Hye Yoon asks:
I read an expression "It's not my bag" online, and assumed that it means "It's not my cup of tea." Is there any subtle difference when using the word "bag"? It seems that this expression goes with "baby", say "It's not my bag, baby!" If there is some tones or feelings involved in this, would you let me know. Another example is "I definitely don't want to become a parent. It's not my bag."
They mean the same thing: something you don't like to do or is not your preference. What I'm asking myself is, is there a situation where I would use one but not the other. I can't think of one. However, not my bag seems like 1960s "hippie" slang to me. In researching this, I did find that "bag" was a synonym for "drug of choice," and in that context, not my bag makes more sense as an expression for preference. Not my cup of tea, brings to mind a British or "high society" association, and consequently seems like the older expression and probably more universal. Its meaning also more obvious if the person you're talking to doesn't know the expression, where "not my bag" could be slightly confusing.
Another expression that comes to mind similar to these is the very simple statement, not my thing. This is even more obvious, and is a perfectly common idiom. As a side note, as a kind of humorous word play, from time to time I like to say "not my cup of thing," which combines the two expressions but is, essentially, nonsense.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Saturday, September 25, 2010
When I say "I am ambushed", is it same meaning to "I am surprised"?
Young-Min asks: When I say "I am ambushed", is it same meaning to "I am surprised"?
Well, it depends on the context. Usually, when someone says they have been ambushed, it implies surprise but also feeling overwhelmed and possibly that someone/something intended for them to be overwhelmed (or at least feel overwhelmed.) So, I can say my boss ambushed me at the end of the week with a new project due Monday. This suggests that the boss deliberately waited until the end of the week to surprise me with an overwhelming request.
I am surprised, by itself, communicates more the feeling one gets when presented with something unexpected, whether good, bad or neutral. So, I can say I was surprised when my boss asked me to start a new project just before the weekend. This says almost the same thing as I said above, but doesn't communicate to the listener that I felt overwhelmed or that I thought he deliberately waited until the end of the week.
Just a small note: "I am ambushed" strikes me as an unusual construction. It would be more common to say "I am feeling ambushed" or "I am being ambushed" in the present tense, where "I was ambushed" is perfectly common usage.
Well, it depends on the context. Usually, when someone says they have been ambushed, it implies surprise but also feeling overwhelmed and possibly that someone/something intended for them to be overwhelmed (or at least feel overwhelmed.) So, I can say my boss ambushed me at the end of the week with a new project due Monday. This suggests that the boss deliberately waited until the end of the week to surprise me with an overwhelming request.
I am surprised, by itself, communicates more the feeling one gets when presented with something unexpected, whether good, bad or neutral. So, I can say I was surprised when my boss asked me to start a new project just before the weekend. This says almost the same thing as I said above, but doesn't communicate to the listener that I felt overwhelmed or that I thought he deliberately waited until the end of the week.
Just a small note: "I am ambushed" strikes me as an unusual construction. It would be more common to say "I am feeling ambushed" or "I am being ambushed" in the present tense, where "I was ambushed" is perfectly common usage.
Friday, October 3, 2008
served...
Inkyu asks:
By avoiding uncomfortable and controversial issues, Japanese news is characterized by a "uniformity of information and the bland manner in which it is reported" (Gamble & Watanabe, 2004, p. 36). The situation is not better in Korea. A contrasting difference is, however, that Korean journalists are served right with disrespect by the audience unlike their Japanese counterparts.
I am wondering if the usage of "serve" is acceptable. If not, could you suggest
some possible alternatives? Thank you.
The plainest and most common phrase would be "...Korean journalist are rightly treated with disrespect by their audience..." A more ironic tone would be struck with "...Korean journalist deserve the disrespect of their audience..."
I'm trying to work out a way to say this using "serve," but so far nothing is coming to mind.
-------
Update: Inkyu, could you say what you're trying to say in a different way for me? I think you're trying to say that Koreans disrespect their journalists for their bland reporting, while the Japanese may be indifferent or don't mind the bland reporting. Is that right?
By avoiding uncomfortable and controversial issues, Japanese news is characterized by a "uniformity of information and the bland manner in which it is reported" (Gamble & Watanabe, 2004, p. 36). The situation is not better in Korea. A contrasting difference is, however, that Korean journalists are served right with disrespect by the audience unlike their Japanese counterparts.
