bye-bye for now

Antonio

Senior Member
Mexico/Spanish
Hi Group,

I don't understand why some please say in their good-byes "bye-bye for now" what does this mean? why you say "now" at the end of the sentence?
 
  • gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Antonio said:
    Hi Group,

    I don't understand why some please say in their good-byes "bye-bye for now" what does this mean? why you say "now" at the end of the sentence?
    You don't ever need to add that extra word, but it stresses that your "goodbye" is temporary, I think. I would probably say, "See ya soon," which would be short for:

    Bye, I hope I see you again soon.

    I hope that helps. :)
     

    Paulina

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    As an added note to Gaer's response, it is more frequent to say or to hear:
    "bye for now" (not bye-bye for now).

    -Paulina
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Paulina said:
    As an added note to Gaer's response, it is more frequent to say or to hear:
    "bye for now" (not bye-bye for now).

    -Paulina
    Yes, Paulina, now that you mention it, I'm sure you're right. At least your version is more common. MUCH more common, I think. Do you also find it is hard to tell what is right and wrong in these situations until later?

    I'm glad you cleared that up.

    Gaer
     

    Cath.S.

    Senior Member
    français de France
    Fascinating facts
    Did you know that, according to G**gl*, "bye for now" is 18.72 times more common than "bye bye for now" on the internet?;)
    Betcha didn't!:D
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    egueule said:
    Fascinating facts
    Did you know that, according to G**gl*, "bye for now" is 18.72 times more common than "bye bye for now" on the internet?;)
    Betcha didn't!:D
    Not 18, not 19, 18.72? :)

    Bye for now,

    Gaer
     

    Paulina

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    gaer said:
    Do you also find it is hard to tell what is right and wrong in these situations until later?
    Gaer
    Gaer,

    Ha ha...sometimes, and it's usually because there is often no single right or wrong answer. There are so many exceptions and possibilities with language rules! I usually notice that whenever I want to try to answer someone's language question, I either second guess myself, or I find so many alternative ideas and suggestions (moreso when it is regarding expressions and usage rather than grammar). I have never found myself questioning my own use of English vacabulary and grammar as much as since I started using this forum to help me with learning Italian.

    -Paulina:)
     

    DesertCat

    Senior Member
    inglese | English
    I know what you mean, Paulina. When people ask questions about whether sentences are grammatically correct or not I find myself unable to answer with confidence. Often this is because they aren't worded as we would normally use them though they may very well be correct.
     

    Edwin

    Senior Member
    USA / Native Language: English
    egueule said:
    Did you know that, according to G**gl*, "bye for now" is 18.72 times more common than "bye bye for now" on the internet?
    gaer said:
    Not 18, not 19, 18.72? :)
    Really it is more like 17.65 :)

    I get 222,000 hits for "bye for now" and 11,900 hits for "bye bye for now". But the 222,000 hits contain the 11900 hits for "bye bye for now". So there really are only 222,000-11,900 = 210,100 hits for "bye for now". (And I leave out the cases where a hit for "bye for now'' is really an instance of ''goodbye for now'' or "good bye for now".

    So I get a ratio of 17 + 78/119 or approximately 17.6554621848. Of course as soon as Google gets hold of the messages in this thread the counts will change. :)
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Edwin said:
    Really it is more like 17.65 :)

    So I get a ratio of 17 + 78/119 or approximately 17.6554621848. Of course as soon as Google gets hold of the messages in this thread the counts will change. :)
    Ah, numbers. Not long ago I found out that leap year is omitted for the first year of a century (such as 1700, 1800, 1900) unless the year is divisible by 400. The year 2000 was not a leap year. (This doesn't even address the problem of whether 2000 was the first year of a century or the last of a millenium) :)

    But that was still not good enough for me, so I was not satisified until I found out how long a day would be gained or lost using this system. Now, when I get these questions going in my head, I usually hide them from other people, who give me VERY strange looks!

    Gaer
     

    Edwin

    Senior Member
    USA / Native Language: English
    mylam said:
    Es algo como "nos vemos despues". El "despues" no es necesario, pero enfatiza que la separacion es temporal.

