Re: Word usage in English dialects // was Slang, curses and vulgarities

On 2 Feb 2005, at 6.26 pm, Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)
wrote:

> Tristan McLeay wrote:
>
>> damn good ads, if I say so myself). The association between 'bloody
>> idiot' and drink-driving is still current, though,
>
> It isn't here, and hasn't been for over a decade. But I remember it
> fondly.
Really? So you're not getting the 'Only a little bit over?' ads, then?
I spose not, the TAC's a state thing.

>
>> I tend to have chook for the animal, whole, and chicken for the animal
>> as food. Things like 'a chicken' is as ungrammatical to my ear as 'a
>> beef'. If you're having chicken for dinner, you might be having a
>> whole
>> bird, or you might be having chicken wings. If you're having a chook
>> for dinner, you're eating the whole bird (well, minus the head,
>> feathers, guts). Presumably roasted. Some people might say they're
>> having chook for dinner (note no article), but this seems derogatory
>> to
>> me, if you could speak offensively of chooks.
>
> I don't agree with this: "a chicken" is perfectly grammatical to me in
> the context of "Shall I go down the shop and get a chicken for tea?"
Yes, well, the article's not the only thing wrong with that sentence...
(I'd never use the word 'shall' unless I was purposefully affecting a
British style. 'Tea' I'm also a bit not-to-fond-of there, dinner and
breakfast refer to styles of meal, but lunch and tea refers to the time
you have the meal, so you'd have chicken for dinner at tea-time. But
around here tea's almost dead as a meal anyway, amongst my
age-group...)

So you know, you aren't doing anything in your defence against my
statement that you sound British :)

> A few people say "chook" for all purposes, including references to
> food. My cousin, for one.
Yeah, that's the definition that seems derogatory to me, to which I
alluded at the end of my sentence.

--
Tristan.

Reply