BS: Separated by a common language

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:07 PM

Influences on the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:02 PM

Canucks understand irony.

"A grenade exploded near my leg and now my leg is very irony."

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Lox
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 08:18 PM

Too say that Americans don't understand Irony is wrong.

New york is soaked in it, and new york music and comedy is intoxicated with it.

however It seems to be the case that there simply isn't room for it in LA and even friends I have from the UK and Australia seem to lose their sense of Irony after they have been there a while.

But the USA is too big and varied to compare it to the UK.

And besides, neither of them are French ...

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Rowan
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 08:07 PM

I hadn't meant to offend, Dave.

But, from where I sit and aware that I could identify (aurally) at least eight versions of US English and almost as many versions of English in Britain (perhaps I should use "UK"?) as there are counties in England, Scotland, NI etc, I'd thought "British English" was an adequate gloss for the purposes of the conversation. I'll try and be more sensitive in future.

Bill is correct about how versions of English are described by spell-checkers; it's just that Micro$oft seems to think that Australian English is the same as US English. It isn't. But at least we get a mention; I've never seen Canadian English or Indian English offered as a spell-checker's dictionary.

Jim, have you heard "step up to the wicket" being used? I ask because I had thought "step up to the crease" (which was the usual expression in my youth, when fronting up for a particular and slightly onerous responsibility) was the cricketing expression being replaced by "step up to the plate".

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 07:44 PM

I have neither "a dog in the fight" nor "skin in the game", as I'm an American (UnitedStatesian, if you like) but I tend to dislike the expression "British English" because there are at least two other "British" Englishes, to wit from Scotland and from Ireland. I won't go into the Isle of Man or Guernsey. Nor Wales. "British English" is not specific enough to be enlightening, methinks.

On the other hand, there are enough "English" dialects in the world that it's confoozeling. The Indians speak "English"; Americans speak "English"; Australians speak "English"; Canadians speak "English"--and so do the English. English can best be thought of as a great family of separate streams of language (there's a mixed metaphor for you). And if it is relevant and one intends to specify which dialect (or really, "set of dialects") one refers to, then it is useful to speak of Indian English, American English, Australian English, Irish English, Scottish English--yes, and English English, just to make the distinction clear. I understand Mandotim's wish to maintain the trademark for England, so to speak, but to say only "English" in a context where one would specify "American English" or "Indian English" is inconsistent, bad style, and confusing. But to use the expression "British English" can be nothing but fuzzy.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 07:42 PM

There is accuracy and then there is practicality when it come to naming languages and variations.
When installing a spell-checker, they ask you is you want American "English" or UK "English"...or even Australian "English".
This type of distinction is common. You can argue with it, but there are reasons for employing it.

   I have always referred to myself as an English speaker. I know very few people who would say they speak "American". American is used as an adjective to name other things, usually.

If asked, I would admit that MY form of English is derivative and altered in many ways.....but many of the variants spoken IN England are also.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Rowan
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 05:57 PM

Without going back through the thread I suspect I was the miscreant who introduced the term British English into the conversation. I make no apologies for that, as I was (and still am) writing on an international forum to an international audience where there are some who write as though their own local experience is universal; we all do that some of the time. As one who is writing from what many in Britain and the USA think of as the outer periphery of existence it seemed logical to attach descriptors so that the readers found it easy to understand what it was I was trying to communicate

Mandotim may not care what others think but it seemed to me to be the best idea at the time and it seems most who've subsequently posted understood. Many (some, even, from different parts of England) have acknowledged that their own locality has particular expressions and variations on a theme; I suppose most would understand that "London" usually refers to a British locality, although Mudcat has hosted discussions indicating that such an understanding is far from universal.

Of course, if I were trying to be deliberately offensive I could probably put an argument that the English spoken in the British Isles is probably the oldest and most widespread of the various pidgins and creoles spoken around the world and is probably the language that is most rapidly changing, as we speak. So the English English that mandotim identified with yesterday or last week is probably different from the one spoken last year.

In a discussion that centres on the colloquial but requires various technicalities to be understood, I regard it s helpful, rather than "redundant", to use specific descriptors. But I may well be mistaken.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 05:40 PM

If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur. Doug Larson

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: mandotim
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 05:18 PM

Meself; I am fully aware of the rich and varied origins of my language, thanks; and if you were, you wouldn't persist in using near-tautologies like 'British English'. Near-tautologies, because of course the Scots, Welsh and Irish inhabitants of these islands might have a view on this as well.
I note that you have chosen not to address the central point I was making, which was that the term 'British English' is a redundant term, and is unnecessary when discussing linguistic differences. If you want to compare, it is perfectly possible to say 'She is from England and speaks English, whereas he is from the USA and speaks American English'.
You are right when you imply that there are many variants and dialects within England, but these have the right to be called simply 'English' because they have grown and developed here. I don't speak English with an RP accent as you suggest, but my speech is recognisably English. I don't acknowledge that the language of the rich and aristocratic has any special status either - far from it - what I object to is the misuse of English to describe the language I speak. I'm not trying to tell you what to call your language; I'm just asking you to respect the correct name for mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 04:07 PM

Newfoundland Pidgin English?

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 04:02 PM

So, to be clear, there is no Pidgin English...its just English...or pidgin based English (Pidgins derived from English). Correct?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English-based_pidgins

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 04:02 PM

I wonder if some of the Brits who use the phrase "step up to the plate" don't even realize it comes from baseball.

I agree that, if they wanted to use a sporting metaphor, "step up to the wicket" would make more sense in a purely British context.

Maybe they're thinking of dinner plates, but then wouldn't they say "sit down to the plate"?

I guess it goes to show you don't need to be familiar with the origin of a saying in order to find it useful.

Another example: "the whole nine yards." Nobody really knows where that came from, although there have been a lot of theories kicked around. Yet it became very popular among people who didn't have a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: meself
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 02:45 PM

"And French-French?"

Sure, why not? Although in Canada, we usually use the term "European French" (rather like the apparently-objectionable "British English").

Mandotim (a thousand apologies for misreading and subsequently misspelling your handle - please don't lash me with the cruel whip of your sarcasm again): sorry to inform you of this, but you speak a variant of the original language "from which so many variants have sprung". In fact, it's probably inaccurate to speak of AN original language at all. English has always been, and continues to be, a rich mix of languages, and dialects. Perhaps you speak a dialect that gained some kind of extraordinary status because it was spoken by the rich in a certain part of England. I, and, yes, many of us, do not acknowledge that special status. If you don't like that, to borrow a phrase from your post, I don't care.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: GUEST,Edthefolkie
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 02:05 PM

I don't know about it being used in conversation, but "step up to the plate" is appearing just about daily in Brit newspapers and mags now.

I suppose somebody got sent on a management course a couple of years ago and it's spread, like Japanese Knotweed. What's wrong with stepping up to the wicket?

("Touch base" seems to be falling out of fashion over here though.)

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: mandotim
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 01:56 PM

Sorry, 'miself'(see, I can misspell handles too) but the name of the language I speak is English, and has been for a very, very long time. What you speak may be Canadian, Canadian English, American English or whatever, I don't really care; but my native language is English, not 'British English' or any other variant. Your argument about 'international discussions' is utterly specious, as a distinction can easily be made by referring to my language simply as 'English' and then qualifying any comparator language.
You have clearly misunderstood my point; I didn't say that only the language spoken in England can be referred to as English. You can call your own language English if you want, again, I don't care. My point was that there is no such thing as 'British English'.
Incidentally, many Americans I know believe that the language they speak is 'American'.
In support of your argument you refer to 'many of us'. Many people believe that aliens abduct people, and that toads can cure warts. Doesn't make it true or right. English is not 'one more variant', it is the original language from which so many variants have sprung.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 01:32 PM

And French-French?

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: meself
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 01:15 PM

"Can we just get one thing straight; there is no such thing as 'British English'", etc.

I don't think we can get that one thing straight. Unless I start calling the language I speak "Canadian", and acknowledge that Americans speak "American", etc., and decide that any similarities among them are purely co-incidental.

Sorry, mandotin, but as far as many of us are concerned, the version of English that you use "most of the time" is just one more variant on this language, and in international discussions of the language, its name does need to be qualified. We will not, nor should we, assume that the term 'English' refers to the language only in the form(s) in which it appears in England. However, we can use the term "English-English" if that is preferable.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:53 AM

Many folks found Seinfeld funny.

