 |
 | 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 / January 2009Grammar Question
I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm beginning to have doubts about, I wonder if anyone finds anything wrong here: --------------------------------------> “I hope you're hungry,” said the Duke. “Hungry? Do we have time for that, Lord Duke–-well, if you insist …” “You drink German ale, Mr. Shackleton?” “Ale? On occasion–got to keep my wits about me, you know, Haw Haw.” Drink it? I was baptized in it! thought Shackleton. He stuck a napkin in his collar and motioned the serving girl to bring on the sturgeon. At least they hadn’t forgotten the eats … and drinks! And who knows, maybe if I drink enough I might actually be able to paint a portrait of the girl the King won't flog me within an inch of my life for. Hey! Maybe that’s their plan–-to bribe me! Well, If that’s it, I’ve got news for them–-I'm your man! --------------------------------------------> elanders filted: >I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >--------------------------------------------> Inconsistent code-shifting?...if you count Dukes and Kings among your setting, that one word should be spelt "baptised"....r  Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > “Hungry? Do we have time for that, Lord Duke–-well, if you insist …” > And who knows, maybe > if I drink enough I might actually be able to paint a portrait of the > girl the King won't flog me within an inch of my life for. One does not address a Duke as 'Lord Duke' nor end a sentence with a preposition. > > “Hungry? Do we have time for that, Lord Duke–-well, if you insist …” > > And who knows, maybe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > One does not address a Duke as 'Lord Duke' nor end a sentence with a > preposition. The fictional characters in a novel don't always observe the proper rules of style or grammar. Most of the time they don't reflect the author's style, mannerism, opinions, etc. I don't believe the author (OP) asked for assessments on his characters' usage of language. > > > “Hungry? Do we have time for that, Lord Duke–-well, if you insist …” > > > And who knows, maybe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't believe the author (OP) asked for assessments on his > characters' usage of language. Actually, the OP's question was extremely vague. The only thing that stood out for me on a cursory examination was the incorrect address to a Duke, who is properly addressed as "Your Grace". The preposition- ending sentence needs work - I had to read it three times before I could figure out the meaning. Will. On Jan 8, 6:32 am, billri...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > “Hungry? Do we have time for that, Lord Duke–-well, if you insist …” > > > > And who knows, maybe [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My guess is that the OP was fishing for some feedback, any kind of feedback, hence the vagueness of the question that multiplies the feedback. > The fictional characters in a novel don't always observe the proper > rules of style or grammar. Most of the time they don't reflect the > author's style, mannerism, opinions, etc. > > I don't believe the author (OP) asked for assessments on his characters' > usage of language. This is usenet, the OP hasn't paid for assessments or advice: he/she gets whatever responders choose to supply. Live with it. >> “Hungry? Do we have time for that, Lord Duke–-well, if you insist …” >> And who knows, maybe >> if I drink enough I might actually be able to paint a portrait of the >> girl the King won't flog me within an inch of my life for. > One does not address a Duke as 'Lord Duke' nor end a sentence with a > preposition. "That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!" -- Winston Churchell http://grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions1.html and... "Your Grace" (by inferiors) or "Duke" (by social equals) the first time in conversation, followed by "Sir" (or "Glastonbury," if addressed by a very close friend or relative). http://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles12.html EG On 08 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage > below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > --------------------------------------------> Apart from the "Lord Duke" problem and the spelling of "baptised" mentioned elsethread, I find the whole tone of this a bit disconcerting. When is this set, and who is Shackleton? The reference to the King and flogging/punishment of an artist implies historical; if he's both historical and English, the use of "Hey! Maybe..." sounds really wrong to my ear. Also, the capitalising and spelling of "ha ha" in "...got to keep my wits about me, you, know, Haw Haw" made me think of William Joyce. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage > below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part > I'm beginning to have doubts about, I wonder if anyone finds > anything wrong here: > “I hope you're hungry,” said the Duke. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of my life for. Hey! Maybe that’s their plan–-to bribe me! Well, If > that’s it, I’ve got news for them–-I'm your man! You titled your posting "Grammar Question", so I suppose it's a grammatical or usage error we're supposed to look for. You flog people *to* within an inch of their lives. Is that it? As others gave suggested, there may some problems of inconsistent register. Characters who laugh "Haw Haw", for example, don't usually talk about "eats and drinks" or exclaim "Hey!" to themselves, and contrarywise. In general, stories where the king can flog for unsatisfactory performance don't have characters in them that talk like modern Americans, unless time-travel is involved. >> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > unsatisfactory performance don't have characters in them that talk > like modern Americans, unless time-travel is involved. Well, that's what I find curious. If the King were, say, Spanish and a translation done, why should this translation use British "King's English" instead of American English? Why should the Spanish King say, "We thank thee, ever so much, and await our speedy return," instead of "Thanks a lot and we'll be waiting for you to get back"? EG > Well, that's what I find curious. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > our speedy return," instead of "Thanks a lot and we'll be waiting for > you to get back"? You raise a valid philosophical issue regarding translation, one that is particularly relevant in translating ancient documents like the Iliad and the Bible, as well as to the question of whether more modern books are doomed to be forever in Victorian English -- but the examples you choose to give us are so messy and full of holes that I'm having trouble imagining where to begin to respond. Any time a translator can convince a book publisher that it's time for a more readable (and, usually, accurate) version of such-and-such, they are free to work such a project. It doesn't sound like that's what you're doing, though. Do I take it you are a non-native speaker of English, writing your own free-for-all adventure novel that blends together language you have picked up from many sources? You can publish anything on the Internet, but whether you'll have commercial success... Who knows, maybe the world is ready for that. We await our speedy return. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > >> Well, that's what I find curious. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > We await our speedy return. You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about commercial success, and your point about American English v British English. And note I say British English and not Elizabethan English or Victorian English. I do this because the idea seems to be royalty must always be rendered in British English. It's always done this way no matter who the royal is. Danish kings, when done in English, must sound like Shakespeare's Henry VIII or the dialogue is considered flawed. Will a novel about 18th century Brit royals done in American English fail commercially (or critically for that matter)? Why are you so certain it will? Still, I agree. If the dialogue I've presented here seems "messy," I'd better change it. Maybe I can get some additional feedback on the point. EG > You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about > commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is. Danish kings, when done in English, must sound like Shakespeare's > Henry VIII or the dialogue is considered flawed. Have you actually seen Henry VIII? It's so obscure that I have absolutely no idea what the plot is, nor am I aware of knowing any of the dialogue. SignatureDavid >> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > absolutely no idea what the plot is, nor am I aware of knowing any of > the dialogue. Well, I had always heard the Shakespeare's dialogue was ordinary, everyman dialogue -- not Brit royal English. EG >>> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >>> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well, I had always heard the Shakespeare's dialogue was ordinary, > everyman dialogue -- not Brit royal English. If I remember right, Henry VIII is more like a pageant than a full-blown play. No, Shakespeare's dialogue is varied in register. Not sure what you mean by "royal English". SignatureMike. >>>> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >>>> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > play. No, Shakespeare's dialogue is varied in register. Not sure what > you mean by "royal English". Court English. The Nobility. EG [...] >>> Well, I had always heard the Shakespeare's dialogue was ordinary, >>> everyman dialogue -- not Brit royal English. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Court English. The Nobility. Well, yes, I got that far. But I still don't know what you mean by it, and I'm not convinced there was any such thing. Some specialist jargon, no doubt, and the tendency not to use slang when speaking respectfully to superiors or formally to inferiors. The nobility would have embraced all types from the most effete fashion victim to the most arrant clodhopper, by way of astute politicians, all with speech to match. SignatureMike. > You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about > commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is. Danish kings, when done in English, must sound like Shakespeare's > Henry VIII or the dialogue is considered flawed. By whom? Opinions are opinions. Some time back we discussed regional theater, student productions, etc. You can find Shakespeare delivered in accents of New Jersey, Toronto, Seattle, Sydney, etc. And with actors in a rainbow of skin tones, too. Whether famous American actors playing Hamlet, etc, try to speak in a British accent could be established. I rather imagine that unless they have an usual gift of accents, they don't try, and stick to a kind of stage American. I think you're right insofar as British people would be *startled* to hear Shakespeare delivered in any other way than Received Pronunciation. But they would quickly get used to it. Furthermore, I bet some directors have tried using regional British accents, too. Personally, I have been intrigued by attempts to abandon Shakespeare's wording altogether and update the stories, but that goes too far for some. By the way, I don't think even experienced linguists are certain how Shakespeare's words were pronounced *in his own lifetime*, although some would have strong guesses. What you are referring to is not really an attempt to preserve the pronunciations of Shakespeare's day, but the pronunciations of the intervening centuries. > Will a novel about 18th century Brit royals done in American English > fail commercially (or critically for that matter)? Why are you so > certain it will? I wasn't. Seems to me I said, let's see, >>whether you'll have commercial success... Who knows, maybe the world >> is ready for that. Look, historical fiction is an established genre. Many writers have put food on the table by churning out stories following those precedents and formulas. I'm not sure if that's the game you are trying to play. The other possibility is that you are truly a creative, free spirit, playing with words, mixing up images, following some inner voice. You may win fame that way (I think of Kafka, and his crazy dreamlike stories) but the price you pay is: it's hard to read that sort of story. The genre fiction is easy-going. Original creative writing thick with surprises is not. People balk at every unusual statement, every odd turn of phrase, every fantastic surprise. Either they start to laugh or they throw the book down in distaste and despair. > Still, I agree. If the dialogue I've presented here seems "messy," I'd > better change it. > > Maybe I can get some additional feedback on the point. Well, for one thing, the king doesn't await "our return,"but "your return, or since you are using "thee," "thy return." I know you were just trying to write a bad example, and there's no reason why people today should know the rules of "thee, thou, and thy," but they're pretty simple. There's a summary at our website: http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > simple. There's a summary at our website: > http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King is George II: -------------------------------------------------> The King put his hands up for silence then turned to Shackleton. "Which one is Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel?" "Don't tell him yet," said Queen Mother. "He will or rue the day he didn't!" "For what–disobeying my order?” "For disobeying mine!" "Not when I countermand yours, then he's disobeying mine–isn't that so, Lord Bute?" "Not a word from you, Bute!" Queen Mother tugged the Prince to the line of portraits. "You'll listen to me on this, my son. I know German girls–don't forget I'm one myself." "And what am I?" said the King. Queen Mother laughed. "A German girl? …" “Watch your tongue, daughter-in-law!” “Ah, hush.” ------------------------------------------------------------------> > Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, > ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The King put his hands up for silence then turned to Shackleton. "Which > one is Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel?" [they must be looking at a line of portraits] > "Don't tell him yet," said Queen Mother. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------> Mostly what hits me is puzzlement as to how anyone titled Queen Mother could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, and in front of a visitor, too. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, > and in front of a visitor, too. I also think the person in question should referred to as *the* Queen Mother, as in "the Prince" and "the King". (Mildly entertaining as this is, it's not a patch on the tantalising plots of Peasemarsh, is it?) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > (Mildly entertaining as this is, it's not a patch on the tantalising > plots of Peasemarsh, is it?) Sorry, don't know Peasemarsh. And yes, I dropped the "the" throughout the 85,000 word novel. Reason? Well, two reasons: 1. Augusta wasn't actually "the Queen Mother" and I felt by dropping the "the" it lessens the impact. 2. Simply saying Queen Mother assigns the ring to her title I wanted. In other words, purely artistic license. EG >And yes, I dropped the "the" throughout the 85,000 word novel. Reason? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >In other words, purely artistic license. I take it you don't have, or aim to appeal to, many British readers. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> And yes, I dropped the "the" throughout the 85,000 word novel. Reason? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I take it you don't have, or aim to appeal to, many British readers. Somewhere I read you're allowed to do things like this in fiction just as long as you don't over-do it. "Dowager Princess" is just an ugly and unwieldy title. I'm sure the Queen Mum wasn't the only royal who hated it. To get around it, I have the Dowager Princess Augusta say at the top of the chapter "I hate Dowager and I will not be called that!" EG >>> And yes, I dropped the "the" throughout the 85,000 word novel. Reason? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >To get around it, I have the Dowager Princess Augusta say at the top of >the chapter "I hate Dowager and I will not be called that!" It's the omission of "the" which is likely to grate on British ears. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>> And yes, I dropped the "the" throughout the 85,000 word novel. Reason? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It's the omission of "the" which is likely to grate on British ears. When we do the movie we'll put the "the" back in. ricland > "Dowager Princess" is just an ugly and unwieldy title. I'm sure the > Queen Mum wasn't the only royal who hated it. "Ugly and wieldy" seems a personal opinion rather than any summary of actual usage. Because so many English lords were outlived by their wives English history is full of dowager duchesses, countesses, and so on, so there are plenty of actual examples of second-person use (e.g. in letters) or third-person use (narratives) even from the 18th century. > To get around it, I have the Dowager Princess Augusta say at the top of > the chapter "I hate Dowager and I will not be called that!" Readers familiar with dower houses, dowager widows etc. may wonder why one out of hundreds so vehemently opposed current everyday language. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> "Dowager Princess" is just an ugly and unwieldy title. I'm sure the >> Queen Mum wasn't the only royal who hated it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wonder why one out of hundreds so vehemently opposed current > everyday language. Let 'em wonder. EG >> "Dowager Princess" is just an ugly and unwieldy title. I'm sure the >> Queen Mum wasn't the only royal who hated it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >wonder why one out of hundreds so vehemently opposed current >everyday language. Perhaps there was someone in the court who, similar to Twain's Hank Morgan, was a Massachusetts Yankee in Augusta's Court. He would have said "Dowajah", and that would offend a member of royalty more than a pea under the mattress. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> "Dowager Princess" is just an ugly and unwieldy title. I'm sure the >>> Queen Mum wasn't the only royal who hated it. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Talk about the Twilight Zone, this Tony fellow has his own zip code there. EG On 09 Jan 2009, Don Phillipson wrote >> "Dowager Princess" is just an ugly and unwieldy title. I'm sure >> the Queen Mum wasn't the only royal who hated it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > examples of second-person use (e.g. in letters) or third-person > use (narratives) even from the 18th century. I suspect another problem that the Queen Mum [Gawd bless 'er(TM)] had with the term in 1952 is that there was already an existing Dowager Queen consort around at the time. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Jan 2009, Don Phillipson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with the term in 1952 is that there was already an existing Dowager > Queen consort around at the time. Actually, there were three: ------------------> For slightly over a year, there were three queens in the Commonwealth realms: * Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch. * Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, the widow of the deceased King George VI and the mother of the reigning queen. Queen Elizabeth, the former queen consort, specifically adopted the appellation Queen Mother to distinguish herself from her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II. She reportedly loathed being referred to as a dowager queen. * Queen Mary, the widow of King George V, the mother of the former king Edward VIII (the then Duke of Windsor) and of the late King George VI. Queen Mary had been the queen mother between the death of her husband in 1936 and the accession of her granddaughter in 1952. However, she continued to be titled and styled Her Majesty Queen Mary. ---------------------> EG >> On 09 Jan 2009, Don Phillipson wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > ---------------------> Count again. Only two of them were Dowager Queens consort. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> On 09 Jan 2009, Don Phillipson wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Count again. Only two of them were Dowager Queens consort. Or, "consort". Didn't see that. EG Don Phillipson filted: >> To get around it, I have the Dowager Princess Augusta say at the top of >> the chapter "I hate Dowager and I will not be called that!" > >Readers familiar with dower houses, dowager widows etc. may >wonder why one out of hundreds so vehemently opposed current >everyday language. Inexplicable aversions to common words are not unheard of, even in our more enlightened times: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004835.html ....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Well, two reasons: 1. Augusta wasn't actually "the Queen Mother" and I > felt by dropping the "the" it lessens the impact. Why call her that, then? > 2. Simply saying Queen Mother assigns the ring to her title I wanted. > > In other words, purely artistic license. Which is likely to deeply irritate any reader who cares. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >And yes, I dropped the "the" throughout the 85,000 word novel. Reason? So the beat goes on. And on. And on. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > So the beat goes on. And on. And on. Why day you're going to say something witty, Tony. You'll know this because the voices in your head will suddenly become quiet. EG >>>>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >You'll know this because the voices in your head will suddenly become quiet. Dammit! I *need* those voices, too. I need one to tell me what "Why day" means. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>>>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Dammit! I *need* those voices, too. I need one to tell me what "Why > day" means. It was purposely put there so you could say something witty about it. We're waiting ... EG >>>>>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>>>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >Dammit! I *need* those voices, too. I need one to tell me what "Why >day" means. Sarcasm does not become you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>Why day you're going to say something witty, Tony. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sarcasm does not become you. But I can become one with sarcasm. "One what?", you may ask. (If you can determine if that question should be written with or without ellipses.) SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, > and in front of a visitor, too. Good point -- you know your history. The explanation is a little complicated and goes something like this: You'll recall Queen Mum hated the title Dowager too. At the beginning of the chapter I created this quote: "I will be called Queen Mother because I command this, and that’s all the reason you or anyone else needs.” – Dowager Princess of Wales (Augusta) Reason? Because Dowager Princess of Wales (or even Dowager) was too awkward. I needed something simple and commanding so used artistic license -- with the explanation above -- to rename Princess Augusta, "Queen Mother." EG > > Mostly what hits me is puzzlement as to how anyone titled Queen Mother > > could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, > > and in front of a visitor, too. > > Good point -- you know your history. I just comprehend the significance of the title "Queen Mother." > The explanation is a little complicated and goes something like this: > You'll recall Queen Mum hated the title Dowager too. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the reason you or anyone else needs." > -- Dowager Princess of Wales (Augusta) "Queen Mother" has a very specific meaning, and you can't become one unless you (1) have been the queen and (b) are the mother of the now-reigning king or queen. That is not the case here. I think your Augusta is this Augusta, as shown in Wikipedia: * 30 November 1719 -- 17 April 1736: Her Ducal Serene Highness Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha * 17 April 1736 -- 30 March 1751: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales * 31 March 1751 -- 8 February 1772: Her Royal Highness The Dowager Princess of Wales It wouldn't matter if she stamped her foot and said she was to be known as the Empress of China. You don't get these titles by self-proclamation. > Reason? > > Because Dowager Princess of Wales (or even Dowager) was too awkward. I > needed something simple and commanding so used artistic license -- with > the explanation above -- to rename Princess Augusta, "Queen Mother." Again, I don't know the fine details, but I'm sure people didn't actually say fully "Good morning, Dowager Princess of Wales." There are books about "direct address" you can look up, and they probably said that people should address such as person directly as "your highness" or "ma'am." You mention elsewhere that you're getting harassed about grammar, but I'm more concerned about factual content. I'm not sure if you care about getting the facts all wrong or not. Like I say, there are writers who care about creating an accurate atmosphere, and there are writers who just say whatever pops into their heads. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>> Mostly what hits me is puzzlement as to how anyone titled Queen Mother >>> could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > unless you (1) have been the queen and (b) are the mother of the > now-reigning king or queen. That is not the case here. I covered this already, directly above-- did you miss it? In my fictional account of the time (note the word fiction) Dowager Princess Augusta decides she detests the title "Dowager" and wants to call herself Queen Mother instead. The woman is the mother of George III. She's only 42 years old. She thinks "Dowager" makes her sound like an antique. She tells everyone to call her Queen Mother instead. This is not "conferring a title" on her, it's just what she wants to be called. Likewise, Elizabeth Queen Mother detested the "Dowager" title and insisted everyone refer to her as Queen Mother or Queen mum. EG > Likewise, Elizabeth Queen Mother detested the "Dowager" title and > insisted everyone refer to her as Queen Mother or Queen mum. I'm not aware that any surviving British queen consort was ever actually referred to as "Dowager". Normally, they were just called "Queen Anne", or whatever, but in this case her style and name would have been the same as her daughters - Queen Elizabeth - and so "the Queen Mother" was added to disambiguate (as WikiP would have it). George V's wife lived on as Queen Mary without any need to add Dowager. Where you do see Dowager used is where the title doesn't distinguish. We say "Dowager Duchess of X", for example, since if her son is married, her daughter-in-law would also be "Duchess of X". SignatureDavid > >>> Mostly what hits me is puzzlement as to how anyone titled Queen Mother > >>> could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I covered this already, directly above-- did you miss it? Not in this post, so I suppose by "above" you mean according to the order that your newsreader displays the posts. Mine displays them differently, and there have been so many on this thread I don't find it. > In my fictional account of the time (note the word fiction) Dowager > Princess Augusta decides she detests the title "Dowager" and wants to > call herself Queen Mother instead. The woman is the mother of George > III. She's only 42 years old. She thinks "Dowager" makes her sound like > an antique. She tells everyone to call her Queen Mother instead. When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a preference for "(the) Queen Mother," ignoring that she doesn't really qualify and setting aside whether anybody really used the phrase that long ago. But any conversation she has with her father-in-law about portraits can't be after his death. When was that supposed to be? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>>>> Mostly what hits me is puzzlement as to how anyone titled Queen Mother >>>>> could be daughter-in-law to the King. Besides being so rude to the King, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > long ago. But any conversation she has with her father-in-law about > portraits can't be after his death. When was that supposed to be? Oh, I see what you're saying. But the defense still works here. After explaining why she decides to call herself "Queen Mother" even though she isn't, I go right into calling her Queen Mother, even though as you point out, her son is still only a prince. But I only do this because the alternative -- calling her Dowager Princess Augusta then switching to Queen Mother -- is unacceptable. It hurts the narrative, confuses things. But the way, the woman turns out to be a lunatic -- the King is forced to send her to Bedlam. Maybe this explains why she was running around calling herself Queen Mother. EG > > When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had > > just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, I see what you're saying. > But the defense still works here. After > explaining why she decides to call herself "Queen Mother" even though [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Princess Augusta then switching to Queen Mother -- is unacceptable. It > hurts the narrative, confuses things. I think your readers can comprehend that people acquire different titles at different stages of life... But you as narrator could just call her "Augusta" throughout. > But the way, the woman turns out to be a lunatic -- the King is forced > to send her to Bedlam. Maybe this explains why she was running around > calling herself Queen Mother. I have one last question before I join Augusta in Bedlam. Is this notion that she called herself Queen Mother prematurely something that you invented, totally, or something you read somewhere (and if so where)? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had >>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that she called herself Queen Mother prematurely something that you > invented, totally, or something you read somewhere (and if so where)? Purely my invention. ED > >>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had > >>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Purely my invention. And a great one, you should copyright it, otherwise it might be stollen. Excerpt from a biography: "...and when he was only five, the Ambassador was already bilingual. At the age of nine the Ambassador already joined..." >>>>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had >>>>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > "...and when he was only five, the Ambassador was already bilingual. > At the age of nine the Ambassador already joined..." Thanks. I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. She drives historians crazy too. Look, I'm telling a story not writing the history of England. You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic license." EG > I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. > > She drives historians crazy too. Goodness knows why. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. >> >> She drives historians crazy too. > > Goodness knows why. Let us ask Goodness then. > >> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Let us ask Goodness then. Goodness had nothing to do with it. >> >> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Goodness had nothing to do with it. Amethyst thinks Goodness knows. >> >> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Goodness had nothing to do with it. Maebe yes, Maebe no. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland [...] > I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. You do? > She drives historians crazy too. Which ones? How? > Look, I'm telling a story not writing the history of England. You > fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic > license." You, on the other hand, seem merely blissfully unaware. You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before we start thinking this isn't fun any more. SignatureMike. > [...] >> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before we > start thinking this isn't fun any more. Let's see. I write an 85,000 manuscript, come to a English usage group with questions, and you call that trolling. Not to put too fine a point on it, but exactly what is your definition of trolling? EG On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> [...] >>> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Not to put too fine a point on it, but exactly what is your > definition of trolling? "Posting an '85,000 manuscript' and asking usage questions with the apparent intention of rabidly rejecting any reasoned criticism or non-adulatory comments about the usage." Yeah; that sounds like trolling. > On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Yeah; that sounds like trolling. Then why do you do it? EG On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Then why do you do it? Why do I post an "85,000 manuscript" as a troll? An odd question. Your attempts at repartee are almost endearingly inept -- they're exactly like your attempts at fiction. At least you're being consistent. > On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > At least you're being consistent. By the way, "almost endearingly inept" is not good form. It's wordy and sophomoric -- the kind of thing an editor would fling back in the face of a beginning writer. Why not "endearingly inept"? Exactly what do you think "almost" adds to a solid phrase? Honestly, fella, if your beastly use of language is any measure, you know as much about writing as I know about Fermat's Last Theorem. EG >> [...] >>> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Not to put too fine a point on it, but exactly what is your definition > of trolling? OK, I'll bite, but it is getting close to boring-point. Boosting one's ego, or indulging in private amusement, by drawing attention to oneself on a newsgroup, often by asking questions without any intention of accepting the answers, or by making statements which are likely to be disagreed with. Dodging questions which are asked in return is also typical. Many of those who do it change their Usenet names quite often. >>> [...] >>>> I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > disagreed with. Dodging questions which are asked in return is also > typical. Many of those who do it change their Usenet names quite often. Got it all figured, don't you? You know, the UN could use a smart fellow like you. I bet you could fly down to the middle-East tonight and have the Israelis and Hamas bellying up at the bar with each other by Sunday morning. EG > You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before > we start thinking this isn't fun any more. It definitely looks like trolling now. It's the "bozo bin" for him. Not that I think the threads will die down any time soon. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before >> we start thinking this isn't fun any more. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Brian Don't let the door hit your a.s on the way out. EG >> You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before >> we start thinking this isn't fun any more. > >It definitely looks like trolling now. It's the "bozo bin" for him. > >Not that I think the threads will die down any time soon. Yes, at first I thought he was serious about wanting comments on his story. Fine, I thought, for I think we should encourage people to do this, but now it looks like he merely wants to aggravate people and was using a poorly written story as an enticement. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before >>> we start thinking this isn't fun any more. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this, but now it looks like he merely wants to aggravate people and > was using a poorly written story as an enticement. No one identified anything major--you certainly didn't, Chuck. A lot of chest-puffing generalities were thrown around, but no one -- and certainly not you, Chuck -- argued the fundamentals were all wrong. Do you even know what the fundamentals are, Chuck? Where's the problem, in plot? Characterization? Dialogue? Setting? Action? Narrative? Scene? Did anyone mention any of these things? You certainly didn't, Chuck. In fact isn't it true that all you fellows have really been doing here is going back and forth over the Queen Mother business? You certainly haven't displayed your supposed deep understanding of fiction any other way, Chuck. You've not presented one argument that supports your claim the excerpts are poorly written. Not one. Nada. What? Is it just a sensibility you have about it, Chuck? Something so cosmic you can't articulate it? Or is it you're just blowing smoke, Chuck? All I ask is this: support whatever you say with a reasoned argument, and you certainly haven't done that, Chuck. EG >Where's the problem, in plot? Characterization? Dialogue? Setting? >Action? Narrative? Scene? Yes. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before >>>> we start thinking this isn't fun any more. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >All I ask is this: support whatever you say with a reasoned argument, >and you certainly haven't done that, Chuck. Try another draft, if you like, but if you expect us to critique it, you'll do well not to insult us. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> You could stop trolling newsgroups and get on with your work before >>>>> we start thinking this isn't fun any more. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Try another draft, if you like, but if you expect us to critique it, > you'll do well not to insult us. What makes you think I expect anything from YOU at all, Chuck? EG >You >fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic license." Warning Ancient joke approaching What is the number of your Artistic License and which State issued it? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> You >> fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic license." > > Warning Ancient joke approaching > > What is the number of your Artistic License and which State issued it? The above is what's called "Brit Humor." If told at tea time just before the cucumber sandwiches are served, it will have your guests rolling on the floor. EG >>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>> license." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If told at tea time just before the cucumber sandwiches are served, it > will have your guests rolling on the floor. If you'd been here for longer, you'd have learned that it's not actually possible to insult the British. Whatever you think will upset us is likely to be accepted with pride or dismissed as not true. SignatureDavid >>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call >>>> "artistic license." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > possible to insult the British. Whatever you think will upset us is > likely to be accepted with pride or dismissed as not true. You've got it backwards. It's people without pride who can't be insulted. EG >>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >possible to insult the British. Whatever you think will upset us is >likely to be accepted with pride or dismissed as not true. I'm no expert on the British, but it would amaze me if all of them can be painted with one brush. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm no expert on the British, but it would amaze me if all of them can > be painted with one brush. Well, if the brush is broad enough... SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Well, if the brush is broad enough... Perhaps, but a painting that lacks detail lacks informational content. Why should the artist bother to take out his brushes and paints if he does no better than cover his canvas with one colour? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >>>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic > >>>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Why should the artist bother to take out his brushes and paints if he > does no better than cover his canvas with one colour? Painters have sold monocolored caonvases, Chuck, although at the moment I cannot recall any with fewer than two (several by Malevich, for example). There are people who can label anything "art" and others who will pay good money for what the first group so labels. I don't endorse this, but they don't pay much attention to me. SignatureBob Lieblich Who will happily produce a canvas in any color for suitable compensation >> >>>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:41:01 -0500, elanders >> >>>>> <elanders@zoomtown.com> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > others who will pay good money for what the first group so labels. I > don't endorse this, but they don't pay much attention to me. The Emperor buys more than new clothes. >> >>>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >> >>>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >others who will pay good money for what the first group so labels. I >don't endorse this, but they don't pay much attention to me. The mystery is not that a few so-called artists have painted monochromatic canvases but that a number of people are willing to part with their savings for them. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> >>>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>> >>>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > monochromatic canvases but that a number of people are willing to part > with their savings for them. Michaelangelo did some really beautiful red drawings and Toulouse-Lautrec used just three colours for many of his famous works. >>>> >>>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>>> >>>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Michaelangelo did some really beautiful red drawings and Toulouse-Lautrec >used just three colours for many of his famous works. Red drawings are one thing, but canvases that are an undifferentiated colour all over are another altogether. The "creativity" then lies in the choice of colour, size and shape of the canvas and type of frame. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 12 Jan 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >>>>>>>>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they >>>>>>>>>>> call "artistic license." [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > The "creativity" then lies in the choice of colour, size and > shape of the canvas and type of frame. And (according to Tom Wolfe, IIRC) making the surface really, really flat, as the essence of flatness (flatitude?) was very important. (There was something about the artist wondering if the occasional dust ball on the surface counted against him, and deciding it probably didn't. Been a lot of years since I read the book, though, and I don't recall the details.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>>>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic >>>>> license." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm no expert on the British, but it would amaze me if all of them can > be painted with one brush. They all can, each and everyone of them. Now let us see you argue the point from the other end without getting nose bleed. EG > >>>>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had > >>>>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Look, I'm telling a story not writing the history of England. You > fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call "artistic license." The umbrella of "artistic license" may cover anything: from erroneous reasoning, to false historical claim, from defective grammar, to inaccurate quotations and the like. On 09 Jan 2009, Arcadian Rises wrote >> Look, I'm telling a story not writing the history of England. >> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > erroneous reasoning, to false historical claim, from defective > grammar, to inaccurate quotations and the like. I think the OP's heading Royal Flush on this one... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Jan 2009, Arcadian Rises wrote >>> Look, I'm telling a story not writing the history of England. >>> You fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call >>> "artistic license." >> The umbrella of "artistic license" may cover anything: from >> erroneous reasoning, to false historical claim, from defective >> grammar, to inaccurate quotations and the like. > I think the OP's heading Royal Flush on this one... Tut. No need for any of that, if the chamberpots are really fresh. >>>>>>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had >>>>>>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > reasoning, to false historical claim, from defective grammar, to > inaccurate quotations and the like. And... and...? Where's the punchline? Did you forget it? EG > >>>>>>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had > >>>>>>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Obviously you've developed an obsession with the punch line. Could that be transference or something similar? Why don't you take it up with your shrink? >>>>>>>>> When she was 42, her father-in-law George II was dead and her son had >>>>>>>>> just become George III. I can see some logic in her *then* declaring a [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > that be transference or something similar? Why don't you take it up > with your shrink? Oh, look at that -- he attempts wit! Very good. Now for your next lesson, see if you can actually write a witticism. EG [...] > > Obviously you've developed an obsession with the punch line. Could > > that be transference or something similar? Oops, I meant "projection" not "transference". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection > Oh, look at that -- he attempts wit! Obviously you are a "he". elanders wrote on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:41:01 -0500: > I get a lot of my fiction ideas from JK Rowling. > She drives historians crazy too. > Look, I'm telling a story not writing the history of England. You > fellows seem blissfully unaware of this thing they call > "artistic license." Perhaps along the lines of "As High as Heaven" by Kathleen Morgan. The book is set in the 16th century and the cover shows the Highland hero riding a horse bareback in a philabeg, the short kilt, which was not invented until the 18th century. In addition, given the normal underwear for the kilt, the gentleman would probably not be capable of walking after an extensive ride dressed in that fashion. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > After explaining why she decides to call herself "Queen Mother" even though > she isn't, I go right into calling her Queen Mother, even though as you > point out, her son is still only a prince. > > But I only do this because the alternative -- calling her Dowager > Princess Augusta then switching to Queen Mother -- is unacceptable. It > hurts the narrative, confuses things. Homework about "narrative voice" will offer clarifying examples of nomenclature in historical fiction. E.g. it is generally known that Edward VII was all his life long called "David" by his family. It would be extremely unusual for the anonymous narrator of any book including this person (e.g. Timothy Findley, Famous Last Words, 1981) to call him David. This is a genuine problem for novelists, because some people do indeed change their names or social ranks as they get older (e.g. as Lord Brideshead becomes Lord Marchmain when his father dies.) The problem recurs, which is why it has been studied in some depth. > But the way, the woman turns out to be a lunatic -- the King is forced > to send her to Bedlam. Maybe this explains why she was running around > calling herself Queen Mother. Bedlam (Bethlehem Hospital) was a public charity hospital for the insane. British royalty cared for (or sequestered) chronically sick or insane family members privately. A book suggesting the royal family sent a lunatic member to a public charity hospital would need extra pages to explain why this unique aberration was an invention necessary to the story. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> After explaining why she decides to call herself "Queen Mother" even > though [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > need extra pages to explain why this unique aberration was > an invention necessary to the story. Ok. I'll give her her own wing at Bedlam. And private rooms for each of her ladies-in-waiting. Oh, and an ermine-lined straitjacket with solid gold buckles. Any other suggestions ...? EG >>> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >>> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------> Actually ordinary Americans have been pointing out the problems with it since you started posting your novel on alt.history.british back before Christmas. >>>> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >>>> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > since you started posting your novel on alt.history.british back before > Christmas. Ordinary Americans like who? And ordinary Americans don't read alt.history.british which was my point. ricland >>>>> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >>>>> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > ricland Me, I'm as ordinary as we come. And yes we do read British history, probably half the posters to alt.history.british are Americans. Many "ordinary" Americans are decended from Europeans and have an interest in there heritage. The PBS lives off of Britcoms and Masterpiece Theater and the people who watch those shows are your market not the guy eating pork rinds and watching Larry the cable guy , he might not notice anythimg amiss but it will be because he didn't buy your book in the first place. Know your audience. >>>>>> You seem to be dovetailing two separate ideas--your point about >>>>>> commercial success, and your point about American English v British [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > Know your audience. As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with critiquing experience and absolutely no mention was made about my Brit characters speaking American English -- none. EG > As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and > not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with > critiquing experience and absolutely no mention was made about my Brit > characters speaking American English -- none. So we have established: 1. Readers in newsgroup AA report no anachronisms 2. Readers in newsgroup BB report plenty of anachronisms. Arbitration between the two groups is not a matter of opinion or personal preference. Like the bell clock in Julius Caesar, each anachronism is a matter of fact that can be located in the source text, and the error in each documented. We can also generalize that one group of readers seems to know history in much more detail than the other group, but this difference will not help the author. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and >> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to know history in much more detail than the other group, but > this difference will not help the author. Look, nothing from the Masterpiece Threatre series either historical or contemporary would sell a single book here in the states. We would not drop everything to rush and buy I, Claudius, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, or Poldark. How do I know? Just trust me on this. Is the book funny? Is the story engaging? Is it easy to read? If the answer to all these questions is, yes, then I could call the Dowager Princess Augusta Queen Britney Spears, and I assure you, it wouldn't hurt sales in the least. Remember the movie "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe? Remember the scene in the area where he kills ten seasoned gladiators without breaking a sweat? Would you have put that in the screenplay? Of course not. But did it prevent the movie from becoming the highest grossing movie of the year? Of course not. Now since I don't have anything even remotely preposterous as that in my book, why on earth do you think its doomed? EG >>> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and >>> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > EG And yet all the examples you've given have enjoyed success in America. >>>> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and >>>> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > And yet all the examples you've given have enjoyed success in America. So has Benny Hill. And somewhere in between the two is the sweet spot. EG >> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and >> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >1. Readers in newsgroup AA report no anachronisms >2. Readers in newsgroup BB report plenty of anachronisms. Asking American writers with critiquing experience to comment on the that writing is like asking someone who has just mistaken a cattle prod for a lollipop what flavor they would have preferred. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and >>> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that writing is like asking someone who has just mistaken a cattle > prod for a lollipop what flavor they would have preferred. Dude, you're sinking fast. That's got to be the worst attempt at wit written in Usenet since Al Gore invented the internet. EG > >>> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and > >>> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Is this a sample of the author's internal dialogue? Or is it plain projection? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection >>>>> As I've said, I tested the first three chapters in writing groups, and >>>>> not once was the word anachronism used. These were American writers with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection What sample? I'm getting nothing on this end. EG [so, how do i look?] >> Asking American writers with critiquing experience to comment on >> the that writing is like asking someone who has just mistaken a >> cattle prod for a lollipop what flavor they would have preferred. > Dude, you're sinking fast. > That's got to be the worst attempt at wit written in Usenet since Al > Gore invented the internet. Dunno. The image had me chuckling. What flavour would you have preferred? > [so, how do i look?] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Dunno. The image had me chuckling. What flavour would you have > preferred? > [so, how do i look?] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Dunno. The image had me chuckling. What flavour would you have > preferred? No. It needed work. What Tony was trying to say was this: ...mistake a lollipop for a rectal thermometer ... That's the punchline he was trying to come up with but failed to do. EG On 08 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; > meanwhile, ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with > it at all. (dialogue snipped) Hmmm... I'd like to see some feedback from "ordinary American readers" before I'd accept that as a matter of fact rather than opinion -- or at least have a clear definition of what you mean by "ordinary". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, > ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The King [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "He will or rue the day he didn't!" Don't your "ordinary American readers" notice that "rue" is incongruous? SignatureRob Bannister >> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't your "ordinary American readers" notice that "rue" is incongruous? I have no idea what you're talking about. EG >>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor do I. I think the word fit perfectly. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Nor do I. I think the word fit perfectly. I think it would have fitted in a work where the main tenor of language was formal or in period, but it doesn't seem to fit in with the conversational speech used elsewhere in this book. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> Consider the following. You'd probably call it "messy"; meanwhile, >>>>> ordinary American readers notice nothing wrong with it at all. The [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >was formal or in period, but it doesn't seem to fit in with the >conversational speech used elsewhere in this book. That's a good point. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > Some time back we discussed regional theater, student productions, etc. > You can find Shakespeare delivered in accents of New Jersey, Toronto, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think you're right insofar as British people would be *startled* to > hear Shakespeare delivered in any other way than Received Pronunciation. Certainly not. That's not been true for the 40 years in which I've been going to the theatre. I can't speak for earlier years, but you may have been misled by film versions which always seemed to feature Olivier. > But they would quickly get used to it. Furthermore, I bet some directors > have tried using regional British accents, too. It's a long-done deal. > Personally, I have been intrigued by attempts to abandon Shakespeare's > wording altogether and update the stories, but that goes too far for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an attempt to preserve the pronunciations of Shakespeare's day, but the > pronunciations of the intervening centuries. Will was a West Midlander, like me. You could argue that actors should adopt a Warwickshire accent to essay King John, since we have no idea how he spoke and his last words were something like "Carry me to Worcester". Or a Worcestershire accent, I suppose. You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you be able to make the journey. SignatureDavid . > You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you be > able to make the journey. What became of the rest of him? On 08 Jan 2009, Raymond O'Hara wrote > . >> >> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, >> should you be able to make the journey. > > What became of the rest of him? The thumb was the only bit wot got hitched to the cathedral, innit. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > .. >> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you be >> able to make the journey. > > What became of the rest of him? I suppose he's still in the tomb. SignatureDavid >> .. >>> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I suppose he's still in the tomb. It seems rather rude to parcel him out like that. After all he did sign the Magna Carta even if he did it under duress. >>> .. >>>> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It seems rather rude to parcel him out like that. > After all he did sign the Magna Carta even if he did it under duress. I thought he did it "at the bottom". SignatureDavid >>>> .. >>>>> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I thought he did it "at the bottom". I thought it was at runnymede. >>>>> .. >>>>>> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I thought it was at runnymede. Considering the threats he was under it would have been no suprise if his bottom was a bit "runny". That just leaves us with the "mede" to account for. Perhaps he was an independent lawyer versed in the Laws of the Medes and Persians. Refreshing my memory of the LOTMAP led me to: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/ancient_persians_laws1.php by S. J. Bulsara, From: The Laws of the Ancient Persians, Bombay, 1937 Which immediately prompted the thought "How close a relative was S. J. Bulsara to Freddie Mercury?". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [John of the Nine Fingers] >>> It seems rather rude to parcel him out like that. >>> After all he did sign the Magna Carta even if he did it under >>> duress. >> I thought he did it "at the bottom". > I thought it was at runnymede. Ahem. Runnymede, a meadow alongside the River Thames in England, associated with the signing of the Magna Carta Bottom: noun: low-lying alluvial land near a river >> .. >>> You can view King John's thumb bone in Worcester Cathedral, should you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I suppose he's still in the tomb. But his soul goes marching on. (Oops... wrong John!) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >Will was a West Midlander, like me. You could argue that actors should >adopt a Warwickshire accent to essay King John, since we have no idea >how he spoke and his last words were something like "Carry me to >Worcester". Apologies in advance. "Carry on Worcester". Ooh, Saucy! SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > I think you're right insofar as British people would be *startled* to > hear Shakespeare delivered in any other way than Received Pronunciation. > But they would quickly get used to it. Furthermore, I bet some directors > have tried using regional British accents, too. Ever heard of Northern Broadsides? They specialise in it. Having said that, I see that their latest production features a famous Dudleyian. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > I think you're right insofar as British people would be *startled* to > hear Shakespeare delivered in any other way than Received Pronunciation. > But they would quickly get used to it. Furthermore, I bet some directors > have tried using regional British accents, too. These days I'd be startled to hear Shakespeare delivered in RP, to be honest. I can't remember the last time I saw a production which wasn't in regional British (and other) accents. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >our speedy return, instead of "Thanks a lot and we'll be waiting for >you to get back"? If the King is speaking in a formal way then the translation should be into formal English: formal American English or formal British English. Your suggested BrE version: "We thank thee, ever so much, and await (y)our speedy return" uses an old style of relatively formal language except for "ever so much" which is casual and probably comparatively modern. Your suggested AmE version: "Thanks a lot and we'll be waiting for you to get back" is casual and informal. If the King spoke formally in Spanish then that would be an inaccurate translation. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > be an inaccurate translation. > Here's the point: When I presented an extended except of the above in a Brit history group it was butchered. People felt it was insane to put modern expressions such as "Hey!" "Ok!" "Sure!" etc, in the mouths of 18th century Brits. However -- when I presented the except to a group of ordinary American ,readers not a single person voiced anything wrong. Really -- I didn't get a single objection. EG > Here's the point: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > EG Well, that kinda figures. In the opening moments of Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean," the little girl says "okay," even though everyone is in the costume of the 1600s. There's a whole generation or two in the U.S. who thinks that history is just a source of fairy tales to be retold in modern day language. If that's what you want to do, do it. But there's an entirely different tradition, which is *particularly* kept alive in England, that says that recreations of the past should be made as faithfully and authentically as possible. This is part of what I meant in my other post about the precedents and formulas of historical fiction. You're free to write as you want, and others are free to point out flaws as they want. And to laugh. Maybe you need the right label. "This is not historical fiction, this is historical fantasy" or something. SignatureBest wishes -- Donna Richoux >> Here's the point: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Maybe you need the right label. "This is not historical fiction, this is > historical fantasy" or something. Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of the time. Shakespeare's royal dialogue was not court English, It was ordinary commoner English of the time. And when someone who sounds like Laurence Olivier portrays George II, that's all wrong -- George II was a native German with a heavy German accent. EG > Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules that > say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of the time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that's all wrong -- George II was a native German with a heavy German > accent. Whereas Duke Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz seems to chat to his hairdresser in English. SignatureDavid >> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules that >> say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whereas Duke Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz seems to chat to his > hairdresser in English. Not sure what you mean by this. The novel is in English. If the Duke spoke to his hair dresser in German we'd not be able to read it. EG >>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If the Duke spoke to his hair dresser in German we'd not be able to read > it. My point is that in plays and films it's standard practice to portray people from the past or who speak different languages or dialects in the language and dialect of the listener. In the 40s and 50s when Olivier was portraying George II as an RP Englishman, that was the vernacular of those who would watch him. I wondered why you complained about this above - it doesn't seem any different to me from portraying Julius Caesar as a speaker of modern American English. SignatureDavid >>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > above - it doesn't seem any different to me from portraying Julius > Caesar as a speaker of modern American English. You've stated my position exactly. And as I've said, when I presented the three chapter excerpt -- which I posted below -- in American writing groups, absolutely no one had any issues with the American vernacular. It simply never came up. EG >>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You've stated my position exactly. And you've lost me. You took two contradictory positions, which I summarised. Which one do you believe? Is it necessary for George II to sound correctly like a German speaking English, or is it acceptable for Duke Ferdinand to sound like a modern American? You can't have it both ways. SignatureDavid >>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Duke Ferdinand to sound like a modern American? You can't have it both > ways. Look, in the scheme of things the point you're making is not important. I recall some scholar ripping Harry Potter to shreds. Sort of reminded me of that fella on a horse attacking windmills. EG > >>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules > >>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Look, in the scheme of things the point you're making is not important. Inconsistency feeds creativity. I like that position in a BS artist. > I recall some scholar ripping Harry Potter to shreds. Sort of reminded > me of that fella on a horse attacking windmills. And you remind me of that confused chap staring at his dad's scalp: to be or what? >>>>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > And you remind me of that confused chap staring at his dad's scalp: to > be or what? You know, humor isn't that difficult: After your set-up you insert a punchline. No punchline, no yuks. Work at it. In a few years you might even stop embarrassing your friends. EG > >>>>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules > >>>>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > No punchline, no yuks. You are so predictable. > Work at it. > > In a few years you might even stop embarrassing your friends. Thanks. Let me reciprocate the good advice: You should try your hand with soap operas. Your predictability would reinforce the lost sense of control of your ideal audience: bored housewives and the chronically unemployed. >>>>>>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>>>>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > reinforce the lost sense of control of your ideal audience: bored > housewives and the chronically unemployed. Too wordy and too many adjectives. Plus the premise is as old as Monty Python. Honestly, are we supposed to laugh or toss coins in your cup? ED > >>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules > >>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm an American, who has enjoyed historical fiction -- in the past. AFAICT, there is no historical fiction now, only historical romance and historical mystery. As a general rule, writers of historical romance know nothing about history or about the societies of the times they pretend to be writinng about, and many writers of historical mystery are just as bad (mystery writers should, IMO, know the laws of the time!). I had hopes your work was going to be different -- from the dialogue, I pictured an ignorant, brash American, visiting England in perhaps 1870, perhaps 1920. But now that I've seen more of your work, I shan't buy it after all. "Queen Mother" is a specific title; it is used by a widowed queen consort whose own child is the monarch. It is not a name and cannot be used as one; if it is not used as a title before the name, it must have the article before it. If the brash American from late 19th or early 20th century is not what you had in mind, I think you need to rework this quite a bit. Only works of high fantasy may have societies as completely detached from reality as this seems to be. >"Queen Mother" is a specific title; it is used by a widowed queen >consort whose own child is the monarch. It is not a name and cannot >be used as one; if it is not used as a title before the name, it must >have the article before it. Yes. In the case of the most recent Queen Mother in the UK her title was _Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother_. A quote in the OED: 1985 Daily Tel. 3 Aug. 5/1 In her last 33 years she has carved out an unprecedented role for herself as Queen Mother{em}a title, incidentally, that is not used in Royal circles. She is Queen Elizabeth, her daughter simply The Queen. She would have been addressed as Ma'am. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> "Queen Mother" is a specific title; it is used by a widowed queen >> consort whose own child is the monarch. It is not a name and cannot [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > She would have been addressed as Ma'am. I think this supports my point ... in a back-handed way. "Queen" is certainly a title and the Queen Mum was certainly not the Queen. Yet she insisted she be addressed "Queen Elizabeth" in Royal circles, if your cite is to be believed. What's the difference between this and Dowager Princess Augusta insisting she be called "Queen Mother"-- a title she clearly had no claim to? EG >>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Only works of high fantasy may have societies as completely detached > from reality as this seems to be. Madam, I have no idea whose work you're talking about when you say "a brash American visting England in 1870" and that's because the setting of my story if a full 90 years earlier. In addition, the Queen Mother thing is completely explained before it first appears. Fiction writers are allowed to do this. I can render Dowager Princess Agusta a gorgon with a head of snakes if I care to and the work could still win the Nobel Prize in literature and sell like hot cakes. In other words, Missy, you have issues that have very little to do with the art of writing fiction or selling books. Get a grip. EG > >>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules > >>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That is the impression I received from the piece, mostly dialog, that you posted. Literary license is an excuse for only so much. I have been reading fiction for 55 years, and I seriously dislike fiction that purports to be set in actual, real societies but is written by authors who do not know the background of that era and society. If you didn't want criticism, why did you ask? >>>>>>>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules >>>>>>>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > If you didn't want criticism, why did you ask? You're not providing criticism you're making a sweeping generalization. Precisely where do I display ignorance of the era and society? EG >Literary license is an excuse for only so much. I have been reading >fiction for 55 years, and I seriously dislike fiction that purports to >be set in actual, real societies but is written by authors who do not >know the background of that era and society. This is a problem with stories set in the present, not just in past eras. From time to time someone in AUE will express frustration that the USA is seriously misunderstood by outsiders. The outsiders will explain that their understanding of the US comes from what they have absorbed from US-made movies and TV shows, and from news reports. The same sort of problems exist with other countries, of course. Readers and viewers of fiction can distinguish between fact and fantasy where obviously fictional characters are involved. But if fictional people and events are placed in a real social and physical environment, then readers and viewers, in the absence of other knowledge, will automatically take the details of the environment to be authentic. There is no conscious thought involved. When they think about that environment in real life their "knowledge" of it will be based on what they have read or viewed in the fictional work. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >>> Well, I haven't as yet applied a label. But I'm aware of no rules > >>> that say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > above - it doesn't seem any different to me from portraying Julius > Caesar as a speaker of modern American English. Or the "Cosby" show being dubbed in French. Arcadian Rises filted: >> My point is that in plays and films it's standard practice to portray >> people from the past or who speak different languages or dialects in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Or the "Cosby" show being dubbed in French. Or a Russian submarine commander with a Scottish accent?... About that dubbing...I caught a couple of minutes of "Club Paradise" in Spanish last night...I don't know who was doing the voices, but Peter O'Toole sounded perfect...Robin Williams came off a bit more clownish than appropriate for this particular role, and whoever provided the voice for Simon Jones seems to have spent too much time studying Robin's "serious" performances.... Still, it was a respectable effort...I've seen less comedic movies dubbed by people who should have been doing cartoons....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >>> Here's the point: >>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > EG Olivier never portrayed George II. So give an example of someone who did so with the accent you claim. Quit with these strawman examples you just make up to illustrate false claims. >>>> Here's the point: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Quit with these strawman examples you just make up to illustrate false > claims. Actually, Olivier did portray George II. Someone referenced this earlier. Might have been a stage play. Of course I didn't know about it, but then you didn't either. EG >> Olivier never portrayed George II. >> So give an example of someone who did so with the accent you claim. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > EG And I still don't. name the play. >>> Olivier never portrayed George II. >>> So give an example of someone who did so with the accent you claim. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And I still don't. > name the play. f.ck you. EG >> Olivier never portrayed George II. >> So give an example of someone who did so with the accent you claim. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > EG Olivier could do a German accent, watch the 'Boys From Brazil' and the 'Marathon Man' and he certainly didn't use his Shakespearian tone when he portrayed the Mahdi in 'Khartoum'. He did a Dutchman in 'A Bridge Too Far' and he was Douglas MacArthur in Inchon. Those are all movies I've seen so I know how he played them Maybe he did portray George II in a play but you are making an assumption based on nothing but what you imagine he did. How he does Shakespeare and how he does other roles varies. > I'm aware of no rules that > say historical fiction must have dialogue that mimics that of the time. > Shakespeare's royal dialogue was not court English, It was ordinary > commoner English of the time. This implies "court English" had in Shakespeare's day a recognizable style or lexicon and people can hear that Shakespeare's royal dialogue (e.g. of Richard II, Henry V, Richard III) " was not court English." What leads you to think this the case? The main thing we know about 17th century oral English is that accents differed markedly between regions (e.g. Warwickshire, Essex, London) and accents did not differentiate social classes (as happened after industrialization and the concentration of population in towns.) Shakespeare's plays offer little or no evidence on either side of this point. He had to write language that could be clearly heard in the back row and understood by everyone. > And when someone who sounds like Laurence Olivier portrays George II, > that's all wrong -- George II was a native German with a heavy German > accent. The OP seems unaware of the pride Olivier took in his ability to change his face and voice however any character required, from Othello to Archie Rice. There are a few film records of Olivier's acting in a German accent, e.g. Boys from Brazil, e.g. Marathon Man. We can judge for ourselves. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Don Phillipson filted: >> And when someone who sounds like Laurence Olivier portrays George II, >> that's all wrong -- George II was a native German with a heavy German [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Rice. There are a few film records of Olivier's acting in a German accent, >e.g. Boys from Brazil, e.g. Marathon Man. We can judge for ourselves. "I hef no son!" - Sir Larry in the 1980 remake of "The Jazz Singer" Okay, not actually German, but still....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > This implies "court English" had in Shakespeare's day a recognizable > style or lexicon and people can hear that Shakespeare's royal dialogue [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > language that could be clearly heard in the back row and understood > by everyone. I'm speaking from a position of almost complete ingorance (I've seen almost all of Will's plays - even Henry VIII, but have never studied them in any way since 'O' level). But didn't he tend to use a different registers or styles? I seem to remember a contrast between how the King spoke and how the group of Pistol and Nym and the like spoke in Henry V (which - by no coincidence - is the one I did study). SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > > Here's the point: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Maybe you need the right label. "This is not historical fiction, this is > historical fantasy" or something. My impression is that modern American dialogue will not limit the sales of historical fiction in America, any more than it limited ticket sales of /Pirates of the Caribbean/ or, as we've discussed, Aragorn's telling the archers to "Fire" limited ticket sales of the LotR movies. Indeed, I have the feeling that anything resembling 18th- century English (beyond a few touches) will get a lot of copies put back on store shelves as unreadable. Even Dorothy Dunnett did no more than limit the obvious anachronisms of vocabulary. (One exception was "sadistic" from a book set in the Tudor period.) There's still a niche for attempts to give the impression of historically correct dialogue. I don't know that it's labeled or packaged any differently. "Historical fantasy" would mean ghosts, witches, or vampires--like /Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell/ or /Freedom and Necessity/, which do make creditable attempts at antique style (of later periods). I'd rather read that kind, or Dunnett's kind that doesn't shake the anachronisms in your face. -- Jerry Friedman -- Jerry Friedman >>> Here's the point: >>> When I presented an extended except of the above in a Brit history group [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > -- > Jerry Friedman I hope you're right. Say, Jerry, if you have a chance, look at the thread titled "Three Chapters" and let me know what you think. EG >>> Here's the point: >>> When I presented an extended except of the above in a Brit history group [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > later periods). I'd rather read that kind, or Dunnett's kind that > doesn't shake the anachronisms in your face. I don't mind anachronisms and modern language, so long as they are consistent, but mix them up with "rue the day" and it gets confusing. What I find strange is the nationality swap: if they are British, then they should speak some form of British English. If they are German, then the situation is quite different. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Here's the point: >>>> When I presented an extended except of the above in a Brit history group [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >they should speak some form of British English. If they are German, then >the situation is quite different. Yes, consistency when writing dialogue is essential. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage > >>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I got the impression that the Shackleton character was American because he is thinking in American English. Probably not late 20th century, but I don't know how long ago. My only objection is to the last sentence, which should be Well, If that’s it, I’ve got news for them–-I'm _their_ man! "Lord Duke" is incorrect, but what else could one expect from an ignorant American? And I might be interested in buying the book after it's published, too! >>>>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > And I might be interested in buying the book after it's published, > too! Actually, the expression is "I'm your man!" It's a colloquialism with millions of references. Writers don't edit colloquialisms for correct usage. That's like buying a pair of jeans with holes in the knees then mending the holes. EG >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >is casual and informal. If the King spoke formally in Spanish then that would >be an inaccurate translation. The translated text should be in the same level of formality (linguistic register) as the original. LEVELS OF USAGE; USAGE LEVELS IN STANDARD AMERICAN ENGLISH http://www.bartleby.com/68/32/3632.html That refers to AmE but the same principles apply to British and other Englishes. Register (sociolinguistics) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)> In linguistics, a register is a subset of a language used for a particular purpose or in a particular social setting. For example, an English speaker may adhere more closely to prescribed grammar, pronounce words ending in -ing with a velar nasal (e.g. "walking", not "walkin'") and refrain from using the word "ain't" when speaking in a formal setting, but the same person could violate all of these prescriptions in an informal setting. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > The translated text should be in the same level of formality (linguistic > register) as the original. Even if it sounds "messy"? George III's father was not a native English speaker and his grandfather spoke very little English. George III's wife came from a remote German duchy where people spoke Plattdutusch, which is a bastardized form of German. Yet whenever these royals are depicted they all sound like Oxford elecution dons. EG > George III's father was not a native English speaker and his grandfather > spoke very little English. George III's wife came from a remote German > duchy where people spoke Plattdutusch, which is a bastardized form of > German. Yet whenever these royals are depicted they all sound like > Oxford elecution dons. You seem to have missed Blackadder, Part the Third. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. [...] > George III's father was not a native English speaker and his grandfather > spoke very little English. George III's wife came from a remote German > duchy where people spoke Plattdutusch, which is a bastardized form of > German. There is no "Plattdutusch." Plattdeutsch = Plattdütsch = Niederdeutsch = Low German ("low" topographically) is NOT a bastardized form of German but a respected West-Germanic language with various dialects and closely related to Dutch. Signature~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~ > [...] >> George III's father was not a native English speaker and his grandfather [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > topographically) is NOT a bastardized form of German but a respected > West-Germanic language with various dialects and closely related to Dutch. First of all, it's not a "west-Germanic" language, it's a Northern dialect; that is, not a "language at all. German is the language, low-German, the dialect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#Relation_to_German_and_Dutch In addition, the reasons we call it a dialect instead of a language are the following: * Low German lacks any meaningful standard form regarding grammar, orthography, or other aspects, that would bridge the immense regional differences within Low German and form an equivalent to the standard forms of German, French, or other generally accepted independent languages (although Northern Low Saxon serves as a common intelligible language in TV and radio programmes); * Low German is not used widely anywhere, and especially not outside of colloquial oral communication. It is spoken on a daily basis by a small minority in Northern Germany. Use in the media is limited to small columns or segments that typically are specifically intended to foster and promote the language; * Written Low German is used almost exclusively for belletristic literature, but not for technical documents, administrative or legal texts, etc. In contrast, Old Saxon and Middle High German may have met enough of these criteria to be considered separate languages in their own rights. Claims to the contrary have also been made, ascribing to Low German the status of an independent language on par with German, Dutch, Danish, etc. They are often motivated by efforts to paint an uplifting, positive picture to combat the perceived image of Low German as a dying and irrelevant idiom[6], and focus on different points such as: * The great differences between High and Low German; these are examined as absolutes and not compared to the differences between High German and other extreme, but established dialects (such as Swiss German), or between Low German and Dutch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#Relation_to_German_and_Dutch EG >> [...] >>> [...] Plattdutusch, which >>> is a bastardized form of German. >> There is no "Plattdutusch." >> Plattdeutsch = Plattdütsch = Niederdeutsch = Low German ("low" >> topographically) is NOT a bastardized form of German but a >> respected West-Germanic language with various dialects and closely >> related to Dutch. > [the retort direct] OK, now, this thread might just get interesting at last. >>> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > OK, now, this thread might just get interesting at last. Well, yes. Who would you back on this one? Rey or Wikipedia? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 09 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >>>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Well, yes. Who would you back on this one? Rey or Wikipedia? Well, I have as much time for one as I do the other, so it's a 50/50 bet in these parts. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>>> [...] >>>>> [...] Plattdutusch, which >>>>> is a bastardized form of German. >>>> There is no "Plattdutusch." >>>> Plattdeutsch = Plattdütsch = Niederdeutsch = Low German ("low" >>>> topographically) is NOT a bastardized form of German but a >>>> respected West-Germanic language with various dialects and >>>> closely related to Dutch. >>> [the retort direct] >> OK, now, this thread might just get interesting at last. > Well, yes. Who would you back on this one? Rey or Wikipedia? I see Rikipedia on the ground, with his limbs scattered about him, by the end of the second round; but still game as hell. LFS filted: >>>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Well, yes. Who would you back on this one? Rey or Wikipedia? For what it's worth, Rey's harder to make changes to....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >>>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Well, yes. Who would you back on this one? Rey or Wikipedia? Hmm... I had been about to write something along the same lines as Rey, but thinking about it again, I have to agree with Wikipedia on technical grounds. SignatureRob Bannister >> [...] >>> George III's father was not a native English speaker and his [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > First of all, it's not a "west-Germanic" language, it's a Northern > dialect; First of all, why don't you Google or Wiki "West-GermanIC" and find out what this linguistic technical term means? Low German, spoken in northern Germany, is a *West-Germanic* language, like English, Frisian, and Afrikaans. > that is, not a "language at all. German is the language, > low-German, the dialect. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#Relation_to_German_and_Dutch Professional linguists have been arguing for decades about -- and given up -- what a "language" and a "dialect" is. Never mind the "navy and army" thing. Your calling the Low German language "bastardized" is particularly ignorant and stupid. > In addition, the reasons we call it Who's that "we"? > a dialect instead of a language are the following: > > * Low German lacks any meaningful standard form regarding grammar, > orthography, or other aspects, that would bridge the immense > regional differences within Low German As I said, Low German is a language with various dialects -- just as Swiss German and Austrian German -- all of which have their own grammar, orthography, pronunciation, and vocabulary. > and form an equivalent to the standard forms of German, > French, or other generally accepted independent languages > (although Northern Low Saxon serves as a common intelligible > language in TV and radio programmes); So Northern Low Saxon = Standard Low German, just as Standard YIVO Yiddish is to the various Yiddish dialects. > * Low German is not used widely anywhere, Except in the broad west-to-east territory between the Frisian Islands and what is now part of Poland. > and especially not outside of colloquial oral communication. > It is spoken on a daily basis by a small minority Millions of Low-German speakers are not a "small minority." > in Northern Germany. Use in the media is limited to > small columns or segments Plus on radio, TV, in newspapers, magazines, theaters.... > that typically are specifically intended to > foster and promote the language; > > * Written Low German is used almost exclusively for belletristic > literature, but not for technical documents, administrative or > legal texts, etc. Of course not, because of the widely divergent dialects; Standard German serves as the lingua franca, just as in other German, Swiss, and Austrian regions. > In contrast, Old Saxon and Middle High German may have met enough > of these criteria to be considered separate languages in their own [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > uplifting, positive picture to combat the perceived image of Low > German as a dying and irrelevant idiom[6], The author of that Wiki article is prejudiced. Low German is as "irrelevant" as Yiddish and Faeroese. > and focus on different points such as: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Swiss German), or between Low German and Dutch. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_German#Relation_to_German_and_Dutch No sense in further arguing with someone like you. P.S.: Don't forget to look up "West-Germanic" and "bastardize." Signature~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~ >>> [...] >>>> George III's father was not a native English speaker and his [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > army" thing. Your calling the Low German language "bastardized" is > particularly ignorant and stupid. Look, half-wit, if you want to call names, I'm your man. My suggestion, however, is you use all that energy to making better arguments. First of all, you seem to believe Wikipedia is only valid when supports a point you make. You gave a Wiki cite then I gave one. Mine was far more thorough than yours and supports my contention that Low-German is a bastardized form of German. So next next time before throwing a hissy fit, pause to throw it at the source, not the messenger. Second point, if Low-German is a language like English, Frisian, and Afrikaans is today, it certainly wasn't in the mid-18th century which is the period I reference when I said is was a bastardized dialect of German. Hell, at one point German was a bastardized dialect of something, so why does your flea-sized brain find it incompressible Low-German could not have the same history? Or did you even pause to consider the context, Dummkopf? EG >>>> [...] >>>>> George III's father was not a native English speaker and his [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Look, half-wit, if you want to call names, I'm your man. My suggestion, > however, is you use all that energy to making better arguments. Funny, this suggestion coming from an *ignoranus* who's been incapable of making one single solid argument in his mass of maniacal postings to this group. I wrote: "Your calling the Low German language 'bastardized' is particularly ignorant and stupid." That's an objective, factual statement, because you're indeed ignorant and stupid, otherwise you would not have made such an ignorant and stupid claim. Name-calling would be: "You're a particularly ignorant and stupid bastard." Which, of course, is also a fact. (Note that I keep reiterating the two adjectives "ignorant" and "stupid" to make sure you'll understand that you're *ignorant* and *stupid*.) > First of all, you seem to believe Wikipedia is only valid when > supports a point you make. You gave a Wiki cite then I gave one. A wrong assumption, which is characteristic of ignorant and stupid bastards. I didn't give a Wiki cite or even look at Wiki but took my factual information from my font of linguistic knowledge acquired while getting my Ph.D. in Germanic Linguistics, including German Dialectology. > Mine was far more thorough than yours and > supports my contention that Low-German is a > bastardized form of German. You ignorant and stupid bastard *still* have no idea what "bastardized" means. Check it up already. And while you're at it, look up "West-Germanic." > So next next time before throwing a hissy fit, > pause to throw it at the source, not the messenger. My cool & factual statements were a "hissy fit"? Better check up the meaning of this phrase, too. > Second point, if Low-German is a language like English, Frisian, and > Afrikaans is today, it certainly wasn't in the mid-18th century > which is the period I reference when I said is was a bastardized > dialect of German. In the mid-18th century, the dialects of Low German were even LESS "bastardized" than they are today. (I'm using your stupid and ignorant term "bastardized" loosely, just to make you happy.) > Hell, at one point German was a bastardized dialect of something, Of Welsh? Breton? Gaelic? Tocharian? Sanskrit? > so why does your flea-sized brain find it incompressible Low-German > could not have the same history? The only incompressible object my flea-sized brain noticed is this rock-hard tiny cerebrum of yours that can't be compressed any further. > Or did you even pause to consider the context, Dummkopf? Sure did. The context is your loudmouthed ignorance and stupidity. Good luck with your book. And do take your meds again. Signature~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~ >>>>> [...] >>>>>> George III's father was not a native English speaker and his [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > of making one single solid argument in his mass of maniacal postings to > this group. You're not being attention, Reinhold, so let me say it for you again ... slowly -- Plattdeutsch is a bastardized form of German. And I'll qualify that by adding this was the case in the mid-18th century although less so today. Plattdeutsch had no literature until the mid-19th century. It was not used on birth certificates, legal documents, or in any other official capacity. The link I provided mentions the long struggle Platt speakers have waged to make their dialect a full-blown language instead of a German bastard. Now, Reinhold, you're obviously a bastard child yourself, so why can't you grasp any of this? EG > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > West-Germanic language with various dialects and closely related to > Dutch. I wonder, Rey, if there were differing dialects of Plattdeutsch. A story about my immigrant great-grandparents said that they fought constantly because one spoke High German and the other Low German. I think both were from Luxembourg, so the earlier story (that one spoke French and the other German) could also have explained abominable communication. Grandfather was the one who spoke the "High German", apparently. But European borders moved around a lot in the first half of the 19th Century. >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > apparently. But European borders moved around a lot in the first half > of the 19th Century. A test of a "language" is its literature. As far as I know, there's only one author who wrote in Plattdeutsch -- Fritz Reuter. EG On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > A test of a "language" is its literature. That's about the single dumbest thing you've written in here so far, which is saying something. But keep going; you may be able to better it. > On 09 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But keep going; you may be able to better it. Actually, it makes all these sense in the world. What part of it confuses you? EG > A test of a "language" is its literature. Please, do elaborate on this. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> A test of a "language" is its literature. > >Please, do elaborate on this. To me, that statement by elanders is proof positive that she/he is not PG. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> A test of a "language" is its literature. >> >>Please, do elaborate on this. > > To me, that statement by elanders is proof positive that she/he is not PG. I don't think PG could force herself to write like that, either. Bulwer-Lytton contest material without even trying. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>> A test of a "language" is its literature. >>> Please, do elaborate on this. >> To me, that statement by elanders is proof positive that she/he is not PG. > > I don't think PG could force herself to write like that, either. > Bulwer-Lytton contest material without even trying. Well, in Western civilization a collection of idioms without its own literature is derivative; that is, part of some mother language. I challenged the fellow to name one "Low-German" book and he's yet to do so. Fritz Reuter is the only Low-German writer I'm aware of and he died in 1874. Fritz Reuter was from Mecklenburg-Schwerin which borders Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the setting of my novel. Queen Charlotte was raised in Mecklenburg-Strelitz and would have spoken Low-German instead of the Standard German of the time. And this is to say, conversations between her, George III, and the Dowager Princess Augusta, would have been anything but the high-brow English we get on Masterpiece Theatre, etc. That's all. EG >> A test of a "language" is its literature. > > Please, do elaborate on this. Well, in Western civilization a collection of idioms without its own literature is derivative; that is, part of some mother language. I challenged the fellow to name one "Low-German" book and he's yet to do so. Fritz Reuter is the only Low-German writer I'm aware of and he died in 1874. Fritz Reuter was from Mecklenburg-Schwerin which borders Mecklenburg-Strelitz, the setting of my novel. Queen Charlotte was raised in Mecklenburg-Strelitz and would have spoken Low-German instead of the Standard German of the time. And this is to say, conversations between her, George III, and the Dowager Princess Augusta, would have been anything but the high-brow English we get on Masterpiece Theatre, etc. That's all. EG > A test of a "language" is its literature. > > As far as I know, there's only one author who wrote in Plattdeutsch -- > Fritz Reuter. There is this list: 6. Bedeutende niederdeutsche Dichter und Schriftsteller * Oswald Andrae * John Brinckman * Johanna van Buren * Johannes Diermissen * Georg Droste * Reuben Epp * Gorch Fock (Johann Wilhelm Kinau) * Klaus Groth * August Hinrichs * Rudolf Kinau * Hinrich Kruse * Eli Marcus * Fritz Reuter * Heinrich Schmidt-Barrien * Martin Selber * Wolfgang Sieg * Julius Stinde * Rudolf Tarnow * Augustin Wibbelt http://wapedia.mobi/de/Niederdeutsche_Sprache?t=6. I confess I've never heard of any of them. However, Gerhart Hauptmann included a lot of Low German in his plays, and I have an idea that Fontane had bit of dialogue in LG. SignatureRob Bannister >> A test of a "language" is its literature. >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > included a lot of Low German in his plays, and I have an idea that > Fontane had bit of dialogue in LG. Ok, so Low-German or "Platt" does have a literature -- but this literature is dated no earlier than the mid-19th century; that is, 100 years after Queen Charlotte was born. What else do we need to know beyond that? If it had no literature in the 18th century it was a dialect, not a language -- it hadn't evolved into a language yet. We don't pin-point English as a language until Beowulf, so why call Platt a language before the list of Platt Authors above? But the basic point is this: Queen Charlotte has never been depicted as a dialect speaker. In the movie "The Mad King George" Helen Mirren portrayed her in much the same way she later portrayed Queen Elizabeth II. EG Janzen, Jacob H. (1878-1950) > What else do we need to know beyond that? If it had no literature in > the 18th century it was a dialect, not a language -- it hadn't evolved > into a language yet. Can we just double check this? None of the Australian native languages were languages, nor were many of the American ones? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> What else do we need to know beyond that? If it had no literature in >> the 18th century it was a dialect, not a language -- it hadn't evolved >> into a language yet. > > Can we just double check this? None of the Australian native > languages were languages, nor were many of the American ones? Our Indians had a written language and I'm sure the Abos did too. EG >>> What else do we need to know beyond that? If it had no literature in >>> the 18th century it was a dialect, not a language -- it hadn't evolved [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Our Indians had a written language and I'm sure the Abos did too. Yep, *ignorant* and *stupid*. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>> What else do we need to know beyond that? If it had no literature in >>>> the 18th century it was a dialect, not a language -- it hadn't evolved [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yep, *ignorant* and *stupid*. and you just leave it like that. Dumb Aussie. No wonder why your grandparents were transported. EB CDB wrote, in part, to "elanders": > You titled your posting "Grammar Question", so I suppose it's a > grammatical or usage error we're supposed to look for. You flog > people *to* within an inch of their lives. Is that it? You may well be right, but I've heard "flog ["beat," etc.] within an inch of their lives" -- no "to." SignatureMaria C. > CDB wrote, in part, to "elanders": >> You titled your posting "Grammar Question", so I suppose it's a >> grammatical or usage error we're supposed to look for. You flog >> people *to* within an inch of their lives. Is that it? > You may well be right, but I've heard "flog ["beat," etc.] within an > inch of their lives" -- no "to." I'm sure you're right, but the idiom looks to me like another "could care less": the meaning behind the phrase being that you flog them *to* a point which is very near death. I was looking for something "grammatical", and that was all that occurred. The OP responded to my general comment on his use of dialogue but omitted to answer my direct question, which seems to indicate that the original request was intended to be an entree to this usage group and was not the real point of the posting. Not that confirmation is still needed on that score. > I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. > It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm > beginning to have doubts about, I wonder if anyone finds anything > wrong here: It's perfect. PLEASE tell me there's somewhere I can place an advance order to be sure of not missing my copy when it's published. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. > > It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > John Dean > Oxford Bingo! >> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It's perfect. PLEASE tell me there's somewhere I can place an advance order >to be sure of not missing my copy when it's published. I love a segue into obAue territory. So you want to discuss the British use of "irony"? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >>> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I love a segue into obAue territory. So you want to discuss the > British use of "irony"? No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of "irony"; it was a British use of irony. [1] Alternatively[2], we could discuss "metion" and "use".[3] [2] Or, alternately. [3] But please, not pizza and "pizza" again. We've had our fill of that. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >>>> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > [3] But please, not pizza and "pizza" again. We've had our fill of that. I thought we were trying to tempt Areff to visit Dublin, by means of proffering a "sandwich". SignatureDavid > > No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of "irony"; > > it was a British use of irony. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I thought we were trying to tempt Areff to visit Dublin, by means of > proffering a "sandwich". Was it pre-made? >> > No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of >> > "irony"; it was a British use of irony. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Was it pre-made? No, Dublin was improvised on the spot. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>> No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of >>>> "irony"; it was a British use of irony. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No, Dublin was improvised on the spot. A black spot, presumably. SignatureDavid >>>>> No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of >>>>> "irony"; it was a British use of irony. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >A black spot, presumably. Which grew as the rain fell. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>> No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of >>>>>> "irony"; it was a British use of irony. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Which grew as the rain fell. ...into a black pool. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >>>> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >No, let's discuss mention and use.[1] That wasn't a British use of "irony"; >it was a British use of irony. Oh, I think the quotes are quite appropriate. The sentence implies that the meaning of the word "irony" is what might be discussed. They would not be appropriate if the sentence was written as: "So you want to discuss British irony". >[1] Alternatively[2], we could discuss "metion" and "use".[3] I'm not prepared to discuss "metion". I'm still looking for a definition of it. >[2] Or, alternately. > >[3] But please, not pizza and "pizza" again. We've had our fill of that. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >>>>> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Oh, I think the quotes are quite appropriate. The sentence implies > that the meaning of the word "irony" is what might be discussed. Well, there's irony and then there's "irony". Or should that be "there's 'irony' and then there's '"irony"'"? Anyway, John used irony and you mentioned it, so I tried to make a funny, innit. > They would not be appropriate if the sentence was written as: "So you > want to discuss British irony". >>[1] Alternatively[2], we could discuss "metion" and "use".[3] > > I'm not prepared to discuss "metion". I'm still looking for a > definition of it. Don't mention it. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >I'm not prepared to discuss "metion". I'm still looking for a >definition of it. OED: mete, v.1 5. trans. To apportion by measure; to assign in portions; to portion or deal out; esp. to allot (punishment, praise, reward, etc.). Also intr. Now usually (in trans. use) with out. Quote from Stormin' Norman: 1992 H. N. SCHWARZKOPF It doesn't take Hero xx. 380 Only a few of the commanders had any idea of the plan I was about to present or of the tough assignments I was going to mete out. Therefore "metion" (mee-shun, meet-yun?) is an instance of meting out. All we need now is for someone to use this word. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:33:24 -0000, "John Dean" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I love a segue into obAue territory. So you want to discuss the > British use of "irony"? "There was nothing very interesting in Katherine P. Rankin’s study of sarcasm — at least, nothing worth your important time. All she did was use an M.R.I. to find the place in the brain where the ability to detect sarcasm resides. But then, you probably already knew it was in the right parahippocampal gyrus." -- DAN HURLEY Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "Error is error; whether it is accepted or not. Truth is truth; likewise. How do we know error from truth...? Ay, there's the rub. But you do know s o m e truths, so not mix them so much with conceptual errors. That is some of the issue to which I elude." -- finite guy >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:33:24 -0000, "John Dean" >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >detect sarcasm resides. But then, you probably already knew it was in >the right parahippocampal gyrus." -- DAN HURLEY If that is where sarcasm is detected, surely the place where it is generated is the posterior opening of the alimentary canal. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I love a segue into obAue territory. So you want to discuss the > British use of "irony"? We can if you want, though I'm personally not aware of perpetrating one in the current year. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's perfect. PLEASE tell me there's somewhere I can place an advance order > to be sure of not missing my copy when it's published. Shouldn't you get permission from your parents before doing this? EG >>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Shouldn't you get permission from your parents before doing this? No, no, they encourage me to be adventurous. I have an allowance and everything. Which publisher do I contact? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, no, they encourage me to be adventurous. I have an allowance and > everything. Which publisher do I contact? Send the money directly to me from pay pal. EG >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >No, no, they encourage me to be adventurous. I have an allowance and >everything. Which publisher do I contact? I'm waiting for the DVD. Reading's too hard. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage >>>>> below. It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm waiting for the DVD. Reading's too hard. The notion of filming this historical farce has provided me with a striking image of Brian Rix in period garb. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. > It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm > beginning to have doubts about, I wonder if anyone finds anything > wrong here: [...] More important than our opinion is what your agent thinks about it. She's probably the key character here. But my own impression is that it's humorous writing: is that right? Maybe with a murder at the end of the chapter? I don't think I see any problems with the grammar, though I get the same hiccups other posters have mentioned. SignatureMike. >> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > problems with the grammar, though I get the same hiccups other posters > have mentioned. Farcical is the word I'm using. My concern is my use of the ellipsis. I use it a bit. EG >>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >>> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >I use it a bit. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Fiction is fiction, and if the story sells you'll be laughing all the way to the bank. I'd be fairly conservative about those ellipses, though. Too many of them might piss a reader off, as will most "gimmicky" writing, unless you're an established writer having been accepted for an experimental style, or aiming at an unsophisticated audience. But what do I know? If I did know, I'd be a millionaire. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >>>> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > aiming at an unsophisticated audience. But what do I know? If I did > know, I'd be a millionaire. Seems to be the general feel of it. One pundit writes "try to keep them to under three a page, then remove six of them.' EG >> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. >> It's from a novel I'm writing. Rather than mention the part I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >More important than our opinion is what your agent thinks about it. Most good writers write, first, for themselves. >She's probably the key character here. Hardly. That is to say, I vehemently disagree with you. <snip> SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:08:42 -0000, "Mike Lyle" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Chuck Riggs > Near Dublin, Ireland Hmmm, I'm getting a bit suspicious... >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:08:42 -0000, "Mike Lyle" >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Hmmm, I'm getting a bit suspicious... What, exactly, is upsetting you, my dear? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:59:21 -0800 (PST), Arcadian Rises > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What, exactly, is upsetting you, my dear? Besides the jet lag, state of the economy, hormonal (im)balance associated with a certain age, the situation in Gaza and the future of our environment, printed media, value system and Prince William's marital statute? Briefly, I was tortured by the suspicion you might be EG, but such suspicion vanished after reading your subsequent messages, thanks for asking. >> <Arcadianri...@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> I'm getting a feeling there's something wrong with the passage below. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > suspicion vanished after reading your subsequent messages, thanks for > asking. I've got a tip for you fellows: Stop trying to be so excruciatingly clever all the time. Just say what you mean. EG >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:59:21 -0800 (PST), Arcadian Rises >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> >> Hardly. That is to say, I vehemently disagree with you. >> >Hmmm, I'm getting a bit suspicious... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >our environment, printed media, value system and Prince William's >marital statute? With the damage religious intolerance is causing and the mess the world's economy is in, has everyone forgotten our number one problem, global warming? BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the effects of hormonal imbalances. >Briefly, I was tortured by the suspicion you might be EG, but such >suspicion vanished after reading your subsequent messages, thanks for >asking. You're welcome. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:59:21 -0800 (PST), Arcadian Rises >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > world's economy is in, has everyone forgotten our number one problem, > global warming? I haven't. I am reminded of it every time I trip over the cat because the energy-saving light bulbs don't come on immediately or when I struggle to read or sew in the dim light they afford. And now I discover that they contain mercury and have to be disposed off rather more carefully than the old sort. Hardly environmentally friendly. Not to mention the time I have to spend sorting rubbish, which, I now learn, mostly ends up in landfill still anyway. I'm also a bit anxious about these sneaky legislative changes: is Prince William's marital statute another example of European regulatory creep? BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the > effects of hormonal imbalances. Are you being deliberately provocative or do you really believe that? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >Not to > mention the time I have to spend sorting rubbish, which, I now learn, > mostly ends up in landfill still anyway. *Some* materials are being stored in warehouses until there is a market for them. The BBC News story of three days ago: The 'underbelly' of recycling http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7818234.stm Not "mostly" and not "landfill." Have you seen news to the contrary? Recycling markets have always gone up and down. Governments have found in the past it's better to keep collecting the stuff than to continually jerk the public around: "We'll take glass but not paper this month... Now we'll take metal and paper but no glass..." and so on. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> Not to >> mention the time I have to spend sorting rubbish, which, I now learn, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > jerk the public around: "We'll take glass but not paper this month... > Now we'll take metal and paper but no glass..." and so on. I've certainly seen news in Australia that a couple of recycling firms are rapidly reaching the point where they will no longer have room for further storage, and I read a less reliable source that claimed that some local councils were dumping stuff in landfill as they couldn't unload it on anyone else. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Not to mention the time I have to spend sorting rubbish, which, I now >>> learn, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > councils were dumping stuff in landfill as they couldn't unload it on > anyone else. Pols pass laws requiring people to recycle but they won't pass laws requiring businesses to use recycled materials. LFS filted: >BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the >> effects of hormonal imbalances. > >Are you being deliberately provocative or do you really believe that? I dispute the "only", but jet lag *is* in the head, because that's where the pineal gland is located....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >LFS filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I dispute the "only", but jet lag *is* in the head, because that's where the >pineal gland is located....r I see that it is "a pea-sized conical mass of tissue behind the third ventricle of the brain, secreting a hormone-like substance in some mammals", according to the COD10. Does man have one? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Chuck Riggs filted: >>I dispute the "only", but jet lag *is* in the head, because that's where the >>pineal gland is located....r [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mammals", according to the COD10. >Does man have one? Wiki's a little clearer on the subject: "The pineal gland (also called the pineal body, epiphysis cerebri, or epiphysis) is a small endocrine gland in the vertebrate brain. It produces melatonin, a hormone that affects the modulation of wake/sleep patterns and photoperiodic (seasonal) functions." I would infer from this that it's present in all vertebrates...note that its role in controlling "wake/sleep patterns" is mentioned here...a note further into the Wiki article mentions one of its more crackpot associations: "The pineal gland also plays a role in the transformation of a scientist into a grotesque monster in the H. P. Lovecraft-inspired film From Beyond." Fun movie to watch, for all that its premise is utter rubbish....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Chuck Riggs filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I would infer from this that it's present in all vertebrates This is one of those subjects that has fascinated me over the years. In some animals, the pineal gland has an associated body with distinct eye-like structure: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_eye> I first encountered this as a youngster reading about the tuatara. I'm still not clear how it developed from an evolutionary standpoint. One article I read mentioned the common ancestor of the vertebrates and modern lancelets: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet> The lancelet has a single primitive light-sensing organ. The article suggested that as vertebrates developed the dual, more complicated eye system, the original was left behind in its central location and used as the parietal eye and eventually as the pineal body. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) [...] > In some animals, the pineal gland has an associated body with distinct > eye-like structure: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > system, the original was left behind in its central location and used > as the parietal eye and eventually as the pineal body. Third eye, innit, glasshopper. SignatureMike. > [...] > > In some animals, the pineal gland has an associated body with > > distinct eye-like structure: > Third eye, innit, glasshopper. The parietal eye is sometimes called the "third eye", yes. Some have attempted to associate the human pineal body with the mystic "third eye" as well. The pineal body has some similarity to the eye at the cellular level, but no real eye structure in humans. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) > Chuck Riggs filted: >>> I dispute the "only", but jet lag *is* in the head, because that's where the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > role in controlling "wake/sleep patterns" is mentioned here...a note further > into the Wiki article mentions one of its more crackpot associations: I thought it also had something to do with controlling growth - when it starts and stops. As I know nothing about biology, I'm probably wrong. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:59:21 -0800 (PST), Arcadian Rises >>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Are you being deliberately provocative or do you really believe that? Having quickly transversed three or more time zones around one hundred times, I do. As I fly I adjust my watch to the new time, get a good sleep on arrival, then think no further about it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the > >> effects of hormonal imbalances. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > times, I do. As I fly I adjust my watch to the new time, get a good > sleep on arrival, then think no further about it. Good for you. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >>> BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the >>>> effects of hormonal imbalances. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Good for you. I'm fairly blasé about jet lag, but even I can tell that my internal clock is wonky when I've travelled through, say, 5 to 8 zones; handling the 12-zone shift from the UK to NZ is definitely not dealing with something imaginary. I do suspect, though, that people who make a big thing out of being jet-lagged after flying through just a few zones -- say 3 or 4 -- are either unusually sensitive to it, or are focussing too much on their symptoms, rather than on getting over those symptoms. YMMV, of course. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >YMMV, of course. A particularly apt use of YMMV. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > A particularly apt use of YMMV. For some strange reason I'm now hearing Hurree Jamset Ram Singh saying "Harvey's aptitude is *terrific*". And I thought I had recovered from the drugs... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 12 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >>> On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > saying "Harvey's aptitude is *terrific*". And I thought I had > recovered from the drugs... Sounds like you've started on some new ones... SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the >>> effects of hormonal imbalances. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > times, I do. As I fly I adjust my watch to the new time, get a good > sleep on arrival, then think no further about it. Jet lag affects different people differently and indeed I have taken flights where I have had suffered no subsequent problems but generally flying westwards for more than nine hours affects me quite badly. But I was more concerned about your idea that hormonal imbalance was in some way psychosomatic. I'd want some convincing on that. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>> BTW, jet lag is only in your head as are, perhaps, the >>>> effects of hormonal imbalances. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >But I was more concerned about your idea that hormonal imbalance was in >some way psychosomatic. I'd want some convincing on that. If that was the impression you got from something I wrote, I wasn't expressing myself at all well. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > > With the damage religious intolerance is causing and the mess the > > world's economy is in, has everyone forgotten our number one problem, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the energy-saving light bulbs don't come on immediately or when I > struggle to read or sew in the dim light they afford. And now I discover Ooh, I've got some great eco bulbs. 100w, and they come on straight away, properly (a bit of a shock at 3am in the bathroom, mind). If I remember, I'll post the brand. > that they contain mercury and have to be disposed off rather more > carefully than the old sort. Hardly environmentally friendly. Not to > mention the time I have to spend sorting rubbish, which, I now learn, > mostly ends up in landfill still anyway. YoungBloke asked us at the weekend when we can go to the Land of Fill. Which suddenly sounds a lot more exciting. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >>> With the damage religious intolerance is causing and the mess >>> the world's economy is in, has everyone forgotten our number [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > straight away, properly (a bit of a shock at 3am in the > bathroom, mind). If I remember, I'll post the brand. Please do. (Are they also a reasonable size, or do they poke out beyond the lampshades?) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Please do. (Are they also a reasonable size, or do they poke out > beyond the lampshades?) We have big paper lampshades so I'm not sure how much bigger than usual they are. They are bigger than old lightbulbs but I can live with that. http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link to the bulbs I bought, and the seller is good. I ordered around the time YoungBloke was born, selected the wrong fitting and they were very fast at replacing when I realised my error (standing on a chair...). We have them in areas where the lights go on and off frequently, and in rooms where the lights are on for ages. The difference between them and older "100W equivalent" bulbs is remarkable. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> On 12 Jan 2009, Amethyst Deceiver wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >where the lights are on for ages. The difference between them and older >"100W equivalent" bulbs is remarkable. Those look very interesting. Thanks for the link. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] > http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link > to the bulbs I bought, and the seller is good. I ordered around the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > difference between them and older "100W equivalent" bulbs is > remarkable. The difference needs to be remarkable at nearly fifteen quid each, or a mere tenner if you buy five. I couldn't afford that for a lightbulb. SignatureMike. > [...] >> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The difference needs to be remarkable at nearly fifteen quid each, or a > mere tenner if you buy five. I couldn't afford that for a lightbulb. Blimey. I've got enough low-power bulbs in the cupboard to last us for decades - people keep giving them to us. British Gas sent us 4 in a box the other week. SignatureDavid in a Hilton >> [...] >>> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >decades - people keep giving them to us. British Gas sent us 4 in a box >the other week. I've had four from them, too, and another four from the people who generate electricity (as opposed to British Gas, who sell it). [Incidentally, harping back to last year's discussion of wireless thermostats, and the fact that one can get programmable ones, I decided to treat myself to one. I chose a Drayton, because my current thermostat one of theirs. I found on opening the box that the mains-powered unit that controls the boiler is physically identical to the one I have installed, tried it out with the new thermostat, and, wonder of wonders, it's electrically equivalent too. Just had to replace the old thermostat with the new one -- even the fixing screw holes were compatible -- and was up and running 15 minutes after the postman delivered it.] SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > [Incidentally, harping back to last year's discussion of wireless > thermostats, and the fact that one can get programmable ones, I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > holes were compatible -- and was up and running 15 minutes after the > postman delivered it.] "Well, there you go," he said, warmly. SignatureSkitt (AmE) On 13 Jan 2009, Skitt wrote > >> [Incidentally, harping back to last year's discussion of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > "Well, there you go," he said, warmly. "Not all thermostats intall so easily", he replied heatedly. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 13 Jan 2009, Skitt wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >"Not all thermostats intall so easily", he replied heatedly. "But they are necessary", he said controllingly. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >>On 13 Jan 2009, Skitt wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >"But they are necessary", he said controllingly. "The new ones are exactly the same as the old ones", he said equivocally....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >>On 13 Jan 2009, Skitt wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >"But they are necessary", he said controllingly. "Like this cheap bimetal one", he snapped. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>>On 13 Jan 2009, Skitt wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >"Like this cheap bimetal one", he snapped. "Electronic ones should be easy to set up", he replied, coldly. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > [Incidentally, harping back to last year's discussion of wireless > thermostats, and the fact that one can get programmable ones, I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > holes were compatible -- and was up and running 15 minutes after the > postman delivered it.] Large numbers of obscene words. I've just had to buy a replacement transmitter/receiver because my Drayton receiver died. Had you posted a couple of weeks ago, I'd have been offering you a few quid for the spare. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> [Incidentally, harping back to last year's discussion of wireless >> thermostats, and the fact that one can get programmable ones, I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Drayton receiver died. Had you posted a couple of weeks ago, I'd have >been offering you a few quid for the spare. So much for Carl Jung's theory. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >> [...] >>> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> The difference needs to be remarkable at nearly fifteen quid each, or >> a mere tenner if you buy five. I couldn't afford that for a lightbulb. I shall certainly try them, thanks for the link, Linz. > Blimey. I've got enough low-power bulbs in the cupboard to last us for > decades - people keep giving them to us. British Gas sent us 4 in a box > the other week. We also have a huge stock of the beastly things but none of them provide decent light and I think the slow lighting up is positively dangerous in some situations. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > [...] > >> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > decades - people keep giving them to us. British Gas sent us 4 in a box > the other week. Us too, but they're 60W equivalent and not bright enough. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> [...] >>>> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Us too, but they're 60W equivalent and not bright enough. Other way round for me: since I started wearing glasses, I changed all my 100-159W bulbs for 40-60 and find it hard to obtain the new-fangled ones with a low enough wattage. SignatureRob Bannister > [...] > > http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the link [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The difference needs to be remarkable at nearly fifteen quid each, or a > mere tenner if you buy five. I couldn't afford that for a lightbulb. I was unsure when I bought them, but the difference, when I put one in and turned it on, made it worthwhile. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> [...] >>> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I was unsure when I bought them, but the difference, when I put one in > and turned it on, made it worthwhile. Maybe I'll treat myself at some stage. They do seem to make a point of boasting about their colour temperature, which is as much a problem as the dimness of the other offerings. Speed of on-ness is also a potential safety advantage, as Laura says. But I can't help wondering if the same things are available at a less ear-splitting price somewhere. I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they dish out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never seems to be on cheap offer in supermarkets. I only use 60-Watters for table lamps and cupboards. SignatureMike. >>> [...] >>>> http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 is the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > be on cheap offer in supermarkets. I only use 60-Watters for table lamps > and cupboards. Husband grew up in a 60 watt house and was a little surprised to discover that I demanded more light. I think my m-i-l believed that the lower wattage saved a lot of money and even the 60 watt bulbs were used very sparingly. (She also hung up tea bags to dry and reused them several times: when they first appeared on the market, she used to cut them open and tip out the contents and she would only use half for one cup of tea.) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they dish >out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never seems to >be on cheap offer in supermarkets. I only use 60-Watters for table lamps >and cupboards. Checking the dimensions of bulbs at: http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/ An ordinary incandescent 60W or 100W bulb is 105mm long. The Low Energy equivalents are 110mm and 130mm in length. There is not much difference between the 60W and its LE equivalent but when we come to the 100W and its equivalent the difference in size is 25mm, nearly one inch. This might cause difficulties in some light fittings. Supermarkets would not want to deal with a stream of customers returning LE bulbs because they don't fit. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they dish > out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never seems to > be on cheap offer in supermarkets. I only use 60-Watters for table lamps > and cupboards. Phillips 100W equivalent are in the 3-for-a-quid (or £1.64 each) bin at Wickes - or were late last week. They just about serve as replacements for unimportant 60Ws - if you don't want any light until tomorrow. Energy saving lamps are to light as storage heaters are to heat. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they >> dish out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Energy saving lamps are to light as storage heaters are to heat. It's all rather strange, I think. Nobody except some columnist in the Guardian has said a good word about the things that I know of. (Apart from Linz's Rolls-Royce ones.) So why are governments all over the world pushing them so hard? Surely they could have thought of a less unpopular token gesture to hide their failure to do anything really useful for the planet? SignatureMike. >>> I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they >>> dish out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > token gesture to hide their failure to do anything really useful for the > planet? I'm not going out of my way to praise the things, but I have no negative feelings. I switched on the light in my study here at home a short while ago and it certainly took several 10s of seconds to grow to full brightness, but this doesn't bother me in the slightest. SignatureDavid >>>> I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they >>>> dish out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > while ago and it certainly took several 10s of seconds to grow to full > brightness, but this doesn't bother me in the slightest. In some rooms it might be rather charming: I think Katy J compared the effect to gas mantles. But in an emergency in the middle of the night I think it could be downright dangerous. And if you have a dark grey cat, who is also deaf so doesn't move out of your way, it is very easy to trip over it in a dim light. And I am fed up with standing at the top of the stairs waiting until it's safe to go down. I've ordered a pack of the ones Linz recommends. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>> I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they >>>>> dish out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >I've ordered a pack of the ones Linz recommends. Strange. None of mine take more than three or four seconds to achieve full brightness, and they're quite adequate for stairs. Maybe you should spray the cat luminous green. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >> In some rooms it might be rather charming: I think Katy J compared >> the effect to gas mantles. But in an emergency in the middle of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> I've ordered a pack of the ones Linz recommends. My experience has been that it is worth paying a little extra for the better ones, and that those aren't the ones you normally find in your local supermarket or hardware store. It's worth going to a specialist lighting supplier. The quality difference is mainly in the ballast and starter circuitry, apparently. They also have a much bigger range of shapes and sizes, wattages and colours. > Strange. None of mine take more than three or four seconds to achieve > full brightness, and they're quite adequate for stairs. Maybe you > should spray the cat luminous green. Or get the cat genetically engineered with jellyfish genes. I tried that with my cat, but it must have got the just-sit-there-and-flop gene instead of the glow-in-the-dark one. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>>> I remain puzzled, though, about why the ordinary energy savers they >>>> dish out never seem to be 100W equivalent, and why that power never [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > short while ago and it certainly took several 10s of seconds to grow > to full brightness, but this doesn't bother me in the slightest. I suspect that those of us who are nigh on obsessive about putting the right power of bulb in where we need it, and on turning the light out when there's no-one in the room suffer most - and need the new bulbs the least. The people who light their house like Blackpool walk into nicely lit rooms. I've got an uplighter on the wall above my favourite chair. With a 60W incandescent bulb in it I can walk into the room, turn it on, sit down and start reading. With a 100W CFL I can't. It hardly rates on the scale of human suffering, but it's still a bleedin' nuisance. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > I suspect that those of us who are nigh on obsessive about putting the > right power of bulb in where we need it, and on turning the light out > when there's no-one in the room suffer most - and need the new bulbs the > least. I spend my home hours, seemingly, shouting "turn the light off!". Haven't had to replace a light bulb for about a year, and in the ten years I've been in the house, a good half the lights still have the bulbs I put in ten years ago. > The people who light their house like Blackpool walk into nicely lit > rooms. I've got an uplighter on the wall above my favourite chair. > With a 60W incandescent bulb in it I can walk into the room, turn it on, > sit down and start reading. With a 100W CFL I can't. It hardly rates on the > scale of human suffering, but it's still a bleedin' nuisance. That's why I like the 100W CFLs I mentioned. I turn the light on, the light comes on. Just like the old incandescents. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > > Energy saving lamps are to light as storage heaters are to heat. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unpopular token gesture to hide their failure to do anything really > useful for the planet? I have been pretty pleased with the ones I have. I'm not certain of the brand, I will have to check, but they come quickly and at near full brightness. One is in a frosted globe fixture in the hall, and another in a shade-style table lamp and both have nearly standard illumination and color to my eye. Both tend to be on from the time I get home until bed. I used to replace those bulbs a lot, now I haven't had to in a very long time. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) Mike Lyle wrote, about "eco bulbs": > It's all rather strange, I think. Nobody except some columnist in the > Guardian has said a good word about the things that I know of. (Apart > from Linz's Rolls-Royce ones.) So why are governments all over the > world pushing them so hard? Surely they could have thought of a less > unpopular token gesture to hide their failure to do anything really > useful for the planet? Why: New products seem to spur the economy, especially if the government makes them mandatory. Never mind that people with low incomes probably cannot afford the new, pricier items. My husband bought one or two of the eco bulbs. They hurt my eyes. What's odd about that is that I usually /prefer/ bright lights for reading and other things, but with the new bulbs, the glare is too harsh. (We're back to using the old ones, at least for the time being.) SignatureMaria C. Maria C. filted: >Mike Lyle wrote, about "eco bulbs": > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >other things, but with the new bulbs, the glare is too harsh. (We're >back to using the old ones, at least for the time being.) If the ecobrats aren't careful they're going to drive us all back to whale oil....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Maria C. filted: >> Mike Lyle wrote, about "eco bulbs": [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If the ecobrats aren't careful they're going to drive us all back to > whale oil....r And that would present another problem. SignatureMaria C. >>> With the damage religious intolerance is causing and the mess the >>> world's economy is in, has everyone forgotten our number one problem, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > away, properly (a bit of a shock at 3am in the bathroom, mind). If I > remember, I'll post the brand. Please do, I haven't discovered any yet. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>> With the damage religious intolerance is causing and the mess the > >>> world's economy is in, has everyone forgotten our number one problem, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Please do, I haven't discovered any yet. http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 They come on immediately with a good white light and then almost imperceptibly get even brighter. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary [...] > Ooh, I've got some great eco bulbs. 100w, and they come on straight > away, properly (a bit of a shock at 3am in the bathroom, mind). If I > remember, I'll post the brand. [...] Please, please tell us which brand! Alan Jones > [...] > > Ooh, I've got some great eco bulbs. 100w, and they come on straight [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Alan Jones http://www.ecozone.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=492 SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary [...]> > YoungBloke asked us at the weekend when we can go to the Land of Fill. > Which suddenly sounds a lot more exciting. No doubt it's in one of JRRT's supporting volumes, with an explanation of why the Fillips failed to come to the aid of the desperate little Elanders of Gangooli in their deathly striving against the fell Pogues of Hines far yonder in the Elder Times. Actually, he'd enjoy it if you can get close enough to see the big machines and all the birds. Maybe some foxes, too. Re the light bulbs, I'd appreciate the info, too, please: I have the lousy ones. And has anybody done a full environmental audit on low-energy lamps? That would have to include the crud emitted from the coal-fired Chinese factories that presumably make them as well as shipping, disposal, and the extra packing they seem to need. SignatureMike. > [...]> >> YoungBloke asked us at the weekend when we can go to the Land of Fill. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > coal-fired Chinese factories that presumably make them as well as > shipping, disposal, and the extra packing they seem to need. And, after all, at this time of year the "inefficiency" of the conventional types is only the difference between gas and electric heating. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:59:21 -0800 (PST), Arcadian Rises >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And now I discover that they contain mercury and have to be > disposed off rather more carefully than the old sort. And like many of these quasi-religious causes -- whether valid, worthy, or not -- objections which are real impediments to switching tend to be dismissed out of hand by answers which don't, in fact, address the objection at all. "I don't like the quality of the light." "Studies say lots of people prefer them." (Yeah; but *I* don't like the quality of the light.) "They're too big for the lamps I have." "It's simple to replace lampshades." (I don't want my light bulbs to dictate my lampshades.) "They don't work with dimmer switches." "They're working on that; real soon, now." (Don't force them into use until that's solved, then.) "They have to be disposed of quite carefully." "There are disposal points where you can take them." (And that just ain't gonna happen with 90% of the things.) Harrumph. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed |
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.