Page 1 of 1

1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:25 am UTC
by RGB-es
Image

Title text: GO FOR LUNCH, REPEAT, GO FOR LUNCH.

------------
Problem is, I don't think Trump uses autocorrect.

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:31 am UTC
by rhomboidal
"I think instead of 'Take out China' they mean 'Chinese takeout'."

1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:32 am UTC
by niauropsaka
Image

Title text: GO FOR LUNCH, REPEAT, GO FOR LUNCH.

You're not you when you're hungry.

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:32 am UTC
by niauropsaka
Oh no, you forgot the inverted commas in the thread title.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:37 am UTC
by RGB-es
niauropsaka wrote:Oh no, you forgot the inverted commas in the thread title.

It seems today's coffee wasn't strong enough. Fixed!

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 9:04 am UTC
by Soupspoon
RGB-es wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:Oh no, you forgot the inverted commas in the thread title.

It seems today's coffee wasn't strong enough. Fixed!

What's that? Today, Kofi Anan's storing a nerve-gas!?

(Don't forget voice recognition errors. :P)

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 9:09 am UTC
by orthogon
Autocorrect is how the machines will take over.

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 9:29 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
niauropsaka wrote:inverted commas

This usage will never not be weird to me.

"Don't forget to end your statement with a half colon."

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 9:36 am UTC
by rivulatus
I get the joke, "but we forget about the time it prevented a nuclear war" referencing any event in particular?

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 10:19 am UTC
by Ayasano
Raise your hand if your brain auto-corrected "lunch" to "launch" and you spent a few seconds trying to figure out the joke before you realized.

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 11:39 am UTC
by da Doctah
Copper Bezel wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:inverted commas

This usage will never not be weird to me.

"Don't forget to end your statement with a half colon."


As opposed to a "semi-colon"? They actually say "full stop", which at least is function-based rather than appearance-based like "inverted commas". If you're after the latter you should also end a question with a "buttonhook".

(Up next: which ones are "brackets" and which are "braces" again?)

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:00 pm UTC
by cellocgw
Only because It's the bane of my existence at work,

"Open the Podbay DOORS, Hal" (noncapitalization intentional).

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:32 pm UTC
by orthogon
Copper Bezel wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:inverted commas

This usage will never not be weird to me.

I hadn't heard the expression for years. Google ngrams confirms my suspicion that it's been overtaken by "quotation marks" since the '70s; although interestingly the incidence has stayed constant whilst "quotation marks" has increased almost threefold. I guess computing and word processing has made us all discuss typographical symbols more than we used to.

(I suspect that "quotes" has become even more common, but it's tricky to separate references to the symbol from other meanings of the word).

(Pseudo-edit: Comparing "in quotes" etc. possibly sheds some light on it. "Quotation marks" is still the soaraway winner, but we have to remember that these are from books, not more casual writing).

Edit2: I looked at British English here. In the US, "inverted commas" has never been in the running, it seems.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:16 pm UTC
by Keyman
Ayasano wrote:Raise your hand if your brain auto-corrected "lunch" to "launch" and you spent a few seconds trying to figure out the joke before you realized.
ME.

Then I cam here, and it took me longer to puzzle through "inverted commas". :?

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:38 pm UTC
by StClair
yup, "inverted commas" is a "what??" followed by "oh right, you Brits talk funny."

("two nations separated by a common language"...)

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:47 pm UTC
by orthogon
StClair wrote:yup, "inverted commas" is a "what??" followed by "oh right, you Brits talk funny."

("two nations separated by a common language"...)


It made me think (fondly) of my mum, who I'm pretty sure used to say it, and possibly still does. (She also calls them "sixty-sixes and ninety-nines"). In a similar vein, I'm halfheartedly trying to persuade her to refer to the magazine that comes with a weekend newspaper as "the magazine" and not "the colour supplement".

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:52 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
da Doctah wrote:(Up next: which ones are "brackets" and which are "braces" again?)

Brackets:
Spoiler:
Image

Braces (UK):
Spoiler:
Image

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 2:15 pm UTC
by NotAllThere
Petticoat still outstrips (fnar fnar) underskirt. Which fact I will appraise my wife of, as she always says it's old fashioned. But as petticoat is in decline, I guess fewer people wear them now.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 2:47 pm UTC
by qvxb
So Fail Safe has gotten less so since 1964.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 3:04 pm UTC
by mfb
"What did they order?" "Toast Hawaii".

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 5:29 pm UTC
by Zylon
"I said LUNCH not LAUNCH!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TueALMuOi5Q

Yes I'm old.

