Wait - for? on?

A BBC radio sports commentator announced today that Manchester United was "waiting on the result of a scan on Wes Brown's foot".

The use of "wait on" instead of "wait for" or "await" is now so common that the battle to preserve the original form is probably already lost, even though the BBC website did announce more elegantly - and accurately - "Manchester United await Wes Brown foot injury verdict".

Why not accept this change as another example of natural, continuous linguistic evolution? The reason for resisting is that we are losing the ability to express the difference between two separate actions and thereby colluding in the impoverishment of our means of expression.

To "wait on" meant, until recently, either to serve someone, usually at table*, or to pay a respectful visit to. "Wait for" had the meaning of deferring an action, or of expectation (the ferry waited for the train to arrive, Sarah was waiting for her sister). Now that "waits on" is used for both, we cannot be sure whether Sarah is expecting her sister to arrive, or whether she is working in a restaurant.

Resist, resist!



* Those with long memories may recall the time when a waiter, in the UK, "waited at" table and "waited on" table only in the USA. I have not forgotten either, but because this post already resembled the ranting of a pedant, I forbore to mention it!