>…how can you overlook
> Aux contraires, OO, ...
>>O Contraire, ma frere,
>[Both Crockettisms, I believe, in reverse chronological order.]
> I did not miss it, Krafters, but thought Crockers was doing it on purpose,
to illustrate some erudite point far above my comprehension. I feared that
it would be an allusion to something James Joyce had done
on page 642 of Finnegans Wake, or something of that sort.
Helas, not original Crockersettisms at all.
Ummm, p. *5*42 of the First, limited, lettered, out-of-series, edition
(Slocum & Cahoun A47), actually;
But I suppose you've only some knock-off, mass-market paperbound copy intended
for colloquial consumption, to hand, there on your lonely
>So what's up.
O, Ye of Little Faith--especially where eclisptical verbs are
concerned--and Literal, occasionally Pedantical Minds, harken up.
As any grammeratical relativist knows, context is everthing, grammerwise
The *context* of the remark <tu disolvimus> was, obviously, in compassionate
response to Brother Stephen's heart-felt apology:
<(Sorry. I couldn't resist the temptation.)>.
"tu disolvimus" was the only fitting thing to say.
It is a common phrase, uttered hundreds of thousands of times a day, for
thousands of years, time out of mind, all over middlevil Europe, whenever a
priest finished hearing a confession (assuming always the bonie fides
of the penitent, I assume).
Fittingly, it is now totally o current amongst the dear _colloquoi_--who have
adapted it everso slightly for their own, non-pedantical
usages--here in the loverly hills of Southern Indianer.
I was just trying to slip out of my Resident Pedant's rôle for a moment, but
it seems *some* on this list object to that.
>I've kept out of this one hitherto, and recommend that we all do,
I have to remind that it was our Dear List Owner, Bx. Ditzy George, who
started the accurséd string, and I, for one, feel duty bound to tediously
contribute to it until it turns into a squirrel path and runs up a tree, lest
he be tempted to do something similarly in future.
These things have to be knipped in the budd.
>and get back to what we all like best, which is MEDIEVAL RELIGION!
That's OakieDoakie by me, as long as we don't backslide into the use of the
kind of colloquialisms which engender sloppy thoughts.
After all, you can run *some* things--like a Church, say--by votes and poles
of the _colloquoi_, but Language is (or should be) Scared and InViolet.
Head (self-Greased*), Grammer Police
*ran out of oil.
_Notas Bennies_: Those who no longer wish to receive messages of this
sort may try one or more of the following:
a)Prey unceasingly to St Op.
2)Send an email to [log in to unmask]
iii)Don't encourage him and maybe he'll just *go away.*
IV)*think* about the consequences of allowing thought (even thought about
medieval religion)--via language--to be dictated by colloquialisms.
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1