Re: Sportscasters and language

Subject: Re: Sportscasters and language
From: Janice Gelb <janiceg -at- ENG -dot- SUN -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 00:27:47 GMT

In article 01HMZWQY4XC20004DI -at- CORE -dot- Corp -dot- JCI -dot- Com, Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- jci -dot- com writes:
> Aside from the 'Leafs" pluralization, why are teams at home "to" another
> team? Shouldn't they be at home "with" the other team? Both US and
> Canadien sportscasters use the "to" structure.

>"At home to" x has also been used to mean willing to recieve x as a vistor.
It's
>an old usage, perhaps even an aristocratic usage, but I've seen it before
>(although typically only in early 20th century novels of manners).


And note that it is not meant in the purely physical sense; that is,
the lady of the house might physically be located "at home," but not
be "at home to" visitors.

Perhaps that's where the sports usage came from: teams might be "at
home" on a night off but not be "receiving" (i.e., "playing") others.
(I know, I know, that's stretching it...)


********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
janiceg -at- marvin -dot- eng -dot- sun -dot- com | message is the return address.

"Life is something to do when you can't get to sleep."
-- Fran Lebowitz, _Metropolitan Life_

********************************************************************************


Previous by Author: Re: what's an editor?
Next by Author: Re[3]: Famous tech. communicators in literature?
Previous by Thread: Re: Sportscasters and language
Next by Thread: Re: Sportscasters and language


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads