I always understood the second to be a borrowing from German where you besuchen mitt. In English English, it would mean the two of us - Fred and me - were doing the visiting.
"Visit" is also used in (at least some of) the US in a way that I've never heard in the UK. I hear a number of my American friends say something like "we're going to stay and visit for a bit" meaning that they are going to remain where they are and chat with the person they're sitting with.
I don't think the UK uses this sense of visit to mean "chat / spend time with" - in the UK, visiting someone is the act of going to their house (often to stay for one or more nights). You can't visit someone at a restaurant, or in a church hall (unless there's a fete and they're running a stall, in which case you might visit their stall).
If the good Lord hadn't wanted us to borrow from German ... Oh, wait ...
Meanwhile, just as I'm about to start making a nice Welsh Rarebit for our tea (or 'us tea' as they say in Yorkshire), my daughter announces that she wants to do herself a 'ready-meal' as a treat. I dunno, da yoof today ...
Turns out it's only Toad in the Hole!
Heck, if I knew she liked that I'd have made us some ...
If you’re visiting Fred, I know who you’re visiting. If you’re visiting with Fred, I know who your companion is, but not who the two of you are visiting?
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I call the plastic containers milk comes in bottles, just like the glass ones the milkman would deliver
A profession that has all but died in the United States, though there has been somewhat of a resurgence because of the pandemic.
We've had a local dairy, Smith Brothers, in constant service delivering milk since WW2 at least. At one time we subscribed to their service, as keeping milk in the house with 4-1/7 kids was a rum go.
Here is a question I hope our august participants will address:
Which is "proper" English:
"I am visiting Fred"?
or
"I am visiting with Fred"?
I will check your answers later.
They mean two different things. To visit someone is to go to where they are. "Visiting with" means sitting around chatting. One can visit Fred without visiting with him.
When I moved from the UK to the US and worked in a coffee shop, I got in trouble for referring to the metal containers that we steamed milk in as 'jugs'. I was taken aside and told that this was slang for the female anatomy, and I should use 'pitchers'.
They also didn't like me calling whole milk 'full-fat' - you can't use the word fat! I think 'full-cream' was ok though.
They mean two different things. To visit someone is to go to where they are. "Visiting with" means sitting around chatting. One can visit Fred without visiting with him.
I agree. I can visit with a friend over lunch at a restaurant (well, I used to be able to). By if I drop by her house, I'm visiting her.
They mean two different things. To visit someone is to go to where they are. "Visiting with" means sitting around chatting. One can visit Fred without visiting with him.
I agree. I can visit with a friend over lunch at a restaurant (well, I used to be able to). By if I drop by her house, I'm visiting her.
You meet with a friend for lunch. Unless she lives in the restaurant.
Here is a question I hope our august participants will address:
Which is "proper" English:
"I am visiting Fred"?
or
"I am visiting with Fred"?
I will check your answers later.
I always understood the second to be a borrowing from German where you besuchen mitt. In English English, it would mean the two of us - Fred and me - were doing the visiting.
I'd have said:
it would mean the two of us - Fred and I - were doing the visiting.
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
"I am visiting with Fred" = Fred and me are going together to visit other people, probably with slightly intentional overtones, a bit like JWs. Ordinary people visit friends. Clergy go visiting.
The sense that is not used in BrEnglish is 'visiting' to mean just casually conversing with someone, e.g. on neutral ground. In BrEnglish, 'visiting' = going to call on someone, usually where they live.
Yes. The North American usage doesn't make any sense in this instance. I can think of other Americanisms or Canadianisms that make more sense than British expressions but this one is beyond me. It makes no sense whatsoever.
If I visit with someone I'm taking someone with me for Pete's sake.
Yes. The North American usage doesn't make any sense in this instance. I can think of other Americanisms or Canadianisms that make more sense than British expressions but this one is beyond me. It makes no sense whatsoever.
“Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”
Trying to think through it, I think more people here (North Carolina) would say “I’m going to visit with Fred” or “I’m going to go pay Fred a visit” than would say “I’m going to visit Fred.” If someone is going with me, then “Bill and I are going to visit with Fred/pay Fred a visit.”
Though the reality is probably most people would say “I’m going see Fred” or “We’re going over to Fred’s.”
And here, I think “visit” as a verb would imply going to Fred’s home, not somewhere like a restaurant. As a noun, on the other hand, “getting in a good visit” can certainly happen anywhere.
Mind you, if I were to lapse into Wenglish nothing I'd write would make any sense - or even less sense, should I say.
'What did you 'ave nice for your dinner?'
'Do you want me to give it you now or give it to you again?'
'Whose coat is that jacket hanging on the door by there?'
'Where by is that to?'
'Where to do you live?'
'Blue do suit you but the pink I do rather.'
'I'll be there now in a minute.'
'Who is his name?'
And so on.
Meanwhile, is it just me but as well as differences in usage and terminology, am I the only one here who suspects they can 'hear' some Shipmates' accents in my head as I read what they've written?
I might be wrong but I've got a pretty good idea of what I think Gramps49 and Lamb Chopped might sound like in real life - Mousethief too, perhaps, in a way that I don't with some of the British posters, other than those who clearly have some kind of strong regional accent - such as Glaswegian or Yorkshire.
Of course, it's all in my head but I do think there are clues and indications in the way some people write, and it's not because they write like Rabbie Burns ...
People here might say "I'm going to bother Fred", but if they've got a thing for Fred (people don't fancy one another here), bothering him means they also want to jump him (which means seduce or otherwise have sex with him. Bothering Fred is more like going to see if he's interested. Jumping him means being pretty serious about bumping him and likely throwing yourself at him. Which all means about the same as "shagging", which isn't a word here, except we know if from media. The really funny one, which may not be actual UK usage(??) is someone saying "I'll knock you up", which only has the meaning of making someone pregnant. No-one rings anyone either here, they call or phone.
I learned a new meaning for crumpet today, though.
It's better to toast them under the grill as the sides need different timing. Plain butter's best but some like honey or golden syrup.
Try them with Marmite!
Marmite is not welcome in this house - food of Satan. We do enjoy Vegemite on toast but not on crumpets.
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
*Vegemite: (OZ and NZ). Nom nom nom but not as nom nom nom as UK Marmite. Causes heartburn to some. Paste rather than liquid. Did I mention nom nom nom. My staple lunch almost every day, served with rip our sox off strong cheese on bread or toast. Heartburn results.
* Marmite (OZ and NZ). Nasty sugary salty leathery stuff that used to be sold in a "tumbler"-type jar with a lid that didn't fit, hence accentuating the nasty leathery propensities in a boarding school dining room. The name was stolen by Sanitarium-So-Called-Health-Foods and copyrighted for NZ/OZ despite have SFA to do with the yummy British original. Even the colour is different. Agreed that its is a work of Satan. Intellectual property law then forced real Marmite (UK) to rebadge in OZ/NZ as Our Mate.
I hadn't noticed that change - a jar of Vegemite lasts a fair while and when replacements are bought it's just a matter of reaching for the yellow label.
People here might say "I'm going to bother Fred", but if they've got a thing for Fred (people don't fancy one another here), bothering him means they also want to jump him (which means seduce or otherwise have sex with him.
Gives a whole new dimension to the expression 'God botherers'.
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Here, “talk to” could well mean something slightly different than “talk with.” “Talk with” can carry the implication that we shared in conversation. “Talk to” can carry the implication that I did the talking and Fred did the listening, perhaps on a specific subject.
You also have the scenario of “I gave Fred a talkies to.”, when poor Fred needs to be remonstrated with.
"Talking to" here
And here.
And I realized that with regards to the connotations of “talking to” and “talking with” I mentioned above, I should have added that “talking to” can also carry the implication of talking about a specific topic.
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
Where did Bill come from? He was not in my question.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
But if turned upside-down will soon run out of the jar. Vegemite and the antipodean imposter won't.
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
I wouldn't call it yummy either. I mean, I don't call anything yummy but even if I did, marmite wouldn't be it.
Jumping him means being pretty serious about bumping him and likely throwing yourself at him. Which all means about the same as "shagging", which isn't a word here, except we know if from media.
Shagging isn't throwing yourself at someone; it is what you end up doing if your throw is successful.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Of course 'visit with' makes loads less sense than 'talk with or 'chat with.'
'Visit with' only makes sense in British English if it involves being accompanied by someone on a visit to a location.
As in, 'Bill and I visited Fred.'
Boogie nailed it upthread.
'Visit with Fred' makes no sense whatsoever unless it involves being accompanied by Fred on a visit somewhere.
'I visited Hampton Court with Fred.'
'I visited Aunt Ethel with Fred.'
'I visited New York with Fred.'
That's how it works in UK English. I'd get into trouble if I said that this is Proper English.
But 'visit with Fred' meaning to chat with Fred makes no semantic sense at all unless you change the meaning of the word 'visit'.
Perhaps that's what's going on. 'Visit' means something different in North America to its meaning here in the UK.
But something tells me that it doesn't, that it means the same thing in some contexts but not others and you have to be in on it in order to understand ...
It's pretty simple. "to visit with" (in places that use it) means "to engage in friendly, non-pressured chitchat, of the sort you might have on a friendly visit."
So: "I visited with Bill during my visit to California." Two separate verbs with related but not identical meanings. Think of "visited with" as "visited-with" (imagine the hyphen) and it might be easier. You'll never mix it up with "visited [a place] with [in the company of] so-and-so", because that formation requires you to insert a place noun between the verb "visit" and the preposition "with," and it is not permitted to delay the object to follow the "with" phrase. Unless you want to sound like a German who has taken a wrong turn: "I visited, with Bill, California." Just.Wrong.
Ah, shagging. Here, that means doing a particular kind of local dancing, done to a style of R&B we call “beach music.” When I was in college, you could often tell where in Eastern NC a person was from, or where they went to college, by how they shagged.
BTW, shagging is the official state dance of South Carolina. North Carolina has two official state dances: shagging is the official state popular dance, while clogging is the official state folk dance.
We do know what shagging means elsewhere, or at least many of us do. Sometimes we have fun with the potential ambiguity.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Of course 'visit with' makes loads less sense than 'talk with or 'chat with.'
'Visit with' only makes sense in British English if it involves being accompanied by someone on a visit to a location.
You’re confusing two similar but different assertions: makes no sense at all and makes no sense in the context of British English.
I’ve got no problem if you want to say it makes no sense in the context of English as spoken in Britain. That’s fine.
But you can’t assert it makes no sense full stop. There are too many people who speak English in something other than a British context for whom it makes perfect sense.
@Firenze, I used ‘have words with’, or, more probably, just ‘have words’ just the other day. I’m a teacher, and it is used as a warning. “ Keep going, and I am going to have words...”. “Watch out, or Mr H will have words - and they will not be kind ones!”
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Not in Britain. Talking to would imply a discussion here.
‘I am visiting Fred’ is correct English in the UK.
‘I am visiting the museum with Fred’ is also correct.
‘I am visiting with Fred’ is wrong as it’s missing a location. Where are you both visiting?
"Do you live here?"
"Oh no - I'm visiting with Fred."
In the UK, Fred and the speaker are both guests of someone who lives in the establishment. In the US, Fred is presumably the resident, and the speaker is having a good old chinwag with him.
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
I agree with your assessment that Bill’s role is ancillary. In my mind it was something like a pastoral visit between Fred and me with Bill present as a trainee, or possibly an observer.
.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Not in Britain. Talking to would imply a discussion here.
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
But if turned upside-down will soon run out of the jar. Vegemite and the antipodean imposter won't.
After reading this, I turned my jar of Marmite upside down (500g jar, about a third full). After a bit less than two hours, about a teaspoonful had found its way to the inside of the lid, with some more slowly oozing in that direction. Bovril would I think have been almost entirely in the top of the jar within seconds, and from my limited experience of Vegemite I can believe that it would stay put.
From this I conclude that, at least in my kitchen, Zappa's last statement would be correct if 'soon' was replaced by 'eventually'. Maybe even the 'correct' version in the Antipodes isn't quite the same as it is here.
I tried Googling the subject; this paper looked promising, but it turned out to be about Australian 'Marmite'. There must be some data somewhere out there on the viscosities of these substances, though.
@Nick Tamen: '"Visit with” makes no less sense than “talk with” or “chat with.”'
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Here, “talk to” could well mean something slightly different than “talk with.” “Talk with” can carry the implication that we shared in conversation. “Talk to” can carry the implication that I did the talking and Fred did the listening, perhaps on a specific subject.
Or "I had a talk to him about what he'd done" carries - at least here - the connotation of a reprimand.
Comments
"Visit" is also used in (at least some of) the US in a way that I've never heard in the UK. I hear a number of my American friends say something like "we're going to stay and visit for a bit" meaning that they are going to remain where they are and chat with the person they're sitting with.
