 |
 | 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 2006actor, character, inverse character
What word can fill in the blank in the context of _Goldfinger_. Sean Connery's character is James Bond. James Bond's ______ is Sean Connery. Is "actor" technically correct here? -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > What word can fill in the blank > in the context of _Goldfinger_. > > Sean Connery's character is James Bond. > James Bond's ______ is Sean Connery. I'd go with "portrayer." Not quite perfect, I suppose, but nothing close springs to mind. > Is "actor" technically correct here? Maybe "enactor." I think "actor" is wrong.  SignatureBob Lieblich Connery originated the role of Bond (take THAT, Clarence) >> What word can fill in the blank >> in the context of _Goldfinger_. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Maybe "enactor." I think "actor" is wrong. If Connery was really into the part, he would be James Bond's "alter ego". If not, he's Bond's "screen presence". Or was. I don't know why we get hung up on the search for one word terms. If it takes two, or three, then that's what should be used. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote [...] > If Connery was really into the part, he would be James Bond's > "alter ego". If not, he's Bond's "screen presence". Or was. > > I don't know why we get hung up on the search for one word > terms. It's an old-fashioned idea called "elegance". Elegance is defined as the simplest and clearest answer to the question or problem. The essence of elegance is economy. One word is more economical than two or more -- but you already knew that. > If it takes two, or three, then that's what should be used. Yes, this applies when the only answer to a question, e.g., Q: "How long should my legs be?" A: "Long enough to reach the ground", cannot be expressed in a single word or otherwise idiomatic multi-word term. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." >Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote >[...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >essence of elegance is economy. One word is more economical than two >or more -- but you already knew that. That's a circular defense of "one word". If the simplest and clearest answer to a question is two or more words, then the two or more words are what you call "elegance". I would also differ with you on applying "elegance" to the choice of the number of words that are necessary to describe what needs described. There's nothing inherently elegant about one word compared to two or three words. Furthermore, I certainly would not agree that economy is the essence of elegance. Gary Cooper's "Yup"s were economical, but hardly elegant. >> If it takes two, or three, then that's what should be used. > >Yes, this applies when the only answer to a question, e.g., Q: "How >long should my legs be?" A: "Long enough to reach the ground", cannot >be expressed in a single word or otherwise idiomatic multi-word term. I dunno if "groundreaching" qualifies as one word, but we do have "groundbreaking". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > dontbother <dontbother@mushmail.mom> wrote: >>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > clearest answer to a question is two or more words, then the two > or more words are what you call "elegance". I will imitate Peter Moylan (or was it RH Draney?) and present you the Oscar-Otiose for Stating the Blindingly Obvious. > I would also differ with you on applying "elegance" to the > choice of the number of words that are necessary to describe > what needs described. There's nothing inherently elegant about > one word compared to two or three words. Just a demonstration that you are a man of taste as well as wit and wisdom ("jots and tittles", I assume), eh? > Furthermore, I certainly would not agree that economy is the > essence of elegance. Gary Cooper's "Yup"s were economical, but > hardly elegant. They defined his character. Would you have him blab on and on about nothings as so many of our RRs do? I suppose you would >>> If it takes two, or three, then that's what should be used. That was the point to "long enough to reach the ground". The point is to say as much as is needed and no more. You might rememmber that when you were a little boy, the Copernican heliocentric theory of our solar system displaced Ptolemy's circles-within-circles model of a geocentric theory of what was believed by the faithful to be the universe. >>Yes, this applies when the only answer to a question, e.g., Q: >>"How long should my legs be?" A: "Long enough to reach the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I dunno if "groundreaching" qualifies as one word, but we do > have "groundbreaking". A demonstration of your skills as a semanticist? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > > Sean Connery's character is James Bond. > > James Bond's ______ is Sean Connery. > > I'd go with "portrayer." I second the motion. Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > What word can fill in the blank > in the context of _Goldfinger_. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is "actor" technically correct here? I wouldn't say so. Maybe "interpreter". "Portrayer" is clumsy but accurate. A more common usage would be to say "The part of James Bond _______ Sean Connery" where the gap might be filled by "was played by" or "was taken by". Or maybe just "James Bond was played by Sean Connery". SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > What word can fill in the blank > > in the context of _Goldfinger_. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Connery" where the gap might be filled by "was played by" or "was taken by". > Or maybe just "James Bond was played by Sean Connery". "Sean Connery played James Bond." Can't get much more economical than that (without omitting first names or using an = sign). Of course, it omits much information, but I assume there's more to the context than a five-word sentence. Doesn't anyone want to argue about "originate the role"? SignatureBob Lieblich Portraying himself >>> What word can fill in the blank >>> in the context of _Goldfinger_. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Doesn't anyone want to argue about "originate the role"? Avaunt! We all know about Barry Nelson. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > What word can fill in the blank > in the context of _Goldfinger_. > > Sean Connery's character is James Bond. > James Bond's ______ is Sean Connery. Embodiment, personification, or metaphorically, incarnation. > Is "actor" technically correct here? I don't think so, "slave" would be more appropriate, but not in your context. The Richard Maurer entity posted thusly: >What word can fill in the blank >in the context of _Goldfinger_. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Is "actor" technically correct here? Perhaps "portrayer", if you insist on that structure, but it is idiomatic to say "James Bond is(or was) played by Sean Connery." Richard Maurer <rcpb1_maurer@yahoo.com> had it: > What word can fill in the blank > in the context of _Goldfinger_. > > Sean Connery's character is James Bond. > James Bond's ______ is Sean Connery. Can I just point out that the new Bond is a Cheshire lad, although you wouldn't guess from his normal speaking voice. SignatureDavid ===== |
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.