April 10, 2021 @ 5:56 am · Filed by Mark Liberman under Linguistics in the comics
« previous post | next post »
Yesterday's Pearls Before Swine:
Today's strip:
April 10, 2021 @ 5:56 am · Filed by Mark Liberman under Linguistics in the comics
Powered By WordPress
Philip Taylor said,
April 10, 2021 @ 6:16 am
How odd that the grammarian picks up on "alright" [1], which I would allow without a murmur, yet fails to pick up on "yeah" which I regard as an abomination (along with "gonna", "wanna", etc).
——–
[1] Attested even as far back as Old English :
[(myl) I understand that you like not the last few centuries of changes, especially those taking place in the New World. But is your revulsion aimed at pronunciation, or at orthographic concessions to pronunciation? If the latter, how do you feel about don't, won't, etc.? (See e.g. here for some contraction history…)
There's some evidence that things like (what is now spelled) "shoulda" existed in Shakespeare's time. But in any case, wanna/gonna etc. have become ubiquitous in high-status formal American speech, as in the pronunciation of NPR radio hosts (though the orthographic forms are still consider informal). So on this side of the Atlantic, you're fated to put up with abominations — though I guess you could stay in your cellar and avoid listening.
As for yeah, it's an American variant of "yea", about which the OED says:
Origin: A word inherited from Germanic.
Etymology: Cognate with Old Frisian gē , jē , jā , dziē (West Frisian ja ), Middle Dutch ja (Dutch ja ), Old Saxon jā (Middle Low German jā ), Old High German jā , ja (Middle High German jā , German ja ), Old Icelandic já , Old Swedish iā , ia (Swedish ja ), Old Danish ia (Danish ja ), Gothic ja , jai ; further etymology unknown (attempts to establish an etymological connection with particles and interjections of similar form in other Indo-European languages are very uncertain).
]
Andreas Johansson said,
April 10, 2021 @ 6:57 am
@Philip Taylor:
"Gonna" and "wanna" should of course be "going to" and "want to" in Proper English™, but what's the Proper equivalent of "yeah"? Or is the word simply taboo?
(Once upon a time I assumed "yeah" was to be taken as a variant of "yes", but L1 speakers poured scorn on that idea.)
Philip Taylor said,
April 10, 2021 @ 7:29 am
Well, I am an L1 speaker (but only one amongst over 250 million, so statistically insignificant) and my understanding of the semantics of "yeah" is that "yeah" is to "yes" as "wanna" is to "want to" and "gonna" is to "going to" — all are informal, spoken, forms that have no place in written English unless the intent is to reproduce, as far as possible [1], the exact sound made by the speaker rather than his/her intended meaning.
——–
[1] "As far as possible" without the use of the IPA or similar.
Phillip Helbig said,
April 10, 2021 @ 7:49 am
@Philip Taylor: Yeah. :-|
Philip Taylor said,
April 10, 2021 @ 9:07 am
(A personal response to Mark) — There is an element of truth in all of your assertions, but the primary motivation for my dislike of "yeah", "gonna", "wanna" and their ilk is that, even at the age of 74, I can recall with perfect clarity how my teachers would have reacted had I been sufficiently misguided to use such pronunciations in their hearing. It would have been along the lines of the following :
The very thought of their admonitions still sends cold shivers down my spine. Life was simpler then — there was correct English, and there was incorrect English, and we were taught to differentiate between the two. And even though they would not have suggested that we consult Strunk and White in order to learn the difference, they would nonetheless have found much to admire in The Elements of Style, and little to criticise.
Victor Mair said,
April 10, 2021 @ 9:43 am
Out of the world's approximately 7.8 billion inhabitants, 1.35 billion speak English. The majority aren't native English speakers, however. About 360 million people speak English as their first language. Mar 10, 2021
https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-english-and-where-is-it-spoken
David Marjanović said,
April 10, 2021 @ 10:13 am
In my limited experience, Britons say gonna & wanna as often as Americans. They're just much more reluctant to write them.
Levantine said,
April 10, 2021 @ 11:07 am
Yeah, this Brit is gonna have to disagree with pretty much everything stated above by my countryman.
