Zompist Bboard Again

jal wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2026 4:53 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2026 2:18 pmHe didn’t even eat a crumb.
→ Not even a crumb, he ate.
*→ Even a cumb, he didn’t eat.

Fwiw in Dutch these would be fine (as far as a very marked construction is "fine"):
Zelf geen kruimel at hij
Zelfs een kruimel at hij niet

Isn’t zelf a reflexive?

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2026 5:52 amIsn’t zelf a reflexive?

Typo, both should be "zelfs".


JAL

Sports question: Why are the people in charge of preparing sports teams for games and making various kinds of tactical decisions called "managers" in some sports and "coaches" in some others? In the former case, doesn't that lead to them being confused with the people running the organizing or business side of teams?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:00 pm Sports question: Why are the people in charge of preparing sports teams for games and making various kinds of tactical decisions called "managers" in some sports and "coaches" in some others? In the former case, doesn't that lead to them being confused with the people running the organizing or business side of teams?

American versus British traditions (with soccer...uhm...football being traditionally a British sport)?

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:18 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:00 pm Sports question: Why are the people in charge of preparing sports teams for games and making various kinds of tactical decisions called "managers" in some sports and "coaches" in some others? In the former case, doesn't that lead to them being confused with the people running the organizing or business side of teams?

American versus British traditions (with soccer...uhm...football being traditionally a British sport)?

I don't think that covers it, since the US has "managers" in baseball and "(head) coaches" in football and basketball.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:32 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:18 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:00 pm Sports question: Why are the people in charge of preparing sports teams for games and making various kinds of tactical decisions called "managers" in some sports and "coaches" in some others? In the former case, doesn't that lead to them being confused with the people running the organizing or business side of teams?

American versus British traditions (with soccer...uhm...football being traditionally a British sport)?

I don't think that covers it, since the US has "managers" in baseball and "(head) coaches" in football and basketball.

Tis true... I didn't keep enough track of baseball, obviously (even though the only major league sports games I have been at have all been baseball games).

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:32 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:18 pm
American versus British traditions (with soccer...uhm...football being traditionally a British sport)?

I don't think that covers it, since the US has "managers" in baseball and "(head) coaches" in football and basketball.

True. It was even one of the points in a classic George Carlin skit about how much he loved football and hated baseball. And I'm not sure how long established the use of the term "manager" for people in that position in British soccer is. Didn't they use to be called "coaches" at some point in the past?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 4:08 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:32 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:18 pm
American versus British traditions (with soccer...uhm...football being traditionally a British sport)?

I don't think that covers it, since the US has "managers" in baseball and "(head) coaches" in football and basketball.

True. It was even one of the points in a classic George Carlin skit about how much he loved football and hated baseball. And I'm not sure how long established the use of the term "manager" for people in that position in British soccer is. Didn't they use to be called "coaches" at some point in the past?

Both words are used. I think managers tend to have more responsibility, for example for transfers, than coaches.

Thank you!

anteallach wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 6:06 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 4:08 am

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:32 pm I don't think that covers it, since the US has "managers" in baseball and "(head) coaches" in football and basketball.

True. It was even one of the points in a classic George Carlin skit about how much he loved football and hated baseball. And I'm not sure how long established the use of the term "manager" for people in that position in British soccer is. Didn't they use to be called "coaches" at some point in the past?

Both words are used. I think managers tend to have more responsibility, for example for transfers, than coaches.

From checking, in Major League Baseball there is a distinction between the field manager, or 'manager' for short, and the general manager, commonly known as the 'GM'.

Surely:

Manager = person
Coach = vehicle

alice wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 2:16 pm Manager = person
Coach = vehicle

Football coach.



JAL

alice wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2026 2:16 pm Surely:

Manager = person
Coach = vehicle

Coach is also how you travel on an airplane if you're not swimming in cash. That said, a coach at least in baseball maybe has more the meaning of an instructor (e.g., a pitching coach or a batting coach).

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:32 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 5:18 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2026 3:00 pm Sports question: Why are the people in charge of preparing sports teams for games and making various kinds of tactical decisions called "managers" in some sports and "coaches" in some others? In the former case, doesn't that lead to them being confused with the people running the organizing or business side of teams?

American versus British traditions (with soccer...uhm...football being traditionally a British sport)?

I don't think that covers it, since the US has "managers" in baseball and "(head) coaches" in football and basketball.

Furthermore, (American) football has both "coaches" and "general managers", and they don't have the same duties. A coach teaches the team during practices and picks plays during the game, but a general manager is an office job that deals with picking players, negotiating their contracts (although the coach often has a say in this too), and sometimes even helping them deal with the law if they get into legal trouble.

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:23 pm but a general manager is an office job that deals with picking players, negotiating their contracts (although the coach often has a say in this too), and sometimes even helping them deal with the law if they get into legal trouble.

Yes, that's why, in my initial question, I wondered whether calling people who effectively have a form of coaching duties "managers", which they seem to do in, for instance, baseball, might lead to confusion with people who have more the kind of duties you're talking about there.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:57 pm

jcb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 3:23 pm but a general manager is an office job that deals with picking players, negotiating their contracts (although the coach often has a say in this too), and sometimes even helping them deal with the law if they get into legal trouble.

Yes, that's why, in my initial question, I wondered whether calling people who effectively have a form of coaching duties "managers", which they seem to do in, for instance, baseball, might lead to confusion with people who have more the kind of duties you're talking about there.

For what it's worth, when I played amateur baseball as a child and teenager, we called the person the "coach". Perhaps it's because at that level of play, there is no office work of signing players and negotiating their salaries.

lëtzeshark wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2026 5:19 pmCoach is also how you travel on an airplane if you're not swimming in cash.

On an aeroplane, however, it's called economy.

This is a somewhat political question, but let's hope it doesn't turn this into a political argument.

Suppose that in Australia, there would be an election where the result would be such that the most practical way to form a government would be for the Labor Party to team up with one or more smaller left-wing parties. How would Australians themselves call the result? (Not counting unfriendly words if they're supporters of the other side in politics.) In any other country, something like that would be called a "coalition", but in Australian English that word is apparently already taken as the name of the permanent alliance between the Liberals and the Nationals.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 9:15 am Suppose that in Australia, there would be an election where the result would be such that the most practical way to form a government would be for the Labor Party to team up with one or more smaller left-wing parties. How would Australians themselves call the result? (Not counting unfriendly words if they're supporters of the other side in politics.) In any other country, something like that would be called a "coalition", but in Australian English that word is apparently already taken as the name of the permanent alliance between the Liberals and the Nationals.

Usually referred to as a ‘minority government’, I think. Unless that only refers to a situation without a formal coalition agreement.

In any case, note that ‘the Coalition‘ has an uppercase C; lowercase ‘coalition’ can refer to anything. It’s similar to how people talk about ‘small-l liberals’, as opposed to the Liberal Party (which isn’t).

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 9:21 am
In any case, note that ‘the Coalition‘ has an uppercase C; lowercase ‘coalition’ can refer to anything. It’s similar to how people talk about ‘small-l liberals’, as opposed to the Liberal Party (which isn’t).

Thank you! I was thinking of something involving a formal agreement and executive posts for all participating parties, so it wouldn't really be a minority government.

So there might be headlines like "Coalition fights tooth and nail against proposals introduced by coalition"?