Jump to content

What time is 'the back of (insert hour here)'?


HampdenHearts

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This has been picked up by the 'JKB Shed Wankers' twitter feed :lol:

 

Harsh, IMO.

 

As a shed ###### i think it's fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The People's Chimp

So the back of 12 is 12.50 then?

 

No, it's after the hour has passed. Simple. Around about 5 to 10 past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

This is like having a conversation with a 3 year old.

 

Let's just assume that you are. Why is just after the hour the back of the hour? Like you were explaining it to a 3 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

whats the price for a half cue these day?

 

You mean Q? As in an eighth? It's all metric now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be happy to see the back of this thread. Which is ofcourse to say in the future this will go away and not to say this thread will go away in the past or even before the thread itself existed. Because that would be silly. Yip, when i see the back of this thread it'll be after the thread has gone.

 

Oh, i'm sorry. I was just chatting to myself. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

I'll be happy to see the back of this thread. Which is ofcourse to say in the future this will go away and not to say this thread will go away in the past or even before the thread itself existed. Because that would be silly. Yip, when i see the back of this thread it'll be after the thread has gone.

 

Oh, i'm sorry. I was just chatting to myself. Carry on.

 

Just keep repeating the phrase without actually explaining why that's the phrase. Great. That's getting us somewhere.

 

Now, I'll also be glad to see the back of this thread. Which would mean it is indeed behind me. And if the thread was at the back of 8, it would be behind it too (roughly at the 7.50 mark).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just assume that you are. Why is just after the hour the back of the hour? Like you were explaining it to a 3 year old.

 

I'll repeat my comment from earlier, 12 on a clock face is the top or front, 6 is the bottom or back, this led to the right hand side of a clock face (and therefore between 1min and 30 mins past each hour) being referred to as being the back of the clock, hence the back of 12 being anytime between 12.01 to 12.30!

 

Nothing to do with time going forward or back, simply refers to the side of the clock face!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eldar Hadzimehmedovic

 

 

Just keep repeating the phrase without actually explaining why that's the phrase. Great. That's getting us somewhere.

 

Now, I'll also be glad to see the back of this thread. Which would mean it is indeed behind me. And if the thread was at the back of 8, it would be behind it too (roughly at the 7.50 mark).

 

He literally just explained it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

I'll repeat my comment from earlier, 12 on a clock face is the top or front, 6 is the bottom or back, this led to the right hand side of a clock face (and therefore between 1min and 30 mins past each hour) being referred to as being the back of the clock, hence the back of 12 being anytime between 12.01 to 12.30!

 

This genuinely makes absolutely no sense. What's the top and bottom got to do with the front and back? And why is 6 the back? and why is just the right hand side the back? Nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just keep repeating the phrase without actually explaining why that's the phrase.

 

Just keep ignoring the fact that i did explain why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

Just keep ignoring the fact that i did explain why.

Ok, I'll bite. To see the back of something, as in for it to be over, meaning that we're meeting when the designated hour is over (not the whole hour, just the part where the clock strikes 12). I can see that the logic there, if not a little convoluted.

 

So you're saying I should ignore every other instance of the word "back" that I'm aware of (as in, the rear of something, or to move in the opposite direction of forward), in favour of your understanding of "back of", taken from a turn of phrase that isn't really used in any other instance, when my understanding of the word is already used in several ways when describing time.

 

This is like when you call someone out for saying "could care less" and they say they're using it sarcastically instead of just admitting they're saying it wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite. To see the back of something, as in for it to be over, meaning that we're meeting when the designated hour is over (not the whole hour, just the part where the clock strikes 12). I can see that the logic there, if not a little convoluted.

 

So you're saying I should ignore every other instance of the word "back" that I'm aware of (as in, the rear of something, or to move in the opposite direction of forward), in favour of your understanding of "back of", taken from a turn of phrase that isn't really used in any other instance, when my understanding of the word is already used in several ways when describing time.

 

This is like when you call someone out for saying "could care less" and they say they're using it sarcastically instead of just admitting they're saying it wrong.

 

I hope you never randomly stop me on the street one day to ask for the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

I hope you never randomly stop me on the street one day to ask for the time.

Do people still do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman
Jeez, this is worse than the 'undefeated runs only count if you win' nonsense.

 

The meaning of a phrase doesn't always reflect the actual words contained in it and 'the back of' means just after the hour.

 

'The dead of night', 'the crack of dawn' etc. shouldn't be taken literally.

