Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 07:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - TheOtherOne 07:13 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| Of course it is "nu" in the libretto. "So, nu?" is an idiomatic expression even if some people have never heard it. "So, new?" is not an idiomatic expression. It has not been said by anyone (other than those misquoting Guys and Dolls.) This takes me back to the time someone argued that Eva Peron ran the Argentine treasury because she used the term "sixes and sevens with you" which clearly indicated that she handled the taxes levied on the citizens she was singing to. Sometimes an idiomatic expression is just an idiomatic expression. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:41 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - whereismikeyfl 07:31 pm EDT 08/02/20 | |
|
|
|
| How would you know that it isn't and has never been said by anyone? But it wouldn't be "So, new?" I agree that isn't an expression and no on has say it - i'm not why you wrote it that way. It's "So new?" It seems like you are trying to make it more absurd that anyone would think that was the expression than it actually is. And sometimes when you use an idiomatic expression that the majority of people listening to a cast recording would never know was one, and that expression including a homonym, then everyone is going to assume there either IS an expression such as the one the character sounds like he's saying, or that it was created for this and sounds good and makes sense. Even as "so new?" it sounds like a very Jewish thing to say (i am Jewish and was raised by NYC Jews). |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 06:15 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 02:41 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| In my travels, extensive reading of novels of the 20s through 60s, work curating American films of the same period, checking reference books on American idiom, I have not and cannot find any reference to "So, new," "So new," "Sew new" or any variant thereof. While this does not indicate decisively that there is not some corner where "So new" is a idiom, it does show pretty decisively that is not a common one. The only use of those two words together that I can find is with "so" as an intensifier, not as an interrogatory. In you last paragraph, you even seem to agree that "So new" has only been used by people who misunderstood the lyric in Guys and Dolls, so I am not sure why you argue something else in the first paragraph. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:36 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - whereismikeyfl 06:15 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| You are working on the false pretense that for something like this to have been written to come out of the mouth of a fictional character it would have to be an established idiom or common expression. This is hardly true. And it wouldn't have to be true for this lyric if it had been written as "so new?" So your mocking of the idea that people heard it this way and that it was accepted by them is pretty pointless. The only two points you have are that the lyrics as written is "so nu" no "so new", and that you cannot find proof of anyone saying "so new?" as an expression. But there is really no point to be made on how no one could hear it as "so new?", beyond the fact that I'd wager the vast majority of people who ever heard the lyric heard it as "so new?" whether it made sense to them or not; and there's no point to be made that it doesn't make sense because it wasn't a common expression. It made sense to my ear and other people's... furthermore, especially when you hear something for the first time as a young person (or a person who doesn't have a lifetime of study to feel they have a grasp on what people ever did say anywhere ever or not), you hear something like this and despite it not being something you've heard or would say, you just take it as a thing people have or used to or could have said, or just as a thing this character would say. My first exposure to this song was when I was probably 10... I've never been in this show or worked on it so I never had reason to look up the lyrics I thought I knew because the lyrics are all pretty straight-forward and easy to hear and words I know. I had no idea what half the things they sing in "Fugue for Tin Horns" meant but I also assumed it made sense and I made sense of it in the context. If you are one of the people in this thread who just cannot fathom a character with a jewish-new yorker-comedic way of talking saying "I'm just a no-good-nick. So new?" and having it make sense to anyone ... then i don't know what to tell you. It does. It doesn't have to be the lyric written to be confused for the lyric, and it makes sense even if it's not something "people say". |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 11:12 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 04:36 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| This is ridiculous, but a little fun. I am not saying that "something like this to have been written to come out of the mouth of a fictional character it would have to be an established idiom or common expression." In this case it IS a established idiom and a common expression. Just one you do not know. I am not mocking "the idea that people heard it this way and that it was accepted by them." What I am mocking is people who insist that their misunderstanding is actually a correct understanding--or that the writer is at fault for writing something that could be misunderstood. And as in the case of my friend who saw Evita and thought she was singing about taxes because she had never heard the expression "at sixes and sevens" before, you made a mistake because you did not know the idiom. Claiming that this is a weakness in the writing is absurd--homonym or not. There is no way for writers to account for the vocabulary and familiarity with idioms of everyone who receives their writing. Especially if the receiver is a 10 year old and/or someone who is not familiar with people who talk like the characters. Not understanding specific idioms and vocabulary used by characters unlike oneself is pretty common. There is no shame in mishearing or misunderstanding. And it is not a problem with the writing that characters speak like their real life counterparts as long as the gist is clear to the uninitiated. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:04 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:50 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - whereismikeyfl 11:12 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| It is both silly and fun. ;) So here we have another false premise -- "people who insist that their misunderstanding is actually a correct understanding" ... these people don't exist here and nothing has been said like that. I have never said the misunderstood lyric is a correct understanding... I said it ALSO makes sense. Because it does. That doesn't mean I think the writer meant me to hear and think that, but if you do not know the expression *actually* used in the lyric, the lyric still by some magic makes sense (and has to me for decades, as it seems to have for the millions of people who've heard this song and wouldn't have ever known or heard "so nu" before, let alone seen it written to have the chance to find out they were mistaken about what word it was). Also no one has quite said "the writer is at fault for writing something that could be misunderstood." There's no fault to be had. The writer wrote what he wrote. He DID write something that could, more than almost any other lyric in the show, be misunderstood. If he didn't know that people might be unfamiliar with this expression (i.e. most people who aren't Jewish and/or New Yorkers with Jewish friends), then that's a bit hard to believe but it's also possible he never considered it. Either way he wrote the lyric he wanted. There's no fault, this isn't a blame issue. The reason the lyric exists is because he wrote it. The reason that it is commonly misunderstood is because A) most audiences aren't familiar with Yiddish expressions and B) "nu" is a homonym of the incredibly common word "new", a word that also happens to make sense in the context if the listener doesn't know better, and is in a show with no signals there will be Yiddish expressions used by Nathan (who isn't defined as being Jewish in the show) or anyone (again, this isn't Fiddler). You can agree that "so new?" makes sense to you or not, but I'm curious if you pretend you didn't know the word "nu", what would you think when you hear this lyric? And no, your friend didn't make a mistake and neither did I and the MANY people who hear it as "So new?" I don't know why you speak about this stuff in such judgmental language - fault, mistake. But I also do not know what is so difficult here, why you can't acknowledge that *MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD DO NOT AND NEVER WILL KNOW THE YIDDISH EXPRESSION "SO NU?" That is just not really debatable. It isn't the audience's fault or mistake, and it wasn't wrong of the lyricist to write it. Guys & Dolls is one of the most known and performed musicals in America of the last 70 years. So most people who hear it, a lot of people, either are confused by this lyric or immediately assume they heard the word they think they heard ("new") and make sense of it exactly how I did as a comedic Jewish and/or New Yorker way to say something that makes sense in context. Sondheim has even talked about this. It actually *is* the job of the lyricist to both choose lyrics that sound like they'd come out of the character's mouth AND that the audience will be able to hear and make sense of. That doesn't mean you can't use words or terms they wouldn't know, but if it doesn't make sense in context then that's a problem as a dramatist if you're trying to reach a wide audience. If it does make sense then it's fine. It's a choice either way. And I'm sorry but I disagree-- unrelated to this song which is wonderful -- if you use a homonym in your lyric and it isn't clear in context which word you mean and the confusion of the words could change the meaning of the lyric, that is a weakness in the writing unless you did it on purpose. For example "I mean he kneads me, i mean like dough". Not only do we know which word Sondheim means between knead and need based on the context and the next line, i love that you could hear either and have it make sense. (because if you thought it was "he needs me", you know in 2 seconds from her singing "like dough" that it was actually "kneads", OR you stick with "needs" and are wrong but at least a baker needs dough, and as their partner Dot might like to think the baker needs her like he needs dough, as an essential part of who he is or to function. One is sexual, one is romantic, but both make sense, though only one is correct and it's not at all hard to know which word he meant.) But as sometimes happens when discussing musicals... i think we are not going to see eye to eye here. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| oops | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 05:01 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:00 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 04:36 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| false premise, not pretense. Several typos -- sorry, it's quite late. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Barbra Streisand points the way | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 06:00 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: i've always assumed it was "so new?" and it always made sense that way - Chazwaza 02:41 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Her very popular recording of SECOND HAND ROSE ends with "NU?". She isn't saying "NEW?" and neither is Nathan Detroit. It's true many Gentile viewers might not understand either of them but Jewish audiences of the 50s certainly did. | |
| Link | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCtrcAp3TEY |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Barbra Streisand points the way | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:41 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: Barbra Streisand points the way - Billhaven 06:00 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Okay... so Jewish New Yorkers in the 50s knew. Nu? I didn't know. I would never have known she wasn't saying "nue" again there, or "new" or "knew"... all homonyms and words we use constantly in this language (the language these shows are written in). In this song it makes little difference if you don't know - it's either a fun tag if you know or a cute but maybe confusing tag if you don't --- the rest of the song doesn't rely on audiences or listeners knowing the yiddish word "nu". Unlike "Sue Me", in the case of "Second Hand Rose" it doesn't actually make sense if the word you think you hear is "new" (or "knew" for that matter), but unlike "Sue Me" it doesn't really matter if you get it or if it makes sense or not. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Barbra Streisand points the way | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:27 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: Barbra Streisand points the way - Billhaven 06:00 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Gentile? Is that still a term, lol? It sounds like...biblical times. (Biblical times? Oh, those biblical times...!!) I tend to think non-Jewish is perfectly ok to say. ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.028395 seconds.