Liz from Australia recently used the word "tins" which I immediately translated into American English usage: "cans." Then I wondered how the difference occurred.
Tin, of course, is an alloy of silver and lead. The chemical symbol is Sn (Latin stannum). The word is derived from the Old English tin and a variety of meanings attach to it. In British slang it means money. In cricket it refers to the scoreboard: "on the tins." A squash court is fitted with tin at the bottom of the front wall which resounds when struck. So "tin" means out of play. In Australian slang, "tin-back" means lucky man. A "tin plate" is iron or steel that has been coated with tin so that it is resistent to oxidation. In other words, it's hermetically sealed which is closest to the meaning of Liz's "tins."
Can (the noun) also has a variety of meanings. It is American slang for toilet. (The Oxford English Dictionary states that this is American slang for "water-closet" the derivation of which we'll save for another day.) To "carry the can" means to take responsibility or to take the blame, rather opposite usages. In the U.S. Navy it means to be reprimanded. According to the OED, the origin of the "take responsibility" usage is unknown but it may have referred to the beer can one soldier carried for his companions. "Can" is derived from the Old English canne from Latin canna meaning "small vessel." The OED defines it as a vessel for holding liquids, made from various materials but now usually made of tin.
All very interesting but does it answer the original question? In the Eighteenth Century "tin can" in U.S. slang referred to a destroyer. I'm going to put forward a theory: At one time the term used when referring to a hermetically sealed small vessel of food was "tin can." As usual, being language-lazy, that was too much of a mouthful so we split the terms. The Brits (also adopted by the Australians) made the first term plural. For some reason the Americans took the second term and made it plural. Why? Contrariness? Any other theories?
Hmmm. You can also be canned as fired.
ReplyDeleteNow for the why . . . hmmm . . . I went on ask.com and the only relevant page wouldn't load (of course). Then I remembered the tins when I was in England.
My theory is Americans call tin cans "cans" because almost all of our tincans are cylinder shape. While in England tins come in all shapes and sizes. In fact some of them are pretty awesome.
So the English wouldn't say a "can" of bisquits, but a "tin" of bisquits".
Hi Melanie! I've seen "Danish" cookies--usually around xmas--in large square "cans" or "tins." What would we call these? Also popcorn is sold in large "cans" decorated on the outside with pictures. In America I don't think we'd ask for a tin of popcorn. However, I also don't think that we'd as for a can of popcorn. I'm stumped.
ReplyDeleteContinuing the posit that Americans take the "lazy" way of speech, it makes sense that we shortened "tin cans" to just cans.
ReplyDeleteTo say "tin" requires the hardened "t" sound, with the deliberate placing of the tongue to teeth. The British style of speaking is crisp and precise, with hardened consonents being articulated.
American English tends more towards sibilence, sometimes almost a slurring of the consonents. Although the "c" in cans is hard, it is still softer than a "t", and is easier to pronounce.
Think about the words that a baby first learns to pronounce - soft consonents all, with the learning to pronounce hard "t" coming later in speech development.
Many people who have a tonal loss of hearing have difficulty in understanding the spoken word as they lose the sound of soft consonents. However, they sometimes have less difficulty understanding proper British diction as the consonents are clearly innunciated.
Thats what T & G think anyway, and they are from Great Britain.
T&G: What an excellent theory! I especially like your point about the tongue placement for the "t." That does require more movement/energy than the "c" which occurs in the back of the mouth. By the way, I don't think it's only American speech patterns that demonstrate laziness. I think it has occurred in all languages throughout the history of language. In one of my posts here I pondered the pronounciation of "knight" and how it had changed from the Old English pronounciation. Fun!!!
ReplyDeleteWalmart calls the packaging for Royal Dansk Danish Butter Cookies a tin.
ReplyDeleteThey are popcorn tins from the Popcorn Factory.
But at the movies it's a bag of popcorn.
When it comes to T&G's idea, that's pretty cool. We are lazy in our speech.
Sort of like the Kcorgi was turned into Corgi.
Or Stover is now Stovah. Snicker.
Not only with sounds but with the accented syllable.
It used to be newFOUNDlands, and is now mostly pronounced NEWfoundlens.
Notice the change of the accent and the slurring on the "lands."
Interesting. And we do use "tin" on occasion. So our use of "can" is specific to the small cylinder vessels with soup etc.
ReplyDelete"Knight" used to be pronounced a different way? Really? How can we get to that post? We would love to read it.
ReplyDeleteT & G
T&G: If you look on the right there is a Blog Archive. Click on January. It was the post for January 7, titled "Word-Hoard...Knight."
ReplyDelete