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 10:23 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
da Doctah wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:
niauropsaka wrote:inverted commas

This usage will never not be weird to me.

"Don't forget to end your statement with a half colon."

As opposed to a "semi-colon"? They actually say "full stop", which at least is function-based rather than appearance-based like "inverted commas". If you're after the latter you should also end a question with a "buttonhook".

(Up next: which ones are "brackets" and which are "braces" again?)

Well, semicolon is ostensibly function-based, too, it's just also a misnomer. I mean, it's not physically a semianything as a glyph, because it's a colon with a tail.

orthogon wrote:I hadn't heard the expression for years. Google ngrams confirms my suspicion that it's been overtaken by "quotation marks" since the '70s; although interestingly the incidence has stayed constant whilst "quotation marks" has increased almost threefold. I guess computing and word processing has made us all discuss typographical symbols more than we used to.

(I suspect that "quotes" has become even more common, but it's tricky to separate references to the symbol from other meanings of the word).

(Pseudo-edit: Comparing "in quotes" etc. possibly sheds some light on it. "Quotation marks" is still the soaraway winner, but we have to remember that these are from books, not more casual writing).

Edit2: I looked at British English here. In the US, "inverted commas" has never been in the running, it seems.

Wow, thanks for doing the legwork on this!

I thought it seemed even more out of place in online contexts, since quotation marks are represented as pairs of apostrophes or of primes, and even for the apostrophe, only the opening one is inverted. Didn't occur to me to even think about how old it might actually be, though.

US usage makes sense, though - we've always been more insistent about the use of the doubled mark as default, which makes the quotation mark even more its own thing and less a variation of something else.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 2:08 am UTC
by Heimhenge
So is this "short straight hair cueball" the new XKCD icon for military types? Kinda' Vince Carter-like.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 4:01 am UTC
by RogueCynic
Zylon wrote:"I said LUNCH not LAUNCH!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TueALMuOi5Q

Yes I'm old.


Me too.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 4:56 am UTC
by mschmidt62
"I'll have a #19, hold the mayo."

"Who gave you the lunch codes?"

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 5:16 am UTC
by Ordinalade
Now featuring InterContinental Ballistic Mailing:
World-wide delivery in 30 minutes or less

Or your next one is free

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:52 am UTC
by Steve the Pocket
Copper Bezel wrote:US usage makes sense, though - we've always been more insistent about the use of the doubled mark as default, which makes the quotation mark even more its own thing and less a variation of something else.

Yeah, I've never understood what was up with British rules regarding the two different types. From my limited experience with Brit-lit, I got the impression that it started out as being the exact opposite of US rules (single quotes for everything, double for quotes-within-quotes, continue alternating in that pattern if it goes any deeper) and transitioned to using double quotes for direct quotations and single quotes for signifying jargon, slang, or any other case where preceding it with "so-called" might be merited. Am I close, anyone?

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 7:56 am UTC
by Soupspoon
For me (learning alongside the 12-times tables, which were of less use post-1970 than before), it was always taught to use 66s and 99s (9-like apostrophes only where they should be, obviously) in our hand-written work, and preceding all quotes with a suitable 'grounded' punctuation (full-stop (end-of-quote + end-of-sentence only), comma (including where the full-stop is disallowed), question-mark/exclamation (both excused 'commaing')) prior to both opening (except at the very beginning of a sentence that starts upon a quote) and closing quotes.

But, as a voracious reader of library stock, I noted that most printed works used 6s and 9s, with 66s and 99s used for quotes within. And, in one particular amusing short story, further nesting by alternation (of the "I met a man and he said, 'I met a man and he said, "I met a man and he said, 'I met a man and he said, "…"'"'..."-variety, but much more artful than that...). But they still subscribed to the pre-grounding punctuation principle, the one aspect that I freely discard these days where not necessary.

I put down the difference to the books being US-influenced in the subscribed-to stylesheet, but this may be wrong. Though, given the number of books featuring the US variant spellings not used at all in the UK, this really did (and still does) look like the killer clue as to which country's compositors had been involved. And obvious British works of print would be seen more in the US than schoolboy handwriting examples.

Perhaps it's just a publishing standard (on top of the Webster-or-not-ness). Saves (minute, but accumulative) amounts of ink... and maybe even paper if it means enough subtly delayed quantised word-wraps with possible additional cascading bonuses.

Re: 1834: Lunch Order

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 7:57 am UTC
by orthogon
Steve the Pocket wrote:
Copper Bezel wrote:US usage makes sense, though - we've always been more insistent about the use of the doubled mark as default, which makes the quotation mark even more its own thing and less a variation of something else.

