Talk:Have a nice day

comment

The phrase "have a nice day" is not just the title to various artists' songs. The song writers use it as a title for a good reason, which is now lost with the deletion of the original Wikipedia entry for "Have a nice day"!! The phrase has an important meaning as an now over-used English expression.

See for example "http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/sayingsh.htm" which says...

Have a nice day

This has actually been a common phrase since the 1920s, but became ubiquitous in the 1970s. For some reason it irritates a lot of people, probably because they feel it is intrusive or insincere - although few people have the same reaction to 'How do you do?', equally impertinent if taken literally. It first became popular in the USA when in the 1960s the language of CB radio as used by long-distance lorry drivers became very fashionable. They had been using have a nice day since the 1950s. It travelled to the UK a little later, and has always been felt to be something of an Americanism. It is now going out of fashion, even when shortened to nice day, and being replaced by the even more intrusive 'Take care' or even worse 'Take care, now'. The excessively twee 'Missing you already' is rarely used without irony.

A bit of "Googling" will turn up lots of similar "references".

The description of the phrase that I restored is exactly the same description that was deleted from Wikipedia sometime in the last 12 months. I thought it was a fine description of the phrase, as used here in the USA anyway.

So, how to we make this work without the Wikipedia "robot police" somehow (again) sanitizing things to the point that we have lost the true meaning of the phrase.

Does this qualify as a "reference"?

Bruce D. Lightner (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/have+a+nice+day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightner (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Negativity comes from use of imperative?

Very interesting article. A lot if it sounds a bit original research, but... benefit of the doubt and all that.

One question: the article states (repeatedly) that the phrase is considered negative or forceful due to it being an imperative sentence. So I questions the sentence: Instead, the British say "enjoy the rest of your afternoon", which is a recommendation that does not coerce people. Grammatically, the two sentences are equally imperative.

Also, several paragraphs and sentences of the Usage and History section seem like they would better belong in the Criticism section; would anyone object if I move them?

Emika22 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback about the article. None of the article is original research because all of the material comes from published books. (From Wikipedia:Original research: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.) I have not analyzed or synthesized material, so this is not original research.

I have removed the {{who}} and {{when}} tags in the lead because those statements are properly attributed in the rest of the article. For example, the imperative is referenced by the Harling & Jenkins citation; the trite part is referenced by the Snow citation.

I have clarified the sentence you question above to say: Instead, the British merely "hope you, 'Enjoy the rest of your afternoon'", which is a recommendation that does not coerce people. I hope that's better.

I have moved several paragraphs that are more applicable to the "Criticism" section and would not object if there is more that should be moved. Cunard (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions! I like the changes that you made; I did add back one {{who}} citation in the lead because I'm not sure of the source for that - but since you say it's cited later in the article, it shouldn't be hard to add.

I'm still not convinced about "Enjoy the rest of your afternoon" not being imperative, or being more of a recommendation than "Have a nice day"... I tried a small reword of that section; what do you think? --Emika22 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence comes from Broad2004. I don't think this needs to be included in the lead since it is properly attributed in the body of the article. I don't know how to incorporate this into the sentence without making it unwieldy so if you can attribute the information to Broad without making the sentence unwieldy, feel free to do so. I am in full agreement with the rest of your changes. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

While it is generally preferable to address the {{who}} and {{when}} issues by working the requested information into the sentence, for the reasons you cite (unwieldy prose, avoidance of redundant repetition) it is not always possible. In these instances it is my personal opinion that a cite is a good alternative. In particular, if you already have the reference in the body, all you need do is move the references into the lede (to replace the offending {{when}} and {{who}}), give them a name (i.e. <ref name="myreferencename"> ... </ref>) and then replace the original reference with a named reference (i.e. <ref name="myreferencename"/> -- note the following slash). This will result in the two references sharing one entry in the references section. The reason this is preferable I think to simply leaving the information unreferenced is because often the lede is all that is read, and the tone of its prose sometimes affects the reader's decision to read on. For example, when perusing an article here on the wiki I often find that I decide within the first few paragraphs whether or not the article seems encyclopedic enough in tone for me to bother with (or at the very least bother trusting). If it seems to be referenced and free of weasel words, I'm more like to read on. I can't be the only one who does this. Eniagrom (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally don't include references in the lead because the lead, as a summary of the rest of the article, does not need references. For example, today's featured article, Halkett boat, lacks references in the lead even though it makes assertions such as "Although widely praised by Canadian explorers..."

