OT/Bea Arthur Dead At 86
crystaline
razor-sharp delivery of comedy lines made her a TV star in the hit
shows "Maude" and "The Golden Girls" and who won a Tony Award for the
musical "Mame," died Saturday. She was 86.
Arthur died peacefully at her Los Angeles home with her family at her
side, family spokesman Dan Watt said. She had cancer, Watt said,
declining to give further details.
"She was a brilliant and witty woman," said Watt, who was Arthur's
personal assistant for six years. "Bea will always have a special
place in my heart."
Arthur first appeared in the landmark comedy series "All in the
Family" as Edith Bunker's loudly outspoken, liberal cousin, Maude
Finley. She proved a perfect foil for blue-collar bigot Archie Bunker
(Carroll O'Connor), and their blistering exchanges were so
entertaining that producer Norman Lear fashioned Arthur's own series.
In a 2008 interview with The Associated Press, Arthur said she was
lucky to be discovered by TV after a long stage career, recalling with
bemusement CBS executives asking about the new "girl."
"I was already 50 years old. I had done so much off-Broadway, on
Broadway, but they said, `Who is that girl? Let's give her her own
series,'" Arthur said.
"Maude" scored with television viewers immediately on its CBS debut in
September 1972, and Arthur won an Emmy Award for the role in 1977.
The comedy flowed from Maude's efforts to cast off the traditional
restraints that women faced, but the series often had a serious base.
Her husband Walter (Bill Macy) became an alcoholic, and she underwent
an abortion, which drew a torrent of viewer protests. Maude became a
standard bearer for the growing feminist movement in America.
Story continues below
The ratings of "Maude" in the early years approached those of its
parent, "All in the Family," but by 1977 the audience started to
dwindle. A major format change was planned, but in early 1978 Arthur
announced she was quitting the show.
"It's been absolutely glorious; I've loved every minute of it," she
said. "But it's been six years, and I think it's time to leave."
"Golden Girls" (1985-1992) was another groundbreaking comedy, finding
surprising success in a television market increasingly skewed toward a
younger, product-buying audience.
The series concerned three retirees _ Arthur, Betty White and Rue
McClanahan _ and the mother of Arthur's character, Estelle Getty, who
lived together in a Miami apartment. In contrast to the violent "Miami
Vice," the comedy was nicknamed "Miami Nice."
As Dorothy Zbornak, Arthur seemed as caustic and domineering as Maude.
She was unconcerned about the similarity of the two roles. "Look _ I'm
5-feet-9, I have a deep voice and I have a way with a line," she told
an interviewer. "What can I do about it? I can't stay home waiting for
something different. I think it's a total waste of energy worrying
about typecasting."
The interplay among the four women and their relations with men fueled
the comedy, and the show amassed a big audience and 10 Emmys,
including two as best comedy series and individual awards for each of
the stars.
In 1992, Arthur announced she was leaving "Golden Girls." The three
other stars returned in "The Golden Palace," but it lasted only one
season.
Arthur was born Bernice Frankel in New York City in 1922. When she was
11, her family moved to Cambridge, Md., where her father opened a
clothing store. At 12 she had grown to full height, and she dreamed of
being a petite blond movie star like June Allyson. There was one
advantage of being tall and deep-voiced: She was chosen for the male
roles in school plays.
Bernice _ she hated the name and adopted her mother's nickname of Bea
_ overcame shyness about her size by winning over her classmates with
wisecracks. She was elected the wittiest girl in her class. After two
years at a junior college in Virginia, she earned a degree as a
medical lab technician, but she "loathed" doing lab work at a
hospital.
Acting held more appeal, and she enrolled in a drama course at the New
School of Social Research in New York City. To support herself, she
sang in a night spot that required her to push drinks on customers.
During this time she had a brief marriage that provided her stage name
of Beatrice Arthur. In 1950, she married again, to Broadway actor and
future Tony-winning director Gene Saks.
After a few years in off-Broadway and stock company plays and
television dramas, Arthur's career gathered momentum with her role as
Lucy Brown in the 1955 production of "The Threepenny Opera."
In 2008, when Arthur was inducted in the TV Academy Hall of Fame,
Arthur pointed to the role as the highlight of her long career.
"A lot of that had to do with the fact that I felt, `Ah, yes, I belong
here,'" Arthur said.
More plays and musicals followed, and she also sang in nightclubs and
played small roles in TV comedy shows.
Then, in 1964, Harold Prince cast her as Yente the Matchmaker in the
original company of "Fiddler on the Roof."
Arthur's biggest Broadway triumph came in 1966 as Vera Charles, Angela
Lansbury's acerbic friend in the musical "Mame," directed by Saks.
Richard Watts of the New York Post called her performance "a portrait
in acid of a savagely witty, cynical and serpent-tongued woman."
She won the Tony as best supporting actress and repeated the role in
the unsuccessful film version that also was directed by Saks, starring
Lucille Ball as Mame. Arthur would play a variation of Vera Charles in
"Maude" and "The Golden Girls."
In 1983, Arthur attempted another series, "Amanda's," an Americanized
version of John Cleese's hilarious "Fawlty Towers." She was cast as
owner of a small seaside hotel with a staff of eccentrics. It lasted a
mere nine episodes.
Between series, Arthur remained active in films and theater. Among the
movies: "That Kind of Woman" (1959), "Lovers and Other
Strangers" (1970), Mel Brooks' "The History of the World: Part
I" (1981), "For Better or Worse" (1995).
The plays included Woody Allen's "The Floating Light Bulb" and "The
Bermuda Avenue Triangle," written by and costarring Renee Taylor and
Joseph Bologna. During 2001 and 2002 she toured the country in a one-
woman show of songs and stories, "... And Then There's Bea."
Arthur and Saks divorced in 1978 after 28 years. They had two sons,
Matthew and Daniel. In his long career, Saks won Tonys for "I Love My
Wife," "Brighton Beach Memoirs" and "Biloxi Blues." One of his Tony
nominations was for "Mame."
In 1999, Arthur told an interviewer of the three influences in her
career: "Sid Caesar taught me the outrageous; (method acting guru) Lee
Strasberg taught me what I call reality; and ('Threepenny Opera' star)
Lotte Lenya, whom I adored, taught me economy."
In recent years, Arthur made guest appearances on shows including
"Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "Malcolm in the Middle." She was chairwoman
of the Art Attack Foundation, a non-profit performing arts scholarship
organization.
Arthur is survived by her sons and two granddaughters. No funeral
services are planned.
fmomoon
"crystaline" <rpj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1284f14b-87c3-4fe7...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
LOS ANGELES — Beatrice Arthur, the tall, deep-voiced actress whose
razor-sharp delivery of comedy lines made her a TV star in the hit
shows "Maude" and "The Golden Girls" and who won a Tony Award for the
musical "Mame," died Saturday. She was 86.
Arthur's biggest Broadway triumph came in 1966 as Vera Charles, Angela
Lansbury's acerbic friend in the musical "Mame," directed by Saks.
Richard Watts of the New York Post called her performance "a portrait
in acid of a savagely witty, cynical and serpent-tongued woman."
My favorite role of hers. She was one of my favorite actresses.
--
Moni
XAN
Interestingly, I played some similar roles to the type she played, e.g.
Clairee in "Steel Magnolias." I loved her style. She was the glue that
held "The Golden Girls" together. She'll be missed.
Xan
Cheri
Arthur is survived by her sons and two granddaughters. No funeral
services are planned.
=========
I totally loved that woman in anything she played in.
Aaron
Hah. This sentence is perfect for a question I've been meaning to ask
Nathan.
*Shouts*
Oh Nathan!
So, I know that technically you shouldn't end a sentence with a
preposition. I also heard somewhere that this rule is potentially being
revised/rethought.
Now, Cheri's sentence there was properly adjusted so that the common
usage "played in" was replaced with "in anything she played..."
But she didn't end the sentence there, and I would have struggled with
whether to write it that way or not. What is up with that? Why do some
of us (myself included) feel like adding the preposition even when we've
taken care of it?
And what's the write way? ;D
Cheri, no offense, you just provided a good example of something I've
been struggling with myself.
