Definition sought

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, you Commonwealth word junkies take a shot at this one. What is the distinction between shufti and dekko? They both mean 'take a look' or 'glance', but my sense of it as used in British military slang is that a shufti connotes more of an intentional reconnaissance of something whereas a dekko is more casual and spontaneous. But maybe there really is no difference and I am just imagining one. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

yep - no formal difference

[Affentitten]

I'd point out that they are both pretty archaic these days. Not many people under 50 (at least in Australia) would recognise them.

[dieseltaylor]

"Shufti is from the Arabic. In that language it means “have you seen?”. It’s a bit of military slang, picked up by British servicemen formerly based in the Middle East. The first recorded examples in print are from the Second World War, suggesting that it may have originated among soldiers in the desert campaign. However, Eric Partridge says that it actually started life with Royal Air Force stations in that area about 1925, but that it had spread to the Army by 1930. This seems probable, to judge from the extent of its use in World War Two.

"Dekko

Derived from Hindi (Indian language). Basically 'dekh' means to look and when you say 'dekho' its asking someone to take a look.

E.g.

In Hindi

Yeh ladki ko dekho- Look at this girl

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Of course there's always 'gander' in the sense of "take a gander" which could act as a decent substitute. Not sure what the origins of that is though.

Regards

KR

[dieseltaylor]

Thought to derive from the goose where ganders are on the lookout for threats. First use in one source says 1887.

I bought a 1902 book recently, a sort of romance/driving around France story and in it the word "wombles" is used! I was surprised to see it in print though its meaning of pleasurable excitement/anticipation is not in any dictionary I have found - though the person using it is an American.

[Affentitten]

If dekko is Hindi, I'm not surprised that it is less common in Australia where we didn't have that cross-contact with the sub-continent.

My point is not how big Australian vocab is, but more on the currency of words. Certainly those two words, which seem from H-J to originate from the British / Indian army experience, would have had fairly limited exposure to Australians. When I have heard them being used, it was almost certainly by Brits of WW2 or National Service vintage (there in the UK or having come over here).

When I was growing up, the slang for having a quick look included "have a gander", "have a geez" or have/take a Captain (Cook). These are pretty much out of use these days and I am only just 40.

I always find amusing the out-of-date nature that Brits and Aussies have of each others' slang. For example, I have often had Brits say to me "go and have a tinny. They think that's what we call a can of beer. The first couple of times I had to think hard what they were on about. Because to me a tinny is one of these:

But looking back to perhaps the early 1970s I think some guys did call cans of beer tinnies. I think Monty Python parodied it and the idea has stuck with Brits, even though slang here has long moved on. (And indeed, hardly anyone drinks beers from cans these days anyway.) By the same token, Aussies still think Brits say stuff like "apples and pears" or call each other "old chap" on a regular basis.

[dieseltaylor]

The velocity of change of vocabulary is probably increasing as youth culture, who by its very nature HAVE to have their own slang, receive much more prominence in the media.

Mind you some of its seems absurd like bad meaning good - which no doubt will raise confusion for people looking back in the future when they try to check out peoples views.

In Canada in the 60's we had words like "neat" for good and I have no doubt it will be recycled to the same meaning again. Not "neato" BTW.

If you believe like I do that a limited vocabulary inhibits thinking - or the better you are able to articulate shades of meaning the more likely you can grasp concepts - then you may feel faintly depressed at the current lack.

[winston smith]

Okay, you Commonwealth word junkies take a shot at this one. What is the distinction between shufti and dekko? They both mean 'take a look' or 'glance', but my sense of it as used in British military slang is that a shufti connotes more of an intentional reconnaissance of something whereas a dekko is more casual and spontaneous. But maybe there really is no difference and I am just imagining one. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

Michael

I'd say you were roughly right, there's little real difference but 'shufti' is possibly slightly 'stronger' than 'dekko'.

Equally, as suggested, neither are much used, ..., tho' I seem to recall such terms being used in the "Only Fools & Horses" TV series.

'Gander' is possibly more common than either but 'butchers', (as in butcher hook - look) is perhaps the most common such term. One 'takes' or 'has' 'a butchers'

I will be consulting my younger more 'street' friends to see what their take on all this is.

Incidently I think 'chap' is regaining some ground, ...., I heard some 'yoot' using 'chapess' only the other day

Izzit!

[dieseltaylor]

In any event it must depend on age group and class. I may use butchers depending who I am with but generally speaking to 95% of the people I speak to "butchers" would be inappropriate.

Incidentally on a quiz yesterday two men in their thirties were asked what high wispy cloud was called and given three possible answers from which to pick:

a] pigs ears

b] mares tails

c] and one other that escapes me.

They had great trouble deciding. As a meteorological term I wonder if it is universal.

[Affentitten]

The velocity of change of vocabulary is probably increasing as youth culture, who by its very nature HAVE to have their own slang, receive much more prominence in the media.

Mind you some of its seems absurd like bad meaning good - which no doubt will raise confusion for people looking back in the future when they try to check out peoples views.

