to be on

Status
Not open for further replies.

undeddy

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
What does it mean?
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
What does it mean?

Hi undeddy,

It's a phrase that means "to be at (or near) peak performance." For example, "Tiger Woods was on his game today."
 

undeddy

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Hi!

And what's its meaning in 'Are you on?'
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Hi!

And what's its meaning in 'Are you on?'

Hi undeddy,

That's a very open-ended question. If someone were to ask me that, I'd ask for clarification: "What, exactly, do you mean?"
 

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
"Are you 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.

Other meanings of 'to be on"

He is on drugs/I am on medication for my asthma.

"I'm on" is said by an actor when he hears his cue and must make his entrance on stage.
and
"You're on" would be said to the actor by someone backstage.
 

Clark

Key Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Member Type
Academic
What film is on at the local cinema?

Who is on duty today?
 

undeddy

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
So, if I want to ask someone, whether (s)he wants to join me in doing sth or participate in sth, I can ask 'Are you on?'
 

Clark

Key Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Member Type
Academic
So, if I want to ask someone, whether (s)he wants to join me in doing sth or participate in sth, I can ask 'Are you on?'

Are you on for the trip to the Baikal?
 
Last edited:

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
To be on has many meanings. My favourite TV show is hardly ever on these days, and that's just not on.
 

undeddy

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
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'?
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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.;-)
 
Last edited:

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Hi undeddy,

David L. said:
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." ;-)
 
Last edited:

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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.
 
Last edited:

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
David L. said:
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.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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
 
Last edited:

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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. :lol:

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

David L.

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Member Type
Other
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??
 
Last edited:

undeddy

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Chill out, dudes.
 

Monticello

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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." :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top