When organizations of similar size, states, or armies liaise, I have seen "counterpart" used quite often.

Example ; ...said Navy Capt.

John Kirby, spokesman for the top U.S. military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, who spoke briefly by phone on Monday and Wednesday with his counterpart in Cairo, Army Lt.

Gen. Sami Enan.

obviously, it's only usable in that limited context of two structures/organizations interacting (as @Dour points out it can not be used to describe two equal-ranking colleagues on the "same side"), so it may not be what you are looking for.

Although it isn't a word I've often used, I believe compeer is the word you might be looking for.

Defined as: a person of the same rank or status; equal; peer.

It is the best I think you will find, unless you just go with one of the above answers which do makes sense.

My Webster's lists the following synonyms for colleague : coworker, fellow worker, workmate, teammate, associate, partner, collaborator, ally, confederate.

None of these really work in the sense you're looking for, something that means "in exactly the same job" as you.

If no one strikes gold for you here, I would suggest that one alternative for you is to be more specific about the actual job function:

My wife is a periodontist, just like me.

Jean and Kate were both trial lawyers.

Here are a few traits I share with my fellow QA consultants at IBM: [List]

Ed and Bill

and I have a lot of disagreements, but we're all teamsters and we stick together.

I think the word you're looking for is confrere

It comes from the French, and is masculine.

The feminine equivalent (in French) is consoeur though, in certain contexts you could also use guildsman, union-worker These last two terms refer to another person of the same job-class.

Though not colleagues, there is still an implied federation (that I think you were trying to avoid).

The question is also a bit of a repeat

The meaning of colleague is a person with whom one works, especially in a profession or business .

Even if there isn't any reference to the working place, the word is used when two people have contacts.

The meaning coworker is fellow worker ; looking at the meaning of fellow , on the NOAD

I read the following definition:

informal a man or boy:

he was an extremely obliging fellow .

a boyfriend or lover:

has she got a fellow ?

(usu. fellows)

a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another: he was learning with a rapidity unique among his fellows .

a thing of the same kind as or otherwise associated with another: the page has been torn away from its fellows .

a member of a learned society: he was elected a fellow of the Geological Society .

• (also research fellow)

a student or graduate receiving a fellowship for a period of research. • Brit.

an incorporated senior member of a college: a tutorial fellow . • a member of the governing body in some universities.

I would use fellow worker to mean a worker involved in the same activity .

Colleague has the meaning you're looking for when the speaker is a member of a licensed profession (doctor, lawyer, that sort of thing).

Copractitioner may be slightly preferable to your fellow-X construction sometimes.

Counterpart means someone who does the same job in a different location but you could extend it to different part of the same organisation.

Question: Is there a word that means something like "someone who does the same job as me"?  I've thought of  colleague  and  co-worker .  These both indicate that someone works at the same place, or some other kind of work relationship, but they don't indicate that the job is the same.  The best I've come up with is  my fellow-X , but this feels cumbersome.

Word for "someone who does the same job as me"

There does not seem to be an agreed term for someone who performs the same job as you but not necessarily at the same place. However, the term "counterpart" is used when organisations liaise with each other in this sense. Other possible options include "compeer" "confrere" or "copractitioner". It may be that you will need to be more specific about the actual job function.

"Counterpart" is the term suggested to indicate someone doing the same job, but in a different location. Another term, from French, is "compere"  whilst others suggest "confrere" with the feminine "consoeur". This term does not mean colleagues but an implied federation.  "Colleague" is another suggestion or "coworker". Again, cCopractitioner  may be slightly preferable to the initial "fellow-X"  construction sometimes. The Webster dictionary provides numerous synonyms, some of which are suggested here, but none seem to represent the person doing the same job as the other.

Counterpart' can be used for someone with the same job, although it often implies the same role in a different company or department. As you say, 'colleague' does not necessarily mean someone with the same position. Other possible terms in different contexts include co-worker, co-practiotioner, associate, workmate, partner, collaborator, confrere or consoeur.

Compeer, or confrere can be used to describe someone who does the same job. A Colleague could be used if in a licensed profession, A counterpart means doing the same job in a different location, or different part of the organisation. Other possible words are fellow worker or copractitioner.

There is no exact answer to this question, but potential terms include "compeer", "confrere", "fellow worker", "colleague", "copractitioner" or "counterpart".

S1: Copractitioner  may be slightly preferable to your  fellow-X  construction sometimes.


As reported on Etymonline : Old English yrþling "plowman" (see earth + -ling ); the sense of "inhabitant of the earth" is from 1590s.

Earthman was originally (1860) "a demon who lives in the earth;" science fiction sense of "inhabitant of the planet Earth" first attested 1949 in writing of Robert Heinlein.

Earlier in this sense was earthite (1825).

However, I found this too: Ælfric

(955–1020) Teacher :hwæt sægest þu yrþlingc hu begæst

þu weorc þin

The word earthling is formed from the word earth and the suffix -ling , meaning something from earth, or something related to earth.

Here earth can either refer to the planet, or to the soil.

It's now mostly used in science fiction to mean humans from earth, but it existed even before that.

One older use is in the meaning of farmer or ploughman , another is in the meaning of mortal as contrast to heavenly creatures or gods.

In science fiction the term Terran is also commonly used.

NOAD gives for “-ling”: forming nouns from nouns, adjectives, and verbs (such as hireling, youngling).

forming nouns from adjectives and adverbs (such as darling, sibling, underling).

forming diminutive words : gosling | sapling.• often with depreciatory reference : princeling

This gives you some more examples...

Origins are well covered.

Another synonym is Earther .

'Earthling', before the sci-fi era, had somewhat the same connotations as 'troglodyte', an lesser, earthy person (see the etymonline provenance as in mplungjan's answer).

This is what probably inspired Heinlein to use it to have people not from Earth refer to people from Earth.

The sci-fi literature has created a number of alternatives, like 'earther' and 'terran'. '

Earthling' has too much of a 1950's scifi connotation and is not used in contemporary sci-fi, except for pejoratively.

As to other planets, generally recognized inhabitant names, though having only imaginary referents, are:

Venusian Martian Jovian Saturnian 'Mercurial','venereal', 'martial', jovial, and 'saturnine' are the respective metaphorical versions (that is, not referring to an inhabitant, but to 'slippery/fickle', 'sex-related', 'military-like', 'convivial', and 'gloomy', respectively). '

Earthy' would be the closest analog for Earth.

The other planets don't really have commonly recognized inhabitant names, but they can be easily created anew:

Mercutian, Uranian, Neptunian, Plutonian (yes, I know... then Erisian, Cerean, Haumean, Makemakean...).

Question: What is the origin of the word  earthling ?  Are there other words with a similar meaning ( marsling ,  venusling )?

What is the origin of "earthling"?

It appears that the word "Earthling" has existed since about 1590, and before the sci-fi era, it had the same connotations as "troglodyte". Other synonyms include the words "Earther" or "Terran".

The term dates back to the 1590s and means "inhabitant of the earth" and even before its sci-fi connotations in the 1950s it meant a lesser, "earthy" person.  In addition to "earthling", sci-fi literature also introduced other terms such as "earther" and "terran". Today "earthling" bears a sci-fi meaning "people from planet Earth". The word is formed by adding the suffix -"ling" to "earth",similar to words such as "hireling" and "youngling"

The suffix -ling is a common way to form nouns from nouns. In this case, the term earthling or earthman previously signified someone dwelling in caves, working with the earth, living under the earth (e.g. a demon) or somehow associated with the earth. Later it developed the meaning distinguishing earth dwellers rather than those living on other planets.

The word  earthling  is formed from the word  earth  and the suffix  -ling , meaning something from earth, something related to earth or inhabitant of the earth

The word "earthling" is formed from the word "earth" and the suffix "-ling" and means of the Earth.

Here earth can either refer to the planet, or to the soil.

This is what probably inspired Heinlein to use it to have people not from Earth refer to people from Earth.

As reported on Etymonline : Old English yrþling "plowman" (see earth + -ling ); the sense of "inhabitant of the earth" is from 1590s.

Earthman was originally (1860) "a demon who lives in the earth;" science fiction sense of "inhabitant of the planet Earth" first attested 1949 in writing of Robert Heinlein.

'Earthling', before the sci-fi era, had somewhat the same connotations as 'troglodyte', an lesser, earthy person (see the etymonline provenance as in mplungjan's answer).

Earthling' has too much of a 1950's scifi connotation and is not used in contemporary sci-fi, except for pejoratively.

It's now mostly used in science fiction to mean humans from earth, but it existed even before that.

The word earthling is formed from the word earth and the suffix -ling , meaning something from earth, or something related to earth.

One older use is in the meaning of farmer or ploughman , another is in the meaning of mortal as contrast to heavenly creatures or gods.

In science fiction the term Terran is also commonly used.

NOAD gives for “-ling”: forming nouns from nouns, adjectives, and verbs (such as hireling, youngling).

