Now THIS is English!

2 views
Skip to first unread message

UC

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 3:44:19 PM11/26/06
to

Thomas Weber

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 4:39:44 PM11/26/06
to
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
>

You have posted to the wrong newsgroup. Sci.lang.translation is about
translation.

Thomas


UC

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 5:07:46 PM11/26/06
to

Yes, and you should download this so you have a good example of English
prose.

Dan S.

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 5:12:25 PM11/26/06
to

"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
>

Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point?

--
Yours,
Dan S.

Reporting to you from South Bend
-The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in
addictions.


Mark Wallace

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 5:21:54 PM11/26/06
to

Dan S. wrote:

> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
> >
>
> Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point?

The point is that Scott regularly breaks every one of the trivial
"rules" that people (mainly in the US, but not exclusively) want to
apply to the English language.

I agree with UC: Scott's use of the language is nothing short of
beautiful. This is what English is about; forget all the petty "rules"
and "regulations".

UC

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 5:28:46 PM11/26/06
to

Dan S. wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
> >
>
> Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point?

Read and learn. The best way to learn hjow to write well in English is
to read good writers and imitate them.

Einde O'Callaghan

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 5:53:34 PM11/26/06
to
UC schrieb:

> Dan S. wrote:
>
>>"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
>>>
>>
>>Ok, I'm probably not going to read that right now, but, what's your point?
>
>
> Read and learn. The best way to learn hjow to write well in English is
> to read good writers and imitate them.
>
Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how
beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to
modern usage - except perhaps as a source of more or less appropriate
quotes.

Also your point has little or no relevance to sci.lang.translation,
where I came across this message.

Einde O'Callaghan

mb

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 6:24:26 PM11/26/06
to

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how
> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to
> modern usage - except perhaps as a source of more or less appropriate
> quotes.

Chiefly of how the dialogues of 600 hundred years ago were imagined 174
years ago.

Thomas Weber

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 6:30:22 PM11/26/06
to
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164578866.5...@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

Yes, and?

Let me put it this way: stop your cross-posting of irrelevant material.

Thomas


Mark Wallace

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 6:32:35 PM11/26/06
to

Have you ever read Homer's work?

(Sorry, Einde, but I think that cutting groups from the "To" list is
bad-mannered, because you never know who actually wants to participate.
Feel free to ignore).

mb

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 6:58:55 PM11/26/06
to

Mark Wallace wrote:
> mb wrote:
> > Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how
> >> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to
> >> modern usage - except perhaps as a source of more or less appropriate
> >> quotes.
> >
> > Chiefly of how the dialogues of 600 hundred years ago were imagined 174
> > years ago.
>
> Have you ever read Homer's work?

You have a point, but limited. Comparing oral transmission to ex novo
writing? The rhapsodes carried over and modified patches of an ancient
original, overlaid some of it with their own imitation of the archaic
core. Not exactly the same thing.

Mark Wallace

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 7:12:21 PM11/26/06
to

Of course it's limited, but it's basically the same thing. Both writers
created "up-to-date" impressions of "histories" of centuries before, and
inserted them into their "present-day reality".

The fabled "gods" that take up most of Homer's work were the gods that
Homer's society believed in, just as much of the "religious" elements of
Scott's work were concerned only with the religion of the day, but based
on older beliefs.

What is important, from my point of view, is that it was all put in
writing, and that the texts survived. That at least gives us something
tangible to pick up and study.

Robert Bannister

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 7:12:31 PM11/26/06
to
mb wrote:

Percy's Reliques.

--
Rob Bannister

Mark Wallace

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 7:21:43 PM11/26/06
to

Exactly. Well said.

Martin Ambuhl

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 10:38:36 PM11/26/06
to
Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> UC schrieb:

>> Read and learn. The best way to learn hjow to write well in English is
>> to read good writers and imitate them.
>>
> Since Walter Scott died 174 years ago his use of English, no matter how
> beautiful his writing is, would seem to have rather limited relevance to
> modern usage - except perhaps as a source of more or less appropriate
> quotes.
>
> Also your point has little or no relevance to sci.lang.translation,
> where I came across this message.

