"Five of Nine" equals what time?

[SP33Demon]

As established in this thread, almost no one in England has any idea what "5 of 9" is supposed to mean.

You don't speak for an entire country, so cut the shit. Wiki and the dictionary > you.

 

[TwiceOver]

If someone said "the time is five of nine" to me, I'd assume they meant 9:05.

 

[JujuFish]

He's talking about this one:



...which means that's the only case where "of" is used in that way and you simply cannot expect someone to know what you mean if they are unfamiliar with that usage.

How am I supposed to know what someone is or isn't ignorant of?

 

[Matthiasa]

How am I supposed to know what someone is or isn't ignorant of?

I can safely say I have never heard it used on either coast or the Midwest... which makes it extraordinarily non standard.
It's effectively improper usage as it falls somewhere between informal and archaic... so its use would show ignorance.

 

[MongGrel]

I grew up in the Midwest and had heard it used there a few times, so whatever.

Is really a bit of a trivial thing to begin with.

 

[TheGardener]

Conclusively: NO. Not until I came across the entire country to live with her and even then I have only heard HER express time this way, though I have heard her express it to others this way. My [suggestion]? Don't use it. Use something more universally understood, like "5 'till 9." I don't think I've ever heard it on TV or in movies either, even though you hear [other] regional things all the time (like "pop" for soft drink[/soda]).

I wonder how much time it took for the OP's sister to toss this annoying person out on the street.

 

[JujuFish]

I can safely say I have never heard it used on either coast or the Midwest... which makes it extraordinarily non standard.
It's effectively improper usage as it falls somewhere between informal and archaic... so its use would show ignorance.

Ah, so because you haven't heard it before, it must be nonstandard and ignorant, despite the fact that the very definition of ignorance is not knowing about something. Who's the one showing ignorance here?

 

[motsm]

I've never heard anyone use of that way, and I hope I never do.

 

[Matthiasa]

Ah, so because you haven't heard it before, it must be nonstandard and ignorant, despite the fact that the very definition of ignorance is not knowing about something. Who's the one showing ignorance here?

Eh the dictionary, and most sources listed here have shown it as non standard... where it falls somewhere between informal and archaic. It is without a doubt improper usage given those criteria.

 

[Ken g6]

Not to be confused with "five of oh-nine", which is the month and year when this thread should have ended.

 

[MongGrel]

Eh the dictionary, and most sources listed here have show it as non standard... where it falls somewhere between informal and archaic. It is without an doubt improper usage given those criteria.

You're being all "I'm Mister Grammar" here.

It is "a doubt" in that case

Not to be confused with "five of oh-nine", which is the month and year when this thread should have ended.

+1

 

[Ichinisan]

You don't speak for an entire country, so cut the shit.

Those in this thread spoke for themselves.

This thread speaks for itself.

If you want to be frequently misunderstood and blissfully have no clue that these misunderstandings occur (due to your own ignorance of that fact), then keep saying "[x] of [y]." By all means.

 

[Matthiasa]

You're being all "I'm Mister Grammar" here.

It is "a doubt" in that case



+1

I never said I could type.
That also wasn't the only thing wrong with it either.

 

[SP33Demon]

Those in this thread spoke for themselves.

This thread speaks for itself.

If you want to be frequently misunderstood and blissfully have no clue that these misunderstandings occur (due to your own ignorance of that fact), then keep saying "[x] of [y]." By all means.

Yes, .001% of British posters in this thread represents the entire country. Keep peddling your ignorant and statistically insignificant "proof".

Actually, the most common usage would be "[x] of" because the current hour is implied to be known. Reread the thread if you're confused, the dictionary and wiki say this is an acceptable use for "of". You are not an authority like they are, so cut the shit.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yes, .001% of British posters in this thread represents the entire country. Keep peddling your ignorant and statistically insignificant "proof".

Actually, the most common usage would be "[x] of" because the current hour is implied to be known. Reread the thread if you're confused, the dictionary and wiki say this is an acceptable use for "of". You are not an authority like they are, so cut the shit.

:whiste:

The time-telling construction exemplified by quarter of four was among the first Americanisms to be beaten out of me (metaphorically, of course) ex patria. People challenged me to explain why I'd said of when I'd meant 'before', and since I couldn't explain it, I gave up saying it.

It's used that way by some people. Dictionary says it's used that way by some people. Did I say otherwise?

This thread erases all doubt that it is frequently misunderstood. If you want to communicate effectively, conveying a thought in a way that ensures comprehension, then don't say "of." Simple as that.

