# AE/BE "quite" That was quite good.



## panjandrum

*That was quite good.*

As a matter of observation it seems to me that this phrase carries a range of different meanings in different countries and cultures.

If someone described something I had done as "quite good" I might be somewhat annoyed.

Quite good indeed!
QUITE GOOD!! 
What was wrong with simple compliments like truly wonderful, fantastic, uniquely brilliant?
_Quite good_ indeed...... So, where did I go wrong?
Pah.

Is this a personal foible,
a local eccentricity,
a national characteristic,
or.....

<<This thread has been merged with another thread on the same topic started by Le Pamplemousse>>


----------



## James Brandon

Panjandrum,
Are you referring here to the _dual_ meaning of "quite" as a qualifier, in British English at any rate, i.e. "rather" Vs "very". In this respect, "quite good" may mean "_rather_ good" (= "not bad after all" = "moderately good"); or it can mean "_very_ good" (= _almost_ "excellent"). I suppose it would depend on the context, the tone of voice, etc. I believe it is generally considered that the _former_ meaning (= rather) is now dominant.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Well, if the negative tinge in "quite good" is more than a personal foible or a local eccentricity, it sure doesn't reach as far as my neck of the woods.  I don't see a trace of a quibble.  I suppose an overly surprised _tone_ in the delivery might hint that "good" was beyond anyone's expectations.

I have a similar problem with "no problem" as a way of saying "you're welcome," and this might be in the same category.


----------



## You little ripper!

James Brandon said:
			
		

> Panjandrum,
> Are you referring here to the _dual_ meaning of "quite" as a qualifier, in British English at any rate, i.e. "rather" Vs "very". In this respect, "quite good" may mean "_rather_ good" (= "not bad after all" = "moderately good"); or it can mean "_very_ good" (= _almost_ "excellent"). I suppose it would depend on the context, the tone of voice, etc. I believe it is generally considered that the _former_ meaning (= rather) is now dominant.


I agree with you James. I must say, tho', that if it was said to me in a flat tone, I would immediately think that it wasn't brilliant, fabulous etc. I think it has a lot to do with someone's standards. I'm a perfectionist with most things, so unless it is excellent, brilliant, fantastic etc., it wouldn't be good enough for me.


----------



## Tamlane

I would consider the use of the term on par with 'really good' or 'excellent'. I can't see the problem. I suppose that if there were a problem to be seen by someone, the use of the term 'quite' as a qualifier would have to be considered incorrect in that instance. I would hazard to say it might be considered 'snooty', 'pompous', 'sarcastic', or something similar.


----------



## timpeac

I have the impression that the duality of "quite good" meaning either "very good" or "moderately good" (which would usually carry the nuance of "could have been better") that James talks about is a British only distiction in this specific context - for AE speakers it is only praise.


----------



## foxfirebrand

timpeac said:
			
		

> I have the impression that the duality of "quite good" meaning either "very good" or "moderately good" (which would usually carry the nuance of "could have been better") that James talks about is a British only distiction in this specific context - for AE speakers it is only praise.


I second that opinion.
.


----------



## panjandrum

As James Brandon and Timpeac have pointed out, there is a BE-only duality of meaning for *quite*. Further investigation suggests that in BE, *quite* used with gradable adjectives usually means *somewhat*, *fairly*, *moderately* - hence my reservations about *quite good*. With adjectives that aren't normally gradable it usually means *completely*, *totally* - for example quite excellent.

Of course this is a reflection of usage, not the application of a rule, so the meaning of *quite* in any situation depends on how it's said, or a combination of context and experience.

This does not cause difficulties for any of us in our native context, but it obviously has the potential to create misunderstanding between AE & BE speakers - the AE-speaker being very complimentary and the BE-listener feeling he has been damned with faint praise The BE-speaker giving a very qualified endorsement and the AE-listener thinking the BE-speaker's judgement is seriously impaired


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> This does not cause difficulties for any of us in our native context, but it obviously has the potential to create misunderstanding between AE & BE speakers - the AE-speaker being very complimentary and the BE-listener feeling he has been damned with faint praise The BE-speaker giving a very qualified endorsement and the AE-listener thinking the BE-speaker's judgement is seriously impaired


Boy howdy!  What strikes me as funny here is, the use of "quite" and "raw-thuh" is common, indeed almost _de rigueur,_ in the popular AE pastime of mock-brit serio-farcico-pomposity.

