is use it in the negative. I don't know quite what is meant by the lonely "anymore." Wouldn't "now" do?

At least it's not the annoying (to me) "at this point in time" when surely "now" is all that can be meant. Waste of breath, or ink, or graphite.

>132 abbottthomas: The last Town Crier I heard in person was in Fowey, Cornwall, and he was magnificently loud! He then led the entire crowd in The Furry Dance. Mind, this was a decade or so ago.

>95 abbottthomas:

Re: 'poke'
Back in the fifties, at least in the north-east of England, small sweets (candies) were usually sold loose, and usually packaged in a 'poke', which was a conical white paper bag whose open (wide) end could be folded tidily over the sweets and tucked in to prevent their escape.

It was one of life's few childhood treats in those difficult post-war years, in and after the days of sweet rationing (which persisted for many years after WWII) to run to the corner sweet shop to spend one's few pocket money pennies on a poke of sweets, sold in quantities of either a quarter pound (Imperial) or two ounces.

I think the poke in this context died out on the advent of pre-packaged highly advertised confections.

>137 msladylib: I haven't heard "anymore" used in that form either, but I wonder if it is a descendent of "anywho," which I've heard since my mid-century childhood used as a casual speech replacement for "anyway."

>139 CliffordDorset: Ah! Coupons?
Pig in a poke (buying sight unseen) a poke in the ribs, from ones "friend", a poker for the coal fire. All gone?

>141 John_Vaughan: Poker for the fire is still around, as is poke in the ribs. Pig in a poke I haven't heard in a long time. Would be interesting to say it to a twentysomething and see if they understand it.

Poke is also used on Facebook. One "pokes" one's "friend" as a gesture of contact short of exchanging words. Frankly, I don't see the point of all that poking. I have never FB poked anyone, nor have I returned any of the FB pokes I've received.

>139 CliffordDorset: My father would always have referred to an ice cream cone as a poke. I know the type of paper cone you referred to.

>133 lilithcat:
The term used in court used to be "oyez", which derives from Norman French. It's still used in some contexts. It means "hear ye". I imagine that some people get confused when they hear "oy yay" in court.

Well, anyroad, I'm thinking a "pocket" is a small poke...

ETA
"Pocket: Middle English (in the sense ‘bag, sack,’ also used as a measure of quantity): from Anglo-Norman French poket(e ), diminutive of poke ‘pouch.’ Compare with poke".

>129 IreneF: It's easy for changes in social conditions to cause formal pronouns to squeeze out informal pronouns or vice-versa, as it becomes inappropriate to address more people informally or inappropriate to demand formality. I'd analogize to the use of Mr.; I dreamed of being a Mr. Starner when I became an adult, which my father told me happened when he went to college, that his teachers addressed him as Mr. Starner, but I've found it very rare that anyone so addressed me, instead of using my first name.

>139 CliffordDorset:
I don't remember your conical bags in London - our sweet ration usually came in (small) white paper bags, the sweets dug out of a large jar with a metal scoop. Things like Mars Bars were wrapped but the loose sweeties seemed to go further.
We used to get food parcels from friends of my mother who lived in the USA. Apart from things like tinned bacon rashers, I remember fondly the boxes of Whitaker's Sampler chocolates and packs of Life-Savers and another similar sweet, square rather than round, made to look like books.

>144 IreneF:
The old French verb ouir, to hear, is the source not only of 'oyez' (2nd person plural imperative) but also 'oyer' as in the courts of Oyer and Terminer: courts empowered to hear and determine all treasonable and felonies.

>147 abbottthomas: they still make Whitman's Samplers. I like them almost as much as Russell Stover's chocolates (http://www.russellstover.com/#).

I loved those Life Savers books as Christmas gifts. Sadly, I haven't seen Life Savers in rolls for a while: they sell them in bags, now.

I remember conical sweetie bags when I was little in South Wales. We never called them pokes, most often in my case they contained carefully chosen individual sweets, 4 Fruit Salad for a penny. a single refresher, a flying saucer, one white chocolate mouse, and some parma violets, might be a typical haul.

>150 SimonW11: - Wow, rampant nostalgia - I don't think I've even thought of those conical sweet bags since my childhood. I'd completely forgotten them.