That 11-b definition is the only example of the word "of" being used that way, so it's nearly impossible for someone to determine your meaning if they were unfamiliar with that usage unless they look-up the word "of" (why would they?) and read every possible definition. If a lot of people have to do that to understand what you said, you have failed to effectively communicate what you intended to say.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yes, .001% of British posters in this thread represents the entire country. Keep peddling your ignorant and statistically insignificant "proof".

I've never heard anything but "five to" or "five past" used in the UK, unless it's half past the hour then we sometimes drop the "past" bit and make it "half five".

 

[Ichinisan]

... Actually, the most common usage would be "[x] of" because the current hour is implied to be known. ...

Hubris. Ignorance.

Outside of the area you were raised in, a large portion of the country has no idea what that means.

"Most common!"

 

[CZroe]

Hubris. Ignorance.

Outside of the area you were raised in, a large portion of the country has no idea what that means.

"Most common!"

That's not what he was saying. He's saying that you'd usually leave off the hour. Not sure what his point wise. Nearly always to say it would leave off the hour... with of, 'til, until, before, etc.

 

[Ichinisan]

That's not what he was saying. He's saying that you'd usually leave off the hour. Not sure what his point wise. Nearly always to say it would leave off the hour... with of, 'til, until, before, etc.

"of"

Need to restore the FuseTalk poll that conclusively showed most of us don't use or hear the "[x] of" way.

Can't restore the poll. vBulletin ate all the polls made during the FuseTalk era. Poof! Just gone! All gone!
admin allisolm

 

[John Connor]

Funny mods pick and chose what threads die.

If you have a problem with the mods, Mod Discussions is the sole appropriate venue.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[JujuFish]

That 11-b definition is the only example of the word "of" being used that way, so it's nearly impossible for someone to determine your meaning if they were unfamiliar with that usage unless they look-up the word "of" (why would they?) and read every possible definition. If a lot of people have to do that to understand what you said, you have failed to effectively communicate what you intended to say.

And what do you do when you come across a word you don't know? You look it up in a dictionary. Or, in the case of your brother, create a thread about it instead of taking the simple and obvious step to discover the meaning.

 

[Red Squirrel]

People here argue over the weirdest stuff. I like to just sit back and watch while drinking pop.

 

[Ichinisan]

And what do you do when you come across a word you don't know? You look it up in a dictionary. Or, in the case of your brother, create a thread about it instead of taking the simple and obvious step to discover the meaning.

Scenario: You hear someone use "of" in a way that contradicts normal usage ("of" is never used to mean "before" except by people who state time that way). You've never heard it used that way before. You actually have no idea what time the person meant to convey, so you don't actually know that their usage contradicts all other uses of the word. So...you look up the word "of" in a dictionary with no indication whatsoever that you should do so? Good luck if you have a compact/abridged dictionary!

Also, your communication is ineffective if you expect people to scramble for a dictionary so they can comprehend what you said.

 

[Ichinisan]

... Or, in the case of your brother, create a thread about it instead of taking the simple and obvious step to discover the meaning.

He created a thread to find out if this is supposed to be well known. This thread shows clearly that:

1. People who use it believe 100% that it is universally understood.

2. It is NOT universally understood.

3. Using "of" this way practically guarantees you will be frequently misunderstood, even if you don't realize.

Before the FuseTalk poll disappeared, it was HEAVILY skewed in favor of "WTF? I've never heard that!" and "I never say it that way."

[edit]

What do you do when you discover that your way of communicating time is frequently and often misunderstood? Attack the messenger?

 

[Ichinisan]

And what do you do when you come across a word you don't know? You look it up in a dictionary. Or, in the case of your brother, create a thread about it instead of taking the simple and obvious step to discover the meaning.

[bracing myself for impact...]

Seeing your text in quotes while I post a reply, I notice you double-space between sentences. Someone told you that was "correct" or "proper."

Despite what teachers may have told you, double-spacing is only "correct" for fixed-width monospaced fonts and old typewriters. It's also futile to double-space online because all web browsers convert 2+ spaces into 1 while rendering HTML code.

People are surprisingly contentious when they learn that it's not actually required to be correct/proper -- because their teachers taught them to use 2 spaces. At least that doesn't lead to confusion in communication, so there's really no important reason to stop doing it. Saying "[x] of [y]," however, will frequently be misunderstood and you should avoid using it if you want to communicate as effectively as possible. Clearly you do not wish to communicate as effectively as possible.