Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 November 26

= November 26 =

Waiting on someone
In American English my perception is that in all regions one can say that a waiter is "waiting on" a customer, meaning "serving". If you are awaiting someone (or something), in much of the country you are "waiting for" the person, but some places (notably in (some parts of? all of?) the South) you are "waiting on" someone, so "waiting on" has two distinct meanings depending on context. (For example, at Walmart stores apparently everywhere in the US, the credit card machine is "waiting on signature confirmation" meaning "awaiting" it; Walmart originated in Arkansas in the South.)

(1) What are the geographical distributions of "waiting on" and "waiting for" meaning awaiting (both in and outside the US), and to what extent do the regions overlap? (2) What is the historical background of the difference? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Texas at least has "waiting on" meaning "awaiting" ("I'm not waitin' on a lady, I'm just waitin' on a friend"). I don't know the origin for sure, but I have long suspected it originated with German settlers mistranslating warten auf into English. Angr (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a Texas native "waitin' fer a lady" would be much more natural. In many Southern dialects we do still say "awaitin'" but it has been broadened to many other verbs. E.g., "I'm a'goin' t'the store;" "Muh cousins're a'comin' t'church;" "We're a'eatin supper later." Some of these dialects replace the [ʌ] suffix just mentioned with more of a [ɾ]. To answer the question completely, though: "Waitin' on..." would need to imply an action on the part of the object, e.g., "I'm a'waitin' (or er'waitin') on thuh lady's call." This later rule reminds me of the influence of the Czech Declension in Central Texas. 129.120.4.8 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably mean "Czech declension".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What influence has Czech declension had on Central Texas? As for the a- in a-goin'  and a-comin' , that's something different: await has the a- in all forms, not just the participles. Angr (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit of a red herring I believe; "await (verb): early 13th century, awaiten, from Old Norman French awaitier". Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like with German warten auf, Czech čekat na někoho/co could also be mistranslated as "wait on" rather than "wait for", as the preposition "na" can mean either. But this has nothing to do really with declension. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of wait on to mean "await" is obsolete according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which offers some citations dating to the 17th century, so I don't think German settlers were the original source of that form in America. On the other hand, German settlers may have preferred that form to wait for, which could account for its survival in areas of heavy German settlement. According to this source, the form wait on (meaning "await") is especially prevalent in the US South and Midwest.  It would be interesting to know if it is most prevalent in parts of the South with heavy German settlement, such as central Texas, Missouri, or Kentucky.  Marco polo (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This use of "wait on" is still common in Scottish English - eg Miliband waiting on poll result from the The Herald (Glasgow). Tevildo (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The preposition in Southern American English changes based on whether the it modifies the object or subject and whether it is active or not. As far as other influences from Czech culture in Texas just grab a Shiner Bock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.8 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Functionally, I don't think that these are really prepositions, but rather verbal particles. See Phrasal verb.  The verb in question is wait on or wait for, and it is in effect transitive.  What looks like the object of the preposition is really the object of the transitive verb. When someone says, referring to a man waiting at a bus station for a friend who has not yet arrived, "He's waiting on his friend", how can you argue that the preposition modifies either the subject or the object?  You can't because on, in some other contexts a preposition, is really part of the verb.  Marco polo (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's right, "wait on" and "wait for" are phrasal verbs, not involving a preposition. Anyway, prepositions don't modify a subject or object. And the article Shiner Bock describes a German influence, not a Czech influence. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In America, "to wait on" usually means to serve, while "to wait for" means to expect. But in NYC you will frequently hear "waiting on someone" to mean "waiting for someone".  This usage is found in the quintessentially American Rolling Stones song, "Waiting on a Friend", which is set in Manhattan. (New York City resindents also say "to stand on line" when the rest of America says "to stand in line"--meaning a queue in British usage. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I grew up in a Long Island suburb (heterogeneous in ethnicity and social class) with kids most of whose parents had moved there from New York City. My own family had lived in the region for several generations. Wait on in the sense of "await" is definitely not part of the regional dialect, at least for white residents. It's possible that this form is used by African Americans in the region (most of whose families arrived from the South during the 20th century). I'm not familiar enough with African American speech in New York to be sure about that. It's also possible that some hipsters in Lower Manhattan or Brooklyn, having migrated there from the South or Midwest, use this version of wait on. However, I am fairly sure that wait on in this sense is not typical of the New York regional dialect. The Rolling Stones, of course, are English and hardly experts on the New York regional dialect. You are correct, though, about "stand on line" versus "stand in line".  Marco polo (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It amounts to OR, but "what are you waiting on" is certainly used to mean the same thing as "what are you waiting for" in NYC in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan. Never hung out with the Keneddies, so can't say what a certain class of white folk from the Upper East Side say.   No, the Stones video was not offered as proof, but it is a favorite of mine, so any excuse.  They don't say "waiting on" for await in South Jersey either--but I am not sure 'people whose parents are from NYC' count as speakers of the NYC dialect.  You don't hear Lawng Guyland in NYC either (outside certain limited neighborhoods). μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, we've already had the discussion that the a- prefix often means on. Wonder what the OE says about await. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Medeis, I could believe that waiting on is used this way in African American communities in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. My family and the other white families who settled my midbrow Long Island suburb were not from the Upper East Side - Hamptons echelon.  Many families in fact came from lower middle class neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn that are now largely African American. Others came from "better" but still not elite neighborhoods such as Park Slope. You must know that speech patterns in the United States (especially in the former industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest) vary a lot by race.  African American speech tends to be different from that of white people in the same region but similar to African American speech in the parts of the South from which a region's African American population migrated 45-80 years ago.  (In New York's case, that is largely from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.)  So you can't generalize about a regional dialect in the United States based on the speech of African Americans in the region.  Marco polo (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems "wait on" could also be a shortening of "wait upon," which could mean either serve, or wait for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * American blacks have been a minority of under 15% in most of the neighborhoods I have lived in in New York; Inwood, Riverdale, (hispanic and working class white [(Irish, Italian, Greek, Jewish) and Mott Haven and University heights (90% Hispanic). I won't speculate on the ultimate origins of the phrase, but there's nothing particularly black about it.  It's in free variation and not marked in any was as far as I can tell, as opposed to things like final consonant devoicing which is much more frequent in black and black-influenced Latino speech.  You'll certainly hear it from whites downtown, in the village, and on either side of central park unless they are very new immigrants from outside the city, and the blacks you hear it from won't otherwise sound like southerners.
 * To hear "wait upon" would be rare and most likely mean serve, or at best waiting upon a train arrival. I wouldn't expect it to be used meaning to await a person although it would be understood in context. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to MarcoPolo for this source. It says ''according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, “wait on” is “most strongly identified” with speakers in the South and the Midwest, though plenty of Northerners use it too. In fact, “wait on and wait for cannot be accurately characterized as dialectal, colloquial, regional, or substandard,” M-W says....Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) has an interesting thought: “One reason for the continuing use of wait on may lie in its being able to suggest protracted or irritating waits better than wait for.”...The idea that irritation may be at work here makes sense to us, and it’s likely to strike a chord with anybody who has sat for 45 minutes in a medical office, waiting on the doctor … and on and on.''

