"Five of Nine" equals what time?

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
What is wrong with you idiots!?!?

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

Just because you and your ignorant friends have never heard of it does not mean that you are right!!!!

On the contrary, it does exists and is a standard way of referring to time. Above is only a small fraction of the proof, undisputed facts, that shows you are wrong.

/thread

MotionMan

You're still at it? WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU THINK THAT WE DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE AND AGE OF SAID WAY TO STATE TIME?

We told you why it exists (idiots; very old idiots), what is hard/difficult to understand about it, DEMONSTRATED that actual use and understanding is EXTREMELY low, and showed why and what alternatives you should use all while having clearly expressed a more complete view of the situation than your stubborn self.

So someone wrote a book to teach people the lesser known and non-sensical way to state time. I GUARANTEE YOU that that book is not used in ANY educational system that exists outside the region where it is already used and understood for the same reason my 8th grade Social Studies book, "Georgia History," was likely not used in a single non-Georgian 8th-grade cirriculum.

 

[meltdown75]

holy sh*t dude

let it go

your posts on this are so epic... and filled with so much effort... that you are instantly one of the scariest people on this forum.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: DefDC


Have we heard from any Canadians in this thread? Or any other countries for that matter...

several.

5 to 9 > 5 of 9

"8:55" is also acceptable.

"# of #" = abortion of speech and not used by anyone i know

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: DefDC

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: MotionMan
What is wrong with you idiots!?!?

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

Just because you and your ignorant friends have never heard of it does not mean that you are right!!!!

On the contrary, it does exists and is a standard way of referring to time. Above is only a small fraction of the proof, undisputed facts, that shows you are wrong.

/thread

MotionMan

i need to come to CA and have a :beer: with you

We can get a drink at a quarter of six.

MotionMan

We acknowledge that you've found the existence of this idiom. Despite what you've found on the internet, this method of time telling is not taught anywhere in pubic or private schools in the United States. Is that not enough for you to understand that it's not the American Standard? Or are you going to cut and paste again?

I was not aware that you were the Education Secretary. I assume your statement that it is not taught anywhere in the United States is based on indisputable facts (ignoring the educational text I linked, of course).

I stated that it is a standard, not the standard. Many methods are shown in the book I linked to - see my cut and paste below:

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

It is NOT the standard, and as the polls, and testimony of people who travel and meet with a lot of people around the country, have proven. It is far from the norm, and makes no literal sense.

I stated that it is a standard, not the standard.

FYI, when you speak nonsense and get a blank look, it's not the OTHER person who is an idiot, regardless of how the internet may back you up.

How can you say it is "nonsense" when I have shown you that it is used both in literature and in educational materials?

And, BTW, sometimes it is the idiot who gives the blank stare.

In case you missed it, please see below:

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

In an informal poll of my office this morning, including people of varying backgrounds and education, it was split about 50/50 as to whether they had heard, understood and/or used "of" in this manner.

I understand that some people have never heard of this. That does not mean that it is wrong or not a standard way of describing time.

Some of you people are arguing like it should not (or even does not) exist. In that regard, you are simply wrong.

MotionMan

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
holy sh*t dude

let it go

your posts on this are so epic... and filled with so much effort... that you are instantly one of the scariest people on this forum.

I don't like unjustly being called an idiot and, when I can defend more than half the continent and I have to work a graveyard shift with nothing better to do, I'll happily volunteer.

The moral of the story is, unless you are willing to invest the same effort to prove otherwise, don't imply that I'm an idiot.

Yeah, getting my brother to walk around Atlanta with a camera while I do the same here in SoCal and uploading to YouTube would have been shorter and sweeter (though not much easier; considering the graveyard situation and the coordination), but I still have that option.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: DefDC

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: MotionMan
What is wrong with you idiots!?!?

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

Just because you and your ignorant friends have never heard of it does not mean that you are right!!!!

On the contrary, it does exists and is a standard way of referring to time. Above is only a small fraction of the proof, undisputed facts, that shows you are wrong.

/thread

MotionMan

i need to come to CA and have a :beer: with you

We can get a drink at a quarter of six.

MotionMan

We acknowledge that you've found the existence of this idiom. Despite what you've found on the internet, this method of time telling is not taught anywhere in pubic or private schools in the United States. Is that not enough for you to understand that it's not the American Standard? Or are you going to cut and paste again?

I was not aware that you were the Education Secretary. I assume your statement that it is not taught anywhere in the United States is based on indisputable facts (ignoring the educational text I linked, of course).

I stated that it is a standard, not the standard. Many methods are shown in the book I linked to - see my cut and paste below:

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

It is NOT the standard, and as the polls, and testimony of people who travel and meet with a lot of people around the country, have proven. It is far from the norm, and makes no literal sense.