Eau yess, that was rawther pompous.  Indeed, it was _quite_ rawther pompous, quite rawther poncily pompous _indeed._

Could be we're missing a nuance or two?  Kidding a kidder as it were?
.


----------



## timpeac

I have had the mickey taken out of me before now in these very hallowed forums for using "rather" (as a translation of "plutôt" if memory serves) but I can confirm that it is quite usual an utterance in my neck of the woods.

"that was rather clever of you" would carry the nuance of "moderately to very" but could potentially also suggest "somewhat unexpectedly" clever of you.


----------



## panjandrum

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Boy howdy! What strikes me as funny here is, the use of "quite" and "raw-thuh" is common, indeed almost _de rigueur,_ in the popular AE pastime of mock-brit serio-farcico-pomposity.
> 
> Eau yess, that was rawther pompous. Indeed, it was _quite_ rawther pompous, quite rawther poncily pompous _indeed._
> 
> Could be we're missing a nuance or two? Kidding a kidder as it were?
> .


I expect that the *quite* being mocked is "*Quite*," standing on its own as a statement of appreciation or agreement.
*1976* K. BONFIGLIOLI _Something Nasty in Woodshed_ x. 123 ‘No takers,’ I said. ‘Quite. By the way, I'm sorry to say ‘quite’ all the time but..my work lies amongst Americans and they _expect_ Englishmen to say it.’
OED


----------



## river

Quite, Panjandrum.Quite - 21'st century slang for yes


----------



## Kelly B

I agree that _quite _is close enough to _very _in AE, so it's not an insult by understatement, but I also agree that excellent and wonderful are rather more complementary.
And I'm quite sure that your efforts were more than adequate.


----------



## Philippa

Quite an interesting topic, enough to tempt me into English Only, anyway!!
Nearly a year ago I posted this thread because we were being described as only 'quite friendly'!! Since then I've been careful to swap the word quite for 'fairly' or 'a bit', especially when I'm writing to Mike, but it has made me realise that I use the word 'quite' almost as often to mean 'completely'.
Saludos
Philippa


----------



## foxfirebrand

panjandrum said:
			
		

> By the way, I'm sorry to say ‘quite’ all the time but..my work lies amongst Americans and they _expect_ Englishmen to say it.’
> OED


Wow-- exactly as I suspected.  Quite like the "gooberisms" I'm always mentioning when the subject turns to AE of the dixified variety.  A mock-redneck patois that we break out with sometimes to spoof any outsiders present.  It's kind of like shibboleths but in reverse, where we lard the conversation with "reckon" and other words you hear in movies and TV shows when a "Southern" character walks onto a northern stage. 

Act out the stereotype with a wink perceptible only to other real Southerners, and the people who nod along and take you at face value are identified as the aliens.  You don't get the outsiders to mispronounce the shibboleth, you mispronounce it yourself and see if they notice.

As Mr Spock would say, utterly fascinating-- speaking of aliens.  Hmmm...who else around here says that a lot?

I recently talked about jive, and the most recent hiphop concoctions, as lingo made up in part for the purpose of having fun with white folks.  So you Brits *do* do it too!  Wily bahstids, wot?
.


----------



## James Brandon

It is interesting to realise from this Thread that "quite" exclusively means "very" in AE, and that the - less enthusiastic - meaning of "rather"/"moderately" is identified by Americans as purely BE. One can only conclude that Americans get confused by Britons talking to them much of the time, but we knew this already, after all. The thing about British English, also, I believe, is that very few British speakers say what they mean and mean what they say. This can be linked to humour (also of the private joke type) and to politeness. Finally, there is the issue of the under-statement. Eg "The meal was quite good" (if tone of voice is guarded) = "The meal was moderate to poor". "The meal was not that good" = "It was bad". "The meal was quite bad" (where "quite" does mean "rather") = "It was absolutely disgusting". I am not sure Americans understand any of this. I was in the US for the 2nd time in the summer of 2004 (4 weeks across the whole country) and got the impression that communication, in the main, is literal ("au premier degré", in French): say what you mean, and mean what you say, or else no one will understand you - and why would you want to confuse the other party? I am not sure many people in Britain (and in Europe) work along such lines. It is too simple - it's boring, folks! (I am expecting a massive onslaught of a response from N Americans here... It should be quite good, and quite amusing, actually.)