I think the changes made by 71.111.229.19 (talk · contribs) in this revision rectify any tone or weasel word concerns in the lead. If there are any specific instances of weasel wording, feel free to point them out, and I will revise them. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This article

This is immediately one of my favorite articles on Wikipedia, and exactly the type of content that I think Wikipedia was born to raise. What wonderful trivia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Usage vs. Criticism

I'm struggling with a structural problem in this article. Almost all of the usage examples incorporate latent criticism. I think the more encyclopedic treatment would be to separate these concepts, but I'm uncertain how best to do so. I'm going to continue trying, but if anybody else similar enamored with this article wants to give it a go, that'd be welcome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded below. Cunard (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Smiley face

This edit does not satisfy my request for a citation. The text in this article says that "The smiley face is commonly associated with the expression 'Have a nice day'", but the source given says that "The happy face and 'Have a Nice Day' helped to define the '70s." After the initial mention, the source goes on and on about smiley faces, but never mentions "Have a nice day" again. The text from the source does not support assertion in the article that the two are "commonly associated". Disco, the energy crisis and Bell-bottoms also helped define the 70s, but they're not "commonly associated with the expression 'Have a nice day'". A better source needs to be added. – jaksmata 20:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I complained too quickly about the source, because the text in this article has been changed to reflect the source.

At the same time, are we going to include all of the stuff that defined the 70s here? What's the relationship that makes the smiley worthy of mention when Disco isn't? – jaksmata 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the caption is problematic. It makes the smiley face seem wholly independent of "have a nice day," which is (natch) the subject of the article. If it is not wholly independent, let's change the caption to reflect that (while making sure it's still accurate). If it is wholly or mostly independent, let's find a new image. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh! Some casual research into this suggests widespread uncertainty in terms of when the phrase and the face first became associated. That said, my casual research suggests another thing: the association between "have a nice day" and the classic yellow smiley face is more germane to a discussion of the history of the smiley face than it is to a discussion of "have a nice day," which certainly predates the smiley face by several decades, at least. I think we should consider a different image...although I'm currently at a total loss.

That said, there's no strong reason to not use the smiley face image, as far as I can tell. There is a real association between the two. Apparently several early iterations of the smiley face design were trademarked with a "Have a nice day" slogan appended. I didn't find any reliable sources to back this up, but I found sufficient unreliable ones in some quick Google hunting that I bet I could find a reliable source to support the connection. My objection is more to do with whether this connection is more important to the smiley face or to the phrase -- I think the former. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I've seen anecdotal evidence that the smiley and the phrase are related, I remain unconvinced. Yes, the picture that shows both of them on a Styrofoam container does show some relation, although it could be just a coincidence. I'm not convinced that a solid relationship exists between the smiley and the phrase. The smiley article doesn't mention the relationship at all, and I'm skeptical that it belongs in either article. – jaksmata 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There actually has been a lot of discussion about "Have a nice day" and the smiley face, so I have added some more information and moved the content to its own subsection. Cunard (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

questionIs that better? I'm sort of curious what some of this stuff means. "Latent criticism" would be later, somewhat insignificant news about the subject of the article, right? So because it's encyclopedic, the content should be about the first thing that happened to the subject, the greatest that happened to the subject, and the last thing that happened to the subject that should be in here, right?People bios (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gingsengbomb removed most of the criticism that was in the usage section. The only paragraph that had some criticism of the phrase was the one about the Detroit supermarket, which I have moved to the criticism section. I think this issue has been rectified. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel section

Leaving aside the obvious political points, I don't see why the Israel section is here at all. There's nothing to suggest that the two people using the phrase didn't choose it specifically because they could tell (perhaps from his accent) that Levin was an English speaker. I live in Israel and have never heard it used by Hebrew speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Israel section is here because Jerry Levin has written about its usage in Israel. Though you have never heard it used by Hebrew speakers, I have found other reliable sources that document the usage of "Have a nice day" in Israel.

