Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseely
emunix.emich.edu>
Just a thought: I wonder if the pervasiveness of the formulation doesn't have something to do with permeability of local, subjected speech forms to what might be considered linguistic "colonization." Is there some way to determine the "authenticity" of the trope? Is there any kind of "etymotropology" (what a terribly interesting neologism?) that might yield a source for these examples in languages/speech outside the dominant, first-world syntagm? Just wondering? John Konopak The University of Oklahoma EDUC/ILAC 820 VanVleet Oval Norman OK 73019 Ph: 405-325-1498 FX: 405-325-4061 E-mail: jkonopakMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueuoknor.edu
I notice that you don't have any examples from Scandinavian languages, but the "terrible" practice is widespread there also. To use Norwegian as example language "terribly" corresponds to "fryktelig" (fearfully), "forferdelig"(terribly), "grusomt" (cruelly), and several others, some of them marked as dialect and perhaps humorous such as "ille vakkert" (badly beautiful). The others above may be coupled with adjectives such as "glad" (pleased, happy), "vakker, pen" (beautiful), "god(t)" (good, nice), etc. - There are other adverbs in similar use, such as "j=E6vlig" (=E6=3D ae) (devilishly, considered not quite nice, rather like "bloody" in British English). Such combinations of bad and good denoting something positive is called "contradictio in adjecto", as I am sure you know already. One of our best known (Norwegian) authors, B. Bj=F8rnson (1832-1910), in a novel called Absalons h=E5r (Absalom's Hair) from 1893 mentions examples of this, e.g., "knakende god punsj" (literally creakingly good punch - a popular beverage in older days), which he felt was to combine something dry and something wet. He called it an example of "sl=E6ng", by which he may have meant "slang", and if so he is the first to mention this phenomenon in Norway, but he may also have meant "sleng" =3D turn of phrase. He called it "sproget= s nedtraadte sko" (the worn-out shoes of the language), but also "sprogets yderste piskesnert" (the very whiplash of the language), so it seems he was undecided as to whether to call it good or bad usage. I seem to remember an old (American) article by George T. Flom from before 1920 about combinations of adverbs of degree + adjective, but god knows where. Good luck to your hunt! Dag Gundersen (Prof. of Scandinavian linguistics, Oslo)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
As a addendum to my recent summary of the 'thou & you' issue in English and the Quakers' involvement in it, Paul Hopkins (phopkinsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueuvic.ca), a Canadian Quaker, has kindly sent me an informative response, part of which is reproduced below: ... [T]he suggestion that Quakers might have adopted use of 'thee' to make themselves distinct is quite ahistoric. Quakers did not _adopt_ the use of 'thee', they simply rejected the use of 'you' and thus _retained_ the use of 'thee'. Of course, the Quakers were not successful in persuading English society to use this plain speech, and 'you' became the general term of second person address (i agree with Trask and Darnell's explanation for this). The Quakers then fell into a stockade mentality throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, leading them to retain a number of characteristics in clothing and speech which, originally common to all poor people of northern England, came to be distinct markers of Quakers. In the late 19th century, Quaker society was forced to open up and reexamine its practises, partly due to the challenge of evangelism, partly because of plummetting membership numbers: this led to the abandonment of the superficial marks of Quakerism ... such as the use of 'thee'. Alan Firth Dept. of Language & Intercultural Studies Aalborg University, Havrevangen 1, DK-9000 Aalborg Denmark. Tel: +45 98158522, 6211; Fax: +45 98138086; E-mail: firth
hum.auc.dk
Hello, I read with interest the comments on language and the movies. May I just make one small observation? The accent/variety of English spoken in Sheffield is most certainly different and distinct from that heard in Birmingham. To most of us here (I'm not from here, BTW) Sheffield is seen as an outpost of Yorkshire (with a little Derbyshire in there somewhere), and not of the Midlands. This applies for food, political views, popular culture and so on. If Sheffield had an elder brother, it would be Leeds, rather than Birmingham. Those around me have a good, canny Yorkshire twang, rather than the somewhat nasal sound of Brum. 'Appen am raat, but then thaa'd better ask some others. Best wishes, Paul Woods Computer Science Uni of SHEFFIELD. PS There's an excellent book on Sheffield English which a native friend bought for my American-English speaking (Chinese) wife. That book contains many definite northernisms and yorkshirisms. PPS Being taken for an Aussie...Fair dinkum, no worries for me, mate.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue