My husband recently used the phrase "roll it" to suggest that we replace a household item with an updated model. I'd not heard this expression before, but he claims it would be readily understood and/or used by anyone over 35 or so.
Anyone familiar with this phrase or its usage history?
Dear verlangen: I'm 84, and I've never heard it, and I can't find it in any of my phrase
or slang sites. It might be a regional thing. What region would have been involved?
similar, or a shortening I suppose, to what you do with a lease or a loan: roll it over...?
Verlangen, darned ol' eta
beat me to the only idea I had. I'm well over 35, and the thing I'd think of if I heard that with no other context, would be a joint. You write as though English is your first language, though you seem to be in Germany. I am wondering which part of the English-speaking world your huggy (hey--I meant to put "hubby", but I like this better!
) is from; perhaps it was heard in Britain, for ex., but not here in the States.
hey, I'm not that ol'!
though I am over 35...
> Anyone familiar with this phrase or its usage history?
Ah well, this is a slight variation on a few usages I know. Roll is of course a very useful verb. Certain funds can be 'rolled over' for example. Huggy's usage seems to indicate that if something is 'turned over' or 'rolled' then the situation is forced or driven forward. This use of 'to roll' as a transitive verb could also refer (figuratively) to flattening a certain something out though (like rolling dough). Either way it makes plenty of sense to me;-)
...and twice ten tempestuous nights I rolled.
I'd suggest that it's just a slight misuse of "Roll it" as used by television and film producers, in the sense of "Let's go", "Let's get moving".
As another over 35, I'd say that I'd have to hear Huggy use the phrase in context. Roll it just all by itself, as Cap Kiwi suggested is one of those phrases like it's raining in which it has no real referent, but if the it refers to the household item, then I am at a loss to come up with what I would think he meant. etaoin's suggestion would make it sound to me like he meant to keep it, possibly with some effort put into refurbishing it, but going by belligerentyouth's idea, he would mean to replace it.
Over 35 here, too: I've never heard "roll it" meaning to get rid of something or replace it. It's certainly understandable in context, but I've never heard the expression.
Happily UNDER 35 and only ever heard 'roll it' from a director's standpoint or when referring to the weed (both previously mentioned).
Roll it up, on the other hand, can be used as a yell of encouragement to baseball infielders, exhorting them to complete a 6-4-3 double play.
In reply to:
etaoin's suggestion would make it sound to me like he meant to keep it, possibly with some effort put into refurbishing it, but going by belligerentyouth's idea, he would mean to replace it.
actually, I was thinking more on the lines of upgrading. when I think of "rolling over" a loan, it means(to me), to take the current lease and move it to a better rate. which I guess does imply keeping it, but I hadn't thought of it that way. I have to say, I understood what hugby meant, certainly in context. he just sounds like a hip dude, cutting some new lingo.
I have heard police yell "roll it" at rubberneckers who wanted to slow down and gawk
at an accident, meaning they should step on it and not cause traffic back up.
Faldage - the phrase 'turn it!!!' is the one I'm most familiar with when referring to completing a double play. In my 27 years of playing ball, can't say I've EVER heard 'roll it up'.
Perhaps another regional kinda thang??
It was used commonly among the players in the summer collegiate wooden bat league I followed closely during the '90s.
senor faldaje says:
I'd have to hear Huggy use the phrase in contextOkay, it seems you're all correct, in various ways. here's the libretto, nearest i can remember it:
Hugby, to contractor who is set to remodel the billards room which contains a 5-year old big screen; the new version will contain a media center to hold the TV: "well i think i'll just roll that TV and get a widescreen digital so that the cabinet can be built to the proper dimensions" i took it to mean necessarily purchasing the replacement, but after reading your collective responses i've asked hugby for some clarification, and this is what i've gleaned:
"roll means to turn, to move, to change ~ roll it over and bring a new one in. it's a circular thing ~ out with the old in with the new. it can be a drug reference; "roll it to so and so"; quickly turn it to cash.
"it's also a reference to putting it on wheels and rolling it outta here, get top dollar while you still can."
In answer to your question, wwh ~ the region where this term was/is so common is right next to yours: Venice Beach!
It could be that he meant to trash it. Seems to me there's a large trash bin called a roll-off. Could this mean to place it in the roll-off?
PS
Welcome Verlangen. Don't be a stranger (means to post enough so you graduate to newbie or whatever it is just up the chain from that unfortunate almost unwelcoming word stranger.)
Welcome Verlangen. Don't be a stranger (means to post enough so you graduate to newbie or whatever it is just up the chain from that unfortunate almost unwelcoming word stranger.)
I somehow think that Verlangen might know that, TEd ...
Over 70
The picture that pops into my mind is a TV set being rolled over by one of those huge machines the Highway Departments use to tamp down an asphalt road.
Never hear the phrase in New England .... only reference I have is film where director says "roll it '': to start cameras and move actors!
think i'll just roll that TV and get a widescreen digitalA belated Britlish response, Verlangen: I'd understand "roll that TV" as simply "scrap that TV". The image comes to mind of a TV set rolling down into a tip, breaking apart as it does so, probably in slow motion
.
However, I have a dim recollection of hearing criminals talk of "rolling" stolen goods, meaning to sell them on quickly and replace them with "clean" goods (or better yet, money).
Oh,
TV criminals, of course.
Verlangen, your moniker resembles the name of the trendy practice in France (known as "Verlan") of reversing the order of spoken words, for example, "jourbon" instead of "bonjour". For those curious about "Verlan", here is an explanation from the New York Times (Aug. 17): "a popular slang called Verlan in which standard French spellings or syllables are reversed or recombined, or both.
Thus the standard greeting ''Bonjour, ça va?'' or ''Good day, how are you?'' becomes ''Jourbon, ça av?'' ''Une fête'' (a party) has become ''une teuf''; the word for woman or wife, femme, has become meuf; a café has become féca; and so on. The word Verlan itself is a Verlanization of the term l'envers, meaning ''the reverse.''
<<exhorting them to complete a 6-4-3 double play.>>
wots that fer all us nonUSns?
6-4-3 double play
Imagine, if you will, the batsman hitting the ball to the silly mid on but running anyway (you don't have the luxury of not running in baseball). The silly mid on throws the ball to the silly point who runs out one batsman and throws the ball to the bowler who runs out the other batsman. Of course, since there are only three outs to a baseball innings, this is the equivalent of getting six and two-thirds batsmen out, but since in baseball there are nine innings it is only the equivalent of about three-quarters of a batsman (or three-eighths if it's a test match). That about cover it, Rhuby?
And if you leave the féca do you defécate?
Moss, weren't you the one who was going to go away and start your own board?
[edit] Whoops. Case of mistaken identity. Hard to keep up with all the names around here! My apologies for the mix-up.
I've always heard c'mon, let's roll it! in the context of "okay, let's get a move on!"...let's get going, let's get out of here...and especially in military lingo (praps Hollywood military). But, of course, colloquially, the phrase was shortened to let's roll! sometime in the late 60's or early 70's...it was hip to drop the "it".
It also happens to be German for "need" or "require", says babelfish, who I consulted on a hunch...
Yeah, it's a real German word, all right, babelfish aside. ;)
Meanwhile, the French word-play is an interesting phenomenon. On a par with Europanto, ¿no?
"a popular slang called Verlan in which standard French spellings or syllables are reversed or recombined, or both.
Thus the standard greeting ''Bonjour, ça va?'' or ''Good day, how are you?'' becomes ''Jourbon, ça av?'' ''Une fête'' (a party) has become ''une teuf''; the word for woman or wife, femme, has become meuf; a café has become féca; and so on. The word Verlan itself is a Verlanization of the term l'envers, meaning ''the reverse.''
Lohel, ssom, edlightde at ingsee you here. Cimer for that planexation. D'I verne heard of verlan.
The silly mid on throws the ball to the silly point who runs out one batsman and throws the ball to the bowler who runs out the other batsman.
Well, I dunno what grade cricket match you're watching, Faldo, but y'sure don't be throwin' no ball to silly point to run someone out. Y'd be throwin' it to the wicket keeper, who might then throw it to the bowler at the other end. I'm guessin' if silly point was in there, he'd be in trouble for some kind of obstruction or gettin' smacked around the head by wickie for gettin' in the way!
FWIW. (Any excuse to turn a tenuous link to cricket into an even stronger one!!)
Y'd be throwin' it to the wicket keeper, who might then throw it to the bowler at the other end. I'm guessin' if silly point was in there, he'd be in trouble for some kind of obstruction or gettin' smacked around the head by wickie for gettin' in the way!
Unless the batsman played a leg glance which was fielded by the keeper, in which case the silly point or other close-to-the-bat fielder would be expected to cover the stumps. Not that you can get two wickets at one time anyway.