Israel holds defense drill amid regional tension – The exercises will also test mobile phone warning systems, and citizens in certain areas will receive text messages reading "Have a nice day" signed by the Home Front Command, the military said.

To Gaza, With Love – [Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry] adds that the DIGNITY failed to respond to Israeli radio contact, provoking the confrontation. If true, this would be an exceedingly odd move, since the group recounted how, after the group identified itself by radio during a similar trip to Gaza this November, the Israelis responded, "Have a nice day."

This Google Books entry is contradictory to the above in that it states "Moreover, when the New Yorker unhesitatingly handed his customer her receipt, he closed the encounter with the quintessentially American "Have a nice day." His Israeli twin would never have uttered such a "secular" or contemporary phrase."

However, because the usage of "have a nice day" in Israel has been documented in reliable sources, I am opposed to removing the Israel section. Removal of it would make the article more US-centric that it already is. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the Israel section doesn't explicitly point out whether Israelis say this phrase in English or in Hebrew. I recently returned from a two-week stay in Israel, my first visit there in over 30 years. I noticed exactly one new idiomatic phrase being spoken (aside from those which are obviously related to new technologies), and that was "yom tov". When I first heard it, I was taken aback, because as a Jewish American I would translate that phrase as "holiday". However, Israelis do not use "yom tov" in that context - they use the word "chag". When I heard "yom tov" the second and many subsequent times, however, the context (after some sort of customer purchase, or merely "goodbye") made it very clear that this was the Israeli way of saying "Have a nice day." After all, "boker tov" and "erev tov" (good morning and good evening) have long been staples of Modern Hebrew, and "yom tov" (good day) seemed a natural extension. And that's what brought me to this page of Wikipedia - hopes of confirming my observation and my conclusion. Can any Israelis comment on this, and edit the article to reflect whether the "In Israel" section is talking about "Have a good day" or "Yom tov"? --Keeves (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Review from Iridescent

Copied from User talk:Iridescent

Hi, Iridescent. I noticed that you linked to Have a nice day in an intriguing February 2010 discussion. At the time, the article was very stubby, and I have since expanded it. I plan to nominate this article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (this would be my first FAC nomination) and am hoping that you can provide some pointers before I nominate it. Are there any glaring concerns that would cause this article to fail FAC? The article has been through a peer review, where I was advised that the article was too US-centric. I have since added information from publications in London, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand which will, I hope, rectify those concerns. I hope that you will enjoy this article about the "international gold standard of American insincerity". Cunard (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Points from a quick run-over; this is exactly the kind of article we need more of (a well-known subject that's not extensively covered elsewhere). You really want to ask Malleus on this one, if you haven't already:

1. If you're going to include Chaucer's 'Ther was namoore but "Fare-wel, have good day."' as a first recorded use, there are other similar phrases recorded earlier; the OED lists the earliest recorded English uses as "Habbeð alle godne dæie" in Layamon's Brut and "Rymenhild, have wel godne day" in King Horn, both 13th-century. Obviously WP:VNT and all that, and if a reliable source is claiming Chaucer originated the phrase then say so, but it's demonstrably false. (IMO it's fairly obviously a direct translation of the old German guten tag, and probably goes back to antiquity.);
2. Related to the above, if you can find a source, it's almost certainly worth tracing the evolution of the phrase more fully. Variations of "Good day to you, sir" exist in all forms of English ("nice" didn't become a synonym for "good" until the 18th century); there's probably a story to be told about why the US acquired the "have a…", and on why "good night" didn't mutate in this way;
3. Re "Though they thought that viewers on the thronging streets would applaud them, they received scowls and jeers"—this probably needs some clarification. Was it that most people were pleased to see them but a few extremists abused them, or was the crowd hostile in general?
4. The Smiley face and "have a nice day" section appears a bit garbled. It starts in the 1970s, jumps back to the 1950s, and then jumps to My Own Private Idaho;
5. "The phrase "have a nice day" is typically spoken by service employees or clerks […] The phrase was universalized by truck drivers conversing on their CB radios" is certainly true, but reads as something of a non sequitur;
6. "In the Cumbria shootings on June 2, 2010, the perpetrator mocked one of his victims" is jarring; "perpetrator" is an Americanism which is never used in a British context;
7. In my eyes, the "criticism" and "defense" sections are both still heavily US-centric. Obviously, there's going to be a bias towards US sources, given that the US is the only significant country in which the phrase is in wide circulation,* but to me, by focusing on US criticism, it misses the point of why and how this fairly innocuous phrase has become a symbol of American arrogance
   *If someone from Calgary, Cape Town, Chihuahua or Chennai is getting ready to write me a ranting post saying that they're not in the US but hear the phrase all the time, save it; I really don't care. HAND is used elsewhere; it's only in the US that it has broad circulation.
8. Hyphenation—you're inconsistent between passive–aggressive behavior and passive-aggressive behavior;

