chai@utflis.UUCP (10/15/86)
I read somewhere that "presently" does not mean "now", but rather
"soon" (as in "He'll be along presently".) However, I still see
everyone else use it as if it means now. So I looked it up in
several dictionaries, and found THREE definitions for it:
1. now
2. soon
3. at once (archaic)
I guess most people nowadays have only the "now" definition in mind.
I try to avoid it (by using "at present" if I have to.) What do
you people out there think?
--
Henry Chai ( guest on suran@utcsri )
{utzoo,ihnp4,allegra,decwrl}!utcsri!utflis!chai
chai%utflis@TORONTO
"Do *YOU* like grouper fish?" - Urael Punvcrowl@rochester.ARPA (Lawrence Crowl) (10/16/86)
In article <3489@utcsri.UUCP> utflis!chai@utcsri.UUCP (Henry Chai) writes:
)I read somewhere that "presently" does not mean "now", but rather
)"soon" (as in "He'll be along presently".) However, I still see
)everyone else use it as if it means now. So I looked it up in
)several dictionaries, and found THREE definitions for it:
)1. now
)2. soon
)3. at once (archaic)
)
)I guess most people nowadays have only the "now" definition in mind.
)I try to avoid it (by using "at present" if I have to.) What do
)you people out there think?
Were you by any chance reading a British publication? My understanding is
that "now" is an American definition and "soon" is a British definition.
Perhaps someone from Britain could speak up?
--
Lawrence Crowl 716-275-5766 University of Rochester
crowl@rochester.arpa Computer Science Department
...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/16/86)
> I read somewhere that "presently" does not mean "now", but rather > "soon" (as in "He'll be along presently".) However, I still see > everyone else use it as if it means now... The use of "presently" to mean "now" is a corruption arising from ignorance; its proper meaning, as of some years ago, was "soon". However, said corruption is so common now that it is effectively part of the language, and most dictionaries are in the business of describing the language as it is, not as somebody thinks it should have been. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/17/86)
< [Henry Chai] ( guest on suran@utcsri ) < I read somewhere that "presently" does not mean "now", but rather < "soon" (as in "He'll be along presently".) However, I still see < everyone else use it as if it means now. So I looked it up in < several dictionaries, and found THREE definitions for it: < 1. now < 2. soon < 3. at once (archaic) < I guess most people nowadays have only the "now" definition in mind. < I try to avoid it (by using "at present" if I have to.) What do < you people out there think? ----------- "Presently" is one of the many words which has different meanings in American and British English. In American English, it means "now". In British English, it means "soon". I'm not sure what it means up there in Canada, but typically Canadian English is much closer to American than to British. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (10/17/86)
In article <3489@utcsri.UUCP> utflis!chai@utcsri.UUCP (Henry Chai) writes: >everyone else use it as if it means now. So I looked it up in >several dictionaries, and found THREE definitions for it: >1. now >2. soon >3. at once (archaic) > >I guess most people nowadays have only the "now" definition in mind. My Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (1972), a "British" dictionary, says about presently: at present, now (obs. or Scot. and U.S.): for the time being (obs.): at once (obs.): before long: directly, immediately, necessarily. Probably because I am not a Scottsman, nor an American, I use it to mean "before long".
hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) (10/17/86)
>The use of "presently" to mean "now" is a corruption arising from >ignorance; its proper meaning, as of some years ago, was "soon". >However, said corruption is so common now that it is effectively >part of the language, and most dictionaries are in the business of >describing the language as it is, not as somebody thinks it should >have been. It's amazing that the English language hasn't toppled over long ago, considering how far back some of the rot started. Take the current teapot tempest: "presently" meaning "now", from the viewpoint of the early part of this century, was obsolete in literary English, but common in dialects. The first use given in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated 1485. The meaning "at once" was first recorded in 1430 and the current "correct" meaning of "soon" was a late starter in 1566. Similar stories can be told about other non-words that posters fume about: the scandalous "functionality" appeared over a century ago. There otta bea law: no poster should be allowed to fulminate about any word until she or he has looked it up in the OED. This would of course severely restrict postings, but information content might go up. Warning: check the Supplements too. For instance, the sense of the verb "impact" that is currently in vogue has only been recorded since 1916. In most scenarios its use still impacts me adversely, but it is considered a valid word. -- John Hogg hogg@utcsri.uucp hogg@csri.toronto.cdn
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (ccplumb) (10/18/86)
Yes, it is true that Canadian usage tends to follow the American model, but
"presently", in particular, I've heard used both ways (as "now" and "soon").