----------



## foxfirebrand

James Brandon said:
			
		

> The thing about British English, also, I believe, is that very few British speakers say what they mean and mean what they say. This can be linked to humour (also of the private joke type) and to politeness. Finally, there is the issue of the under-statement.


All of this finds an affinity in Southern AE, where "hospitality" is the set phrase for the "politeness" you mention.  The understatement or even paradox employed by you Brits is evolved from a very long tradition I touch on sometimes, and have recently, in my references to "Anglo-Saxon irony."

Wow, I see in seeking out the thread that I not only referred explicitly to understatement and paradox, but linked this time-honored and peculiarly British type of humor to the American South (at least by including a Stephen Foster tune as an example).

The two-tiered system of meaning depends on outsiders, an us-vs-them thing that is lacking in the U.S.-- except in the South, which has not only known the only war fought on home soil since the War of 1812, but also knew defeat, and lives with that knowledge to this day.

Maybe that's why this stuff is called Anglo-Saxon irony and not English or British-- it predates, and survives, the Norman Conquest.
.


----------



## James Brandon

True, in my - limited - dealings with Americans from the South-Eastern States (Atlanta, La Fayette...), both Black and White, I found that manners were at a premium and that they were rather _European_ in many ways. A few years ago, I took a group of high-school teenage girls from Louisiana on a tour of England. Admittedly, they were from a 'good' Catholic school in the heart of the State, but I was surprised how European their manners could be, at times, while they were still very American in other ways. Overall, they were remarkably well-behaved and low-key, not at all the stereotypical Americans one imagines in the UK. (Maybe they don't exist, or only in one's worst nightmares.) Many had French surnames, and a few knew some French. 

Memorably, in NW England, we were staying in a fairly good hotel and were served beef and Yorkshire pudding. One of the ladies said: "I have never come across a piece of meat like this." The others agreed and said that they had never come across such a smell as that. They declined to eat the meat. One of them said: "In Louisiana, we wouldn't feed that kind of meat to our dogs." There was no understatement there. I ate the main course and thought it was okay, but then again, it's all relative...


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

I watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail for the 35th or so time earlier tonight, and I noticed something:

Arthur: You know much that is hidden, O Tim.
Tim: Quite.

My understanding of the BE usage of "quite" was that it was used in the sense of "somewhat" or "rather".  This usage seems to indicate the AE usage, which is more like "very much so" or "completely.  Thoughts?

I notice new things every time I watch that movie.


----------



## cas29

I too am a huge MP fan.

I'd say that here, Tim is saying "Quite so",  meaning: "exactly".

I would hesitate to separate the AE an BE meanings of quite though.
I think that on both sides of the ocean quite can have both meanings of "somewhat/rather  and "very much so"  and you understand the intensity of it based on context and intonation.

Both in AE and BE you'll hear "It is quite cold today" (not extremely cold, but cold enough to want a jacket or hat maybe). and I believe you'll also hear "You're quite right!" (you are completely right).


----------



## nebt

In fact equivalent to usage of "pretty" in the context given above?


----------



## maxiogee

Quite has many subtexts which require one to hear the question to which it is an answer, the tone of voice of the question, and the tone of voice of the respondant.

"quite" can mean "you grieviously understate the matter".


----------



## mally pense

> Arthur: You know much that is hidden, O Tim.
> Tim: Quite.
> 
> My understanding of the BE usage of "quite" was that it was used in the sense of "somewhat" or "rather". This usage seems to indicate the AE usage, which is more like "very much so" or "completely. Thoughts?


 
Sorry to come back to this thread so late after it was last dicussed, but it's just been referred to in a new discussion so I became interested.

Tim's_ "Quite"_ here in my opinion is short for "You are quite right", meaning you are completely right. This phrase may also be shortened to "Quite right".