The sci-fi literature has created a number of alternatives, like 'earther' and 'terran'. '

Term dates back to 1590s
How it is formed.
Other synonyms: Earther


'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

-- Eric, Terry Pratchett More on this subject on the Discworld and Pratchett Wiki .

It's just for added emphasis.

I do not believe it is strictly grammatically correct, but then using ALLCAPS is not, but people do that too, emphasis once again.

It's fine in informal communication, email, poetry, and advertising headlines.

Three would be most common.

Two, four, or more is rarer.

It's never "officially" correct.

The people who write books about how punctuation should be used in English tolerate only two levels of enthusiasm: not enthusiastic and enthusiastic.

The idea that somebody might be very enthusiastic is too alarming to contemplate.

Never.

At least not for grammatical purposes.

More than one exclamation mark doesn't have any meaning.

An exclamation doesn't get more "exclamationy" by more marks.

Of course, you could still use them, but the interpretation would be entirely up to the reader.

Use of punctuation that doesn't have any grounds in grammar would be more like decoration.

I've seen people invent their own style of punctuation,,,like tripple

commas,,,but

that of course doesn't have any meaning either,,,it

mostly makes the person look unstable... Multiple exclamation marks are sometimes seen in leetspeek, often intermixed with intentional mistakes in the form of 1 , one or eleven : pwnd!!!!11!!111!one!!eleven!!!!

"Keep your exclamation points under control.

You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.

If you have a knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.

"(Elmore Leonard)

One is enough to convey your feelings in conventional English but people seem to be taking it symbolically to mark the full intensity of their emotion and playing with it sometimes putting more than three exclamatory marks for a simple wish; However, we do not take care of it when it comes to conversation.

Punctuation isn’t grammar.

Where and how often you use exclamation marks and how many you use at any one time is a matter of stylistic judgement.

There will rarely be a need for any at all in an academic paper.

If, on the other hand, you’re writing the captions and speech bubbles for a comic strip, let your maxim be, the more the better.

No. Stop.

Period.

End.

That's it.

Do all those extras add to the meaning that I say No and no more than that, grammatically?

Same with exclamation marks, I guess.

Or else it would undermine the power of the Wonder mark.

Question: Now, I never do this, but in some few cases I have seen people use multiple exclamation (or question) marks like this:   Hey!!!   Is that grammatically correct? (Or just okay). In case it is,  how many  marks are grammatically allowed/accepted?

When and how should I use multiple exclamation marks?

Multiple exclamation marks are generally added for emphasis, although this is not strictly grammatically correct. In informal communication, this would be fine and three is the most common number. However, in terms of what is grammatically allowed, more than one does not have any meaning, and some would argue that you should have no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. Ultimately, how and when you use exclamatikon marks is a matter of stylistic judgement.

Exclamation marks are not grammatically correct, according to some people, and only serve for extra emphasis. In any case, the consensus is that they need to be used informally and limited in numbers. Some go as far as suggesting never use them at all, whilst other suggest that more than one does not add any additonal meaning. Some suggest exclamation marks are a part of grammar but are limited to two-three per 100,000 words. However, some authors like Tom Wolfe seem to use them freely, and equally people writing seem to use an excessive amount of them to convey emotion. Essentially, exclamation marks are more related to style than grammar.

This is not officially gramatically correct, but is common in informal communication and some other contexts. Multiple exclamation marks add emphasis, and are based on personal preference.

It is strictly grammatically incorrect to use multiple exclamation marks. However it can be used as a matter of stylistic judgement. It is fine in informal communication, but rarely in an academic judgement. It has no meaning, but can be used to emphasis or mark the full intensity of emotion. Three exclamation marks are common, however you are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.

The use of three exclamation marks is not generally considered correct, but how many you use and when will depend on stylistic judgement.

For emphasis, but not necessarily grammatically correct.

The use of three consecutive excalamation marks is not generally considered to be correct.

How many exclamation marks you use and when will be a matter for stylistic judgement.


The traditional British style would be to use yours faithfully for letters starting Dear Sir , Dear Madam , or something grander such as My Lord , and to use yours sincerely for the slightly less formal letters starting with a name such as Dear Mr Smith , Dear Baroness Jones ,

Dear Sir James etc.

The point of both is say that the writer has been telling the truth.

There are some minor religious connotations in yours faithfully so for example Rothschild's investment bank will often sign yours very truly .

There was an old-fashioned ending along the lines of

I have the honour, Sir, to remain your obedient servant sometimes shortened to

I have the honour etc.

but that is now rarely seen.

Best regards is clearly informal, and should be used for informal contexts.

Examples might include email or letters starting Dear Jane

When working in England, I've found that "Regards" is most common, even amongst parties that have a good relationship.

When working in Australia, "Best regards" is much more commonly used.

Using simply "Regards" would seem quite standoffish.

I'm not sure which is most applicable in Denmark.

I was always taught to use 'Yours faithfully' in letters when addressing someone I didn't know, and 'yours sincerely' for people I did.

However no such rules exist for emails, and using either of these valedictions would seem quite stuffy and overly formal.

I'd use them only (if you wished to use them at all) in formal, written correspondence.

'Best regards' is a fairly standard valediction that is neither too formal or too informal and would be suitable for any business email.

Tragicomic's comment on your question gives you a number of suitable alternatives.

The formal rule, at least in Britain, is that if you're writing a letter to a person whose name you don't know, you start with "Dear Sir or Madam", and you end with "Yours faithfully".

If you do know the name, you start with "Dear Mr X", and end with "Yours sincerely".

However, as you note, "Best [or kind] regards" is much more common these days.

But again it would only be used when you know the person's name - and I would probably say, only when you actually know the person themselves.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Yours truly .

It strikes me as a shade less officious than yours faithfully but not as boilerplate as Best regards or its weird sister, Best .

Yours faithfully , used to end a letter, is chiefly British and it used in a formal letter to someone whose name you do not know.

Best regards can be generally used, and it would be my preference.

There is a trend that I approve to stop using those complimentary openings and closes.

They are relics and literally are usually ridiculous:

Dear Sir:

Your employment will be terminated on 31 March 2011.

Yours faithfully.

What I see increasingly in e-mail correspondence is 'BR'.

It seems to me that this, along with the strange and pointless-seeming 'best regards' itself, is essentially business-speak and meant to make the correspondence, and by extension the writer, seem 'professional'.

I can't bring myself to use it myself, so in such correspondence I tend to sign myself best Christopher

But I doubt it will catch on.

Despite the name, emails are not letters.

Many people try to equate the two, but they are completely different mediums, and different rules have historically applied.

In former times many people had very limited bandwidth and email storage capacity, and would in fact get annoyed (if not downright hostile) with people who put large amounts of unnessecary information in an email.

This includes salutations (which are redundant with the email's automatically attached header), and excessive or unnessecary signature/footer information.

Return contact information used to be common in footers, just in case it got somehow mangled in the email header.

However, it has always been considered common etiquette (aka: "netiquette") to keep footers to 4 lines or less.

A lot of this has been formalized in RFC 1855 (section 2.1.1 is for email).

These days those issues are by-and-large moot.

However, getting right to the point, and quitting when you are done, are still considered better form that adding a whole lot of polite chuff around the meat of your conversation.

For further detail, you may consider picking up a copy of The Elements of E-Mail Style , although it is about 20 years old, so it may be a bit dated.

Question: I've been taught to end business letters with "Yours faithfully" but I can see from my daily correspondence that "Best regards" is more commonly used but seems more informal.  What term should be used and under what circumstances when writing email these days?   NOTE:  If other terms exist too (for colloquial use or extreme formalism) I'd like to know that too.

When ending an email, should I use "Yours faithfully" or "Best regards"?

It is generally agreed that you should use "Yours faithfully" when addressing someone you don't know and "Yours sincerely" when you do know the person. "Best regards" is seen as informal and should be used for informal contexts, although some may feel that it is suitable for any business e-mail. "Regards" is also commonly used although it may seem quite standoffish to some.

"Yours faithfully" is the traditional form of salutation to end a correspondence. "Dear Sir/Madam" is usually the opening one. It is suggested that these are for formal use and suggested the writer has been telling the truth.  There may be some minor religious connotations. For informal correspondence "Best regards" should be used even for letters beginning with the formal "Dear" . "Regards" is also another common form, but for some may seem a bit standoffish. Some believe "yours faithfully" is used for people that are not familiar to the writer, whereas "yours sincerely" is for those who are. "Yours truly" is another option and not as formal as "Best regards" or the truncated form "Best" sometimes used. There are some who believe all these forms of salutations are relics of the past as with emails, a lot of the content is already present in headers. Finally, some people believ style is more important than anything and the reference book is the "The Elements of e-mail style"

The formal rule in the UK would be to use 'Yours faithfully' where you do not know the recipient 'Dear Dir or Madam', but otherwise 'Yours sincerely' as a slightly less formal ending. 'Yours truly' is another fairly formal ending used in letters. Email is less formal, and other endings like 'Best regards', often shortened to 'Regards' or 'Best', are often preferred.