Good luck with this one; as I say above, this is just the kind of thing we need more of. – iridescent 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth review. I've exhausted my library's research databases so will try to see if I can dig up more information on Google Books. Would you provide the citation info and the relevant quotes in OED? I don't have access to the service.

Do you want me to reply to your suggestions here, or is it all right if I copy this section to Talk:Have a nice day so that discussion about the article can be kept in one place? Cunard (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant citation for the OED is:

<ref>{{citation|url=http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50096765|title=Good day|year=1989|work=Oxford English Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford}} ''(subscription required)''</ref>

The exact text of their first recorded uses of the various forms of the archaic British English "Have good day" (don't reproduce this in mainspace) is:

1. A phrase used as a salutation at meeting or parting. a. In the full forms have good day, God (give) you good day. Obs.
c1205 LAY. 12529 Habbeð alle godne dæie. a1300 K. Horn 753 Rymenhild, have wel godne day. c1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. Wace (Rolls) 5259 Y parte fro þe, & haue god day. c1374 CHAUCER Troylus v. 1074 Ȝit preye I god so ȝeve ȝou god day. a1400 Isumbras 727 Lady, hafe now gud daye. 1441 Pol. Poems (Rolls) II. 207 Farewelle, London, and have good day. 1484 CAXTON Fables of Æsop V. v, My godsep god geue you good daye. 1535 LYNDESAY Satyre 4319 Gif ȝe be King, God ȝow gude day. 1814 SCOTT Ld. of Isles III. xx, Thanks for your proffer—have good-day.

Feel free to copy-and-paste to the article talkpage if you want to keep the conversation together. – iridescent 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I've added the information from OED and noted the contradiction between the research of Roland Dickison of California State University and that of the OED. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Placeholder.
3. Clarified; the crowd was hostile in general. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Reordered section so that it flows chronologically from the mid-twentieth century to the 1970s and then to the 1991 film My Own Private Idaho. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Placeholder.
6. Changed to "belligerent" for the Cumbria shootings and left "perpetrator" for the Binghamton shootings.
7. I believe that this addition helps counter the bias toward US sources. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Fixed. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Have a Nice Day" culture

Does the "Have a Nice Day" culture section fall within the scope of this article, or should I remove it? If it does fit here, are there any suggestions for improvements or additions to this section? This section is based on Sandi Mann's 1998 Hiding What We Feel, Faking What We Don't: Understanding the Role of Your Emotions at Work. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to split it between the criticism and defense sections, rather than give it a stand-alone section. To me, it seems essentially to be making points that have already been made; that different cultures attach different values to the appearance of friendliness and the appearance of honesty, and that the decline in the traditional artisan business has led to an increase in corporate behavioral standards regardless of their appropriateness in particular situations. To me, the real value here isn't so much what Mann says, as the fact that it demonstrates that an academic has studied the matter. – iridescent 09:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is a little repetitive. To rectify this, I've decided to use parts of it as introductions to the rest of the article. I moved the paragraph pertaining to the different values attached by the different cultures to the "Usage" section so that it can serve as an introduction to the subsections for each country. Mann's commentary about "have a nice day" is fairly balanced, so I've used the rest of her analysis as a general introduction the "Criticism" and "Defense" sections. Splitting her analysis between those two sections could possibly diminish the clarity of her message. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A variant...

