Just that it’s an Americanism which used to be alien to the British but, so far as I can see ( and at least as far as young Britons are concerned) isn’t any more.
j
Ah OK. So we’re not talking about some exotic meaning of the word. Just a particular conjugation / declension of the good old basic verb word “to get”.
Thanks.
Yep. Faded out of British English and now appears to be fading back in.
j
I think I’ve only heard of Binky as the clown from the Garfield Halloween special.
Speaking of pacifiers, a while back I saw a Facebook Reel about Dummies candy and how they got the name because you are supposed to tuck the tab through the ring to make it look like a dummy and isn’t it obvious in retrospect, and the comments was filled with Americans saying that they 1.) had never heard of the candy and 2.) had never heard of a pacifier being called a “dummy”. (I was in the same boat on both parts.)
I see that there are versions sold under the name of candy/gummy pacifiers in America and as “nappars” from Haribo.
Binky is also Death’s horse on the Discworld.
Yes. In British English, it is absent and we are poorer for the loss.
Sadly any attempts to reintroduce useful words (or just to expand ones vocabulary by incorporating American words) like this tend to get scorned as pollution of the language by language nazis.
Actually, I haven’t seen this happen with any other language or dialect; if I incorporate a French word or phrase into my vernacular, it is perceived that I am trying to be sophisticated; if I do it with a word from Spanish or German or Italian or Greek, it is generally perceived as embracing culture.
If I use a word or turn of phrase from a dialect of English from elsewhere in the British Isles or territories, it is probably received as quirky or quaint or interesting.
However, doing the same with a word that is most well-known as coming from American English, a particular cadre of English language pedants will invariably speak up to say I am polluting the language.
The reverse is less common, but it’s not unknown. I was speaking to an American friend back in the States and I referred to “taking a decision” — my friend blinked, and then made fun of me for “going native” in my relocated home.
I guess I’m part of that group then… awkward…
Actually no, what irritates me is when there’s a perfectly good British word and the American one usurps it. So it’s not annoyance at American English per se. Although my observation of this may be biased as it probably comes from YouTube more than anything else and I dare say British channels on there cater for American viewers an awful lot. Strikes me as a bit patronising towards American viewers though.
Aeroplanes have become airplanes, anti-clockwise has become counter-clockwise, shops have become stores.
And now I sound like an anti-American and I’m absolutely not.
Only if you go as far as to ‘correct’ people on it.
Language changes and evolves and one of the ways that happens is the incorporation of loan words - these loan words can come from different languages or just different dialects of the same language. This happens all the time and getting upset about it to the point of trying to stop it happening, is like yelling at clouds.
IMO, it’s useful to have more synonyms than less. I am not content with one, perfectly good British word.
Ah, this must be another British usage! No doubt you avoid saying “fewer” because it brings back memories about the man responsible for the Blitz. 
That’s an interesting one (I know you’re pulling my leg), because the less/fewer thing is a different facet of the same language pedantry. There simply is no need to constrain oneself to using ‘fewer’ to describe countable items; it is not a requirement and it serves no purpose but adherence to unnecessary formality.
‘More/less’ seems a more poetic pairing in that sentence than ‘more/fewer’.
Anyway, back on topic… Another example in the category that contains hamburger and sausage, is ‘candy’.
In British English, the word ‘candy’ exists and is somewhat archaic, but still refers specifically to boiled sugar. It is not natively used to generically describe confectionery (that would be ‘confectionery’ or ‘sweets’), although some sweets are made of candy. ‘Candy’ appears several times in the works of Shakespeare.
You mean counter-American?
I’ve made a spinoff thread about corrections in order to stop hijacking this thread on that topic.
Thanks for the full post, but as to just this tidbit …
The funny thing to me is that in general I perceive British English to be the quaint old-timey form of the language while American is the modernized streamlined (and often foolishly trendy and sloppy) variant. I’m not trying to say one is better or worse, simply that that’s the axis along which they seem to me to lie.
Anyhow, in American English I find most words ending in “en” have that same old-timey “feel” to them. A “woolen sweater” sounds 1880s or 1920s, while a “wool sweater” sounds post WW-II to modern. The same archaic feel attaches to the “…en” verbs. Gotten is no exception. It’s current common American usage, but also archaic feeling. At least to me; I may be a minority of one on this point.
So I find it incongruous / funny that the Americans are using archaic words the Brits are resisting putting (back?) into their own much more quaint version of English.
I often have the same perception of American English - I suspect we are just noticing non-intersecting sets of archaisms that are not normal to our own local dialect.
Although I think part of the set I probably notice will be made up of non-metric measurements such as bushels and fluid ounces.
Funny; I always figured the exact opposite, at least as a very general tendency [like, it would be the colony which was saddled with 17th–18th century expressions]… As for France vs Quebec. Presumably that is something that can be computationally linguistically tested.
It does sound funny, except the normalized term: ill gotten
“My Covid was mild since I had gotten my vaccines.” Sounds weird.
Hah, you might be best placed to answer - what’s the difference between a plain digestive biscuit and a Graham cracker, other than shape?