Traditional British style would be to use yours faithfully  for letters starting  Dear Sir/Madam , or something grander, eg My Lord. Use yours sincerely for less formal letters starting with a name such as  Dear Mr Smith. Best regards or regards is a fairly standard valediction that is neither too formal or too informal and would be suitable for any business email.

"Yours Faithfully" is chiefly British and is generally used when writing a letter to someone that you do not know. "Best Regards" is much more common and generally accepted, although  it may appear a little informal to some.

Despite the name, emails are not letters.

However, getting right to the point, and quitting when you are done, are still considered better form that adding a whole lot of polite chuff around the meat of your conversation.

Best regards can be generally used, and it would be my preference.

This includes salutations (which are redundant with the email's automatically attached header), and excessive or unnessecary signature/footer information.

Examples might include email or letters starting Dear Jane

There are some minor religious connotations in yours faithfully so for example Rothschild's investment bank will often sign yours very truly .

Many people try to equate the two, but they are completely different mediums, and different rules have historically applied.

Using simply "Regards" would seem quite standoffish.

For further detail, you may consider picking up a copy of The Elements of E-Mail Style , although it is about 20 years old, so it may be a bit dated.

Best regards is clearly informal, and should be used for informal contexts.

Yours faithfully , used to end a letter, is chiefly British and it used in a formal letter to someone whose name you do not know.

In former times many people had very limited bandwidth and email storage capacity, and would in fact get annoyed (if not downright hostile) with people who put large amounts of unnessecary information in an email.

However, as you note, "Best [or kind] regards" is much more common these days.

The traditional British style would be to use yours faithfully for letters starting Dear Sir , Dear Madam , or something grander such as My Lord , and to use yours sincerely for the slightly less formal letters starting with a name such as Dear Mr Smith , Dear Baroness Jones ,

I was always taught to use 'Yours faithfully' in letters when addressing someone I didn't know, and 'yours sincerely' for people I did.

The point of both is say that the writer has been telling the truth.

'Best regards' is a fairly standard valediction that is neither too formal or too informal and would be suitable for any business email.

When working in England, I've found that "Regards" is most common, even amongst parties that have a good relationship.

When working in Australia, "Best regards" is much more commonly used.

The formal rule, at least in Britain, is that if you're writing a letter to a person whose name you don't know, you start with "Dear Sir or Madam", and you end with "Yours faithfully".

If you do know the name, you start with "Dear Mr X", and end with "Yours sincerely".

Despite the name, emails are not letters.

Despite the name, emails are not letters.

Yours faithfully is the traditional UK form

"Yours Faithfully" is chiefly British and is used when writing a letter to someone you do not know.

"Best Regards" is seen as fairly standard these days and is not considered either too formal or informal.

"Best Regards" could be considered informal by some.


I think there are two main points here:

Regards does not only, nor originally, mean best wishes .

In some particular contexts — most often, as closing salutations in letters or emails — they’re indeed effectively synonymous.

But regards has other meanings as well.

Originally, regards carried no specific connotations of being good ; it just so happened that one of its most frequent usages was for sending people kind wishes, and so in that context, it picked up those connotations.

Even if that were its only meaning, synonyms are not exact , and meaning is not substitutive — synonyms are very, very rarely so exactly synonymous that you can always substitute them for each other without changing meanings.

For instance, as synonyms go, puppy and young dog are pretty close — close enough that one might reasonably say “ puppy is defined as young dog ”.

(Indeed, checking a couple of dictionaries, it is.)

But a young puppy is not redundant:

we know it means (in most contexts) a dog that is young even for a puppy.

Nor is an old puppy an oxymoron.

In isolation, puppy means almost exactly young dog ; but it’s picked up different connotations, so in many contexts, replacing puppy with young dog can change the meaning of a phrase significantly.

This is why pleonasm is often rather effective: ‘technical’ redundancy can be an illusion.

Substituting synonyms to check whether something makes sense is often helpful nonetheless, as a very rough rule of thumb.

But when it doesn’t work, one shouldn’t be too surprised.

a)

The answer to the question is No.

You might regard someone with a complete lack of respect !

So using regards alone doesn't clearly show how you feel about someone you're corresponding with.

Of course in correspondence using "regards" alone doesn't have a negative connotation and is used to show good wishes.

b) Sometimes pleonastic usage is welcomed.

The usages are: Idiomatic expressions

Professional and scholarly use Stylistic preference

Literary uses For getting more information visit Wikipedia

So for emphasizing or making the purpose clear we might use redundancies.

For example: "This was the most unkindest cut of all."

—William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar.

No, because I might regard you with disdain, or my worst regards.

Regards doesn't carry with it a very open and public sense of best that you're talking about.

Most people probably just understand it as something like "good wishes" or some other non-superlative and bland but positive way to express friendship.

So Best regards at the end of a letter, if it got noticed at all, would simply be read as equivalent to Best wishes .

You can also give someone kind regards, or warm regards, so specifying best regards is not redundant.

As PLL points out, "regards" by itself does not equate to "best wishes"; I think of it in this usage as "the worth or estimation in which something or someone is held" ( Merriam-Webster definition 4a).

In effect, you're closing with a little note letting the person know that you have a good opinion of them.

Regards is used to hide the emotional content of your salutation.

I once had a manager who told me there is no room for emotion in business, which I do not find to be true.

However, when needing to maintain a professional air surrounding emails and letters, regards is a snappy quick way of saying (more often then not) 'best wishes'; which therefore makes 'best regards' a redundancy.

Question: If the meaning of  regards  is  best wishes , would not  best regards  (used to express friendliness in greetings, especially at the end of letters) a pleonasm, in the context of letters?   Best regards,   kiamlaluno     Best best wishes,   kiamlaluno

Is "best regards" a pleonasm?

"Regards" does not only mean "best wishes", although in some popular contexts they are synonymous. "Regards" also has other meanings as well and carried no specific connotations of being good. Therefore, the answer is no, "regards" is not pleonasm. It is possible to give someone "kind regards" or "warm regards", so clearly "best regards" is not redundant.

"Regards" does not only, nor originally mean "best wishes". In some contexts, as a closing salutation, the two words could be synoynyms. However, "regards" has other meanings, but it never had the connotation of "good" -it was just a form to close a letter. Even if it did have the connotation "good", synonyms are never so exact that they are  totally interchangeable. Since "regards" in a salutation, it does not denote one's feelings, you could still have little respect for someone and still sign off "best regards".  In contrast,  someone can sign of "regards" omitting "best" and think highly of their correspondent. "Regards" may be used to hidet the emotional content of the salutation; so therefore it's a quicker and more professional form than "best wishes!.  There are other options also, such as "warm regards" that could be used to express how highly you think of someone.

While the meaning of 'regards' has changed over time, in modern usage ending a letter or email with '(Best/warm/kind) regards' would be considered equivalent to 'Best wishes'.

Best regards is not a pleonasm, as you could be regarded with disdain, or my worst regards.

The notion of "best" is not contained in the salutation. Understood as good wishes, may go unnoticed and understood as "good wishes"


I think it definitely has a use in some cases.

The use is to get the person on the other end of the line to actually stop talking so you can end the call.

Usually one starts signalling a desire to end the conversation by abandoning substantive answers in favor of simple affirmatives, transitioning at last to repeated versions of good-bye .

Here's how such a dialogue sounds from that side of the conversation:

Yeah, that's a great idea

, I'll take a look ...

yeah ...

uh-huh

... I'll have a look ... uh-huh

yeah ...

yeah ...

uh ....

uh, OK ...

OK ... OK, talk to you later ...

bye .... bye-bye.

[Hangs up]

I made up my own term to describe this kind of dragged-out phone-call-ending: conversational dieseling (from dieseling as used in automobile parlance).

You can definitely say "see you later" or "talk to you later" as the final utterance before ending your conversation.

You can add "bye" afterwards if you choose — it wouldn't sound strange, but it is not needed.

The other person may respond with "bye" (but could also say other things like "see you"), but it is not necessary for you to then say "bye" in return if you have already said "see you later" (although there is nothing wrong with it).

It is redundant from an information standpoint as you communicated your desire to hang up.

With that being said, however, phone conversations can have tricky social protocols that vary from place to place.

Many people treat a mutual bye (or goodbye ) as a necessary step to end a conversation politely.

(Think of it as an informal, though widespread, voice procedure .)

Usually it manifests something like the following: A:

Ok, I'll talk to you later.

B:

Alright, bye.

A: Bye Mutual Hangup.

In some locales, its common on calls to friends/family to make up an excuse for why you need to end the conversation, even if its obvious to both parties that you've just run out of things to say.

