0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
English in UK
"loads of thanks" - ???
Hello!
My colleague at work asked me to publish a weekly report on a corporate web site. Upon completion I responded to her message with just "done!" in the message body. She replied me with "loads of thanks to you". Having never heard of such construction I tried to correct her thinkning of what she had really meant was "Lots of thanks" or "Thanks a lot". However I later received her point of view stating that:
(below there is a part of her message)
My question is:
Is she right or wrong? Do you guys either in Great Britain or in the U.S. use this weird construction "loads of thanks" ?
TIA,
Vsevolod
My colleague at work asked me to publish a weekly report on a corporate web site. Upon completion I responded to her message with just "done!" in the message body. She replied me with "loads of thanks to you". Having never heard of such construction I tried to correct her thinkning of what she had really meant was "Lots of thanks" or "Thanks a lot". However I later received her point of view stating that:
(below there is a part of her message)
Ok
I'll try to explain u what I meant
my phrase that sounded like "loads of thanks" is equal to your one "lots of thanks" - its not a mistake
however "loads" means much more than "lots"
its a bit from the spoken british language
I used this one just to emphasize how much I appreciated you'd done it so fast - good job 
)
Me too wish you - a nice day
My question is:
Is she right or wrong? Do you guys either in Great Britain or in the U.S. use this weird construction "loads of thanks" ?
TIA,
Vsevolod
Top answer
[/nq] If you really need to post to more than one group, crossposting (sending only one copy of the article, marked so that it shows up in both newsgroups) is preferable to multiposting (a copy of the message on each group, that means more messages to download and people on a group not seeing answers to the same question on other groups). To crosspost, you put both newsgroup names on the Newsgroups line of your article. Most newsreaders let you do that in a easy way.
- [/nq] If you really need to post to more than one group, crossposting (sending only one copy of the article, marked so that it shows up in both newsgroups) is preferable to multiposting (a copy of the message on each group, that means more messages to download and people on a group not seeing answers to the same question on other groups).
- To crosspost, you put both newsgroup names on the Newsgroups line of your article.
- Most newsreaders let you do that in a easy way.
- Still better, set a Followup-to (fup2), to a single group that best fits the topic, where you ask people to send their answers.
- readers Enrico C
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
26 Answers
0
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > uk.culture.language.english
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > misc.education.language.english in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > alt.languages.english
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
If you really need to post to more than one group, crossposting (sending only one copy of the article, marked so that it shows up in both new
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > misc.education.language.english in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > alt.languages.english
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
If you really need to post to more than one group, crossposting (sending only one copy of the article, marked so that it shows up in both new
00
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > uk.culture.language.english
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > misc.education.language.english in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > alt.languages.english
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
If you really need to post to more than one group, crossposting (sending only one copy of the article, marked so that it shows up in all the
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > misc.education.language.english in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
Vsevolod Ukrainsky > alt.languages.english
in
[nq:1]Hello![/nq]
If you really need to post to more than one group, crossposting (sending only one copy of the article, marked so that it shows up in all the
00
[nq:1]Hello! My colleague at work asked me to publish a weekly report on a corporate web site. Upon completion I ... wrong? Do you guys either in Great Britain or in the U.S. use this weird construction "loads of thanks" ?[/nq]
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's a well-used idiom, and I'd agree with your colleague that it's a more emphatic alternative to "lots".
Mike Stevens
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's a well-used idiom, and I'd agree with your colleague that it's a more emphatic alternative to "lots".
Mike Stevens
00
>
Certainly common usage in the US, but to me it is not more emphatic, but more informal, "friendlier," than "lots" or "a lot of."
By the way, Enrico - do you object to cross-posting so strongly that you have to post it twice in this ng?
Russ
Give thanks in any situation, things can always get worse.
Russ
Certainly common usage in the US, but to me it is not more emphatic, but more informal, "friendlier," than "lots" or "a lot of."
By the way, Enrico - do you object to cross-posting so strongly that you have to post it twice in this ng?
Russ
Give thanks in any situation, things can always get worse.
Russ
00
Russtrim > uk.culture.language.english
in
[nq:1]By the way, Enrico - do you object to cross-posting[/nq]
I objected to multi-posting, that's different.
Enrico C
in
[nq:1]By the way, Enrico - do you object to cross-posting[/nq]
I objected to multi-posting, that's different.
Enrico C
00
[nq:2]Hello! My colleague at work asked me to publish a ... the U.S. use this weird construction "loads of thanks" ?[/nq]
[nq:1]I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's a well-used idiom, and I'd agree with your colleague that it's a more emphatic alternative to "lots".[/nq]
Not by me it isn't. Seems rather an 'odd' turn of phrase. Formally I'd go for 'thank you very much', informally,
[nq:1]I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's a well-used idiom, and I'd agree with your colleague that it's a more emphatic alternative to "lots".[/nq]
Not by me it isn't. Seems rather an 'odd' turn of phrase. Formally I'd go for 'thank you very much', informally,
00
In article
, Vsevolod Ukrainsky (Email Removed) writes
[nq:1]Is she right or wrong? Do you guys either in Great Britain or in the U.S. use this weird construction "loads of thanks" ? TIA,[/nq]
The "loadsa ..." expression became very popular some years ago with a comedy character on British television who used the catch phrase "loadsamoney!". I don't know which came first, th
, Vsevolod Ukrainsky (Email Removed) writes
[nq:1]Is she right or wrong? Do you guys either in Great Britain or in the U.S. use this weird construction "loads of thanks" ? TIA,[/nq]
The "loadsa ..." expression became very popular some years ago with a comedy character on British television who used the catch phrase "loadsamoney!". I don't know which came first, th
00
In article
,
[nq:1](below there is a part of her message)
,
[nq:1](below there is a part of her message)
Ok I'll try to explain u what I meant my phrase ... I appreciated you'd done it so fast - good job
00
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, James Taylor
[nq:1]spam-block-@-SEE-MY-SIG.com[/nq]
wrote in (Email Removed):
[nq:1]Aaagh! If anyone sent me a message so densely packed with abuse of the English language I would immediately conclude ... no respect for the language whatsoever. The question of which variant of an idiom to use is inconsequential in comparison.[/nq]
Did you notice that both part
[nq:1]spam-block-@-SEE-MY-SIG.com[/nq]
wrote in (Email Removed):
[nq:1]Aaagh! If anyone sent me a message so densely packed with abuse of the English language I would immediately conclude ... no respect for the language whatsoever. The question of which variant of an idiom to use is inconsequential in comparison.[/nq]
Did you notice that both part
00
[nq:1]On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, James Taylor spam-block-@-SEE-MY-SIG.com[/nq]
[nq:2]Aaagh! If anyone sent me a message so densely packed ... variant of an idiom to use is inconsequential in comparison.[/nq]
[nq:1]Did you notice that both participants in the exchange are actually Russian?[/nq]
That's no excuse. Everyone knows Johnny Foreigner really speaks English unless he thinks an Englishm
[nq:2]Aaagh! If anyone sent me a message so densely packed ... variant of an idiom to use is inconsequential in comparison.[/nq]
[nq:1]Did you notice that both participants in the exchange are actually Russian?[/nq]
That's no excuse. Everyone knows Johnny Foreigner really speaks English unless he thinks an Englishm
0
Related Questions