Going back to the OP, a lot of 'Americanisms' were taken from Britain by settlers and then fell out of use in the home country. Someone above mentioned 'gotten', of course, but I'm pretty sure Charles Dickens uses 'railroad' and I'm sure I've come across 'sidewalk' in some old English literature, but I can't, offhand, remember where.

>103 MarthaJeanne: - I did that quiz and it thought I was from either Miami or Honolulu. Like >150 SimonW11: I'm from South Wales. And now I'm wondering why I've never heard someone from South Wales refer to themselves as 'South Welsh'.

hmm South Walian yes Southern Welsh possibly but South Welsh? I am not sure why it sounds wrong but it does.

>151 alaudacorax: & >152 SimonW11:
Would that make 'em a Sou'Welsherly?

Simon lives in Bristol so he is more of a Sou'Sou'Westly.

>152 SimonW11:
Yes, it's odd. And "Walian" seems to be a fairly recent form - the earliest examples in the OED are from the late 19th century. George Borrow doesn't use it, which almost certainly means it wasn't yet current in the 1850s, even among English-speakers who were interested in Wales and its language, and well-enough informed to realise that there was a difference between South and North Wales.

If it's so recent, then that probably means it came into the written language from Welsh-English dialect, or that it was deliberately invented by someone perhaps because they thought of "welsh" (=foreigner) as a pejorative term. But that doesn't make much sense, since the name "Wales" is also derived from "Welsh"...

155: Also, isn't "welsh" a pejorative term as a verb, meaning to reveal someone's secrets, to "welsh" on someone. Or am I confused? Many apologies to anyone from Wales, whom (who?), to my knowledge, I have never met.

>156 krazy4katz:
Yes, but it's also fairly recent, if the OED is to be trusted - it appeared in horse-racing slang in the 1850s, originally meaning to fail to pay a gambling debt. That sort of slang term would probably have been around for quite a while before it ever made it into print and was captured by the OED.

Oh oh - I can see where this is going .... Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief; Taffy came to my house and stole a piece of beef.

Substitute "Vaughanie' for Taffy throughout and I can hear the taunt to this day!

Wouldn't the Welsh be Cambrians, in parallel with Hibernians, or am I hopelessly confused?

You don't need to answer that.

Anyway, citizens of the US state of Indiana are known as Hoosiers. No one really knows why.

>159 IreneF: And North Carolinians are called Tarheels, for reasons memorialized solely in folk stories.

>160 PhaedraB:

Hah! Tarheels and "solely". Pretty good.

We in Minnesota don't have a special demonym but our neighbors in Wisconsin are cheeseheads!

>162 Morphidae:
Thinking of the product the rest of the world associates with Minnesota, perhaps you should be tapeheads?

>163 thorold: *snorts* Or snowheads? PostItHeads?

As a native of the Isle of Wight I am a caulkhead (boatbuilding being one of the traditional local industries). When I lived in Lincolnshire I discovered the locals in that county are known as Yellowbellies. I think I prefer being a caulkhead!

>165 gennyt: When I lived in Lincolnshire I discovered the locals in that county are known as Yellowbellies.

Interestingly enough, the residents of County Wexford in Ireland are also called Yellowbellies. It appears this is not derived from any cowardly act but from the name of a dialect of English that was spoken in the are, Yulla. The Yellowbellies is supposed to be a deliberate mispronunciation of Yulla-bellies. (This version of events is strongly supported by the residents of Wexford.)

Does "yellow bellied" mean "cowardly" outside of the US?

Yes!

Unless you are a sapsucker.

>169 suitable1:
Or a marmot.

In view of our voting record, here in Florida (the Gunshine State) we are known as ...
Suggestions?

>171 John_Vaughan:
The first thing that pops to mind is the Sinkhole State, although it has nothing to do with Florida's voting practices.

>171 John_Vaughan: The Chads?

:D

>173 Morphidae: :D !

>173 Morphidae: >174 PhaedraB:
Poor Chad. They hung him high.

Just as a late addition, I took that dialect survey quiz too. It gave me Jackson, Honolulu and Baton Rouge. Hm. So, it has me bang to rights as a southerner ... just south in the wrong country.

(London born, Hampshire bred.)

