Word of Mouth  permalink

Unrepentant pedant.

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 70
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Heterodox (U8386407) on Saturday, 17th May 2008

    Topics here never run for very long before someone airs the view that correct usage is all a matter of opinion and it's all of no consequence anyway. I think it does matter and, to make my point, I would cite the example of a book I've just been reading. Set in Mesopotamia during WWI, we have one British officer speaking to another about a third; he says 'Well, he will follow his own agenda'. That is so crudely insensitive to period it jerks one away from the imaginary landscape that the author had sought to create and it's rather like the film breaking in an old-fashioned cinema. From a drama in a hot, stony wasteland we are returned to a stamping, catcalling, and frustrated present. This author, it must be said, had rather antagonised me already by having the officers, who would almost certainly have received an education in classics at public school, referring to 'a pair of binoculars'. Now my objections to this last, I know, make me a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff rather than criticising someone else's.I don't care.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Saturday, 17th May 2008

    Your interesting comments on anachronistic dialogue don't seem to have any connection with 'correct usage'.

    Personally, I don't consider this mythical entity 'all a matter of opinion'. It's a matter of indoctrination in youth leading to prejudice against the way other people speak.

    There are a number of forms which are OUT OF PLACE in particular social situations or in particular contexts -- such as formal prose. Your 'follow his own agenda' and 'pair of binoculars' are OUT OF TIME.

    What you call 'incorrect usage' is perfectly correct elsewhere. Like a weed, it's a useful plant in the wrong place.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Saturday, 17th May 2008

    To heteredox3 re. your M1

    'he will follow his own agenda'

    This, in your context, and as you probably know, is an 'anachronism'. According to a BBC reporter last year this term is correctly applied to something that the BBC regards as 'out of date', like the Varsity Boat Race. Bit topsy-turvy, I think.

    There is also the apparently sponsored 'anachronism' of the BBC, e.g. in new translations or abridgements of books commissioned where one can readily spot these modern improvements, or sore thumbs as we might call them. One should be alerted, I suppose, by the phrase, 'specially commissioned'.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Attila the Pun (U2369758) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    ...a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff...  HIS own stuff, surely!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by PatrickBrompton (U2519059) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    Those with an aversion to anachronism must find Shakespeare hard going.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    To PatrickBrompton re. your M5

    Yes, but WS is a special case, if only in that he is inevitably referred to when 'anachronism' is discussed. Anyway, I heard a story of a group of foreign students who put a typewriter into Scrooge's office. Should we all do it?

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by PatrickBrompton (U2519059) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    I heard a story of a group of foreign students who put a typewriter into Scrooge's office. Should we all do it?  

    No, I am unable to think of any compelling reason why we should all contrive to install a typewriter in Scrooge's office.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    heterodox3
    during WWI, we have one British officer speaking to another about a third; he says 'Well, he will follow his own agenda'.  
    Sorry, folks, I don't see the anachronism. Etymology has this:
    Agenda 1657, from L., lit. "things to be done," from neut. pl. of agendum, gerundive of agere (see act). Originally theological (opposed to matters of belief), sense of "items of business to be done at a meeting" first attested 1882.

    So "follow his own agenda" would be, if not current, at least a possible expression in 1914-1919.

    the officers, who would almost certainly have received an education in classics at public school, referring to 'a pair of binoculars'.   Although binoculars - or binocular telescopes appeared around 1608, it seems true that they were not referred to as a "pair" until recent years. Around 1914-1919, as far as I can see, they were referred to as "a binocular".

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    To PatrickBrompton re. your M7

    I didn't think you would have. However you do raise the matter of 'compelling reasons'. There must have been some such behind one of Orwell's essays I saw with US spellings inserted throughout. Another type of anachronism. Like perhaps those of some writers for the BBC? They can't all be innocent mistakes.

    Or am I seeing too many dreads under the bed?

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Habook (U3328086) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    Had he written, 'that chap will has his own head, what?' It might have been period, with class overtones, but now how many would understand it and get the inferences?

    Sadly this distressing tendency of the language to keep mutating too fast cannot be stopped.

    I think you must just accept that it was all a spontaneous translation into Newenglish.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Smin (U2200401) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    'that chap will has his own head, what?' It might have been period, with class overtones, but now how many would understand it[..?]
     


    I don't understand it.


    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    Reply to Message 9 by wimbled
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    one of Orwell's essays I saw with US spellings inserted throughout
     

    Surely it's standard practice for publishers to observe their own spelling conventions, not those of their authors.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by JB (U11805502) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    When publishing anything written in English outside the USA, US publishers will 'pass an American typewriter' over it, chainging not only spellings (as a British publisher would with a US text) but often also any unfamiliar references to taps rather than faucets, nappies not daipers, etc.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    To D.Crosbie re. your M12 & JB, M13

    I am not referring to anybody's standard practice, (on which anyway, I have some experience). I am objecting to it, in this case on behalf of Eric Blair, who is otherwise engaged.

    And on this particular item, I did express my objection last year, in this case to the overseas publishers. I received an immediate full apology from them, and an undertaking to revise this item as a matter of urgency.

    It is simply not true, anyway, that UK publishers edit US texts. In one particular case, not only was the US text not edited, but the author was British. Presumably he had been edited by the US publishers. Reminds me of the situation on extradition. That operates one way too. I wonder why that should be so, or do I?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    To Preacher re. your M8

    To be fair to the OP, a distinction needs to be made, perhaps, between the 'free' expression of the term, 'following his own agenda', where by 'free' I am referring to the words in their literal meaning, and the same expression used as a 'set expression' used in this case to mean something much looser like 'doing his own thing'.

    In the first case, a real agenda is being referred to. In the second, obviously there isn't one. The etymology refers to the first, and is possibly irrelevant here.

    And of course it is only quite recently that use of the second has proliferated. It is the modern usage to which the OP presumably expresses an objection.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    ...a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff...  HIS own stuff, surely!  NO, Attila!

    There's a strange modern belief that 'who' has to be third person, but that never used to be the case.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Sunday, 18th May 2008

    Why 'his', and not 'her' or 'their', anyway?

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    That's easy, aqua - because pedants are nearly always men.

    But my point stands: the relative pronoun can be any person, but for some reason, these days we like to confine it to the third.

    That's probably why the latest Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer has 'Our Father in Heaven' - they balked at 'which (or who) art', couldn't bear 'who are', but stopped short of 'who is'.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by mark_s (U2341829) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    There's a strange modern belief that 'who' has to be third person, but that never used to be the case. 

    "I who have nothing".

    Mark

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Who am I?

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Reply to Message 18 by JenHartick
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    and Message 19 by cables
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...


    here's a strange modern belief that 'who' has to be third person, but that never used to be the case.
     

    "I who have nothing".
     

    I think the situation is that in contemporary English we're happy with http://who after Ist and 2nd person pronouns -- but not after noun phrases co-referring to 1st and 2nd person entities.

    So not:

    * 'Shirley Bassey who have nothing press my nose against the window pane.'

    *'Mark, who call yourself "cables".'

    The AV and Book of Common Prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven' is fine because it's archaic. 'Our Father who are in Heaven' just sounds silly.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    "I who have nothing".

    Mark 

    I was looking for a clip of that, Mark - I think it's unusual though, don't you?

    And aqua - can you not distinguish netween a relative pronoun and an interrogative? Tsk.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by mark_s (U2341829) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    I was looking for a clip of that, Mark - I think it's unusual though, don't you? 

    Very - I was puzzled by that title when I was a child as it didn't seem right (for want of a better word).

    Mark

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    The AV and Book of Common Prayer 'Our Father who art in Heaven' is fine because it's archaic. 'Our Father who are in Heaven' just sounds silly.  Which was my point exactly, David. Why does it sound silly? Why have we decided to restrict what relative pronouns may do?

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    < And aqua - can you not distinguish netween a relative pronoun and an interrogative? Tsk. >

    All I was saying is I can't remember who I am.

    Now, is that 'who' a relative or an interrogative? Safer just to call it a pronoun, no?

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    It's an interrogative in indirect speech. The whole clause it contains is the object of 'remember'.

    If it were a relative, it would have to refer to something in the previous clause; but while 'who' may indeed be the same person as the original 'I', they're not grammatically related.

    And since you are not sure, how can we be?

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    ...The whole clause it contains... 
    ...that contains it...

    (relative pronoun in the wrong case...))

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    It seems to have gone by unremarked that the phrase is not 'archaic' by any dictionary explanation. It is in extensive and daily use. I suppose 'archaic' is now to be taken to mean 'old'. But so too is 'old'. And 'young' too. Ancient and modern, even.

    Also unremarked is that the correct version, the one most respond to from my experience, is '... which art ...'.

    I think this is yet again the obsession with the individual words of phrases. Over-analysis, over and over again.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    < It's an interrogative in indirect speech. The whole clause it contains is the object of 'remember'.

    If it were a relative, it would have to refer to something in the previous clause; but while 'who' may indeed be the same person as the original 'I', they're not grammatically related.

    And since you are not sure, how can we be? >

    Ockham is who I am for the moment, Jean.

    Is it helpful to have categories of pronoun? To me, 'who' is a word I can use in three main ways. The third way is shown in 'Bring who you want (to the party)'. I know not whether that's relative or indirectly interrogative. As it makes no difference to me what it is, I'm happy just to recognise it as a pronoun.