I stated that it is a standard, not the standard.

FYI, when you speak nonsense and get a blank look, it's not the OTHER person who is an idiot, regardless of how the internet may back you up.

How can you say it is "nonsense" when I have shown you that it is used both in literature and in educational materials?

And, BTW, sometimes it is the idiot who gives the blank stare.

In case you missed it, please see below:

Read the first line of the second paragraph of this. Then read this (Look at the DOB and DOD).

See also here starting at about page 15.

In an informal poll of my office this morning, including people of varying backgrounds and education, it was split about 50/50 as to whether they had heard, understood and/or used "of" in this manner.

I understand that some people have never heard of this. That does not mean that it is wrong or not a standard way of describing time.

Some of you people are arguing like it should not (or even does not) exist. In that regard, you are simply wrong.

MotionMan

Look, pick your battles. You are "fighting" and trying to behave as if we don't acknowledge that it is "A" way to express time. That isn't what anyone is saying at all. They are saying that they never heard it, the majority never heard it, thus it is not the DOMINANT STANDARD. Granted, "standard" is semantic, which is why you have managed to create a mini-argument over it. It is the least commonly used and can be called the least-used standard or can be called the least-standard for the same reasons. Why pick a fight over that? There is no governing body or standards organization saying "use this" or "use that." There are just a few people sticking to one that no one else has heard and yet they feel entitled to call everyone else sheltered idiots while at the same time behaving as if it is the DOMINANT IDIOM. Or did you forget that that was the claim being made in this thread? Yes, it was called the DOMINANT idiom. That is what the argument was about. If that isn't your point, you aren't part of it and that is EXACTLY what I first told you when I said that no one was arguing if the usage existed or not. The argument is that you should not use it REGARDLESS of it existing. Yes, some are arguing that it should not be used (not that it does not exist), but there really is no reason to use it when there are more universally understood alternatives. Officially, BmE is supposed to use "ize" instead of "ise," and "program" instead of "programme," but they continue anyway for no good reason,even getting their official references, which resisted for YEARS, to relent and allow it. If "ize" is more right in BmE and AmE, what justification did the press have for continuing to use it? Yes, the OPPOSITE situation exists here, such that the usage was completly invisible to those in other regions (non-existant in popular media and press), but the logic of language is to be understood, so you do not need an organization (organisation; lol) to tell you which makes more sense when you have a WAVE ofpublic testimony RIGHT HERE.

I have stated numerous times that the usage does not functionally exist in popular NATIONAL media, press, or writing in our time and your century old poet does little to change that. Obviously, my social studies book wasn't national press for the same reason your time-telling book isn't. One could also argue the futility of creating such a book that can only exist in a place where it is already understood through common usage, but the author is probably as unaware of the realties as the target demographic has proven to be..

 

[mxyzptlk]

I see, so it means [within] 5 [minutes] of 9, where the words in brackets are implied but not spoken.

I can't say I've ever heard anyone talk like that, but now that I've seen this thread I am prepared to deal with it should the need arise.

and by deal with it, I mean a swift backhanded slap across the mouth.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
I see, so it means [within] 5 [minutes] of 9, where the words in brackets are implied but not spoken.

I can't say I've ever heard anyone talk like that, but now that I've seen this thread I am prepared to deal with it should the need arise.

and by deal with it, I mean a swift backhanded slap across the mouth.

Except that that would also include 9:05, which 5 of 9 does not (strictly 8:55). Give 'em an extra slap for me, will ya?

OTOH, "[within] 5 [minutes] 'til 9" would indicate a range of 5 minutes covering the period from 8:55 until 9:00, hence why 8:55 "[IS] 5 [minutes] 'til 9" and "OF" would make no sense by any other definition of "OF" ("[IS] 5 [minutes] of 9"). Of indicates, within, from, or completed, but never "reamiaining" in time or distance except in the sense of time expressed as minutes before the hour (singular, self-defining, and impossible to understand prior to the use).

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

Wow, you're really getting uptight about this issue.

I use the following with regularity to answer the question, "what time is it?"
- "quarter of"
- "half past"
- "quarter past"
- " x of y"
- "x of"
- "x past"

I don't think anybody has asked me what I mean. Some people (not from NE) are surprised I express time that way, but they all get it.

 

[Anubis]

I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

 

[tk149]

When's the last time you heard "x of y" on TV or in a movie? Besides Star Trek. Although I am enjoying the Jeri Ryan pix in this thread.

I'm 40 years old, fairly well-educated, and have lived in the midwest, California, and Washington DC. I don't recall ever hearing "x of y" in relation to time, much less being used dominantly. I always have heard "x to y," or "x 'til y," or "8:55".