 

Although I did know a Dawn once, before marriage and kids......

I agree with you. It's clearly after the hour. That's the general consensus. I'm not denying that at all. What I am saying is that if you had no idea what the back of a time meant, and you were asked to figure it out using logic, there's no way you'd come up with just after the hour. Not a chance. Which means the actual meaning of the phrase is ambiguous nonsense, and if you use it you're a tosser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I being stupid? Please debunk my logic if that's ridiculous. I've drawn it and everything. Your argument is far from water right. Just another rehashing of "that's what it is".

 

Everything forward is at the front. Everything backward is at the back. It's literally as simple as that. Please, please, someone disagree with that very simple statement.

 

This is incredible!

 

It's not about time theory it's about a colloquialism and what most people use it to mean.

 

No-one uses "the back of 12" to indicate some point in time before 12

The question is how long after 12 is covered by the expression "back of 12"

 

Seems most on here go for up to 12:15

Personally I use it to mean any time between 12 and 12:30

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time up to 1230 is the back(side) of 12. From then to 1 is the foreside of 1.

The reason being, clearly, that 12 has been and gone therefore you are at the back side of the hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

If you're looking for logic in language I'd suggest you look elsewhere.

 

I'd also disagree it's ambiguous. If you asked 100 people on princes street what they understand the phrase means I suspect you'll get the same answer from every one of them.

 

Don't call them tossers though, that's not polite.

Well try explain to a non scot why it's that, and at that point you'd probably have to use reason. Again, not saying that it's wrong. Just saying the reasoning behind it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Any time up to 1230 is the back(side) of 12. From then to 1 is the foreside of 1.

The reason being, clearly, that 12 has been and gone therefore you are at the back side of the hour.

Why is the first part of the hour the back side? Not saying I disagree, just wondering why you've come to that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

The back of 12 means between 12 and 12.10. Quarter past is 12.15. Half past is 12.30.

It's not that complicated.

Inability to grasp this fairly fundamental time frame indicates a pretty low mental capacity which probably requires immediate removal of breeding capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me and Mrs JH differ in this. I reckon 5 - 10 past the hour. She's deffo after the half hour. She's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's after the hour...up until about 10 past. Quarter past is starting to take the piss. Half past deserves a slap.

 

Nailed it. The only answer that was ever needed on this thread. However, everyone has that one friend who, when they say the back of 12, actually knows fine well they won't be there till at least half past.

 

Incidentally, half 5 makes Americans heads explode.... Never seem to understand if you mean 530 or 430. Retards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the first part of the hour the back side? Not saying I disagree, just wondering why you've come to that conclusion.

 

Because that whole hour has been and gone - the 1200 is behind you in a linear timely kind of fashion.

The foreside of 1 is because the hour of 1 o'clock in front of (or before) you - that's why it's the foreside.

 

Makes sense to me anyway :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which is?

 

90% of Hearts fans are arseholes.

 

We have a guy dredging up an old thread to get in a circular debate/argument where he won't listen to folk telling him how it works. He is wrong but it isn't that big a deal to pursue it as he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

 

90% of Hearts fans are arseholes.

 

We have a guy dredging up an old thread to get in a circular debate/argument where he won't listen to folk telling him how it works. He is wrong but it isn't that big a deal to pursue it as he is.

It's not a right/wrong debate. I'm not arguing the usage of the phrase, I'm arguing the logic of it, which no one has really disproved.

 

Folk like you get far too hung up on individual topics on a forum. If we can't have shan conversations like this here, then what's the point? I've seen far worse on kickback. Just relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this simple? If you look at time stretching into the future, it gets further away the further into the future you are. Hence the bit just after 12 is at the back of twelve because it's further away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Where the **** is BoJack? I expect a reply by the back of 12.

 

You mean now? As it's now the back of 12, as per common parlance. Which I'm not disputing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arnold Rothstein

I'm arguing the logic of it, which no one has really disproved.

 

As per a post above, language is not governed by logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

Ok, final analogy, and one that can apply to what I'm saying and can also work for the common understanding of the term without using bullshit reasoning like "it comes from the phrase 'I was glad to see the back of him'", or "the 12 is the top, the 6 is the bottom, so the right hand side is the back". This is the kind of thing I was hoping someone would try to use to explain the term, but nah, this is a hearts forum and "that's just the way it is" is the best you lot can do.

 

So let's represent a full day as a train with 24 carriages, each representing 1 hour of the day. Because time moves forward, at the start of the day we start at the back of the train, and work our way forwards, toward the front. For simplicity I've used 6 carriages, starting at 1pm.