>176 dtw42: Arrh!.. .. .. 'Ampshire 'og.. .. .. :)

>162 Morphidae: We in Minnesota don't have a special demonym

As far as you know. Most Brits are not aware that they are known all over Europe as "Roast Beefs".

>177 Novak: Most Brits are not aware that they are known all over Europe as "Roast Beefs".

That's certainly true. I've lived on the Continent among non-British people for a quarter of a century, and never actually heard one of them using the expression other than to order a meal. If I hadn't watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail I'd never have known that that's what they call us. It's clearly a giant conspiracy.

>178 thorold: I don't recall that expression from Monty Python and the Holy Grail...is it in one of the "French castle" scenes?

>179 fuzzi:
I was sure it was, but John Cleese doesn't seem to use the expression - apparently I misremembered. Maybe it was another film altogether.

>179 fuzzi: >180 thorold: Just a little bit more peril? Please?

No. It's too perilous!

>181 pgmcc: and totally politically InCorrect, too...

:whistling:

Wandering in Turkey and Greece in the sixties and speaking only in very poor French, I was not recognised as English and often chuckled to hear us Brits referred to as “RoastBeefs” or “Island Monkeys”.

I always took it as a term of affection. :)

John Cleese: “I think it dreadful that all the Micks, Spicks, Frogs, Ities, Crouts and Daigos call us Roast beefs.”

>165 gennyt: >166 pgmcc:

Well yeller-belly or yella-belly in the local dialect. There is a beer called Yella Belly Gold by Batemans (a Lincolnshire brewer).

In the Lincs case it also isn't derived from being cowardly but no-one knows its true etymology. The OED has the first reference as being
"1787 F. Grose Provincial Glossary. at Lincolnshire, Yellow bellies. This is an appellation given to persons born in the Fens, who, it is jocularly said, have yellow bellies, like their eels."

So it seems that originally it was used specifically for those from the south of the county. Although why that appellation doesn't apply to North Cambs where there are fens and lots of eels (or used to be), or the fens of Norfolk I don't know. I don't think it is as simple as a name for a fen-man.

Yours a proud yella-belly (and I guess fen-man as I am from the very south of Lincolnshire but moved away).

I've a vague feeling that the English were referred to as 'Roast Beefs' in GBS's Saint Joan.
Harrap's Dictionary of French and American/English Slang by Leitner and Lanen explains 'rosbif' as Englishman or Limey.

>185 EricJT: I find the American term "Limey" for us Brit's very heart-warming. It has a solid base and has endured through more than 200 years.

Dodging traffic on a New York highway in the 60s, I was cornered by a big cop. (in UK we do not have or understand a Jaywalking offence)

“You tryina gitchaself kilt?”

“Sorry, mate!”

“Omigod another Limey! Git yerself onna sidewalk an only walk wenna sign says WALK.”

Rapid exit. Lucky escape, could have (probably should have) been a heavy fine.

>186 Novak:: “Omigod another Limey! Git yerself onna sidewalk an only walk wenna sign says WALK.”
Rapid exit. Lucky escape, could have (probably should have) been a heavy fine.

Not so sure. Do people always have to obey a machine? Always amazed at a small (but traffic-lighted) local suburban T-junction near my house to see people press the button for pedestrians when there's not a car in sight. Then religiously wait for the green walker man. If there's not a car within sight (or 100 metres for that matter) then CROSS you idiot!! (OKAY - I can see this might not be appropriate in NY or other big city centres)

Definitely follow the jaywalking rules in NYC! However Bostonians are famous jaywalkers. Come to think of it, they are also famous for being bad drivers. I wonder if there is a connection?

ETA: for some reason this reminds me of the video cam outside Abbey Road Studios. I look at that website occasionally and see people jaywalking and taking photos to recreate the iconic Beatles photo.

http://www.abbeyroad.com/crossing

>188 krazy4katz: nifty link, thank you. People are crazy, though: I just saw two women pushing baby strollers walk directly in front of oncoming traffic! It's a wonder no one was hit...

It's something that takes me several days to believe every time I visit the UK. The cars make sure they don't hit you on the zebra stripes. They don't even play chicken with you. If they see you about to cross, they stop. (And they even look for pedestrians.) The funny thing here is that there are so many tourists who don't expect that, and thus slow things down.

PS. I don't trust the bicycles.

