Divided by a common language

I first encountered this difference in usage about a dozen years ago, when I was at the height of my wine-collecting phase. At first, I couldn’t understand why British wine writer Clive Coates would describe a wine a “quite good” and then give it a mediocre score. Eventually, the light went on.

‘“Quite” in British-English, and indeed in its Hibernian variant (which is of course the purest and most supple form of the language) means “reasonably, but not very.” ‘

Of course I know this about ‘purity’ is just a charming Celtic wind-up, and besides you’re very bitter right now about what a useless football team you have. But allow me to point out that the uncultured Americans use ‘quite’ in the sense in which it would have been used by, say, Jane Austen, or, going further back, Dr Johnson- so one could argue that it is our American cousins who have preserved the purest form of English.

The original English were blue-faced and favoured brutality over verbosity.

Eating bread, beef and lots of beer , yelling “Roooooooooney” and then punching your neighbour is a purer form of English than a debate over the use of “quite”. The purest form of English is retained in the behaviour of English football fans.

Verbal niceties probably came in from the French. So I would say that the Americans have preserved the purest form of French, who prefer art over violence. (Does that please them?)

As an American, I don’t think ‘quite good’ is an entirely unmixed compliment, but I wouldn’t call it damning with faint praise either. The overtone I hear is that when I describe something as ‘quite good’in my own idiolect of American English, while my opinion of the object of the expression my be very high, I imply that a negative evaluation was somehow expected, either by my interlocutor or by myself. Sample usages would be:

Q: Is something wrong with the food? You’re not eating.

A: No, no, it’s quite good — I just had a late breakfast.

or

Q: How was the new Adam Sandler movie?

A: Surprising though it may sound, it was quite good.

While the food may have been delicious and the movie a masterpiece, ‘quite good’ acknowledges that that isn’t the expected answer for some reason.

I haven’t looked at Clinton’s quote in context, but if he uses ‘quite good’ like I do I would interpret it as meaning “I understand that you expect me to have some uncomplimentary things to say about Kerry. In fact, I don’t.”

In the UK ‘quite’ is not necesssarily slighting or negative; tone of voice seems to determine whether it qualifies up or down.

I cannot imagine an American speaker using ‘quite’ sarcastically or to downgrade a thing. When used, it means much the same as ‘very’.

When teaching English to foreigners, I was plagued for months by the problem of how to explain ‘quite’. Did it mean ‘absolutely’, ‘very’, ‘somewhat’, or ‘just about’? It seemed to depend on the context and the tone of voice, but I could never pin down what tone of voice implied which meaning.
I finally resolved the problem by advising my students to never, ever use the word.

No they aren’t, just artistic violence, thus combining the best of our Anglo-Franco heritages, without of course retaining the Francophone spelling that has somehow gotten stuck on the Hanoverian side of the Narrow Sea. Sarcasm is quite foreign to the American sensibility, if indeed there is one, as is winding people up.

With all due respect lizardbreath, I would never tell a host the food was quite good because to me, that’s the same as saying “it’s ok, I’m just not hungry.”

That looks like exactly what I would mean by it — ‘quite’ would be a reassurance that the problem was with the speaker’s appetite rather than with the food. In that statement, ‘quite good’ could mean that the food was anywhere from absolutely delicious to inoffensive, and the function of ‘quite’ would be to overcome the implicit negative assumption in the question, rather than to quantify exactly how good the food was.

sorry lizbreath, the way I see it I’ve just insulted your cooking and now I’m telling a lame lie about not being hungry before rushing out to procure myself an emergency curry.

I think we need examples where the speaker’s intent is clear. Otherwise, we’re just offering up our own opinions on what the speaker meant.

and really, would you tell your mother in law her food was “quite good” at your introductory dinner?

