GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: Tante Shvester on August 20, 2009, 02:12:06 AM
-
When I was a girl, my mommy taught me to say "please" when I asked for something and "thank you" when I got it. And when someone told me "thank you" that the proper reply was "you're welcome".
Seems like no one says "you're welcome" any more. In fact, when you do hear it, it seems to have an air of smugness or sarcasm about it. I usually hear, "My pleasure" or "No problem" or "Thank you" as a reply to "thank you".
When did "you're welcome" fall out of favor?
And what were they ever welcome to?
-
Seems like no one says "you're welcome" any more.
It doesn't seem that way to me.
In fact, when you do hear it, it seems to have an air of smugness or sarcasm about it.
While I have heard that, that's by no means the majority of how I hear it.
Maybe it's a New Jersey thing.
And what were they ever welcome to?
Whatever they were just thanked for.
-
I heard or read a rant somewhere about how people should say "you're welcome" instead of those other alternatives because its literal interpretation (you're welcome to this service/gift anytime) is much more generous than the alternatives'.
I disagreed completely with the rant. Things mean what we use them to mean, and when I say, "no problem," I mean exactly the same thing as if I'd said "you're welcome." Or so nearly so that trying to differentiate them is a waste of time.
-
Maybe it's a New Jersey thing.
Could be. So many things are.
When you guys are on line, you're connected to the internet. We're waiting for the bank teller.
-
When you guys are on line, you're connected to the internet.
Nope. That's when I'm online.
-
I usually say "No, no—thank you!"
Or I just smack her on the butt and tell her to leave.
-
I usually hear, "My pleasure" or "No problem" or "Thank you" as a reply to "thank you".
I use and hear all of those, but I also use and hear "You're welcome" (or sometimes just "welcome") quite frequently.
-
Sometimes I also hear and use "Any time." Or "Sure." Or "Of course." Occasionally, "De nada" or "Prego" or "Right on."
-
Sometimes I also hear and use "Any time." Or "Sure." Or "Of course." Occasionally, "De nada" or "Prego" or "Right on."
Of those, I've only heard "Any time". I do hear "De nada" in reply to "Gracias", but I don't know if that counts.
-
Hmmm.. This is a a good thread. I will have to think about this more.
Since I work in customer service -- I pretty much get a "thank you" from every single caller. I guess most of the time I say "no problem" or "any time". Maybe I should switch back to the regular old "you're welcome"
-
Actually, I say de nada quite a bit, even to non-Spansish speakers.
"It's nothing."
Or "No, thank you."
See, "You're welcome" is risky because it leaves some ambiguity as to just what the person is welcome to.
-
I can never remember whether it's "de nada" or "por nada". I'll bet one of them is Spanish and the other one Portuguese.
See, "You're welcome" is risky because it leaves some ambiguity as to just what the person is welcome to.
No it doesn't.
-
It probably does if you're Jesse. ;)
-
Denada is Spanish - I'm guessing that por nada is Portuguese.
It's funny - when I thought about this, I realized that I almost always reply to thank you in a foreign language. Denada most of the time, and domo domo at work. Actually, any language goes at work. Maybe that's why I do the foreign language thing recently - because I work at the MTC and it's kind of standard universal practice to say greetings and thanks in whatever random language you can. All the missionaries say them in whatever language they're learning and all of us employees say them in whatever language sounds most fun at the time.
-
Why would you welcome someone to something after you've already given it to them? The most straightforward interpretation of that phrase, given its tense, is that the recipient is still welcome to take/do something that they already haven't taken/done.
You give me a bagel. I take it, and say thanks. You say "you're welcome." What am I welcome to? The thing I already possess??? No! Another bagel!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I learned both de nada and por nada in Spanish class. I swear—I've never been exposed to Portuguese. Yet my Peruvian girlfriend insists that por nada is wrong.
-
You give me a bagel. I take it, and say thanks. You say "you're welcome." What am I welcome to? The thing I already possess???
Yes. Not only do you have possess it, but you're welcome to it.
No! Another bagel!
Wrong.
-
Jesse, I think you take hyperliteralism to a completely new level.
-
(http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/curiosities/images/weirda22.jpg)
-
Maybe we should say "You were welcome."
-
Agreed. When you let me into your house, you say "Welcome!," not "You're Welcome!"
It's only after I leave and I thank you for your hospitality that you say "You're Welcome!" But that makes no sense unless you are welcoming me back for another visit in the future. I.e., another bagel.
-
Agreed. When you let me into your house, you say "Welcome!," not "You're Welcome!"
It's only after I leave and I thank you for your hospitality that you say "You're Welcome!" But that makes no sense unless you are welcoming me back for another visit in the future. I.e., another bagel.