I don't think the UK uses this sense of visit to mean "chat / spend time with" - in the UK, visiting someone is the act of going to their house (often to stay for one or more nights). You can't visit someone at a restaurant, or in a church hall (unless there's a fete and they're running a stall, in which case you might visit their stall).
If the good Lord hadn't wanted us to borrow from German ... Oh, wait ...
Meanwhile, just as I'm about to start making a nice Welsh Rarebit for our tea (or 'us tea' as they say in Yorkshire), my daughter announces that she wants to do herself a 'ready-meal' as a treat. I dunno, da yoof today ...
Turns out it's only Toad in the Hole!
Heck, if I knew she liked that I'd have made us some ...
In American English how would you say what a Brit could mean by saying, “I am visiting Fred with Bill.”?
I'm not American, although I live here, and I'm not certain that "visit with" is uniformly used throughout the country. But if you want to use that construction, then "Bill and I are visiting with Fred" seems fairly clear.
But (in my UK English) I'd probably say "Bill and I are visiting Fred". Your construction implies to me that Bill is being brought along rather than being a first-class participant in the visit. Perhaps Bill is a pet donkey, or a gardening tool, or something.
Cram.
We've had a local dairy, Smith Brothers, in constant service delivering milk since WW2 at least. At one time we subscribed to their service, as keeping milk in the house with 4-1/7 kids was a rum go.
They mean two different things. To visit someone is to go to where they are. "Visiting with" means sitting around chatting. One can visit Fred without visiting with him.
They also didn't like me calling whole milk 'full-fat' - you can't use the word fat! I think 'full-cream' was ok though.
You meet with a friend for lunch. Unless she lives in the restaurant.
I'd have said:
it would mean the two of us - Fred and I - were doing the visiting.
-visiting with Fred: means to catch up on what's happened with Fred since I last saw him.
-visiting Fred: means we're just hanging out together
"I am visiting Fred" = I am going to see Fred.
"I am visiting with Fred" = Fred and me are going together to visit other people, probably with slightly intentional overtones, a bit like JWs. Ordinary people visit friends. Clergy go visiting.
The sense that is not used in BrEnglish is 'visiting' to mean just casually conversing with someone, e.g. on neutral ground. In BrEnglish, 'visiting' = going to call on someone, usually where they live.
If I visit with someone I'm taking someone with me for Pete's sake.
Trying to think through it, I think more people here (North Carolina) would say “I’m going to visit with Fred” or “I’m going to go pay Fred a visit” than would say “I’m going to visit Fred.” If someone is going with me, then “Bill and I are going to visit with Fred/pay Fred a visit.”
Though the reality is probably most people would say “I’m going see Fred” or “We’re going over to Fred’s.”
And here, I think “visit” as a verb would imply going to Fred’s home, not somewhere like a restaurant. As a noun, on the other hand, “getting in a good visit” can certainly happen anywhere.
'What did you 'ave nice for your dinner?'
'Do you want me to give it you now or give it to you again?'
'Whose coat is that jacket hanging on the door by there?'
'Where by is that to?'
'Where to do you live?'
'Blue do suit you but the pink I do rather.'
'I'll be there now in a minute.'
'Who is his name?'
And so on.
Meanwhile, is it just me but as well as differences in usage and terminology, am I the only one here who suspects they can 'hear' some Shipmates' accents in my head as I read what they've written?
I might be wrong but I've got a pretty good idea of what I think Gramps49 and Lamb Chopped might sound like in real life - Mousethief too, perhaps, in a way that I don't with some of the British posters, other than those who clearly have some kind of strong regional accent - such as Glaswegian or Yorkshire.
Of course, it's all in my head but I do think there are clues and indications in the way some people write, and it's not because they write like Rabbie Burns ...
Having read almost the entire thread in a sitting and wished to comment on so many moments, I need to point out that:
*Marmite (UK): liquid and yummy, a little similar to Bovril, certainly in texture. Sold in NZ as "Our Mate" which is excruciating. (See intellectual property reference below).
*Vegemite: (OZ and NZ). Nom nom nom but not as nom nom nom as UK Marmite. Causes heartburn to some. Paste rather than liquid. Did I mention nom nom nom. My staple lunch almost every day, served with rip our sox off strong cheese on bread or toast. Heartburn results.