    Myla
    Qué tal: bye for now =

    diré adiós por ahora o
    me despido por ahora o
    Bueno me despido por ahora pero volveré pronto
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Paulina said:
    Gaer,

    Ha ha...sometimes, and it's usually because there is often no single right or wrong answer. There are so many exceptions and possibilities with language rules! I usually notice that whenever I want to try to answer someone's language question, I either second guess myself, or I find so many alternative ideas and suggestions (moreso when it is regarding expressions and usage rather than grammar). I have never found myself questioning my own use of English vacabulary and grammar as much as since I started using this forum to help me with learning Italian.

    -Paulina:)
    Paulina, I fully agree with you, but I began seriously studying German about 20 years, and I've never been the same! And you're quite right, because it's true: people from other countries (learning English as a second language) will write or speak sentences that make perfect logical sense, yet you know that somehow there's something wrong. Sometimes you can "put your foot on it" immediately. But other times you find yourself mysteriously confused for awhile. Right?

    Gaer
     

    Edwin

    Senior Member
    USA / Native Language: English
    gaer said:
    Ah, numbers. Not long ago I found out that leap year is omitted for the first year of a century (such as 1700, 1800, 1900) unless the year is divisible by 400. The year 2000 was not a leap year. (This doesn't even address the problem of whether 2000 was the first year of a century or the last of a millenium) :)

    But that was still not good enough for me, so I was not satisified until I found out how long a day would be gained or lost using this system. Now, when I get these questions going in my head, I usually hide them from other people, who give me VERY strange looks!

    Gaer

    Hang out more with astronomers, Gaer, and perhaps you will feel more comfortable. :)
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Edwin said:
    Hang out more with astronomers, Gaer, and perhaps you will feel more comfortable. :)
    Edwin,

    I seriously wonder what percentage of people who are fascinated with languages are also fascinated with math. I do have one talented contact in Germany who is excellent with languages and hates math, but I find she is an exception? Or is she?

    Gaer
     

    Edwin

    Senior Member
    USA / Native Language: English
    gaer said:
    Edwin,

    I seriously wonder what percentage of people who are fascinated with languages are also fascinated with math. I do have one talented contact in Germany who is excellent with languages and hates math, but I find she is an exception? Or is she?

    Gaer
    I don't know. But if I had to guess, I would say there are probably more people interested in languages than there are people interested in mathematics. One famous mathematician, Paul Halmos, was fond of saying that a better indicator of mathematical ability than facility with numbers is a strong interest in words and their definitions. --Definitions are the life blood of mathematics. But there are some that don't agree with Halmos. And he's speaking of just one language.

    Googling on (all the words--not the exact phrase)
    correlation between foreign languages and mathematics​
    leads to many links which seem to indicate a strong correlation between SAT scores, etc., and the study of foreign languages. For example I find on a website advocating the study of foreign languages:
    # Each year of study correlates to increasingly higher scores. No other subject area, when isolated, produced these results.
    # English and mathematics performance levels of students who have studied a foreign language in high school are higher than those of students who have not.
    # Detailed studies also suggest that the mental processing skills required to do mathematics problems are also developed by language processing, and vice versa.
    Of course, some say that the study of mathematics enhances ones ability to think logically in general. But I have known too many mathematicians to believe this. :)

    There are always exceptions. One of my mathematically talented classmates in graduate school (in math) had a lot of trouble passing the foreign language reading exams required of math grad students. He jokingly offered to write a dissertation in exchange for anyone taking his language exams for him. He eventually got past the language exams by the skin of his teeth.

    Ability in music is possibly a better indicator of mathematical talent. But again there are always exceptions.
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Edwin, you provided a lot of information. I won't comment on it except that it seems to make sense.

    A couple thoughts. I tend to divide people into "mimics" and "code-breakers". In other words, some people pick up languages with no knowledge of the rules and never do understand grammar, yet they do quite well. I have one contact in Germany who not only hates math but swears the logic involved in it is forever alien to her, but she is brilliant and is already translating. She is still quite young.

    Others are lost until they discover the rules. I'm a code-breaker, perhaps with a small degree of ability to mimic. Apparently we all start out as exceptional mimics when we are young, since this is how we learn our own languages, by copying. Later we seem to lose this ability to a different degree, with a few, lucky adults retaining it to a remarkable degree.