R. Fenwick said,
April 10, 2021 @ 11:53 am
@Philip Taylor: the primary motivation for my dislike of "yeah", "gonna", "wanna" and their ilk is that, even at the age of 74, I can recall with perfect clarity how my teachers would have reacted had I been sufficiently misguided to use such pronunciations in their hearing
So because linguistically-untrained school teachers several decades ago bullied your pronunciation into submission, in a manner that you openly confess still causes you discomfort to think about even now, you consider it right to perpetuate what they taught – by now easily two generations out of date – unquestioningly? In my native Australian English vernacular: yeah nah, soz, bit dog of ya but. Or, in African American English vernacular: ain't nobody got time for that.
In seriousness now, as a professional academic and dilettante linguist I absolutely understand that sociolinguistic register is a thing, and plays important social signalling roles in society, for better or for worse. But it strikes me as pretty grim that you're comfortable speaking of a mere "yeah" as an "abomination" (your word), but don't mention the genuine abomination of whole-heartedly promulgating outdated, imperious, classist, and from your account, outright abusive prescriptivism that was largely made up out of whole cloth even when it was still fresh.
Life was simpler then — there was correct English, and there was incorrect English, and we were taught to differentiate between the two.
Life was simpler when atoms were thought to be indivisible, as well. But we've known better for many decades now. As also with this idea of "correct" and "incorrect" English. If "life was simpler then", it was not because necessarily better, but very often it was simpler because our explanatory models were inferior, incomplete, uninformed, superficial, biased, or just outright wrong.
And even though they would not have suggested that we consult Strunk and White in order to learn the difference, they would nonetheless have found much to admire in The Elements of Style, and little to criticise.
I just bet they would. But confirmation bias is an extraordinary and insidious beast; the presumable affection your old teachers would have for Strunk and White's approach goes precisely no distance towards proving either your teachers or Strunk and White right in their imperious approaches.
Geoff Pullum has torn enough new orifices in Elements that no rehashing is necessary, but it certainly seems to me that as richly complex a phenomenon as language is better served by up-to-date and evidence-based approaches with appropriate input from sociology and anthropology, not by subjective received "wisdom". The wonderful comedienne Anna Russell once said of Wagner's Ring that analyses of the plot were usually given by some "Great Expert" for the edification of other "Great Experts", and much English prescriptivist grammar peevery seems similar to me, in practice seeking not just to standardise but to homogenise the Educated™ language, with little apparent goal beyond perpetuating the existence of Educated™ people. Certainly much of it has no clear linguistic purpose.
Trogluddite said,
April 10, 2021 @ 12:15 pm
@Philip Taylor: 'How odd that the grammarian picks up on "alright"'
I'm pretty sure that's an intentional part of the joke. Unlike "yeah"/yes", the pair "alright"/"all right" cannot be distinguished by pronounciation. The basement grammarian is only able to spot the "error" if he is aware of the orthography of the speech bubbles. So the second strip introduces an element not present in the first; the hermit is "breaking the fourth wall" (or whatever the cartoon equivalent of that theatrical idiom might be).
Terry Hunt said,
April 10, 2021 @ 2:32 pm
@ Philip Taylor — In any case ". . . informal, spoken, forms that have no place in written English unless the intent is to reproduce, as far as possible . . . the exact sound made by the speaker rather than his/her intended meaning."
That is precisely what the intention is in this case. The (admittedly fable-istic) characters in this strip represent the sort of (realer?) people that do speak in this style, at least in an informal or unconsidered situation which, again, is exactly what is being portrayed. I speak thus myself, even though (as an English ex-public schoolboy) I would not do so if delivering a public lecture or speech.
Philip Taylor said,
April 10, 2021 @ 2:59 pm
In that case, Terry, is not the cartoon inconsistent in its treatment of Rat's idiolect ? In strip 1, frame 3, Rat says "Grammarian just need deep dark holes from which they can judge all of our failings". Note "from which". Now would a rat who uses "Yeah" in preference to "Yes" at S2F1 not have said at S1F3 "Grammarian just need deep dark holes they can judge all our failings from" ?
Jerry Friedman said,
April 10, 2021 @ 3:15 pm
R. Fenwick: In my native Australian English vernacular: yeah nah, soz, bit dog of ya but. Or, in African American English vernacular: ain't nobody got time for that.
The Aussie one is certainly an argument for standard English for communicating between speech communities. "Nah" seems more likely to be "now" than "no", and I have a vague memory that "soz" is "sorry", but neither of those guesses helps much. After that I recognize the words, but.
I imagine that particular AAVE sentence is more widely understandable.
Jerry Packard said,
April 10, 2021 @ 3:23 pm
When Paul McCartney's dad first heard the ‘yeah, yeah, yeah' of 'She Loves You', presented by Paul and John, he said to them: ‘Oh, that’s very good, son. But there’s just one thing. Couldn’t you sing, “She loves you, yes, yes, yes?" He said, ‘There’s enough of these Americanisms around.’ Paul and John responded, ‘No, sorry Dad,’ it’s got to be ‘yeah, yeah, yeah.'
D.O. said,
April 10, 2021 @ 4:27 pm
Jerry Packard, a great story. I was gon[na]ing to write a sarcastic comment about recording (on paper) this very line with "yes, yes, yes". I've never dreamed of suggesting to alter how it's sung. Thanks!
Brett said,
April 10, 2021 @ 8:16 pm
On grammarians needing deep dark holes.
Terry Hunt said,
April 10, 2021 @ 10:16 pm
Not necessarily, Philip. I myself tend to use forms like ". . . from which . . ." rather than ". . . from." even in less than formal conversation (I am, in fact, noted for it amongst my friends). At the same time, I also tend to say "Yeah" or even "Yep" (once, I was surprised to find, when making a formal statement to a policeman – I only found out when he read back his transcript).
However, both of us are viewing this from a rather Britocentric perspective, when the cartoon is written by a Californian – and ex-lawyer, which may have some bearing on his characters' mock-formal language.
Michael Watts said,
April 11, 2021 @ 4:51 am
In this case, I'd have to agree with Philip Taylor: I am an L1 speaker, and I'm quite confused over how "yeah" could be characterized other than as the equivalent of "yes".
Christopher Buckey said,
April 11, 2021 @ 5:44 am
"The equivalent of" is not the same as "a variant of".
Christopher Buckey said,
April 11, 2021 @ 5:54 am
"The equivalent of" is not the same as "a variant of". As an example, aspartame is treated as an equivalent sweetener to cane sugar, but it's absolutely not a variant of the latter.
Philip Taylor said,
April 11, 2021 @ 6:27 am
To follow up on Michael's point, and despite my tending to think of the OED as authoritative in all matters lexicographic, I am very dubious of their proposed etymology for "yeah".
With the exception of town criers and Parliamentary procedure, "yea" (/jeɪ/) fell into disuse in Britain around 150 years ago, and I cannot imagine that it remained in use in the United States for significantly longer. "Yes", on the other hand, remains in universal use to this day, and — OED notwithstanding — I cannot help but feel that "yeah", with an /eə/ vowel, is far more likely to derive from "yes" (with an /e/ vowel) than from "yea" (with an /eɪ/). Indeed, John Wells' LPD says of "yes" 'Casual variants include yah, yeah, yep, yup'.
David Morris said,
April 11, 2021 @ 7:46 am
To my reading, these two strips are not about grammar and grammarians at all. If the word 'grammarical' actually exists, there's no doubt that it's an adjective, and Rat is using it as such, and there's not doubt as to what he means. It may be a poor choice of word, but it's not ungrammatical. Similarly, 'all right' and 'alright' are interchangeable in most contexts and the choice of one of style, not grammar.
I have never knowingly met a grammarian, but I assume that they don't correct people even while on the job, and certainly not at parties. I would also assume that grammarians love parties because of the variety of language in use. If I was* a grammarian, I would encourage people to talk a lot, then retreat to the toilet to take notes (* informal style – see GCEL p 86).
Rodger C said,
April 11, 2021 @ 8:13 am
Oh dear, Philip said "dubious of," a clear example of linguistic degeneracy in the form of "creeping 'of'."
bks said,
April 11, 2021 @ 8:15 am
My well-educated British cousins invariably use the grunt "ta" in place of "thank you" when thanking wait staff. Thank goodness this abomination has not yet crossed the Atlantic.
Philip Taylor said,
April 11, 2021 @ 8:43 am
Rodger — "dubious of" is indeed worthy of criticism, and I stand abased, but it is interesting to note that two centuries ago "dubious of" was the norm and "dubious about" its poor relation. They have since changed places (see Google Ngrams).
BKS — your well-educated British cousins do not thank "wait staff", they thank waiters and waitresses. We don't have "wait staff" in this country, thank God.
david said,
April 11, 2021 @ 9:02 am
I accept “yeah” as a part of my L1 AmEng. However I rarely use it. I think that is because I associate it with “Oh yeah?” used confrontationally and the response “Yeah” indicating a willingness to fight. Even without the “Oh yeah” “Yeah” often seems to imply “You’ve interrupted me, what do you want ?”
Gregory Kusnick said,
April 11, 2021 @ 9:32 am
We don't have "wait staff" in this country, thank God.
Googling "wait staff UK" turns up numerous references to "wait staff" and "waiting staff" in British publications.
Philip Taylor said,
April 11, 2021 @ 9:51 am
Googling "wait staff uk" as you suggest, Gregory, I get exactly six hits. Googling "<the infamous n-word> uk throws up over 4000 hits, but use of the n-word is as rare or rarer in Britain than it is in the United States.
"Don't have" may be a slight exaggeration, but they are still a tiny minority, and those who refer to them as such are also very much in the minority. Google Ngrams indicates the relative frequencies as found in British books, which of course lag behind real life but are nonetheless reasonably indicative of the relative prevalence of the terms,
Levantine said,
April 11, 2021 @ 12:09 pm
Michael Watts, the two words really aren’t interchangeable. Take my comment above, where only “yeah” carries the intended meaning; “yes” wouldn’t have worked at all.
Levantine said,
April 11, 2021 @ 12:16 pm
This discussion is getting silly. Why criticise an American poster’s use of an American idiom, i.e. “wait staff”?
Philip Taylor said,
April 11, 2021 @ 1:06 pm
No criticism intended, Levantine — merely a correction. BKS's well-educated British cousins do not walk on a sidewalk, drive an automobile, cross a median on a highway or say 'ta' to wait staff. They are British.
Levantine said,
April 11, 2021 @ 1:17 pm
Philip Taylor, by that logic, it would be incorrect of you to say that a New Yorker takes the lift up to their flat. Would you, as a Briton, Americanise your vocabulary when discussing Americans? That makes absolutely no sense to me, nor does your own posting history suggest that you would shift registers in this way.
Philip Taylor said,
April 11, 2021 @ 2:07 pm
Touché ☺
Terry Hunt said,
April 11, 2021 @ 4:32 pm
In any case, I must disagree vehemently with " BKS's well-educated British cousins do not . . . say 'ta' to wait staff. They are British.
I have frequently heard BrE speakers from all walks of life use "Ta" for "Thanks" in relaxed circumstances (and do so myself). Context is key: one would not use it while,for example, taking afternoon tea in Harrods or one's London Club, but would if being served a pie and chips in a greasy spoon – one adjusts one's register to suit one's surroundings. Perhaps Philip does not patronise (at least in one sense) any establishments where the napkins are made of paper, in which he is missing out on a rich stratum of life.
Philip Taylor said,
April 11, 2021 @ 6:47 pm
Apologies, Terry, I clearly failed to explain myself properly. The statement was not that they "do not say 'ta'" — it was that they would not say 'ta' to wait staff, simply because the latter are virtually unknown in the UK. They might well say 'ta' to waiters and waitresses, an expression that my own maternal grandfather would almost certainly have used in such a situation, although my paternal grandfather would have used a more refined version such as the canonical 'thank you'. As to myself, I have eaten pie, mash and liquor many times in London establishments that specialise in such dishes, but my own upbringing would have ensured that I said 'thank you', not 'ta'.
maidhc said,
April 11, 2021 @ 6:49 pm
As a native English speaker, I've always assumed that "yeah" was a variant of "yes". Similarly with "yup". "Nope" and "nah" on the negative side. Each has slightly different implications, depending on the way you say it. I use of all six of them, depending on the circumstances.
A long drawn-out "nah" is quite a different thing than a clipped "nope".
"Yea" sounds to me like something from Shakespeare or the King James Bible. I can't imagine it used in everyday speech, even in the 19th century.
Jerry Packard's story reminds me of the Peter Sellers version.