Presumably, this is due to wanting to be especially polite and indicate that you find the person so delightful that you'd love to just keep chatting away if it wasn't for that darn cat that needed to be let out or dishes that needed to be washed, etc.

Yes it's redundant, and yes it's annoying, but my mother (sorry Mum) does it all the time.

I speculate it came about as a way of softening potential awkwardness when terminating a phone conversation.

So, rather than simply hang up, my mother (for instance) repeats (more than once) the word "bye" in a decreasing volume and tone, thus blurring the end of the exchange, until one or both hang up.

That, or its a nervous tic.

Oh, and also see this .

"See you later" and "bye" may be redundant in meaning; however, they have some meaning if you examine the different levels of discourse in a conversation.

Here are two discourse-level observations.

First, the sentences in conversations tend to get shorter to signal its end.

(For example, think of a couple having a conversation in which one party answers in monosyllables.

He may be indicating that he wants the conversation to end.)

Second, there are no gestures or body language over the telephone.

The parties are signaling their mutual desire to end the conversation without recourse to the gestures of shifting weight, pointing feet toward the door, closing a notebook, or getting up.

"OK, talk to you next week." "OK, See you."

"See you."

"Bye." Hope that helps.

Bye.

Since 'bye' is a shortened version of 'good bye', which is derived from Middle English 'godbwye', meaning "God be with ye", it is not out of line to say "See you later, bye", litterally "See you later, God be with you."

In conversation, what is heartfelt is never redundant.

But what is said out of habit and often repeated each time can be redundant.

See you later"/"talk to you later", if used to inform and supply some yet unknown intention, is not redundant.

But "talk to you later" used to inform one's purposeful intention to call someone back that evening, is necessary information and therefore not redundant.

Question: Are the closing greetings "see you later", "talk to you later", and the like sufficient to end a conversation (especially a phone conversation) or must they be succeeded by "bye" or another word of definite finality?  In other words, is it redundant to append "bye" to "speak to you later" or a similar wish?

Is it redundant to append "bye" to "speak to you later"?

It is generally considered that "talk to you later" can be used as the final utterance before ending a conversation. "Bye" can be added afterwards and wouldn't sound strange, although it is not needed. It can also be used to get the person on the other end of the line to actually stop talking. From an information standpoint the word "bye" is redundant, however, many people treat a mutual "bye" as a necessary step to end a conversation politely.

These phrases are useful to help end a call.  "see you later" can indeed be used after "bye" and it may be reciprocated. It is a redundant if you have already explained your desire to hang up but they are polite social conventions and these can vary geographically. Some believe that a mutual "bye" must occur for a conversation to end. It may be a need to reduce any awkardness. "see you later" and "talk later" may also be real confirmations to indicate the desire to meet up again/talk again. Although we understand "bye" to mean ending a conversation, originally it meant "God be with you" and so would not be a defintive termination of a discourse along with "see you later". The  individual's preference is probably the best choice in the end.

The final words can have a literal meaning in some cases, but are usually just polite ways to signal the end of a conversation. You could add 'bye' or end the conversation after 'talk to you later', since both have a similar pragmatic function.

It is not needed and is redundant to add "bye" after "see you later", but it doesn't sound strange. Bye can be seen as a necessary step to end a conversation.

Saying "Bye" after saing "See you later" could be considered redundant, but using it will not be a problem. However, some people might argue that, give the literal meaning of the word "bye", it does still have a use.

It is ok to use, as final or as penultimate sign off.

Not necessary logically, but as a polite social convention

Etymologically, it has a different meaning to what we think

If it is sincere, it is not redundant, but repetition or habit could make it so.

Adding "Bye" to the end of a conversation after saying "See you later" is not problematic.

When considering the informational content, "Bye" could be considered redundant.

If we consider the literal meaning of "Bye", it could be considered to have its use.


It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper.

I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper.

(I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)

In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.

It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation.

Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.

I read somewhere once that if the abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word -e.g.

Mister, Mistress, Doctor- then no closing full stop is necessary.

That said, N.Americans will always place one at the end of those honorifics.

[Because id est and exempli gratia are two separate words, they're properly abbreviated as i.e. and e.g..]

The two most widely followed style guides in mainstream U.S. publishing are The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook .

They agree in endorsing the use of a period after Mr or Mrs .

From AP Stylebook (2002): Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs. ; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes.

These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.

And from Chicago (fifteenth edition, 2003): 15.16 Social titles.

Always abbreviated, whether preceding the full name or the surname only, are such social titles as the following:

Ms. Mrs. Messrs. Mr. Dr. Publishers that follow either of these guides require a period after such social-title abbreviations, unless their house style guide overrules the standard guide on this point.

As a counterpoint, MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing , second edition (1998) opposes using formal titles at all:

3.6.2 Titles of Persons

In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu).

[Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]

The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles.

The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods.

For example: Titles used as identification or clarification after a name normally are not capitalized, especially in US usage):

[Relevant examples:]

Mr Gladstone, the prime minister; Dr Primrose, the parish vicar

And in the "Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors" section of

The Oxford Style Manual , the entries are similarly consistent: Dr doctor (before name) Mr Mister.

pl.

Messrs Mrs Missis, Missus (corruptions of Mistress)

Ms the title of a woman whether or not married (no point) Oxford doesn't apply its "no point" rule across the board, however.

The style manual takes the opposite approach in its treatment of military abbreviations—Cpl., Sgt., Lt., Capt., Maj., and Gen., for example—and of Jr. after proper names.

I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters.

So - Rev. for Rev*erend*, Capt.

for Capt*ain*, Col., Prof. etc

But Mr, Dr, and the anomalous Mrs are contractions.

A Full Stop after them conveys no added meaning.

Logically, I suppose, Mr should be writtern M.r and Dr D.r, but that would be too confusing and, in any case, the meaning is clear without any Full Stop following.

That is not true of at least some abbreviations e.g. 'Rev the engine, Rev.'

[your getaway driver is a clergyman!]

; 'Col' means the lowest point between two mountain peaks; 'capt' is a poetic variant of 'capped' and appears on Shakespeare's memorial in Westminster Abbey; 'The Cloud capt Tow'rs,[http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare ]

Americans tend to place a period after Mr , Mrs , etc.

The British and related speakers often don't.

I think it depends on the style guide.

American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc.

This is probably just the magazine's house style.

I follow the following convention: Male:

Mr. Female: Mrs., Miss, and Ms "

No need to put a period after Ms (as in, Ms Prescott) since it's not an abbreviation."

-Lionel

Trilling Professor in the Humanities, Guggenheim Fellow, and founder of the Logic and Rhetoric writing course at Columbia University, Professor Edward Tayler (Self-Help, page 8).

I take his advice on style above anybody in Chicago.

I am indifferent about the American way of doing things otherwise.

I should like to actually use the period after Miss, for indicating the presence of more letters, as described by Fowler, but it seems unpatriotic.

Question: I've been reading the Economist lately and they apparently don't punctuate honorifics like "Mr.", "Mrs.", e.g.   The popular rejection of Mr Mubarak offers the Middle East’s best chance for reform in decades.   I believe it's a British magazine, but is such a use proper or common in American English?

Is it proper to omit periods after honorifics (Mr, Mrs, Dr)?

The usage of periods after honorifics may depend on region. Omitting periods is not too common in American English and not strictly proper whilst it is perfectly common in British English. Ultimately, whether it is correct or not will depend on your style guide.

The use of periods after honorifics is not very common in US English and not strictly correct. It is more common in UK English and is correct. The periods denote the absence of the remaining letters in the abbreviation. As the abbreviations Mr., Mrs., have been used so long they have practically become words of their own. It is, however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation.  Mid-sentence it is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality. . However, Style Guides seem to vary in their recommendations. AP Style recommends keeping them, wheareas the American Medical Association omits them.The Oxford Style Manual  (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and without periods.It is suggested not to use titles when referencing women alive or dead e.g. Churchill and not Mr.Churchill

This is more common in British English than American English, but it depends on the styleguide used. The Oxford Style Manual omits the period and doesn't mention this directly, but the AP Stylebook and many other US styleguides use it. An exception is the American Medical Association, which omits periods except for middle initials.

Americans tend to place a period after Mr, Mrs, etc. In British English, these abbreviations have been in use so very long that for the most part, they are considered first-class words in their own right and thus no longer retain the full stop at all times.

The exact answer will depend on the style guide in the specific case. However, in British English it is generally accepted that honorifics do not need full stops whereas American English will include them.

This is probably just the magazine's house style.

It's not too common in American English, and not strictly proper.

I believe it's common in British English, and most likely perfectly proper.

(I've got both American and British Harry Potter books, and the British ones leave out those periods.)

It is however, not uncommon to see the full stop retained when used in an address, or a salutation.

Mid-sentence is generally omitted, as the sight of a full stop cropping up in the middle of a sentence tends to cause more consternation than the omittance of a punctuation technicality.