Here's a crazy thought: maybe "welcome" has multiple meanings and is used in different ways at different times.
-
Slippery slope there, Jonathon.
But maybe you're right. Why don't we just all grunt?
-
I have no idea how that even sort of begins to follow from what I said.
-
It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?
-
Maybe we should say "You were welcome."
Which is one possible meaning of "You're welcome."
-
I don't think "you're" is ever used to mean "you were".
-
It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?
That's rude.
-
I apologize if I was rude.
I must admit that I am frequently unable to tell when you're being serious and when you're not. I hope you'll be understanding when I get it wrong.
I've tried always assuming one or the other, but neither gave me satisfactory results.
-
It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?
That's rude.
Is it true?
-
It's a game -- how long can he spout nonsense and still get people to respond as though he's serious?
I personally think he's just being funny. I use the obnoxious badgery funny sometimes too.
-
And to be fair, Porter, you use quite a bit of the over-the-top hyperliteral humor yourself.
-
Hey guys, thank you!
-
Annie -- I can't figure out if you're saying that I was wrong or that I do it too. Or both.
-
It's not a game. I thought this was a place where we could seriously discuss language.
Sure, I was a bit whimsical, but was there something about my analysis that provoked you into saying I was spouting nonsense? I thought we were having a fun little discussion. Isn't that how ideas evolve?
I take precision in language very seriously. While not the best example ever, I dealt with this case just this week (Lake Oswego Review, Inc. v. Steinkamp):
The Rule states that the service “shall” meet the federal due process standard and that it “may” be accomplished in numerous specified ways. ORCP 7 D. The Rule provides that mail service “shall” be made as specified, but that is not at issue in this case. ORCP 7 D.(2)(d). In ORCP 7 F.(4) and 7 G. the word “shall” is again used. The Rule's contrasting usage of the words “shall” and “may” is too conspicuous to be ignored. Compliance with methods or manners of service which are preceded by the word “may” is not required. The methods of service listed in ORCP 7 D. (2)-(4) are not exclusive of other methods of service reasonably calculated to apprise defendant of the action.
Just by this example, from the Supreme Court of Oregon, you can imagine a "hyperliteral" analysis costs people billions of dollars, but is also worthwhile.
Just because I am sometimes boisterous and/or dramatic sometimes doesn't mean you should summarily dismiss my ideas, especially when they are in another thread. Well, at the very least you shouldn't label them "nonsense." To do so would be to suggest that no one could ever make a joke and ever be taken seriously again.
-
was there something about my analysis that provoked you into saying I was spouting nonsense?
Why don't we just all grunt?
-
Here's a crazy thought: maybe "welcome" has multiple meanings and is used in different ways at different times.
I was alluding to the fact that if we start blurring the lines of meaning then language would revert rather than progress.
The idea (well, my idea) is to achieve more particularity, not less.
-
I find it hard to buy your explanation.
It's not burring the lines of meaning -- it's acknowledging.
Pretending that words mean something other than what they're intended to mean (or making pronouncements about what they "should" mean), like you've been doing in this discussion, does more to muddle communication than being aware of what people actually mean when they say "you're welcome".
-
Annie -- I can't figure out if you're saying that I was wrong or that I do it too. Or both.
That you do it too. It didn't strike me as anything outside of the normal tone of banter that goes on here.
Hey guys, thank you!
Don' worry 'bout it!
-
It didn't strike me as anything outside of the normal tone of banter that goes on here.
I agree. But then, I didn't think my comment was either.
-
Ah. I interpreted your comment as a lot more scornful than you probably meant it.
-
To be honest, Jesse, it seemed to me that, as Porter said, you were just trying to be difficult and didn't actually want to have a real discussion.
I would think that, as a lawyer who takes precision in language so seriously, you would recognize that words can mean different things in different contexts. Saying "Welcome!" to someone who comes to your house is not the same as saying "You're welcome" to someone who thanks you for something. The word has different—and quite distinct—meanings in each context. There's no blurring of meaning here, but rather specialization of it.
The whole idea of language reverting or progressing is something of a fallacy. Language changes, but not necessarily for the better or the worse. Language change is balanced by the desire of speakers to be understood and the desire of listeners to understand. I don't believe there's any way a language could actually devolve into grunts, because then both speakers and listeners lose.
-
What wasn't serious about how I approached the discussion? Did I say something snarky?
-
Slippery slope there, Jonathon.
But maybe you're right. Why don't we just all grunt?