Quote from intro to article: "A variant of "have a nice day"—"have a good day"—is first recorded in Layamon's Brut (c. 1205) and King Horn." Some confusion, surely. If nice day dates from 1948 (per article), which is the variant? Emeraude (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the current wording is faulty. Merriam-Webster defines "variant" as "varying usually slightly from the standard form". A "variant" of a phrase does not depend on which version predated the other. "Have a nice day" is used more than "have a good day", so calling the latter a variation of the former is, I believe, accurate. If you have any suggestions on rewording the sentence to clear any possible confusion, feel free to revise the article. Cunard (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

bonne journée

I reverted this edit because it introduced original research into the article. A search in Google Books for bonne journée and "have a nice day" returns many references that indicate that "have a nice day" is an accceptable translation.

Experiences in Translation by Umberto Eco and Alastair McEwen states:

If I had to translate bonne journée into English, still in the light of current linguistic usage, I would translate it as 'have a nice day' or even 'take care' ...

Paris Inside Out, 7th: The Insider's Handbook to Life in Paris by David Applefield states:

bonne journee: A generalized, good-hearted equivalent of "Have a nice day."

Lille by Laurence Phillips states:

"When a shopkeeper says Bonne journee or Bonne soiree, that is the equivalent of the American salutation 'Have a nice day!'"

Although "good day" is a more literal translation of the phrase, "have a nice day" is also acceptable, as demonstrated by the above sources. I see no need to include extraneous information about "good day" being the more literal translation because it has little relevance to this article. Cunard (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research??? "Bonne journée" . "bonne" = good / "journée" = day. hence "Good day". What original research???. It's just literal. Your quote "have a nice day" is a mistranslation. So both should indeed be mentioned for accuracy. FYI: "Have a nice day" translates in French as "Je vous souhaite une bonne journée" ou "Passez une bonne journée". Please make corrections. THX --Little sawyer (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That "good day" is a more literal translation of the phrase is not relevant to this article, which is about "have a nice day". It is original research to state that "have a nice day" is a mistranslation when the scholarly sources above clearly indicate that "have a nice day" is an accepted translation of "bonne journée".

To add the parenthetical explanation that "good day" is a more literal translation would unnecessarily bloat the article so I oppose its inclusion. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's plain ridiculous. I ain't gonna fight but the right translation is above. What I wrote is not a point of view, not original research, just obvious linguistic reality. I don't see your point. Just because some author said so doesn't mean he or she is right. Two words logically translmate as two words, and a fuller expression with more words translates with more words. It's certainly not the same thing to tell someone "bonne journée" and "have a nice day". --Little sawyer (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute that "good day" is the more literal translation. However, "bonne journée", as translated by the scholars I quoted above, is a dynamic equivalent of "have a nice day". Because the former is not a formal translation of the latter, literal fidelity is sacrificed in favor of preserving the intention of the phrase. That scholars consider "bonne journée" to be an acceptable translation—a dynamic equivalent—of "have a nice day" means that the current content passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.") Cunard (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Have a nice day/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this article. Reviewer: P. S. Burton (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is broad in its coverage, but it would be interesting with a even more worldwide perspective. Are there no sources discussing the usage in Africa and South America?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pass. A very interesting and well written article. It mets all the above criteria. Here in Sweden I have noticed how the phrase ("Ha en bra dag") is becoming more common, especially at American chains, such as McDonalds. Well done. I recommend nominating this article at WP:FAC. Have a nice day! :) P. S. Burton (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I intend to take this to FAC some day but believe that the article needs more polishing, condensing, and expansion to depict a worldwide perspective of the phrase. I'll see if I can find South African and South American sources. Ha en bra dag! ;) Cunard (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha en bra dag

Thank you for reviewing Have a nice day at Talk:Have a nice day/GA1. You mentioned the phrase "Ha en bra dag!" which is Swedish equivalent of "have a nice day". Are any of the sources in this Google Books search link usable for the article? Or the sources in this Google News Archive search? I cannot read Swedish so I hope you can take a look at the sources for me. Maybe there is something about "Ha en bra dag" becoming more common. Please reply at Talk:Have a nice day if you've found any usable sources. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I got three hits that all seams to be relevant Språket lever!: festskrift till Margareta Westman den 27 mars 1996, http://books.google.se/books?ei=inpgTYGeKIyu8QPu15xa&ct=result&hl=en&id=-g0pAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22ha+en+bra+dag%22&q=nice+day#search_anchor, and http://books.google.se/books?id=tH9cAAAAMAAJ&q=%22ha+en+bra+dag%22&dq=%22ha+en+bra+dag%22&hl=en&ei=CXlgTcqZMcKX8QP_yLHnCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBg although the limited preview makes it hard to tell. They all appear to be critical of the increased use of English loan-words and english expressions directly translated into Swedish, and uses "have a nice day" as an example. I also found a motion to the Swedish parliament by conservative/moderate politician [Lennart Fridén in 1995. link. A rough translation based on google translate:

The Swedish language

The Swedish language is, from a linguistic and cultural point of view, subjected to negative influence from, for example our use of international Internet-communication and multi-national advertising campaigns in Swedish commercial television. It is foremost the English language, often in bad translations of the Anglo-American, that is prevalent. This finding does not constitute an condemnation neither of modern technology or advertising. However, many of these expressions gives rise to problems. In a situation where we as members of the EU is to protect our national identity, and its primary expression, our common language, it is essential that the protection of the language and its development is formalized and given high priority.

The language is living, ie. it is in constant and continuous natural development. A pure language, known as purism, like that the of a century since late Viktor Rydberg sought is not possible nor desirable. Neither Iceland's system of protection of their own language should be fully applicable for us. However, language, unless it is to be damaged, must developed in accordance with its own structures. We need a body (organ/agency) that is continuously working with the daily evolution of the terms and concepts wich represents the linguistic expression of new phenomena. The Swedish Acdemy were given the duty, from the founding king, to work with the Swedish language and to publish a dictionary and a grammar. The grammar, the first official Swedish is to be published, hopefully, by 1996. The dictionary, which, given on what has been said about the development of language, never really can be completely finished, have been in issue since more than a century and is likely to be completed to the last letter by the start of the next century.

It is therefore unlikely that it would be appropriate for the Academy with their current obligation as stewards of the linguistic heritage, to be responsible for actively working with the linguistic renewal. The Academy's independent status does not admit such an obligation from parliament. There is, however, given the linguistic assault, as we daily can see in both spoken and written, a need for a institution with a direct mandate to both provide guidance and as an authoritative body deliver powerful reactions to the occurring madness.

It is also important, in view of those who must learn language from scratch, our youngest school children and our immigrants, they do not face unnecessary difficulties by language signals from schools and mass media. Laxity and relativism in language reinforces communication problems and thus increases the tension between generations and between different social and ethnic groups. It is a social handicap no to master language. That such problems are created are not acceptable. Lack of feeling for language, a craze for the Anglo-American and non-responses from authoritative direction has led some TV employees to conclude shows with Det var allt för nu (That's all for now), we are imperatively ordered (!) to ha en bra dag (Have a nice day!) or to us through advertising on their breakfast cereal X asked:You have not forgotten how good X is, did you? (Have you?) It provides not in itself confusion, but impairs our sense of language and style. When the marketing people had nowhere to go for a name for a new product, for what should have be called a pocket stereo", so they created the English (?) word free-style, as none of the English-speaking part of understand the world, for which it means many other things. I want describe this as a linguistic embarrassment, worse than advent of Samhall, Gul och Blå and Skanska.

In Parliament, there is talk of hearing rather than utfrågning, and traineeutbildning, which is almost to consider as mix-linguistic tautology. Allmän-Tv:n and corresponding radio is called public service companies, in enquires they write about PublicAccess and Management, when there may be more purely Swedish options, officials in the economic sector are employed as Controllers, and in today's newspapers can I find wanted ads where teknisk support is look for. The list is infinitely long. Precisely therefore it is expedient to establish a authoritative body, which, in concert with linguistic institutions is given the task of caring for the Swedish language.

Request

With reference to the foregoing the following is requested

that the parliament to the government announces as their opinion what been given in the motion in regard to action for the care and protection of the Swedish language.

