11 definitions by claymuir
A slang word for Thanks.
The word is a result of the heavy Danish influence on the English language. Most people do not realize that the English language roots are really Danish or Jutland. Equiped with this knowledge this word is easy to decipher.
The Danish word for Thanks is tak. In Scotland and upper England it was common to drop the k at the end because of the way words were pronounced during the time of old English and Middle English. Hence the slang word "Ta" which should actually be pronounced "TA-k" but over time became "Ta" is really Tak meaning "Thanks"
The word is a result of the heavy Danish influence on the English language. Most people do not realize that the English language roots are really Danish or Jutland. Equiped with this knowledge this word is easy to decipher.
The Danish word for Thanks is tak. In Scotland and upper England it was common to drop the k at the end because of the way words were pronounced during the time of old English and Middle English. Hence the slang word "Ta" which should actually be pronounced "TA-k" but over time became "Ta" is really Tak meaning "Thanks"
by claymuir September 21, 2005
Form one (Ei, Ai, Aye - by itself):
Ei (eventually changed to Ai in middle English and Aye in modern English)
Used to confirm which group has a majority in a decision. It should never be the reply of an individual unless that person is representing a group. An example would be when a group votes yes or no. When the vote is counted if more votes are yes then the person representing the group would respond "Ei". In reference to the modern British use of the word, when the Vikings used to raid the coastlines they would take people prisoner to become conscripts, the crew would vote to kill the person or make them part of the crew. If they voted to make them part of the crew the reply to the captain would be a single "Ei"
It is important to note the word does not mean "Yes".
It simply means the majoirty or a group confirms or agrees.
Form two (when the word is used twice together Aye-Aye):
Ei-Ei
This literally translates - Always; ever
What this means is the person making the reply is saying he is professing his devotion to a group forever.
This was the oath taking by conscripts when joining the Norse Vikings.
The course of events followed that the crew would vote to allow a prisoner to live and make them part of the crew by voting "Ei" to the captain. The prisoner could then swear an oath to become part of the crew by responding to the captain "Ei-Ei". Meaning the crew has voted and I pledge to them always.
But, the expression was also used on the Viking ships when replying to the captain and is a reference to the oath they had sworn.
This is where the modern, misuse of the word comes from. The slang is a result of Ei-Ei which was always used to agree with the captain and over time became confused to mean "Yes". In fact it does not mean that at all.
It means one agrees to join a group forever and nothing else.
It is interesting because this history directly relates to the common phrase Yi-Ei-Man
Ei (eventually changed to Ai in middle English and Aye in modern English)
Used to confirm which group has a majority in a decision. It should never be the reply of an individual unless that person is representing a group. An example would be when a group votes yes or no. When the vote is counted if more votes are yes then the person representing the group would respond "Ei". In reference to the modern British use of the word, when the Vikings used to raid the coastlines they would take people prisoner to become conscripts, the crew would vote to kill the person or make them part of the crew. If they voted to make them part of the crew the reply to the captain would be a single "Ei"
It is important to note the word does not mean "Yes".
It simply means the majoirty or a group confirms or agrees.
Form two (when the word is used twice together Aye-Aye):
Ei-Ei
This literally translates - Always; ever
What this means is the person making the reply is saying he is professing his devotion to a group forever.
This was the oath taking by conscripts when joining the Norse Vikings.
The course of events followed that the crew would vote to allow a prisoner to live and make them part of the crew by voting "Ei" to the captain. The prisoner could then swear an oath to become part of the crew by responding to the captain "Ei-Ei". Meaning the crew has voted and I pledge to them always.
But, the expression was also used on the Viking ships when replying to the captain and is a reference to the oath they had sworn.
This is where the modern, misuse of the word comes from. The slang is a result of Ei-Ei which was always used to agree with the captain and over time became confused to mean "Yes". In fact it does not mean that at all.
It means one agrees to join a group forever and nothing else.
It is interesting because this history directly relates to the common phrase Yi-Ei-Man
by claymuir September 21, 2005
Correct spelling would be Yi-Ei-Man
The term is directly related to the terms Aye and Aye Aye
It was a phrase that the people of the north of the Britians, developed as a sort of war cry when Vikings were attacking their coastlines.
