I think your English is gravitating towards Dutch
What a coincidence - I had only ever seen it in writing and mentally pronounced it long-éevity, until I heard it spoken for the first time this week in an episode of Season 2 of "The Gentlemen" on Netflix. The actual pronunciation was quite a surprise to me.
I am used to /ˌlɑnˈdʒɛvəti/ [ˌʟ̞ãːnˈtʃɜːvɘɾi(ː)] being prescriptively 'correct', but /ˌlɔŋˈdʒɛvəti/ [ˌʟ̞ɒ̃ːŋˈtʃɜːvɘɾi(ː)] is common too. I personally could see myself using either in practice.
I definitely use the second, and while it's not a common word, I can't remember anyone I know who used the first.jal wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2026 3:41 amI think your English is gravitating towards Dutch
Yesterday I learned that "longevity" is supposed to be lon-gevity, not long-gevity, though the latter pronciation is apparently common enough to be warned against on various prescrivptive websites. Anyone using the second pronunciation?
JAL
The colloquial way to say "to vomit" is "to throw up". "To be sick" means to be ill, and "to get sick" means to become ill, as does "to fall sick" (but you generally won't hear that one because this usage of "fall" is not consistent with "sick" in register).
I was thinking of a less colloquial register. But "throw up" might work. Thank you.Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:28 amThe colloquial way to say "to vomit" is "to throw up". "To be sick" means to be ill, and "to get sick" means to become ill, as does "to fall sick" (but you generally won't hear that one because this usage of "fall" is not consistent with "sick" in register).
Maybe your were looking for "X makes me sick." In my understanding, that rather means "X makes me feel nauseous / X makes me want to vomit".Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:49 amI was thinking of a less colloquial register. But "throw up" might work. Thank you.Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:28 amThe colloquial way to say "to vomit" is "to throw up". "To be sick" means to be ill, and "to get sick" means to become ill, as does "to fall sick" (but you generally won't hear that one because this usage of "fall" is not consistent with "sick" in register).
No, I was explicitly thinking of vomiting. The idea is that the viewpoint character makes a psychologically unpleasant experience, and afterwards, well, using "throw up", it would be something like this:
I spent the next 40 seconds thinking I might throw up. Then I spent the 20 seconds after that thinking that the worst had passed, that I was starting to feel less bad, and that I'd be fine after all. Then I spent the next 15 seconds actually throwing up.
Doesn't "sick" generally mean "about to throw up" in the UK still? or was that just a thing in past English?Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:28 amThe colloquial way to say "to vomit" is "to throw up". "To be sick" means to be ill, and "to get sick" means to become ill, as does "to fall sick" (but you generally won't hear that one because this usage of "fall" is not consistent with "sick" in register).
At least in my own usage, it doesn't mean “about to throw up,” that's rather “to feel sick,” which can also refer to other types of ilness but is prototypically feeling nauseous, and more specifically nauseous than “to be sick”. That said “to be sick” does refer to the act of vomiting, in a sufficiently clear context¹. I'd rewrite Raphael's passage as follows:
¹ “I've just been sick,” “I'm being sick in here,” etc. Specifically it's normal to use “ha[s/ve] been sick,” or “(is) being sick,” but I don't think it's required if the context is clear enough.spent the next 40 seconds thinking I might be sick. Then I spent the 20 seconds after that thinking that the worst had passed, that I was starting to feel less bad, and that I'd be fine after all. Then I spent the next 15 seconds actually being sick.
Thank you. How UK/Commonwealth specific is this? Would it work in US English?Lērisama wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:10 am I'd rewrite Raphael's passage as follows:
spent the next 40 seconds thinking I might be sick. Then I spent the 20 seconds after that thinking that the worst had passed, that I was starting to feel less bad, and that I'd be fine after all. Then I spent the next 15 seconds actually being sick.
No clue, but given that our US members didn't even consider it suggests it isn't that widespread.Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:20 amThank you. How UK/Commonwealth specific is this? Would it work in US English?Lērisama wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:10 am I'd rewrite Raphael's passage as follows:
spent the next 40 seconds thinking I might be sick. Then I spent the 20 seconds after that thinking that the worst had passed, that I was starting to feel less bad, and that I'd be fine after all. Then I spent the next 15 seconds actually being sick.
Whereas for me they'd be sick, but not necessarily be being sick.
Nope.
That wouldn't occur to me. On the other hand it sounds old-fashioned, or implies things like plumbing work. Alternatives include trainee or intern.If I write about a fictional character who actually is an apprentice, that is, in vocational training after school, would using that word to describe them make people think of that show?
I am thinking of blue-collar work. Trainee might work, but do internships usually involve training that counts as a professional qualification?
