Also discussed upthread. Yes, it’s the current commonly used term, especially in lower grades. I have a friend who was a high school teacher, and he said the guidance from the local school system was for teachers and staff at all levels to use that term. What’s a bit more mysterious is why the cutesy term is used instead of simply saying “cross-legged.”
Oh, cross-legged! Cross-legged! All the talk of “criss-cross applesauce” and, since I’d never heard the term, nor had my kids, I was trying to figure it out…
(Never heard “Indian style" either. BTW, I live near a reservation, never seen anyone sitting cross-legged).
When someone referred to it as “less likely to slide down in the dental chair” I thought hmmm, maybe it meant cross-legged.
I’m so relieved someone finally explained what it meant, thank you. It was odd to have so many posts about an alternative name without identifying what the “real” name for it is.
I’m pretty sure you’re thinking of the wrong Indians, as cross-legged is similar to lotus position.
Yes, tin foil was a thing. Apparently it had a slight taste, so it was superseded by aluminium foil after WWII.
Probably not. Early attestations of the phrase AFAICT, like this one from 1901, seem to occur in American writers referring to Native Americans. I haven’t seen any earlier references to this phrase in the context of South Asian Indians.
Contemporary British English writers seem to use the phrase “tailor fashion” or “Turk or tailor fashion” for the crosslegged seat.
‘schrooms’ for mushrooms - would it kill you to say it properly?
‘Eye Eee Dee’ for ‘bomb’ - why use three words when one will do?
‘Canine Unit’ - why can’t you just say ‘dog’?
It’s almost evenly split according to the non-scientific (of course) poll on that webpage. Anyone can vote, but presumably it’s going to be readers of Seattle Pi, whom I think largely would be locals, but you’ll get transplants in there, of course. Their tally is 48% pop, 43% soda.
It can be extremely regional. I don’t know if I mentioned it in this thread or just another, but even here in Chicago, I live in a “soda” neighborhood. I was a junior in high school when I got into a discuession with my homecoming date about what we called a soft drink here. She was like "who the fuck calls it ‘soda’? It’s ‘pop.’ " So I turned to my neighborhood buddies, who would be happy to embarrass me and say, “it’s pop, you idiot” if it was, but they answered, “it’s soda.” She wouldn’t believe it, so we went to the vice principal, who has one of the strongest South Side accents I’ve heard and asked him. He said that he’s always called it “soda.”
Only years later did I discover that I was just lucky that this guy also came from a “soda” neighborhood. The area is largely “pop,” but there are “soda” pockets. So, while it’s not going on 40 years or whatever number you said, I did get through a good 20 years about before I found out “pop” was the usual word in Chicago.
? AIUI, a “Canine Unit” is a subset of a police force or other security force that consists of teams combining trained dogs with officers trained in dog handling. AFAICT nobody is using the term in the form “one canine unit = one dog”, as you seem to be suggesting.
Or do you mean that that subset should be called “Dog Unit” rather than “Canine Unit”? Meh, I think that most people understand that “canine” means “pertaining to dogs”.
Probably the same people who shop at Walmarts or Safeways.
Partially it’s the military love for acronyms and initialisms and techno-jargon neologisms. But there really is a difference between an “I.E.D.” and a “bomb.”
An I.E.D. is a sub-category of the general term “bomb”. In intelligence analysis, “bomb” just isn’t a very useful term because there are so many devices that could be considered a bomb. The term I.E.D. really does convey some useful additional information when it’s used properly.
But mostly it’s 'cause the U.S. military loves acronyms, initialisms, and techno-jargony neologisms.
Please - it’s “shrooms.” No “c.” There isn’t even a “c” in the whole word. You are 0 for 3 on this one.
Duuuude, I’m doin’ skrooms over here…
…
My mom (90s) puts a possessive S on the end of almost any store.
And at her age, a lot of her friends are going for medical procedures, and if serious “She’s going to Mayo’s!”.
Nordstrom’s, Fred Meyer’s, even Ikea’s… sigh.
After being corrected for the 100th time, she defended herself: “When I was growing up, every big store was a possessive: Macy’s, Gimball’s, Penney’s, Marshall Field’s…”
Well, that’s true, mom, but can you just not mention Nordstrom or the Mayo Clinic anymore?
I think this is a regionalism. Very common in Michigan. I do it.
schoehorn butterschorse!
“You work at Ford’s, he works at Chrysler’s”.
(But I never heard anyone speak of working at Buick’s or Chevrolet’s.)
What would have really put the icing on the cake would be “I work at Sears’es.”
But I’m intrigued as to WHY someone would add the possessive to large companies.
Talking to friends, it’s mostly grandmas, and they mostly do it to stores… I wonder if it diminutizes ('zat a word? Is “zat”?) the huge faceless profit-maker into a small mom and pop shop, so you can feel like you’re giving your money to a friendly little store.
And maybe someone who works at Ford’s has a harder time worrying that they’ll lay off their whole department on a whim.
I hope it’s something psychological, and not just “I thought it had an S… everyone says it that way.”
Spitballin’ here …
Back in 1920-ish when kids were learning to talk by emulating parents born around 1900, the vast majority of businesses that ordinary people interacted with were Mom & Pop’s. Normally named for the proprietor: Greene Hardware, Smith Dry Goods, Johnson Meats, etc. And even large companies were normally named for the founder. Ford, Boeing, Studebaker, Dow, Ralston, etc. There were certainly exceptions, but coined names for big business didn’t get going until maybe the mid 1920s.
In that world, shortening “I’m going to Smith Dry Goods” to “I’m going to Smith’s store” to “I’m going to Smith’s” is very natural. Especially when you know Mr & Mrs Smith who live nearby and you deal with every time you walk in the store.
After that it’s just a habit that gets applied to increasingly inapt names. “I’m buying gas at Exxon’s” is just plain wrong. And is just plain mindless habit.
I see this as an archaic usage by the elderly that’ll be mostly gone in another 10-15 years except in a few especially archaic regions of the country.
Here’s another take. I use a local UPS store; I have PO boxes there, they accept all my Amazon, etc. deliveries. I go in there a couple times every week.
It’s run by Dave & Diane, a married couple with no employees. They’re smart sensible folks and nothing ever gets screwed up at their store, unlike the undermotivated indifferent clueless klutzes at most mailing stores. If I’m going there, I’ll tell my wife “I’m going to Dave & Diane’s”, not “I’m going to the UPS store” or “I’m going to UPS#2456” (or whatever their actual store number is).
I think of it as their store, not UPS’s store. And no, I don’t put the " 's" on other random store names; just this one.
For what it’s worth, they were saying that when my daughter was in kindergarten almost 20 years ago. So, not sure how “new” it is.
It’s fun. Kids like cutesy.
Plus it lets them call it a “K9 Unit”.
Why not say canine? Why is dog automatically preferable? Nothing wrong with using a slightly less standard word for something.