The Britians used to yell the words "Yi-Ei-Man" to the attacking Vikings, which mean literally "No, Always, Man"
The phrase was intending to imply that the Britains would never join the Vikings crews and would fight to the death down to the last man.
In modern times the words have completely lost all meaning and the phrase is just a sort of slang way of agreeing to something - ironically exactly the opposite of what it should be.
The term is directly related to the terms Aye and Aye Aye
It was a phrase that the people of the north of the Britians, developed as a sort of war cry when Vikings were attacking their coastlines.
The Britians used to yell the words "Yi-Ei-Man" to the attacking Vikings, which mean literally "No, Always, Man"
The phrase was intending to imply that the Britains would never join the Vikings crews and would fight to the death down to the last man.
In modern times the words have completely lost all meaning and the phrase is just a sort of slang way of agreeing to something - ironically exactly the opposite of what it should be.
by claymuir September 21, 2005
This is a slang that means something is coming from all directions. If things are coming in "left, right and center" they are definitely serious.
The expression comes from the military. In military terms on the battle field the commanders are concerned with getting "flanked" and have to be concerned with the strongest point of attack. When faced with an overwhelming attack which would see the opposition basically over running the defending unit the defending unit would simply refer to it as coming from "left, right and center" meaning everywhere.
The expression comes from the military. In military terms on the battle field the commanders are concerned with getting "flanked" and have to be concerned with the strongest point of attack. When faced with an overwhelming attack which would see the opposition basically over running the defending unit the defending unit would simply refer to it as coming from "left, right and center" meaning everywhere.
by claymuir October 3, 2005
The origins of the word are the mid-19th century Romany word chavi, meaning "delinquent male youth". It is sometimes defined as "male youth" but that is in fact inaccurate as the word is intend to carry a negative meaning much as calling a young child a "brat" in English.
The first known recorded history of the words usage comes from a story written in London citing trouble with young people distrubing graves in the London area simply as a means of disrepect. The story was based on an issue brought to light by the Church of England.
History: A local London church (who had the position of owning the a graveyard at that time)had informed the Church of England calling upon its huge power and influence to resolve an issue of local youths disrupting its graveyard. When the church questioned locals it was revealed by local immigrants that the problems came from young Romany which they called "chavi". The immigrants claimed the incidents had no evil motives are were just an example of badly behaved youths playing a prank.
The word enjoyed a period of widespread use around the time but then disappeared from mainstream until around 1988 when a major new service ran a story citing a similiar incident. The source of the story is unknown but it is known to have used the word "Chavi" because a court case followed due to the enthic orgin of the word and the way it was used in the story. The story was again about an issue in London and the paper first ran there.
There have been many claims that the word came from Scotland or the Northern areas of England but these claims are in fact false and show a lack of knowledge of the etymology of the word. Another untrue claim of the word is the spelling should be "charv" with the explanation being that the word comes from "charver". In fact this is incorrect as the word "charver" roughly translates to a "prositute or someone who sacrifices their bodies to gain wealth" and the words popularity is directly related to a sub-culture in Britain where as the members generally do not work (ruling out charver completely) and are social deviates.
Probably the most accurate definition of a Chav would be: members of the lower class; uneducated and ignorant people with little regard of the legal system or without respect for the society inwhich they live.
The first known recorded history of the words usage comes from a story written in London citing trouble with young people distrubing graves in the London area simply as a means of disrepect. The story was based on an issue brought to light by the Church of England.
History: A local London church (who had the position of owning the a graveyard at that time)had informed the Church of England calling upon its huge power and influence to resolve an issue of local youths disrupting its graveyard. When the church questioned locals it was revealed by local immigrants that the problems came from young Romany which they called "chavi". The immigrants claimed the incidents had no evil motives are were just an example of badly behaved youths playing a prank.
The word enjoyed a period of widespread use around the time but then disappeared from mainstream until around 1988 when a major new service ran a story citing a similiar incident. The source of the story is unknown but it is known to have used the word "Chavi" because a court case followed due to the enthic orgin of the word and the way it was used in the story. The story was again about an issue in London and the paper first ran there.
There have been many claims that the word came from Scotland or the Northern areas of England but these claims are in fact false and show a lack of knowledge of the etymology of the word. Another untrue claim of the word is the spelling should be "charv" with the explanation being that the word comes from "charver". In fact this is incorrect as the word "charver" roughly translates to a "prositute or someone who sacrifices their bodies to gain wealth" and the words popularity is directly related to a sub-culture in Britain where as the members generally do not work (ruling out charver completely) and are social deviates.
Probably the most accurate definition of a Chav would be: members of the lower class; uneducated and ignorant people with little regard of the legal system or without respect for the society inwhich they live.
by claymuir September 28, 2005
A United States slang term referring to a venereal disease due to the itching sensation caused.
The term is normally credited to Ted Nugent for his 80's rock song "Catch Scratch Fever" which hit the top 10 charts.
The term is normally credited to Ted Nugent for his 80's rock song "Catch Scratch Fever" which hit the top 10 charts.
by claymuir October 4, 2005
A football club from London (Chelsea) England. The actual name of the club is Chelsea Football Club (CFC) and the nickname is the "pensioners" or "The Blues"
As of 2005 Chelsea easily dominate almost every club in English football and Chelsea are in the top 10 clubs in the world.
The club despite its huge success also suffers from a great deal of negative press. This is a reflection of the pettiness that is commonly associated with the British people in general. It is of course a slight to the highly educated individuals from the island but a very common reality all the same. The first person who posted about Chelsea is proof of that.
The entire negative atmoshpere surrounding the club is born of jealsouy due to a rich Russia businessman buying the club and then spending a great deal of money on the club. The fact that such a positve thing could happen to an English business (CFC), along with all the benefits to the various English leagues, and the people of Britain and the British media could still react with such venom makes a very clear statement about those people not Chelsea football club.
All the same, the enthocentric behavior of the British people has caused several uncomfortable situations for the club. Much of this can be traced back to the fact that the media and the English FA are heavily invested in stocks in the historically powerful clubs in England. Normally, these investors would simply move their stocks over to the "new" powerhouse club but in this instance Chelsea is a privately owned club so the investors in positions of power have reacted by trying to set Chelsea up. Most of these attempts have failed and Chelsea have come out winners anyway.
This in part is due to the fact that core of players for Chelsea are British and were completely prepared for the juvenille reaction from the masses and also partially because the backroom staff were well aware of how the British people are so like sheep they will follow whatever the media states.
Example: The average British person believes that the United States has the highest instance of obesity despite the fact the BMA has publicly stated that Britian actually has the hightest rate of obesity and there has even been commericals released over the fact.
Result, the media makes something up to sell copy and the masses in Britain regurgitate it like parrots despite it being untrue.
Fact: the people of Britian are more obese than the people of the United States.
As of 2005 Chelsea easily dominate almost every club in English football and Chelsea are in the top 10 clubs in the world.
The club despite its huge success also suffers from a great deal of negative press. This is a reflection of the pettiness that is commonly associated with the British people in general. It is of course a slight to the highly educated individuals from the island but a very common reality all the same. The first person who posted about Chelsea is proof of that.
The entire negative atmoshpere surrounding the club is born of jealsouy due to a rich Russia businessman buying the club and then spending a great deal of money on the club. The fact that such a positve thing could happen to an English business (CFC), along with all the benefits to the various English leagues, and the people of Britain and the British media could still react with such venom makes a very clear statement about those people not Chelsea football club.
All the same, the enthocentric behavior of the British people has caused several uncomfortable situations for the club. Much of this can be traced back to the fact that the media and the English FA are heavily invested in stocks in the historically powerful clubs in England. Normally, these investors would simply move their stocks over to the "new" powerhouse club but in this instance Chelsea is a privately owned club so the investors in positions of power have reacted by trying to set Chelsea up. Most of these attempts have failed and Chelsea have come out winners anyway.
This in part is due to the fact that core of players for Chelsea are British and were completely prepared for the juvenille reaction from the masses and also partially because the backroom staff were well aware of how the British people are so like sheep they will follow whatever the media states.
Example: The average British person believes that the United States has the highest instance of obesity despite the fact the BMA has publicly stated that Britian actually has the hightest rate of obesity and there has even been commericals released over the fact.
Result, the media makes something up to sell copy and the masses in Britain regurgitate it like parrots despite it being untrue.
Fact: the people of Britian are more obese than the people of the United States.
Chelsea beat Liverpool at Annfield,again - yet it never gets old watching the media darlings get stomped on.
by claymuir October 3, 2005