    But I may think differently when I'm feeling more myself.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Is it helpful to have categories of pronoun? To me, 'who' is a word I can use in three main ways.  Categories, ways of using - same thing, really.

    It helps me no end to stick labels of things.

    Of course the relative and the interrogative are related(!) - in slightly different ways in different languages (hence the difficulty my Polish students had in grasping that 'who' could be a relative but 'what' could not).

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Reply to Message 24 by JeanHartrick
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Why does it sound silly? Why have we decided to restrict what relative pronouns may do?
     

    My guess is that the verb after http://who has become embroiled in a more general rule...

    In contemporary English

    -- http://am never occurs without http://I.

    -- http://are as 2nd person never occurs without http://you

    -- http://are as 1st person plural never occurs without http://we

    In these simple cases, http://I or http://you or http://we is the obligatory subject of the clause.

    [I can hear you already making the contrast with Italian.]

    Recentish changes have extended the rule so that the pronoun is demanded (as antecedent) -- even when clause has a pukka grammatical subject, namely http://who.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Reply to Message 28 by wimbled
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    the phrase is not 'archaic' by any dictionary explanation.
     

    If 'http://art' isn't archaic, I don't know what is.

    the correct version, the one most respond to from my experience, is '... which art ...'.
     

    Yes, thank you for that. I remember again as soon as I see it. I had a vague feeling that I was misquoting.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Also unremarked is that the correct version, the one most respond to from my experience, is '... which art ...'.  Please see my msg 18, wimbled, where I gave you the original BCP 'which' as well as the more modern alternative 'who', in discussing the more recent Catholic complete omission of the relative pronoun.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by jackntland (U5421248) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    I would cite the example of a book I've just been reading. Set in Mesopotamia during WWI, we have one British officer speaking to another about a third; he says 'Well, he will follow his own agenda'. That is so crudely insensitive to period it jerks one away from the imaginary landscape that the author had sought to create and it's rather like the film breaking in an old-fashioned cinema. From a drama in a hot, stony wasteland we are returned to a stamping, catcalling, and frustrated present. This author, it must be said, had rather antagonised me already by having the officers, who would almost certainly have received an education in classics at public school, referring to 'a pair of binoculars'. Now my objections to this last, I know, make me a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff rather than criticising someone else's.I don't care. 

    Your logic and your argument are excellent I have just one question.

    At what point in History should we stop with period language authenticity thing?

    E.g. Its very unlikely that Good King Richard (of Robinhood fame) ever spoke a word of English in any dialect. Should perhaps all media al la Mr Gibson's "Passion of Christ" seek to use the real language(s) of day and place they set in.

    More importantly on language use is I feel is that Hollywood and others (including sadly the BBC itself) should stop giving us the impression that Foreigners, apparently even between themselves speak English with cliched accented English Ve hav Vays of.. etc.

    It just my opinion but I have always found this much more annoying and distracting from any authenticity than wondering whether period idioms and language use was accurate. It can infact never be.

    With this I would argue that in real life people in the past would have used thousands of idiomatic words and phrases no longer current. And there exact meaning and scope are now often lost.
    In trying to use such phrases there is a risk of using them inappropriately or putting the wrong emphasis on words.

    For me it makes sense, to give the impresssion of unaffected speech, that the use modern langauge is acceptable. e.g. phone where telephone might have been used, or radio for wireless. Or someone in the book you refer to using a term like "It would be hassle". There was likely a similar less formal word for nuscience available back which is probably lost, using it now could for many simply distract, rather than create atmosphere.

    Language does change and we have to adapt.

    For example when we you read Chaucer in its Victorian translation most today get much more out of it that struggling through his middle English original.
    Nevertheless it is true much of his meaning and more certainly colour was lost in making him accpetable to educated Victorians.

    His regular use of words unacceptable to Visctorian sensibilties e.g.of the "C" word were purged, along with plain references to the sex act. They were right to do this for their age. The words would have offended many in plain translation.

    We should perhaps retranslate him for our age and so reintroduce some of the authenticity ripped out by Victorians.

    I think good literature often convey impressions and moods rather than totally accurate pictures.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    To jackintland re. your M34

    With respect to the broader issues you raise, I don't see them as having much relevance to the OP, which is concerned with changes is usage within the past one hundred years, and this in a language which, despite all we are told, has not changed all that much.

    Anyway, in so far some minimum periods are concerned, then certainly one hundred years would be one such for me. As a minimum, I would expect texts to be authentic. There are several good reasons for this and other posters might respond to this.

    There is one for attention. That is that there should be the same sort of awareness of such language of the recent past as there is of the languages of other countries, notably English-speaking countries, in modern times. Such an argument applies to all such countries considered individually.

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    To jackintland re. your M34

    There is the other point that you are being a bit hard on 'the Victorians'. It was Dryden who made the first substantial translation of Chaucer, in his own words, effectively, 'for our more refined age'. And anyway, by then Chaucer was some 300 years old, and the language, not just the 'smut', had changed very substantially.