LOL there's another great example. I didn't end that sentence with a
preposition, literally, but I still violated the rule, right? Because
"myself" isn't the object of "with"?
-Aaron
FirstHit
What about the sentence, "I turned the paper in"?
Here, "in" is not being used as a preposition; it's actually part of
the verb "turn in."
I think this whole rule is silly. A sentence is still mechanically
correct with a preposition at the end and diagrams nicely. Moving the
preposition often makes the sentence clumsy and awkward.
FirstHit
Cheri
news:gt09fk$4gq$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Cheri, no offense, you just provided a good example of something I've been
> struggling with myself.
OK, AaronBob, no offense taken..but with all due respect, I must ask...do
you have a Pulitzer Prize in anything besides killing innocent windshield
warblers? Have a nice day buddy boy (Karl Malden...Streets of San Francisco)
;-)
Cheri
Sam
"FirstHit" <Firs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ba1df891-b913-4666...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
******************
Then why not say, "I turned in the paper."
Cheri
news:5GOIl.30902$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Personally, on the internet, I am happy if I can read it, and make sense of
it. Why not say...I have something to contribute here, so even if my
spelling is bad, and my grammar is bad, who gives a damn, we are having fun
and discussing AI :-)
Cheri
FirstHit
> "Sam" <swknte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5GOIl.30902$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "FirstHit" <First...@aol.com> wrote in message
Agreed, but sometimes it's fun to discuss the quirks of grammar. It's
a different thing if someone picks on someone for some silly little
infraction.
Answering Sam, "I turned in the paper" is good, but my point is that
"I turned the paper in" should be good too, since "in" is not a
preposition here, even though people might mistake it for a prep.
FirstHit
Cheri
Agreed, but sometimes it's fun to discuss the quirks of grammar. It's
a different thing if someone picks on someone for some silly little
infraction.
Answering Sam, "I turned in the paper" is good, but my point is that
"I turned the paper in" should be good too, since "in" is not a
preposition here, even though people might mistake it for a prep.
FirstHit
===========
But FH, I didn't turn in a paper. I posted. LOL Sometimes my grammar is bad,
and surely my punctuation is worse, but speaking strictly for myself, I
don't care about any of it, as long as I can make out what the post means.
My biggest gripe is people putting a spin to a post based on words that
weren't said, and non-snipping, but people will do what they do. :-)
Cheri
FirstHit
> "FirstHit" <First...@aol.com> wrote in message news:a19ff33a-ad80-48b3-a65b-
I don't remember you ever having bad grammar, probably because your
posts are clear. I don't really care if people's grammar is less than
perfect. Mine is not perfect. Sometimes I get annoyed if someone
appears to have put no effort whatsoever into making their post
readable, but even then I generally just "move forward." LOL
FirstHit
giggle...@yahoo.com
This song has been playing in my head since I heard the news. She
will be missed.
Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didnt' care if the whole world looked.
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sister who really cooked.
Isadora was the first bra burner
And you're glad she showed up. (Oh yeah)
And when the country was falling apart
Betsy Ross got it all sewed up.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Maude.
And then there's
That old compromisin', enterprisin', anything but tranquilizing,
Right on Maude.
Suzy
I have one rule about grammar. When it is casual, such as the ng or
friendly email, it don't matter. I get enough (or got enough, before
retirement) of worrying about using proper grammer in business letters. So
now I just let it fly!
I can see all the grammer-holics cringing :-)
--
Suzy
Demographic-free zone
Pulitzer Prize in Usenet Comebacks
Tin@
>
> - Show quoted text -
Plus, usually say what's at the top of your head, tip of your tongue.
Cheri
I don't remember you ever having bad grammar, probably because your
posts are clear. I don't really care if people's grammar is less than
perfect. Mine is not perfect. Sometimes I get annoyed if someone
appears to have put no effort whatsoever into making their post
readable, but even then I generally just "move forward." LOL
FirstHit
============
I love "move forward" and I credit Bob for that. I plan to steal it often.
It just says it all. :-)
alia robinson
threatened to block the channels it's on..very sad, but she lived a long
full life. She'll be missed by me very much.
Alia
Tin@
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not me, I have "Thank you for being a friend". She will be missed!