And why a 6-4-3 double play?
>Not that you can get two wickets at one time anyway.
Really? What if a batsman drove the ball back, the ball deflected off the non-striker (outside his crease) onto the non-striker's wicket, while the batsman's bat slipped out of his hands and knocked the bails off his wicket? One run out, one out hit wicket?
You just had to push it, didn't you.
In the situation given, the non-striker would not be out as the ball was not touched by a member of the fielding side. Even if it was, I believe the earlier of the two would take precedence. There are indeed a number of hypothetical ways is which more than one batsman could be dismissed with one delivery. However, most of these relate to "ungentlemanly" dismissals - "Timed Out", "Obstructing the Field", "Hit the Ball Twice" and "Handled Ball", only the last of which have I seen.
Unless the batsman played a leg glance which was fielded by the keeper, in which case the silly point or other close-to-the-bat fielder would be expected to cover the stumps.
Oh Doc, did you read Faldage's original cricket post? It said:
Imagine, if you will, the batsman hitting the ball to the silly mid on
See? My reply was based on this scenario. It was hit to silly mid-on. It wasn't a leg glance. It'd be pretty difficult to leg glance to silly mid-on.
Not that you can get two wickets at one time anyway.
I'm (unfortunately) with sjm on this one - it's a high improbability, but not an impossibility. 
>I'm (unfortunately) with sjm on this one - it's a high improbability, but not an impossibility.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I misphrased my original hypothetical, nit-picky scenario, as Doc Comfort rightly pointed out. Nevertheless, in the interests of accuracy in the use of language, it is true that it is, however remotely, possible.
If y'all're done argufying the fine points of cricket I'll explain the 6-4-3 thang. If not, I'm enjoying this too much and I'll hapfully wait... Gots to get my mind together(Hah!) about a rise/raise question that I dreamed about last night.
<<...6-4-3 double play...>>
wots that fer all us nonUSns?
All well and good, but I don't think anyone's answered the question yet.
The position on the baseball field are numbered, for some contexts. Thus
pitcher = 1
catcher = 2
first base = 3
second base = 4
shortstop = 5
third base = 6
right field = 7
center field = 8
left field = 9
if I have my directions right.
A 6-4-3 double play would be the description of a play where with a runner on first base, the batter hits the ball to the third baseman, who throws to the second baseman (in time to get the runner out) who then throws to the first baseman in time to get the batter out too. Double play, six-to-four-to-three.
Metaphorically speaking, it's a quick, efficient, and painless resolution of a potentially dangerous situation, snuffing out a threat before any damage is done.
Hope this answer is in keeping with the level of your knowledge of baseball.
Perty good, wofa. Onliest thang, the third baseman is 5 and the shortstop is 6. Ya see, originally the shortstop was an outfielder or at least, sort of a transitional infielder/outfielder. Thus he gets the number 6. Nowadays he is strictly an infielder; he and the second baseman share the guarding of second base shifting left and right depending on the hitting tendencies of the batter. Together they are referred to as middle infielders. The numbers are used to indicate the passage of the ball from one fielder to another. The most common infield outs are hit to either the second baseman or the shortstop. With a runner on first the middle infielder fielding the ball throws it to the other who makes the out at second. After that it is pretty much the way wofa described it. That the play at second has to be made before the play at first is due to fine details in the rules of baseball and can result in a 3-4-3 double play.
(you got the outfielders in the wrong direction too, wofa)
(you got the outfielders in the wrong direction too, wofa)
Thought I might have, thus the disclaimer after the list.
Thanks for the sprucing-up. (No, it's ash, isn't it? unless it's aluminum.)
Well, I dunno what grade cricket match you're watching, Faldo, but y'sure don't be throwin' no ball to silly point to run someone out. Y'd be throwin' it to the wicket keeper, who might then throw it to the bowler at the other end. I'm guessin' if silly point was in there, he'd be in trouble for some kind of obstruction or gettin' smacked around the head by wickie for gettin' in the way!Yeahbut. If the fieldsman at silly mid on got smacked in the head by the ball, he could wind up anywhere on the field. Not inconceivable that he might recover in time to scoop the ball up and dismiss the non-striker if that worthy was out of his crease, provided that he wasn't dodging a woozy silly mid on fieldsman, no? Or, of course, they may be playing some arcane American form of cricket where there are extra wickets at silly point, silly mid on, in the gully, the slips or anywhere else that takes their fancy!