Josh R said,
April 11, 2021 @ 8:17 pm
I'm hesitant to send this, given that Mr. Taylor's posts have become indistinguishable from trolling, but here goes.
"With the exception of town criers and Parliamentary procedure, "yea" (/jeɪ/) fell into disuse in Britain around 150 years ago, and I cannot imagine that it remained in use in the United States for significantly longer. "
Given that the earliest written attestation for "yeah" dates to 1863, I think your imagination is mistaken.
""Yes", on the other hand, remains in universal use to this day, and — OED notwithstanding — I cannot help but feel that "yeah", with an /eə/ vowel, is far more likely to derive from "yes" (with an /e/ vowel) than from "yea" (with an /eɪ/).""
"Yea" had an /e/ vowel for far longer than it's had an /ei/. It's really ridiculous at this point. "Yea" has been a part of English for as long as there's been an English, "yes" as a universal affirmative post-dates colonization of the New World, and /j/+/back vowel sound/ as the primary affirmative is part of every Germanic language, but "yeah" can't be an American variant of "yea," it's got to be Americans failing to say, "yes." The lengths some of our linguistic cousins go to maintain perceived linguistic purity and superiority has gotten pretty pathetic. No, I correct myself: It has been pathetic for as long as there's been an America.
Levantine said,
April 11, 2021 @ 11:13 pm
Wait staff are no more unknown in the UK than pavements, loo rolls, and washing-up liquid are in the US. Philip Taylor, you've already acknowledged that your position is illogical in light of my earlier response to you, so why are you continuing to pretend that there is anything the least bit objectionable about what bks wrote?
I hate to say it, but we really do appear to have entered trolling territory, as Josh R has already noted.
Levantine said,
April 12, 2021 @ 12:53 am
Apparently, the UK does now have "waiting staff". A sign of creeping Americanisation? Heaven forfend!
https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/waiting-staff
https://www.youthemployment.org.uk/careers-hub-job-role/waiting-staff/
Doug Marmion said,
April 12, 2021 @ 1:18 am
Aha, this makes me think of the story about Sidney Morgenbesser. When linguistic philosopher J. L. Austin made the claim in a lecture that although a double negative in English implies a positive meaning, there is no language in which a double positive implies a negative. Morgenbesser responded in a dismissive tone, "Yeah, yeah." I don't think this would work with "Yes, yes."
Philip Taylor said,
April 12, 2021 @ 2:33 am
No trollery intended, Levantine, any more than criticism was intended. I did indeed earlier acknowledge that my position was untenable, but as Terry had misunderstood the point that I was light-heartedly seeking to make, I thought it worth explaining.
What I do find odd, tho', is Josh's suggestion that I was saying « "yeah" can't be an American variant of "yea," it's got to be Americans failing to say, "yes" ». "Yeah" is attested in spoken British English just as it is in American, so my comments had nothing whatsoever to do with the nationality of the speaker. The expression, at least in British English speech, exemplifies what my teachers would have termed 'lazy speech' — failure to gives each letter[1] its proper value, as in /dʒɪw/ for "Jill", /ˈbɒʔəw/ for "bottle"[2], and /jeə/ for "yes". Or for that matter, /ˈtʃuːz deɪ/ for "Tuesday" and /fink/ for "think".
——–
[1] We were primary school children, so our teachers would have spoken in terms of letters rather than of phonemes or phones.
[2] I am genuinely horrified that some teachers of English as a 2nd language believe that it is essential to teach the production and use of the glottal stop. Demoticisation gone mad,
Levantine said,
April 12, 2021 @ 3:47 am
Why the (nonstandard) spelling pronunciation of "though"?
Philip Taylor said,
April 12, 2021 @ 6:06 am
MW says (in 'Tho' vs. 'Though' and 'Thru' vs. 'Through': Usage Guide)
While never extremely common, 'tho' and 'thru' have a long history of occasional use as spelling variants of though and through. Their greatest popularity occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when their adoption was advocated by spelling reformers. Their current use occurs chiefly in informal writing (as in personal letters) and in some technical journals".
I add the apostrophe for exactly the same reason as I use it in 'bus and 'phone — to indicate that the word as written is incomplete, in that one or more letters have been omitted. "Thru" I would not use, as it would require two apostrophes (Thr'u').
