Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Iota]

A couple of things in The Wings of The Dove which struck me as somehow inappropriate from the point of view of register -- this is probably a difference between British and American English.

First supercivilised. Using super as an intensifier prefix seems to me popular and modern

She listened so well that she was really listening after he had ceased to speak. He had kept his grasp of her, drawing her close, and though they had again, for the time, stopped walking, his talk—for others at a distance—might have been, in the matchless place, that of any impressed tourist to any slightly more detached companion. On possessing himself of her arm he had made her turn, so that they faced afresh to Saint Mark's, over the great presence of which his eyes moved while she twiddled her parasol. She now, however, made a motion that confronted them finally with the opposite end. Then only she spoke—"Please take your hand out of my arm." He understood at once: she had made out in the shade of the gallery the issue of the others from their place of purchase. So they went to them side by side, and it was all right. The others had seen them as well and waited for them, complacent enough, under one of the arches. They themselves too—he argued that Kate would argue—looked perfectly ready, decently patient, properly accommodating. They themselves suggested nothing worse—always by Kate's system—than a pair of the children of a supercivilized age making the best of an awkwardness. Volume 2 Bk 8 Chapter 2


And secondly well aloof -- kids in school might say that their teacher is well boring, but using well as intensifier isn't the sort of thing I'd have expected to find in Henry James.

It would be accepting the disagreeable, and the disagreeable would be a proof; a proof of his not having stayed for the thing--the agreeable, as it were--that Kate had named. The thing Kate had named was not to have been the odium of staying in spite of hints. It was part of the odium as actual too that Kate was, for her comfort, just now well aloof. These were the first hours since her flight in which his sense of what she had done for him on the eve of that event was to incur a qualification. Volume 2 Book 9 Chapter 2

I must say, I read those rather differently .. 'Supercivilised', to me implies over civilised, rather than 'very', and in that sense seems an elegant way of expressing it. And 'well' aloof is surely just another way of saying well above, i.e. a short version of 'well aloof from'. Very different from 'well boring' which is so punchy just because it's such a grammatical gear crash. All imho of course.

[Mandryka]

I must say, I read those rather differently .. 'Supercivilised', to me implies over civilised, rather than 'very', and in that sense seems an elegant way of expressing it. And 'well' aloof is surely just another way of saying well above, i.e. a short version of 'well aloof from'. Very different from 'well boring' which is so punchy just because it's such a grammatical gear crash. All imho of course.

Yes, I thought of well above, or well out of it, afterwards.

Supercivilised still sounds odd to me in the mouth of an Edwardian gentleman. But a brief internet search reveals it goes back to 1824!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supercivilized

[Karl Henning]

An ad for a retirement advisory service warns of "ebs and flows."

[steve ridgway]

Houses starting at £1,850,000 don't get any more attention to detail than less expensive homes .

[Mandryka]

Houses starting at £1,850,000 don't get any more attention to detail than less expensive homes .

The only known use of the verb elavate is in the late 1500s. OED's only evidence for elavate is from 1599, in a translation by A. M.

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/elavate_v?tl=true

I don't pay the subscription so I don't actually know what elavate means.

[Cato]

I must say, I read those rather differently .. 'Supercivilised', to me implies over civilised, rather than 'very', and in that sense seems an elegant way of expressing it. And 'well' aloof is surely just another way of saying well above, i.e. a short version of 'well aloof from'. Very different from 'well boring' which is so punchy just because it's such a grammatical gear crash. All imho of course.

One treads carefully, when one is tempted to quibble with Henry James about the choice of words!


I suspect you are correct about the intent behind both examples.

Yes, I thought of well above, or well out of it, afterwards.

Supercivilised still sounds odd to me in the mouth of an Edwardian gentleman. But a brief internet search reveals it goes back to 1824!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supercivilized

That is a surprise!

An ad for a retirement advisory service warns of "ebs and flows."

Well, at least they had the "w" for flows!

Because here is Eb...




...and here are some Flo's:


 

The only known use of the verb elavate is in the late 1500s. OED's only evidence for elavate is from 1599, in a translation by A. M.

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/elavate_v?tl=true

I don't pay the subscription so I don't actually know what elavate means.

Concerning the misspelling for elevate...

In Latin, very few sources show elavo (to wash away, wash out of).  Possibly the reference from the 1500's is an attempt to add the word into English as another way to say "wash away"...


...in an elevated way!      

[Karl Henning]

Not to give him a hard time, because even for educated native speakers, English is almost as much journey as destination ... I smile to hear a chap make erudite a four-syllable word.

[Mandryka]

Not to give him a hard time, because even for educated native speakers, English is almost as much journey as destination ... I smile to hear a chap make erudite a four-syllable word.

Like how some people here say microwavé

[Cato]

Like how some people here say microwavé

Not to give him a hard time, because even for educated native speakers, English is almost as much journey as destination ... I smile to hear a chap make erudite a four-syllable word.

Oh my!  Imagines the great difference between  crudités and crudities    !

Recently, at a vacation cabin in California, an acquaintance needed to call a plumber.  Since the cabin is operated somewhat like a hotel, he worked for the management and was left alone to repair a garbage disposal, while the owner went off on an errand.  When she returned, a crudely lettered note was on the kitchen counter.

" ALL FIXED!  USE ONLY LIQUID'S! "     

Apparently basic grade-school spelling is not needed to join the local plumber's union!  😇

Plus, and much more interesting from the viewpoint of Logic and Ontology: can a garbage disposal be considered "fixed," if only liquids (with or without an apostrophe) are allowed to go through it?   

Can it therefore even be considered a garbage disposal?    

[Karl Henning]

I smile to hear a chap make erudite a four-syllable word.

I should have anticipated how you might reimagine erudite, friends, and not unreasonably. I ought to clarify that he pronounced erudite with two vowels between the 'r' and 'd.'

[steve ridgway]

Oh my!  Imagines the great difference between  crudités and crudities    !

I think in France they have those crudities in a whore's duvet .

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Oh my!  Imagines the great difference between  crudités and crudities    !

Recently, at a vacation cabin in California, an acquaintance needed to call a plumber.  Since the cabin is operated somewhat like a hotel, he worked for the management and was left alone to repair a garbage disposal, while the owner went off on an errand.  When she returned, a crudely lettered note was on the kitchen counter.

" ALL FIXED!  USE ONLY LIQUID'S! "     

Apparently basic grade-school spelling is not needed to join the local plumber's union!  😇

Plus, and much more interesting from the viewpoint of Logic and Ontology: can a garbage disposal be considered "fixed," if only liquids (with or without an apostrophe) are allowed to go through it?   

Can it therefore even be considered a garbage disposal?    

Makes me wonder what someone was putting down there?  Two-inch thick raw broccoli stems?  Bones from a steak?

PD

[T. D.]

This must have appeared upthread, but really bugs me.

When did the apostrophe start designating plural rather than possessive in English?
Here's one I saw today:

Mom's love our bakery.  Consider giving a gift card, tote bag or a special cookie.

For most of my life that would have been considered an embarrassing sign of illiteracy. But now I seem to see it, especially on the Internet, just as often as the normal "Moms". I don't understand how dumbasses could even think that the apostrophe is correct for plural.

As Sports Illustrated used to say, another sign that the Apocalypse is upon us. 🤮

[Cato]

This must have appeared upthread, but really bugs me.

When did the apostrophe start designating plural rather than possessive in English?
Here's one I saw today:

Mom's love our bakery.  Consider giving a gift card, tote bag or a special cookie.

For most of my life that would have been considered an embarrassing sign of illiteracy. But now I seem to see it, especially on the Internet, just as often as the normal "Moms". I don't understand how dumbasses could even think that the apostrophe is correct for plural.

As Sports Illustrated used to say, another sign that the Apocalypse is upon us. 🤮

Many American schools in the past decades - public and private - dropped Phonics in the primary grades. 

Memorization of anything is also considered obsolete, part of the oppressive ancien régime of schoolmarms with sticks.

There is also a philosophy pervading some schools that "letting the child express himself/herself" and not worrying about rules of grammar and spelling is the proper method of language learning.

Sow the wind, reap illiteracy!
As a result, basic spelling rules are not learned.

[Mandryka]

I must say, I have mixed feelings about this. The rules for apostrophes are quite complicated - you have to identify whether it's possessive or a contraction, and if it's possessive you have to decide whether it's singular or plural. I'm not surprised that mistakes happen all the time, I make mistakes often with apostrophes. Personally I don't see the point of them at all, and when I come to power I will banish them forever.

[T. D.]

I agree that apostrophes can be confusing in the cases you mention, but I don't understand how they've come to be (ab)used to indicate simple plurals, like Mom's in the example above.

I got the impression that (apostrophe for plural) started getting popular for acronyms, e.g. CD's or ICBM's (although I question it there, and one can even argue that the 's' is unnecessary and included in, say, "Compact Disc(s)"). Then it seemingly spread.

[Cato]

I agree that apostrophes can be confusing in the cases you mention, but I don't understand how they've come to be (ab)used to indicate simple plurals, like Mom's in the example above.

I got the impression that (apostrophe for plural) started getting popular for acronyms, e.g. CD's or ICBM's (although I question it there, and one can even argue that the 's' is unnecessary and included in, say, "Compact Disc(s)"). Then it seemingly spread.

Certainly that is a good possibility!

I know from my teaching days that too many students will not bother to stop and think about the correct form, and will just use an apostrophe - or not - and hope it is right.

Personally I don't see the point of them at all, and when I come to power I will banish them forever.

   Heh-Heh!

In general, apostrophes show that a letter or letters are missing.

Like German, English used to have an "e" in some possessives, which is why possessives have an 's in the singular.

The plural possessive is another matter, along with things like..

..."Richard Strauss' tone-poems."

Do we want "Richard Strauss's tone-poems" ?

Or "Richard Strauss" tone-poems?

Or just throw up your hands and write "The tone-poems of Richard Strauss" ?   

[Mandryka]

I agree that apostrophes can be confusing in the cases you mention, but I don't understand how they've come to be (ab)used to indicate simple plurals, like Mom's in the example above.

I got the impression that (apostrophe for plural) started getting popular for acronyms, e.g. CD's or ICBM's (although I question it there, and one can even argue that the 's' is unnecessary and included in, say, "Compact Disc(s)"). Then it seemingly spread.

I think that people just get flustered and so decide to put an apostrophe everywhere just to be on the safe side. They possibly think it makes them look intelligent.  When I started learning French I remember doing something similar, I decided to use the subjunctive after every occurrance of que.  Tu vois ce que je veuille dire?

In French some of these annoying things are just beautiful, so everyone loves them. I mean, who wouldn't just adore the circumflex û or the cedilla ç. But the apostrophe is just a silly pain in the butt.