>190 MarthaJeanne: you can trust the bicycles, you just have to watch out for the cyclists.

>188 krazy4katz: When I worked in Boston 40 years ago, there were No Jaywalking signs everywhere. Considering the drivers, I assumed it was for the pedestrians' protection.

It's state law here in Oregon that cars have to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. I live in a tourist town where cars stop as soon as a pedestrian sets a foot in the street. We love our tourists.

>190 MarthaJeanne:: "PS. I don't trust the bicycles."
As a pedestrian it's not (in Britain) the cyclists on the road you have to worry about. It's the ones who think the pavement belongs to them. Especially the ones who think it's funny to come up from behind at high speed and miss by inches if you're lucky.

For tourists part of the scare is that they come up on the 'wrong' side.

I was in Oxford for a week about 20 years ago. I'm still scared of those bicycles.
Now I mostly see them on the tow paths, and it's not such a problem.

There was a recent fatality in NYC: a speeding cyclist hit a pedestrian, and killed her.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/nyregion/woman-dies-after-being-struck-by-central-park-cyclist.html?_r=0)

I don't trust anyone, cyclists, motorists, truckers, or pedestrians!

There has been at least one fatality here in San Francisco, too.

Shows how commonplace deaths by car are; they hardly get a mention in the papers any more :(

It's state law here in Oregon that cars have to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk

I'm pretty sure that's the law world-wide, it's the entire point of crosswalks. Doesn't mean cars all actually will, though, so one should always be aware of their distance and speed. The "rule" in Italy for pedestrians is to step out but also make sure you can jump safely back if they don't bother stopping!

I'm with MJ, it's cyclists that worry me. The Netherlands is overrun with them, which isn't exactly bad but they're dangerous! And here, we've got less dedicated cyclist paths than over there because there's not quite as many cyclists, and there's areas where one side of a large busy street will have a cyclist path and the other has a regular sidewalk. What?! Or else there will be a large cyclist path and a tiny pedestrian area that will disappear when there's curves and whatnot. What are they thinking?! Such a pain.

>198 .Monkey.:

Bikes aren't that dangerous. The number of deaths caused by cars vastly dwarfs those caused by pushbike. Even when you just consider pedestrian deaths on the footway.

The stats show that (for the UK) somewhere around 2 people on average are killed by bike each year. That compares to around 40 pedestrians killed by cars whilst they were on the footway. When you include accidents on the road (not the footway) the number of pedestrians killed by cars jumps significantly.

The number of cyclists killed each year is around 110-120.

As a cyclist I cycle on the road, but I can see some of the factors which push people to ride on the footway.
1) Drivers (and peds) who shout get off the road / get on the cycle path (even if there isn't one)
2) Inconsiderate and aggressive drivers who pass too close, cut cyclists up, etc.
3) Councils who paint white lines to turn some footways into shared usage paths.

When riding on the footway (on shared paths) is normalised is it any wonder that people continue to see footways as the place to be?

Modern bicycles will easily excede local speed limits, are silent, unregistered, uninsured and completely untraceable. Riders mostly wear the same disguise.

>200 Novak:

I guess they will easily go faster than the speed limit for a motor vehicle in a built up area if you are going downhill. The speed limit does not apply to cycles in the UK (the law is worded to only apply to motor vehicles).

Going 20mph+ for a prolonged period on the flat requires a fair level of fitness. Going 30mph+ and you are looking at a pro-cyclist. I would guess that the average cyclist can do around 17mph on the flat, a pro-cyclist probably about 27-28mph (much faster in a sprint).

Bikes are uninsured but people are not. Most normal people (non sports riders) will be covered by household insurance (as part of the public liability clause). Sports riders are typically members of organisations such as the CTC or British Cycling which covers them.

I don't know what you mean disguise? Most people I see on bikes are wearing pretty normal clothes.

Once when I was is Germany I did the British thing and crossed at a light-controlled crossing when it was on red because there was no traffic in sight. Unfortunately, a mother with a young child saw me and went crazy. I didn't understand what she was saying but I got the message.