It's an idiom, and anyone's chances of figuring out what an idiom means without prior exposure or explanation are pretty low.


I've never understood what "25 or 6 to 4" meant, although I like the song.

Also, CZroe, I don't think I've ever seen anyone do so much writing in a single thread. Except for that Nate and Lever one.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

What part of the country are you in?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

What part of the country are you in?

Middle of nowhere Upstate NY

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

No no, I was pointing out what an idiot you look like asking and OBVIOUS QUESTION in a public forum. Have a nice day. Have five of them.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: meltdown75
holy sh*t dude

let it go

your posts on this are so epic... and filled with so much effort... that you are instantly one of the scariest people on this forum.

I don't like unjustly being called an idiot and, when I can defend more than half the continent and I have to work a graveyard shift with nothing better to do, I'll happily volunteer.

The moral of the story is, unless you are willing to invest the same effort to prove otherwise, don't imply that I'm an idiot.

Yeah, getting my brother to walk around Atlanta with a camera while I do the same here in SoCal and uploading to YouTube would have been shorter and sweeter (though not much easier; considering the graveyard situation and the coordination), but I still have that option.

i don't invest any effort and i didn't imply jack squat. if i wanted to tell you something, i'd just feed it to you straight up. i don't think you're an idiot. maybe a little OCD about trying to prove your worthless point. face it, every time i post in this thread, i win.

i've won this thread more times than Lance won the frickin tour de France.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

Same look I had on my face when I read the OP.

 

[Lithium381]

it's counterintuitive to me, but once people explained it to me, i can understand it. i usually say "10 to two" or something of the like

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

Wow, you're really getting uptight about this issue.

I use the following with regularity to answer the question, "what time is it?"
- "quarter of"
- "half past"
- "quarter past"
- " x of y"
- "x of"
- "x past"

I don't think anybody has asked me what I mean. Some people (not from NE) are surprised I express time that way, but they all get it.

If they were surprised by it, I GUARANTEE YOU that they didn't "get it." That's the assumption we're trying to break here.

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

Yup... in the NE where that reaction and assumption is the SOURCE of the problem. So I guess we have NY. MA, PA, and parts of NJ. WOAH! That sure is a "dominant" portion of the USA. :roll:

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

No no, I was pointing out what an idiot you look like asking and OBVIOUS QUESTION in a public forum. Have a nice day. Have five of them.

HA! THAT'S EXACTLY what I and so many in this thread are trying to tell you: IT'S NOT OBVIOUS because that is the only place in the Engllish language where it means that and yet it is RARELY used outside of limited regional areas. To assume that it is obvious is ignorant and stupid and EXACTLY to point of this continued thread. Most of the English-speaking world has no idea what you're talking about, so you should be ashamed to have assumed that it is obvious and publicly attacked those who have proven that it isn't. What, did you only read the OP? Is that your excuse?

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: meltdown75
holy sh*t dude

let it go

your posts on this are so epic... and filled with so much effort... that you are instantly one of the scariest people on this forum.

I don't like unjustly being called an idiot and, when I can defend more than half the continent and I have to work a graveyard shift with nothing better to do, I'll happily volunteer.

The moral of the story is, unless you are willing to invest the same effort to prove otherwise, don't imply that I'm an idiot.

Yeah, getting my brother to walk around Atlanta with a camera while I do the same here in SoCal and uploading to YouTube would have been shorter and sweeter (though not much easier; considering the graveyard situation and the coordination), but I still have that option.

i don't invest any effort and i didn't imply jack squat. if i wanted to tell you something, i'd just feed it to you straight up. i don't think you're an idiot. maybe a little OCD about trying to prove your worthless point. face it, every time i post in this thread, i win.

i've won this thread more times than Lance won the frickin tour de France.

"You" meaning "they" in the moral. As for winning the thread; Yes, yes you have.

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

Same look I had on my face when I read the OP.

Which goes to show just how deep this assumption runs in those who use it.

 

[nineball9]

Originally posted by: tk149

I don't recall ever hearing "x of y" in relation to time, much less being used dominantly.

Don't mean to flame, but you hear its contraction all the time. "O'clock" is the contraction of "of the clock". Thus when someone states "It's seven o'clock" they are indirectly stating "It's seven of the clock".

Time relative to the hour, e.g., "5 of 9", "5 'til 9", "5 before 9" etc as posted in this thread are variations of "five minutes prior to the hour of nine of the clock."

Granted, "of the clock" sounds rather awkward in current English; we use the contraction "o'clock" instead.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

Wow, you're really getting uptight about this issue.