Poor Bette White, she's losts so many people dear to her. But she is
a trooper herself.
Anim8rFSK
"Cheri" <che...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "Aaron" <aaro...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:gt09fk$4gq$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> > Cheri, no offense, you just provided a good example of something I've been
> > struggling with myself.
>
>
> OK, AaronBob, no offense taken..but with all due respect, I must ask...do
> you have a Pulitzer Prize in anything besides killing innocent windshield
> warblers? Have a nice day buddy boy (Karl Malden...Streets of San Francisco)
And if you'd been born in this city, you'd know the tide under the
bridge goes out to sea, and not in.
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
Cheri
Not me, I have "Thank you for being a friend". She will be missed!
Poor Bette White, she's losts so many people dear to her. But she is
a trooper herself.
==========
And Bette White with her role as Ann Douglas on B&B is priceless. I love
her.
Cheri
Aaron
"I turned in the paper." That's a properly used prepositional phrase.
The way you wrote it is incorrect.
> I think this whole rule is silly. A sentence is still mechanically
> correct with a preposition at the end and diagrams nicely. Moving the
> preposition often makes the sentence clumsy and awkward.
That I agree with (har har). Hence, my post. =D
> FirstHit
-Aaron
Aaron
LOL
OK, next time I'll just make it seem I'm criticizing you and not provide
an explanation...
-Aaron
Aaron
HAD enough, not "got enough" ;D
Damn those "Got milk" ads.
-Aaron
SLGreg
It's a nice day. Go outside and play, honey.
-greg
Aaron
Waiting for my turn to shower =D
-Aaron
Micki
>> "crystaline" <rpj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1284f14b-87c3-4fe7...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> LOS ANGELES — Beatrice Arthur, the tall, deep-voiced actress whose
>> razor-sharp delivery of comedy lines made her a TV star in the hit
>> shows "Maude" and "The Golden Girls" and who won a Tony Award for the
>> musical "Mame," died Saturday. She was 86.
I'm another one who loved her. I so wanted to be Maude when i grew
older (still do :)
Micki
SLGreg
Good for you. I grew up to become Blanche Devereaux.
-greg
topcat
"SLGreg" <SLG...@madeitup.com> wrote in message
news:6ou8v4d9fi97b0n22...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:16:36 -0400, Micki <mos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>> "crystaline" <rpj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1284f14b-87c3-4fe7...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>>> razor-sharp delivery of comedy lines made her a TV star in the hit
>>>> shows "Maude" and "The Golden Girls" and who won a Tony Award for the
>>>> musical "Mame," died Saturday. She was 86.
>>
>>
>>I'm another one who loved her. I so wanted to be Maude when i grew
>>older (still do :)
>>
>>Micki
>
> Good for you. I grew up to become Blanche Devereaux.
>
>
At least you didn't end up being Stan Zbornak.
TC
FirstHit
There's no prepositional phrase here at all. A prepositional phrase
links a noun (the object of the preposition) to another word in the
sentence. There is no object of the preposition in this sentence.
Therefore you have no preposition and no prepositional phrase.
What do you think the prepositional phrase is here?
FirstHit
Suzy
:::plugs ears::: la la la la la la laaaaaaa
Micki
wrote:
You can come to NYC and be my roommate anytime.
Micki
Aaron
You know what, I'll give you that. "Turn in" in this usage is
effectively the verb. I sure wish Nathan would get the heck over here
and educate us =D
-Aaron
Larc
| > > What about the sentence, "I turned the paper in"?
| >
| > > Here, "in" is not being used as a preposition; it's actually part of
| > > the verb "turn in."
| >
| > "I turned in the paper." That's a properly used prepositional phrase.
| > The way you wrote it is incorrect.
|
| There's no prepositional phrase here at all. A prepositional phrase
| links a noun (the object of the preposition) to another word in the
| sentence. There is no object of the preposition in this sentence.
| Therefore you have no preposition and no prepositional phrase.
|
| What do you think the prepositional phrase is here?
|
| FirstHit
I'm jumping in here in defiance of a little voice that tells me not to. ;)
Depending on the meaning, "I turned in the paper" could contain a prepositional
phrase. "I was practically buried in newspapers on my bed, and 'I turned [over]
in the paper'." Actual use determines parts of speech.