Unlike current latin, languages evolve, as English has....from many sources and cultures.

There are many accents, but that doesn't make a significant change in language. But, many different words, grammar and useage does,....especially when they become broadly used vs local.

Currently, I see that the USA is the hot-pot for the emergence of new English words and useage, not Britain. Some will remain local. But, many especially those influencing music, movies, fashon and youth (future) through the internet are catching on.

A visit to the Urban Dictionary will unearth a few....though some will remain local, and some would be considered offensive to some.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 11:10 AM

What about Geordies?

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: mandotim
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 09:17 AM

Can we just get one thing straight; there is no such thing as 'British English'. The language I use most of the time in England is 'English', the native language of my country for a very long time, originating here. Other nations may wish to qualify the language they speak by adding their nationality, but in the case of residents of England this is redundant.
Harrrummphh!
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: kendall
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 08:01 AM

I haven't seen anything funny on American tv since Barney Miller.
Give me reruns of Monty Python anytime.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 09 - 12:36 AM

The word 'icicle' brought to us by the OED.

hyse-hykylle, icecles, ice-ickel, ice-schokkill, ice-schoklis, ice-seekles, ice-seskel, ice-shackle, ice-shockles, ice-shog, ice-shoggle, ice-shogle, iceshogles, ice-shoglin, ice-shokle, ice-sickel, icesicles, iceycel, iceycle, icicles, icikle, isch schoklis, ische-schokkill, ische-shackle, ische-shockle, ische-shog, ische-shoggle, ische-shogle, ische-shoglin, ische-shokle, isch-schokkill, isch-shackle, isch-shockle, isch-shog, isch-shoggle, isch-shogle, isch-shoglin, isch-shokle, ise3kille, isechele, isecle, ise-sickel(s), ise-sickle, ise-sicklels, ise-yokel, isickles, isicle, isikle, isykle, izekelle, ycicle, yese-ikkle, ysckeles, yse sycles, ysekele, yse-schokkill, yse-shackle, yse-shockle, yse-shog, yse-shoggle, yse-shogle, yse-shoglin, yse-shokle, yse-yckel, ysicles, ysse-ikkles.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 09:21 PM

"should nail the idea that Americans can't be linguistically creative."

That's not what I said, Jack. I said that conversational vocabulary (as opposed to written, where the differences tend to be less pronounced) in America is more general, less precise and specific, than in the UK, and I wondered whether any studies have ever been done which quantify the typical number of words USED (not simply known by) Americans in everyday conversation as opposed to the British.

But if no one knows of any studies which have examined this issue, that's fine - my experience will remain anecdotal and just an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 08:57 PM

Most of the relevant articles on the web are on news or JSTOR sites I can't access, but googling for "harpin boont" should nail the idea that Americans can't be linguistically creative.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 07:48 PM

Sharon, I'm talking about vocabulary. As I say, this is purely based on my own observation, having lived for about 20 years in the US and approximately the same time in the UK. I've lived in NY, London and LA amongst other places.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: SharonA
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 07:35 PM

"....spoken UK English far more colourful, varied and interesting than American English. People seem to take more joy from language in the UK.....
"My guess is that that the typical spoken British vocabulary is far more extensive."
"...my observation... is that, conversationally... British people tend to be more articulate, with their vocabulary both more precise and more diverse."

I think that, on the whole, the two nations take different kinds of joy in the language, not necessarily more joy or less joy.

I know that the two nations use different vocabularies.

I also know that British people tend to be more articulate in the way they speak, though not necessarily in the words they speak. Brits tend to enunciate their words more than most Americans do. The British speech pattern is more clipped while the American speech pattern is more drawn out or, in some states, drawled out.

As an American, I find it amusing when our British Mudcatters refer to American language, culture, etc., when there is so much cultural diversity here from state to state and even within each state. Folks, we 'Merkuns don't even understand each other here half the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 06:57 PM

An awful lot of people in England seem to sort of communicate mainly by grunting, and dispensing with consonents almost entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 06:12 PM

The following was just posted on the Somali Pirates thread by my good buddy, Gnu.

"Well, me zon, me zon.... ain't no torpedoes required nor advised if ya sends in da lads see? Fact is, two Newfs in a dory could innocently row up alongside and surround the buggers. Screwed as a June bug at dawn on a lone spruce in a bog them buggers."

