Conjunctive/subjunctive alive in en-GB

[Ruud Harmsen]

Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive, whatever
you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also still used in
official British statements, almost literally in "the Queen’s
English": https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace

Quote:
Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are
concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain
under medical supervision.

The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
== end of quote ==

Remain, not remains.

Or would she employ American text writers?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Adam Funk]

I think that's unremarkable in BrE.

The subjective that is much rarer in BrE than AmE is the "if I
were/was you" kind.


--
It is the duty of the wealthy man to give employment to the
artisan. ---Hilaire Belloc

[charles]

In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>,

Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive, whatever
> you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also still used in
> official British statements, almost literally in "the Queen‘s
> English": https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace

> Quote:
> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen‘s doctors are
> concerned for Her Majesty‘s health and have recommended she remain
> under medical supervision.

> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
> == end of quote ==

> Remain, not remains.

"The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person. "Remains" is
correct.

> Or would she employ American text writers?
> --
> Ru

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Hibou]

Le 08/09/2022 à 15:36, Adam Funk a écrit :
> On 2022-09-08, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>> Quote:
>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are
>> concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain
>> under medical supervision.
>>
>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>> == end of quote ==
>>

>> Remain, not remains. [...]

>
> I think that's unremarkable in BrE.

So do I.

> The subjective that is much rarer in BrE than AmE is the "if I
> were/was you" kind.

Google Ngram Viewer disagrees with you, at least up to 2019, finding
'were' to be about seven times more frequent than 'was' on both sides of
the Pond.

[Hibou]

Le 08/09/2022 à 16:20, charles a écrit :

> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>> Quote:
>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen‘s doctors are
>> concerned for Her Majesty‘s health and have recommended she remain
>> under medical supervision.
>
>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>> == end of quote ==
>
>> Remain, not remains.
>
> "The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person. "Remains" is
> correct.

Yes, the Queen's English can handle the Queen's pronouns perfectly well.

When it comes to triune gods and triune oils, I'm not so sure.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:22:40 AM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>,
> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:

> > Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive, whatever

No. "conjunctive" is not a word of English.

> > you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also still used in
> > official British statements, almost literally in "the Queen‘s
> > English": https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace
>
> > Quote:
> > Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen‘s doctors are
> > concerned for Her Majesty‘s health and have recommended she remain
> > under medical supervision.
>
> > The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
> > == end of quote ==
>
> > Remain, not remains.
> "The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person. "Remains" is
> correct.

Wrong occurrence of the word.

(I was about to point out this was spectacular confirmation
of Ruud's underlying observation, but it's just an overlooking.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 08 Sep 2022 16:20:50 +0100: charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
scribeva:

>In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>,
> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive, whatever
>> you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also still used in
>> official British statements, almost literally in "the Queen‘s
>> English": https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace
>
>> Quote:
>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen‘s doctors are
>> concerned for Her Majesty‘s health and have recommended she remain
>> under medical supervision.
>
>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>> == end of quote ==
>
>> Remain, not remains.
>
>"The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person. "Remains" is
>correct.

Yes, but I referred to the other "remain", in "recommended she remain
under medical supervision." The normal indicative conjugation would be
"remains". This is a Romance language style conjunctive. Would German
have it here? Die Ärtze empfielen sie bleibe unter medizinische
Überwachung. (Or some more appropriate translation.)

>> Or would she employ American text writers?
>> --
>> Ru

--

Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

You mean you too overlooked, as you say, the other "remain"?? She
remain, conjunctive, she remains, indicative.

>> > Or would she employ American text writers?

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2022, at 16:30:48, Hibou posted:

>Le 08/09/2022 à 16:20, charles a écrit :
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen‘s doctors are
>>> concerned for Her Majesty‘s health and have recommended she remain
>>> under medical supervision.
>>
>>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>>> == end of quote ==
>>
>>> Remain, not remains.
>> "The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person.
>>"Remains" is
>> correct.
>
>Yes, the Queen's English can handle the Queen's pronouns perfectly well.
>

Sadly for many of us, it's the King's English now.
--
Paul

[Peter T. Daniels]

You seem not to have read what I wrote.