The distinction frequently comes through in the usage. When used to mean
"at present" (e.g. "I'm presently patching the kernel to let me setuid root
whenever I want to."), it's used rather like an adverb, but when used to
mean "soon" (e.g. "I'll get it working presently.") it seems to be some
other part of speech, whosename is unknown to me. (I just _speak_ the
language. I never claimed to _understand_ it!) The "now" meaning is more
frequently heard, however.
ONE thing the yankees haven't managed to impress on us is their fanatic
desire to abbreviate the language. I really do wonder how they got banks,
those bastions of continuity, (sight exaggeration confessed) to offer
"drive-thru check cashing". And _must_ they purge haf the vowels from
the language? It's a royal pain to restore "colour", "honour", "arbour",
etc. (see keywords line in header) to a spelling-checker's dictionary.
Are there any Brits (or Scots, Welsh, or Irish) out there who've felt
this American linguistic imperialism? How do you get your spelling
dictionaries? I wouldn't mind hearing a few other flames about my
pet peeve.
-Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP)
Postscript: (Did *you* know what "P.S." means?) Actually, changing dictionaries
is trivial, beside convincing graphic terminal drivers to set
the screen colour in the Queen's english. lambert@mcvax.uucp (Lambert Meertens) (10/18/86)
In article <7234@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > The use of "presently" to mean "now" is a corruption arising from > ignorance; its proper meaning, as of some years ago, was "soon". But then, of course, the use of "presently" to mean "in a short while, soon" once was a corruption arising from sloppiness; its proper meaning, as of some centuries ago, was precisely what you would expect the adverb of "present" to mean. This first corruption got so common that the original meaning survived only in certain pockets (dialects) of English, both in the U.K. and in America. The meaning of words in natural languages tend to shift, and this is a good thing in general, because it helps to keep languages tuned to ease of use in a shifting context. Not all changes are beneficial; in particular, the first shift in meaning of "presently" did not meet an expressive need, but affected the orthogonal method of forming adverbs by appending "-ly". An interesting question, but hard to resolve without extensive research, and even then probably unanswerable, is to what extent the recent advance of the "now" meaning is an independent development, and to what extent it is due to a new gaining ground, in *uninterrupted* survival, of the old meaning. There *are* some attested cases of seemingly obsolete words, or obliterated meanings of words, that refused to die out and succeeded eventually in totally turning the tide. -- Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@mcvax.UUCP
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/19/86)
> [Colin Plumb] > ONE thing the yankees haven't managed to impress on us is their fanatic > desire to abbreviate the language. I really do wonder how they got banks, > those bastions of continuity, (sight exaggeration confessed) to offer > "drive-thru check cashing". And _must_ they purge haf the vowels from > the language? It's a royal pain to restore "colour", "honour", "arbour", > etc. (see keywords line in header) to a spelling-checker's dictionary. > Are there any Brits (or Scots, Welsh, or Irish) out there who've felt > this American linguistic imperialism? How do you get your spelling > dictionaries? I wouldn't mind hearing a few other flames about my > pet peeve. ----- Colin, "color", "honor", "arbor", "labor", etc. come originally from the Latin words "color", honor", "arbor", and "labor". Our spelling predates yours by more than a millenium. How about a counter-flame against cultural snobbery, one of my pet peeves. A story that illustrates British [yes I know that you are Canadian] linguistic snobbery is told by Alistair Cooke (I think - I'm not 100% sure I remember the source) is of a play performed in London where the part of Napoleon Buonaparte was played by an American actor. Most critics lambasted the play, saying how ludicrous it was to have Napoleon speaking with an American accent. It was not until a week later that a single letter appeared in the newspaper pointing out that it was no more ludicrous than Napoleon speaking with a British accent, since Napoleon actually spoke French! -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
alan@idec.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) (10/20/86)