 

SDiCTbH.png

 

Now, as we get to the end of the first carriage, or the first hour, we're approaching the back of the next carriage, or the next hour. This is the understanding that I'm trying to get across. If you're at the front of carriage 1, then you're at the back of carriage 2, simple as that.

 

To fit that analogy into the common understanding of the phrase (the back being the start of the hour), we just have to look at it differently. Instead of coming up behind the next carriage, we're actually already in that carriage, and where do we start? The back of the carriage, or the back of the hour, working our way toward the front to move on to the next carriage, or hour.

 

This means that the "back of" is literally the back of the hour. If you're not turning up until 2.30 when you've agreed to meet at the back of 2, then you're in the middle of 2, and wrong. 2.50 would be the front of 2.

 

Thanks for explaining that to me guys, you've been a great help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

As per a post above, language is not governed by logic.

 

You're right AR. It's not. But sometimes it's fun to look at the etymology of a word or phrase. The example above regarding the dutch word for "glove" is a good example. The fact that it translate to "hand shoes" makes logical sense, and we can go "ahh, that's where that word comes from". If the direct translation was "ear jumpers", you'd be a bit puzzled as to why that is, I'm sure, and maybe question its origin. That's all I'm doing. Taking a colloquial scottish phrase and trying to figure out its etymology. As it doesn't have an official one, I'm using logic. It's not that hard to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

90% of Hearts fans are arseholes.

 

We have a guy dredging up an old thread to get in a circular debate/argument where he won't listen to folk telling him how it works. He is wrong but it isn't that big a deal to pursue it as he is.

Christ i hope he checked the voracity of his statistical analysis with Ulysses first, he gets right on his soap box about that. (i think he's underestimated the number to be fair)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure whatever analogy you're making is great, but you've ignored several other people making perfectly reasonable explanations so i'm just going to ignore yours too. You don't want anyone to explain this to you, so stop pretending. You want someone to validate you because you've dropped yourself down a rabbit hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

I'm sure whatever analogy you're making is great, but you've ignored several other people making perfectly reasonable explanations so i'm just going to ignore yours too. You don't want anyone to explain this to you, so stop pretending. You want someone to validate you because you've dropped yourself down a rabbit hole.

 

I listed the only 2 explanations that anyone has bothered to come up with. I'm asking for them, so I'd hardly ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed the only 2 explanations that anyone has bothered to come up with. I'm asking for them, so I'd hardly ignore them.

 

You're asking for them so that you can ignore them and then whine. I've provided 3 explanations and each time you've just said "that's not an explanation, you're just saying it is because it is". Note what you did - ignore the explanation and then whine.

 

I think you just need to accept that you don't understand and that it's only you who has a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this simple? If you look at time stretching into the future, it gets further away the further into the future you are. Hence the bit just after 12 is at the back of twelve because it's further away.

 

Why is this not a decent explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

You're asking for them so that you can ignore them and then whine. I've provided 3 explanations and each time you've just said "that's not an explanation, you're just saying it is because it is". Note what you did - ignore the explanation and then whine.

 

I think you just need to accept that you don't understand and that it's only you who has a problem.

 

Who's whining? I'm having a discussion, on a discussion forum. How hard is that to grasp? It might be inane, you might not care, I might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it can't be discussed. What are your explanations?

 

I clearly do understand. I'm not retarded. I can grasp the concept. I'm looking for an origin of the phrase, or at least an attempt at explaining it. I've done that myself though, so it's fine.

 

Why is this not a decent explanation?

 

I get what you're saying, and it fits in with part 2 of my train analogy. I'm sure if you really cared enough you could elaborate on your explanation, but I guess it makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're whining. I'm not saying you can't discuss it. I want you to discuss it. But you're not discussing it. You're asking for explanations. Ignoring the explanations. And then whining.

 

I can tell you don't understand. I can tell this because people are explaining to you. And you don't understand. Not understanding means you don't understand. If someone explains something and you don't get it, that means you don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoJack Horseman

You're whining. I'm not saying you can't discuss it. I want you to discuss it. But you're not discussing it. You're asking for explanations. Ignoring the explanations. And then whining.

 

I can tell you don't understand. I can tell this because people are explaining to you. And you don't understand. Not understanding means you don't understand. If someone explains something and you don't get it, that means you don't understand.

 

You don't like conversation, I get it. No biggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...