Shoes or Boots? Field or Pitch? Zero-zero or nil-nil? Etc.

[QPR Kevin H]

Originally posted by bungadiri
I am with Sebakoole in not having an ax to grind about soccer terms. However, I do think that people who spell it "axe" instead of "ax" are pretentious *********************s.;)
It really just depends on whom you're axing though

[QPR Kevin H]

Originally posted by DC Forever
I'm a D.C. United fan (not supporter) who loves to go cheer on the team (not side)
Sorry - I can see everyones "dont be a Eurosnob" point of view on every term but this. There is a distinct difference between a "fan" and a "supporter".

[bungadiri]

Originally posted by empennage
Actually I'm pretty sure that "into touch" = out of play. The reasoning behind this is that when the ball is out of bounds a player can touch it with his hands.

Okay, you and artigiano have convinced me.

[AndyMead]

Word choice depends on audience. If I'm conversing with Americans, the word "football" almost certainly means American Football, unless the conversation has centered on soccer. I will freely use the word "nil" however, without context. Words like "pitch" versus "field" really depend on context. Whichever one feels more appropriate.

If I'm talking with a Brit, I find that my speech patterns and word choice alter to fit his/hers.

After 30 hours in Dublin, I was talking like the natives :p

I've always been a bit of a linquistic Zelig (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0086637).

The only thing that bothers me is folks who use derisive things, like gridball or helmetball, for differentiation.

[kenntomasch]

"into touch" is "out of bounds" although it drives me up the frigging wall when (mostly local) American soccer commentators say "out of bounds".

If you lay it on too thick, you might as well go with the John Harkes/Brad Friedel phony English accent as well.

If you say "telly" I'm going to beat you. But I say "boots" and "nil" and "kit" just from being around people who say them, too.

[revelation]

In a recent article from the UK (unfortunately I don't have the link), I saw the most confusing bit of "English vs. American". Apparently, Bob Gansler (you know the coach for Kansas City) translates into Mo Johnson (who was cited in the article as the coach for Kansas City) across the pond. Who would have thought? I guess the term "boot" for "trunk" is not the strangest change in terminology between the UK and US... :)

[jmeissen0]

i think the things people miss out on are the fact that words are already established here (usa)... some aren't and in the creation of new words, old words are brought in that aren't new, but are to us


in the united states, only a fool would call soccer football... everyone knows football is played with pads, a helmet, and a weird shaped ball... soccer is soccer, our dialect of english has already dictated what it is... in england soccer is football, in other countries it is known by something else

that's the way languages work, they are built upon regional definitions, but since some regions haven't been exposed to certain things... they don't always have words for them...

by that i mean the use of the words fan and supporter... i think that a "fan" is anyone that shows up at a game (be it any sport), while a "supporter" is a "fan" that cheers for their team in a style more related to what's practiced throughout the world among diehard fans

however some words work no matter... a field can be called a field or a pitch... no real difference there, but a pitch has become known as a field established for soccer... cleats, boots, spikes are all the same thing and no one is going to be confused

nil or zero is widely established throughout all sports in the united states... some people when using nil in soccer do seem to go out of their way to make it known that nil IS a soccer term (a bit weird really)

brace is essentially picked up from the other side of the pond, no one here ever really had a term for 2 goals... so brace was easily thrown in

"footie" does seem to be bandied about quite regularly over here, and it is easily recognized by one and all as a term for soccer... but the use of it seems to usually carry an extra meaning... maybe rubbing it in to someone else, letting them know that you think soccer is football and the best... or an attempt to say "i'm a eurosnob wannabe"... just two of the usually somewhat negative connotations that get thrown in with the use of this word a good deal of the time (one is acceptance in the u.s. soccer culture, say footie and people "will" open their arms to you as you "know" your stuff... i have a friend that uses it this way... i just want to bitch slap him senseless)


for the most part it's just a working mess that is slowly getting hammered out... slowly only because it has no defined terms in the eyes of joe schmo here (and will probably be established through what the media accepts...ala sportscenter and the like... not tv games)... as that happens, a complete american soccer dictionary will be needed (and created) and will also further itself from it's english fathers... just as all regional dialects grow more and more apart over time and distance (be it physical or mental)

i think the only thing that can be said to be true in the whole current mess is this... in the united states... soccer is soccer, it's not football... and over time, those that keep trying to use the term football over here will be one of two things... 1. not american or 2. needing of a bitch slap

you don't call two sports the exact same thing... i don't think MLS was almost the NFL... or even MLF... do you?