In Canada in the 60's we had words like "neat" for good and I have no doubt it will be recycled to the same meaning again. Not "neato" BTW.

If you believe like I do that a limited vocabulary inhibits thinking - or the better you are able to articulate shades of meaning the more likely you can grasp concepts - then you may feel faintly depressed at the current lack.

Yes I got into difficulties with 'hook up' recently. In my day, it meant to meet or connect with someone. As in "We'll both make our own way to the cricket and hook up once we're in the ground."

But I said something like that to a young female friend of the family and she gave me quite a disturbed look.

[dieseltaylor]

: ) Ouch!

Awkward or what!

[Pak_43]

I still use "have a dekko" fairly regularly, as in "pass it here and I'll have a dekko at it.."

Baffled some of my German and French team members completely (and understandably) now when I say something unintelligable to them they just nod and say "oh yes..."

[Affentitten]

: ) Ouch!

Awkward or what!

Yes. Especially when she started taking her clothes off.

[Stalins Organ]

I find it's much less awkward if they take their own clothes off....

[Michael Emrys]

I find it's much less awkward if they take their own clothes off....

I always find it easier to speak to young women if they take their clothes off, although I may forget what it was I originally intended to say. And trying to explain that I am only interested in better communication is commonly met with disbelief. I really can't think why...

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

If you believe like I do that a limited vocabulary inhibits thinking - or the better you are able to articulate shades of meaning the more likely you can grasp concepts - then you may feel faintly depressed at the current lack.

Agreed. And I feel that the current practice of switching spellings and meanings with almost random abandon is a short road to total incoherence.

Michael

[Affentitten]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Communication is definitely about transmitting your meaning and having it understood by the receiver. But using overly flowery or archaic vocabulary interferes with this. Likewise being limited in your choice of words also interferes.

I suspect that every generation bemoans the lack of language of those subsequent. But because kids today don't know what 'caliginous' means is hardly an obstacle to communication. The same kids will be bemoaning the fact that their parents can't understand what a web server is or that their own offspring of the future won't know what 'to friend' or 'da bomb' means.

[Dietrich]

By the same token, Aussies still think Brits say stuff like "apples and pears" or call each other "old chap" on a regular basis.

Not dissimilarly, Americans still think Britons' conversation is characterized by words and expressions like "cheerio", "I say, I say", and the like. As I understand it, this stems from the contact American soldiers had with British ones during the First World War. Thus the typical idea Americans have of British informal speech is nearly a hundred years out of date.

[Dietrich]

I suspect that every generation bemoans the lack of language of those subsequent. But because kids today don't know what 'caliginous' means is hardly an obstacle to communication. The same kids will be bemoaning the fact that their parents can't understand what a web server is or that their own offspring of the future won't know what 'to friend' or 'da bomb' means.

Throughout the Middle Ages, people of the nobility in Western Europe often bemoaned the relative lack of "chivalry" (or, rather, what is nowadays generally thought of as "chivalry") among the contemporary generation compared to the previous one.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Throughout the Middle Ages, people of the nobility in Western Europe often bemoaned the relative lack of "chivalry" (or, rather, what is nowadays generally thought of as "chivalry") among the contemporary generation compared to the previous one.

Should be...compared with...

Remember these 3 golden phrases....compared with...opposite to...different from...

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Communication is definitely about transmitting your meaning and having it understood by the receiver. But using overly flowery or archaic vocabulary interferes with this. Likewise being limited in your choice of words also interferes.

I suspect that every generation bemoans the lack of language of those subsequent. But because kids today don't know what 'caliginous' means is hardly an obstacle to communication. The same kids will be bemoaning the fact that their parents can't understand what a web server is or that their own offspring of the future won't know what 'to friend' or 'da bomb' means.

I agree. English is a living language, which means that it is adaptable to the needs of its users. There is always room for innovation. But it ought also be recognized that most mutations are maladaptive and pruneable. In language, innovations are most useful when experienced against a background of standard usage. At least that's my opinion.

Michael

[Dietrich]

Should be...compared with...

*shrug* What's your source? Mine's The New Fowler's Modern English Usage3rd ed.

Remember these 3 golden phrases....compared with...opposite to...different from...

Fowler's says:

In BrE, the construction with with is obligatory when compare is used intransitively: ... His achievements do not compare with those of A. J. Ayer—Sunday Times, 1988.

However, in a previous subheading under the entry compare it points out:

When the sense is 'to mark or point out the similarities and differences of two or more things', compare may be construed either with with or to. Examples: (to) ... The gift of heaven, grace through virtue, is compared to the gift of nature—English World-Wide, 1987. ... (with) ... Isabella then compares Angelo's judgement [sic] with God's judgement [sic]—English World-Wide, 1987.

Besides, I'm not British.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

*shrug* What's your source? Mine's The New Fowler's Modern English Usage3rd ed.

Besides, I'm not British.

The Oxford if you don't mind!

As to the 2nd point... your loss (well partial loss maybe).

Regards

KR

[Affentitten]

The Oxford if you don't mind!

I'd rate Fowler's over Oxford when it comes to usage.