On the subject of "quite" having a reducing effect (which has already been discussed above), I thought of this example:

Person A: Do you have a large house?​Person B: Well, it's _qu-i-te_ large....​The "_qu-i-te_" here would be spoken with a long drawn out vowel sound rather than the short one that would normally be used _(and my hyphens are only there to illustrate this)_.


Here's the same question with "quite" giving a completely different meaning to the reply, i,e, with "quite" emphasising rather than diminishing:Person A: Do you have a large house?​Person B: Yes, it's quite large!​


----------



## timpeac

mally pense said:


> Sorry to come back to this thread so late after it was last dicussed, but it's just been referred to in a new discussion so I became interested.
> 
> Tim's_ "Quite"_ here in my opinion is short for "You are quite right", meaning you are completely right. This phrase may also be shortened to "Quite right".


I completely agree - to my mind there is no other interpretation here. In fact, I quite agree!


----------



## nichec

The more I think about it, the more confusing it seems.........

Nichec is *quite* pretty---I know you are just being polite, why don't you go ahead and say I am ugly?

Nichec is *quite* a looker--Oh, thank you so much


----------



## Forero

_Quite_ means something like "enough", but it presumes we know to what purpose something is "enough".  It means something like "rather", but in writing we have to wonder whether it means the quickly-spoken simple "rather", or the more substantive emphasized "raaather".

On top of all that, "not quite" clearly (I think) means "almost", but a positive "quite" seems to be used more often than not either for understatement or for hyperbole.


----------



## una madre

To my mind "Quite good" is not a simple compliment.    The term generally comes with reservations, for example:

It was quite good, but...
Your efforts were quite good, but...
The meal was quite good, but...
The performance was quite good, but...
The meal was quite good, however...
The performance was quite good, however...


----------



## ThomasK

< I quite understand. >

I thought I understood this - as meaning 'I fullyunderstand', but with kind-of understatement. however, I was reminded of thefact that at least it is American English, and does not really mean 'fully'. 

What is the truth now ? What if something is 'quite true', 'quite right'? Are there any differences between AmE and BrE as for meaning? 

Thanks!

< Always include the topic sentence in the post itself. Titles may change, as you can see. 
Cagey, moderator. >


----------



## leka_lima

In BrE I learned as "fully"  but according to this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quite it could also be undestood as "partially" (informal).


----------



## MuttQuad

In the examples you give, "quite" does mean fully to an AmE speaker.


----------



## ewie

(I've merged your question with a previous thread on the subject, Thomas ~ this is a bit of a minefield, see above.)


----------



## JustKate

MuttQuad said:


> In the examples you give, "quite" does mean fully to an AmE speaker.



That's what it means to this particular AmE speaker, too. It means "I completely understand."

As for the other usages of _quite_ in this thread, all I can say is that context and tone of voice are often essential to understanding its meaning, and yeah, I realize that tone of voice is extremely difficult to convey via writing.


----------



## panjandrum

To this BE speaker, "I quite understand" indicates the speaker's belief that he understands to whatever extent he perceives to be appropriate.


----------



## siares

panjandrum said:


> understands to whatever extent he perceives to be appropriate


I don't understand this...
What do you mean by appropriate, panjandrum?
Thank you.


----------



## Copperknickers

Personally, if I saw the best film I'd ever seen, I'd probably describe it as 'quite good', not because I was using quite in the sense of 'moderately', just because I don't like describing things as awesome or excellent or amazing.


----------



## siares

That would deprive me of pleasure of seeing the film, I wouldn't feel compelled to go, based on your description.... 
How would you describe a film which is quite good?

Panjandrum's example:
Why a complete understanding is undesirable?


----------



## Copperknickers

siares said:


> That would deprive me of pleasure of seeing the film, I wouldn't feel compelled to go, based on your description....
> How would you describe a film which is quite good?



'Alright I guess'. 'Seen better'. 'Decent'.

I suppose Brits are a bit more fond of understatement than people from other countries, it's something I had a lot of problems with when I went to Italy and the USA.

'Do you like pizza?'

'I don't mind it.'

'So you don't like it?'

'No, yes, I don't mind it.'

'So you'd rather have something else?'