[Peter Moylan]

The Anglo-Saxon subjunctive comes from a Germanic language, so where
does "Romance style" come in? I suspect that "Indo-European style" would
be more accurate.

I don't know enough about German to comment on your example, but I've
certainly read that the German Konjunktiv II is used in expressions of
desire. Recommendation would fall into that class. (Although German does
seem to prefer an infinitive in such examples.)

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Snidely]

charles was thinking very hard :

> In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>,
> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive, whatever
>> you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also still used in
>> official British statements, almost literally in "the Queen s
>> English": https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace
>
>> Quote:
>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen s doctors are
>> concerned for Her Majesty s health and have recommended she remain
>> under medical supervision.
>
>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>> == end of quote ==
>
>> Remain, not remains.
>
> "The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person. "Remains" is
> correct.

It is now "remains" as a noun that is correct.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

[Ruud Harmsen]

Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

I did, and it was about the "remains" that I did not intend to comment
upon. All it ever was about as far as I'm concerned was "she remain",
instead of ‘she remains’.

>> >> > Or would she employ American text writers?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 9 Sep 2022 12:58:49 +1000: Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

The conditions under which it is used, which are not the same in
German and Portuguese, for example. (The only two I have some idea
about.) I suspect in this situation Portuguese would use, and German
not.

>I don't know enough about German to comment on your example, but I've
>certainly read that the German Konjunktiv II is used in expressions of
>desire. Recommendation would fall into that class. (Although German does
>seem to prefer an infinitive in such examples.)

"... die Königin solle unter <irgendwas> bleiben." ?
oder
"... die Königin sollte unter <irgendwas> bleiben." ?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 09 Sep 2022 00:42:50 -0700: Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
scribeva:

>charles was thinking very hard :
>> In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>,
>> Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive, whatever
>>> you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also still used in
>>> official British statements, almost literally in "the Queen‘s
>>> English": https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace
>>
>>> Quote:
>>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen‘s doctors are
>>> concerned for Her Majesty‘s health and have recommended she remain
>>> under medical supervision.
>>
>>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>>> == end of quote ==
>>
>>> Remain, not remains.
>>
>> "The Queen", unless using the Royal "We" is a singular person. "Remains" is
>> correct.
>
>It is now "remains" as a noun that is correct.

Right. You certainly have a point there.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:34:14 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>

scribeva:
>>On 09/09/22 03:52, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive,
>>>>> whatever you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also
>>>>> still used in official British statements, almost literally in
>>>>> "the Queen‘s English":
>>>>> https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace

>"... die Königin solle unter <irgendwas> bleiben." ?
>oder
>"... die Königin sollte unter <irgendwas> bleiben." ?

Google Translate:
"Após uma avaliação mais aprofundada nesta manhã, os médicos da rainha
estão preocupados com a saúde de Sua Majestade e recomendaram que ela
permaneça sob supervisão médica."

Permaneça, from the verb permanecer, a conjunctive.

Google Translate to German:
Nach weiteren Untersuchungen heute Morgen sind die Ärzte der Königin
besorgt um die Gesundheit Ihrer Majestät und haben empfohlen, dass sie
unter ärztlicher Aufsicht bleibt.

Bleibt. Indikativ.

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/09/22 20:28, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:55:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen
>> wrote:
>>> Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:22:40 AM UTC-4, charles
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
>>>>> <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or
>>>>>> conjunctive, whatever
>>>> No. "conjunctive" is not a word of English.

>>> You mean you too overlooked, as you say, the other "remain"?? She
>>> remain, conjunctive, she remains, indicative.
>>
>> You seem not to have read what I wrote.
>
> I did, and it was about the "remains" that I did not intend to
> comment upon. All it ever was about as far as I'm concerned was "she
> remain", instead of ‘she remains’.

Peter's point, I believe, is that you continued to use the word
"conjunctive" after he told you it's the wrong word.

