to be on

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by undeddy

Hi, again

My friend proposes me to go, for instance, to a cafe. If I'm ready to visit it, can I say 'You're on!', meaning 'ok'?

Yes.

[David L.]

Not really. As I said in my first posting:
'You're on" is asking a person if they are going to accept a challenge or bet I've just made.
In reply, the person would say, "You're on", said by way of accepting the challenge or bet.
It might be when someone is daring you to be a bit outrageous in behaviour or dress, or something considered risky or dangerous.
I can't see anything daring in going out for a cup of coffee in a cafe!

Now - if my friend and I are 60 or sprightly 70 year olds, and he proposes that we both go bungee-jumping or sky diving, then (weighing up whether my bones and joints are up to it...and whether I still have the nerve to do something a bit dangerous...), I might well say, "You're on!": he's daring me to be brave enough to do it.


Perhaps it takes a lot more courage to venture out of one's home to a cafe in certain parts of the USA, such as Boston, than in Britain generally.

[Monticello]

Hi undeddy,

Originally Posted by David L.

Perhaps it takes a lot more courage to venture out of one's home to a cafe in certain parts of the USA, such as Boston, than in Britain generally.

Given the context of a specific time of day and a potentially "dangerous" area of any urban area, one might mistake the reply of "you're on" by another as a dare. All things being equal, however, "You're on," as a reply to your given question to a friend about a visit to a cafe would be understood in the US as an assent, i.e., "Let's go."

Perhaps UK usage, apparently being more constricting, is limited to just "throwing the guantlet."

[David L.]

Monticello: "you're on" as a reply to your given question to a friend about a visit to a cafe would be understood in the US as an assent, i.e., "Let's go."

The operative words are, "would be understood". Not straight out 'understood', but would need some intermediary stage of processing, as the language becomes more and more "interpretative' as opposed to 'expressed clarity'.

In Britain, we have more choices in how we express ourselves- rather than as asserted, "apparently being more constricting", by preserving such distinctions: we are easier on the listener as to what we have to say!
Monticello's "Let's go to the movies" is quite different to my:
He: "Let's go to the party as drag queens."
He2: Your on!

Perhaps we have more fun with words than some Americans.

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by David L.

Perhaps we have more fun with words than some Americans.

And perhaps some in the UK prone to "throwing the gauntlet" are also easily tripped up by common logical fallacies. (Please see "Hasty Generalization" within the preceding link.)

[David L.]

How better to duck and obfuscate than throw a website of a philosopher's understanding of logic at me.
Draw on this by all means, but please, if you wish to disagree, choose your own words ...or is this one more example of the lack of self-expressiveness I was referring to - and you now confirm by your deed (certainly not by your own words!!!)

By this stage in the proceedings, we are both calling each other 'fool' and no good will come out of this.

END

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by David L.

How better to duck and obfuscate than throw a website of a philosopher's understanding of logic at me.
Draw on this by all means, but please, if you wish to disagree, choose your own words ...or is this one more example of the lack of self-expressiveness I was referring to - and you now confirm by your deed (certainly not by words!!!)

By this stage in the proceedings, we are both calling each other 'fool' and no good will come out of this.

END

Duck and obfuscate? And to think that, with an economy of words (my own), I thought I was not only shedding light on the matter, but also having some fun.

One further point: The accusation that I have called anyone a fool here is another logical fallacy. Please review.

[David L.]

Let Heaven and Webmaster forgive me, but I cannot resist:
The accusation that I have called anyone fool here is another logical fallacy

Language has two forms of logic: the objective, and the implied.
How presumptuous of me to imply that you have thought I was a fool - not outright "illogical", but certainly presumptuous.

I wrote:
By this stage in the proceedings, we are both calling each other 'fool'

See past my "illogical" presumption - how kind, I am not a fool in your eyes - and the reader is left with a statement of the "logical" deduction that has been drawn by the speaker as to the other party.

Oh, how the British relish implied logic.

The point of all this: does it ever occur to you that language is more than cold words on a page; that it has a subjective vibrancy of context and subtext and innuendo that transcends pure philosophical logic? How can you, if you purport to be such a defender of objective logic, be satisfied with any...any...blurring of meaning in the use of words that then calls for fuzzy 'subjective' interpretation??

[undeddy]

Chill out, dudes.

[Monticello]

Originally Posted by David L.

Let Heaven and Webmaster forgive me, but I cannot resist:
The accusation that I have called anyone fool here is another logical fallacy

Language has two forms of logic: the objective, and the implied.
How presumptuous of me to imply that you have thought I was a fool - not outright "illogical", but certainly presumptuous.

I wrote:
By this stage in the proceedings, we are both calling each other 'fool'

See past my "illogical" presumption - how kind, I am not a fool in your eyes - and the reader is left with a statement of the "logical" deduction that has been drawn by the speaker as to the other party.

Oh, how the British relish implied logic.

The point of all this: does it ever occur to you that language is more than cold words on a page; that it has a subjective vibrancy of context and subtext and innuendo that transcends pure philosophical logic? How can you, if you purport to be such a defender of objective logic, be satisfied with any...any...blurring of meaning in the use of words that then calls for fuzzy 'subjective' interpretation??

- No doubt a presumptuous accusation. - Certainly also a presumptuous accusation based upon the logical fallacy of Faulty Cause and Effect. Again, please review.

Hi undeddy: FYI: Based upon his past posts, David L. appears to enjoy these kinds of exchanges. Perhaps it's his UK version of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry's "Go ahead, make my day."