If the meaning is handing in a paper in class, then "in" is an adverb modifying
the verb "turned" and "paper" is the direct object of the verb.
Larc
FirstHit
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 10:57:43 -0700 (PDT), FirstHit <First...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> | > > What about the sentence, "I turned the paper in"?
> | >
> | > > Here, "in" is not being used as a preposition; it's actually part of
> | > > the verb "turn in."
> | >
> | > "I turned in the paper." That's a properly used prepositional phrase.
> | > The way you wrote it is incorrect.
> |
> | There's no prepositional phrase here at all. A prepositional phrase
> | links a noun (the object of the preposition) to another word in the
> | sentence. There is no object of the preposition in this sentence.
> | Therefore you have no preposition and no prepositional phrase.
> |
> | What do you think the prepositional phrase is here?
> |
> | FirstHit
>
> I'm jumping in here in defiance of a little voice that tells me not to. ;)
>
> Depending on the meaning, "I turned in the paper" could contain a prepositional
> phrase. "I was practically buried in newspapers on my bed, and 'I turned [over]
> in the paper'." Actual use determines parts of speech.
I agree.
> If the meaning is handing in a paper in class, then "in" is an adverb modifying
> the verb "turned" and "paper" is the direct object of the verb.
Yes, I was thinking of the classroom situation.
Regarding "in" as an adverb, one can intelligently make that
argument. However, I see it as part of the verb. It is possible to
have two-word verbs, and I don't see "in" as really telling how/where/
etc the paper was turned. "Turn in" essentially means "submit" here,
which has very little or nothing to do with turning. At any rate, we
can call "in" an adverb or a part of the verb, and either way, the
rules of grammar are not violated.
Good post.
FirstHit
Nathan Sanders
Aaron <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> Cheri wrote:
>
> > I totally loved that woman in anything she played in.
>
> Hah. This sentence is perfect for a question I've been meaning to ask
> Nathan.
>
> *Shouts*
>
> Oh Nathan!
>
> So, I know that technically you shouldn't end a sentence with a
> preposition. I also heard somewhere that this rule is potentially being
> revised/rethought.
The rule doesn't really exist. The Cambridge Grammar of the English
Language points out:
"The rule is so familiar as to be the butt of jokes, and is widely
recognised as completely at variance with actual usage. The
[sentence-final preposition] construction has been used for centuries
by the finest writers. Everyone who listens to Standard English hears
examples of it every day. [...] All modern usage manuals, even the
sternest and stuffiest, agree with descriptive and theoretical
linguists on this: it would be an absurdity to hold that someone who
says 'What are you looking at?' or 'What are you talking about?' or
'Put this back where you got it from' is not using English in a
correct and normal way."
> Now, Cheri's sentence there was properly adjusted so that the common
> usage "played in" was replaced with "in anything she played..."
>
> But she didn't end the sentence there, and I would have struggled with
> whether to write it that way or not. What is up with that? Why do some
> of us (myself included) feel like adding the preposition even when we've
> taken care of it?
Because there are two separate "in"s here... one for loving, and one
for playing. It just so happens that both "love X in" and "play in"
have the same object in their meaning ("anything"), so the second "in"
looks redundant.
You can see how this works in a clearer example:
I love the movie you hate.
Any relative clause like "she played in" or "you hate" necessarily has
a gap in the sentence that corresponds in the meaning to an object
that is overtly expressed elsewhere. In this second sentence, "the
movie" is both the thing that is loved by me and hated by you, but it
shows up overtly only once.
For clarity of presenting the structure of relative clauses, I choose
verbs in this sentence that don't require a preposition, but I could
easily use complex verbs like "look up" and "talk X about":
I looked up the movie you told me about.
What makes Cheri's sentence seem odd is that "love X in" and "play in"
happen to make use of the *same* preposition, so it looks redundant in
a way that my sentence doesn't. But I could make mine look redundant
just by picking a different verb that requires using the same
preposition I'm using elsewhere:
I read about the movie you told me about.
> Cheri, no offense, you just provided a good example of something I've
> been struggling with myself.
