> 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".
>>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 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.
>> 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?
(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).
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.
mb wrote: > 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.
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.
>>>>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.
>>> mb wrote: >>>> 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.
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.
Martin Ambuhl wrote: > 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> [ ... ] > [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.
>> 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.
The NSOED gives inimicable=inimical without further comment. Inimicable is also what I would instinctively write (FWTW).
> > 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.
> 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.
> >> 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.
> The NSOED gives inimicable=inimical without further comment. Inimicable is > also what I would instinctively write (FWTW).
The word just came to me. Both are words that I use so rarely that 'inimical' did not occur to me .
|
