i'm now posting from TB+ES (Thunderbird + Eternal-September).
it seems that... most of my recent posts from GG didn't get distributed
properly. (e.g., the following on Dec 28)
_____________________________________________________________________________
for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common as for Americans
to say (orally) "i.e." today ?
6 views Subscribe
henh...@gmail.com's profile photo
henh...@gmail.com
Dec 28, 2023, 3:37:16 AM
to
The following (if pretty accurate) shows that
Bard.Google.Com is an
amazing resource.
_________________ for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common
as for Americans to say (orally) "i.e." today ?
Comparing the oral usage of "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today
isn't quite apples-to-apples, as they have differing levels of
historical and practical use. Here's a breakdown:
== "DV" (Deo Volente):
-- 1940s: Uncommon. While "Deo Volente" existed in English, it was
primarily a formal, written phrase. Most Americans wouldn't use Latin
abbreviations in everyday speech.
-- Today: Extremely rare. Latin phrases like "DV" are even less
prevalent in modern, informal conversation.
== "i.e." (id est):
-- 1940s: Moderately common, especially in formal settings and among
individuals with strong education in classical languages.
-- Today: Less common in oral speech, but still used occasionally in
formal or academic contexts. However, simpler alternatives like "that
is" or "in other words" are more prevalent in casual conversation.
Therefore, while both phrases have seen a decline in oral usage, "DV"
was never truly a part of everyday spoken language, unlike "i.e." which
still pops up from time to time, albeit less frequently.
In summary, comparing "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today paints a picture
of two linguistic paths with distinct starting points and trajectories.
One was a niche written phrase that never made it to the casual spoken
realm, while the other, though experiencing a decline, still holds on in
specific contexts.