The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch conjunctief) is
"subjunctive".

There is in fact a (rare) English word "conjunctive", but it means
something totally different. A typical conjunctive word is the word "and".

[Peter T. Daniels]

And I was saying you were right, dammit, and that it looked like
you were referencing the British loss of the subjunctive that I
have frequently documented in edited British prose, but you
weren't.

It was charles who chose the wrong "remain(s)" to focus on..

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:30:36 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 09/09/22 20:28, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >
> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:55:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen
> >> wrote:
> >>> Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:22:40 AM UTC-4, charles
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
> >>>>> <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or
> >>>>>> conjunctive, whatever
> >>>> No. "conjunctive" is not a word of English.
> >>> You mean you too overlooked, as you say, the other "remain"?? She
> >>> remain, conjunctive, she remains, indicative.
> >>
> >> You seem not to have read what I wrote.
> >
> > I did, and it was about the "remains" that I did not intend to
> > comment upon. All it ever was about as far as I'm concerned was "she
> > remain", instead of ‘she remains’.
> Peter's point, I believe, is that you continued to use the word
> "conjunctive" after he told you it's the wrong word.

Naah, I give up on that one after one or two attempts. It's like
trying to get a Russian to stop using "tell" as an intransitive.

> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch conjunctief) is
> "subjunctive".
>
> There is in fact a (rare) English word "conjunctive", but it means
> something totally different. A typical conjunctive word is the word "and".

We have a perfectly good noun for that.

Also, "conjunctivitis."

[Jerry Friedman]

There are actually a few GB hits on "conjunctive mood" by native speakers
in the present century. The ones I saw didn't refer to English. One example
is /A Grammar of Modern Latvian/ by Trevor G. Fennell and Henry Gelsen.

https://books.google.com/books?id=VwgLTwXyqEAC&pg=PR11

The Latvian conjunctive seems to be about the same as subjunctive,
since "The conjunctive mood is used to imply some doubt in the mind of
the speaker or writer as to the truth of a statement."

http://valoda.ailab.lv/latval/vispareji/lgram-ww/conjunct.htm

In regard to English grammar I'd agree that "conjunctive" is the wrong
word.

--
Jerry Friedman

[GordonD]

Now that post is a sight for sore eyes.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 9 Sep 2022 21:30:28 +1000: Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>On 09/09/22 20:28, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:55:59 PM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:44:58 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:22:40 AM UTC-4, charles
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <91sjhhd9l0vbqrkq0...@4ax.com>, Ruud Harmsen
>>>>>> <r...@rudhar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or
>>>>>>> conjunctive, whatever
>>>>> No. "conjunctive" is not a word of English.
>
>>>> You mean you too overlooked, as you say, the other "remain"?? She
>>>> remain, conjunctive, she remains, indicative.
>>>
>>> You seem not to have read what I wrote.
>>
>> I did, and it was about the "remains" that I did not intend to
>> comment upon. All it ever was about as far as I'm concerned was "she
>> remain", instead of ‘she remains’.
>
>Peter's point, I believe, is that you continued to use the word
>"conjunctive" after he told you it's the wrong word.

How can it be wrong if both are used, in various languages?

I think Brazilian Portuguese uses one, and European Portuguese the
other. Which one I can't remember. This to me is so confusing that I
just use both as full synonyms, in any language. Easy and neat.

>The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch conjunctief) is
>"subjunctive".

Why?

>There is in fact a (rare) English word "conjunctive", but it means
>something totally different. A typical conjunctive word is the word "and".

That is a conjunction, no? Dutch: voegwoord. German: don't know.
Konjunktionen, sagt Google Translate. In Dutch, a "voeg" is the place
where two or more bricks or tiles are joined with cement.

English cognate: fay, according to:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/f%C5%8Dgijan%C4%85

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:21:55 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

I can tell. Easy to tell.

>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch conjunctief) is
>> "subjunctive".
>>
>> There is in fact a (rare) English word "conjunctive", but it means
>> something totally different. A typical conjunctive word is the word "and".
>
>We have a perfectly good noun for that.
>
>Also, "conjunctivitis."

