Actually, there's another thing that annoys me about the Tomorrow books

[conuly]

And any other books written by Australian authors. It's irrational, and it's definitely not in keeping with descriptivism, but it always jars me when they use the word "meant" where an American wouldn't. "Isn't Vietnam meant to be America's greatest failure or something?" "Isn't he meant to be ten or eleven?" "I think you're meant to have a license".

I know, I know, it's not really any different from "supposed to be", but it always, always takes me by surprise and forces me to spend a few seconds re-reading so it makes sense. Why this item and not any others? Beats me. I'm not proud of it, but there it is.

Comments

[cosmolinguist]

Andrew wrote a book that featured American characters and I proofread all his books anyway but for this one, one of the things I was doing was looking out for these tiny different in vocabulary. He's pretty good at almost all of them, having had lots of experience, but there were a few times where I'd say "it has to be 'working' instead of 'in work'" or whatever, and he said "but those mean different things!" and I had to be like I know, but it's not a distinction American English seems to have and reading the wrong one pulls me out of the story.

This always bugs me too when British actors have clearly worked on an American accent and sound okay but then get some little word wrong like this. Totally ruins any suspension of disbelief I might have going.

[conuly]

Well, in his defense, these are all Australians saying. He's an Australian, his characters are Australian, the books take place in Australia - I can't fault him for it.

It just irks me. I guess I'd get used to it if I moved to Australia, but things'd have to be pretty bad to compel me to spend 13 hours on a plane.

[james]

Having lived in Oklahoma, Atlanta, Oregon, and California, over the last 40+ years I would say "meant to be" is general American usage. I've always used it and heard it used, so I'm not sure why you think it isn't something an American would say?

[conuly]

I would never say "Vietnam is meant to be our worst defeat". I have never, ever heard that from an American in America.

Nor would I say "I think you're meant to stay under 65 mph on this road", and I'd be surprised to hear that from an American as well.

Americans do use the phrase. We just don't use it in the wide range of contexts that Australians seem to.

[james]

Obviously our experiences are different. It may be a regional thing, or not, but I wouldn't consider that 'wide range of contexts' to be uncommon for an American to say.

My intention was just to say hey, maybe it doesn't have to kick you out of a story, because in my experience reading that wouldn't strike me as odd.

[conuly]

If I heard an American say it, I think I'd be equally annoyed! It's just a thing that bugs me. I know it's silly, and I know that it's just as correct as the way I'd say it, but it bugs me.

[conuly]

This!

[stormsong]

It's very subtle. When I first read all those "meant" sentences it didn't jar me that much, but the more I think about it the last two do seem a little off.

[conuly]

Makes me twitch.

[archangelbeth]

I think, in American, "meant" and "supposed to" have different nuances? If something is meant, it's meant. You mean it. There is intention behind it.

If something is "supposed to be," then it's more impersonal. It's not that there's someone intending it, but that it's more like gravity. Or a confluence of impersonal things. Or maybe "Yes, that's supposed to be there" -- but that's still a passive-voice approach (without actually being passive voice), compared to "I meant that to be there." "Meant" is a more direct, more intentional, more confrontational, blunter word!

So "Isn't it meant to to be America's failure" implies someone intended that. There was an intelligence behind it, promoting an outcome. Promoting a meaning.

If someone is meant to be an age, then it's... like they're talking about an actor or a character, because someone meant that interpretation, which is clearly not being pulled off by the script or the actor or something. But if they're supposed to be a certain age, then hey, it could be that someone's memory is off about their aunt edna's kid.

On the other hand, "meant to have a license" can go either way in my head, though with nuances. Like someone specifically did X in such a way because you are meant to have a license, and if you don't, it's intended to break/not work/whatever. If you're just "supposed to" have a license, then it's more bureaucracy than any one intention.

So it's perfectly reasonable that it would be jarring to an American reader, even (or especially) a descriptivist. The nuances are extremely different.

[conuly]

Yes, this!

[archangelbeth]

Yay, I got through the explanation that, ha, I meant! O;D

(Had to say it, had to say it. ^_^ )

[jo]

What annoys me is when the North American editions of books "americanize" language and spelling. I hate it when books by British authors have all the spellings changed (e.g. dropping the "u" in colour, labour, etc., replacing "s" with "z" (organize rather than the original organise), dropping the double "ll" (traveled vs the original travelled), etc.), and things like replacing "tyres" with "tires". Totally ruins the atmosphere -- it's a book set in the UK, written by a Brit -- leave in all the Britishness!

[conuly]

I'm okay with it in kid's books, because kids are learning to spell and I'd rather not confuse the issue.

[bibliofile]

In grade school, I argued with a teacher about my using "colour" on a spelling test. She marked it as wrong! But it was in a book! (And she didn't explain that the test was for American usage, and that was a British spelling. Explanations help, especially when you're seven.)

[ironed_orchid]

I have no problem with spelling changes, but actual word changes like from "mum" to "mom" and "jumper" to "sweater" irk me deeply. Both those examples are from the US editions of Harry Potter, which suddenly made a lot of Potterfic make much more sense to me.

[conuly]

I feel you, though I can understand jumper to sweater, at least - jumper means something completely different, and I can picture confused kids thinking that the Weasley brothers are walking around in little girl dresses.

[fred_mouse]

It would never have occurred to me that there is anything odd in those constructions!

The equivalent Americanism for me is 'gotten'. I realise it gets used all the time, but to me, it *is not a word*.

[conuly]

It's not really an Americanism, since it predates the colonization of America by quite some time.

/pedant

[archangelbeth]

...how else would you make the construction of "He'd gotten up at sunrise" or "so that's when we discovered the toddler had gotten up in the middle of the night and spent the rest of it coloring the walls with their new crayons" if you don't use "gotten"??? Are there people who use "had got"?????? *reels around going 'no no no no no'* That would be like saying "Had be" instead of "had been"!

[fred_mouse]

From where I'm standing, the only place it turns up is in American television/cinema, so if *feels* like an Americanism! I wasn't aware of it as a word other than that.

[alasse_irena]

I had no idea "meant" in that context was an Australian thing. Other non-American English speakers, does it sound weird to you?

[plicease]

We have a mix of Australian, Russian and American words. I have noticed Australians using "meant" from my years living and visiting there. The one thing that I could never get used to was people on the news pronouncing junta with an English J. That wouldn't come through in a book though. I suppose.

[conuly]

I only ever saw it in print, and eventually looked it up. Unsurprisingly, all Englishes but American English have dropped the Spanish pronunciation, probably because they, too, are used to seeing it in print more than hearing it spoken. (See also: The English pronunciation of "ski".)

[plicease]

If true that is terrible.