Rodger C said,
April 12, 2021 @ 7:05 am
In my private notes I generally write tho' and thro'.
Kristian said,
April 12, 2021 @ 9:23 am
These strips aren't very funny (or clever, etc.) – in my opinion, obviously, but I would be interested if anyone disagrees.
Kate Bunting said,
April 12, 2021 @ 11:17 am
Town criers? They didn't say "O yea" but "Oyez" (Hear me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyez
Philip Taylor said,
April 12, 2021 @ 12:09 pm
You may well be correct, Kate, but all those whom I have heard (Royal Tunbridge Wells being the most recent) cry out /oʊˈjeɪ/, and I am not convinced that one can know from the sound alone whether it is actually "O yea" or "Oyez" that they are crying.
Terry K. said,
April 12, 2021 @ 10:04 pm
Quite simply (IMO), Britain does have wait staff, and plastic silverware, if one is speaking or writing a variety of English where those are the terms, even a British person (or someone speaking British English) wouldn't use those terms.
(And, Philip Taylor, no need to tell me you think the phrase "plastic silverware" is an abomination.)
Terry K. said,
April 13, 2021 @ 10:49 am
Correction on above… "…even if a British person…wouldn't use those terms."
Eric Vinyl said,
April 13, 2021 @ 4:03 pm
Many Americans (even/especially play‐by‐play announcers) feel the nigh‐inexplicable need to briticize their vocabulary when discussing soccer, despite playing the game for over a century on their own shores; despite having a pro league that included Pelé, Johan Cruyff, and Giorgio Chinaglia; despite having played in the first World Cup; despite beating the English national team (not “side”) in their first World Cup; despite the fact that England has (not “have”) not won a World Cup in over 50 years.
Richard said,
April 13, 2021 @ 5:56 pm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-14/google-maps-outback-queensland-street-view-inaccurate/100065310
"I got onto Corey Richards there at the museum in Eromanga and said, 'Mate are you seeing the same thing I'm seeing? Is it just my computer?'" he said.
"And he goes, 'Nah, you're right, it's a bit crook'.
"And I said, 'Well, yeah, that's a fairly big error for Google to have'."
stephen said,
April 13, 2021 @ 6:51 pm
What do folks here think of this movie? I liked it. This is from Wikipedia:
"Ball of Fire is a 1941 American screwball comedy film directed by Howard Hawks and starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. This Samuel Goldwyn Productions film (originally distributed by RKO) concerns a group of professors laboring to write an encyclopedia and their encounter with a nightclub performer who provides her own unique knowledge."
Quinn C said,
April 16, 2021 @ 4:09 pm
David Morris, a grammarian isn't a linguist or even a lexicographer, but, as can be inferred even just from the strips, someone who writes prescriptive grammars or stylebooks. The likes of (or possibly a caricature of) Fowler or Strunk and White.
I had never heard "grammarical", and it seems an unlikely thing to happen. I'd have preferred a focus on expressions like "yeah" or "gonna" that are widely used, widely accepted, but criticized by people who still believe in the notion of "good" and "bad" English independent of social context.
Quinn C said,
April 16, 2021 @ 4:11 pm
Philip Taylor, your teacher would have had you write "gonna" and "wanna" down 100 times, so they would've looked entirely natural at the end of the process?
Old-fashioned pedagogy defeating old-fashioned ideas on language!
Quinn C said,
April 16, 2021 @ 4:13 pm
If a country doesn't have wait staff, I sure hope they have some other expression applicable to non-binary service providers.
Miss Cellania said,
April 18, 2021 @ 4:29 am
Yes, we call them servers.
Levantine said,
April 19, 2021 @ 8:49 am
Miss Cellania, are you British? I’m not sure who your “we” refers to. I’m a Londoner, and I’ve never heard “server” used in the UK (though I moved to the US some years ago, so perhaps things have shifted in that time).
Philip Taylor said,
April 22, 2021 @ 12:01 pm
I too (a fellow Briton) know of "servers" and "greeters" only in a North American context, where I have heard (on more than one occasion) "Hallo, I'm <name>, your greeter — please take a seat, and your server will be with you shortly",
Philip Taylor said,
April 23, 2021 @ 3:07 am
(or more commonly, as I realised subsequently, "Hi, I'm , etc.")