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 9 Sep 2022 17:00:10 +0100: GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
scribeva:

Does that mean that it is beatiful and clarifying, or that is it
painfully ugly? I honestly don't know. May be my weak English again.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"

Yes, the British loss of the subjunctive, still used in American
English. I probably learnt about that from you, yes. Or I may also
have heard about it somewhere else. Be that as it may. So be it. Long
live the King. Lang leve de Koning. (Indicative: De Koning leeft
lang.)

So this British par excellence use or it, regardless, is noteworthy.
That was the whole point of my post and thread. So what is the fuss
about?

>It was charles who chose the wrong "remain(s)" to focus on..

King Charles, or a Charles here in the group? Anyhow, I always talked
about verbs only, not nouns, and only about the subjunctive "she
remain".

>> >> >> > Or would she employ American text writers?

[Ruud Harmsen]

Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:39:37 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>

scribeva:

>Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:34:14 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
>scribeva:
>>>On 09/09/22 03:52, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Not only American English has a subjunctive (or conjunctive,
>>>>>> whatever you want to call it) that is alive and well. It is also
>>>>>> still used in official British statements, almost literally in
>>>>>> "the Queen‘s English":
>>>>>> https://www.royal.uk/statement-buckingham-palace
>
>>"... die Königin solle unter <irgendwas> bleiben." ?
>>oder
>>"... die Königin sollte unter <irgendwas> bleiben." ?
>
>Google Translate:
>"Após uma avaliação mais aprofundada nesta manhã, os médicos da rainha
>estão preocupados com a saúde de Sua Majestade e recomendaram que ela
>permaneça sob supervisão médica."
>
>Permaneça, from the verb permanecer, a conjunctive.

Sorry, a subjunctive.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modo_subjuntivo
"Modo subjuntivo (português brasileiro) ou conjuntivo (português
europeu) é o modo verbal que não expressa certeza, e sim uma dúvida
(uma coisa que não temos certeza que vá ocorrer) ou desejo[1]."

[Peter Moylan]

On 10/09/22 14:42, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 9 Sep 2022 21:30:28 +1000: Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch conjunctief) is
>> "subjunctive".
>
> Why?

Why is a dog called a dog? There is no "why" to the lexicon of any language.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 10/09/2022 7:24 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 10/09/22 14:42, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 9 Sep 2022 21:30:28 +1000: Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:
>
>>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch
>>> conjunctief) is
>>> "subjunctive".
>>
>> Why?
>
> Why is a dog called a dog?

Because it's a dog.

> There is no "why" to the lexicon of
> any language.

Why not?


... I'll, um, just get my coat.


--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Silvano]

Ruud Harmsen hat am 10.09.2022 um 06:42 geschrieben:

> How can it be wrong if both are used, in various languages?
>
> I think Brazilian Portuguese uses one, and European Portuguese the
> other. Which one I can't remember. This to me is so confusing that I
> just use both as full synonyms, in any language. Easy and neat.

And wrong. Italian goes e.g. the other way: we have "congiuntivo" but no
"soggiuntivo" or "subgiuntivo". More precisely, according to Treccani
online, "soggiuntivo" is an out-of-use variant of "congiuntivo",
probably to be found in some Italian grammars written in 18th century or
even older.

>
>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch conjunctief) is
>> "subjunctive".
>
> Why?

Because.
Language is not always logical.

[ruudhar...@gmail.com]

You (plural) are right of course.

Lest I forget: https://rudhar.com/lingtics/intrlnga/consubia.htm

[CDB]

On 9/10/2022 12:45 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com> scribeva:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

>>>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:

It's distinguishable from "a sight and an eyesore".

[CDB]

On 9/10/2022 2:26 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:

>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>>>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch
>>>> conjunctief) is "subjunctive".

>>> Why?

>> Why is a dog called a dog?

> Because it's a dog.

The pig is well named, for it is a dirty, greedy animal.