This is the prime example, but also your insistence on using an overly narrow definition of "welcome" that isn't supported by any evidence or common sense. Your discussions of usage always seem to follow the same pattern, asserting that a certain word can only have one narrow meaning and that all other uses of the word are wrong. And you seem far more interested in insisting that real usage is nonsensical and wrong and making ridiculous, eye-roll-worthy claims—like arguing that you're welcome to another bagel—than you are in learning why your assumptions about meaning are wrong. Seriously, what do you think people intend to express when saying "You're welcome" when you take a bagel and say "Thanks"?
-
I think it's because I had my lawyer hat on. Perhaps I need to find a forum—as a supplement, not to leave yours—specifically for lawyers.
As I tried to point out in my quote from that case, a big part of my life is being so annoying with particularity.
-
As I tried to point out in my quote from that case, a big part of my life is being so annoying with particularity.
But then you seem taken aback when people get annoyed.
And honestly, I think that lawyers would do well to pay attention to and try to understand actual usage instead of simply insisting that it doesn't make sense.
-
I had the wrong hat on when I posted here, and I apologize if I took unreasonable offense.
By necessity, we have to argue strict construction. Or the opposite. It's what we are trained to do.
Be careful before opening this link. Given your profession, it could be NSFW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_construction#Canons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_construction#Canons)
-
I'm having a hard time believing that you would argue in a court of law that a bagel store employee's saying "You're welcome" would entitle you to take another bagel.
-
That would never work at trial. But these things do come up in pre-trial motions, which is what my mindset was. I mean, we're here to talk about language, right? I was just trying to have fun. I thought we all enjoyed this kind of debate.
-
You keep saying things like "I was just trying to have fun." and "It's not a game. I thought this was a place where we could seriously discuss language."
It looks like you're trying to have it both ways.
-
The idea, well, my idea, was to discuss the term with a serious eye towards its meaning, but not to get heated about it.
-
But as I've said before, it doesn't seem to me that you have a serious eye towards meaning.
And just to be clear: I'm not getting heated, and I don't think Porter is either. I think we're both just somewhat confused and maybe a little annoyed.
-
Well, that's because I'm annoying.
-
But, like I already said, you seem surprised that some people have gotten annoyed. And like Porter said, you're trying to have it both ways. If you want a real discussion, don't be annoying.
-
If you want a real discussion, don't be annoying.
QFT
-
Sigged 'cuz it's an awesome quote, not as a continual jab at Jesse. I promise.
-
I don't think that "you're welcome" has to be smug or sarcastic, but it does imply a superiority or even equality of status that is questionable in an employee/customer relationship.
I mean, maybe I've got that wrong. Maybe I need to look at this as me helping someone because I do know how to do some things they don't, and it's not a status thing, but just a social specialization thing.
But yeah, a guy just came to get his glasses and he said "thanks" and I said "OK".
-
I recently switched from "my pleasure" to "you're welcome" when I realized that it really wasn't my pleasure at all, most of the time. I'm going to hold "my pleasure" in reserve for the times when I really am getting pleasure.
So far, "you're welcome" is working for me. Who knows, it may just catch on all over again.
-
but it does imply a superiority or even equality of status that is questionable in an employee/customer relationship.
I've never felt it had that implication at all. It's just a polite thing to acknowledge someone helping you - maybe even MORE appropriate from a businessperson to a client.
-
Uh . . . isn't it a polite thing to acknowledge that you helped someone? I think that's why it possibly has a slightly condescending connotation. Acknowledging that you helped someone puts you in a one-up position, while saying "Thank you" levels any potential imbalance.
-
That's what I meant, I just said it the wrong way. "You're welcome" doesn't mean "I did that for you because I'm nice like that," it means, "You are welcome to such services and fully deserving of them. It was no particular virtue on my part to provide them for you."
-
But, like I already said, you seem surprised that some people have gotten annoyed. And like Porter said, you're trying to have it both ways. If you want a real discussion, don't be annoying.
I'm sorry to keep harping on a subject that seems to have passed (as well as one that I have been talking about quite a lot lately), but this is kind of the crux of what I'm always telling you about the problems you report in your personal interactions. You can disregard how other people will feel or react and behave exactly according to your desires, but then you have to deal with the fact that people will sometimes be bothered by your behavior. Or you can modify your behavior in order not to bother people, in which case you have to deal with the fact that sometimes you don't get to behave in exactly the way you want to behave. But you can't insist that you get to behave however you want and no one should ever be bothered by it. Or rather, you can insist, but people won't comply. Nobody owes it to you to not get bothered when you behave in ways that bother them.
-
Very well expressed
(though I maintain my complete non-involvement in this discussion)
-
***Check posting dates***
I was looking for a thread about typography.
And I saw this thread and it made me wistful.
But also, it's now a hit song which briefly made a lot of people say "you're welcome" but also made it weird for people to say you're welcome.