I am wondering if the usage of "serve" is acceptable. If not, could you suggest
some possible alternatives? Thank you.
The plainest and most common phrase would be "...Korean journalist are rightly treated with disrespect by their audience..." A more ironic tone would be struck with "...Korean journalist deserve the disrespect of their audience..."
I'm trying to work out a way to say this using "serve," but so far nothing is coming to mind.
-------
Update: Inkyu, could you say what you're trying to say in a different way for me? I think you're trying to say that Koreans disrespect their journalists for their bland reporting, while the Japanese may be indifferent or don't mind the bland reporting. Is that right?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
'cling to'
Young Min asks:
Is there good word instead of 'cling to' in paraphrasing?
Cling to is a tricky expression because it implies desperation. The metaphor is something like a child hanging onto its mother's leg or an animal hanging onto a branch. There is some fear of letting go because of either a perceived or actual risk. We often speak of people "clinging to" the past or to old ways of doing things.
So, if you want to avoid the implications, you may want to consider retain, which means simply to continue to have something, sometimes with an implication of preserving it. This seems a bit shorter and more neutral. If you want the same meaning with a positive implication, you could even use remain faithful to, but that's a little bit longer, and you're looking to paraphrase.
Sorry for the delay in responding; your questions arrived right before I went on a week-long trip to Peru.
Is there good word instead of 'cling to' in paraphrasing?
Cling to is a tricky expression because it implies desperation. The metaphor is something like a child hanging onto its mother's leg or an animal hanging onto a branch. There is some fear of letting go because of either a perceived or actual risk. We often speak of people "clinging to" the past or to old ways of doing things.
So, if you want to avoid the implications, you may want to consider retain, which means simply to continue to have something, sometimes with an implication of preserving it. This seems a bit shorter and more neutral. If you want the same meaning with a positive implication, you could even use remain faithful to, but that's a little bit longer, and you're looking to paraphrase.
Sorry for the delay in responding; your questions arrived right before I went on a week-long trip to Peru.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
'solve' vs. 'resolve'
HyeYoon wants to know the difference between 'solve' and 'resolve.'
There's a big difference between them.
Solve implies that there is a problem or a puzzle (or a puzzle-like problem) which you are trying to work out. When you solve the problem or puzzle, you have found its solution, which is the noun derived from the verb 'to solve.' 'Solve' and 'solution' both emphasize that the problem or puzzle has been completed, but also may suggest (to my mind, anyway) some ambiguity in either that it is only one way of solving the problem, or that the solution may not be permanent, or that the solution is hypothetical and has not yet been applied to the problem. Because puzzles usually have only one solution, we usually use 'solve' when talking about them; the ambiguities arise more with problems in real life or in more complex thinking.
To resolve, when used in relation to a problem, addresses the ambiguity of 'solve.' When something is 'resolved' or there is a 'resolution', it emphasizes that the problem has been permanently (or at least durably) solved. We often talk about a resolution to conflict, which means that an answer has been reached that all parties involved are happy with, and the conflict has ended. We usually talk about solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict because it's a complex situation with no obvious solution, and because the solutions that have been proposed are often theoretical and/or have not been applied to the situation and/or have not been long-lasting solutions.
There's a big difference between them.
Solve implies that there is a problem or a puzzle (or a puzzle-like problem) which you are trying to work out. When you solve the problem or puzzle, you have found its solution, which is the noun derived from the verb 'to solve.' 'Solve' and 'solution' both emphasize that the problem or puzzle has been completed, but also may suggest (to my mind, anyway) some ambiguity in either that it is only one way of solving the problem, or that the solution may not be permanent, or that the solution is hypothetical and has not yet been applied to the problem. Because puzzles usually have only one solution, we usually use 'solve' when talking about them; the ambiguities arise more with problems in real life or in more complex thinking.
To resolve, when used in relation to a problem, addresses the ambiguity of 'solve.' When something is 'resolved' or there is a 'resolution', it emphasizes that the problem has been permanently (or at least durably) solved. We often talk about a resolution to conflict, which means that an answer has been reached that all parties involved are happy with, and the conflict has ended. We usually talk about solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict because it's a complex situation with no obvious solution, and because the solutions that have been proposed are often theoretical and/or have not been applied to the situation and/or have not been long-lasting solutions.
Monday, March 3, 2008
'struggle with' vs. 'wrestle with'
Young-min asks:
Is there any difference between 'wrestle with' and 'struggle with'?