[jmeissen0]

Originally posted by QPR Kevin H

Sorry - I can see everyones "dont be a Eurosnob" point of view on every term but this. There is a distinct difference between a "fan" and a "supporter".


i'm on your side for their being a distinction

i would fancy myself a st. louis cardinals and blues fan, a chicago bears fan, a fan of the illini women's soccer team

yet a supporter of the chicago fire and usmnt

the distinction?

as a fan, i'll show up and root on my team... but as a supporter, i'll be rather active the whole game in cheering on my team... not just in the crowd, watching the game and responding to jumbo trons, pumped in music or big plays


not sure if that was quite what you meant or what, but it's the way i would think of it

[Nobby]

When I was growing up, I used words like "pitch" and "boots" until I found that it came across as pretentious. I was born and raised in Canada before moving to the States. British and American expressions intermix there. For example, both "Zee" and "Zed" were understood and accepted pronounciations of the last letter of the alphabet. Several of my AYSO coaches were from the UK which added to the foreign-ness of my vocabulary. Today, I speak as American as I can in casual conversation although sometimes I still get dinged. I'll spice up my wording when I get excited or my sense of humor revs up.

[QPR Kevin H]

Originally posted by jmeissen0



i'm on your side for their being a distinction

i would fancy myself a st. louis cardinals and blues fan, a chicago bears fan, a fan of the illini women's soccer team

yet a supporter of the chicago fire and usmnt

the distinction?

as a fan, i'll show up and root on my team... but as a supporter, i'll be rather active the whole game in cheering on my team... not just in the crowd, watching the game and responding to jumbo trons, pumped in music or big plays


not sure if that was quite what you meant or what, but it's the way i would think of it

Precisely what I meant. Goes even further for me though. Being a suporter has to do with off field issues - such as our interest not only in what MLS teams do, but how the league fairs. And going out of our way to bring people to matches, keep abreast with financial matters. Works the same with my relationship to QPR. I support initiatives to keep the club alive and healthy - which go way beyond the cheering I am able to do at a couple matches a year.

[jmeissen0]

Originally posted by Nobby
When I was growing up, I used words like "pitch" and "boots" until I found that it came across as pretentious. I was born and raised in Canada before moving to the States. British and American expressions intermix there. For example, both "Zee" and "Zed" were understood and accepted pronounciations of the last letter of the alphabet. Several of my AYSO coaches were from the UK which added to the foreign-ness of my vocabulary. Today, I speak as American as I can in casual conversation although sometimes I still get dinged. I'll spice up my wording when I get excited or my sense of humor revs up.


i wouldn't worry about it, you're not american in the sense you weren't born in the states... once you say that, people cool off and will take anything you say as gospel (watch, it's really funny)

[cpwilson80]

Bottom line is most soccer fans here are intelligent (or at least well cultured) enough to eventually understand what you mean regardless of word choice :)

That's one of the joys of english: we gladly adopt foreign words like kaizen and ennui and make them part of the language.

[DC Forever]

Originally posted by cpwilson80
That's one of the joys of english: we gladly adopt foreign words like kaizen and ennui and make them part of the language.

Yes, we do, when they serve a purpose that no existing word in our language does. But where's the difference on the pretentiousness meter between "The lads are looking great out there on the pitch today" and "Darling, that outfit is tres jolie"?

And on the fans vs. supporters thing, give me an f-ing break. Are we seriously trying to argue that people who root for the Boston Red Sox or Washington Redskins are less committed to or involved with their teams as we are?

In America, there's a term for rooting passionately, following obsessively, etc. -- it's called being a fan.

Although the old "if you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter" line did always get a lot of laughs back in junior high.

[QPR Kevin H]

Originally posted by DC Forever
Are we seriously trying to argue that people who root for the Boston Red Sox or Washington Redskins are less committed to or involved with their teams as we are?
Yes and no - as a Redskins "fan" I find it appalling what we put up with. My family has to pay $360 for pre-season tickets - in order to get the real tickets nowadays. Then go to a stadium that is virtually inaccessable by public transport (waited in a 45 minute line for a bus cause Danny boy didnt want to shell out for regular season amount of metro buses. Yet has no problem charging us the full amount to get into frickin preseason game). So Id say that my own beloved home town team could do with some more vocal support for the good of everyone who cares for it. Im digressing.

The Red Sox are a bit of a different story. And I never said that this is an American v non-American idea. A great deal of support is given to teams over here. I see it in MLS, the Green Bay Packers, Cleveland Browns, almost every college sport - to name a few. But then again - fandom and not support rears its ugly head in places like Baltimore and with the Chicago Cubs. There are too many Cubbies fans who accept garbage year after year - cause they're a cute team and have a cool stadium.

