No, not me, C.S. Lewis. In a 1956 letter to Joan, an American girl with whom he corresponded for nearly ten years, he addressed her query about first person singular contractions.
This may be expressed as preferring notional agreement (concord) to logical agreement (concord).
Those interested in Lewis’s thoughts on language mght be interested in his Studies in Words. He is exceptionally good at pointing out, for example, the tendency among academics (and I dare say politicans in the age of “spin”) to ‘interpolate senses later than those intended’ when analysing non-contemporary texts.
I understand the intended meaning with the common usage. I just disagree with it. When you shoot at a target, and you only catch the outside area of the target, you would say, “I nearly missed it.” THAT was a near miss, because the target was, indeed, hit.
You got a cite for that claim? My point is not that cons own more guns than libs (or more cons own guns than libs), BUT that loads of libs own guns and defend the right of people to own and carry guns (in particular, handguns, which are almost be definition mainly for self-defence rather than for sport or recreation).
There’s a whole thread on this subject right now, and individuals who don’t self identify as cons, for example,Mr2001, elsewhere support the right of Americans to own and bear guns.
From a European perspective, as Casdave points out, “the Dope is pretty right wing [economically]; on guns, on taxation, on employment issues, on state intervention, the Dope is right wing, at least most of us Yurpeans think so.”
I want to apologize for introducing spelling a ways up above (a ways? :rolleyes:) in what is patently (rhymes with latently) a language thread. Spelling is to language as the buttons on his dress blues are to a Marine. Indispensable (-ible?), but not essential.
To make amends, I will include some of Mama Doug’s home-canned malapropisms, which you are guaranteed to love, especially spread over hot rolls or biscuits:
“Stop poo-hooing me.”
“He was a prevert.”
“You’re going to need orthodonchy.”
“Let’s make them some breakfasses.”
I’m even older than you and have never heard it either, but if I did, I’d think it meant “quite often,” rather than the familiar “every so often,” which seems to mean occasionally but regularly, IMO.
Um, yeah, I posted in that thread. I am a Democrat and a gun owner. I don’t know that I’m really a “liberal” anymore, though I do have some liberal viewpoints. I also have some conservative viewpoints, and I don’t fit in either category very well. However, I think I’m the exception, not the rule, and I do know that you cannot consider SDMB to represent the U.S. majority in any way. We are, well, exceptional.
I disagree with his opinion (pithy or otherwise) that his opinion is mainstream.
And here’s another that I think tells the story. A clip:
LOBBYING
The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $1,330,111 to Republicans and $285,700 to Democrats. (10)
Handgun Control, Inc. is the largest gun control lobbying organization in the United States. From 1997 through 1998, their political action committee gave $136,892 to Democrats and $9,500 to Republicans. (11)
The problem with this statistic, though, is that not all Republicans are conservative and not all Democrats are liberal, but most do fit nicely into their parties.
Anywho, my point is that yes, liberals own guns, but NOT to the extent that conservatives do. And liberals also have very different opinions about gun ownership, registration and the type of guns that are acceptable to own.
That thread is not about gun owners who don’t identify as conservatives.
Well, I wouldn’t put “niche” on the same level as “forte”. If I said “neesh” (and I tend to, if I’m referring to a purpose-built one), I can’t picture anyone not understanding me. Most people seem to know that pronunciation of the word “niche” and quite a few people use it. Perhaps it’s regional? Where was your professor from?
Dictionaries often present substandard entries. I don’t know about theories of prepositional use, only what sounds right to me. When it doesn’t sound right, it peeves me to hear it. For me to think it bizarre would give it too much importance; it’s just a peeve.
Interesting–when something sounds unusual to me, it piques my curiosity, and I try to find out the origins of the phrase. I like new things. They’re rockin.
In the OED (compact edition), the first cite of ain’t is from 1778: “Those you are engaged to ain’t half as near related to you as we are.” The word is a later form of an’t. OED’s earliest cite of this is from 1706: “But if your eyes a’n’t quick of motion, they’ll play the rogue, that gave the caution.” (Maybe the i in ain’t was a misreading of the single quote between the a and the n.)
The OED does say ain’t and an’t are also “colloquially” used for am not, is not, and other forms.
If the OED has updated these entries, I’d like to know about them.
While I like that last sentence, apparently Tolkien was not impressed with Lewis’s philological efforts.
That may be, or it may be that he mentioned to someone once something along those lines, and then it was carved on stone by the Lewis-freaks or the Tolkein-nutters! Heck, I say some things I may not mean (or I say some things which, if given the opportunity, or taking it, to explain at length, would make it plain that I don’t believe what I appar to believe through the abbreviated version).* Then, there are all the people who want to misrepresent others for whatever reason, etc. etc.
What I do know is that they were friends - good friends, whose friendship endured. They read their books to one another in smoky pubs in Oxford (how beautiful is that?) and they criticised and praised generously as they felt fit. Lewis thus heard The Hobbit at a pre-publication stage, and regarding LOTR in his essay on it he describes it as “lightning appearing in a cloudless sky”. Pretty cool, eh? One gracious dude.
It’s believed that Tolkein was a bit miffed that while he was salving away on his monumental task of creating “Tolkein-land” (with invented languages and all), Lewis dashed off not one, but seven, kiddies’s book in the space of 2-3 years (with rather cursory “back-stories”), which became more or less instant bestsellers and never stopped selling till Tolkein’s death (indeed, to this day).
Perhaps, as the older man, Tolkein had to be better at something than his great friend. After all, he was just a human being like the rest of us!
Just saw The Princess Bride today (starting a celebratory thread in CS soon) and there’s a nice bit where one of the characters is asked to recount something and he says: “Okay, I’ll explain it. No, I haven’t got time for that - I’ll summarise it.”)
rowrrbazzle, for the moment I’ll take your word on it. I’m quite certain that “an’t” is attested before that, but I don’t have any resources at hand to prove it. 1706 seems awfully late to me. I’ve always believed that “an’t” was a cognate of the dialectual “amn’t” (which I think still occurs in some places, but don’t quote me on that.) If not, then that means “am not” never really had a contraction in standard English. Problem is, I don’t have any books on English linguistics to argue this.
