Hackneyed<\/p>\n
Hackney is now a district of London. In the Middle Ages, it was a village which lay near the river Lea but was separated from it by a large area of marshland. The area around Hackney was good-quality grassland, and became famous for the horses bred and pastured there. These were riding horses and, compared to war horses, \u2018normal\u2019 horses. Horses of this type came to be known as hackney horses<\/em>. Hackney horses were widely available and commonly seen. This is where the meaning of \u2018ordinary\u2019, \u2018common\u2019, \u2018uninteresting\u2019 derives from (\u201ca hackneyed phrase\u201d). The ordinariness being applied to women caused the word hackney-woman<\/em>, ‘prostitute’, to emerge. The horses which drew those carriages were often overworked. This is where the meaning of \u2018drudge\u2019 derives from (\u201cthe hackney of this office\u201d). This word, abbreviated to hack<\/em>, then came to refer to a writer who churns out lots of usually poor-quality texts (\u201cSunday newspaper hacks\u201d). As the hackney horses were often available for hire, the meaning gradually shifted from \u2018horses\u2019 to \u2018hire\u2019, and later came to be applied to the carriages drawn by these horses, and, later still, to carriages which were not even drawn by horses. The black London taxis are, to this day, officially known as hackney carriages<\/em>. (Quinion 2009: 133-6)<\/p>\n Half Hamster Hands, Lips, Noses Hardware Harem Hastings Hat Trick Have a chip on one’s shoulder Hello<\/p>\n Hello <\/em>was originally stressed on the second syllable. That is why it was rather difficult to represent the first vowel in writing. Variation was the consequence: besides hello<\/em>, hallo<\/em>, hullo<\/em>, hollo <\/em>and hillo <\/em>were found.\u00a0 By an odd coincidence (if it is one) hello <\/em>starts with an \/h\/, just like older forms of greeting: hey<\/em>, ho<\/em>, hal <\/em>and hail<\/em>. The modern word, hello<\/em>, caught on with the invention of the telephone. It became the standard form of greeting the caller. Recently, it has developed a new meaning, as an ironic attention-getting device: “I mean, hello, how crazy was that?” As a form of informal greeting, hello <\/em>is now quickly losing ground to an even simpler form: hi<\/em>. (Crystal 2012: 163-166)<\/p>\n History Hither<\/p>\n “Come hither, come hither, come hither” appears in the song “Under the Greenwood Tree” in As You Like It. <\/em>Shakespeare and his contemporaries made a distinction which later got lost, a distinction between here <\/em>(static) and hither <\/em>(dynamic), just as we still distinguish between hier <\/em>and hierher <\/em>in German. In contemporary English, the phrase come-hither look, <\/em>a seductive or flirtatious glance, is one of the few surviving uses of the word. (Ammer 2006: 78)<\/p>\n Hobson’s choice Home Honour How are you? How do you do? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Hackneyed Hackney is now a district of London. In the Middle Ages, it was a village which lay near the river Lea but was separated from it by a large area of marshland. The area around Hackney was good-quality grassland, … Continue reading
\nBoth the phrases half full and half empty describe the same objective state of affairs (cf. Hudson 2 1996: 255). This is a good example to show that language does not simply describe things as they are. It could also be argued that, because the speaker’s viewpoint is central in explaining the difference, the speaker must not be ignored in the analysis of language.<\/p>\n
\nSay hamster slowly and carefully. Then say hamster quickly several times in a row. Can you notice any difference? If you can, you may have found yourself doing what most native speakers would do in normal, casual speech: insert a \/p\/ where there was none before, insert a \/p\/ between \/m\/ and \/s\/ to make it sound like “hampster”. This will simply facilitate pronunciation. The articulators are moving from \/m\/, which is voiced and bilabial, to \/s\/, which is voiceless and alveolar. To make this easier, \/p\/ is included, which shares one characteristic with \/m\/ and another with \/s\/: it is bilabial and voiceless. Thus it can act as intermediary between them. Moreover, \/m\/ is nasal but \/s\/ is oral, and \/s\/ is coronal (i.e. produced with the front part of the tongue) but \/m\/ is not. Again, \/p\/ is exactly in the middle: it is oral like \/s\/ and not coronal like \/m\/. This is quite a complicated process, and, needless to say, native speakers do not do it deliberately (and may even deny they do it). But if enough speakers do it in a sufficient number of circumstances, it may actually become the norm and learnt as the canonical form. This is actually what has happened in bramble and the name Dempster. (McMahon 2002: 47-9)<\/p>\n
\nHow do you form the plural of hand, lip and nose ? You simply stick an \u2013s on the end. But do you? Things are more complicated than this if we consider pronunciation. All three forms are actually different. It is \/z\/ for hand, \/s\/ for lip and \/iz\/ for nose. This difference is not reflected in spelling. Here, all forms are the same. This illustrates an important principle of English spelling. It is not only phonological. If it were, we should spell handz, lips, noziz or something of the sort. But we don’t. The spelling signals: all these are plural forms, never mind the pronunciation. It shows what the forms have in common rather than what distinguishes them. The same rule applies for the Past Tense of verbs: answer\/ed, ask\/ed, want\/ed . And for the marker of the 3 rd person singular of verbs: answer\/s, ask\/s, raise\/s.<\/p>\n
