 |
 | 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 2009Is Crossword Bob a Functional Illiterate?
Is Crossword Bob a Functional Illiterate? -----------------------------------------> "You fellows have way too much time on your hands." -- EG "As much as you, who answer just about everything? Not hardly." -- Robert Lieblich ------------------------------------------> Eh ... you mean, "Hardly" don't you, Robert? Putting "not" in front of "hardly," gives us the opposite of "hardly." Classic howler beginning writers make all the time, Bob. And your prose is rife with these howlers, Robert Lieblich, which begs the question -- What on earth makes you think you know anything at all about writing? EG ----------------------------------------------------> "I recommend you stop all attempts at creative writing for at least six months and spend your time reading the finest English prose you can get your hands on. If that doesn't do it, I recommend stopping again, this time for good. There's nothing wrong with a lack of talent. I lack talent in so many fields -- creative writing included -- that I doubt the remainder of my life would suffice to enable me to list them all. From what I've read of your writing, you have no talent for it. Consider trying something else." -- Robert Lieblich ----------------------------------------------------->  SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ On 13 Jan 2009, elanders wrote -snip- You really should look in the Yellow Pages for a shop that sells lives, and get yourself one. > On 13 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > > -snip- > > You really should look in the Yellow Pages for a shop that sells > lives, and get yourself one. Why are you attacking me, Harvey? I told you you're off my enemies' list. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ On 14 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> On 13 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I told you you're off my enemies' list. Do you really want an answer? (I suspect not, but what the hell.) My reaction to the fiction you posted for review was that it was impossible to read -- historically vapid, and compositionally dire -- and I found your aggressive reaction to people who offered robust-but-fair criticism petulant, obnoxious, and juvenile. These are people whose opinions I've come to admire and trust over a number of years. Bob Lieblich, for example, is a long-standing, reliable, intelligent, good-humoured, capable, and valued contributer to this grou whose posts almost invariably make me smile. You've now decided to stamp your little foot at him, and have (god help us) started to initiate whining grudge-threads against him. But I have yet to read a single one of your posts that has interested me -- or made me smile -- even remotely in the way that Bob's do. (Or Tony Cooper's, or Laura's -- or a number of other posters who write things that I find interesting, enlightening, and funny). It will presumably baffle you that I really have no interest in whether I'm on or off your enemies' list; and it certainly isn't about to change my view of your writing as inept, or of your Usenet demeanour as juvenile and obnoxious. (So, there you go. I'll not be replying to any follow-up you might post on this; I've nothing further to say.) > On 14 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > (So, there you go. I'll not be replying to any follow-up you might > post on this; I've nothing further to say.) Well, that's all good and well, HVS, but if you -- or anyone else here -- can't articulate the problems you see in my excepts, then that, in my opinion, doesn't speak very highly of your critique. For example, your comments above -- "historically vapid ... compositionally dire", have yet been supported by evidence. "Vapid" is defined as "lacking liveliness, tang, briskness, or force" Are you really saying my first three chapters have no "liveliness, tang, briskness or force, or are you dealing in rhetoric, Harvey? The premise is certainly an engaging one -- Queen Charlotte was of African ancestry. My development of this premise as lively and engaging as it gets. Lively and forceful are my forte. There's no one in this newsgroup who's posts are as lively and forceful as mine. Not even close. You call yourself a writer, Harvey, why then do you continue to deal in glittering generalities instead of specifics? Where does the plot fail? Where does the setting fail? Where does the dialogue fail? Where does the characterization fail? Where does the conflict run weak? These things are the lingua franca of literary criticism, Harvery, yet you and everyone else in this newsgroup seem blissfully unaware of this. You're a bunch of cave man beating your clubs against the ground. You call yourself an art historian. If someone said to you the Sistine Chapel is "historically vapid and compositionally dire," would you consider that an informed opinion ...? As to Robert Lieblich, your opinion of him is marvelous and you should hold on to that feeling. You may send Bob a box of candy if you wish. Two boxes if you like, I won't complain. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ > > On 14 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > -- > Riclanders Dot Comhttp://riclanders.com/ can't find anyone who likes your writing style? I guess that's history repeating itself then isn't it ? how many of your writing projects have been torn apart so far ? EVERY ONE of your "works" that you present to anybody for an opinion gets the same negative reaction doesn't it? what does that tell you? the only talent you have is at being an internet troll, so why not write a novel about that? or maybe an instruction manual about video taping the neighborhood children without getting arrested? face the facts riclanders you have no talent for skilled writing, your ghetto education and low IQ will always show through and unmask you as a fool. as usual you resort to disruptive personal attacks when events don't go your way, showing your ghetto upbringing for all to see. you can not fake talent, you have it or you don't and judging by the responses received the talent gene is sadly missing from the riclanders family tree. elanders wrote: >> For example, your comments above -- "historically vapid ... >> compositionally dire", have yet been supported by evidence. Indeed they have. SignatureLew > elanders wrote: >>> For example, your comments above -- "historically vapid ... >>> compositionally dire", have yet been supported by evidence. > > Indeed they have. No they haven't, that's why the guy broke and ran. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ > Well, that's all good and well, HVS, but if you -- or anyone else here > -- can't articulate the problems you see in my excepts, then that, in my So you really cannot spell "excerpt"? Lars Enderin filted: >> Well, that's all good and well, HVS, but if you -- or anyone else here >> -- can't articulate the problems you see in my excepts, then that, in my > >So you really cannot spell "excerpt"? Must be non-rhotic....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Is Crossword Bob a Functional Illiterate? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And your prose is rife with these howlers, Robert Lieblich, which begs the > question Only functional illiterates like you imagine that "to beg the question" means "to raise the question". Peter Groves > -- What on earth makes you think you know anything at all about writing? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -----------------------------------------------------> > "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message [...] > > And your prose is rife with these howlers, Robert Lieblich, which begs the > > question > > Only functional illiterates like you imagine that "to beg the question" > means "to raise the question". Yummy! I, for one, cannot wait for Eric's response. Will. >> "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Will. I fear you'll be waiting alone. Most of us have lost interest in Eric's responses. The short answer to the question in the subject line (" Is Crossword Bob a Functional Illiterate?" for those who don't read subject lines) is, of course, no. Signatureathel >>> "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Bob a Functional Illiterate?" for those who don't read subject lines) >is, of course, no. Eric has an interesting line in his novel, spoken by "Queen Mother": "I've known emissaries all of my life and most of them are literate bumpkins." James >>>> "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > James In an early draft he had them munching chocolate chip cookies, when told that choco chip cookies hadn'tr yet been invented he went off on a rant saying there was no reason they couldn't have been and we were just picky a.sholes for bringing it up. On Jan 14, 8:21 am, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message > >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that choco chip cookies hadn'tr yet been invented he went off on a rant > saying there was no reason they couldn't have been When he should have realized it accounted for the shorter life expectancy of the time. > and we were just picky a.sholes for bringing it up. The phrase "picky a.sholes" is producing an unfortunate image in my mind. -- Jerry Friedman >>>> "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > James Let's see, James ... You're taking my first draft edits and publishing publicly so as to poke fun. You're a real class act, James Hogg. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ [...] > Let's see, James ... > > You're taking my first draft edits and publishing publicly so as to poke > fun. > > You're a real class act, James Hogg. NOTE: No reponse to Peter Groves' post. Will. [ ... ] > The short answer to the question in the subject line (" Is Crossword > Bob a Functional Illiterate?" for those who don't read subject lines) > is, of course, no. Quite right, Athel. I am not a functional illiterate but a total illiterate -- incapable of reading or writing a single word. My decade-plus of posting to AUE is a fraud, and I've fooled all of you. For example, I have not read the elanders post to which you responded, nor have I read your post, nor am I writing (typing) this. Nanny-nanny boo-boo. I wonder what gave me away. SignatureBob Lieblich His mark: X > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I wonder what gave me away. It's all relative, Robert, but the important thing is this: you can't write a paragraph of text without getting things a.s-backwards. You have a cognitive disconnect which no doubt explains why you're not published. You probably still don't grasp what's wrong with tropes like "walking into deeper water without a paddle" or "not hardly" when you mean "hardly." I hope this helps. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >> "elanders" <eland...@zoomtown.com> wrote in message >[...] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Yummy! I, for one, cannot wait for Eric's response. His response might be to get up a petitio. James >> Is Crossword Bob a Functional Illiterate? >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Peter Groves What on earth are you talking about? In fact, don't even tell me. See, the problem with you pinheads is you've never applied all this vast usage knowledge. There's nothing wrong with how I use "begs the question" everyone knows precisely what I mean, and if Bob Lieblich or anyone else would have used it, you'd have not said anything at all. But, wanting to jump on the bandwagon, you announce to the world that I did not use it correctly, ergo, I'm functionally illiterate. Well, that's whoredom and you're a whore. Worse still, you're a teasing whore -- rather than explain the error, you play the tease. But again, there is no error to begin with -- the expression is used precisely as it should be used. But the main thing is this: You make no comment about Robert's errors which are the subject of this thread. You miss his howlers, but catch some subtle error in my usage no one else but your are aware of. You have no integrity. You're playing politics. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ [...] the problem with you pinheads is you've never applied all this vast > usage knowledge. There's nothing wrong with how I use "begs the > question" everyone knows precisely what I mean, and if Bob Lieblich or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But again, there is no error to begin with -- the expression is used > precisely as it should be used. Have a look here: http://begthequestion.info/ or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question > But the main thing is this: You make no comment about Robert's errors > which are the subject of this thread. You miss his howlers, but catch > some subtle error in my usage no one else but your are aware of. The main thing is that you're a functional illiterate. Will. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Will. I called you functional illiterate first, Will, and it must have stung like hell because you've been calling me it back every chance you get. Look, the "begging the question" this fellow Grove is talking about is the logical fallacy. No one uses it like that in causal conversation he knows that and you do. Bottom line, he's masturbating and you're holding the towel and lubricant for him. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > EG If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received here, I would advise him to take up writing for children: they won't notice his hair-raising ignorance, they won't care that he can't write, and his gross emotional immaturity will put him right on their level. But I fear I may be casting pearls before swine. Peter Groves >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > casting pearls before swine. > Peter Groves And I would advise you to learn how to write proper sentences, Peter. 1. No comma is required after "creatively." The introductory sentence need not be broken up. It should read: If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he can write creatively after all the helpful advice he's received here, ... 2. This trope makes no sentence: "hair-raising ignorance." Why would extreme ignorance be "hair-raising," Peter? You're going for glibness and your content suffers because of it. 3. Children are not "grossly emotional immature." There are mature children and immature children. We don't say a child of seven years is "grossly short" because she's only 4 foot tall. Her height, as is her emotional maturity, is a factor of her age. This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making accurate comparisons. You do not, Peter. 4. "Casting pearls before swine" is perhaps one of the most embarrassingly bad cliches still seen in writing. It was a cliche in Biblical times. No writer of even the lowest grade would use it. There you have it, Peter Grove -- although not functionally illiterate, you're certainly no writer nor a person who knows anything at all about polished writing. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making >accurate comparisons. Quote from the "polished writer": "Stricker slid his sword back into its scabbard with the precision of an accomplished fencer". Ooooh. Epeed all over 'isself. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making >> accurate comparisons. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ooooh. Epeed all over 'isself. Hey, bird brain, there's nothing wrong with the sentence above, and your continued efforts to be excruciatingly witty at the risk of content is getting tiresome. You're not clever, Tony. You're borderline functional illiterate and all your posing and pretense is not going to change that. Get a grip, dude, then get your GED. You need it. Also, if you're going to quote my text at least have the integrity to quote it right. My ending period was inside the quote. SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >>> This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making >>> accurate comparisons. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Hey, bird brain, there's nothing wrong with the sentence above, Except that fencers don't wear scabbards. Another jolting inaccuracy that stops the reader dead in his tracks. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making >>>> accurate comparisons. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Except that fencers don't wear scabbards. Another jolting inaccuracy > that stops the reader dead in his tracks. No, not today, you blithering idiot, but 250 years ago when most men walked around armed with rapiers they did. You stupid, baboon. Can you get anything right, Tony -- anything? And that you act so friggin' superior about your dumb mistakes -- like you've found something I'm a dolt for not seeing when it always turns out you're just masturbating. Stupid f.ck. EG The one occasion on which Dr Gaugler ventures into analysis is in the section on Camillo Palladini (pp.10-15). Dr Gaugler interprets a fencing phrase. He states: When the weapon has been drawn from the scabbard to form the first guard Palladini recommends crossing blades on the outside; and, as the opponent moves to thrust in the low line, the point of one's own weapon should be dropped, and a beat in second executed, succeeded by a thrust to the adversary's chest, while stepping forward with the left foot. SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >>>>> This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making >>>>> accurate comparisons. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >No, not today, you blithering idiot, but 250 years ago when most men >walked around armed with rapiers they did. I was wondering how you'd react to this one. You had the chance to say "OK, I'll change it to 'slid his rapier back in the scabbard like an accomplished swordsman'". That would have been a simple fix. But you came charging out of your corner and tripped all over your ego. This has been your problem throughout your entire appearance in aue. You choose the wrong word and then voraciously defend your incorrect choice. >You stupid, baboon. > >Can you get anything right, Tony -- anything? > >And that you act so friggin' superior I'm not a person who has a lot of problems containing my ego, but - honest to God - you *do* make me feel superior. >about your dumb mistakes -- like >you've found something I'm a dolt for not seeing Yeah, in this case you've chosen the right word to describe what I feel. Exactly. > when it always turns >out you're just masturbating. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>> This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making >>>>>> accurate comparisons. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >> You stupid, baboon. Everything you say is dumb and I've had it up to here from you for the past month. Worse still, is how you deliver everything as if you're so amazingly clever. You don't say, "that sword and scabbard reference is wrong," like a normal person would. You play that dumb f.cking "I see it but you don't na, na, na, na," game of yours, which is bad enough. But worse than that -- you're always wrong! There's nothing wrong with the sentence as it stands, you idiot. Now shut the f.ck up and go away. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >Now shut the f.ck up and go away. I have squatter's rights here. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida (to Tony) > Everything you say is dumb and I've had it up to here from you for the > past month. Well, it *seems* much, much longer but in fact it's only a week. Unless, of course, Tony and the OP have been locking horns elsewhere since before Xmas... (Aaargh, out, out, damned dots! How can I break this habit?) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > 4. "Casting pearls before swine" is perhaps one of the most > embarrassingly bad cliches still seen in writing. Not to self: add to the agenda for tomorrow's lunch, it will be interesting to know what Mr Lyle's cliche expert thinks. It was a cliche in > Biblical times. Was the concept of a cliche known in Biblical times? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 15 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >> 4. "Casting pearls before swine" is perhaps one of the most >> embarrassingly bad cliches still seen in writing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Was the concept of a cliche known in Biblical times? The Bible's certainly full of 'em, doncha' think? Like Shakespeare, who uses way too many stock phrases. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 15 Jan 2009, LFS wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Not to self: add to the agenda for tomorrow's lunch, it will be >> interesting to know what Mr Lyle's cliche expert thinks. Well she thought it was for /The Penguin Dict. of Cs/, and it's had another eight years to ferment since then. >> It was a cliche in >>> Biblical times. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Bible's certainly full of 'em, doncha' think? Like Shakespeare, > who uses way too many stock phrases. Interesting to reflect on whether they were as feedable-up with hackneyed phrases back then as we are now. It may be different for a largely illiterate, or pre-printing, culture: after making a sea crossing, we find that highly-esteemed Greek epic poets depended on stock phrases to keep themselves going. Perhaps rabbis did the same in sermons: they did have a stock of familiar parables and similes, I think. Though I can't believe for a moment that landseer knows the first thing about it. SignatureMike. > It may be different for a > largely illiterate, or pre-printing, culture: after making a sea > crossing, we find that highly-esteemed Greek epic poets depended on > stock phrases to keep themselves going. Since they had to do it all from memory it was no doubt helpful to have a supply of stock phrases to evoke a mood or set a scene. SignatureJohn Varela Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email >>>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 1. No comma is required after "creatively." So what? I'm going to take advice on style from you? > The introductory sentence need not be broken up. It should read: > > If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he can > write creatively after all the helpful advice he's received here, ... > > 2. This trope makes no sentence: "hair-raising ignorance." "makes no sentence"? > Why would extreme ignorance be "hair-raising," Peter? Why don't we let you try to work it out; it will be a useful exercise for you. Here's a clue: "horro" comed from late Latin "horrere", to stand on end (as hair). > You're going for glibness and your content suffers because of it. > > 3. Children are not "grossly emotional immature." "grossly emotional immature"? Is English your native tongue? > There are mature children and immature children. We don't say a child of > seven years is "grossly short" because she's only 4 foot tall. Her height, > as is her emotional maturity, is a factor of her age. > > This is no minor point. Polished writers grasp the importance of making > accurate comparisons. It's obviously not a comparison to anyone who can read: I was proposing an audience that might be less likely to notice your many shortcomings as a writer. Try at least to read more carefully. > You do not, Peter. > > 4. "Casting pearls before swine" is perhaps one of the most embarrassingly > bad cliches still seen in writing. It was a cliche in Biblical times. No > writer of even the lowest grade would use it. It's an allusion (you'd better look that word up, while you're looking up "cliche"): Matthew 7:6, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you". If you try very hard you might see some relevance in the allusion. > There you have it, Peter Grove -- although not functionally illiterate, > you're certainly no writer nor a person who knows anything at all about > polished writing. > > EG Well, last time I looked I had three published books to my credit (or two if you count a co-authored work as half a book for each author), to your zilch. That makes me an author and you a wannabe. Peter Groves >>>>> [...] >>> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So what? I'm going to take advice on style from you? The important thing is that you stop giving advice because you're clearly unqualified. >> The introductory sentence need not be broken up. It should read: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you. Here's a clue: "horro" comed from late Latin "horrere", to stand on > end (as hair). What in Sam Hill does "horro" have to do with hair-raising, you blithering idiot? >> You're going for glibness and your content suffers because of it. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > audience that might be less likely to notice your many shortcomings as a > writer. Try at least to read more carefully. Your objective is not what's being questioned. It's the trope you constructed to reach this objective -- it marks you as a anemic writer. Children are not as a class grossly immature. It was sloppy of you to suggest they are. Such a comment signals to editors the writer is an imbecile. >> You do not, Peter. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and turn again and rend you". If you try very hard you might see some > relevance in the allusion. It's not an "allusion," you dumb f.ck; it's a quote. An allusion is a reference, within a literary work, to another work of fiction, a film, a piece of art or even a real event. It is not a quote because ... well, because a quote is a quote. Got that, stupido? >> There you have it, Peter Grove -- although not functionally illiterate, >> you're certainly no writer nor a person who knows anything at all about [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Peter Groves Peter, you don't have three comic books to your credit,let alone three books. You've never published anything in your life and you never will publish anything in your life. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he can >write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received here, I would >advise him to take up writing for children: they won't notice his >hair-raising ignorance, they won't care that he can't write, and his gross >emotional immaturity will put him right on their level. Hey! That's a gross calumny of children. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he can >> write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received here, I would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hey! That's a gross calumny of children. I know I shouldn't, but: http://riclanders.com/ <quote> “Yes, of course, Herr Doctor,” said Shackleton, using the German term because he understood enough German to know it was the correct way to refer to a German doctor. </quote> SignatureDavid >>> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he >>> can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > refer to a German doctor. > </quote> Perhaps it's a bad assumption on my part, but I've got many references to "Herr doctor" here: http://tinyurl.com/9o39n4 SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ [the purgation of trollery] >> I know I shouldn't, but: >> http://riclanders.com/ >> <quote> >> “Yes, of course, Herr Doctor,” said Shackleton, using the German >> term because he understood enough German to know it was the >> correct way to refer to a German doctor. >> </quote> > Perhaps it's a bad assumption on my part, but I've got many > references to "Herr doctor" here: > http://tinyurl.com/9o39n4 It wouldn't affect the pronunciation much, but the German title would be spelled "Herr Doktor" (797,000 estimated googlehits, to 193,000 for your search, or 79,000 for it if you put the words in quotation marks, to fetch only sites that have the words together). My vanished German doesn't remind me if the title is used in addressing MDs, the word for that kind of doctor being "Artzt", I believe. I suppose it would be, if they had a doctorate (I gather Germans are quite punctilious in the matter of correct titles), but I don't know, either, how likely that would have been at the time you are writing about. [...] > It wouldn't affect the pronunciation much, but the German title would > be spelled "Herr Doktor" (797,000 estimated googlehits, to 193,000 for > your search, or 79,000 for it if you put the words in quotation marks, > to fetch only sites that have the words together). Whether it affects the pronunciation depends on who's saying it. The letter "c" (which doesn't really exist on it's own in German and occurs only in imported words or combined as "ch") is often pronounced like a hard "zed". One of my colleagues asked me once whether the English for "Gurke" was "zuzumber". > My vanished German doesn't remind me if the title is used in > addressing MDs, the word for that kind of doctor being "Artzt", I > believe. I suppose it would be, if they had a doctorate (I gather > Germans are quite punctilious in the matter of correct titles), but I > don't know, either, how likely that would have been at the time you > are writing about. Someone with the medical qualification alone is an "Arzt" (not "Artzt") and does not have the title of "Doktor"; this must be acquired separately by submitting a dissertation and having this accepted. These days, I would say that most doctors do this and are therefore also Doktor. Strictly speaking, a doctor (Arzt) without a Doktor-Titel should be addressed only as Herr Meier (assuming he is called "Meier", of course), but in my experience, most people say "Herr Doktor" to their doctor without giving the matter any further thought. SignatureLes (BrE) >[the purgation of trollery] > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >don't know, either, how likely that would have been at the time you >are writing about. The character in question is a Baron; the "Royal physician". Wouldn't "Baron" carry over to the title rather than "Herr" since "Herr" is the equivalent of "Mister"? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [...] > The character in question is a Baron; the "Royal physician". > Wouldn't "Baron" carry over to the title rather than "Herr" since > "Herr" is the equivalent of "Mister"? The following might be useful to you next time you meet or write to a member of the German or Austrian aristocracy who has qualified as a doctor -- taken from <http://www.wispor.de/wpx-tit.htm> For the titles Baron/Baronin, Graf/Gräfin, Edler/Edle, Freiherr(in the address only: Freiherrn von ...)