 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Now THIS is English!
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point?  SignatureYours, Dan S. Reporting to you from South Bend -The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in addictions. > > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt > > Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point? The point is that Scott regularly breaks every one of the trivial "rules" that people (mainly in the US, but not exclusively) want to apply to the English language. I agree with UC: Scott's use of the language is nothing short of beautiful. This is what English is about; forget all the petty "rules" and "regulations". > > > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "rules" that people (mainly in the US, but not exclusively) want to > apply to the English language. The point is that Scott was writing two centuries ago -- and remances at that. There's no question he was good at it; ask Gaetano Donizetti. But it offers little guidance for us today. > I agree with UC: Scott's use of the language is nothing short of > beautiful. This is what English is about; forget all the petty "rules" > and "regulations". If you're good enough, you can break any rules you want. But if you break the rules and it doesn't work, you look like an ignoramus. If you can write as well as Scott, you can write as freely as Scott. Otherwise it's best to behave. SignatureBob Lieblich Who isn't good enough -- and therefore tries to follow the rules >>>> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you can write as well as Scott, you can write as freely as Scott. > Otherwise it's best to behave. For crying out loud, Robbie! Have you lost the plot, or what?!? You're supposed to post things I can disagree with, for crying out loud! 3/10 Must Try Harder. > For crying out loud, Robbie! Have you lost the plot, or what?!? > > You're supposed to post things I can disagree with, for crying out loud! > > 3/10 Must Try Harder. LOL. Love it. Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse halves of the user name for my e-address > > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt > > Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point? Read and learn. The best way to learn hjow to write well in English is to read good writers and imitate them. > -- > Yours, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in > addictions. UC schrieb: >>>http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt >> >>Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point? > > Read and learn. The best way to learn hjow to write well in English is > to read good writers and imitate them. Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to modern usage - except perhaps as a source of more or less appropriate quotes. Also your point has little or no relevance to sci.lang.translation, where I came across this message. Einde O'Callaghan > Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how > beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to > modern usage - except perhaps as a source of more or less appropriate > quotes. Chiefly of how the dialogues of 600 hundred years ago were imagined 174 years ago. >> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how >> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Chiefly of how the dialogues of 600 hundred years ago were imagined 174 > years ago. Have you ever read Homer's work? (Sorry, Einde, but I think that cutting groups from the "To" list is bad-mannered, because you never know who actually wants to participate. Feel free to ignore). > >> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how > >> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Have you ever read Homer's work? You have a point, but limited. Comparing oral transmission to ex novo writing? The rhapsodes carried over and modified patches of an ancient original, overlaid some of it with their own imitation of the archaic core. Not exactly the same thing. >>>> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how >>>> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > original, overlaid some of it with their own imitation of the archaic > core. Not exactly the same thing. Of course it's limited, but it's basically the same thing. Both writers created "up-to-date" impressions of "histories" of centuries before, and inserted them into their "present-day reality". The fabled "gods" that take up most of Homer's work were the gods that Homer's society believed in, just as much of the "religious" elements of Scott's work were concerned only with the religion of the day, but based on older beliefs. What is important, from my point of view, is that it was all put in writing, and that the texts survived. That at least gives us something tangible to pick up and study. > >>>> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how > >>>> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > original, overlaid some of it with their own imitation of the archaic > > core. Not exactly the same thing. > Of course it's limited, but it's basically the same thing. Both writers > created "up-to-date" impressions of "histories" of centuries before, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Scott's work were concerned only with the religion of the day, but based > on older beliefs. Not interested in the histories or the gods right now, but exclusively in the language. I wouldn't know if you're right re other things. A part of the archaic language in Homer is a later (imitative) overlay by later rhapsodes who were mixing dialects, but the old core is also there for checking. Besides, it seems to have been sung in a literary language from the get-go. So the later insertions were not an attempt to recreate the impression of a language that people ever spoke. Not a whole lot to compare with "old" dialogue produced on the spot and inserted in a written composition in exalted-literary 19th century English. >>>>>> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how >>>>>> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > inserted in a written composition in exalted-literary 19th century > English. We're talking at crossed purposes, then. I'm not particularly worried about the dialects that were used; I'm more interested in the existence of the texts. Again, though, Scott's texts show particularly beautiful usage of the English language. How much of that it dialect related, I've never given much thought to, but I wish you luck in your avenue of enquiry. Where are you, lousy piece of sh.t? Show yourself so that we may finish you properly. d w j o >>>>>>> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter >>>>>>> how [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > English language. How much of that it dialect related, I've never given > much thought to, but I wish you luck in your avenue of enquiry. >>>>Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how >>>>beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > original, overlaid some of it with their own imitation of the archaic > core. Not exactly the same thing. Percy's Reliques. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Chiefly of how the dialogues of 600 hundred years ago were imagined 174 >>>> years ago. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Percy's Reliques. Exactly. Well said. > UC schrieb: >> Read and learn. The best way to learn hjow to write well in English is >> to read good writers and imitate them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Also your point has little or no relevance to sci.lang.translation, > where I came across this message. I think this has to do with his inept attempt at translating Kant. He carried on about how wonderful his English was. You may remember that I suggested that his capitalizing 'Reason' was either a misguided personification or archaizing and that I considered his use of an archaic phrase which also mistranslated Kant was silly. His response was that he was both using personification (because of his misunderstanding of agency in Kant) and archaizing, and defended his archaic phrase not by showing it was accurate but by cutting and pasting many lines from dictionaries to show that it was used in the 18th century. He has, despite his earlier claims to being making a good English translation, now proudly asserted that his goal is to produce 18th century English as the translation of 18th century German. This is a stupid goal, since it has no purpose but to obfuscate. > > UC schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 18th century English as the translation of 18th century German. This is > a stupid goal, since it has no purpose but to obfuscate. No. Only by firmly anchoring the text in the 18th c can it be understood properly. Modern terminology is inimicable to that. The reader of Hume or Locke has a foundation for Kant. [ ... ] > No. Only by firmly anchoring the text in the 18th c can it be > understood properly. Modern terminology is inimicable to that. Modern English is inimical to "inimicable." The only listing for it at onelook.com links to this: <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inimicable>, which simply defines it as "inimical." Strangely, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English describes "inimical" and "inimicable" as synonyms and both as standard when used with the preposition "to." <http://www.bartleby.com/68/87/3287.html>, though it does describe "inimical" as "much more commonly used." I begin to understand Eric Walker's impulse to burn certain usage books. Given that "inimicable" doesn't show up in a single online dictionary (if you trust onelook.com and ignore Wiki, which hardly counts), I don't know what the author of the Columbia Guide was smoking. Columbia Guide notwithstanding, the lack of dictionary support suggests that "inimicable" has about the same status as "irregardless." Certainly one would not expect someone capable of translating Kant into 18th Century English to use such a word. SignatureBob Lieblich Nicht so feindlich > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inimicable>, which simply defines it as > "inimical." "Main Entry:inimicable Pronunciation:**nim*k*b*l Function:adjective Etymology:Latin inimicus + English -able (as in amicable) : INIMICAL, HOSTILE *inimicable to the public peace or safety U.S. Code* From: Webster's Third New International I don't pay much attention to modern usage anyway. > Strangely, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English describes > "inimical" and "inimicable" as synonyms and both as standard when used [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "irregardless." Certainly one would not expect someone capable of > translating Kant into 18th Century English to use such a word. >http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt I think I have had all the teaching I can take for the mo... hang on, my tedium alarm has just gone into overload... SignaturePeter Ying tong iddle-i po! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.