'I really don't mind pizza.'

'OK I'll make pasta.'

...


'Did you like the pasta?'

'It was quite good.'

'Oh god, you didn't like it?'

'No really, it was alright.'

'Only alright?'


And so on... we're not the most extraverted race.


----------



## siares

Copperknickers said:


> a bit more fond


Do you mean besotted?

I appropriately understand. (?)

e.

Good examples, thank you.
Were I the cook of the pasta/pizza, I'd probably cry.


----------



## Copperknickers

siares said:


> 'A bit more fond.' Do you mean besotted?



Haha, quite so. Understatement is a fine art. And going back to the topic, I think it is a bit of a national characteristic really.

Or in American English: 'Yeah dude, awesome! You gotta say what you're thinking. And back on topic, I'm hella certain its a bona fide national characteristic, you bet ya!'


----------



## siares

OK, but I still don't understand Panjandrum.

Appropriate is a very binding term, right?
As far as I can gather, thing go from bad to worse in this order: 1) inappropriate 2) abhorrent 3) un-British
(only joking, everybody!)


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> 1) inappropriate 2) abhorrent 3) un-British


 No, no!
"It's still *QUITE good*" (with the stress on the "quite") <- to describe the state of your car after a friend has crashed it into a wall.
"It's *a little inconvenient* that my house has been destroyed in an earthquake.
"The complete destruction of London by fire was *somewhat concerning*."
etc. 
until finally - "*It's simply not cricket*." <- last used in 1066 AD when the Normans invaded.


----------



## siares

PaulQ said:


> "It's *a little inconvenient* that my house has been destroyed in an earthquake.


But would the person say this while crying on the pavement?



panjandrum said:


> in BE, *quite* used with gradable adjectives usually means *somewhat*, *fairly*, *moderately* - hence my reservations about *quite good*. With adjectives that aren't normally gradable it usually means *completely*, *totally*





Copperknickers said:


> Understatement is a fine _art_.


Aaah! I simply don't want to qualify some things in any way; bad enough I have to use adjectives.
Hard as I try, I cannot find anything 'quite' about Jude the Obscure.

Would you please give examples of understatement in Jude.., or in Lady Susan, or in other British classics?



PaulQ said:


> "*It's simply not cricket*."


I love this and use it often, in English and Slovak.
But not referring to stuff like torture or so. (You can't make me, native speakers!)


(editedd)


----------



## velisarius

siares said:


> Aaah! I simply don't want to qualify some things in any way; bad enough I have to use adjectives.
> Hard as I try, I cannot find anything 'quite' about Jude the Obscure.
> Would you please give examples of understatement in there, or in Lady Susan, or in other British classics?



That's quite a good point. A good writer probably won't use "quite" except in dialogue, because it sounds limp and imprecise. There's the possibility of unwanted ambiguity. I think it ranks up there with "nice" as one of the words our English teachers taught us to avoid.  I rather like the American "somewhat", myself.

In speech we can use tone of voice to show exactly what sort of "quite" we have in mind, and we may want to be deliberately vague.


----------



## siares

Thank you Velisarius

I'd love to have this explanation explained:



panjandrum said:


> speaker's belief that he understands to whatever extent he perceives to be appropriate


----------



## James Brandon

I think there are 2 problems here. A specific problem is that 'quite' can mean 'very' ('It was quite good!', sounding convinced and reasonably enthusiastic) or it can mean 'fairly' ('It was quite interesting all in all', sounding a bit blasé and as if one is trying to make an effort and be polite about it). At any rate, in BE, I believe this applies. To know which 'quite' it is, you depend on the context and the person's tone of voice, etc.

A more general problem is the use of understatements in BE (not in AE), because one is avoiding voicing too direct an opinion, in case it might offend or cause complications. E.g.: "The film was not [too] bad" could mean it was 'average' but could also mean it was pretty 'awful'. This is very difficult to understand for non-native speakers, particularly if they come from a culture where you say things much more directly along the lines of yes/no and like/dislike (e.g.: Latin culture, French culture, Central & Eastern Europe...). Americans are native speakers but also belong to the 'straight-talking' category. In my experience, one nation that understands very well the British way of expressing oneself is the Japanese, which is revealing...