> In article <7234@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> The use of "presently" to mean "now" is a corruption arising from >> ignorance; its proper meaning, as of some years ago, was "soon". >But then, of course, the use of "presently" to mean "in a short while, >soon" once was a corruption arising from sloppiness; its proper >meaning, as of some centuries ago, was precisely what you would expect >the adverb of "present" to mean. This first corruption got so common >that the original meaning survived only in certain pockets (dialects) >of English, both in the U.K. and in America. > >The meaning of words in natural languages tend to shift, and this is a >good thing in general, because it helps to keep languages tuned to ease >of use in a shifting context. Not all changes are beneficial; in >particular, the first shift in meaning of "presently" did not meet an >expressive need, but affected the orthogonal method of forming adverbs >by appending "-ly". On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no great urgency'. (Personally I blame our US-dominated government and media; the same people who took away our real (10 ** 12) billions, and left us with these little (10 ** 9) American ones :-)) Alan Spreadbury.
rgdutton@watrose.UUCP (Rob Dutton) (10/21/86)
In article <3489@utcsri.UUCP> utflis!chai@utcsri.UUCP (Henry Chai) writes: > >I read somewhere that "presently" does not mean "now", but rather >"soon" (as in "He'll be along presently".) However, I still see >everyone else use it as if it means now. So I looked it up in >several dictionaries, and found THREE definitions for it: >1. now >2. soon >3. at once (archaic) > >I guess most people nowadays have only the "now" definition in mind. >I try to avoid it (by using "at present" if I have to.) What do >you people out there think? >-- > Henry Chai ( guest on suran@utcsri ) > {utzoo,ihnp4,allegra,decwrl}!utcsri!utflis!chai > chai%utflis@TORONTO > "Do *YOU* like grouper fish?" - Urael Punv I guess I tend to use "presently" as meaning "now", at least most of the time. I seem to recall the word being used to mean "soon" in some literature we studied in high school (Thomas Hardy,...) though. I hear that in Iceland the government has some committee set up to monitor the day-to-day use/development of their language, to ensure that it doesn't change in any undesirable way. The Icelandic language currently (presently?) differs very litle from that spoken in the days of the Vikings. Perhaps our federal government should set up some task force to study the possibility of monitoring the (Canadian) English and French languages... but by the time the report was published, the languages would have evolved too much! Rob Dutton rgdutton@watrose
cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (10/21/86)
> A story that illustrates British linguistic snobbery is > told by Alistair Cooke (I think - I'm not 100% sure I remember > the source) is of a play performed in London where the part of > Napoleon Buonaparte was played by an American actor. Most critics > lambasted the play, saying how ludicrous it was to have Napoleon > speaking with an American accent. It was not until a week later > that a single letter appeared in the newspaper pointing out that > it was no more ludicrous than Napoleon speaking with a British > accent, since Napoleon actually spoke French! > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan From the little work I have in community theater, I would tend to say that the casting of the American might have been a poor choice. Since in London a British accent is what the British expect to hear, it would not seem strange to see a play in which all the actors spoke with a British accent, no matter who they were portraying. However, if the single actor in the play without a British accent, the American, is playing Napoleon with an American accent, then I can see how that might be distracting, and take away something from his character, and the play. Now, if he used a French accent, or the actor in question had been French, I would think the critics would have never mentioned it. I still can't believe people get pay for acting. ...ihnp4!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones
simon@einode.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (10/21/86)
> On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning > has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical > meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no > great urgency'. over here, presently means what you imply it no longer means over there. ie to someone on hold "he'll be with you presently" (5-10 minutes :-)) -- Simon Kenyon EUnet: simon@einode.UUCP Smail: The National Software Centre, Dublin, IRELAND Phone: +353-1-716255 EUnet is a registered trademark of the EUUG
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (10/21/86)
(It seems odd that this should come up so soon after my little diatribe on meanings in soc.misc, for I used both meanings of `presently' as an example.) In article <3494@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes: >It's amazing that the English language hasn't toppled over long ago, >considering how far back some of the rot started. It has a very large base: no matter how you tug upon the words, the language as a whole moves rather more slowly. But change is not `rot'. Changes occur in every spoken language. Too-rapid change is confusing (and the proper rate of change is a matter of taste), but change must be expected. >The meaning "at once" [for `presently'] was first recorded in 1430 >and the current "correct" meaning of "soon" was a late starter in >1566. The years between changes here show how stable was the adverbial form of `present'. Less obvious words would wander through several meanings much faster in those days, I am told. The availability of printed works slowed this process drastically, at least among the educated. >There otta bea law: no poster should be allowed to fulminate about any >word until she or he has looked it up in the OED. This would of course >severely restrict postings, but information content might go up. This is a bit harsh: There are other dictionaries, and not all are bad :-). If, however, you wish not to make a fool of yourself, you would do well to check the OED. (I will have to obtain a copy for myself one of these days.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7690) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
alan@idec.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) (10/22/86)
In article <192@einode.UUCP> simon@einode.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) writes: >> On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning >> has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical >> meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no >> great urgency'. >over here, presently means what you imply it no longer means over there. >ie to someone on hold "he'll be with you presently" (5-10 minutes :-)) Perhaps I was exaggerating slightly; most people 'over here' still use presently to mean 'in a short while, but with no great urgency', but the American usage (or should I say US - I don't know what the Canadian usage is) is growing, led by the government and media. (BTW, there a still a few valiant souls who say 'a thousand million' when they mean 'a thousand million' but I don't supose there are many who say 'a billion' when they mean 'a billion' (i.e. a million million)). Alan Spreadbury.
crowl@rochester.ARPA (Lawrence Crowl) (10/22/86)
In article <12092@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP () writes: >ONE thing the yankees haven't managed to impress on us is their fanatic >desire to abbreviate the language. English has a history of "fanatic" desire to abbreviate the language. Do you want gender? Do you want case affixes? English had them, and would still have them if its speakers did not want to change the language. One of the strengths of English is its adaptability to change. >I really do wonder how they got banks, those bastions of continuity, (sight >exaggeration confessed) to offer "drive-thru check cashing". Signs with fewer letters are less expensive. :-) >And _must_ they purge haf the vowels from the language? We have not purged half the vowels from the language. We have made some progress in making the spelling closer to the pronunciation. One of the major drawbacks to learning English is its brain-damaged spelling system. By the way, your spelling of "half" is better. >It's a royal pain to restore "colour", "honour", "arbour", etc. (see keywords >line in header) to a spelling-checker's dictionary. So why are you buying an American English dictionary? You could either buy a Canadian English one or type your own. Buying an American English dictionary and then complaining because it does not use Canadian English spellings strikes me as unfair. >Are there any Brits (or Scots, Welsh, or Irish) out there who've felt this >American linguistic imperialism? Now wait one minute! Who is telling whom how to spell? You are telling Americans how to spell. This is Canadian linguistic imperialism, not American. We are not telling you how to spell your words, but you should not expect to read Canadian spellings in American books. Speaking of linguistic imperialism, the Scots, Welsh and Irish already have felt it to such an extent from England, that Gaelic is dying out. Tell me, do the French Canadians feel any more linguistic imperialism from "color" as opposed to "colour"? I doubt it. >I wouldn't mind hearing a few other flames about my pet peeve. Is this what you had in mind? Warm heads think better. > -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) -- Lawrence Crowl 716-275-5766 University of Rochester crowl@rochester.arpa Computer Science Department ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl Rochester, New York, 14627
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (10/22/86)
In article <734@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> alan@idec.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) writes: >On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning >has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical >meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no >great urgency'. > Let's hear it for "forthwith".
gareth@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Gareth Husk) (10/23/86)
In article <12092@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP () writes: >ONE thing the yankees haven't managed to impress on us is their fanatic >desire to abbreviate the language. I really do wonder how they got banks, >those bastions of continuity, (sight exaggeration confessed) to offer >"drive-thru check cashing". And _must_ they purge haf the vowels from ^^^^^ ^^^ Tsk tsk, first you use check when everybody knows it is supposed to be cheque , and then haf when you go on to talk about spelling checkers. Just think how I felt when I encountered my first PED XING sign in New York. Gareth -- "A desparate disease requires a dangerous remedy" Guy Fawkes 6th. Nov. 1605 UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth DARPA: gareth%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: gareth@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4586 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK. Project: Automatic Abstracting (Mission Impossible)
gsmith@brahms (Gene Ward Smith) (10/24/86)
In article <735@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> alan@idec.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) writes: >(BTW, there a still a few >valiant souls who say 'a thousand million' when they mean 'a thousand >million' but I don't supose there are many who say 'a billion' when they >mean 'a billion' (i.e. a million million)). Glad to hear you folks are *finally* learning to speak decent American! ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?"J.M. Barrie
campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (10/24/86)
In article <734@argon.idec.stc.co.uk> alan@idec.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) writes: >On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning >has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical >meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no >great urgency'. How about 'shortly'? Or the much-neglected 'momently'? -- Larry Campbell MCI: LCAMPBELL The Boston Software Works, Inc. UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu (617) 367-6846
simon@einode.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (10/24/86)
> this American linguistic imperialism? How do you get your spelling > dictionaries? I wouldn't mind hearing a few other flames about my > pet peeve. i used to wrk for a large us computer company i worked in ireland, on irish products jet we had to produce the INTERNAL documentation with words like COLOR etc. yes i was peeved -- Simon Kenyon EUnet: simon@einode.UUCP Smail: The National Software Centre, Dublin, IRELAND Phone: +353-1-716255 EUnet is a registered trademark of the EUUG
simon@einode.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (10/24/86)
> (BTW, there a still a few > valiant souls who say 'a thousand million' when they mean 'a thousand > million' but I don't supose there are many who say 'a billion' when they > mean 'a billion' (i.e. a million million)). you've got me there :-) -- Simon Kenyon EUnet: simon@einode.UUCP Smail: The National Software Centre, Dublin, IRELAND Phone: +353-1-716255 EUnet is a registered trademark of the EUUG
vallath@ucbcad.BERKELEY.EDU (Vallath Nandakumar) (10/27/86)
In India, where we use British English with Indianisms, we use presently to mean soon. I think that this is the correct British usage. An opposite problem is with momentarily. Momentarily in British English means the same as for a moment - "The rainbow vanished momentarily, but then reappeared.". In America, it means the same as what "presently" or "shortly" does in British English. I have heard pilots here say "The plane will take off momentarily", and I always have a moment of puzzlement before I realize that it's not going to fall back to the ground. Vallath
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (10/27/86)
> In article <12092@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP () writes: > Tsk tsk, first you use check when everybody knows it is supposed to > be cheque , and then haf when you go on to talk about spelling checkers. ^^^^^^^^ But....But....I thought the British spelled checkers "draughts"? --John Purbrick [Of course, a former US president had Checkers, but every British Prime Minister has Chequers.]