>
> LOL there's another great example. I didn't end that sentence with a
> preposition, literally, but I still violated the rule, right? Because
> "myself" isn't the object of "with"?
No, "myself" is just an emphatic pronoun here, without contributing
anything to the logical meaning. Using it or leaving it off results
in sentences that always have the same truth value. That is, if
either of these sentences is true, then the other one must be true as
well:
It's something I've been struggling with myself.
It's something I've been struggling with.
"I've been struggling with" is another relative clause. The (meaning)
object of "with" is "something", and just like the previous examples
of relative clauses, this object is overtly expressed elsewhere in the
sentence rather than inside the relative clause.
(Technically, all of the relative clauses in the examples here are
known as reduced relatives, which are especially problematic to
analyze!)
Nathan
Larc
wrote:
| In article <gt09fk$4gq$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
| Aaron <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
|
| > Cheri wrote:
| >
| > > I totally loved that woman in anything she played in.
| >
| > Hah. This sentence is perfect for a question I've been meaning to ask
| > Nathan.
| >
| > *Shouts*
| >
| > Oh Nathan!
| >
| > So, I know that technically you shouldn't end a sentence with a
| > preposition. I also heard somewhere that this rule is potentially being
| > revised/rethought.
|
| The rule doesn't really exist. The Cambridge Grammar of the English
| Language points out:
|
| "The rule is so familiar as to be the butt of jokes, and is widely
| recognised as completely at variance with actual usage. The
| [sentence-final preposition] construction has been used for centuries
| by the finest writers. Everyone who listens to Standard English hears
| examples of it every day. [...] All modern usage manuals, even the
| sternest and stuffiest, agree with descriptive and theoretical
| linguists on this: it would be an absurdity to hold that someone who
| says 'What are you looking at?' or 'What are you talking about?' or
| 'Put this back where you got it from' is not using English in a
| correct and normal way."
There is an old tale floating around about this that may or may not be true.
It's claimed that an English teacher was once talking with Winston Churchill, a
widely recognized authority on the English language and a grand master in its
use, and complained to him about her students who ended sentences with
prepositions. "Yes, Madame," Churchill is reported to have said, "that is a
situation up with which I cannot put." With that ridiculously clumsy effort at
grammatical accuracy, Churchill supposedly destroyed the rule on the spot.
Whether or not that really happened, I was taught in school many years ago and
before the supposed Churchill event that sentences should never be ended with
prepositions.
Also, I was taught never to split an infinitive. That rule has pretty much
fallen by the wayside as well. But the lesson was so ingrained that it still
bothers me a little when it's done. :)
Larc
Sam
I agree.
Good post.
FirstHit
********************
We could change the sentence entirely!
"I gave the teacher my homework assignment."
"I completed the paper and gave it to my teacher."
"I gave my completed assignment to my teacher."
"After completing my assignment, I gave it to my teacher."
There are many other examples we could give. The use of "turned in" is not
required.
Sam
Aaron
Sheesh, it's like Mickey, but with grammar.
If I read all that correctly, you said it's actually grammatically
acceptable to end sentences with prepositions.
Did I get it? =D
-Aaron
That was still a great scene in "Beavis and Butthead do America", when
the ATF supervisor gets on the ATF agent's case:
Agent (Bork): Hey, that's the guy who's trailer those kids were whacking
off in!
Supervisor: You are a Federal Agent, Bork.......Don't end a sentence
with a preposition!
Agent: Sorry, Boss. That's the guy...off in who's...trailer those kids
were whacking!
Suzy
news:dfdf962f-616e-47ca...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Suzy
news:mgi9v41pvkrkb6ml5...@4ax.com...
How about thiis: I submitted my damned paper!
Suzy
news:dfdf962f-616e-47ca...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
I agree.
Good post.
FirstHit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know what is ironic about this thread drift? Bea Arthur played
Dorothy in the Golden Girls. Dorothy was an English teacher. She would be
here, ahead of Moni, with her red pen :-)
Goodbye Bea, you will be missed!
fmomoon
"Suzy" <mmmi...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JC8Jl.16909$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Or, for my students:
"What paper?"
