Talk:under the counter

under the counter
Counter? --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks right as rain to me. DCDuring 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I (with my US English background) have heard "under the table", but not "under the counter", except perhaps in the literal sense of being located under a (kitchen) counter. "Under the counter" to me suggests an impromptu antonym for "over the counter", which I only knew in the non-prescription drug sense before reading the entry here.  Rod (A. Smith) 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Word, on all counts. I could also imagine under the counter as a pun applying under the table to drugs. —Ruakh TALK 23:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also from US. I think of it as referring to unauthorized merchandise sales, e.g., grey market. The same retailer's counter is involved. Under usually implies needing concealment. DCDuring 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is fine - it refers to the supply of black market goods (I have never heard of "under the table"). SemperBlotto 07:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

UK tag added. Widsith 07:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, possibly more common, sense added. 87.114.156.2 10:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Found quotes to support the added, more common sense, removed UK tag from that sense, since sources were not majority UK. The term seems to gain use when and where there is regulation of retail sales, whether governmental (rationing in WWII in both UK and US, prescription drugs), social (pornography), or commercial (gray market). DCDuring 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that doesn't quite make sense. Three British contributors attest that it is a valid British idiom (one even claiming never to have heard the comparable US idiom "under the table") and you remove the tag due to two US (obscure?) publications?  Granted, the idiom "under the table" refers to wages almost exclusively, but still, the phrase "under the counter" can't be idiomatic in the US independently - it would only be understood (as Ruakh hypothesized) as a jocular reference to street drugs (or something.)  The phrase itself seems to be British, which I think is why Widsith added the tag.  --Connel MacKenzie 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew it as American English from the git-go. I just got quotes that I could readily obtain from Google. I didn't know that insiders' experience and judgment over-rode citations. DCDuring 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If my contributions are going to be arbitrarily rejected, you may enjoy your preserve without me. DCDuring 03:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what exactly was arbitrarily rejected? --Connel MacKenzie 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)  Rather, what at all was rejected?  --08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Notice the "If" at the start of the sentence. it makes it conditional. If his contributions are going to be arbitrarily rejected he'll go, otherwise (presumably), he won't. House 09:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag only based on the fact that Rod, Connel and Ruakh hadn't heard of it. But if there are US citations then that settles it - quotes override any of us. Widsith 07:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added Irish context tag to the original defintion, and added one cite with more to come. But for the life of me I can't figure out how this is an adverb, as all examples seem to be adjectives, as I had originally listed it as.--Dmol 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the adjectival senses to under-the-counter. Widsith 10:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The third example is adverbial. Maybe the adjective entry is adequate with the adverb entry simply relating to that. e.g. "under the counter :: In an under-the-counter manner". House 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a good solution in this case, because it obscures the fact that the adjective is an extended use of the adverb, rather than the other way round. Widsith 10:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Widsith, that is unreasonable. Finding and attesting bizarre mistakes indeed, is what WT:RFV is all about.  But when you compare actual search results, the regional difference is pronounced.  Changing "" to "  " or "  " is one thing, but simply removing it is obviously incorrect.  Is it not obvious?  What evidence do you need?  This show the American phrase, while this shows the British.  Marking either one as being common to all dialects of English, is misleading (at best.)  --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)