Both mean virtually the same thing. Both mean to have a hard time understanding or accepting something, usually something abstract even though both clearly refer physical actions. Both also imply that the person (or group) 'struggling' or 'wrestling' is trying to resolve the issue, whether successfully or unsuccessfully.
Wrestle with has always seemed to me to be the stronger of the two. People usually wrestle with things that are harder to understand or accept--they wrestle with the truth, with the idea of a divorce--where they struggle with lesser problems--which present to buy someone, whether to attend an event. Actually, it seems to me that 'wrestle with' tends to suggest a greater possibility of them not resolving the issue, whereas 'struggle with' suggests that they are capable of handling it or are likely to resolve it.
Also, because both involve an issue that may or may not have been resolved, it is usually common to report whether or not it was. In fact, both are commonly used as ways of setting up the result of the struggle, highlighting that a decision or resolution was not easy to come to:
After years of struggling with overeating, John finally was able to control his eating habits.
Despite years of wrestling with balancing the budget, congress is still spending wildly.
Thanks for the great question! Keep them coming! I miss answering your questions.
Is there any difference between 'wrestle with' and 'struggle with'?
Both mean virtually the same thing. Both mean to have a hard time understanding or accepting something, usually something abstract even though both clearly refer physical actions. Both also imply that the person (or group) 'struggling' or 'wrestling' is trying to resolve the issue, whether successfully or unsuccessfully.
Wrestle with has always seemed to me to be the stronger of the two. People usually wrestle with things that are harder to understand or accept--they wrestle with the truth, with the idea of a divorce--where they struggle with lesser problems--which present to buy someone, whether to attend an event. Actually, it seems to me that 'wrestle with' tends to suggest a greater possibility of them not resolving the issue, whereas 'struggle with' suggests that they are capable of handling it or are likely to resolve it.
Also, because both involve an issue that may or may not have been resolved, it is usually common to report whether or not it was. In fact, both are commonly used as ways of setting up the result of the struggle, highlighting that a decision or resolution was not easy to come to:
After years of struggling with overeating, John finally was able to control his eating habits.
Despite years of wrestling with balancing the budget, congress is still spending wildly.
Thanks for the great question! Keep them coming! I miss answering your questions.
Monday, December 17, 2007
easy mark vs. put-upon
Young-min asked:
Can you explain the different meaning of 'an easy mark' and 'a put-upon type'?
This takes some unpacking. A mark is term criminals use for a person who is the target of their scam or crime. They have been "marked" to be the victim. An easy mark is someone the criminal (or "con artist") thinks will fall for their scam more easily than your average person. So, in more general language, an easy mark is someone who is easily fooled.
I haven't actually heard 'a put-upon type' as a common expression. However, if someone is put-upon, someone has imposed a task or condition on them against their wishes. The term also implies that they are communicating their resentment of the situation, usually by grumbling or sullen looks. So, to me, a put-upon type would be someone who is often put in this position, or acts like they are in this position even when they're not.
So in both cases, they are people who have a tendency to be taken advantage of. In the first, in its historical use, someone is an easy victim for a criminal. In a more general sense, they are easily fooled, either in a good-natured way as the victim of a joke, or in a bad way, like by a predatory lending institution or salesman. In the second, they are someone that people tend to give work to that they don't necessarily want to be doing.
Can you explain the different meaning of 'an easy mark' and 'a put-upon type'?
This takes some unpacking. A mark is term criminals use for a person who is the target of their scam or crime. They have been "marked" to be the victim. An easy mark is someone the criminal (or "con artist") thinks will fall for their scam more easily than your average person. So, in more general language, an easy mark is someone who is easily fooled.
I haven't actually heard 'a put-upon type' as a common expression. However, if someone is put-upon, someone has imposed a task or condition on them against their wishes. The term also implies that they are communicating their resentment of the situation, usually by grumbling or sullen looks. So, to me, a put-upon type would be someone who is often put in this position, or acts like they are in this position even when they're not.
So in both cases, they are people who have a tendency to be taken advantage of. In the first, in its historical use, someone is an easy victim for a criminal. In a more general sense, they are easily fooled, either in a good-natured way as the victim of a joke, or in a bad way, like by a predatory lending institution or salesman. In the second, they are someone that people tend to give work to that they don't necessarily want to be doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)