English q

[knight66]

I think I made it clear at the start of this exchange that it was not in universal use in the US, but seems to be used in some places there. But, as I keep saying...not here in the UK.

Mike

[knight66]

I understand "gotten" is archaic in Britain? i.e. "Once upon a time" they said "gotten" there?

That's right. I quoted a dictionary that referred to 'ill gotten gains'. But clearly, it died out here, retained possibly by immigrants to the USA and passed down. We no longer say, 'forsooth' either....the language morphs all the time. But the question was about present usage.

Mike

[Iconito]

That's right. I quoted a dictionary that referred to 'ill gotten gains'. But clearly, it died out here, retained possibly by immigrants to the USA and passed down. We no longer say, 'forsooth' either....the language morphs all the time. But the question was about present usage.

Mike

You no longer say 'forsooth' !!?? 



(Thanks for the explanation, Mike!)

[knight66]

I could bring it back; might be a good mod word. I will huddle with the others.

Mike

[eyeresist]

That's right. I quoted a dictionary that referred to 'ill gotten gains'. But clearly, it died out here, retained possibly by immigrants to the USA and passed down.

I think that's the story behind a number of "Americanisms". "Gotten" is in a lot of old bibles. You don't hear about Jesus being God's "only begot Son", do you?

[karlhenning]

I wouldn't say that's an Americanism, we Americans would instead say: "He had been out of prison for three years since the fatal accident happened."

"He was in The Big House because of certain dubious methods whereby he had acquired his ill-gotten gains." 

[DavidW]

"He was in The Big House because of certain dubious methods whereby he had acquired his ill-gotten gains." 

"Forsooth, he was in The Big House because of certain dubious methods whereby he had acquired his ill-gotten gains."

[Opus106]

Perhaps Sara should use forsooth more often.

[knight66]

That's my word now...hands off. Well Eric did want us to use King's English, I doudt he meant King James though.

Mike

[karlhenning]

Perhaps Sara should use forsooth more often.

Mayhap.

[karlhenning]

If these "smart ads" are so smart, how come correcting english is incorrect?

[Elgarian]

Quote from: Elgarian on August 09, 2009, 10:44:13 PM
Context is everything.

Quote from: Elgarian on August 06, 2009, 02:41:54 PM
Your point above about context doesn't seem to make any difference, to me.

Not that I mean to make a big deal (not even a small deal, actually) out of this, but it caught my attention (you may say I quoted you out of context  )

Only just noticed this. Yes, you quoted me very much out of context. But more entertainingly, I'll reply by quoting Ruskin: 'I am never satisfied that I have handled a subject properly till I have contradicted myself at least three times'.

[Iconito]

Only just noticed this. Yes, you quoted me very much out of context. But more entertainingly, I'll reply by quoting Ruskin: 'I am never satisfied that I have handled a subject properly till I have contradicted myself at least three times'.

Wonderful. If you feel in the mood to revise your last contribution in the “Death” thread, perhaps you’d be satisfied to contradict yourself there (at least the bit where you seemed to totally dismiss my sincere effort to apologize and explain what I really meant to say) I know I’d be satisfied if you did that, so it seems to be a real win-win situation

And since we are going way out of topic, I’ll take the chance to go back to English questions:

Dear members: if someone wanted to start a discussion on the implications (to Life) of Death being final (i.e. assuming there’s no afterlife), what would be the correct way of doing so, in English, without pissing everybody off? Thanks in advance. (No sarcasm here. I’d like to know exactly what I did wrong)

[karlhenning]

Dear members: if someone wanted to start a discussion on the implications (to Life) of Death being final (i.e. assuming there's no afterlife), what would be the correct way of doing so, in English, without pissing everybody off?

With respect for various viewpoints.

[DavidW]

With respect for various viewpoints. bumperstickers.

Fixed.

I kid.  I kid.

[karlhenning]

Fixed.

I kid.  I kid.

I like it!

(You knew I should.)

[Elgarian]

Wonderful. If you feel in the mood to revise your last contribution in the "Death" thread, perhaps you'd be satisfied to contradict yourself there (at least the bit where you seemed to totally dismiss my sincere effort to apologize and explain what I really meant to say) I know I'd be satisfied if you did that, so it seems to be a real win-win situation

I thought I was trying to defuse the situation with a little humour, but you're clearly upset and that wasn't the right thing to do. I've therefore added a comment to the death thread - see post #81 here:
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13795.80.html

I've also put an additional comment in my earlier post in that thread (#47) - the one that upset you. I apologise unreservedly for my contribution to the misunderstanding between us, and I hope we can now leave this behind us.

[arkiv]

Which is correct:

There is a host of factors
There are a host of factors

Thanks

[secondwind]

Dear members: if someone wanted to start a discussion on the implications (to Life) of Death being final (i.e. assuming there's no afterlife), what would be the correct way of doing so, in English, without pissing everybody off? Thanks in advance. (No sarcasm here. I'd like to know exactly what I did wrong)

I think it's been done. It starts off:

Imagine there's no heaven
(it's easy if you try)
no hell below us,
above us only sky . . .


Well, that may have pissed some people off, but not everybody.

[Verena]

Recently I read someone in this forum saying "You have me pegged". Apparently, this is correct English (at least a quick glance at google lists many more examples of "You have me pegged" than "you have pegged me"). Still, the word order sounds archaic to me. Are there other constructions similar to this where the direct object occurs in between "have" and the main verb in the perfect form?
I guess you couldn't say "You have me amused", etc.?