MSGID: 1:153/716.0 d4114ce0   
   REPLY: 2:221/6.0 5d250ff0   
   CHRS: IBMPC 2   
   Hi again, Anton!  This is a continuation of my previous message to you:   
      
   AH>  I have requested MODERN AMERICAN USAGE from the public   
   AH>  library.  :-)   
      
   AS>  Make sure it is the original edition, because even the   
   AS>  most zelaus   
             |zealous ("zeal" + "-ous", rhymes with "jealous"   
      
   AS>  descriptivists agree that later editors betrayed the   
   AS>  dead Fowler and ruined his dictionary.   
      
      
              What I had in mind there was not FOWLER'S, but the work of an   
   author from the US.  Because I don't speak US English I saw little need for it   
   until I became curious about why Americans do what they do with, e.g., "of"   
   and thought I'd best consult a USAian expert....   :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  But you can have some Fowler for free on Bartleby:   
      
   AS>               https://www.bartleby.com/116/   
   AS>               [King's English]   
      
      
              Ah... thankyou.  I'd heard of it, but as yet I haven't read it.  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  which, to me, has the advantage of being a coherent book   
      
      
              That's what I enjoyed about Lynne Truss's book EATS, SHOOTS &   
   LEAVES as well.  It's a good read if one is simply open to new ideas....  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  instead of a set of disjoined articles in alphabetical   
   AS>  order.   
      
      
              WRT disjointed articles in alphabetical order, I find it   
   challenging at times to locate the information I need when somebody asks about   
   a particular topic because I feel as if I'm searching a filing cabinet where   
   unless you know what was going on in the secretary's mind you have no hope of   
   finding anything. I don't give up very easily when I &/or one of my students   
   really wants to know about something in particular, however... with the result   
   that over the years I have honed my skill.  Recently Dallas & I watched a   
   series about Queen Victoria in which the actress said (when HM was 8 1/2   
   months pregnant & was not allowed, by the standards of the day, to do as she   
   wished) said "I'm bored of this".  At a similar stage I was reminded of people   
   who had built a ship in the basement & wondered how they'd ever get it out...   
   and when I asked Dallas to help with the vacuuming I got a new vacuum cleaner   
   almost immediately.  But when I exclaimed, "What... Queen Victoria wouldn't   
   have said that!?" the 1998 edition of FOWLER'S confirmed my suspicion that   
   "bored of" emerged well over a century later.  :-))   
      
      
      
   AS>  Some topics merely touched in MEU are expouned in great   
   AS>  deatail in "King's English".  The chapter on "will" and   
   AS>  "shall" is a masterpiece (which I understood upon a fouth   
   AS>  re-reading :-).   
      
      
              Perhaps I should refresh my memory in that regard.  Although some   
   of us probably learned about it at school, North Americans in general don't   
   make a distinction between "will" and "shall".  I think much of the power &   
   sublety of the language is lost when folks try too hard to simplify or   
   naturalize it.  :-)   
      
      
      
   AS>  The usage of "shall" and "will" and "should" and "would" by   
   AS>  Agatha Christie and Anthony Hope is now much clearer to me.   
      
      
              While I know very little about Anthony Hope, I think I know what   
   you mean WRT Agatha Christie.  She could speak volumes about a man by saying   
   he was wearing spats & riding in a first-class railway compartment... in much   
   the same way as the photograph I saw of her wearing pearls while eating   
   breakfast on the patio of her country estate spoke volumes.  When you   
   understand the fine points of grammar &/or the upper-middle class customs of   
   the day you'll understand far more than the kids whose chief ambition is to   
   fit in with their age mates.  :-Q   
      
      
      
      
   --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/2 226/17 227/114 229/354 426 1014 240/1120 1634   
   SEEN-BY: 240/2100 5138 5832 5853 8001 8002 249/206 317 261/38 280/5003   
   SEEN-BY: 313/41 317/3 320/219 322/757 335/364 342/200 2454/119   
   PATH: 153/7715 261/38 240/1120 5832 229/426