I’ve had to check myself several times when writing on CT recently. I’ve been tempted to use the word “quite” as a modifier of words like “good”. The trouble with this is that Americans (and perhaps all other English users outside the UK?) use the word as a modifier also but in a different sense from the way I would naturally do. If an English person is asked what they thought of a film or a play or a restaurant and they reply that it was “quite good”, they are likely to mean that it was good only to a moderate degree. Americans will intend and understand by the same phrase that something was absolutely, wholly or certainly good. If you tell me that my work is “quite good”, I’m likely to understand that as damning with faint praise. But If you are an American you probably meant to compliment me. Just to confuse matters, a British person who says they are “quite sure” does indeed mean that they are absolutely sure. I hope we’ve quite cleared up that misunderstanding.
I hope we’ve quite cleared up that misunderstanding.
Um, not quite.
[Smack!. Ow!]
If you tell me that my work is “quite good”, I’m likely to understand that as damning with faint praise
Ahh, but if I said it was “really quite good”, then my English understatement would modify the faint praise and it would be a compliment after all.
Things would be much simpler if we followed my suggestion and simply banned all Americans from reading CT.
Quite so.
Aww, don’t ban us from reading CT. I’d miss y’all’s posts; some of them are quite good.
Post about cricket and football; we’ll go away.
But is that really how Americans use ‘quite’? I had always had the impression that the word, in American mouths, was not quite a superlative at all. Very mild damnation with not-too-faint praise, if you like. A thing is ‘quite good’; that is to say, it’s really rather good; not, perhaps, absolutely first-water, no; not the Platonic ideal; not stop-in-your-tracks good; not the dog’s bollocks altogether; but don’t look downhearted, it is still quite good for all that.
Have I been wrong in this all along? Perhaps an American reader will set me straight, if Daniel hasn’t scared them all away.
I’ve long been aware of the two interpretations, but had almost an opposite understanding of the geography. To me “quite good” = “pretty good” = “fairly good”. Whereas some other people think it means something like “fully good” as opposed to “minimally good”. But I thought they were British. Doesn’t “quite exhausted” mean “completely exhausted” rather than “a little exhausted”. Or “quite spoiled”?
“Quite a bit” = a big bit, more than a bit, but not an awful lot. “Quite awhile” = a long while.
Come to think of it, the word doesn’t really seem to have any meaning outside of context. Call the emergency pragmatics specialist. (Or is it semantics?)
My Merkin intuition has “quite good” as equivalent to “really (rilly) good,” the more total sense that Chris suggests.
And don’t ban us… who will you ruthlessly mock at the CT wine tastings without your Merkin commentors?
Eh? No we don’t. Do we? I don’t anyway. ‘X is quite nice’ - one says that in a hesitant tone, and no one rushes off to make X’s acquaintance.
Well but come to think of it, I remember once, years ago, asking my brother (who is a PhD in French) whether I should translate the French modifier ‘bien’ as ‘quite’ or ‘rather’ - and he told me that Americans don’t say ‘quite’ anyway. We then proceeded to have a big argument about it, as we always do about everything. But he may have been a little right - I don’t think it’s quite as common here as it is there. Except among affected people like me.
But in any case, I’m pretty sure that when we do use it we use it to mean what Chris means. Quite nice is less nice than very nice, not more so. I’m pretty sure, quite sure, rather sure.
Quite.
Just to reassure our American friends that there is no real prospect of their being banned; my proposal met with but scant support among the CT collective.
“Quite good” is not a phrase you’ll hear many Americans use as it is a bit of an affectation. Just saying it myself makes me think I should be using an English accent. Of course, I can only speak for the south. Perhaps the yankees up north use it more. As for the meaning of “quite good” it sounds like someone is surprised that something was good. I typically use “great”, “very good”, or “really good” if I want to emphasize something’s good qualities. Anyways, just my $.02.
My impression is that we Americans often use “quite” to mean “more so than you think.” So if I tell you a movie was “quite good,” I mean that I thought it was better than you seem to expect me to have thought. If I tell you it was “quite long,” that means it was longer than you thought it would be (or than I thought it would be before seeing it). So “quite” implies both “to a high degree” (because it’s used to raise the estimation from its previous level) and “to a low degree” (because it’s used when the previous estimation was already low).