That's something that hadn't occurred to me -- that wait on may not mean exactly the same thing as wait for, since wait on may (always??) have negative connotations about the waiting. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since my time in the New York region finished three decades ago, if what Medeis says is true, then this usage of wait on has expanded dramatically among white New Yorkers over the past three decades, from rare to common. That kind of expansion has not happened in eastern Massachusetts, where I now live and where none of the locals uses wait on this way (just as none of the locals in New York did when I grew up there). I wonder what would explain that shift in New York?  Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was born in and went to college in the greater NYC Metro area, and lived in NYC proper for the last two decades plus. I naturally speak with a South Jersey accent of my public school days, but do code shift when speaking to New Yorkers, and "wait on" is an expression that I noticed as New Yorkist with a lot of other things like "wait on line"--which is not in free variation.  That being said, Duo's comment on Marco's source is correct, both terms are used, and "wait on" has the greater negative connotation, which is what I was getting at when I said "what are you waiting on" in my example above.  "Waiting on line" may be an interfering influence here. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Stiff cards
Regarding a book, what does mean stiff cards ?

Cartes rigides, the translation I got either on reverso or bing, does not mean anything for a book ;-(

Thanks a looot in advance ;-)  --Bibliorock (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a sentence (in English or French) where you have seen the phrase used? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just found it inside the description of a book, following the number of pages. Rather fluent in English and since I've been a... book biblographer for the last 25 years, I'm simply hurt that I have forgotten the tranlation, sorry (would I become... an antique ? ;-) --Bibliorock (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the reference is to the book's covers, it usually means that the book's covers are a cardboard that is heavier and less bendable than the covers of the average paperback book. Spiral-bound books, for instance, often have stiff-card covers. Deor (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking too. Bookbinding mentions the "cardboard article", essentially a paperback book but with stiff cardboard covers. Angr (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm think it's probably a reference to the pages -- it means the pages are made of rigid cardboard rather than paper. Although Deor is right that it could refer to the covers alone. Looie496 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * geee... in other words, it could either be a paperback book w/ a stiff cover, or a spiral-bound w/ a transparent rhodoïd cover... exactly like my Bibliorock book ;-) (http://bibliorock.canalblog.com  it's too tempting/attractive, I did not mean to, but I couldn't hold out... will u forgive me ? ;-) --Bibliorock (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen this description used in used book listings and it applies to certain types of books that would usually be described as paperbacks, but which have much stiffer covers. I have various books from Spain in Castilian and Catalan with this sort of cover.  I find it extremely annoying because one cannot bend them as one would a paperback nor lay them flat as one would a hardcover. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merci à tous et... bonne journée (ou nuit) / Thanks to all of u and... have a nice day (or night) --Bibliorock (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)