for whatever reason, it seems that lately wherever i turn i'm running into the same perplexing phrase:
"Here! Here!"
~or~
"Hear! Hear!"
I've always thought the latter was 'correct' (as in "listen, listen, these are words of truth"), but three times in a row now i've seen it as "Here! Here!", which could also make sense, as if the speaker were raising a hand saying "I agree, I agree".
Are they both the same? Both correct? Somehow it sounds Shakespearean in origin... does the OED give an earliest citation? are you there, joe?
Hear! Hear! appears to be a shortened form of "Hear ye! Hear ye!"
And Here! Here! looks as though the speaker is trying to rope in the attention of a distracted and even disagreeable audience.
I'll cast my vote for "Hear! Hear!" but it's easy to imagine how "Here! Here!" would make sense, too. (This reminds me of what's going on over on the XXXXX and OOOOO thread. Lots may be rationalized when drawing viewpoints. We'll see what Mr. Ed has to say.)
What's heard hard bears repeating here to drum the thing in at a battering gallop, so here's your Ed heard in red to be read and reread among the word herd since we're on the subject of homophones, F.:
>We'll see what Mr. Ed has to say.
a horse is a horse of course, of couse and you can't talk to a horse, of course unless, of course, the horse of course is the famous mr. ed.
[it's stuck in my head, why shouldn't it be stuck in yours...]
...reread Ed in red, here, there and everywhere--hear! hear! (That's twice and that's nice!)
I always thought it was "here, here" meaning I too, me standing right here, agree with what you say. I did so because of the way it is shouted out - loudly, with no hesitation between each word.
When you want someone to pay attention you might say "hear, hear" but wouldn't you pause for effect and to draw the person's attention after the first "hear" then say the second "hear". I'm having a bit of trouble explaining it. Act it out and you may see what I mean.
Hear! Hear! appears to be a shortened form of "Hear ye! Hear ye!"
Not shortened. The earlier form is "Oyez, oyez!". The more natural translation of that is "Hear, hear!". The English use in Parliament might date from the time English was adopted as the official language... I should know when... late 1300s?
Town cryers are said to cry "Hear ye", but how authentic a tradition is that?
I think Nicolas has hit the nail on the head here.
At each session of the United States Supreme Court, as the Justices file into the Chamber, the Marshall intones thus: "The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
Black's Law Dictionary states (I find the last four words amusing): OYEZ. Hear ye. A word used in courts by this public crier to commaned attention when a proclamation is about to be made. Usually pronounced "O yes."
I always have had to stop and think about this one, but for the last couple of years I've taken more note of printed word usage -- in books and with closed-captioning it seems to be invariably rendered as "hear, hear".
Easy to take a position on either "Hear! Hear!" or "Here! Here!"--circumstances having been taken in consideration.
But even more alluring are the considerations of "Where? Where?"--Where to meet? Where to find one another?
And then the giddily mad cries of young girls facing their closets for that special date: "Wear? Wear?"--What to wear to enchance the enchantment? Ah, that's a sweet cry to heaven for help!
Wearing a belt of stars loosely below my abdomen, OrB
Well, I'm not going to argue over the levels of stupidity which can be reached if you really try. I don't need to. The following is an excerpt from your link:
"Quite simply, the collective intelligence level is dropping so rapidly that it's becoming increasingly difficult for producers to insult the intelligence of the American public," said News Corp president and COO Peter Chernin. "Without a way to set a floor for the lowest common denominator, even the stupidest material we can develop is not stupid enough for audiences to enjoy."
and
"The biggest problem is not that TV shows' plots are too complicated, but that shows have any plots at all. The presence of a plot, however hackneyed, is not palatable to viewers accustomed to programs like Total Request Live or Jackass, which contain no story structure whatsoever," Lowell said. "What's worse, in two or three years, even TRL will be too hard for most people to grasp, because the e-mail requests scrolling across the screen require them to read."
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
...from the other horse thread.
I think.