Yeah, I've never understood what was up with British rules regarding the two different types. From my limited experience with Brit-lit, I got the impression that it started out as being the exact opposite of US rules (single quotes for everything, double for quotes-within-quotes, continue alternating in that pattern if it goes any deeper) and transitioned to using double quotes for direct quotations and single quotes for signifying jargon, slang, or any other case where preceding it with "so-called" might be merited. Am I close, anyone?

Part of the confusion might be the difference between typeset and manuscript. At school (late '70s-early '80s) we were taught to use double quotes for everything, but had to deal with the fact that the printed books we were reading used single quotes instead. Perhaps the idea was to avoid any confusion with the apostrophe, which is tricky enough as it is. Or perhaps it was just one of those things where the handwritten version of a character just looks different to the printed one, as for 'g' and 'a', say. As my generation gained access to word processors, maybe we brought our classroom learning to our choice of character on the keyboard and everything got muddled.

Well and truly ninja'd there. Still, encouraging evidence that we're onto something.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 10:37 am UTC
by HES
Soupspoon wrote:(learning alongside the 12-times tables, which were of less use post-1970 than before)

I always wondered why we stopped at (or, continued to) the 12-times tables

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 11:07 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
A peeking-out of the much-suppressed but fundamental human preference for dozenal systems, I'd presume.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:26 pm UTC
by orthogon
Copper Bezel wrote:A peeking-out of the much-suppressed but fundamental human preference for dozenal systems, I'd presume.

I guess that Soupspoon was referring specifically to the decimalisation of UK currency (which was 1971 if I'm not mistaken), before which you had 12d (old pence) in a shilling. Of course there were/are other non-decimal units in use in the UK, including feet and inches and stones/pounds/ounces. However to deal fully with those you'd need to learn the fourteen and sixteen times tables; we never learned those at school. You may think that was based on an optimistic assumption that metric/SI units would overtake the imperial system, but I'm pretty sure my parents didn't learn the 14s and 16s either, suggesting that dealing with currency was seen as more important than handling those other systems of units.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:35 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
Ah, yeah, I missed the reference entirely there. I do vaguely remember some level of multiplication tables stopping somewhere around there for me in the US, and I still have the vague feeling that the dozen and gross have something to do with it; I don't seem even now to have a reflex response for multiples of 14, but specifically remember drilling 12s.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:13 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
HES wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:(learning alongside the 12-times tables, which were of less use post-1970 than before)

I always wondered why we stopped at (or, continued to) the 12-times tables

I can't rightfully recall, but I'm pretty sure we skipped 11-times. And there was still inches/foot, but then if that was a driver why not also the need for 14-timeses (pounds/stone). And ounces/pounds would have been handy for the unforseen future of computing, wouldn't it..?

(Ah, pre-ninjaed, I see. Shoulda read onwards.)

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 2:19 pm UTC
by orthogon
Soupspoon wrote:
HES wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:(learning alongside the 12-times tables, which were of less use post-1970 than before)

I always wondered why we stopped at (or, continued to) the 12-times tables

I can't rightfully recall, but I'm pretty sure we skipped 11-times. And there was still inches/foot, but then if that was a driver why not also the need for 14-timeses (pounds/stone). And ounces/pounds would have been handy for the unforseen future of computing, wouldn't it..?

(Ah, pre-ninjaed, I see. Shoulda read onwards.)


We did the 11 times table, definitely. But when you think about it, it's just "repeat the digit" up to 9x11; 10x11 is obvious too; and 12x11 is covered by the twelve times table*. So the only additional one to memorise is 11x11=121.

*I'm assuming that, like me, everyone only learns each product one way round. Each feels like it's stored as a snippet of audio, e.g. "seven eights are fifty-six". When I encounter 8x7, I try out "eight sevens are ..." and it fails to give a match, so I swap it around.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 3:14 pm UTC
by HES
orthogon wrote:"seven eights are fifty-six"

No no, "Fifty six equals seven times eight", of course!

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 7:17 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Six times nine is forty two, as any caveman knows. So in changing it towards seven times eight the difference is greater-lesser-1 more than that, thus 44.

Re: 1834: "Lunch Order"

Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 9:01 pm UTC
by edo
Soupspoon wrote:Six times nine is forty two, as any caveman knows. So in changing it towards seven times eight the difference is greater-lesser-1 more than that, thus 44.


6x9=4213

you don't need to be a caveman