\nLike most computer vocabulary, this is actually an old word with a new sense. It has been around for more than 200 years, referring to locks, scissors and other tools for use in the house or garden. Unlike hardware, software is a new word, coined in analogy with hardware. (Flavell & Flavell 3 2005: 289)<\/p>\n
\nEnglish has borrowed this word from Arabic. Other examples include giraffe, coffee, sheik . (Jucker 2000: 51)<\/p>\n
\nHastings is a name that almost everyone is familiar with who is dealing with English or England. But why is Hastings called Hastings? The ending – ing goes back to an Old English form meaning \u2018people of’. The original name of Hastings was H\u00e6stingas. We are therefore here dealing with the \u2018people of H\u00e6sta’. The same ending can be found in Barking, and, less conspicuously, also in Birmingham or Uppingham. (Crystal 2005: 68)<\/p>\n
\nThe word hat trick has two surprises in store when one looks into its origin: it was not originally used in football but in cricket, and it is really a hat which was involved. In the 19th century, a bowler who succeeded in taking three wickets with three consecutive balls could expect a reward, and this reward was usually \u2013 a hat! (Flavell & Flavell 3 2005: 217)<\/p>\n
\nIf you have a chip on your shoulder, you react the way you react as a result of a feeling of inferiority: \u2018She’s got a chip on her shoulder about not having gone to university’. Originally, the chips, which have now become metaphorical, were quite real! American boys in the province used to walk around with a chip of wood balanced on their shoulders as a sign of being ready to fight anyone who knocked off the chip. Linford Christie, the British athlete, was, in the words of a rival, the \u2018most balanced British runner’ because he had a chip on both shoulders! (Flavell & Flavell 3 2000: 51-2)<\/p>\n
\nHow many syllables are there in history? Normally, one would say three: hi-sto-ry. However, the schwa, the vowel of the middle syllable, is often deleted, i.e. it is not pronounced. This is an example of the process of elision, and in this case, elision results in the loss of a syllable, making it two. Other examples are flavouring, frightening, camera, awfully, specialist.<\/p>\n
\nIf you have Hobson’s choice, you have no choice at all. The idiom goes back to Thomas Hobson of Cambridge. He ran a livery stable and, in contrast to the tradition, did not allow his customers to choose their own horses. They had to take the horse nearest the stable door. Thus he ensured that every horse had to do its share and no horse was ridden too frequently. His name survives in the idiom and in a street name in Cambridge. (Flavell & Flavell 3 2000: 102)<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIs John home?\u201d can have two meanings in American English. It can either mean if John is in, or it can mean if John has returned home. But this is only the case in American English. In British English, it invariably has the second meaning, with the first being rendered as \u201cIs John at home?\u201d (cf. Trudgill\/Hannah 4 2002: 78)<\/p>\n
\nOddly, the word honour is derived from Latin honos. Then why is it not honous? The reason is that in classical Latin all other cases had \u2013r for \u2013s , e.g. honorem, honoris, and in later Latin the nominative was changed by analogy with these other cases into honor (Lyons 1981: 205). This is the process by which learners of English replace taught with *teached . They form it in analogy with reached or preached.<\/p>\n
\nHow much information does somebody want who asks you this question? In other words, what is an appropriate answer to this question? Probably most speakers just say \u201cFine, thanks\u201d, no matter how well they actually are. Or they may be varying this response with any of the other stock responses: \u201cNot too bad\u201d, \u201cAlright\u201d, etc. They may then go on to ask the other speaker how they are, like this: \u201cFine, thanks, how are you?\u201d, although some students tell me that some teachers tell them you are not even to ask back how the other speaker is, but my experience does not corroborate this. What is certain, however, is that nobody wants to be given a detailed account of the other’s present state of health. This is rather nicely summarised by this: \u201cDon’t talk about your indigestion, \u201cHow are you?\u201d is a greeting, not a question\u201d.<\/p>\n
\nA funny phrase. It is difficult to say what its actual meaning is. We know, of course, what its function is, and its function is, in a way, its meaning. Another particularity is that you respond to “How do you do?” saying “How do you do?” It is used less frequently now than it used to be and is sometimes considered to be typical of a certain class (upper middle to upper class). Other people say “Pleased to meet you” or simply “Hi”, both of which are sometimes felt to be American by British speakers. (Gramley\/P\u00e4tzold 1992: 58-60)<\/p>\n