--
Moni
Nathan Sanders
Aaron <aaro...@msn.com> wrote:
> Nathan Sanders wrote:
[snip]
> Sheesh, it's like Mickey, but with grammar.
Um... thanks?
> If I read all that correctly, you said it's actually grammatically
> acceptable to end sentences with prepositions.
It's not unacceptable to end sentences with prepositions. :-)
Some people think it is, however, and will judge you anyway.
Nathan
Nathan Sanders
Larc <la...@notmyaddress.com> wrote:
> There is an old tale floating around about this that may or may not be true.
> It's claimed that an English teacher was once talking with Winston Churchill,
> a
> widely recognized authority on the English language and a grand master in its
> use, and complained to him about her students who ended sentences with
> prepositions. "Yes, Madame," Churchill is reported to have said, "that is a
> situation up with which I cannot put." With that ridiculously clumsy effort
> at
> grammatical accuracy, Churchill supposedly destroyed the rule on the spot.
As far as the experts can tell, this didn't actually happen. But no
one knows what really happened:
"The earliest citation of the story that I've found so far in
newspaper databases is from 1942, without any reference to Churchill"
http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001715.html
> Also, I was taught never to split an infinitive. That rule has pretty much
> fallen by the wayside as well. But the lesson was so ingrained that it still
> bothers me a little when it's done. :)
This is another "rule" that has never been an accurate description of
how English is actually used (by ordinary speakers or literary
geniuses). It too was invented by people who didn't know what they
were talking about, and perpetuated by even more people who knew even
less.
Nathan
fmomoon
"Suzy" <mmmi...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Thank you, Suzy, for bringing this thread back to home plate. :)
--
Moni
FirstHit
> "FirstHit" <First...@aol.com> wrote in message
Oh, good! Then our grammar discussion is on-topic! :-)
Well, sorta.
FirstHit
FirstHit
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:06:14 -0700 (PDT), crystaline
>
> <rpj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It made me very sad when I heard this on the news yesterday.
Me too. I liked her in "All in the Family" and "Maude."
FirstHit
Aaron
> In article <gt2v72$t8...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> Aaron <aaron...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Sheesh, it's like Mickey, but with grammar.
>
> Um... thanks?
It was a compliment, yes. Assuming you like being told that half of
what you wrote is way over my head =D
> > If I read all that correctly, you said it's actually grammatically
> > acceptable to end sentences with prepositions.
>
> It's not unacceptable to end sentences with prepositions. :-)
Grrrr...
> Some people think it is, however, and will judge you anyway.
I still try to avoid it when I can.
> Nathan
-Aaron
Cheri
Grrrr...
> Nathan
-Aaron
=====
And, your point is? ;-)
Cheri
Aaron
That's a poorly phrased sentence...perhaps even just a sentence fragment. ;P
-Aaron
echos
news:nathansanders-36D...@news.newsguy.com...
>
> This is another "rule" that has never been an accurate description of
> how English is actually used (by ordinary speakers or literary
> geniuses). It too was invented by people who didn't know what they
> were talking about, and perpetuated by even more people who knew even
> less.
I believe they're both (the infinitive and preposition "rules") based on
Latin grammar.
You couldn't split an infinitive in Latin because "to verb" would be one
word in Latin, and, therefore, un-splittable.
The prepositions are, what, accusative case? (I haven't taken Latin since
high school -- it's been way too long.) Anyway, with the word order in
Latin, the preposition would be before the object of the preposition, so the
preposition itself could never be at the end of the sentence.
--
Echo
Nathan Sanders
"echos" <donts...@localhost.com> wrote:
> "Nathan Sanders" <nathan...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:nathansanders-36D...@news.newsguy.com...
> >
> > This is another "rule" that has never been an accurate description of
> > how English is actually used (by ordinary speakers or literary
> > geniuses). It too was invented by people who didn't know what they
> > were talking about, and perpetuated by even more people who knew even
> > less.
>
> I believe they're both (the infinitive and preposition "rules") based on
> Latin grammar.
Right, which is the problem. Latin grammar is great for describing
Latin. It's terrible for describing English!
Nathan
echos
Oh, yeah, I'm right there with you.
--
Echo