BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Questions about the English language

**Posted by Davina** January 23, 2015 9:01 pm

Henry Vlll formed the Catholic Church in England after breaking away from Rome over his desire for a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon' to marry Anne Boleyn (Bullen). Later during the reign of his son Edward Vl the church was fully reformed into the Church of England which was Protestant. This is a very basic summary, it is very much more complicated than that.

**Posted by besleybean** January 23, 2015 9:22 pm

But I for one am very glad of it!

**Posted by saturnR** January 26, 2015 4:53 am

I think Protestant England is one of the reasons why the Industrial Revolution took place in England.

The Industrial Revolution required two prerequisites to happen. 1 abundant resources due to expansive empire (England and Spain both qualify here) 2 relatively unrestricted atmosphere for science and innovation.

This might be a huge generalisation but I think Spain being Catholic was much more restrictive toward the sciences than was Protestant England and this was one of the pivotal reasons why Industry was born in England and not in Spain.

**Posted by Davina** January 26, 2015 10:49 am

One of the other reasons in Britain (specifically England) was the Enclosure Acts. These enclosed the common land and gave it (basically) to wealthy landowners. The results were improvements in agricultural methods and production but also the move of the agricultural labourers (who now had no land of their own for subsistence farming) to the towns in order to try and find work. So you had a ready work force for factories once these were built.

I agree about the scientific innovation part being important and we certainly had more than our fair share of inventors and innovators in the UK.

**Posted by Vhanja** December 3, 2015 4:09 pm

I know this has been discussed somewhere else on the board, but I can't for the life of me remember where, so I'm gonna ask in this thread:

In TBB, when John says: "I'm trying to get off with Sarah!", I always assumed that he had at least a semi-sexual meaning. That either he meant actually getting to have sex with her, or at least trying to spark some kind of romantic interest for the future.

But someone said that the term didn't have to imply anything sexual at all. Can any of you English people help me out here? What do you think he meant in that context?

**Posted by besleybean** December 3, 2015 4:47 pm

It would imply something sexual to me...at least romantic, but I think John is all man!

**Posted by Liberty** December 3, 2015 6:46 pm

Definitely sexual, but doesn't need to be full-on sex. We used to use it to mean kissing or anything liike that when I was in school.

Edit: unlike "have it off" which does mean full-on sex!

Last edited by Liberty (December 3, 2015 6:47 pm)

**Posted by besleybean** December 3, 2015 7:04 pm

Agreed.
"getting off with" is more like "getting it on"...well depending what that means!
But yeah 'get off' with' is more snogging, smooching, groping...etc!

**Posted by Vhanja** December 3, 2015 10:32 pm

Thanks, guys, then it's not just me and my dirty brain.

**Posted by ukaunz** December 3, 2015 10:43 pm

I liken it to "getting off" on something (eg. "He gets off on it" - Sally Donovan) which means to enjoy thoroughly, be excited or aroused by something... Which I guess can be sexual or not.

**Posted by besleybean** December 4, 2015 6:41 am

Oh I think in John's case it's sexual...particularly coupled with his reaction to Sarah's comment about him 'sleeping at the end of the bed.'

**Posted by Liberty** December 4, 2015 7:45 am

I've only heard it used sexually in that context. If you said that you'd got off with somebody it would be assumed there was snogging involved. You can only get off with another a person (whereas you could get off ON anything!).

**Posted by besleybean** December 4, 2015 7:57 am

True, has to be mutual in 'getting off' with someone.

**Posted by ukaunz** December 4, 2015 11:54 am

I guess my thinking was along the lines of, would John expect to get laid on the first date with a colleague, or was he just looking for a good snog? That's really what I meant, rather than a distinction between sexual/non sexual. I don't explain myself very well!

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** December 4, 2015 1:54 pm

English is only my second language, but I always thought John meant something like snogging, not full on sex... but at least some sort of sexual sense...

Especially since he seemed a little ashamed to find her behind him as he shouted it.

**Posted by besleybean** December 4, 2015 5:47 pm

No he was embarrassed about being caught out, talking about hoping to end up in bed with her.

**Posted by This Is The Phantom Lady** December 4, 2015 5:59 pm

That's what I meant, I think.

**Posted by Liberty** December 4, 2015 6:12 pm

ukaunz wrote:
I guess my thinking was along the lines of, would John expect to get laid on the first date with a colleague, or was he just looking for a good snog? That's really what I meant, rather than a distinction between sexual/non sexual. I don't explain myself very well!

Ah, I see. Then I would say that getting laid might be more of a hope than an expectation, and just a snog would "count" as "getting off with" Sarah. I'm thinking that his comment has maybe come across as more racy than it actually is, outside of the UK!

**Posted by besleybean** December 4, 2015 6:23 pm

Oh I certainly think John was wanting more than a snog.

**Posted by tonnaree** December 4, 2015 6:40 pm

When ever any man ask anyone out, isn't he, deep down in his heart of hearts, hoping for a shag?