The word “quite” is used either as a qualifyer or an intensifier. The meaning of the word “quite” depends on context and intonation. Use of the word “quite” in the context “quite a good” doesn’t, necessarily, mean “very” or “extremely”. In American usage this can mean “not so bad”. It rather depends on intonation of both “quite” and “president”. If the emphasis is on both of those words, with stress on the end of “president”, “quite” is a qualifier. If the stress is not on “president”, but on the words “quite” and “good” then “quite” is an intensifier.

You know, praising cooking ability is a rather circumscribed area of conversational pragmatics, so arguing about the general meaning of ‘quite good’ from talking about cooking is quite misleading. (sorry, couldn’t resist that)

Normally, when an American is asked for an opinion, if s/he simply says ‘that’s great’ and ends there, the impression is one of blowing off the person’s effort. The general pattern is to make some suggestions to improve the idea, which shows that the listener is as invested in the idea as the speaker. Note that this does not work with food. ‘How was the soup?’ ‘Great, but I would have added a bit more cilantro to heighten the contrast’. Part of it is that the person can’t go back and remake the soup and a project is generally ongoing.

There is also the question of expectation which lizardbreath points out. Quite good can mean I wasn’t sure when I first heard it, but now I’m pleasantly surprised. You aren’t going to say ‘the chicken was quite good’, but you might say ‘the roasted chicken with chocolate sauce was quite good’

A related point is that Brits and Americans use ‘really’ in a different way. I’ve never gotten a handle on it, but one of the reasons to use ‘quite’ to modify good is that ‘really’ sounds a bit too much like a teenager. Brits, who I don’t think use really as a modifier very much, don’t use quite as a substitute.

I’m an American too, and though I might never say to the cook’s face that the food was quite good, I think I would say to someone else that the food was quite good and mean a complement. “Delicious! Excellent! Just like mama used to make! I couldn’t eat another bite!” is the sort of stuff to say to cooks, but that’s because it’s socially mandatory in America to complement fulsomely (note: this is about as based on serious research as most of David Brooks’ work).

And, my fellow Americans–does “quite” sound British to anyone else? I’m reminded of the couple in P.G. Wodehouse* who sever their engagement because the woman can’t stand the man’s constant Americanism (such as “mustarsh” instead of “moostosh”)–the woman’s characteristic utterance is “Quate.”

*Prudence (lnu) and Tubby Vanringham, in Summer Moonshine.

Just say “The food is awesome”. Much simpler.

As a New Zealander who has lived in America four years, I would say that Americans more often use “quite” in the sense of “very”, and much less often in the sense of “moderately” and less often again in an ironic sense.

People in the Midwest will say with all politeness “It was quite nice to meet you,” on first meeting you which seems underwhelming, and less effusive than normal conversational practice here. It took me a while to realize they probably meant “very nice to meet you.”

Whether those phrases are accurate is a different question!

“And, my fellow Americans—does “quite” sound British to anyone else?”

Sure. That’s one of the things that got discussed in the December version. Including an argument I had with my brother about whether Americans even say it at all, and the fact that I cop to being quite affected.

Ophelia, I’m with you. Apart from my “the directions were quite clear” example above, I know of no others where quite is simply substituted for “very.”

However, I do think Eudoxis’ point is also valid. In certain situations, meaning does depend very much (note not quite much) on the intonation and emphasis of the speaker.

Frankly, I think this is a literate vs semi-literate debate as opposed to Brit vs Yank usage. And if that makes me sound like a snob I will make exceptions for weird evolving midwestern usages like “I’m quite pleased to meet you.”

I’ve got to tell you though anyone said that to me on a date and it would be our final one!!!

I was born and reared in the south and have lived in the midwest and now the mid-atlantic and I have never heard anyone use the word as anything but a superlative. (Maybe that’s a manifestation of my American irony deficit?) I hadn’t even heard of the alternate meaning until reading of it a few months ago on this blog. I do agree that given the context and the tone of voice it can come off as defensive (“It’s quite good, thank you!”) or aggressive (“The facts are quite clear.”). But in each case it’s clear meaning to me is “very” despite the subtext.

