beaten all ends up

Discuss word origins and meanings.

beaten all ends up

Post by dalehileman » Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:05 pm

Defeated conclusively

HSBC Currency Weekly
... as the greenback suffered blow after blow and was beaten all ends up due to mounting concerns over the increasing possibility of a war with Iraq. ...
http://www.ameinfo.com/news/HSBC_Curren ... ore18.html

Being a new on on me and not found in The Dict of Am. Slang nor in Partridge but yielding 1250 hits, is this expression an import; how long has it been around

Thanks kindly guys
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by Wizard of Oz » Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:30 am

.. in Aus we would say that someone was beaten hands down to mean the same thing ..

WoZ of Aus 10/09/05
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

beaten all ends up

Post by haro » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:14 pm

Dale, I don't know anything about the origin of the phrase, but you may have noticed that almost all Google hits have to do with ball games. Maybe that's a lead.

WoZ, 'being beaten hands down' seems to be the counterpart of 'winning hands down,' doesn't it? Well, 'winning hands down' doesn't mean 'winning conclusively' but 'winning without even lifting one's hand,' i.e. effortlessly. So those two phrases do not mean exactly the same. This is just sort of a gut reaction of mine, though. No scientifically bullet-proof evidence yet.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Hans Joerg Rothenberger
Switzerland

beaten all ends up

Post by russcable » Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:36 pm

Googling "beat * all ends up" reveals two things (as I see it). 1) The phrase is most used in cricket, British football (what USAians call soccer) being played in "British" countries, and Indian hockey (whatever that is - sounds like field hockey) and 2) that it doesn't refer to losing the game as it often refers to a particular player, i.e. he beat the batsman all ends up, he beat the keeper all ends up, etc.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by haro » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:25 am

Yeah, that's what I saw too, but since there is not much similarity between soccer and cricket except they both use a ball, I wasn't able to find an underlying common origin. Ken to the rescue?
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Hans Joerg Rothenberger
Switzerland

beaten all ends up

Post by Wizard of Oz » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:51 am

Haro I merely know what we say in Aus .. and if as Dale says the phrase in question means being beaten conclusively then my response is correct .. being a counterpart of winning hands down?? .. yep that is true and that phrase, where I speak, means winning conclusively whether one metaphorically lifted their hands or not .. effortlessly ?? .. conclusively ?? .. same end meaning to me .. I maintain my position ..

WoZ of Aus 11/09/05
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

beaten all ends up

Post by Ken Greenwald » Sun Sep 11, 2005 7:37 am

HANDS DOWN (see hands down), as in WON HANDS DOWN, means very easily, without effort <“He WON the election HANDS DOWN.”>. It also can mean without question, undoubtedly. <“He is hands down the best surgeon in his field.>.

The term comes from horse racing, where a jockey would drop his hands and relax his hold on the reins when victory appeared certain. This is akin to the bicycle racing gesture when, assured of victory, the rider raises his/her hands above the head (they never did call it ‘winning hands up’!) as the finish line is approached and crossed. In my 35 years of racing, I didn’t do much of that, but I watched it a lot. (<:) Anyway, the term first appeared in print in 1867 and is still used in reference to various kinds of competition.
<1867 “There were good horses in those days, as he can well recall, But Barker upon Elepoo, HANDS DOWN, shot by them all.”—‘Lyrics & Lays’ by Pips, page 155>

<1882 “(caption) WON!! ‘HANDS DOWN.’”—‘Moonshine,’ 3 June, page 265>

<1913 “That I should surrender, HANDS DOWN, to a lot of trumpery complaints and grievances.”—‘The Mating of Lydia’ by Mrs. H. Ward, II. xii>

<1935 “IN the North Caucasus especially, where ‘the spirit of individualism’ is strongest, resistance to agrarian reform was the most stubborn. Nevertheless, the reform has WON HANDS DOWN—than which, short of actual war, there could be little more important news from the U. S. S. R.”—‘New York Times, 1 September, page F8>

<1958 “Double this speed, however, and the submarine WINS HANDS DOWN.”—‘Times,’ 14 August, page 9/7>

<1996 “ But in its [[liberalism’s]] competition with conservative thinking for the soul of America, it has WON HANDS DOWN.”—‘New York Times,’ 24 January, page SM33>
In the U.S. if someone said ‘he was BEATEN HANDS DOWN,’ it would usually mean ‘he was beaten easily, without effort, at least according to most dictionaries (including the OED, M-W, etc., etc.). However, if one looks at the context in which this phrase is used, it seems to me that it is impossible to tell what the person saying it really meant. Which of the legitimate meanings were they referring to? Did they mean easily or did they mean undoubtedly, conclusively, or completely? The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary actually provides the following quote under the headword BEAT:
<“They were beaten hands down (= completely) by their opponents.”>
So, I am going to have to agree with Wiz that “beaten hands down” can mean ‘defeated conclusively,’ as well as ‘easily,’ and it seems to me that in most situations it would be very difficult to know which was meant, as illustrated in the following historical examples:
<1911 “They [[the organizations of the French and German colonies in Mexico]] have us BEATEN HANDS DOWN in the matter of yachting caps and cavalry leggings, so dear to the improvised infantryman.”—‘New York Times,’ 14 May, page 1>

<1928 “’The Tammany Administration [[NYC Democratic political machine]] elected on the five-cent fare issue, has let itself be BEATEN HANDS DOWN all over the sidewalks of New York,’ the paper reads.”—‘New York Times,’ 7 May, page 1>

<1965 “But what if the older generations follow President Johnson’s lead and assure the young the old-timers had them BEATEN HANDS-DOWN at immorality.”—‘New York Times,’ 7 August, page 34>

<1984 “‘He [[Ronald Reagan]] was just BEATEN HANDS DOWN in that debate by Walter Mondale,’ Dixon said.”—‘Chicago Tribune,’ 19 October, page 22>
_________________________

BEAT ALL ENDS UP doesn’t appear in any slang dictionaries that I checked, but surprisingly it does appear in the OED (but with no etymology) and has been around – or at least in print – since 1921. The OED defines the adverbial phrase ALL ENDS UP as meaning “completely, utterly” and provides a 1921 tennis quote, “BEAT HIM ALL ENDS UP,” as an example. But after skimming through some of the 1400 Google hits, I am in agreement with Russ that today BEAT ALL ENDS UP is mostly used as a soccer/football/or whateveryoucallit term.

And, here is my uneducated guess as to its origin. To me, ALL ENDS UP sounds like a dead bug/critter/character lying on its back with extremities pointing up/skyward, as in the standard cartoon depiction. So ‘beaten all ends up’ might mean beaten/defeated so badly/conclusively that one ends up metaphorically in the aforementioned position
<1921 “Barrett BEAT HIM ALL ALL ENDS UP’ in an early round.”—‘Tewnty Years of Lawn Tennis’ by A. W. Myers, page 19>

<1932 “Larwood bowled him “ALL ENDS UP.”—‘Times Educational Supplement,’ 10 December, page 1/3>>

<1954 “In two months' time you'll be cursing me ALL ENDS UP.”—“A Wreath for the Enemey,’ by P. Frankau, III. iv. page 203>

<1960 “He used to sound off about the chap and blackguard [[abuse verbally]] him ALL ENDS UP.”—‘The Accomplices’ by L. Cooper, II. i. page 80>

<2004 “Early in the week Waterford had intimated that they would not fulfil this fixture and at half time they must have questioned the wisdom of the decision to do so as they trailed by nine points and were being BEATEN ALL ENDS UP.”—‘Longford GAA Online,’ 3 July>

<2005 “Willy looked BEATEN ALL ENDS UP but somehow managed to claw the ball away, reminiscent of Gordon Banks save from Pelé in the 1970 World Cup.”—‘SCFC.UK.COM,’ 30 April>
(Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Picturesque Expressions by Urdang, Chapman’s Dictionary of American Slang, Facts on File Dictionary of Clichés, Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)
_________________________

Ken G – September 10, 2005
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by haro » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:50 am

WoZ, as I said, that was my pretty instinctive interpretation, not based on evidence, since my dictionaries didn't provide much background information. However, winning effortlessly isn't the same as winning conclusively. You may win effortlessly but only by a narrow margin, i.e. you win without doing much, you just win. On the other hand, you may win conclusively, but it takes a huge effort to do it. You are right in that the result basically is the same - you won. But the effort and the degree were different.

Never mind; no reason for arguments. As Ken stated, even experts seem to slightly differ. I can easily live with his conclusion that 'winning hands down' may also mean 'winning conclusively.' Thanks Ken for all the interesting details.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Hans Joerg Rothenberger
Switzerland

beaten all ends up

Post by dalehileman » Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 pm

Thank you guys profusely. Then do you think the expression would qualify as a neologism

That is, in a sense other than soccer
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by Bobinwales » Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:36 pm

No Dale, we have been using both expressions for donkey's years to cover everything said above, certainly I have known them all my life, and I assure you I was born quite a bit before 2004!
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: All those years gone to waist!
Bob in Wales

beaten all ends up

Post by Edwin Ashworth » Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:52 pm

I think Ken is using the term "uneducated guess" loosely. A really Clouseaunian shot in the dark is to suggest a connection with the term for the four- or eight- bowl "leg" in bowling, an "end".
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by Ken Greenwald » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:56 am

Dale, In answer to your question:
<“Then do you think the expression would qualify as a neologism?”>
The Oxford English Dictionary defines NEOLOGISM as follows:
<“A word or phrase which is new to the language; one which is newly coined.”>
– AND THAT’S IT!

What is to be considered NEW is left up to the discretion of the reader. The other thing that is left up to the discretion of the reader, or compiler in your case, is what words and phrases are worthy of inclusion in a list of such items. The dictionaries offer no guidance on this and so it is entirely arbitrary. The journal American Speech, for example, originally included words in this category that were new in an absolute sense – words that had come into use within a year or two before their documentation in their ‘Among the New Words’ column. Of course, it is often difficult to be sure of when a word was actually first formed, and some words have a long underground existence before they are reported, so the journal eventually adopted the following operational definition of NEW:
<“A word is ‘new’ if it (or a particular use of it) does not appear in general dictionaries at the time it is included in the column [['Among the New Words’ in American Speech]]
American Speech next proceeded to list the seven general dictionaries that they were using and their years of publication to nail down precisely what they were looking at. Five of the dictionaries were four or less years old, one was eight and one was thirty. They also listed British Dictionaries to be consulted for British neologisms. And they gave a list of dictionaries of new words, the appearance in which, would immediately disqualify a word or phrase as a prospective neologism.

The next question is how do they decide if a new word is worthy, aside from newness, of being included in their list. Their list is compiled by a contributors who are all members of the American Dialect Society New Words Committee who gather citations from newspapers, magazines, books, oral transcripts, etc. If in the judgment of the committee the word or phrase has made enough appearances in respectable sources and looks like it is beginning to be accepted in the public’s collective consciousness it makes the list.

Dale, since you are the compiler of your own list, the committee is YOU, and you must decide what the criteria are for inclusion – not anyone else. You said something about a 30-year window for your neologisms, and that’s fine if that’s what you decide – just state that in your introduction. And the question of worthiness of inclusion is also your decision. If you cannot find the word used in any major newspapers, magazines, books, or on television, you may decide that it should not be included. On the other hand, you might want to say that if it has more than x-thousand Google hits it is worthy, even if it never showed up in any major publication. This is something you are going to have to work out for yourself and clearly state so that folks know how you decided on what you have included.

So, no one but you can determine what “qualifies as a neologism” – it will or wont qualify depending on your choices of criteria. However, since BEATEN ALL HANDS UP dates from at least 1921, it would hardly qualify as a neologism in your book, but it might have if only you had published about 50 years ago! (<:)

Ken – September 11, 2005
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by dalehileman » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:46 pm

Thank you all

Welcome back, Ken

You guys are my committee

Bob: but how long before
Seriously
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

beaten all ends up

Post by Bobinwales » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:16 am

Dale, I am 58 years old, and if pressed I would say that I cannot remember a time when those expressions were not in use, but unfortunately, I don't have any written evidence.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: All those years gone to waist!
Bob in Wales

beaten all ends up

Post by Erik_Kowal » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:47 am

What I am curious to know is the quantity of an average donkey's years.

Given the current vacuum of effective leadership in their party, maybe a good guide would be the period that the average US Democrat stays elected before he loses his seat hands down, hands up.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: -- Looking up a word? Try OneLook's metadictionary (--> definitions) and reverse dictionary (--> terms based on your definitions)8-- Contribute favourite diary entries, quotations and more here8 -- Find new postings easily with Active Topics8-- Want to research a word? Get essential tips from experienced researcher Ken Greenwald

Post Reply