rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Keith

I agree that many expressions common in 17th century England have completely disappeared here, only to manage to survive in north America, where the language has gradually developed completely separately (until modern times) on either side of the Atlantic.

As you say, "gotten" is certainly one of these (and I have to agree there is something a little brutish about "got") but because this and other expressions ("fall" for autumn, for example, as well as many others) have not really been used in this country for several hundred years, I certainly think of them as introductions (or re-introductions) from across the pond. Not surprisingly, with the speed and power of modern communications, the rate of imports increases all the time. I've twice heard the expression "gotten" by a non-American in the media in this country during the last few months, without ever having done so before, so perhaps that's the next import.

The imports are so frequent nowadays that they're hard to monitor, especially if arriving gradually. For example, whereas once we would always say "I haven't got a pen" we now increasingly hear (especially among the young, obviously) "I don't have a pen" and have done for some while now. Perhaps even this American style of speaking also survives from 17th century England, I don't know! Because "got" has, in the past, often been used in other contexts when a more attractive word would do better, I suspect the usual and acceptable use of the word (as above) has been and will be gradually discouraged now that an alternative has arrived.

I can just see the Pilgrim Fathers in my mind's eye, as they prepare for their first Thanksgiving: "We don't have a summer any more, but we've gotten a fall." (Three clear linguistic differences in just a dozen words). Vive la difference!

Peter


Last edited by Peter Ewart on Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
Just to mention an item on culture that I've been noticing.....


I think, at this time because of increased communications, that there's a fair amount of "cross-pollination" so to speak between us and the "mother country" when it comes to langauge. Not sure how it is over there but more and more I see and hear more commercials that have English accents here. Right now, I don't really hear an "English" accent emanating from the mouths of denizens here in the streets but if you ask me I give it a few years and we'll be hearing some sort of a language called "Amerilinglish" caused by some sort of unconcsious mimciry of the Brit accent. And who wouldn't want it since it, perhaps stereotypically it confers an upper "class" mien and the one affecting it , eh?... Cool

So goodbye and chin, chin,I'm off to Torquay to see the wildebeasts.... Cool ......
Simon Rosbottom


Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 287
Location: London, UK
Reply with quote
Rich,

My particular Trans-Atlanguage peeve is the overuse of "out" as a suffix.

They won out, is it closed out? for example.

Worryingly noted to be creeping into BBC news reports..... more on that, later.

I hear the Hanging Gardens of Bablylon in Torquay are lovely at this time of year.....

_________________
Simon
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Simon

Or "to check it out " these days instead of simply to "check it", as we once would. By far the most serious grammatically (and surely the worst on the ear) is the use of "like" instead of "as if" or "as though" - and this, too, perpetrated by all sorts of people who should know better, including the BBC! After ten or twenty years, it's too late to reverse it now, I fear.

Still, it's not like it really matters, as they might say today! I don't know ... all this, and the Empire's gone to the dogs, too.

Peter Wink
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
heh heh..very good there fellows...

And just an observation.....


I get BBC America here and like to watch it. I pick up their news at night. Well, right now I'm kind of stunned beacuse they have this fellow on who is a reporter and a bit different than Alastair Yates. Mr. Yates fits my idea of a correspondent/anchor on tv, you know? Now this guy just looks like he was from some 'shire I don't know and graduated from "Tommy's School of US Broadcasting". This fellows' head is constantly bobbing (I think for EMPHASIS if you get the drift) His face contorts as he enunciates his sing-song sentences and reminds me of a carnival barker making his way through fern and fen... Cool. Oh man I'm just thinking that the producers believe that Americans would like that kind of "reporting". I don't know. I'm going to see how long he lasts...... Wink..Please say hello to Mr. Yates for me if you see him in the streets!...
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Some of my (least) favourite grammatical (mis)usages:

- "different to", when what is meant is "different from"
- the plural "phemonena" used instead of the singular "phenomenon"
- the split infinitive ("Nice to finally meet you," etc.), which I believe is enforced by law in the US
- the complete disappearance of the contraction "there're" (for "there are", obviously) and its substitution by "there's" even when what is being referred to is a plural, e.g., "There's many people..."