>201 andyl:
I think Novak might have been referring to e-bikes. Laws on these vary a bit from place to place, but the ones you can ride without a licence and insurance are limited to about 200W of motor power and are only allowed to provide electric assistance up to about 25km/hr. Not significantly faster than the average moderately fit commuter cyclist. I ride a pedelec myself, and while it can maintain 25km/hr very comfortably and get me to work without me breaking into a sweat, it certainly doesn't go as fast as a lightweight racing bike. "High-speed" e-bikes are another story, but you need a moped licence and the corresponding insurance and number-plate for those. I don't think the "silence" of e-bikes is the real problem: most mopeds and scooters these days are quiet enough that you can only hear them coming up behind you on quiet roads: if there are cars and trucks roaring past, the difference between a petrol-driven 40km/hr scooter and an electric one is irrelevant.

>201 andyl: I don't know what you mean disguise? Most people I see on bikes are wearing pretty normal clothes.

So you have no difficulty identifying individual cyclists on TV during the Tour de France? We are not talking “ladies riding shoppers with baskets” here.

Sports cyclists on lightweight cycles can easily exceed 30 mph. They also travel at speed when all the other London traffic is standing still or moving slowly. Mostly the cyclists overtake on the inside. That is when most pedestrians are hit on London Roads, when they cross the street and pass between two stationary vehicles waiting in a queue of traffic.

Cars, vans and motorcycles do not cross red lights because their vehicle numbers will be read by traffic cameras but certainly in London sports cyclists do not feel the red lights apply to them.

>203 thorold: I may be stuck firmly in the middle of the last century, but don't bikes have bells anymore? We had to ring the bell on the handlebars when we were coming up behind someone.

When I was in Amsterdam, I was very impressed by the bicycle culture. I don't think I ever saw so many bikes massed together in my life. Of course, no hills. Where I live now has impressive upgrades, some of which I'm terrified to drive my car on, much less bike. But there is a big bike culture here. One brewery downtown buys bikes for its employees if they will bike to work. We also have an electric bike dealership in town, and the next town up the road has the headquarters and plant for an electric motorcycle company. I've seriously considered an electric trike for shopping, but I don't have the budget for it.

Cyclists here (San Francisco) are quite aggressive.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)

. . . Because Critical Mass takes place without an official route or sanction, participants in some cities have sometimes practiced a tactic known as "corking" in order to maintain the cohesion of the group. This tactic consists of a few riders blocking traffic from side roads so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption. Corking allows the mass to engage in a variety of activities, such as forming a cyclone, lifting their bikes in a tradition known as a "Bike Lift" (in Chicago this is referred to as a Chicago hold-up), or to perform a "die-in" where riders lie on the ground with their bikes to symbolise cyclist deaths and injuries caused by automobiles, very popular in Montreal. The "Corks" sometimes take advantage of their time corking to distribute fliers.

The practice of corking roads in order to pass through red lights as a group is in contravention of traffic laws in some jurisdictions and is sometimes criticized to be contrary to Critical Mass' claim that "we are traffic", since ordinary traffic does not have the right to go through intersections once the traffic signal has changed to red.22 However, groups of cyclists are allowed to pass signals as a group at least in Germany and Austria.2324 Corking has sometimes led to hostility between motorists and riders, even erupting into violence and arrests of motorists and cyclists alike during Critical Mass rides.25

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflicts_involving_Critical_Mass

There have been many conflicts during Critical Mass events since the founding of the worldwide bicycling advocacy event in 1992. The conflicts have resulted in injuries, property damage, and arrests, and both bicyclists and motorized vehicle drivers have been victims. Critics say that Critical Mass, held primarily in large metropolitan cities, is a deliberate attempt to obstruct automotive traffic and disrupt normal city functions, when individuals taking part refuse to obey traffic laws.1. . . .

>204 Novak:

Most of the cyclists I see aren't wearing full lycra racing kit. Most are wearing pretty normal clothes. suspect you have selective blindness or you venture out whenever there is a sportive on.

Sports cyclists on lightweight cycles can easily exceed 30 mph.

No you have to be a pretty fit club rider to do that as a matter of course. That is absolutely max sprint speed for all but a minority of people - I cannot get up to that speed for example and I am a regular rider.

Mostly the cyclists overtake on the inside.

Well that is where the on-road cycle lanes are! BTW it is called filtering and as long as it is undertaken in a controlled and reasonable speed is perfectly acceptable. You go on to say that most peds in London are hit when crossing the street between stationary cars and so obviously aren't looking out for traffic in the form of bikes. That sounds like better education of pedestrians is needed.