I was taught in school (British, Primary) that a Full Stop or Period was used at the end of Abbreviations i.e. it stood for the rest of the letters.

From AP Stylebook (2002): Mr., Mrs. The plural of Mr. is Messrs. ; the plural of Mrs. is Mmes.

These abbreviated spellings apply in all uses, including direct quotations.

American Medical Association style is to omit periods in all abbreviations except middle initials, so: eg, ie, vs, Dr, Mr, etc.

The Oxford Style Manual (2003) doesn't discuss the matter directly, but it consistently gives examples of Mr, Mrs, Dr, and the like without periods.

In general, do not use formal titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Reverend) in first or subsequent references to men or women, living or dead (Churchill, not Mr. Churchill; Mead, not Professor Mead; Hess, not Dame Hess; Montagu, not Lady Montagu).

[Exceptions for certain "women in history," such as Mrs. Humphrey Ward and Mme de Staël, and for certain titled nobles, such as Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, omitted.]

The tendency in British style appears to be against end punctuation of social titles.

The use of perios after honorifics is not very common in US English and not strictly correct. It's more common in UK English and is correct.

Lost use as they have been so long in use.

This is more common in British English than American English.

In British English, it is common to omit full stops from honorifics.

In American English, it is not generally accepted to omit full stops from honorifics.

The exact answer will depend on the style guide applied.


As Sunderland was once known for shipbuilding there was only 2 main forms of employment...

shipbuilding by day and stealing from the ships they'd helped build by night.

Apparently there was a saying "they mak'em then tak'em" meaning they build (the ships) then steal from them.

The mak'em bit stuck

and so we are now known as 'makems' or so they say!!?

The Wikipedia entry has sourced its answer from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for 'mackem' .

As far as word origins are considered, probably as authentic as it gets.

EDIT : As it seems that everyone cannot access the OED link, here's an excerpt.

There are two possible origins attributed: Probably with allusion to the phrase mack 'em and tack 'em and variations thereof, freq.

said to refer to the shipbuilding industry of the region or.. Perhaps partly also with allusion to the pronunciation of make typical of Wearside, as contrasted with that of Tyneside.

My uncle was from Sunderland and was clear that it was a reference to the difference in accent which differentiated a Tynesider from a Wearsider.

Geordies would say "maek" and "taek", Wearsiders "mak" and "tak".

Nothing to do with shipbuilding.

There was probably more shipbuilding on the Tyne than the Wear.

I should add that my uncle and my parents were born in the 1920s and knew this usage from childhood.

It's not a recent coinage.

It may have been a derogatory term at first.

As the people of Sunderland Mak or made the ships but all the money stayed in Newcastle!

As a mackem of today and a proud inhabitant of Sunderland it is a local term we love as it defines us as separate from the people of Newcastle.

The most insulting term you can call anyone from Sunderland is a geordie .

I'm a born and bred Sunderland lad and a proud Mackem.

I can confirm the term comes from the ship-building history as we used to "Mak" the ships, or make the ships.

It comes from when miners, Geordies (Newcastle) called Sunderland makems.

It's also to do with football and the rivalry, but the name "Mackem" came from the mining days and is an insulting word towards people of Sunderland.

To just add to the comment about "Mackem" also being related to football, the word effectively seems to have two meanings now: someone who's from Sunderland, and someone who supports Sunderland AFC.

Clearly, many or most Sunderland fans will be from the city anyway, so there's no distinction for those people.

But, someone from outside Sunderland, and who therefore isn't a Mackem in the "traditional" sense of the word, will be referred to as a Mackem if they support that team.

As a child in Newcastle, it was explained to me that the Wearside (Sunderland) ship-builders would vigorously underquote those on Tyneside (Newcastle).

They would make the ships, but run out of resources, and hence the more reputable shipbuilders on Tyneside would take the partially finished ships and complete the work.

Hence "They mack'em and we tack'em".

This is translated as one of the following:

They make them

and we take them

They make them

and we tack them,

i.e. fix them up.

As you might guess, this explanation was given to me by a loyal and wildly biased Geordie, who would never have a good word to say about "the great unwashed" from local rivals Sunderland, so is added more as an aside, rather than genuine etymology.

Question: In the north-east of England, if nowhere else, people from Sunderland are called "mackems". Does anyone know why this should be?  Wikipedia  suggests a number of possibilities. Are any of these correct?

Why are people from Sunderland called "mackems"?

There is no clear reason why people from Sunderland are called "Mackems" although there are a number of theories. One is that the word comes from the phrase "They mack'em and we tack'em", referring to the fact that shipbuilders in Sunderland would make ships and then shipbuilders on Tyneside would complete the word. Another theory refers to the different in accent between Sunderland and Newcastle, and it may have originally been a derogatory term.

Sunderland was known for its shipbuilding industry.Apparently, there was a saying "they mak'em then tak'em" meaning the people from Sunderlan built the ships, then stolefrom them. It may have been a derogatory term at first, suggesting the people of Sunderland "Mak" or made the ships but all the money stayed in Newcastle!  It is also suggested that it was the miners, Geordies (Newcastle) who first called Sunderland people "makems". It was also seen as a reference to the different accents in Tyneside and Wear. Geordies said maek" and "taek",  whereas Wearsiders "mak" and "tak". It is a local term which defines them as separate from the people of Newcastle, but they are proud of it, although some say it is perceived as insulting. In modern usage "Mackem" is also related to football, the word effectively seems to have two meanings now: someone who's from Sunderland, and someone who supports Sunderland AFC. Someone from outside Sunderland, and who therefore isn't a Mackem in the "traditional" sense of the word, will be referred to as a Mackem if they support that team.

The term "Mackems" to call people from Sunderland comes from the ship-building history to "Mak" the ships, or make the ships. it was a reference to the difference in accent which differentiated a Tynesider from a Wearsider.

There is no clear single answer to this question, but the term "Mackem" could be derived from the Wearside accent or be related to Sunderland's shipbuilding history.

As Sunderland was once known for shipbuilding there was only 2 main forms of employment...

Apparently there was a saying "they mak'em then tak'em" meaning they build (the ships) then steal from them.

There was probably more shipbuilding on the Tyne than the Wear.

I should add that my uncle and my parents were born in the 1920s and knew this usage from childhood.

I'm a born and bred Sunderland lad and a proud Mackem.

I can confirm the term comes from the ship-building history as we used to "Mak" the ships, or make the ships.

As a child in Newcastle, it was explained to me that the Wearside (Sunderland) ship-builders would vigorously underquote those on Tyneside (Newcastle).

They would make the ships, but run out of resources, and hence the more reputable shipbuilders on Tyneside would take the partially finished ships and complete the work.

It may have been a derogatory term at first.

As the people of Sunderland Mak or made the ships but all the money stayed in Newcastle!

As a mackem of today and a proud inhabitant of Sunderland it is a local term we love as it defines us as separate from the people of Newcastle.

The most insulting term you can call anyone from Sunderland is a geordie .

It comes from when miners, Geordies (Newcastle) called Sunderland makems.

My uncle was from Sunderland and was clear that it was a reference to the difference in accent which differentiated a Tynesider from a Wearsider.

Geordies would say "maek" and "taek", Wearsiders "mak" and "tak".

To just add to the comment about "Mackem" also being related to football, the word effectively seems to have two meanings now: someone who's from Sunderland, and someone who supports Sunderland AFC.

Clearly, many or most Sunderland fans will be from the city anyway, so there's no distinction for those people.

But, someone from outside Sunderland, and who therefore isn't a Mackem in the "traditional" sense of the word, will be referred to as a Mackem if they support that team.

It's also to do with football and the rivalry, but the name "Mackem" came from the mining days and is an insulting word towards people of Sunderland.

Derogatory term at first.
Football connotation.
Football connotation

The term "Mackem" may have been a reference to the different accnet on Wearside compared to that on Tyneside.

The term may be related to Sunderland's shipbuilding history.


You can say first and last (without one ).

Of winter, spring, and summer, I find the last most enjoyable.

Interesting question.

First and last will do, but suppose you wanted to refer to the middle option, or the fourth option?

Consider for example a scenario where a party of adventurers must choose from a list of options; Go forward into the forest, singing a song of sixpence

Go back to base to retrieve some hats Go back to base to dispute the pronunciation of the word "tomato" Stay put, weave baskets, and hope for rescue Stay put, weave baskets, and try to summon a helpful genie

Now if I were in this party considering these options, I might suggest we take the second option, but it is far more likely that I say something like we need our hats , implying that we should take the second option where we also go back to base.

In other words, with more than two options, the most elegant way is to refer to the unique attributes of the option.

In fact, with just two options I still think this is more elegant than former and latter since it relieves the reader of the burden of remembering which is which.

I don't think there's anything inelegant about first or last .

You can always use ultimate , penultimate , and antepenultimate if you want to be certain no one understands you.

'latter' is NOT only valid when there are two items!

