"I am like"

[gxnn]

Face Mask and Free Gift

I'd like to further our discussion.

Currently many countries have been affected by the novel coronavirus and people are advised (not) to wear face masks.

Here is the question, why do we bother to put the word "face" before the word "mask", are there other places on human bodies that a mask is to be worn than the face? Isn't the word "face" redundant?

The same applies to "free gift" that can be seen in many shops. Are there any gifts that are not free or does one have to pay money for a gift? It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I'd like to further our discussion.

Currently many countries have been affected by the novel coronavirus and people are advised (not) to wear face masks.

Here is the question, why do we bother to put the word "face" before the word "mask", are there other places on human bodies that a mask is to be worn than the face? Isn't the word "face" redundant?

The same applies to "free gift" that can be seen in many shops. Are there any gifts that are not free or does one have to pay money for a gift? It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Custom, I suppose.

One can mask things of course, using ‘mask’ as a verb meaning to block, cover or hide. “I masked their view by closing the curtains,” is valid, even if not overly common. Paint stores sell ‘masking tape’, used to cover areas which are not to be painted.

As to ‘free gifts’, there is perhaps a hint there that no reciprocity is required. The giver of a birthday has some modest expectation of getting something in turn when his birthday comes around. But even that is a stretch; the phrase as used is, as you say, silly.

 

[twister947]

I, myself, prefer boneless ribs.

The language is full of this stuff.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'd like to further our discussion.

Currently many countries have been affected by the novel coronavirus and people are advised (not) to wear face masks.

Here is the question, why do we bother to put the word "face" before the word "mask", are there other places on human bodies that a mask is to be worn than the face? Isn't the word "face" redundant?

Some kinds of mask cover more than just the face. For instance, a fencing mask covers the entire head and neck. "Face mask" usually refers to a mask that only covers the face.

The same applies to "free gift" that can be seen in many shops. Are there any gifts that are not free or does one have to pay money for a gift? It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Often businesses will advertise so-called "gifts" that are only available with a purchase. For instance, from this site:

"Receive your complimentary 8-piece gift (valued at up to $230) when you spend $75 or more on Lancôme... Receive your 5-piece Abeille Royale gift when you spend $150 or more across the Guerlain range..." and so on.

"Free gift" is sometimes used to clarify that the gift doesn't require any kind of purchase.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

gxnn, there's an acronym, 'tanstaafl'. It comes, I think, from Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It stands for 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch'. It stems from an old saloon custom of advertising a 'free lunch' counter, where bread, cheese and cold-cuts would be laid out for customers. Of course, the cost of the food was built into the price of the beer, so lunch was hardly 'free'.

Tansthaafl - live it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Did they understand one another, though?



It's honest, though?

I don't always recognise hyperbole/figurative speech, so I quite appreciate it when people flag those non-literal remarks. If "like" makes it easier for them to do that, I'm all for it.

It's honest when one intentionally says X but means to communicate that X is not really what she means. Or when one is making a comparison.

But it's just imprecise and lazy when it becomes a reflexive substitute for "say." One is then showing that one is noncommittal about everything. That's fine in a teenager, but not, IMO, in an adult. Which is why it bugs when I hear adults, especially educated adults, use "like" and "you know" excessively and also use "upspeak" (i.e., where everything one says sounds like a question).

And don't get me started on vocal fry.

 

[Nubbin2Declare]

By now, you see that some are in favor of this usage, and others are against it.

You've had your explanation of its meaning, and there isn't any significant disagreement on that.

My recommendation, now that you know what it means when others say it, is that you never employ the usage yourself. It isn't effective, other than in causing others to question the storyteller's maturity and intelligence.

Even if you want to pepper your conversation with it over drinks with friends, never use it in a professional setting.

 

[gxnn]

An expression I want to know about

I have checked many sources to no avail, so I come here to see whether anybody could give a hand, not a handjob, haha.

In China, a building of residents are usually divided by different staircases or lifts into smaller units and people living in the same unit or they come in and go out of the same entrance, so how do you describe such a phenomenon? What do you call these smaller units of the building which cover all floors from the ground floor to the top? We call it in Chinese 单元 or Danyuan (meaning unit). For example, he and I live in the same unit, meaning we live in the same unit but perhaps at different floor. Hong Kong people may use the word block, like Block A, Block B, but I am not sure.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

'Unit' works, although quite often such subdivided portions of the same building are given a different street number.

 

[Suzie85]

I would say - we live in the same block of flats.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I would say - we live in the same block of flats.

The term is of course familiar, but help me hone my understanding, please.

Think of a structure, one large large building from the outside but with interior walls separating into distinct areas, so that one cannot go from one to another without going outside and going in another door. Would that be the same thing?

 

[Suzie85]

The term is of course familiar, but help me hone my understanding, please.

Think of a structure, one large large building from the outside but with interior walls separating into distinct areas, so that one cannot go from one to another without going outside and going in another door. Would that be the same thing?

No, living in the same block of flats implies a shared building entrance. Each household dwelling would have their own front door but would share a common building entrance. What you describe could possibly be a set of terraced houses.

Actually reading back, I probably misunderstood what you wrote. Over here, people sharing a building would have the same address but their individual dwelling might be denoted by a letter eg 22f Brown Street, or its position (more unusual) eg 22 Brown Street 2/3 (second floor, 3rd door from left).

 

[twister947]

"on accident"
Now, there's one to chew on...

 

[Nubbin2Declare]

What you describe is a "duplex."

 

[LWulf]

What you describe is a "duplex."

You mean a "mother/daughter house"?

 

[Nubbin2Declare]

I would not call it that, but maybe. One unit on top of the other, with a shared basement for laundry and storage may be called that. "In-law apartments" or "in-law 2-flat" are other expressions.

The word duplex refers to housing units that share one set of exterior walls, and the two units are usually side-by-side, not one on top of the other.

If what you have are two housing units with floor plans that are mirror images of each other, one next to the other, "duplex" would be the most specific and appropriate term in real estate. It's the type of building.

The term you used and the "in-law" terms I offered are more about who is living there than they are about the structure itself.

 

[LWulf]

I would not call it that, but maybe. One unit on top of the other, with a shared basement for laundry and storage may be called that. "In-law apartments" or "in-law 2-flat" are other expressions.

The word duplex refers to housing units that share one set of exterior walls, and the two units are usually side-by-side, not one on top of the other...

Depends on what part of what country you're in. 'Round these parts, by definition, a mother/daughter house is two adjoined houses with separate entrances. While a "duplex" could refer to what in other parts of the country as a "townhouse." All appropriate terms by real estate definition.

However, in this country, we also have a term for wide open clearings called "everglades." Any other english-speaking country, they'd call it a swamp, because a "glade" is a clearing in a forest, in the center of which is a pond. Since the "pond" in a "everglade" extends entirely past the treeline around it...
In the same state, they also quibble that an orchard is a tree farm, whereas a grove is where oranges are grown. While both orchards and groves are simply defined as a tree-fruit bearing farm.

While working in a shipyard, I learned a "floor" is a vertical surface between one area, and a "wet" compartment.
While working as a mapper at a power authority, I learned a "curb-cock" is an underground gas valve located by the street.
I've worked in industries where the same term is contrary to the other industry, and both usages defy literary definition.

All of which comes back to vernacular, which is the basis of the thread. That which is said or used, and is contrary to proper literary definition. I'm not a fan. In my world view, the same term should be proper an applicable cross-industry and continental boundaries. But I live in the real world where things are messy, unrealistic, and quite illogical.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Duplex

What you describe is a "duplex."

Okay. In my area, two one-family units under the same roof would be a ‘duplex’ provided they both had separate entrances. Like ‘row housing’, but just two units.

 

[gxnn]

Long time no see.

Recently I was watching the old movie "Beauty and the Beast", the title was translated into Chinese as "a beautiful girl and a beast", but I doubt it is correct, because:

First, the structure of these two words are not the same, there is no "the" before the word "beauty" in the original;

Second, according to the content of the film, the beast is a prince and the enchantress wants him to know the beauty inside a human by turning him into an ugly beast. So the title should have meant "beauty" that is the quality and the beast that is the outcome of the magic spell.

But the above is my understanding only, which might be very absurd, I would like to hear the opinions of native speakers, thank you.