douglas@cxsea.UUCP (10/27/86)
In article <8209@watrose.UUCP> rgdutton@watrose.UUCP (Rob Dutton) writes: >In article <3489@utcsri.UUCP> utflis!chai@utcsri.UUCP (Henry Chai) writes: >> >>I read somewhere that "presently" does not mean "now", but rather >>"soon" (as in "He'll be along presently".) However, I still see >>everyone else use it as if it means now. So I looked it up in ........ > > >I hear that in Iceland the government has some committee set up to >monitor the day-to-day use/development of their language, to ensure >that it doesn't change in any undesirable way. The Icelandic language >currently (presently?) differs very litle from that spoken in the days >of the Vikings. Perhaps our federal government should set up some >task force to study the possibility of monitoring the (Canadian) >English and French languages... but by the time the report was published, >the languages would have evolved too much! > The thing that made English the great language that it is was the Norman Conquest. After the Normans conquered England, they left the language alone, because they spoke mostly French. During this period the English language flowered because it was left to evolve to best express the will of the common people. Go ahead and set up your government monitoring, as the French do now. My prediction is that "American" will become the language people use to express themselves. [How did the Vikings say "microchip"?] -- ========================================================================== || Douglas - "Shoot straight ya bastards. Don't mess it up." || ==========================================================================
jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) (10/29/86)
> > On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning > > has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical > > meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no > > great urgency'. > over here, presently means what you imply it no longer means over there. > ie to someone on hold "he'll be with you presently" (5-10 minutes :-)) > -- Gee, in my funny dialect, I'd say "He'll be with you soon." Or I might say "right away" or "real soon". -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{cthulhu,inmet,harvax,mit-eddie,mot[bos],rclex}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Telex: 922-443 CODEX A MNSF Disclaimer: Segmentation fault - core dumped
simon@einode.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (11/04/86)
someone said: >>> On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning >>> has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical >>> meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no >>> great urgency'. i said: >>over here, presently means what you imply it no longer means over there. >>ie to someone on hold "he'll be with you presently" (5-10 minutes :-)) someone else said: >Gee, in my funny dialect, I'd say "He'll be with you soon." Or I >might say "right away" or "real soon". i say: so would i, but i was just illustating a point :-) in fact, i'd probebly use a Pournellism "he'll be with you"REAL SOON NOW"" (sigh) -- Simon Kenyon EUnet: simon@einode.UUCP Smail: The National Software Centre, Dublin, IRELAND Phone: +353-1-716255 EUnet is a registered trademark of the EUUG
alan@idec.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) (11/07/86)
In article <442@cdx39.UUCP> jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) writes: >> > On the other hand, the reversion of 'presently' to its old meaning >> > has left us with two words ('presently' and 'currently') with identical >> > meanings, and no convenient word for 'in a short while, but with no >> > great urgency'. >> over here, presently means what you imply it no longer means over there. >> ie to someone on hold "he'll be with you presently" (5-10 minutes :-)) >> -- >Gee, in my funny dialect, I'd say "He'll be with you soon." Or I >might say "right away" or "real soon". That's the whole point... 'presently' implies (to my ears at any rate) a lesser sense of urgency than 'soon' or 'right away'. It is, of course, possible to say 'in a little while', but we are having to use four words where one would have done before. (Somehow, I don't find it surprising that the 'non-urgent' sense of 'presently' is holding its own in Ireland :-)) Alan Spreadbury.
simon@einode.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (11/10/86)
> (Somehow, I don't find it surprising that the 'non-urgent' sense of > 'presently' is holding its own in Ireland :-)) > > Alan Spreadbury. not fair! -- Simon Kenyon EUnet: simon@einode.UUCP Smail: The National Software Centre, Dublin, IRELAND Phone: +353-1-716255 EUnet is a registered trademark of the EUUG
cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) (11/12/86)
Someone asked for a British definition of "presently". Here's one from
the Penguin English dictionary - admittedly not high class but the only
one I have in the office:
presently adv after a short time, soon; (US) at present, now.
i.e. the US usage isn't regarded as an alternative in Britain, though it
is obviously acknowledged.