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the 2nd meaning of 'latter': 2 : of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or the last of several groups or things.

This also puzzled me, a non-native speaker in the beginning.

There are other words you can use in place of "first" and "last" - for example, "foremost" and "lattermost" - but whether that is more elegant , or just more pretentious, could be debatable.

It has to be 'first' and 'last', as they are simply the superlatives of which 'former' and 'latter' are the comparatives.

Question: Former  and  latter  are valid only when there are two choices.  If I have a list of more than two items, is there an elegant way to say  the first one  or  the last one ?

Equivalent of "former" and "latter" for more than 2 items

To refer to the first and last item in a list of more than two items, you can simply refer to them as "first" and "last". Other valid words could be "foremost" and "lattermost". However, "latter" is not only valid when there are two items and may be used also for the last of several groups or things.

The option is to say "first and last" omitting "one, as they are simply the superlatives of "former' and 'latter' which are the comparatives.If there are only two choices of items this can considered more elegant than  former  and  latter  since it relieves the reader of the burden of remembering which is which.  Another option is ultimate ,  penultimate , and  antepenultimate, but these are more obscure terms that may not be understood In addition, However, and according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the 2nd meaning of 'latter':   2 :  of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or  the last of several groups or things, means it can apply if there are more than two items."Foremost" and "lattermost" -are other terms that could be used.

First' and 'last' are valid, and 'latter' can be used with more than two groups or things. Terms like ultimate, penultimate, antepenultimate, foremost and lattermost could be used, but would usually be considered pretentious or confusing.

The equivalent of "former" and "latter" for more than 2 items is 'first' and 'last', as they are simply the superlatives of which 'former' and 'latter' are the comparatives. Other possible options are; ultimate, penultimate, antepenultimate, foremost, lattermost,

The terms "first" and "last" should be perfectly acceptable in this case, and in fact, "latter" is still acceptable for lists of more than two items. However, other potentially applicable terms include "ultimate", "foremost" or "lattermost".

You can say  first  and  last  (without  one ).

till think this is more elegant than  former  and  latter  since it relieves the reader of the burden of remembering which is which.

use  ultimate ,  penultimate , and  antepenultimate  if you want to be certain no one understands you.

Use"foremost" and "lattermost" - but whether that is more  elegant , or just more pretentious, could be debatable.

The terms "first" and "last" should be perfectly acceptable in this case.

Potential terms that may apply in this case include "ultimate", "foremost" or "lattermost".

"Latter" is still acceptable for a set of more than two items.


"Mind your Ps and Qs" means "be careful to behave well and avoid giving offense.

" The NOAD reports that its origin is unknown; it would refer to the care a young student must take in differentiating the tailed letters p and q .

I've always heard that it was originally short for "Mind your Pints and Quarts!"

Something an innkeeper (or what-have-you) would shout to an unruly common room to settle them down.

According to AUE no one's particularly sure, but they list a few other theories, including what they consider to be the most likely: "Mind your 'please's and 'thank you's".

Link: http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxmindyo.html

It means Be on your best behaviour; be careful of your language.

The date of the coinage of 'mind your Ps and Qs' is uncertain.

There is a citation from Thomas Dekker's play, The Untrussing of the Humorous Poet, 1602, which appears to be the earliest use of the expression: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mind-your-ps-and-qs.html

I read somewhere that it came about, ages ago, to remind people in the printing business, to be careful when typesetting 'p' and 'q', because it was easy to confuse the two.

In general, this would mean to take extra care with what you were doing.

Now, it appears to have several meanings including: Mind what you say Mind

your manners, specifically' pleases ' and 'thank yous' Mind your own business All of which are related.

I wonder if it would be acceptable to use 'mind your Ps and Qs' to mean take extra care with what you are doing ?

I have never heard the phrase used in that context.

Anyone who has worked as a printer's devil knows the answer to the origin (and meaning) of the elderly term, "Mind your p's and q's."

I must preface my remarks on the origin of the term with brief background.

First.

The origin of the printing process using moveable type around mid 16th century was made possible by using individual molded glyphs that were the mirror-image of the desired printed image.

The nature of each individual glyph is that similarity exists among several different ones; notably, the p, q, d, and b.

The difference is the orientation of the glyph.

As it turns out, tiny letter decorations called serifs make telling one character from the other easier.

The sole exceptions are the p and q.

Their only different characteristic is that one is reversed—the mirror of the other.

Second.

Each different letter used is kept sorted in a multi-compartment drawer referred to as a type "case" organized by frequency-of-use.

Thus, "e" and "t" are near the centre of the case and less-frequently used letters such as "v" and "j" are near the sides.

This is done for speedy and correct page composition.

In use, the typesetter composes a document letter-by-letter, line-by-line to fill a page.

After the page is printed, the type block is cleaned, removed from the "chase," taken apart line-by-line, letter-by-letter and distributed back into the proper compartment in the type case for re-use.

Majuscules (capital letters) go in one case and minuscules (small letters) into another placed slightly below the other.

All this is done completely in reverse by a skilled apprentice referred to as "a printer's devil."

Most all this can be accomplished simply if not easily "by feel" until you run into the two most-easily confused glyphs where you must pay special attention to keep them correctly sorted by heeding the admonition to " Mind your p's and q's ."

There are many theories, (some of them given in answers here) but none of them has any supporting evidence

whatever.

WorldWideWords has an article.

It's to do with the fact that children often confuse the small 'p' with the small 'q' when learning how to write and read (like they do with b's and d's.)

So if taken literally it is basically an appeal to 'be careful, be precise, listen to what you teacher has told you' - which comes pretty close to its use in language (i.e. mothers with their children.)

Another theory I have heard - probably apocryphal - is that it has to do with the two branches of the Celtic family of languages: P-celtic (i.e. Brythonic - Welsh etc.) and Q-celtic (i.e. Goideilic - Irish etc.).

It was said to date from when these were beginning to separate and you had to get the pronunciation right in each area to be understood.

To be honest this sounds rather unlikely as why would it be an idiom in English - a language from a completely different family.

I've always understood as a warning to be polite.

And I've always seen it this way: Mind

your P's and Q's as in your "Pleases" (P's) and "Thank-yous"(Q's), thus the origin of P's and Q's...

I don't know if anyone else has the same notion?

Question: During office discussion two turns of phrase came up in close proximity: "peace and quiet" shortly followed by "mind your P's and Q's".  What is the meaning of P's and Q's?  I wondered if it might be related to peace and quiet.

What does it mean to mind your P's and Q's?

"Mind your Ps and Qs" means "be careful to behave well and avoid giving offence" and the earliest use of the expression appears to be in Thomas Dekker's play, "The Untrussing of the Humorous Poet" from 1602. However, some people believe that this phrase means "Mind your pints and quarts" or "mind your pleases and thank yous".

Mind your "ps and qs" is understood to mean  behave well and do not give offence. The Noad traces it back to young students or children learning to spell, taking care to differentiate between "p" and "q" which are similar and so by extension it came to mean be careful of your language and be on your best behaviour. There is no date to when it was coined. Others understand it as relating to an innkeeper saying "mind your pints and quarts" to settle unruly customers.AUE also lists a few other theories,as  to its meaning: "Mind your 'please's and 'thank yous". There is also a suggestion that it comes from the printing business where the typesetting of the letter p and q  could easily be confused. Again a warning to take care and do things properly. A final theory is that it has to do with the two branches of the Celtic family of languages: P-celtic (i.e. Brythonic - Welsh etc.) and Q-celtic (i.e. Goideilic - Irish etc.) as the sounds were beginning to change, but is unlikely as the idiom seems mainly of English origin.

This expression means to be on your best behaviour. The origin is unknown, but it could be a shortening of 'Pleases' (Ps) and 'Thank-yous' (Qs) or a reference to the ease of confusing the two letters when writing by hand or using a print type block.

To mind your P's and Q's means be on your best behaviour; be careful of your language and avoid giving offence. Possibly short for Mind your Pints and Quarts! No one is sure of the origin, but possibly it is thought it was to remind people in the printing business, to be careful when typesetting 'p' and 'q', because it was easy to confuse the two. Or possibly from when these were beginning to separate and you had to get the pronunciation right in each area to be understood. Another explanation, probably apocryphal - is that it has to do with the two branches of the Celtic family of languages: P-celtic (i.e. Brythonic - Welsh etc.) and Q-celtic (i.e. Goideilic - Irish etc.).

The phrase "Mind your P's and Q's" is generally agreed to be a warning to behave well and avoid giving offence. However, it's origins are less clear. Some people believe it was a warning to typesetters not to confuse their numbers, whilst others believe it may have been a warning for people to take care over their pronunciation. There is also the claim that it originally meant "Mind your pints and quarts".

Mind your Ps and Qs" means "be careful to behave well and avoid giving offense.

Originally short for "Mind your Pints and Quarts!"

Originated when children were being trained to write to distinguish the letters.

It coud be of celtic language source when the languages were dividing.