And shall we contrast the support situation in Baltimore to that of Wimbledon. "Fans" in Balmore gladly accepted two wrongs making a right and got behind that bastard Modell. Whats happening with the franchising decision in Wimbledon....hmmm 200 at home - 14 away for the franchise. 1200 season ticket holding supporters for the AFC club.

my two cents - dimestore populist

[dcunited81]

Originally posted by Godot22
I think that some words like "pitch" and "nil" are so ingrained into the culture of the game in English-speaking countries that they don't sound terribly affected. More obscure ones, like "kit" or "strip" instead of "uniform" are probably worth avoiding, unless you're saying them just to get people to ask what you mean, which is pretty much affected speech in a nutshell.



I happen to totally agree with you. I think that terms like "pitch", "nil", and others are so much a part of the game as a whole that they should be used instead of field, zero, etc. You can say what you want about them being english terms and all that, but that's how the game came to this country, so I believe it's only proper to use those terms. I mean, if I was to use the logic of some of the people here, then why do we refer to the baseball "field" as a diamond, and all that. Come on people, if it's part of the culture of the sport then what the heck is wrong with using those terms?

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by empennage


Actually I'm pretty sure that "into touch" = out of play. The reasoning behind this is that when the ball is out of bounds a player can touch it with his hands.

Yes you and those who have said the same, are right. Incidentally in rugby the linesmen are called 'touch judges'. And often during the course of the game, it is necessary to kick the ball 'into touch'.

Originally posted by empennage

You have to remember that the Brits think things differently than we do. We thing that bugs mean when I watched a game with an British announcer is how they use the plural form of team. They say, "England are playing well today", but we say"England is playing well today." I know it's a minor thing, but it totally bugs me because it seems like incorrect grammar.

I know what you mean, although I'm on the other side of the fence. I can't stand it when US commentators and posters on here do the opposite.
It's just different definitions of 'team'. Strictly speaking, yes - a team is singular and so saying "England is playing well today" is more than acceptable grammatically speaking.
But I percieve the difference to be based on the fact that the US phraseology sounds like the entire nation is playing. They aren't. There is a team on the pitch who are playing well - ie when talking about them, it seems better to say "they (the team on the pitch) are playing well", hence the supposed plural inflection.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by kenntomasch

If you lay it on too thick, you might as well go with the John Harkes/Brad Friedel phony English accent as well.



How long have those guys been in England? I'm not really trying to defend them, but it is possible, even easy, to begin sounding like the overwhelming majority of the people around you. Even for adults. How many people go to the rural South from elsewhere, and gain an accent after living there for a few years?

BTW, I use "nil", "pitch", and "football" when I'm in the company of knowledgeable supporters. But I don't use "kit", "boots", or "(insert team here) have won"- ever. I use "side" only when I'm posting here.

[empennage]

Originally posted by maczebus
I know what you mean, although I'm on the other side of the fence. I can't stand it when US commentators and posters on here do the opposite.
It's just different definitions of 'team'. Strictly speaking, yes - a team is singular and so saying "England is playing well today" is more than acceptable grammatically speaking.
But I percieve the difference to be based on the fact that the US phraseology sounds like the entire nation is playing. They aren't. There is a team on the pitch who are playing well - ie when talking about them, it seems better to say "they (the team on the pitch) are playing well", hence the supposed plural inflection.

It is pretty strange that we (americans) can use the concept differently in the same sentance. For example:

England is winning today because they are playing well.


That sounds perfectly normal to me, but if you change the "is" after England into an "are" it would sound totally wrong to me.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by empennage


It is pretty strange that we (americans) can use the concept differently in the same sentance. For example:

England is winning today because they are playing well.


That sounds perfectly normal to me, but if you change the "is" after England into an "are" it would sound totally wrong to me.

I agree that is a tad odd.

Anyway, it's time to ask the continentals.
Do you lot do the singular or plural type thing with your respective languages?

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu


How long have those guys been in England? I'm not really trying to defend them, but it is possible, even easy, to begin sounding like the overwhelming majority of the people around you.

I know. Just funnin'. Friedel pretty much has to, considering where he lives, but Harkes has been back in this country for, what, 7 years now? Just seems a bit strange on Harksie, though Friedel has toned it down a bit (or did, in the World Cup) from the Olympics, when I said, "What the hell, I thought he was from Ohio?"