Oh, I could go on all day... And Peter, what exactly is it belonging to the Pilgrim Father that you can see in your mind's eye??

(Memo to self: don't begin sentences with "And"...)
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
One thing I notice is the word "losing". I don't know what's going on but I see editors letting the word spelled as "loosing" go through in copy. Now I'm wonder if this is the "new" way of spelling it?.. Wink
Keith Smith


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 540
Location: Northern NSW, Australia
Reply with quote
To continue off this thread, does anyone else bridle at the use of 'hone in' instead of 'home in'?

KIS
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sheldon

Yes, the modern there're/there's development rivals the like/as if disaster. It is my joint most notorious grammatical annoyance. I don't know why it has happened during these last few years but the turnround seems virtually complete. Every time I hear someone say "There's lots of things we can do about it" or "There's three injured players out of the team" I wince.

Of course, as our household's confirmed "grumpy old man" when it comes to disliking this sort of thing, I have had to resolve to keep my mouth shut and just retain my determination not to give in by following the downward path myself. What seems important to us is clearly of no consequence to many. As they might well say (and do!): "Get a life - nobody died." I would, of course, much prefer them to say "Nobody has died" but we're losing that one, too, just as we hear "He just did" all the time nowadays instead of "He just has" (but split infinitive?) or "He just has done."

No doubt, like many others, you have probably given up grimacing at the supposed verb "to access" which has long become entrenched after raising its ugly head about 25 years ago. Verbs for nouns and nouns for verbs - ugh! "But it's a living, organic language and communication is the key!" Oh, all right then. (My "But" here will even out your "And")

There're lots of others. Wink

Pilgrim Fathers, Sheldon. Plural. Look carefully. Now come on, you don't think I'd allow an errant inverted comma to slip in there somewhere, do you?

Peter

PS. Thank goodness for the editing facility! Wink

PPS: "Would of" instead of "would have"?
Even "bored of" (heard recently) instead of "bored with" or "tired of"!
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
diagralex


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 208
Location: Broomfield, Essex
Reply with quote
Why does the following spring to mind ?

"Oh, the're jolly deadly old boy"

"Well done Ardendorff, we will make an Englishman of you yet "

Graham
View user's profileSend private message
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
I could swear I saw a misplaced apostrophe mingling amongst those Pilgrim Fathers yesterday! Am I going mad?! Must find out how this editing thing works...
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
Keith...

You know in terms of usage I think 'hone in' is an appropriate construction. Hone.... from Middle English..."a tool for enlarging holes to precise tolerances and controlling finishes by means of a mechanically rotated abrasive". ...." to make more acute, intense or effective....Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.



And believe it or not you are "honing".... from the Middle French hoigner...to er...grumble......... Very Happy
Simon Rosbottom


Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 287
Location: London, UK
Reply with quote
I have a mental picture of Frank Muir holding opening a folded card with the word "BLUFF" printed on it. Sorry Rich, I'm not buying that - not even for a dollar. For the curious. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/01_january/29/callmybluff.shtml

You are correct in that "hone" means to sharpen something or the means to sharpen. A tool, an implement or even one's skills. To "hone in" is simply gibberish. To "home in (on)" as in "homing missle" or "homing pigeon" is the correct meaning to get closer to a specified destination.

However, I have spotted how you would have reached such a conclusion - Websters. One bloke decides that he's going to change the way English is spelled and a whole nation is led astray. Churchill was indeed correct on the matter.

Isn't it odd how you read, re-read, tinker with and repeatedly spell check posts when you are pontificating on language and grammar.....

Regards

_________________
Simon
View user's profileSend private message
Rich
Guest

Reply with quote
But simon....really HONE is a bona fide word in the English language. And really i don't think I'm tinkering with the spelling! (i.e messing it up with HOME).

And anyway that's a great show..I think I'm going to see if it can get here on Daytime!!! It probably will be. All of our great new shows are coming from Europe!
Sheldon Hall


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 377
Reply with quote
Rich, I think Simon's point was that it was the use of "hone" in conjunction with "in" which he found objectionable, not the word by itself. How pedantic we become once these issues are raised! Not wrong, just pedantic...
View user's profileSend private message
Film memorabilia
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 2 of 4  

  
  
 Reply to topic