The phrase "Mind your P's and Q's" is generally considered to be a warning to behave well and avoid offending others.

The phrase may have originated in the typesetting profession as a warning not to confused the letters p and q.

The phrase may also have been a warning for people to take care over their pronunciation.

The phrase may have originally been "Mind your pints and quarts".


Maybe the word " snoop " could be a good synonym.

I caught him snooping around in my office.

Reporters were snooping on the celebrities

You can also use "notice", "observe", "monitor", "track", "keep an eye on", "keep track of", "keep tabs on" -- all these have slightly different meanings, depending on what you mean to convey when you'd use spy .

Use notice if you mean to say that you suddenly noticed a detail of some sort.

Use observe if you mean to say that you're dispassionately watching something unfold, or noticing a detail or series of details with emotional detachment.

Use monitor if you mean to say that you're continually watching something with some measurement in mind that would prompt you to step in or take action if the measurement goes outside a certain range.

All of the keep... phrases are informal ways of saying that you're going to spend some casual effort going forward to (essentially) monitor something -- they're mostly casual ways of using the monitor sense of spy .

Notice that, strictly speaking, spy can carry a connotation of secret, covert behaviour.

When you spy you have an agenda of some sort, or a secret purpose.

The most neutral version of spy is to suddenly notice something: the longer the activity spent observing, the more you convey a sense of secretness.

To spy , in the sense of watching someone or something, could also mean keeping that thing under surveillance.

In that sense, spy (the verb) has approximately the same meaning as surveil .

If you mean to spy then you can use snoop (informal), keep under surveillance/observation , keep a watch on , keep an eye on , observe , spot .

If you mean spy used as noun, then you can use secret agent , undercover agent , intelligence agent , double agent , mole , snoop .

Which word/phrase suits better depends on the context.

infiltrator, undercover agent

This depends on context and connotation.

There are spies-heroes and there are sneaks, sneakers, snitches, informers, finks, noses, squeakeres, denunciators, questmans, talebearers, whistlers, grass, nark, noser, stool pigeon, checker, squeal, zuch, rat, rounder, delator, etc.

Seems like negative characters are always have better and more specific characteristic terms than positive ones.

english.stackexchange.com/users/3085/Gennady Vanin Геннадий Ванин

Question: I know the word "watch" is used as a synonym of spy. Are there other synonyms that are used by native speakers?

What is the synonym of "spy"?

The exact term you might want to use will depend on context and connotation. Other potential synonyms for the word "spy" include "snoop", "observe" "keep an eye on", although all of these have slightly different meanings depending on the context. The spy, in the sense of watching soneone, could also mean keeping that person under surveillance.

There are numerous synonyms for "spy" in terms of a verb,  but a "spy" is also a noun.  Other nouns are  "infiltrator" "undercover agent". Synonym verbs for "to spy" are "to snoop", with more a connotation of sneakily checking out things  unbeknownst to others. There are also a wide range of verbs like "notice", "observe", "monitor", "track", "keep an eye on", "keep track of", "keep tabs on" -- all these have slightly different meanings, depending on what you mean to convey when using "to spy"- each one is used in specific contexts. "Surveill" can also be used instead of "to spy".  The context will dictate the choice of words and how the individual or action is depicted.

Snoop' or 'sneak' could be used to indicate surreptitious spying on someone. On the other hand, 'notice', 'observe', 'monitor', 'track', 'keep an eye on', 'keep track of', 'keep tabs on', 'keep under surveillance/observation' or 'keep a watch on' have the connotation of more official monitoring.

Synonyms for spy include, snoop, notice, observe, monitor, spot track, keep an eye or on, keep track of, keep tabs on, keep under surveillance/observation. Spy used as noun, synonyms include; secret agent, infiltrator, undercover agent,  intelligence agent,  double agent,  mole.

The answer to this question will depend on the context and whether "spy" is used as a noun or a verb. If "spy" is a verb, then words such as "snoop", "track" or "serveil" may be suitable substitutes. If, on the other hand, "spy" is used as a noun, "infiltrator" or "undercover agent" may be acceptable.

The noun "spy" as infiltrator, underover agent

If you mean spy used as noun, then you can use secret agent , undercover agent , intelligence agent , double agen , mole , snoop .

Maybe the word " snoop " could be a good synonym.

I caught him snooping around in my office.

Reporters were snooping on the celebrities

If you mean to spy then you can use snoop (informal), keep under surveillance/observation , keep a watch on , keep an eye on , observe , spot .

You can also use "notice", "observe", "monitor", "track", "keep an eye on", "keep track of", "keep tabs on" -- all these have slightly different meanings, depending on what you mean to convey when you'd use spy .

Use notice if you mean to say that you suddenly noticed a detail of some sort.

Use observe if you mean to say that you're dispassionately watching something unfold, or noticing a detail or series of details with emotional detachment.

Use monitor if you mean to say that you're continually watching something with some measurement in mind that would prompt you to step in or take action if the measurement goes outside a certain range.

All of the keep... phrases are informal ways of saying that you're going to spend some casual effort going forward to (essentially) monitor something -- they're mostly casual ways of using the monitor sense of spy .

Notice that, strictly speaking, spy can carry a connotation of secret, covert behaviour.

When you spy you have an agenda of some sort, or a secret purpose.

The most neutral version of spy is to suddenly notice something: the longer the activity spent observing, the more you convey a sense of secretness.

To spy , in the sense of watching someone or something, could also mean keeping that thing under surveillance.

In that sense, spy (the verb) has approximately the same meaning as surveil .

If you mean spy used as noun, then you can use secret agent , undercover agent , intelligence agent , double agent , mole , snoop .

Which word/phrase suits better depends on the context.

This depends on context and connotation.

There are spies-heroes and there are sneaks, sneakers, snitches, informers, finks, noses, squeakeres, denunciators, questmans, talebearers, whistlers, grass, nark, noser, stool pigeon, checker, squeal, zuch, rat, rounder, delator, etc.

Seems like negative characters are always have better and more specific characteristic terms than positive ones.

Snoop as a potential synonym as in "snooping around the office"

Spying as surveillance ;watching someone from a distance

The noun for spy is "infiltrator", "undercover agent"

Notice', 'observe', 'monitor', 'track', 'keep an eye on', 'keep track of', 'keep tabs on', 'keep under surveillance/observation' or 'keep a watch on' have the connotation of more official monitoring.

The answer to this question will depend on the context and connotation.

Words such as "snoop", "track" or "serveil" may serve as a good substitute for "spy" as a verb.

"Infiltrator" or "undercover agent" may be a suitable substitute for "spy" as a noun.


It can go either way.

When the police "have a hard on" for someone, it means they're looking to put that person in jail.

But it can mean approval as well.

Consider this line from Stanley Kubrick's film Full Metal Jacket : Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Today ... is Christmas!

There will be a magic show at zero-nine-thirty!

Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few Marines!

God has a hard-on for Marines because we kill everything we see!

He plays His games, we play ours!

To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls!

God was here before the Marine Corps!

So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps!

Do you ladies understand?

Clearly, Sgt.

Hartman means that God likes Marines when he uses this expression.

It can mean that they have a grudge and are actively trying to settle it, which would often include aggressive or belligerent behavior.

I think the meaning comes from a general sense of being focused on someone to a degree reminiscent of sexual fascination.

I suggest that the shared concept is being aroused , sexually or some other way.

Sexual Arousal : The directly biological sexual form.

(Discretion suggests I not provide an example.)

Aggressive Arousal : A person can have a hard on in an aggressive, competitive manner, as the accepted answer suggests.

Testosterone can fuel both sexual and aggressive arousal, so there's a biological link.

"Bob had a real hard on for Dave's job."

Broadly Desirous Arousal : A person can also have a hard on for anything desirable: a new videogame, a new model of car, even eating at a particular restaurant.

"Bob had a serious hard on for the Tesla Roadster.

" (None of the existing answers included the general concept of arousal

so I figured I'd add one.)

Well, it's a clearly sexual term, but I've never heard it used in an aggressive sense.

When used non-sexually, it generally would indicate that someone really likes something (or someone) and is inclined to talk it up at any opportunity.

There's also a connotation that they're rather obnoxiously persistent about doing so.

I've heard the phrase used in a corporate setting to describe someone who is aggressively focused on surpassing or doing down a particular rival, or on defeating a project or proposal.

In this usage, I believe that deploying a phrase with sexual significance is a kind of intensifier, because the speaker is juxtaposing that significance on such a non-sexual context.

I believe that there are two somewhat similar expressions to using the term "hard on."

Only one of them has a sexual connotation.

To BE "hard on

" somebody is to be tough or difficult with them.

This can come from either a man or a woman.

It often refers to "aggression" but has no sexual connotation.

To HAVE a "hard on" is for a man's particular body part to have a certain "hardness" (when it is more often "soft" or "limp".)

And that takes place in a sexual context.