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 06:09 PM

Hi, Rowan. Aussie English: now THAT really is a whole other world.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Rowan
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 06:03 PM

I know about "step up to the plate" - but I'd question whether it has ever come into general use East of the Atlantic.

McGrath, as I gave the original example, from Australia, I'm wondering whether we're East of the Atlantic. And your comment about origins of the game "went straight through to the keeper", another expression in common use here.

the use of sounds like "Hmmm;"
Four decades ago I was one of the six Melb. Uni Mountaineering Club climbers to complete the full Arthurs Ranges traverse in SW Tasmania; from recollection we were the fourth group to do so in a time when there were no maps. It took us three weeks and, about half way through, we experimented with using "Hmmm" as our only verbal communication for the next day's effort.

Making meals, striking and making camp, reaching navigational decisions, admiring the view, cursing the weather, taking scroggin stops, "Hmmm" managed it all; a most versatile vocalisation.

On the matter of vocabulary sizes, I forget the exact source but, when I was teaching first-year biologists, it was understood that a university matriculant with no formal biology education would have a useable vocabulary of about 10,000 words. By the end of their first year, successful biology students would have doubled their vocabulary. As Peace has observed, many would be "recognition or recall vocabulary"; even so, the technical "jargon" becomes part of their working vocabulary while they practise in the field.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 05:17 PM

To 'back up' Ed, and before anyone makes reference to the hundreds of Inuit-language words for snow, please read this.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 05:05 PM

"....spoken UK English far more colourful, varied and interesting than American English. People seem to take more joy from language in the UK.....
...... "My guess is that that the typical spoken British vocabulary is far more extensive.

Well, have an unusually large number of words for snow....that's another topic (maybe, like French, of interest for the arts). I suspect that's not the reasons for the success that "made in USA, (and lesser so in Canada) changes have had in making English the international language of business....or more so than others.

As to vocabulary, US versus British English.... recent British language assimilation taken into considerstion....I suspect USA is lower. But, again a clear advantage for international useage. I suspect that a formerly non- English speaker (of the US variety) can function with a smaller vocabulary than with most other major languages.....a great advantage to make US of A English (fewer words, simplified spelling and less rigid useage) in the world of business (putting bread on the table) ....that matters much more than the benefits you mention.

I recall that inuit have about a dozen words for snow....does that make the language "far more colourful, varied and interesting" for a person living in a land with no snow?   Maybe yes. maybe no.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 05:00 PM

" I find spoken UK English far more colourful, varied and interesting than American English.

Oh, indeed it is. That feature also makes it harder for an American to follow some of the more 'colorful' interchanges. ☺
   If one makes a practice of following closely some of the English comedy shows, I suppose it gets easier, but I confess to needing closed caption at times to deal with unfamiliar phrases and pronunciation together.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:58 PM

Hi, Ruth. I hope I didn't seem bitchy when I said that. When I speak with Brits, I miss lots of what they say due to accent, dialect or regional variants of terms. Of course, I've had that happen in some areas of the US and maritime Canada. As Q noted, once ya get north of 60 it's a whole new world with back formations, accents and 'milk language' of the English speaker.

I heard/read many decades ago that an average English language speaker can get along splendidly with about 4,000 words. Churchill was estimated to have a usable vocabulary of 50,000 words.

My grandparents were both from England and they used many terms with which I had no familiarity--"stop being so bloody daft" is one example. Heck, even the word 'daft' is seldom used in the parts of NA I have visited or lived in.

Anyway, have a good day, y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: meself
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:55 PM

Hence Q's heartfelt apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:36 PM

Uh, Mexico is part of North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:34 PM

North American, I meant Canada and the U. S.

A bit like people who say "Britain" and mean the South of England.

But "Canada and the U. S." contains just about all the varieties of peoples that you'd have in the whole of North America anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:14 PM

By North American, I meant Canada and the U. S.
Sorry, Mexico and Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: meself
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:05 PM

Hmmm ... as an nth-generation Canadian, I am quite familiar with all those interpretations and usages of "hmmm", and use them all myself ....

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 04:01 PM

"In some ways I see it as being about as pertinent as IQ to measure 'smarts'."

