Long time no see
Is " Long time no see " Grammatically correct ?
So I use to talk to native English speakers and they use it usually so I want to make sure if it's grammatically correct ? or " I haven't seen you for a long time " should be used instead ?
grammar grammaticality american-english
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Is " Long time no see " Grammatically correct ?
So I use to talk to native English speakers and they use it usually so I want to make sure if it's grammatically correct ? or " I haven't seen you for a long time " should be used instead ?
grammar grammaticality american-english
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
It's a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen form. It's an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don't ask me why), and you already know what it means. Just don't assume it's normal English.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
@JohnLawler Yup , I already know what does it mean , but no idea if it's grammatically wrong or not , on another question , is it ok to use it with formal conversation or with high class people into " Work , new people and so on ? "
– Mohammed Rizqallah
14 hours ago
1
It's suitable for an intimate relationship, in which friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal, though it could be used between old friends in any context.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
2
If native speakers usually use it, why are you doubting whether it’s grammatical? Common usage by (enough) native speakers is what makes something grammatical to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate, but context and register are a different matter from grammaticality. As an extreme example, ‘fuck you’ is perfectly grammatical, but I would strongly advise against using it in nearly all situations.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
13 hours ago
1
No, it is NOT "grammatically correct". That's precisely the source of its charm.
– michael.hor257k
13 hours ago
add a comment |
Is " Long time no see " Grammatically correct ?
So I use to talk to native English speakers and they use it usually so I want to make sure if it's grammatically correct ? or " I haven't seen you for a long time " should be used instead ?
grammar grammaticality american-english
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Is " Long time no see " Grammatically correct ?
So I use to talk to native English speakers and they use it usually so I want to make sure if it's grammatically correct ? or " I haven't seen you for a long time " should be used instead ?
grammar grammaticality american-english
grammar grammaticality american-english
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
asked 14 hours ago
Mohammed Rizqallah
32
32
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
It's a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen form. It's an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don't ask me why), and you already know what it means. Just don't assume it's normal English.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
@JohnLawler Yup , I already know what does it mean , but no idea if it's grammatically wrong or not , on another question , is it ok to use it with formal conversation or with high class people into " Work , new people and so on ? "
– Mohammed Rizqallah
14 hours ago
1
It's suitable for an intimate relationship, in which friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal, though it could be used between old friends in any context.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
2
If native speakers usually use it, why are you doubting whether it’s grammatical? Common usage by (enough) native speakers is what makes something grammatical to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate, but context and register are a different matter from grammaticality. As an extreme example, ‘fuck you’ is perfectly grammatical, but I would strongly advise against using it in nearly all situations.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
13 hours ago
1
No, it is NOT "grammatically correct". That's precisely the source of its charm.
– michael.hor257k
13 hours ago
add a comment |
3
It's a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen form. It's an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don't ask me why), and you already know what it means. Just don't assume it's normal English.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
@JohnLawler Yup , I already know what does it mean , but no idea if it's grammatically wrong or not , on another question , is it ok to use it with formal conversation or with high class people into " Work , new people and so on ? "
– Mohammed Rizqallah
14 hours ago
1
It's suitable for an intimate relationship, in which friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal, though it could be used between old friends in any context.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
2
If native speakers usually use it, why are you doubting whether it’s grammatical? Common usage by (enough) native speakers is what makes something grammatical to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate, but context and register are a different matter from grammaticality. As an extreme example, ‘fuck you’ is perfectly grammatical, but I would strongly advise against using it in nearly all situations.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
13 hours ago
1
No, it is NOT "grammatically correct". That's precisely the source of its charm.
– michael.hor257k
13 hours ago
3
3
It's a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen form. It's an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don't ask me why), and you already know what it means. Just don't assume it's normal English.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
It's a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen form. It's an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don't ask me why), and you already know what it means. Just don't assume it's normal English.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
@JohnLawler Yup , I already know what does it mean , but no idea if it's grammatically wrong or not , on another question , is it ok to use it with formal conversation or with high class people into " Work , new people and so on ? "
– Mohammed Rizqallah
14 hours ago
@JohnLawler Yup , I already know what does it mean , but no idea if it's grammatically wrong or not , on another question , is it ok to use it with formal conversation or with high class people into " Work , new people and so on ? "
– Mohammed Rizqallah
14 hours ago
1
1
It's suitable for an intimate relationship, in which friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal, though it could be used between old friends in any context.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
It's suitable for an intimate relationship, in which friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal, though it could be used between old friends in any context.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
2
2
If native speakers usually use it, why are you doubting whether it’s grammatical? Common usage by (enough) native speakers is what makes something grammatical to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate, but context and register are a different matter from grammaticality. As an extreme example, ‘fuck you’ is perfectly grammatical, but I would strongly advise against using it in nearly all situations.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
13 hours ago
If native speakers usually use it, why are you doubting whether it’s grammatical? Common usage by (enough) native speakers is what makes something grammatical to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate, but context and register are a different matter from grammaticality. As an extreme example, ‘fuck you’ is perfectly grammatical, but I would strongly advise against using it in nearly all situations.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
13 hours ago
1
1
No, it is NOT "grammatically correct". That's precisely the source of its charm.
– michael.hor257k
13 hours ago
No, it is NOT "grammatically correct". That's precisely the source of its charm.