[Peter T. Daniels]

A sight for sore eyes is something you're happy to see.

Home after six hours on a train, for instance.

[Snidely]

Just this Friday, Jerry Friedman explained that ...

Hungarians use a sneeze, innit?

See also /Háry János/.

> In regard to English grammar I'd agree that "conjunctive" is the wrong
> word.

Now don't be telling tall tales.

/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-09-10 12:47:51 +0000, CDB said:

> On 9/10/2022 2:26 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:
>
>>>>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch
>>>>> conjunctief) is "subjunctive".
>
>>>> Why?
>
>>> Why is a dog called a dog?
>
>> Because it's a dog.
>
> The pig is well named, for it is a dirty, greedy animal.

The gate creaked shut and Rowley came through it, “the most venerable
of the labourers on the farm—a tall, solid man, still unbent, with grey
side-whiskers and a steep, dignified profile. Grave, weighty in manner,
splendidly respectable, Rowley had the air of a great English statesman
of the mid-nineteenth century. He halted on the outskirts of the group,
and for a moment they all looked at the pigs in a silence that was only
broken by the sound of grunting or the squelch of a sharp hoof in the
mire. Rowley turned at last, slowly and ponderously and nobly, as he
did everything, and addressed himself to Henry Wimbush.”
“‘Look at them, sir’, he said, with a motion of his hand towards the
wallowing swine. ‘Rightly is they called pigs.’”
“‘Rightly indeed’, Mr Wimbush agreed.”
(Aldous Huxley)

>
>>> There is no "why" to the lexicon of any language.
>
>> Why not?
>
>> ... I'll, um, just get my coat.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Actually pigs are, given enough room to live in, quite fussy about
cleanliness. Note that caveat.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sat, 10 Sep 2022 08:47:38 -0400: CDB <belle...@gmail.com> scribeva:

No idea what you mean by that either.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:57:01 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sight-for-sore-eyes

Strange. I would expect it to mean the exact opposite.

[Richard Heathfield]

The logic is there to be found if you look hard enough.

If your eyes are sore, you wouldn't want to hurt them even more
by setting them upon an unpleasant sight such as a rusted hulk
listing in a mud-choked estuary. Bad-to-look-ats are not
appropriate sights for your poor sore eyes.

No. You want to look at something pleasant and idyllic -
butterflies and bunny rabbits and six digits before the point in
your bank balance and a cloudless sky over a lake surrounded by
snow-clad peaks dressed in green coniferous robes. These are
indeed sights that may well soothe away the soreness in your eyes.

I hope that's clear now.

[CDB]

On 9/11/2022 5:57 AM, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> scribeva:

The first expression, the one you asked about, means "something the
pleasant sight of which would be a healing balm for sore eyes". The
second expression, which resembles the first in some respects, means
"something that is unpleasant to see, to the point that seeing it would
make your eyes sore". Both expressions are metaphorical, of course.

"I look a sight" might be said by someone who had just been dragged
through a hedge backwards.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eyesore

The two were confused in an old joke the details of which I no longer
remember.

[CDB]

On 9/10/2022 4:54 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> CDB said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> scribeva:

>>>>>> The English translation of German Konjunktiv (or Dutch
>>>>>> conjunctief) is "subjunctive".

>>>>> Why?

>>>> Why is a dog called a dog?

>>> Because it's a dog.

>> The pig is well named, for it is a dirty, greedy animal.

> The gate creaked shut and Rowley came through it, “the most venerable
> of the labourers on the farm—a tall, solid man, still unbent, with
> grey side-whiskers and a steep, dignified profile. Grave, weighty in
> manner, splendidly respectable, Rowley had the air of a great English
> statesman of the mid-nineteenth century. He halted on the outskirts
> of the group, and for a moment they all looked at the pigs in a
> silence that was only broken by the sound of grunting or the squelch
> of a sharp hoof in the mire. Rowley turned at last, slowly and
> ponderously and nobly, as he did everything, and addressed himself to
> Henry Wimbush.” “‘Look at them, sir’, he said, with a motion of his
> hand towards the wallowing swine. ‘Rightly is they called pigs.’”
> “‘Rightly indeed’, Mr Wimbush agreed.” (Aldous Huxley)

Thank you. I knew it must have come from somewhere.