My gambit is, I admit, purely anecdotal, but my observation (having lived in various parts of both the US and the UK) is that, conversationally (and I stress this because I don't think the phenomenon is nearly as pronounced within written English as it is in spoken conversation), British people tend to be more articulate, with their vocabulary both more precise and more diverse. The thing I think is particularly interesting is that, with Americans, even well educated and "well bred" people have a similarly casual approach to language. I think it is amongst the upper and more educated classes that the differences are, if anything, more pronounced.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:48 PM

an Englishman can convey many more meanings than a North American, from agreement to provisional acceptance to complete rejection; from amazement to disgust.

I very much doubt if that is true. There are an awful lot of varieties of North American after all, from round about the Yucatan peninsula up to above the Arctic circle.

But it would be an entertaining thing to research.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: SharonA
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:06 PM

Hmmm????

Hmmm!

Hmmm......

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 03:02 PM

True, Peace.

Some years ago, I forget his name, a well-educated Englishman commented on the lack of diversity in language as he crossed the country. By this, he was referring to the lack of variety in regional speech compared with England, where each area had usages that distinguished it from others.
This has changed, as regional usages and dialects are lost in England.
In each area, however, the number of words commonly used is limited; thus no more words are used by an 'average' Englishman than the 'average' North American.

One area of difference is in the use of sounds like "Hmmm;" depending on intonation, an Englishman can convey many more meanings than a North American, from agreement to provisional acceptance to complete rejection; from amazement to disgust.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:36 PM

Average word use: the phrase has little utility because it cannot be define as it would pertain to many individuals.

"Richard Lederer, a lion among linguistics, tells us that English is the most cheerfully democratic language in the history of mankind. It has 616,500 entries in the Oxford English Dictionary. This compares with a vocabulary of about 185,000 words for German, 130,000 for Russian, and 100,000 for French. Yet the average English speaker possesses a vocabulary of 10,000 to 20,000 words, Lederer observes, but actually uses only a fraction of that, the rest being recognition or recall vocabulary."

IMO, as is the phrase IMO, it's a matter of opinion, level of 'education', etc. In some ways I see it as being about as pertinent as IQ to measure 'smarts'.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:28 PM

"the average number of words typical of the British vocabulary vs that of its American counterpart"


By this, I meant the number of words the average person uses in their day-to-day speech. I suspect that a British person uses substantially more than the average American, as conversational speech in the UK is, in my experience, more colourful, descriptive and precise.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 02:25 PM

This thread reminded me that I wanted to do some further research on the meaning and origin of "feck"—so I did, and posted the results in BS: The Etymology of 'Feck'.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 01:29 PM

I know about "step up to the plate" - but I'd question whether it has ever come into general use East of the Atlantic. Even though baseball actually originated back here.

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 01:19 PM

Arse first appeared c. 1000 in AElfric- by the 1300s, common usage although spelling varied, ars, etc. Oxford English Dictionary.
Probably older in the Germanic languages.

Ass has entered seaman's lingo before 1860- H. Stuart, Seaman's Catechism Also OED. Refers to the lower part of a block or pulley receiving the splice (Apart from American usage).

American usage of ass for arse- Both common 1860-1880 in the U. S.; gradually 'ass' took over. Ass (meaning fundament) entered American speech sometime before 1850. These from Lighter, Historical Dictionary of American Slang
"I will burn his dam'd ass off with tar..." Eliason, 1853, Tarheel Talk

"An English upstart... whose face reminds me forcibly of a baby's spanked ass." 1863, Jour. Ill. Historical Society.

Frederick Remington- "Making a frame of their ass and the saddle for a landscape." Selected Letters, 62, 1888. (Remington was an artist noted for his Western paintings and sculptures).

In the song "Mademoiselle from Armentieres"-
We shot the Boche with mustard gas
And put some blisters on his ass.
(Carey, 1918)

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 01:13 PM

McGrath, in my experience "step up to the plate" refers to baseball, where the next batter moves up to home plate, ready to take his turn at bat.

By extension, some person makes an affirmative motion (literal or figurative) to exercise his active part in an endeavor; he assumes responsibility for the welfare of his cause. To me, this carries an overtone of undertaking a somewhat disagreeable duty.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Separated by a common language
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 09 - 12:58 PM

The same goes for "Step up to the plate"...