Cars, vans and motorcycles do not cross red lights because their vehicle numbers will be read by traffic cameras

BTW a TFL survey showed only about 16% of cyclists jumping lights. In some parts of London and at certain times it is obviously more than that. However I do not believe that no motor vehicles cross on red or amber. An RAC Foundation report in 2003 showed that 20% of car drivers went through on amber, 10% when it had been on red for 3 seconds. You also have to remember the first car to stop prevents any others from light jumping. However if that has been eliminated I applaud TFL. However I think you will still find a number of KSI accidents involving peds and motor vehicles jumping red lights - even in London There are not red light cameras everywhere - for example Bow roundabout doesn't have them.

I am not defending those who do habitually jump lights on their bikes, but I feel that it is a rather minor issue. That you are well into mote and beam territory.

According to this study, there are about 1000 ped/cyclist collisions per year in N Y state that are severe enough to require medical care. This number excludes pedestrians who went to walk-in clinics or personal physicians:

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/communications/repository/files/Pedestrian%20Cyclist%...

>208 IreneF:
But note "This study has not furnished any evidence which could be used to apportion responsibility.". I have many years of experience of cycling in London. While statistically heavy goods vehicles are the cause of most cyclist deaths, in my experience pavement lemmings, er, pedestrians are by far the most likely to cause a collision with a cyclist. I always get the impression that they just don't see themselves as road users.

A few years I was in London with my bike (I'm used to riding in the Netherlands including the big cities) and it was exhilarating. I also found myself riding faster than in the cities in Holland because I got sucked in with the traffic (when it was moving), whereas in my own town I'm bound to the cycle lanes without any drafting effect.

Over here I tend to regard the Christmas lights traffic lights as optional or as warning signs; I look at all that are in view and the traffic and then decide if I can reasonable cross the road without hazard to me or other road users. In London I was a bit more careful, since I was riding on the other side of the road, the traffic was denser and there were these big red things coming from all sides at once at times...

After a few days though I was weaving in and out of traffic like a Londoner. As long as you were clear about your intentions most drivers let you pass at the roundabouts.

I think a lot of bad blood is caused by inconsiderate people, whether they are cyclists or drivers. The pedestrians I agree with mart1n don't seem to think of themselves as road users. Certainly tourists (this applies to those in Amsterdam as well) have too many other things on their minds it seems.

>205 PhaedraB:
Most of the accusations of bad behaviour against cyclists are ridiculously exaggerated, but the point about use of bells is a fair one. The idea that you ring your bell simply as a courtesy to warn someone that you're behind them and about to pass almost seems to have died out, to the extent that pedestrians look at you indignantly (or worse, panic and leap into your path) if you do ring your bell at them. Many cyclists only seem to ring their bells out of annoyance, usually when they've already wriggled past through a narrow gap.
And of course there are the many high-performance bikes that can't be fitted with a bell because of the additional weight and the drag it would cause...

>211 thorold: My son, a keen cyclist, recently bought a new high-performance bike and it did come with reflectors and a bell. The cycle shop man said he had to fit them on all bikes. Of course the bell was quickly removed but Andrew doesn't ride on the pavement and is (though I would say that!) a very considerate rider. My husband, who goes at rather slower speeds, has a bell fitted on both his bikes.

People ring their bells all the time here, as well as everywhere I've been in NL...

>211 thorold:

If I am on a shared facility (and I do ride on some sometimes) I usually say (firmly but not shouting) "on your right" as I overtake a pedestrian. I feel this is more effective as it lets them know where I want to position myself as I go past. A bell doesn't give that information.

But regardless of what auditory warning you supply quite a number of people now are listening to music through headphones and so find it hard to hear the warning.

At the speeds I'm going I don't think a bell would be effective, but then I'm mostly riding in the road or a striped bike lane at the side of the road if there is one. Sidewalks are for pedestrians not bicycles despite what many people seem to think.

>214 andyl:: I don't wear headphones when I'm walking but I'm the wrong side of 70 and a bit deaf so not always aware of things coming up from behind. I very much appreciate the cyclists who shout some sort of warning and as they pass often say they weren't being rude but didn't have a bell.