/Freifrau; Fürst/Fürstin; Herzog/Herzogin; Prinz/Prinzessin; Ritter: Spoken: Good afternoon Dr. Baron(in) von XYZ ... (Herr or Frau omitted) Written: Herrn Dr. [first name] Baron von XYZ Dear Dr. Baron von XYZ ... (Herr omitted) (Frau Dr. Baronin analagously) "Herr" or "Frau" is used in addition for all other ranks of the aristocracy. Honorary doctorates are treated in the same way as "real" doctorates. Several doctorates may be abbreviated to "DDr." or "Dr. mult." There's also lots of good stuff here: <http://www.orthopedia-shop.de/glossar/lexikon-Anrede> Relevant to the literary masterpiece at hand is: [quote (translated)] Note: The forms of address "Herr Graf" and "Herr Baron" were mostly used only by servants and are now out of date! [endquote] Also of interest: [quote (translated)] In Austria, the use of academic or official titles in the form of address is almost compulsory; in present-day Germany this is not taken so seriously. Aristocratic titles are forbidden in Austria; in Germany they are allowed as an addition to the surname, but are frequently used wrongly in the popular press and within the institutions. [endquote] The fact that aristocratic titles are forbidden in Austria impresses neither the owners of such nor their "Untertanen", both of whom frequently carry on as if the First World War had never taken place. SignatureLes (BrE) >>>> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he >>>> can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Perhaps it's a bad assumption on my part, but I've got many references > to "Herr doctor" here: It's not a bad assumption. It's a clumsy sentence which seems to be trying to telegraph the cleverness of the author. Leave "Herr Doktor" in, sure, but I would give up the explanation. Or put something like "... attempting to flatter the German". SignatureDavid >>>>> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he >>>>> can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > in, sure, but I would give up the explanation. Or put something like > "... attempting to flatter the German". You're so full of crap your eyes are brown. Where do you blockheads get this stuff? The sentence is perfectly-executed, you nincompoop. You have no idea what you're talking -- none! And excuse me for going off like that, but this endless stream of ignorance is too much. You guys have absolutely no grasp of quality prose, none whatsoever, you keep forcing your stupid, uninformed opinions on me. Entire threads are going off in a different direction because chowderheads like you are making these totally uninformed comments about something you know nothing about. >"It's a clumsy sentence which seems to be > trying to telegraph the cleverness of the author." "...trying to telegraph the cleverness of the author" ...? Do you know how stupid that is? What are trying to say, you moron? Your sentence makes no sense. Why would an author try to "telegraph his cleverness"? YOU IDIOT! EG EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ "elanders" wrote [...] > "...trying to telegraph the cleverness of the author" ...? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why would an author try to "telegraph his cleverness"? Only you, of course, could know your motives for trying to do so; it is apparent, however, that you've failed miserably in your attempt. > YOU IDIOT! > >>>>> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he > >>>>> can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The sentence is perfectly-executed, you nincompoop. You mean, apart from misspelling Doktor and failing to capitalize it? Not to mention the clunky and unnecessary bollix about "understanding enough German" und so weiter. Honestly, you throw a guy a lifebelt and he accuses you of trying to brain him. Except in Ric's case, the sine qua non seems to be absent. Will. >>> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he >>> can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > refer to a German doctor. > </quote> And another thing with these no-nothing morons, they've all adopted this uber-clever way of flagging bad prose: they quote it without commentary like this Omrud moron does above. Presumably, the idea is only people as clever as he is will see the howler. One thing the idiot overlooked, though -- there's no howler. In fact, there's nothing with the quoted text at all which explains why no one has noticed anything. Except him ... No offense, Omrud, but you're a f.cking idiot. EG SignatureRiclanders Dot Com http://riclanders.com/ >> If this poor creature still cherishes the pathetic delusion that he >> can write creatively, after all the helpful advice he's received [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hey! That's a gross calumny of children. And against children's writers. It's actually very difficult to write for children: I'm quite good at fabricating a bedtime story out of nothing, but putting it on paper convincingly is a very different matter. Glanders hasn't got the empathy or the clarity. SignatureMike. |
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.