I think this has to do with his inept attempt at translating Kant. He
carried on about how wonderful his English was. You may remember that I
suggested that his capitalizing 'Reason' was either a misguided
personification or archaizing and that I considered his use of an
archaic phrase which also mistranslated Kant was silly. His response
was that he was both using personification (because of his
misunderstanding of agency in Kant) and archaizing, and defended his
archaic phrase not by showing it was accurate but by cutting and pasting
many lines from dictionaries to show that it was used in the 18th
century. He has, despite his earlier claims to being making a good
English translation, now proudly asserted that his goal is to produce
18th century English as the translation of 18th century German. This is
a stupid goal, since it has no purpose but to obfuscate.

Jean Munier

unread,
Nov 26, 2006, 10:42:21 PM11/26/06
to

"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
>

Way too long.

J.


Peter Twydell

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 3:49:35 AM11/27/06
to
In message <1164573859....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes
>http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/7/471/471.txt
>
I think I have had all the teaching I can take for the mo... hang on, my
tedium alarm has just gone into overload...
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

UC

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 8:42:36 AM11/27/06
to

No. Only by firmly anchoring the text in the 18th c can it be
understood properly. Modern terminology is inimicable to that. The
reader of Hume or Locke has a foundation for Kant.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 7:25:57 PM11/27/06
to
UC wrote:

[ ... ]

> No. Only by firmly anchoring the text in the 18th c can it be
> understood properly. Modern terminology is inimicable to that.

Modern English is inimical to "inimicable." The only listing for it
at onelook.com links to this:
<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inimicable>, which simply defines it as
"inimical."

Strangely, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English describes
"inimical" and "inimicable" as synonyms and both as standard when used
with the preposition "to." <http://www.bartleby.com/68/87/3287.html>,
though it does describe "inimical" as "much more commonly used." I
begin to understand Eric Walker's impulse to burn certain usage
books. Given that "inimicable" doesn't show up in a single online
dictionary (if you trust onelook.com and ignore Wiki, which hardly
counts), I don't know what the author of the Columbia Guide was
smoking.

Columbia Guide notwithstanding, the lack of dictionary support
suggests that "inimicable" has about the same status as
"irregardless." Certainly one would not expect someone capable of
translating Kant into 18th Century English to use such a word.

--
Bob Lieblich
Nicht so feindlich

mb

unread,
Nov 27, 2006, 9:02:46 PM11/27/06
to
On Nov 27, 4:25 pm, Robert Lieblich <r_s_liebl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> UC wrote:[ ... ]
>
> > No. Only by firmly anchoring the text in the 18th c can it be
> > understood properly. Modern terminology is inimicable to that.

> Modern English is inimical to "inimicable."

...


> Given that "inimicable" doesn't show up in a single online
> dictionary (if you trust onelook.com and ignore Wiki, which hardly
> counts), I don't know what the author of the Columbia Guide was
> smoking.

Vegetal oil.

CDB

unread,
Nov 28, 2006, 9:25:15 AM11/28/06
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
> [inimicable]

> Columbia Guide notwithstanding, the lack of dictionary support
> suggests that "inimicable" has about the same status as
> "irregardless."

Not as common, and AFAICS not incorrect. "Amicable" is derived from
"amicabilis", a Roman legal term, according to OneLook.
"Inimicabilis", or "inimicable" in English, would be the customary
negative form of that word; just not, as you point out, very
customary.


Leslie Danks

unread,
Nov 28, 2006, 10:14:45 AM11/28/06
to
CDB wrote:

The NSOED gives inimicable=inimical without further comment. Inimicable is
also what I would instinctively write (FWTW).

--
Les

UC

unread,
Nov 28, 2006, 10:06:34 AM11/28/06
to

Robert Lieblich wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > No. Only by firmly anchoring the text in the 18th c can it be
> > understood properly. Modern terminology is inimicable to that.
>
> Modern English is inimical to "inimicable." The only listing for it
> at onelook.com links to this:
> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inimicable>, which simply defines it as
> "inimical."

"Main Entry:inimicable
Pronunciation:**nim*k*b*l
Function:adjective
Etymology:Latin inimicus + English -able (as in amicable)

: INIMICAL, HOSTILE *inimicable to the public peace or safety U.S.
Code*

From: Webster's Third New International

I don't pay much attention to modern usage anyway.

UC

unread,
Nov 28, 2006, 10:09:26 AM11/28/06
to

The word just came to me. Both are words that I use so rarely that
'inimical' did not occur to me
.
>
> --
> Les

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages