XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:43:25 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:
>On 8/29/2011 3:35 PM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:55:29 +0100, Adam Funk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-08-29, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Leslie Danks wrote:
>>>>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-08-28, Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm half inclined to think that may catch on eventually. The folks on
>>>>>>> the BBC already say "cannons" as the plural of "cannon". A.U.E. has
>>>>>>> often noted that many little lumps and bumps of our language are being
>>>>>>> smoothed out: "slayed" instead of "slew", a chciken is most often
>>>>>>> "deboned" instead of "boned" -- that kind of thing.
>>>>>> Well, it is a bit of faff to remember which of those plain verbs refer
>>>>>> to removal (boning chickens, stoning olives). We need a good Germanic
>>>>>> prefix equivalent to German "ent-" to disambiguate these things.
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> There us "entrail" for trains.
>>>>>
>>>> I read this immediately after your posting about tube stew. I'm glad I'd
>>>> already finished my evening meal.
>>>
>>> For the sake of AUE you could at least have said "supper", "dinner",
>>> "tea", or whatever.
>>
>> You suggesting he lacks pluck?
>>
>Not that I'm an admirer of Alfred Lord T, but I really actually recalled
>"cannons to the right of them" and had to look up the poem to find it
>was "cannon".
As it happens, I think it was that one that fixed the conventional
plural in my young mind: I particularly remember Miss Taylor reading
it out with relish, and her meaningful rallentando and knowing look on
"cannon BEHIND them". I suppose a class today would react by shouting
"Oh, no it isn't!"
One shouldn't misunderestimate Alf, but somehow I never get round to
reading him properly.
--
Mike.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
