Language desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 28[edit]

Do mention it![edit]

The polite way, among many others, of replying to thanks is "You're welcome!" or "Don't mention it." However, among friends, if you specifically wish to indicate that "thanking you" is the very least you can reward my efforts, is there a convenient, ironical and, when needed, even unpolite way of saying "Please do mention me in the despatches! I've just spent three workdays getting you out of trouble, and all I get is 'Ta!'. Of course you can tell people off, but I am looking for a popular phrase, if there is one. --Pxos (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about "no need for thanks" or "don't be too polite"? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the phrase "Don't mention it!" said very loudly indicates that the speaker expected to be thanked for some action and is showing his displeasure that he wasn't. 92.8.220.234 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be straightforward and honest about it, and list the specific actions you wish them to take. Like a restaurant could say "If you enjoyed your meal today, please recommend us to others". If they are having trouble staying in business, they might even add "...so we can stay in business and continue to serve you."

A politician could say: "Your thanks are greatly appreciated, but, in order to continue to serve you, I really need your votes and the votes of your friends and family". (If cash isn't recognized as a bribe there, they could ask for that, too.) StuRat (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My original question is in need of some rewriting. In the Finnish language there is an old proverb that goes roughly as follows: "A cat will survive on a "thank you", a dog on a little stroke upon his head." (The translation is my own and therefore little shaky, but anyway.) The animals in the proverb are not pets but live on a farm "parallel to people" and not dependent on them as such. A cat will catch mice and birds, and he lives happily without interference: all he might want is a "thank you" once a year. A dog will need more, but even he becomes overjoyed at the idea of an occasional bone and a pat on his head. In Finnish, the first part of the saying is sometimes used to tell that mere "thanks" might make the day of a stray cat, but it is not sufficient to the annoyed party. Is there anywhere near a similar proverb in the English language? --Pxos (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is "Fine words butter no parsnips," which via the link in Reference 1 of List of proverbial phrases is explained in https://www.phrases.org.uk/index.html The Phrase Finder as "Nothing is achieved by empty words or flattery" (plus a great deal more about the proverb's origins). However, saying that in reply to sincere but valueless thanks (rather than as an ironic comment to a third party) would be quite hostile, as would something along the lines of "That won't pay the rent," or "That and [insert appropriate amount] will buy me a cup of coffee." I leave it to more diplomatically adroit editors to come up with better alternatives. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.210.199 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to laugh at what I'm about to write, but I've recently got used to asking people who thank me for the service provided by my business for a review on Google or Facebook! I usually say something like "My pleasure! Would you please do me a favour and leave me a review on the Facebook or Google page? That would be so helpful" So in future a proverb may come out of that. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One internet TV streaming service has a neat way of doing this. When you access the site a notice appears which reads:

You found us, share the love! We are free and want to stay that way, so please, help us by sharing.

There are buttons for Facebook, Google+, Linked In, Twitter and one I've not come across before, "Stumble Upon". If you don't show your appreciation you don't get to watch the programme, because the box (which is over the screen) won't disappear until you do. 46.208.167.127 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might look for a quote by Dale Carnegie, who was all about how to make a favorable impression on others. I'd have to think he has a quote about thanking people profusely somewhere in his books. However, Dale did have this warning:

“The difference between appreciation and flattery? That is simple. One is sincere and the other insincere. One comes from the heart out; the other from the teeth out. One is unselfish; the other selfish. One is universally admired; the other universally condemned.” ― How to Win Friends and Influence People

Here's another quote, from the same book, that may be more what you want:

“Once I did bad, and that I heard ever. Twice I did good, but that I heard never.” (This is rather odd phrasing, but means you are more likely to hear about things you did wrong than things you did right.)

Here's a huge list (899 !) of his quotes, so you can look for something even better: [1]. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting against[edit]

In the lede of the Jeffrey Glenn Miller (an article requiring the use of American English according to MOS:STRONGNAT), an American editor has written protesting against. This surprised me, as I had thought Americans preferred simply protesting anything objectionable. Does the addition of against sound strange to American ears? Is the use regional?

Supplementary question: is the phrase protest ones innocence used in the U.S.? It would seem nonsensical if protest is equated with protest against. Thanks --catslash (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think protest can be either a transitive or intransitive verb. When you protest a thing or occurrence, that's the transitive usage. When you protest against it, that's intransitive (that is, you could have just said you're protesting and closed the sentence with that, but you have also decided to give the reason, and the reason is given by the "against" phrase). --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, protest one's innocence is perfectly cromulent, and to protest for and against are used to avoid ambiguity. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what User:Catslash is asking about is the American English construction "to protest something", whereas in British English, we would "protest about something" or "protest against something". Google a finds plenty of Americans who "protest Donald Trump's NFL remarks" [2], or "protest Obamacare" [3], or "protest anti-abortion laws" [4]. Is this just journalese or do people actually speak that way? Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People do actually speak that way. However, they also say "protest against"; the phrase does not strike this American ear as at all unusual. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But "protest for" is a bit unusual in US English. I would expect "show support for" is more common. To be more specific, I would expect to only see "protest for" in cases where it's really protesting against something else. For example, "protesting for minimum wage" is really protesting against low wages. However, I wouldn't expect to see "protesting for Donald Trump", as that isn't really protesting against anything specific. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So to get back to the question, in the Jeffrey Glenn Miller article lead, we have: "He had been protesting against the invasion of Cambodia", whereas the OP was expecting "He had been protesting the invasion of Cambodia" as the usual American English construction. Are both forms acceptable? Is one a regional variant? Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fine in that context. No one was protesting for the invasion of Cambodia, which was already a fact. But people were protesting for war against Germany before it was declared and many people have protested for the release of prisoners, so, as usual, Stu's off-the cuff answer that "protest for" is "unusual" can be taken as idiolect, rather than perspective. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, User:Alansplodge, one protests for something which is not yet the case, and against something which is the case. Surely this makes sense in Great Britic. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we would say "protest for" under any circumstances. However, it's the missing preposition which is the issue; it seems that with or without is fine in AmEng, in which case we can mark this...

Resolved

Many thanks to all our American chums. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. --catslash (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, according to our article "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", in Shakespeare's time "protest" had the reverse meaning. The lady is question was swearing that she loved her husband. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]