>>>> There is no "why" to the lexicon of any language.

>>> Why not?

>>> ... I'll, um, just get my coat.

The coat is well named, for it covers a multitude of shins.

[CDB]

On 9/11/2022 4:40 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

One of the many sins for which we are doomed.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I had no idea that "a sight and an eyesore" was an "expression" --
seemed like something you'd invented to confuse poor Ruud.
A Canadianism? An archaism? A diplomacyism?

> "I look a sight" might be said by someone who had just been dragged
> through a hedge backwards.

In BrE, mostly? or archaic/rural? I can imagine Ma Kettle saying
it, but not her contemporaries Katharine Hepburn or Mae West.,

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Not me, I'm not in the animal slave trade. but I'm guilty of having
ancestors who were.

[CDB]

On 9/11/2022 9:38 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> CDB wrote:
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com> scribeva:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>>>>> Also, "conjunctivitis."
>>>>>> Now that post is a sight for sore eyes.
>>>>> Does that mean that it is beatiful and clarifying, or that is
>>>>> it painfully ugly? I honestly don't know. May be my weak
>>>>> English again.
>>>> It's distinguishable from "a sight and an eyesore".
>>> No idea what you mean by that either.

>> The first expression, the one you asked about, means "something
>> the pleasant sight of which would be a healing balm for sore eyes".
>> The second expression, which resembles the first in some respects,
>> means "something that is unpleasant to see, to the point that
>> seeing it would make your eyes sore". Both expressions are
>> metaphorical, of course.

> I had no idea that "a sight and an eyesore" was an "expression" --
> seemed like something you'd invented to confuse poor Ruud. A
> Canadianism? An archaism? A diplomacyism?

It came to my attention in an old joke, as I said. Someone thought they
had been described with the good phrase, but was corrected. I have no
reson to think that the phrase is Canadian.

>> "I look a sight" might be said by someone who had just been
>> dragged through a hedge backwards.

> In BrE, mostly? or archaic/rural? I can imagine Ma Kettle saying it,
> but not her contemporaries Katharine Hepburn or Mae West.

Hepburn, maybe, in character. I would call it old-fashioned.

[CDB]

On 9/11/2022 10:31 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

I stpped eating meat about twenty-five years ago, but I don't think that
lets me off. OTOH, I don't feel guilty because my parents ate it.

[Ken Blake]

I stopped eating meat about four hours ago, but I'm going start again
very soon.

I don't feel guilty about it.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 10/09/2022 21:54, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> The gate creaked shut and Rowley came through it, “the most venerable of
> the labourers on the farm—a tall, solid man, still unbent, with grey
> side-whiskers and a steep, dignified profile. Grave, weighty in manner,
> splendidly respectable, Rowley had the air of a great English statesman
> of the mid-nineteenth century. He halted on the outskirts of the group,
> and for a moment they all looked at the pigs in a silence that was only
> broken by the sound of grunting or the squelch of a sharp hoof in the
> mire. Rowley turned at last, slowly and ponderously and nobly, as he did
> everything, and addressed himself to Henry Wimbush.”
> “‘Look at them, sir’, he said, with a motion of his hand towards the
> wallowing swine. ‘Rightly is they called pigs.’”
> “‘Rightly indeed’, Mr Wimbush agreed.”
> (Aldous Huxley)
>

"The gate creaked shut and Rowley came through it,"

I tripped over that line, and the rest failed to make the impression it
should.

Descriptive text can be littered with caltrops.

[Jerry Friedman]

Not sure what's going on here. The quotation starts with the quotation
marks, and that line isn't in /Crome Yellow/, at least in this edition:

https://books.google.com/books?id=TnwpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT21

--
Jerry Friedman

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 11:44:30 -0400, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would they call it 'meat' if we're not supposed to eat it?