Question: What does it mean to "have a hard-on for someone" in a non-sexual sense? I've heard it used in contexts that make it seem like the subject is acting aggressive or belligerent toward "someone". Is that right?

Non-sexual meaning of "to have a hard-on for someone"

There are number of potential non sexual meanings for the phrase "have a hard-on for someone" and the exact answer will depend on context. One example is that, when the police "have a hard-on" for someone, it means they're looking to put them in jail. It can also mean that someone has a grudge or that they really like something (or someone). This phrase could also refer to someone who is aggressively focused on surpassing or doing down a particular rival.

In policing, it is a term to mean the police are looking for someone. It can also mean someone is actively seeking to settle a grudge and is particularly aggressive. The focus on intent is so strong that it is the equivalent of sexual interest. The other plain meaning is sexual arousal, but also being aroused in some way. In some cases the person is aggressive as testosterone and male arousal are linked.. If the term was implied non-sexually, it would mean a strong interest in something. It has been used in corporate settings to denote aggressive determination to win or achieve something, but with an undertone of obnoxious-type behaviour

When used in a non-sexual way, the term generally means intense focus on something or desire for something. It is probable that the sexual connotation is intended in these cases, either as a metaphor or an intensifier.

The expression 'to have a hard-on for someone' can possibly have some non sexual meanings. It generally would indicate that someone really likes something (or someone) and is inclined to talk it up at any opportunity.  It can mean that someone has a grudge and are actively trying to settle it, which would often include aggressive or belligerent behavior. Also it can be used in a corporate setting to describe someone who is aggressively focused on surpassing or doing down a particular rival, or on defeating a project or proposal. It can be used by the police meaning they're looking to put that person in jail.

The mean of this phrase is open to interpretation and some people may not have heard it in a non-sexual sense. It could imply that someone is aggressively trying to catch or surpass someone, or it could indicate a strong liking for someone or something.

Sexual Arousal : The directly biological sexual form.

When the police "have a hard on" for someone, it means they're looking to put that person in jail.

It can mean that they have a grudge and are actively trying to settle it, which would often include aggressive or belligerent behavior.

I think the meaning comes from a general sense of being focused on someone to a degree reminiscent of sexual fascination.

I suggest that the shared concept is being aroused , sexually or some other way.

Aggressive Arousal : A person can have a hard on in an aggressive, competitive manner, as the accepted answer suggests.

Testosterone can fuel both sexual and aggressive arousal, so there's a biological link.

Well, it's a clearly sexual term, but I've never heard it used in an aggressive sense.

When used non-sexually, it generally would indicate that someone really likes something (or someone) and is inclined to talk it up at any opportunity.

I've heard the phrase used in a corporate setting to describe someone who is aggressively focused on surpassing or doing down a particular rival, or on defeating a project or proposal.

In this usage, I believe that deploying a phrase with sexual significance is a kind of intensifier, because the speaker is juxtaposing that significance on such a non-sexual context.

There's also a connotation that they're rather obnoxiously persistent about doing so.

Having a grudge and are actively trying to settle it, involvingaggressive or belligerent behavior.

Sexual arousal or another type of strong arousal.

Being aggressively aroused with a strong intention

Corporate use to denote drive and determination.

The meaning of this phrase is open to interpretation.

This phrase could mean that someone is aggressively trying to catch or surpass someone.

When used non-sexually, this phrase could indicate a liking for someone or something.

Some people may not have heard this phrase used in a non-sexual sense.


In Standard English, this is not a properly formed word; the standard form is "more curious".

As a general principle, the comparative -er suffix attaches to monosyllabic words, and more is preferred with polysyllabic words, so

even though a word like curiouser is readily understood, it has an odd quality to it — this is the reason.

According to the OED , the word curiouser was coined by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland in 1865, as the phrase "curiouser and curiouser".

In fact, the OED cites this phrase only, and does not treat curiouser as a word unto itself; the phrase has the meaning "increasingly strange".

With this in mind, you might be able to justify the use of the entire phrase in a formal context (depending on your audience).

Addendum:

Let me just state (for the record) that if you are wondering if this would be considered a word in the pure linguistic sense (rather than in Standard English), then I think that most linguists would say yes; it probably has been around long enough and is well-established enough to be considered a word.

Not quite , apart from in the specific phrase “curiouser and curiouser”, taken from Alice in Wonderland .

Lewis Carroll was playing with language there.

The -er ending is almost never used with words of more than two syllables: so eg more beautiful , more curious , not usually ?

beautifuller , ?

curiouser .

Edit: the OED agrees — it doesn’t list curiouser as a word or a form of curious , but does list curiouser and curiouser as a phrase.

Curiouser isn't the standard form of the expression in English; the equivalent standard form is more curious .

To elaborate, as a general rule the comparative -er and

the superlative -est suffixes don't attach to adjectives of more than two syllables — the modifiers more and most are preferred pretty much exclusively — so even though a word like curiouser is readily understood, it sounds odd.

This may have been the original point of it.

The OED addresses the phrase curiouser and curiouser within the entry for curious , citing as its origin Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland (1865), which is a notoriously whimsical text.

The OED doesn't treat the bare word curiouser as an expression unto itself; rather, it gives the meaning of the entire phrase curiouser and curiouser as "more and more curious; increasingly strange".

Note that it defines the phrase with the standard form of expression more curious .

But given the entry, you might be able to justify the use of the entire phrase in a formal context, depending on your audience, if not the bare word.

Of course curiouser is a word in the pure linguistic sense, however, and clearly it's a word with its own meaning even as it takes part in Alice's phrase.

And the fact that it doesn't accord with standard English construction and usage doesn't at all stop everyone from using it.

Indeed, along with the entire original phrase, it seems to have entered the collective discourse, if not especially frequently, and still retaining the some of the whimsicality of the original instance.

Witness the following: Mickey thought curiouser was a noun, something that made you more curious.

That's what made up my mind about the title.

Wouldn't it be great if people listened to this album

and it made them curiouser? —

Kate Miller-Heidke Benford’s Law: A curious statistical phenomenon that keeps getting curiouser — Ted Hill

The great thing about couriouser is its self-referential performativity.

It's a strange word that means strange .

Even odder, though, is curiousest , which may help shed some light on the "problem" with couriouser .

I would venture that couriousest , being the couriouser of the two words, is hardly ever used.

Note:

Thanks to Kosmonaut for starting this answer off.

I tried simply to make an edit to Kosmonaut's answer, but my edit was rejected as too different, so I posted the edited version as a separate answer.

Since then I've revised it further.

It is because Lewis Caroll says it is: “Curiouser and curiouser!”

Cried Alice

(she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).

“Now I’m opening out like the largest telescope that ever was!

Good-bye, feet!”

(for when she looked down at her feet they seemed to be almost out of sight, they were getting so far off).

“Oh, my poor little feet, I wonder who will put on your shoes and stockings for you now, dears?

I’m

sure I shan’t be able!

I shall be a great deal too far off to trouble myself about you: you must manage the best way you can—but I must be kind to them,” thought Alice, “or perhaps they won’t walk the way I want to go!

Let me see.

I’ll give them a new pair of boots every Christmas.”

Today's description is tomorrow's prescription.

Italian is really really poor Latin (which of course is really really poor something-that-came-before-it), and at the same time each has its rulebook. 'Curiouser' was malformed at the time Lewis Carroll coined it, and that's part of the linguistic humor of it. '

Chortle' was also one of his neologisms and nowadys

I think it is accepted as a 'real word.

As to 'curiouser' I think currently it still sounds strange (because of the (non-prescriptive) inherent English rule that in general multisyllabic adjectives get their comparative via 'more X' rather than 'Xer'.

But if you repeat it enough (and others repeat it enough), it may become more standard.

So in SE standards/culture, using 'curiouser' might be coonsidered a bit too ... informal.

Question: Is  curiouser , in fact, a word?

Is “curiouser” in fact a word (like in the famous phrase “curiouser and curiouser”)?

In Standard English, "curiouser" is not a properly formed word and the standard form is "more curious".

The OED does not list  curiouser  as a word or a form of "curious" , but does list  "curiouser and curiouser" as a phrase. It is not the correct comparative of "curious" which is "more curious" but the word is widely understood. It was coined by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland, which phrase is cited by the OED. It is suggested that the phrase could be used in a formal setting.

This does not follow the rules of standard English, as multisyllabic adjectives normally get their comparative via 'more X' rather than 'Xer'. However, it is possible for words like this to become standard through common usage. The term was coined by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland, which is a book famous for playing with language.

In Standard English, curiouser is not a properly formed word; the standard form is more curious. "Curiouser and curiouser”, is from  Alice in Wonderland .

It is generally considered that "curiouser" is not a word, but has been used in literature.

The phrase is not standard English but a term coined by Lewis Carroll and referenced by the OED. It would be clear to English speakers and could be used. The word "curioser" is a term coined by Carroll.