I use the following with regularity to answer the question, "what time is it?"
- "quarter of"
- "half past"
- "quarter past"
- " x of y"
- "x of"
- "x past"

I don't think anybody has asked me what I mean. Some people (not from NE) are surprised I express time that way, but they all get it.

If they were surprised by it, I GUARANTEE YOU that they didn't "get it." That's the assumption we're trying to break here.

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

Yup... in the NE where that reaction and assumption is the SOURCE of the problem. So I guess we have NY. MA, PA, and parts of NJ. WOAH! That sure is a "dominant" portion of the USA. :roll:

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: CZroe
My sister keeps telling me times in a way I've never heard anyone else do it. She said that we'll be leaving "I don't know, five of nine?" earlier. Because I've never heard anyone else give a time like that, my first inclination is to think that it's just her and no one else talks like that, but she acts like it's self-explanatory when as far as I know she's just mis-stating it and means something else... like "5 to/'til 9" (8:55). In the example above ("5 of 9"), I don't know what she means by "of" so I can't possibly know if she means 5 'til or 5 after. She certainly isn't saying "5 divided by 9." Obviously, I suspect that it may be terminology she picked up elsewhere, hence this thread.

Edit: OK, so it's a regional idiom in the USA and one that can't possibly be understood by those who haven't heard it without prior explanation... unlike "'til/till," "before," or "to" which, therefore, I would argue are not idioms. Regardless, there are those in this thread who think that not only are all three idioms, but that "of" is the more dominant, correct, or more frequently used/understood idiom. It just BLOWS THEIR MIND that the majority of people don't understand it and they refuse to believe that there is anything wrong with forcing it on the rest of the USA (they aren't understood by the majority of the English-speaking world). These people are INSANE. I can't believe this poll is required, but I'm adding it.

A monkey that has never heard that phrase before could figure out, and you started a poll at ATOT over it...

You really think that? Tell me then: Where the hell would anyone, monkey or not, learn that "of" means "before" in relation to minutes before the hour if that is THE ONLY PLACE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHERE IT IS TRUE and you scenario requires that they have never heard it before? Never really thought about it, did you? Didn't read the thread either I guess, or else you would have seen that and seen the absolute NEED for the poll. You are operating on the same base assumption that we have uncovered here and have just made yourself look like an idiot.

No no, I was pointing out what an idiot you look like asking and OBVIOUS QUESTION in a public forum. Have a nice day. Have five of them.

HA! THAT'S EXACTLY what I and so many in this thread are trying to tell you: IT'S NOT OBVIOUS because that is the only place in the Engllish language where it means that and yet it is RARELY used outside of limited regional areas. To assume that it is obvious is ignorant and stupid and EXACTLY to point of this continued thread. Most of the English-speaking world has no idea what you're talking about, so you should be ashamed to have assumed that it is obvious and publicly attacked those who have proven that it isn't. What, did you only read the OP? Is that your excuse?

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: meltdown75
holy sh*t dude

let it go

your posts on this are so epic... and filled with so much effort... that you are instantly one of the scariest people on this forum.

I don't like unjustly being called an idiot and, when I can defend more than half the continent and I have to work a graveyard shift with nothing better to do, I'll happily volunteer.

The moral of the story is, unless you are willing to invest the same effort to prove otherwise, don't imply that I'm an idiot.

Yeah, getting my brother to walk around Atlanta with a camera while I do the same here in SoCal and uploading to YouTube would have been shorter and sweeter (though not much easier; considering the graveyard situation and the coordination), but I still have that option.

i don't invest any effort and i didn't imply jack squat. if i wanted to tell you something, i'd just feed it to you straight up. i don't think you're an idiot. maybe a little OCD about trying to prove your worthless point. face it, every time i post in this thread, i win.

i've won this thread more times than Lance won the frickin tour de France.

"You" meaning "they" in the moral. As for winning the thread; Yes, yes you have.

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

Originally posted by: Anubis
I?ve polled everyone who i talk to here at work ~100 people, every single one of them even the few FOBs knew what 5 of 9 meant, they also responded with a universal "what kind of idiot does not know what that means? look on their face.

Same look I had on my face when I read the OP.

Which goes to show just how deep this assumption runs in those who use it.

It's not used in "limited regional areas" you didpshit. You are the one assuming here. Just because YOU never heard it, and YOU can't figure out what it OBVIOUSLY means doesn't make everyone else STUPID.

I think you're just being obstreperous over a non-issue.

 

[geno]

Holy shit, this thread got hairy really quickly.

For the record, I say "of"

 

[lizardth]

This thread gets an "E" for effort!

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: lizardth
This thread gets an "of" for effort!

Fixed.