While “quite good” and “quite nice” often sound a bit affected in American English, I think you’ll hear the negation “not quite,” meaning “almost,” without affectation: “Are you ready?” “Not quite. Gimme a minute.”

But an American would never answer “Are you ready?” with “Yes. Quite ready.” That sounds really British.

On a somewhat related note: I once knew an old Hoosier farmer who would say “not half good” to mean “fully and completely good.” Thus: “Try this cake–it’s not half good.”

DC native here, and I’m with Spencer. I’d never heard of using “quite” as anything other than emphasis until I read the earlier CT article. This whole discussion is quite enlightening.

Of course another good form of emphasis is to say things twice, say things twice.

cackle

I only hit the “post” button once, I swear.

I only hit the “post” button once, I swear.

“…an American would never answer “Are you ready?” with “Yes. Quite ready.” That sounds really British.” – hp 10.40pm

I doubt anyone “British” has said “Yes. Quite ready” since Mrs Miniver.

Another British/American usage clash in the original thread…

‘“Ticked off” in American idiom is not transitive — Clinton was ticked off, not the BBC guy.’ Which confusion engendered further slightly confused responses. The British usage is, as pointed out there, quite different from the American one. For that, meanwhile, we Brits would be more likely to say ‘pissed off’. Whereas we don’t say that we’re ‘pissed at’ someone (‘pissed off with’, maybe). And being ‘pissed’ tends to involve becoming extremely happy (until the hangover next morning, at least), not getting angry.

Amazing how Brits and Americans ever manage to understand each other at all, really.

Reminds me of the stand-up comic routine (Jasper Carrott, I think, but this was back in the 70s when he wasn’t entirely crap), on his first visit to the US, when he asked his hosts if they’d like him to lay the table…

Or my own grandmother, a war bride, who arrived in the US and told her new mother in law that the job she’d had at the BBC was frustrating in a variety of ways, “but at least [she] was getting a good screw!”

Jonathan, it’s a matter of tone. If I say, ‘Fred’s quite capable of making up his own mind, thank you’ in a firm tone, I mean that he really is capable of it. But if someone asks, ‘Is Fred capable of making up his own mind?’ and I reply, ‘hmmm, he’s quite capable,’ in an equivocal tone, then I’m casting doubt on it.

(Disclosure: I’m not British, but I’ve lived here for a while; and we Aussies seem to follow the British in this. This whole US ‘quite good’ = ‘very good’ business has been quite perplexing.)

I thought of the ‘quite sure’ exception at some point (some much later, miles from computer, doing other, completely different things, point) yesterday. It’s true – quite sure means thoroughly sure, not fairly sure or rather sure. Mostly.

The wretched word must have at least two uses. As a mild intensifier (quite good, quite nice, quite stupid, quite dull) and as a synonym for thoroughly (quite sure, quite ready, quite finished).

That clears that up, right?

Quite.

While Americans are capable of irony, irony is passe (accent acute) now — heavy sarcasm is the new irony. Also, invective and abuse. (I note that my vice President has recently adopted my sophisticated style of debate. Civil, weenie CT types are being left in the dust.)

I should also mention that the normative form of Godwin’s law has been abolished. Hitler is always already there, so the predictive form of Godwin’s law is trivially true. There’s no Hitler penalty any more, and anyone who says that there is is a Nazi and can go fuck themself.

NOTE: There is something very popular in the US which is called “irony”, but isn’t. What it especially means is being devoted to really, really bad pop culture just because it’s bad, and making whimsically negativistic tongue-in-cheek comments all the time.

You’re looking in the wrong place. It depends on what “quite” is qualifying. If it’s indeterminate (eg “quite good”) then “quite” devalues. If it’s absolute (eg, “quite excellent”) then it intensifies.

Cf
quite nice
and
quite disgusting.

These days, a young american is likely to eat a meal cooked by his girlfriend’s mother and remark, “This food is ridiculous.” Roughly translated, that means “quite good.”