    And I suspect people who are immensely talented at languages (learning new ones) are very good in both areas, code-breaking and mimicking.

    The main link I see between music (my field) and the other things we are talking about, languages, math, is that they all involve patterns. I see patterns everywhere. I can't help it. I wonder if that explains why I always feel most comfortable reading a language far before doing much of anything else?

    Thanks for the information!

    Gaer
     

    RODGER

    Senior Member
    UK ENGLISH
    Hi Antonio,
    To get back to "bye for now", The "for now" really signifies that this is not "goodbye forever" as in the french "adieu" it's "just for now" and implies a later meeting again. I guess you know that "goodbye" is a contraction of the old term "God be with ye" !

    cheers (which is a form of "cheerio" but i don't know where the heck that comes from !)

    Rodger
     

    sallyjoe

    Member
    UK English
    Being a native speaker of English, we would say 'bye,bye for now' to mean that we will speak to that person later. It could be the same day or the next. Its just an informal way to say good bye, especially over the telephone. So 'for now' is at the time of speaking.

    Hope this helps.


    Antonio said:
    Hi Group,

    I don't understand why some please say in their good-byes "bye-bye for now" what does this mean? why you say "now" at the end of the sentence?
     

    RODGER

    Senior Member
    UK ENGLISH
    Yes, you're right Antonio, "bye for now" is a "remote" phrase, you could also use it in a friendly letter to someone. You would not usually say it to someone standing in front of you. Other "remote" ones are "talk to you soon" or "we'll talk soon" and "I'll catch you later"

    ;) So long,

    Rodger
     

    Paulina

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    Are you suggesting that theses 'remote' phrases are not used in face-to-face speech? Because all of the previous examples you mentioned, including 'bye for now' is appropriate and very common when speaking with someone in person. At least in Canada it is.... maybe not in the UK perhaps.

    he he... I didn't expect this thread to be discussed to such exhaustion.:)

    -Paulina
     

    RODGER

    Senior Member
    UK ENGLISH
    Yeh, let's get exhausted, for me that's one of the things this is about. To refine it then, for me, "bye for now" would mostly be used on the telephone but could be used face to face, "talk to you soon" or we"ll talk soon" etc...is a telephone type saying, and "catch you later" could go either way, but language evolves.....and the English language mostly evolves thanks to North Americans, so.....:)


    Rodger
     

    gaer

    Senior Member
    US-English
    Isn't this as much a matter of personal style as language? I have never said, "Bye for now, not in person, not on the phone, not in writing. Yet at least one friend of mine uses it all the time at the end of emails.

    To me that's what makes all this so fascinating. It's not just about what language we speak as our first language, or even where we live. We all have feelings about words, phrases, etc., and these feelings are no more logical than prefering chocolate to vanilla. :)
     

    sallyjoe

    Member
    UK English
    I agree with what you've said, bye for now is mostly used on the phone. i've never seen anyone used it in person. I haven't used it myself. When I wrote my previous thread to this, I pictured a person in mind using it - over the phone. She's quite posh!

    RODGER said:
    Yeh, let's get exhausted, for me that's one of the things this is about. To refine it then, for me, "bye for now" would mostly be used on the telephone but could be used face to face, "talk to you soon" or we"ll talk soon" etc...is a telephone type saying, and "catch you later" could go either way, but language evolves.....and the English language mostly evolves thanks to North Americans, so.....:)


    Rodger
     

    MelissaJean

    New Member
    English-American
    I also believe it to mean; 'until we meet again' or 'until we talk again'.
    Most definitely would be correct in using it in email letter.
    Also, now some people here say "later dude".
    F.Y.I. (Whether your male or female you could be referred to as "dude").
     

    eli7

    Senior Member
    Persian (Farsi)
    Instead of "bye for now", can I say "talk to you later"? Does it convey the same meaning? What are the other alternatives for saying "bye for now"?
     

    Hildy1

    Senior Member
    English - US and Canada
    I believe "bye bye" is more common in BE than in AE. In the latter, it is often considered childish, and is said mostly to children, not to adults.

    The same thing may be true for the combinations "bye for now" and "bye bye for now".
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top