As for the point made by Panj., he can explain. I suppose he means that 'quite' has to be understood in context and reflects the subjective standpoint of the person talking, up to a point that is appropriate in terms of what he understands, and in terms of how much of that he wants the other person to know (i.e. to understand that he understands).


----------



## siares

James Brandon said:


> 'quite' can mean 'very' ('It was quite good!', sounding convinced and reasonably enthusiastic) or it can mean 'fairly' ('It was quite interesting all in all', sounding a bit blasé and as if one is trying to make an effort and be polite about it).


Thank you for the analysis!!
(To me all the 'quites' sound jokey/sarcastic)



James Brandon said:


> use of understatements in BE


Is there a writer _using_ understatement? Hemingway keeps coming to mind, but not BE. I haven't watched much BE TV, keep thinking of Fawlty Towers and BBC Sherlock Holmes, there is no understatement there, is there?
Edit: I've just thought of Sir Humphrey from Yes, Minister. Is he a good representative of the art of understatement?



James Brandon said:


> I suppose he means that 'quite' has to be understood in context and reflects the subjective standpoint of the person talking, up to a point that is appropriate in terms of what he understands, and in terms of how much of that he wants the other person to know (i.e. to understand that he understands).


You and Panjandrum are obviously in cahoots.


----------



## PaulQ

siares said:


> I've just thought of Sir Humphrey from Yes, Minister. Is he a good representative of the art of understatement?


Yes!  Sir Humphrey is the prime example. Isn't there one episode in which he is worried he may loose his job because someone is "a little concerned"?

Then there is P.G. Wodehouse's creation, Jeeves:

"Disturbing, sir," says Jeeves, when Bertie Wooster announces that he has inadvertently got engaged to Madeleine Basset, the fiancée from hell.
"Disturbing, eh, Jeeves? You would go that far, would you?" (From "The Telegraph - Gillian Gibbons: Three cheers for a bit of all right)


----------



## siares

Thanks for the link, PaulQ!!!

For me:
Sir Humphrey: Piffle. (But beautiful to read (couldn't understand a word from TV, had to get the book).)
Jeeves: Measured. Precise.

Telegraph's example of Faith being faced bravely, captain Oates in Antarctica:
_"I'm going out now. I may be gone some time."_
Perfection.

Telegraph's comment on the way (another brave person) worded himself:
_"Quite sublime..._"
Have some respect, Telegraph.


----------



## James Brandon

Interesting examples but it is important to understand, as a non-British person, that the art of understatement is a reality in everyday life/ conversation in the UK, which is why Americans are so different from British people in the way they express themselves.

When a cousin of mine died some years ago here in England, I rang my aunt who was close to him and said I was sorry that he had passed away. She merely said, in a very calm voice: "I am upset." Mind you, she was in her 80s and had been through the Blitz, so, not the kind of person who gushes out and goes all sentimental.


----------



## siares

James Brandon said:


> it is important to understand, as a non-British person, that the art of understatement is a reality in everyday life/ conversation in the UK, which is why Americans are so different from British people in the way they express themselves.


I can tell there is a difference from the ways the news are delivered on TV; but it is hard to see it in texts. 

I cannot reconcile how understatement works with the concept of damning with faint praise. Which concept was the first?
'Did you like the pasta?'
'It was quite good.'
This is faint praise, isn't it? If not, what would be? 

PS: Previous examples (movie, pizza etc.) I get, but the mourning sentence you gave I cannot see as an understatement. I'd really hate to see a 'quite' thrown in there.


----------



## James Brandon

An understatement, in the kind of context we are talking about, is a way of playing down the gravity or severity of a difficult situation because one does not want to 'kick up a fuss'. It can also be a way of playing down one's pleasure or enthusiasm, because one does not want to get 'carried away'. I suppose the British distrust emotions: there is a desire to remain in control and see things in context (cf. "it could be worse"). There is a lot of wisdom attached to all this, clearly.

In what you refer to as 'the mourning sentence', my aunt could have said, "I am quite upset". Given the context, it would have been meant to strengthen 'upset' and would have meant 'very upset'. There was no need because, given the way she expressed herself, 'upset' was strong enough and it was understood she was very upset indeed. (She did add a few comments along the lines of, "We were very fond of him" etc.)

As for 'faint praise', the person will avoid praising too much because this could embarrass the other one, who is not used to it and may even suspect the praise is not sincere ('over the top'). In other words, barring any exceptional circumstances, 'faint praise' is 'praise': that is what you are getting.  To many foreigners, it may sound a bit limp and not quite enough. I can imagine that, in Italy and when talking about food, such faint praise would be borderline insulting!...

It should be pointed out that there is a shift in today's Britain, in my view, and other contributors may want to comment (although this may be straying from the point of this thread): young people seem to like gushing out and putting on displays of emotions, and they can be quite loud in public places (e.g.: restaurants), *even* when they are not drunk. They seem to want to overcome the stiff-upper-lip syndrome. When they meet, they hug and even sometimes kiss (the girls at any rate). This is new in the UK, I feel, i.e. the last 30 years. One wants to 'emote' and 'engage'. Some even use the awful adjective borrowed from AE: 'awesome', to describe a leg of lamb on the plate in front of them.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

siares said:


> This is faint praise, isn't it?


Possibly. It very much depends on how it's said, which is a jolly good reason for avoiding it when writing.


----------



## andych

This is clearly a complex topic, to the extent that it's impossible to give an answer easily understood to non-native British English speakers.

It might be a case of having to learn individual expressions because for instance, "quite excellent" is a very positive assessment while "quite good" can be modest approval -- unless there is a lingering emphasis on the "quite" in which case it can mean 'disappointing, not very good at all.'

One of those words that I use sparingly with non-native Brits as they are likely to misunderstand.


----------



## James Brandon

With 'quite' used as a qualifier (meaning 'more' or 'less'), a lot will depend on the tone of voice of the person and on the context, as mentioned by contributors above; so, in writing, it would be tricky and would need, for instance in a novel, when describing what the person said, to be qualified ("...he said, in an enthusiastic tone of voice"). If used in writing, in an email, say, as stressed by several contributors, it can easily be misunderstood...


----------



## siares

Thanks everyone!
Good job on having merciless fun, Panjandrum and James Brandon.


----------



## A-friend

I have read this query, but I cannot summarize the differentiate between AE/BE usage if theses words! I was wondering if someone could let me know about how Americans use them! 
As far as I understood, Americans tend to use  "pretty" instead of both "quite" and "rather". But unfortunately, I found nothing specific about AE usage of "fairly"!
Please kindly enlighten me.


----------



## sound shift

When I say "That was quite good", I mean "That was reasonably/moderately good." I believe AE speakers do the same.
When I say "You're quite right", however, I mean "You're absolutely right." I don't think AE speakers do the same.
So my intended meaning appears to vary with the adjective used.


----------



## kentix

Of course I have to speak from my own experience on these "opinion" words that can't be quantified. But here is my AE perspective.


sound shift said:


> When I say "That was quite good", I mean "That was reasonably/moderately good." I believe AE speakers do the same.


To me this means it was way more good than bad.
Excellent
Very good/really good
Good/quite good
Pretty good/(rather good?)
Okay/fairly good/not bad
Pretty bad
Quite bad
Very bad/really bad
Terrible

So, if I understand sound shift, I would say our (and definitely my) usage is different in the first example.


sound shift said:


> When I say "You're quite right", however, I mean "You're absolutely right." I don't think AE speakers do the same.


This one, in my experience, we have the same usage. "You're quite right" means, "I agree with you fully." And it's true even if I might have disagreed with you at first.

My summary would be to say that in American English I understand "quite" to mean "to a very large degree".

A movie that is quite good is definitely worth seeing.
A box that is quite full has very little room left in it.
A man who is quite old is probably in his 80s or 90s.
Somebody who is quite mistaken is very much mistaken.
Someone who is quite ill is seriously ill.
A man who is quite handsome is far better looking than an average man.


----------



## JulianStuart

Don't forget the possibiity of reversing or shading the meaning by stress (not easy to discern in written work!) as discussed here with the related word "pretty")
The movie was pretty GOOD v.s. The moview was PRETTY good


----------