– michael.hor257k
13 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
It’s a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of
grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen
form. It’s an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don’t ask
me why), and you already know what it means. Just don’t assume
it’s normal English.
And:
It’s suitable for an intimate relationship, in which
friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It
already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long
time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of
familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal,
though it could be used between old friends in any context.
add a comment |
So I talk to native English speakers and they use 'long time no
see'. I want to make sure it's grammatically correct?
It is correct, listed as an idiom in TFD, and its use is informal.
Or should I use "I haven't seen you for a long time"?
‘Long Time, No See’ Is Considered Offensive, Non-Inclusive Language at Colorado State University so depending on context and circumstances, your alternative sentence may be appropriate.
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
1
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479023%2flong-time-no-see%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
It’s a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of
grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen
form. It’s an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don’t ask
me why), and you already know what it means. Just don’t assume
it’s normal English.
And:
It’s suitable for an intimate relationship, in which
friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It
already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long
time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of
familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal,
though it could be used between old friends in any context.
add a comment |
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
It’s a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of
grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen
form. It’s an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don’t ask
me why), and you already know what it means. Just don’t assume
it’s normal English.
And:
It’s suitable for an intimate relationship, in which
friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It
already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long
time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of
familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal,
though it could be used between old friends in any context.
add a comment |
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
It’s a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of
grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen
form. It’s an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don’t ask
me why), and you already know what it means. Just don’t assume
it’s normal English.
And:
It’s suitable for an intimate relationship, in which
friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It
already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long
time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of
familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal,
though it could be used between old friends in any context.
In a comment, John Lawler wrote:
It’s a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of
grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen
form. It’s an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don’t ask
me why), and you already know what it means. Just don’t assume
it’s normal English.
And:
It’s suitable for an intimate relationship, in which
friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It
already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long
time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of
familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal,
though it could be used between old friends in any context.
answered 12 hours ago
community wiki
tchrist
add a comment |
add a comment |
So I talk to native English speakers and they use 'long time no
see'. I want to make sure it's grammatically correct?
It is correct, listed as an idiom in TFD, and its use is informal.
Or should I use "I haven't seen you for a long time"?
‘Long Time, No See’ Is Considered Offensive, Non-Inclusive Language at Colorado State University so depending on context and circumstances, your alternative sentence may be appropriate.
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
1
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
add a comment |
So I talk to native English speakers and they use 'long time no
see'. I want to make sure it's grammatically correct?
It is correct, listed as an idiom in TFD, and its use is informal.
Or should I use "I haven't seen you for a long time"?
‘Long Time, No See’ Is Considered Offensive, Non-Inclusive Language at Colorado State University so depending on context and circumstances, your alternative sentence may be appropriate.
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
1
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
add a comment |
So I talk to native English speakers and they use 'long time no
see'. I want to make sure it's grammatically correct?
It is correct, listed as an idiom in TFD, and its use is informal.
Or should I use "I haven't seen you for a long time"?
‘Long Time, No See’ Is Considered Offensive, Non-Inclusive Language at Colorado State University so depending on context and circumstances, your alternative sentence may be appropriate.
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
So I talk to native English speakers and they use 'long time no
see'. I want to make sure it's grammatically correct?
It is correct, listed as an idiom in TFD, and its use is informal.
Or should I use "I haven't seen you for a long time"?
‘Long Time, No See’ Is Considered Offensive, Non-Inclusive Language at Colorado State University so depending on context and circumstances, your alternative sentence may be appropriate.
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
answered 14 hours ago
lbf
17.6k21863
17.6k21863
1
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
1
1
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
I can't imagine a circumstance in which "Long time, no see" would, absent special circumstances, be offensive language.
– Robusto
14 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
judged by some as an affront to either asians, the asian root of the phrase , or both in the pc culture of America, especially academia.
– lbf
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
Then they’re looking for things to be offended about, because whatever pidgin associations it may have had surely must by now have been thoroughly bleached out of it. Ask ten people on the street for the origin and you’ll get ten different answers, none of them “pidgin.”
– Robusto
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mohammed Rizqallah is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f479023%2flong-time-no-see%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
It's a fixed phrase. They are not subject to the usual rules of grammar because they constitute a fixed meaning in frozen form. It's an attempt to emulate Chinese pidgin (don't ask me why), and you already know what it means. Just don't assume it's normal English.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
@JohnLawler Yup , I already know what does it mean , but no idea if it's grammatically wrong or not , on another question , is it ok to use it with formal conversation or with high class people into " Work , new people and so on ? "
– Mohammed Rizqallah
14 hours ago
1
It's suitable for an intimate relationship, in which friends understand each other no matter how they speak. It already assumes the speaker has known the addressee for a long time and is glad to be reunited; leaving out words is a mark of familiarity and intimacy. It is definitely not formal, though it could be used between old friends in any context.
– John Lawler
14 hours ago
2
If native speakers usually use it, why are you doubting whether it’s grammatical? Common usage by (enough) native speakers is what makes something grammatical to begin with. That doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate, but context and register are a different matter from grammaticality. As an extreme example, ‘fuck you’ is perfectly grammatical, but I would strongly advise against using it in nearly all situations.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
13 hours ago
1
No, it is NOT "grammatically correct". That's precisely the source of its charm.
– michael.hor257k
13 hours ago