--
Rich Ulrich

[musika]

Possibly copied from here.

https://www.rogersandall.com/rightly-is-they-called-pigs/

--
Ray
UK

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 5:23:06 PM UTC-6, musika wrote:
> On 11/09/2022 20:46, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 1:15:53 PM UTC-6, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> "The gate creaked shut and Rowley came through it,"
> >> I tripped over that line, and the rest failed to make the impression it
> >> should.
> >>
> >> Descriptive text can be littered with caltrops.
> >
> > Not sure what's going on here. The quotation starts with the quotation
> > marks,

Read "mark".

> > and that line isn't in /Crome Yellow/, at least in this edition:
> >
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=TnwpEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT21
> >
> Possibly copied from here.
>
> https://www.rogersandall.com/rightly-is-they-called-pigs/

That would make sense, though now I don't know what Sandall was thinking.
I suppose he was just careless.

--
Jerry Friedman sometimes is too.

[lar3ryca]

Animals are nature's way of keeping meat fresh.

--
Department of Redundancy Department.
How may I help and assist you?

[Mack A. Damia]

When I was in Scotland in 1978, I was told by one of the locals that
genuine venison was actually "aged" deer meat - that the carcass of
meat would be hung up, and when there was a coating of decay/rot
covering it, it was ready to be roasted and served as venison. The
decay was scraped off first, of course.

I don't know if I was getting my leg pulled; I have never heard this
anywhere else. I believe the conversation took place when I was
having roast venison with blackcurrant sauce at The Buttery in
Glasgow.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:52:19 PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 19:50:31 -0600, lar3ryca <la...@invalid.ca> wrote:

...

> >Animals are nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
> When I was in Scotland in 1978, I was told by one of the locals that
> genuine venison was actually "aged" deer meat - that the carcass of
> meat would be hung up, and when there was a coating of decay/rot
> covering it, it was ready to be roasted and served as venison. The
> decay was scraped off first, of course.
>
> I don't know if I was getting my leg pulled; I have never heard this
> anywhere else. I believe the conversation took place when I was
> having roast venison with blackcurrant sauce at The Buttery in
> Glasgow.

Game is normally aged to tenderize it, or so I've read in /The Joy of
Cooking/. Searching for "hang venison" will give you lots of information.

The best beef and lamb are aged too.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mack A. Damia]

Thanks, that makes sense. I was thinking about the lack of
refridgeration many years ago. When I lived in the north of England
in the early 1950s, I didn't know what a refridgerator was. I imagine
that refridgeration wasn't necessary in Scotland in those days
especially before climate change, and game was hung to age in cold
cellars, etc.

Perhaps when there was a layer of decay, that was the sign that it was
ready for the kitchen.

[Adam Funk]

On 2022-09-08, Hibou wrote:

> Le 08/09/2022 à 15:36, Adam Funk a écrit :
>> On 2022-09-08, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>> Quote:
>>> Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen’s doctors are
>>> concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain
>>> under medical supervision.
>>>
>>> The Queen remains comfortable and at Balmoral.
>>> == end of quote ==
>>>
>>> Remain, not remains. [...]
>>
>> I think that's unremarkable in BrE.
>
> So do I.
>
>> The subjective that is much rarer in BrE than AmE is the "if I
>> were/was you" kind.
>
> Google Ngram Viewer disagrees with you, at least up to 2019, finding
> 'were' to be about seven times more frequent than 'was' on both sides of
> the Pond.

I'm surprised. It's certainly less common in BrE speech.


--
Outside of the city limits the heart of darkness, the true wasteland
begins. --Ignatius J Reilly

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is "decay" your own word for 'mold'?

[Mack A. Damia]

Maybe. I am not certain. Not sure of the word used to describe it to
me.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Den 12.09.2022 kl. 18.19 skrev Adam Funk:

> I'm surprised. It's certainly less common in BrE speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r--7ID47W3c

--
Bertel

[Peter T. Daniels]

A song from 1916.