Yes, indeed. Sportscasters say just about anything. They might say zip-zip", for example." sdgraham. But would they say those things, for a final score, in a formal news summary, for example?
Here they say 'nil-all' in a news report of that score in football.
I'd agree with sdgraham on the list of commonly used words in AE. I'd say that the standard ways of referring to "0" in AE would be "zero" or "nothing," and I'd suggest that English learners stick to those.
Also, "nil" sounds distinctly BE to my ear.
Sorry Trillan, I meant the English learners who wish to learn AE No offense to those who might want to learn AusE or BE, I just can't comment on those.In any case, I'm not sure I would suggest that those learning English only stick to those options (zero or nothing) !
I suspect it's very close to clear-cut that "tie = AmE" while "draw = BrE". In BrE one might speak of a game being tied, as it's still going on, but the final result would be called a draw (like the Black Knight tried to claim )
As for zero, it will always be understandable and never "wrong" but if someone is expecting something else, it could sound odd.
It's good to know that "eggs" of various sorts, albeit from different fowl, can be used to serve up scores on both sides of the Atlantic (and Pacific, I suppose). I always like to figure out what, if anything, is common (though what's different is just as fascinating). I'm not going to ask about the use of "for" in place of "to." Cricket seems (and looks in movies) far too complicated.Also whilst a batsman may be out for a duck (egg) with a score of 0,
the team batting could be 135 for 0 which would be " a hundred and thirty-five for nought".
In BrE, you'd need to leave football (AmE soccer) aside too. And rugby, I think.Let me ask this of native speakers-- is there ever a situation (let's leave tennis and cricket aside) where "zero" is wrong?
Hi Rover.A 'scoreless draw' is usually preferred to a 'nil-all draw' in the UK.
This is absolutely true. In fact, the controlled and unvarying modulation of the announcing of those football results at 5pm on a Saturday was a feature as fixed in the life of the nation as the shipping forecast or the Queen's Christmas broadcast. If you were to draw a graph of the phonological variation in the reading of the footy results, it would look rather like a low peak with sides of equal gradient, with a flat bit on top, (the flat bit being the breathy pause after the announcement of the winning team's score, before the descent into disappointment noted in the previous post).In the UK when I was a lad, the BBC score reading (on radio in pre-TV days) of football matches on Saturday evening used to be extremely formal, with the team that won being enunciated at a higher pitch, with a draw having the same pitch for each team and the losing team at a lower pitch , almost disappointed type tone. There were hundreds of thousands of pounds riding on this because of the football "pools" and the radio audience was expecting consistency and clarity and no wisecracks and literary inventiveness. Reading anything other than NIL for a team that hadn't scored, would confuse the audience and they wouldn't have know whether they'd won the jackpot or not Perhaps it's still like that.
Whilst I've probably heard scoreless draw on the radio or read it in the papers I have never heard this particular phrase used in the vernacular.
In the pub it would be "nil-nil", or, in this part of the world "nowt-all".
Fanscinating. I like the term "Goose egg" , as we Chinese do except it's expressed in the circumstance of exam score only."Niil" is common for sports in BE, but I've never heard it over here in the U.S.
In AE, sportscasters, i.e. radio-TV broadcasters of sports news, have a wide variety of terms when reading score, including:
In tennis, a common term is "love," which, as I understand it, is a corruption of the French l'oeuf (the egg)