Based solely on UK television programming, seems like the word “brilliant” has basically the same dictionary definition as it does in the US, but its common use is somewhat different. In the US I wouldn’t use that word unless I was talking about something or someone REALLY unique and impressive. In UK, it seems like it isn’t so intense, almost like Americans might use the word “cool” (or used to, anyway… who knows what the kids say these days!)
In summary: not the same word that means something different… the same word that means basically the same thing but is used differently. What other examples can you think of?
In the UK they typically say “right” where Americans would say “alright,” as in addressing one or more people before making a statement or issuing a command. Like: “Alright. We’re all here, let’s get started, shall we?” Brits would say “Right! We’re all here, let’s get started, shall we?”
There’s a great BBC Radio comedy called Cabin Pressure. One of the characters describes just about everything as “brilliant!”. He’s portrayed as not very bright (to put it mildly), but very enthusiastic, so it’s picked up that baggage when I hear it. Any Brits here can tell me if that’s fair or not.
And I’m not sure “cool” is the American equivalent. To me, “cool” always sounds a bit remote and detached. The British “brilliant” sounds to me like the American “excellent”; and I think both can be used sarcastically.
The one that I always notice is the British “quite”. It seems to be a polite way to say the opposite; “I quite like it” means you really don’t like it.
“Brilliant” as an idiomatic expression of approval goes in and out of fashion. The TV sketch show The Fast Show picked up on it as a naive teenager’s catchphrase in a limited vocabulary, but successive generations of teen-agers have long ago moved on. And yes, it can, and commonly is, used sarcastically.
“Quite” is an interesting example of wandering idiomatic use, and how we like ambiguity. Once it implied completeness or perfection, but somewhere along the line (? in the later nineteenth century or even more recently?), perhaps as a result of sarcastic use, it came to imply a relative diminution. In 1800 “quite nice” (now “nice” is another example) would mean some extremely fine/pernickety distinction, by 1900 it usually meant something not unacceptable but nothing special, or possibly “it’s vile but I don’t want to upset you”. And then there are the variants of tone by which just saying “quite” on its own can equally mean “I agree with every word you say”, or “Well that was a pointless statement of the bleeding obvious” or “That’s your opinion, but I can’t be bothered to call you a nitwit to your face”.
Fit is another one. Here in the US, it just refers to physical fitness, i.e. looking like you work out a lot. In the UK, it seems to also mean sexy or hot.
“Sorted” in the UK it seems to mean something along the lines of ‘dealt with.’ In the US it’s generally intended more literally to mean ‘arranged by some criteria’
“Tiresome” seems to be Brit-speak for “annoying”. In particular, it’s something that someone else brings up so often that other people are sick of it (and bored by its reappearance). In America, it’s something that literally wears you out, as “a tiresome task”, if it’s used at all.
You really can’t describe a baby/young kid as “cute” or “a cutie” in the U.S.?
I have lived here for 15 years and never knew this. Does everyone think I’m a pedophile?
I was under the impression that it commonly takes either meaning in the U.S., whereas it has (at least historically) never been used to mean “sexually attractive” in the U.K. Is that what you mean?
This is a tricky thread, because the only possible reason the words are used differently IS that they mean something different. What you’ve got is words that still sort of mean the same thing, but not really anymore.
My contribution is out on a bit of a limb, but “assez” in French means “enough”, while “assai” in Italian means “too much”, as if “enough already!” had been taken a bit too far. Both come from the same Latin root, meaning “enough, sufficient”.
In New England, “wicked” is an intensifier such as “She runs wicked fast” or “He’s a wicked asshole.” This usage is much less common outside of the Northeast.
Yes, it’s slang that can be used alone to mean “dealt with” as you say, or can even be used in a construction like “We’re sorted for booze and fags” if you’ve just been to the off licence to stock up.
At face value, that’s ambiguous, it can be taken to imply (as I thought for a moment, as a non-native speaker of U.S. dialect) that babies and squirrels are not cute in the U.S., i.e that the word always has sexual connotations in the U.S.
In fact (I’m pretty sure) babies and squirrels are cute in both the U.K. and the U.S., so a better example to illustrate the difference in range of meaning is a negative one, e.g. Dwayne Johnson might be described as cute in the U.S., but never in the U.K.
‘Cracking’ is a term I hear in UK sports clips. It appears to mean incredible or awesome. Stateside, cracking is for eggs, knuckles and petroleum products.
It’s commonly used for “fluffy” cute in the US, too. My 4 and 2 year-old daughters describe all sorts of stuff as cute: puppies, stuffed animals, cartoon unicorns, etc. It’s just that it can also be used to express somebody who is physically attractive, but “cute” does not quite mean “hot.” “Cute” has more wholesome connotations, and “hot” is a more sexual term. Like “cute” is quite often describing a very pretty face, but maybe with an average body, but “hot” often describes somebody with a slammin’ bod. Also, “cute” sometime connotes a nice personality, too, where “hot” is more a primal “I want to get in bed with that person ASAP” kind of thing. Like, for example, I can describe somebody’s haircut as “cute” to my wife, but if I described it as “hot,” it may get a raised eyebrow.
Ah, yes, there is also a similar usage of “cute” here in the US, as in “don’t be cute with me!” when you’re being a smartass or similar.