>...some of our witticisms regarding the language of Shakespeare (and la
langue de Moliere, for that matter) are just a shade too recherche at times.
Nutz, George. You can't make an egg without breaking omlettes.
Just look at all the good French I've learned from assiduously reading
the medieval French history list.
>By all means, let's stay witty, but within the context of medeevil
Far as I can see the essential question of this string is right there, going
with the flush of the main stream of middlevil skawlorshif, viz., whether or
not the immortal Latin of John of Salisbury (or, *may*be, Bernie of Chartres)
will become roadkill on the infermation Superhi!Way when it is rendered into
the tongue of Sheakespere because of rabid revisionist "conservatives" who
believe that the language can and should be jacked around everwhichaway
according to the whems of some "colloquials" (whoever the hell *they* are).
More further, as Brother Barlow so perceptively and eloquently points
out, it is rumored in some circles that
>...language and thought are related in such a way as [sic] when
language is limited, thought is limited.
>> Fowler's relativistic pussy-footing
>Fowler was a very conservative,prescriptive grammarian
Aux contraires, OO, you apparently have been even more hoodwinked than me
have: the entry you quoted clearly shows him to be at the very *least* a
closet Relativistic Pussy-Footer of the first Order.
With all the respect due, he is/was no more "conservative" than our own dear
"conservative" 'Merican politicians who want nothing so much more than getting
"gov'munt" off our backs and under our beds.
>writing in 1926.
Doant change the subject.
>>"He is older than me is."
>>"They traveled much faster than us did."
>But that's the point, Crockers old man, there is no verb.
Dangit man, there ****IS*** a verb; just because you doant *SEE* it doant mean
it haint *there*.
I mean, where would guys in your dodge *be* if folks were to stop believing in
stuff just because they caint *see* it????
Get a *grip,* for Dog's sake.
It's ecliptical, the verb: it's *understood*.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PARSE THE SENTENCE.
>Had there been a verb,
There ain't a verb, ever.
>"than" would be interpreted as a conjunction.
Than *is* a conjunction.
>As a preposition, it naturally takes the accusative.
Aint a preposition in the usage under discussion, except by
administrative _fiat_ and the spineless pussyfooting of "conservative"
grammerians who cave in to the speech patterns of the all-powerful and
In the plain, colloquial English of Southern Indianer 'Merican:
"The plume of mon tante is than the table [NOT]."
>Incidentally, nobody every [SIC--I *assume*] does this sort of thing in the
plural. Nobody (unless you, Crockers) says "It is we"
No, even *I* doant say "It is we," but only because suchlike speechisms are
strictly reserved by law and custom for the Emperess of India, her hairs and
assigns, and I am most definitely *not* part of *that* spawn.
But I shure as shootin say -- *always* and without fail -- "It is I."
Unless, of course, I'm speaking "colloquially" to my friends on the religion
list, wherein we can say anything we please.
>"They are older than we".
Nobody's older than we [ARE], so that's off point.
>Or, for that matter, "We can see farther than they."
Uroboroswise, I humbly submit that this is the only correct way to translate
John's Latin (rember??)
"Nos esse quasi nanos gigantum umeris insidentes,
ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre..."
into *correct,* *formal* (as opposed to some mythological, SCA-ready
>>O Contraire, ma frere,
>Actually, neither, it should be mon frere or mon pere: both are still
*Man*, talk about PEDANTIC!!
*AND* you entirely missed my clear literary reference to one of the most
favorite, endearing and well known expressions of the only son of the Patron
of this list, Bx. Homer of Pressboard Estates (the father, not the son).
Antepenultimately, Patricia Legorreta wrote:
>Dear Mr. Crockett,
>Pedantic or not, thank you very much for the translation.
Well, you're very much welcome, indeed.
Actually, truth be told, I had a *bit* of help from M. Gaybba.
Say, what do you mean "or not"?
What does it take for some people to see *real* pedantry when they see it?
> Surprisingly, this string turned out to be very funny.
Well, accidents happen.
>Yours, relativistically pussy-footingly,
[All of] Yours, for the
Pedanticalogical Preservation of the Language as a
Vehicle for Communication and,
occasionally (sometimes accidentally),
>May I seize the opportunity to ask Crockers for a definition of 'ditsie' in
his discourse of a few days ago.
Oh, sorry about that.
I of course meant to type: ditzy.
Ummm... something like "bonkers" in Old Fashioned English, but laced with a
rather heavy dose of flakieness.
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1