Stockholm January 25, 1995

Lennart Fridén (m)

It might be useful to bear in mind that commercial television was only a few years old in Sweden at the time of this motion. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the research and analysis of the sources about "ha en bra dag". I have added a paragraph about the speech by Lennart Fridén to have a nice day. Would you translate the brief snippet at this link. Would it be useful for have a nice day? Thank you for your help! By the way, is it okay if I copy this discussion to Talk:Have a nice day so that discussion about the article can be kept in one place? Cunard (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Sorry about that embarrassing mistake. Thank you for fixing it. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to copy the discussion to the appropriate talk page. It's hard to tell from the snippet if the text is relevant. I will take a look at the books for you next time a visit the library. Probably in the upcoming week. P. S. Burton (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Have a nice day.

Wow, if you could take a look at the books at the library, it would be great. :) Thank you for helping me so much. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion was copied from User talk:P. S. Burton. Cunard (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a look a the library today. Found Språket lever!. But unfortunately it was of no use for the article. P. S. Burton (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for taking a look. Cunard (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bon Jovi album Have a Nice Day

The Have A Nice Day signs in New Jersey and the title to Bon Jovi's 2005 album have quite a bit more in common than you think. Since the band is from New Jersey, the state thought it would be interesting to have signs around after the release of the album, stating that it would boost morale of the state but it would in turn pay homage to the band.
— User:74.170.187.191 04:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful comment. I have expanded have a nice day to include mention of Bon Jovi's 2005 album. However, I have not been able to find any sources to verify that the Have A Nice Day signs in New Jersey are related to Bon Jovi's album. Would you provide a newspaper or magazine article that can verify this? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Content removed from the lead

Lost the unsourced opinion. Some citations for these critics would be nice.
— User:70.90.87.73 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Many European commentators have stated that it seems artificial or even offensive." – this is sourced to the references in the "In Europe" section of the article.

"Other critics argue that it is a parting platitude and a trite space-filler used to prevent embarrassing silences." – this is mentioned in the "Criticism" section of the article and sourced to page 28 of Broad, J. (2004). Observations from a Broad: Annotated Edition. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-33657-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

I've reverted the edit by restoring the removal and removing the citation needed tag. Cunard (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that book would justify the use of a broad term like "other critics" - as far as I can tell, the author has no linguistic authority to verify that this is a belief that's widely held. It seems like the book might be self-published. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 15:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I have revised the lead. Edit summary: "revised lead: the phrase sounds pretended; sources: William Safire of The New York Times, author Natalie Schorr, and Georgetown University linguistics professor Deborah Tannen; see Talk:Have a nice day#Content removed from the lead)". Best, Cunard (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

An unintended snub by non-native speakers

Native speakers of English don’t say or write “Have a nice day” to someone with whom they expect to have contact (contact in person, by phone or by electronic messaging) during the next approximately seven hours. Therefore, when a non-native speaker says or writes “Have a nice day” to a native speaker who is expecting that they will have contact with each other during the next seven hours, the native speaker mistakenly concludes that the non-native speaker is implying either “I don’t expect that during the next seven hours we will have contact” or “You should stop expecting that during the next seven hours we will have contact” or “I expect that during the next seven hours, I will, unfortunately, see you or hear from you.”

Would any contributor to this article like to revise the previous paragraph (under the subsection heading “An unintended snub by non-native speakers”) to make it more convincingly belong in the article? Soon after I added it to the article, it was deleted by Belbury. A post to my User Talk page from Belbury said that the reason for the deletion was that the paragraph is original research.

Barkenhum (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that verify the material you are proposing to add? The material would be original research and undue weight if no reliable sources verify the material. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, my search of Google didn’t find any source (neither a reliable one nor an unreliable one) that verifies my estimate of the shortest amount of time that “Have a nice day” implies will pass before the speaker/writer again has contact with the listener/reader. That estimate of mine (which was “approximately seven hours”) is only an impression.

I think that I can’t take credit for being the first person to notice or imagine that people feel snubbed when someone says to them something that means “I don’t expect us to resume contact as soon as you expect us to.” So, calling the material that I proposed adding to this Wikipedia article “original” would be presumptuous of me.

If some people who read this Talk Page send to it their estimate of the necessary minimum number of hours of expected non-contact between the speaker/writer and listener/reader of “Have a nice day,” this impression would contribute to arriving at a non-impressionistic estimate of that number. Barkenhum (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Since no reliable sources verify this material, it should not be added per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)