* Marmite (OZ and NZ). Nasty sugary salty leathery stuff that used to be sold in a "tumbler"-type jar with a lid that didn't fit, hence accentuating the nasty leathery propensities in a boarding school dining room. The name was stolen by Sanitarium-So-Called-Health-Foods and copyrighted for NZ/OZ despite have SFA to do with the yummy British original. Even the colour is different. Agreed that its is a work of Satan. Intellectual property law then forced real Marmite (UK) to rebadge in OZ/NZ as Our Mate.
‘I am visiting the museum with Fred’ is also correct.
‘I am visiting with Fred’ is wrong as it’s missing a location. Where are you both visiting?
Gives a whole new dimension to the expression 'God botherers'.
And makes a less than minced oath of Botheration!
I wouldn't call UK Marmite liquid, it is quite thick and sticky.
Except we'd normally say "talk to", or "I had a chat with".
Also 'said' used to have ominous implications, as in 'There was enough said at our Edie's wedding...'
"Talking to" here
And I realized that with regards to the connotations of “talking to” and “talking with” I mentioned above, I should have added that “talking to” can also carry the implication of talking about a specific topic.
Where did Bill come from? He was not in my question.
"Talking to" certainly implies a one-way communication. Lectured to?
Got it.
But if turned upside-down will soon run out of the jar. Vegemite and the antipodean imposter won't.
I wouldn't call it yummy either. I mean, I don't call anything yummy but even if I did, marmite wouldn't be it.
Of course 'visit with' makes loads less sense than 'talk with or 'chat with.'
'Visit with' only makes sense in British English if it involves being accompanied by someone on a visit to a location.
As in, 'Bill and I visited Fred.'
Boogie nailed it upthread.
'Visit with Fred' makes no sense whatsoever unless it involves being accompanied by Fred on a visit somewhere.
'I visited Hampton Court with Fred.'
'I visited Aunt Ethel with Fred.'
'I visited New York with Fred.'
That's how it works in UK English. I'd get into trouble if I said that this is Proper English.
But 'visit with Fred' meaning to chat with Fred makes no semantic sense at all unless you change the meaning of the word 'visit'.
Perhaps that's what's going on. 'Visit' means something different in North America to its meaning here in the UK.
But something tells me that it doesn't, that it means the same thing in some contexts but not others and you have to be in on it in order to understand ...
So: "I visited with Bill during my visit to California." Two separate verbs with related but not identical meanings. Think of "visited with" as "visited-with" (imagine the hyphen) and it might be easier. You'll never mix it up with "visited [a place] with [in the company of] so-and-so", because that formation requires you to insert a place noun between the verb "visit" and the preposition "with," and it is not permitted to delay the object to follow the "with" phrase. Unless you want to sound like a German who has taken a wrong turn: "I visited, with Bill, California." Just.Wrong.
BTW, shagging is the official state dance of South Carolina. North Carolina has two official state dances: shagging is the official state popular dance, while clogging is the official state folk dance.
We do know what shagging means elsewhere, or at least many of us do. Sometimes we have fun with the potential ambiguity.
You’re confusing two similar but different assertions: makes no sense at all and makes no sense in the context of British English.
I’ve got no problem if you want to say it makes no sense in the context of English as spoken in Britain. That’s fine.
But you can’t assert it makes no sense full stop. There are too many people who speak English in something other than a British context for whom it makes perfect sense.
@Lamb Chopped has it exactly right.
Not in Britain. Talking to would imply a discussion here.
"Do you live here?"
"Oh no - I'm visiting with Fred."
In the UK, Fred and the speaker are both guests of someone who lives in the establishment. In the US, Fred is presumably the resident, and the speaker is having a good old chinwag with him.
Unless you are giving someone a talking to.
After reading this, I turned my jar of Marmite upside down (500g jar, about a third full). After a bit less than two hours, about a teaspoonful had found its way to the inside of the lid, with some more slowly oozing in that direction. Bovril would I think have been almost entirely in the top of the jar within seconds, and from my limited experience of Vegemite I can believe that it would stay put.
From this I conclude that, at least in my kitchen, Zappa's last statement would be correct if 'soon' was replaced by 'eventually'. Maybe even the 'correct' version in the Antipodes isn't quite the same as it is here.
I tried Googling the subject; this paper looked promising, but it turned out to be about Australian 'Marmite'. There must be some data somewhere out there on the viscosities of these substances, though.
Or "I had a talk to him about what he'd done" carries - at least here - the connotation of a reprimand.
Only because I have been on this British board long enough.