|
Post by Kerisblade on Aug 29, 2007 10:17:42 GMT -5
An English myth. Once upon a time there lived a teacher who by the book, rote and cane put fear into her pupils about ending their sentences with a preposition. The teacher has since died, the world moved on, and today it is perfectly acceptable to have a preposition dangling at the end of a sentence.
We can now say and write: "Which room is he in?" and "What do you want him for?" rather than the stilted and formal "In which room is he?" and "For what do you want him?"
This new modernity of the English language is exemplified by the story about British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and a preposition. It is said Churchill got so mad an editor had rearranged one of Churchill's sentences so it wouldn't end with a preposition that he roared: "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
The Guinness Book of (World) Records, believe it or not, used to have a category for "most prepositions in a sentence". The winner? A boy who didn't want to be read excerpts from a book about Australia as a bedtime story: "What did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to from out of about 'Down Under' up for?"
But if people still cannot accept the idea, then let us all return to medieval English for which we won't have to worry about prepositions to end the sentence with. Consider the following: "All this ʒeir … thair was ane gret drouthe that the rain ranit nocht" See any preposition?
|
|
|
Post by Kerisblade on Aug 30, 2007 16:07:45 GMT -5
The Latin lover
As a basic rule of thumb, you're doomed if you use a Latin word when an English one would do fine. That said, a knowledge of the Latin basis of any word enriches your understanding of that word.
An example is the Latin term "annus horribilis." Would many know that recorded since the mid 1980's it was brought into popular use after Queen Elizabeth II used it to describe 1992 - the year that the marriages of her two sons Charles and Andrew broke down and Windsor Castle caught fire?
Worse, did anyone do a literal Anglicising of the word and came to the conclusion it meant a... errr ... a horrible anus? And coming from no less than the mouth of Her Majesty the Queen of England??
If so, it is an egregious folly, understandable though it be. Derived from the Latin phrase "annus mirabilis" - year of wonders (or miracles) - annus horribilis simply means a horrible year.
In that speech, Her Majesty thanked a former assistant private secretary, Sir Edward Ford, now 96, and a scholar at Eton and New College, Oxford, for providing her with that Latin reference.
Sir Edward later regretted that he hadn't used the correct Latin - annus horrendus.
Given that misunderstanding could have occurred with his first choice - annus horribilis - Sir Edward should thank his lucky stars he did not correct his "mistake." In my humble opinion, annus horrendous would leave no doubt in the minds of the unLatin savvy that Her Majesty was surely talking about the piles that was plaguing her health that year.
|
|
|
Post by Kerisblade on Aug 31, 2007 0:13:35 GMT -5
Who are "we dolts"? Are you taking my postings in this "Poems, satire etc" board seriously? C'mon, they are not aimed at anybody - just spoofs and a lighter look at language and its use.
I don't know what preceded "horribilis" in its common usage but I'm sure you'll let us know.
|
|
|
Post by Kerisblade on Sept 1, 2007 17:08:18 GMT -5
OK. So there are many kinds of urses and the grizzly is horribilis. Never encountered one but horrible should be a good description.
|
|
|
Post by sparkleplenty on Sept 6, 2007 14:50:07 GMT -5
__________________________________________________ I don't know what preceded "horribilis" in its common usage _________________________________________________ to obvious would be a pain in the arse
|
|
|
Post by Kerisblade on Sept 6, 2007 17:11:58 GMT -5
lol! That's the point, only I didn't try to make it too obvious.
|
|