> I can't tell you the bitter and futile arguments I've seen, heard, and
> participated in over such trivialities as whether or not to use an
> apostrophe in place of the 'd' in 'and' or not, an stuff like that.
>
> Naming no names...
>
> P
I'm not so sure that the use of the apostrophe *was* trivial, Peter.
One of the fronts in the Language Wars (which I agree is an overstated term,
but nevertheless i like it <g>) was over this.
I think it was mostly fought in the pages of Lines Review in the fifties by
the Children of McDiarmid.
The reason why no one at Glasgow at the time in the sixties (and the other
key marker that had you stopped at the frontier was a total refusal to use
the term "dialect") was just that very association with Lallans/ Braid
Scots/ Synthetic Scots/ whatever -- it wasn't an argument, simply no one
used it, and the rationale behind the avoidance was that it suggested that
Scots was a bastard form of English.
But that was already a won war.
Admittedly, the boundaries could get blurred, and I published quite a bit in
Akros, which has to authenticate my credentials as a Scottish poet.
> Bloody, by the way, I thought was connected to crucifixion wounds.
Two separate strands, I think.
The Crucifixion Link goes back to the religious censorship of Renaissance
plays -- "' 'Swounds " was short or a cover for "God's wounds".
"Isn't it a bleeding shame?" that Dominic earlier quoted comes from a
different line -- squaddie slang rather than Elizabethan print-house
compromises.
Robin.
|