    His project did encounter vigorous criticism, by the way. Chaucer was held in such regard.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    To JeanHartrick re. your M33

    Sorry, I don't know why I missed your M18. Odd that the Catholic church should wish to be less catholic. And the Anglicans are now using the Taizé service with Latin, German and Polish.

    On your 'pedants are nearly always men' might this be because some, at least, like to stand on their own feet, while in politics at least, the 'feminine gender' are more like, well, babes. Rocking the cradle, in some cases, but not the boats? Just curious.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    On your 'pedants are nearly always men' might this be because some, at least, like to stand on their own feet, while in politics at least, the 'feminine gender' are more like, well, babes. 
    No, it's not that at all - it's more that men are anally-retentive control freaks.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by aquaticNickster (U6781871) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Lest no-one credits it, let me validate your statement by agreeing with you.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Ah, so mother's aren't control freaks then, that's not my experience or that of my friends.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    To JeanHartrick

    If this is one of those superior jokes which need explaining, I'm not sure that I'm desperate to know. Curiosity notwithstanding. On my own feet, of course.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    I think the situation is that in contemporary English we're happy with who after Ist and 2nd person pronouns -- but not after noun phrases co-referring to 1st and 2nd person entities.

    So not:

    * 'Shirley Bassey who have nothing press my nose against the window pane.'

    *'Mark, who call yourself "cables".' 

    Interesting, David.

    But for a second person verb to work you have to be addressing the pronoun-referent. The second example seems OK to me but the first won't do because of that 'my'.

    But what about the OP:

    Now my objections to this last, I know, make me a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff...  I should have thought there were quite enough first person pronouns around (even if not subject ones) for that to read easily as intended.

    Perhaps Attila will come back to comment?

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by albback (U11643252) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    Re. the OP. I agree with what you say about an inappropriate turn of phrase appearing in a work of fiction set in the past. The difficulty is though, authors have got to try and maintain some level of realism but they've also got to make the dialogue "snappy" for a modern audience. The result, authors use dialogue that sounds old rather than is. The reason being that they don't know old ways of speaking well enough to duplicate old language in all its subtleties, and also, they need to make themselves understood to the modern audience.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Monday, 19th May 2008

    I see now the first one is meant to be first person - the problem then is that it is so unusual to refer to yourself by name rather than by means of a pronoun!

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008

    Reply to Message 42 by JeanHartrick
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...


    * 'Shirley Bassey who have nothing press my nose against the window pane.'
     

    won't do because of that 'my'.
     

    Try this:

    I Shirley Bassey who have nothing press my nose against the window pane.

    The difference is the presence or absence of antecedent 'http://I'.


    But what about the OP”

    Now my objections to this last, I know, make me a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff...?
     

     

    Again, it’s the antecedent – in this case 'http://me'.

    Contrast this:

    * What would you think of a nit-picking, hair-splitting, casuist; a fully paid-up pedant who ought to be writing my own stuff...?

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by JeanHartrick (U2756124) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008

    * 'Shirley Bassey who have nothing press my nose against the window pane.' 
    This won't do only because, as I pointed out, you would never normally refer to yourself by name without a pronoun in addition.

    You're making (I think) the point that the antecedent 'me' renders the OP acceptable. But the whole point of ALL of this is that it was the OP with its antecendent 'me' that struck Attila as unlikely to be penned by the true pedant - so he wanted to change 'my' to 'his'.

    (Where IS Attila?)

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by wimbled (U10335297) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008

    To D.Crosbie re. your M45

    I'm not quite following this, but were the word 'casuist' to be followed by 'like me', the grammar would appear to follow correctly.

    And this could be ellipsis, which might anyway be implied.

    Or is this the point being made or already posted?

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008

    Reply to Message 47 by wimbled
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    were the word 'casuist' to be followed by 'like me', the grammar would appear to follow correctly.
    ...
    Or is this the point being made or already posted?
     

    Well, it's the point I was trying to make -- without the intervening stiff about ellipsis.

    My example REMOVED antecedent http://me from the original. Your addition creates a third sentence, but it resembles the original in having http://me as antecedent to http://who.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008

    Reply to Message 46 by JeanHartick
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    This won't do only because, as I pointed out, you would never normally refer to yourself by name without a pronoun in addition.
     

    Try this:

    * You see before you Ebenezer Scrooge who am truly the most remorseful of men.

    Now translate it into Italian and Polish.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by David Crosbie (U2338765) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008

    Correction to Message 48
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    without the intervening stiff about ellipsis.
     

    Make that 'intervening stuff'.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

This was the BBC Radio 4 messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The Radio 4 messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Other BBC Messageboards

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.