Growing up in the American south, I think I rarely if ever used “quite”; it sounded too affected. Now that I live in the UK, though, I use it all the time, but - just to make things complicated - not in the faintly damning (or dampening) British sense.
Instead, I use it to mean more than “pretty” but less than “pretty damn”. Thus (working our way up), “Liverpool is good. Charlton seems quite good. Chelsea is pretty damn good. And Arsenal will win the treble.”
Well, there you are then. Only among affected people like me.
Dang, there goes my shot at being president, I guess.
Stentor is right
Quite - that’s a compliment.
Doesn’t “quite exhausted” mean “completely exhausted” rather than “a little exhausted”. Or “quite spoiled”?
Yes, but that’s because it moderates a pejorative or ‘bad thing’. ‘Quite awful’ usually means ‘very very very awful’ in BritEnglish, though it does have echoes of some plummy Bloomsbury type saying it. Though ‘quite bad’ means ‘not completely bad’. Usually. So, yes, it’s pragmatics gone mad.
That said, ‘quite right’ is usually an endorsement, especially on its own, when it’s a pat on the back. And ‘quite the thing’, though getting a little archaic, is also approbative.
Consider it a vestige of the BritEnglish tendency for both irony and understatement.
It’s pretty (or quite) obvious that we haven’t got a clue what we mean by it! Some of us use it one way, some another, some both, some more than two - it’s a catch-all, a flexOmatic word.
Now could someone explain “Republican” and “Democrat”? or are we with Alice in Wonderland now, lexically speaking?
Is there a DSM-IV for politics?
I think Stentor is right. I think that “quite” means something like “exactly” or “adequately” and can mean “fully adequate” or “barely adequate” according to context (what is in question, expectations).
From my days as an EFL teacher, I thought the distinction was as follows (in UK or American): if quite modifies an adjective which is already at the ‘limit’, for which there is no comparative or superlative, it means ‘completely’, but if comparative or superlative is possible, it means ‘fairly’. Hence ‘quite good’ (because good can become better) means fairly good; quite excellent means ‘absolutely excellent’ because you can’t be more excellent than something else. Hope that’s cleared that up.
I use quite to modify an adjective in a similar fashion to the following words:
Very: Quite good
Exactly: Not quite right
Definetly: that’s quite enough
in the gradient of good, I guess it would be:
attrocious
quite bad
bad
adequate
good
quite good
excellent
because ‘good’ implies being better than adequate which itself implies a sort of neutral position.
“Quite good” = “really rather good” or “reasonably good” or “pretty good,” but “below excellent.” In my usage. A compliment, not backhanded, but on the moderated side. Not a superlative, but not grudging.
Ken above has it.
Reuben: Now you need to get the hang of the plural for sports teams - Chelsea are pretty damn good
Keith
It would make my life quite a bit simpler if someone could give me a rule for when the plural is used. Is it only for sports teams? Can only the plural be used for sports teams? Is the plural used for organisations, eg Oxfam? I’m probably showing my lack of gray matter here, but in making the transition from American English to Brit, this is the most vexing difference I’ve encountered. There seem to be know set rules for when plural is used versus singular.
Cheers
See, guys, we can have a nice, civil, troll-free discussion as long as we avoid topics which lead to bad feeling. The Thurmond family has recently explained to us how hurtful and uncourteous it is to bring up sensitive issues unnecessarily. So in the future let’s just not!
I believe that the subject is considered plural when it represents an aggregate of people. Hence, the sports team and a company are both plural. (in a press release, you’ll see Microsoft are releasing …)
So do Brits have a completely different interpretation of what the song “Mellow Yellow” is saying? That is, is he the fellow quite rightly mellow?
I use “quite” very often, probably as an affectation. Roughly, I intend it to be closer to “very” than to a damnation with faint praise. I wasn’t aware that Brit English usage is the latter.
Where else does the British propensity for understatement and irony complicate trans-Atlantic communication?
As an American (Southern US), if I heard someone say, “I ate lunch at the new restaurant down the street. It was quite good.” I’d understand it at a commendation (perhaps indicating a touch of “better than I expected” per stentor’s comment). However, context (and non-verbal cues) could cause me to take it as irony: “Did you meet the new manager yet?” “Yeah, he’s quite the expert on our business!” (with rolling eyes, etc.)
Not a common turn of phrase in the circles in which I move, but also not one that I’d instinctivelty hear as damning-with-faint-praise.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review