Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Advent: What do you do? | Main | Funny error message »

December 05, 2006

Comments

Esau

Or, let's take in the INFAMOUS New American Bible:

“in a prophetic condition”

as in the NAB's

1st Samuel Ch 19:23
As he set out from the hilltop toward the sheds, the spirit of God came upon him also, and he continued on in a prophetic condition until he reached the spot. At the sheds near Ramah


This is where the translators had not really represented exactly what’s in the original language, which is Hebrew for this book.

So, to some extent, the phrase “a prophetic state” really doesn’t occur here, but if one is “in a prophetic state” that means that one is in a state of mind where one is giving prophesies, where God has inspired you so that you can prophesy and tell people what God wants them to know.

That’s something that happened in the Bible a number of times to a good number of people. It doesn’t happen so much anymore but even today, if God wants, he can put someone in a state of mind where they can speak for him and tell people what God wants them to know.

decker2003

What are your criteria for whether something is a word? "Prophesize" is very widely used. Just try googling it and see how many hits you get. If a lot of people use it and understand it, then I would say it qualifies as a "word" by popular vote.

SnoopD

Profuhsizzle ma nizzle!

Inocencio

SDG,

Prophesize isn't that analogous to when you super-size a McDonald's meal except it pertains to the word of God?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Esau

So, to some extent, the phrase “a prophetic state” really doesn’t occur here...

Actually, correction, "a prophetic state" really doesn't occur here (i.e., in verse 23) since it occurs in the next verse:

24
he, too, stripped himself of his garments and he, too, remained in the prophetic state in the presence of Samuel; all that day and night he lay naked. That is why they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

Yet, the previous statements made still apply nonetheless.

The Waffling Anglican

You don't seem to get trackback pings, so consider this to be one from The Waffling Anglican

"Of course, anyone in the consulting business would recognize the verb "prophetize," whereby one trains the client’s employees to be prophets, hopefully leading to larger profits. To have large numbers of profitable prophets is the desired result of the prophetization process for the client, and of the profitization process for the consultant.

Failure to implement the consultants prophet making plans will result in the client being a non-prophet organization - though hopefully the consultant has already collected his profits."

Nate Wildermuth

What do you think about today's prophecy? The wolf shall be the guest of the lamb...

Esau

A non-prophet organization?

Sounds like Notre Dame! ;^)

Alyssa

Beautiful, Steve. We need more grammar police on duty. I know I do.

SDG

What are your criteria for whether something is a word? "Prophesize" is very widely used. Just try googling it and see how many hits you get.

Yes, and here is the first link Google lists:

Substandard, apparently an error caused by a feeling that prophesy needs a suffix to be a real verb.

FWIW, no online dictionaries indexed by OneLook.com list the term.

"Not a word" is my humorous way of saying that it's a corruption of a word based on a misunderstanding of terms.

It's like saying "I got my dog spaded," meaning "spayed." The verb is "spay," past tense "spayed," but people think "spayed" (or "spade") is the verb, and default to "spaded" for past tense.

In the same way, the corrupted verb form "prophesize" seems to assume "prophesy" as the noun, when in fact "prophesy" is the verb and "prophecy" is the noun.

Paul H

Thanks, Steve! :-)

Here's my public service contribution:

If you want to make a word plural, add the letter s. Here's an example:

Singular: dog (e.g., "I have one dog.")
Plural: dogs (e.g., "I have two dogs.")

If you want to make a word possessive, add an apostrophe followed by the letter s. Here's an example:

Noun: dog
Possessive Form: dog's (e.g., "This is my dog's chew toy.")

But you should not confuse these two usages by using an apostrophe when forming plurals! Why is this so hard to remember???? ;-)

(The strange thing is that I never once saw anyone make this error until about ten years ago, but now it has become rampant on the internet and elsewhere.)

SDG

Thanks, Paul. FWIW, I assure you, this error has been around for a lot longer than ten year's. :-)

Esau

By golly, did it actually take decade's before anybody noticed this???

-- says a repeat offender of Grammer rules-breaking! ;^)

Mia Storm

Public Service Announcement:

It's is a contraction for it is. Whenever you write the word, test it by replacing it with it is and see if the sentence makes sense. If it doesn't, don't use it.

Its is the possessive pronoun for it. Example: The dog chased its tail.

**Further public service announcements may follow at some future point for your/you're and there/their/they're. But if you keep the basic rule for contractions (see example with it's) in mind, you should be able to avoid the most common errors in usage.**

Jeff

How about plural forms of acronyms. The proper usage is an "s" after the acronym, but the common use is with an apostrophe. Use SUVs instead of SUV's.

I saw a sign in the Wal-Mart deli once which read "Hot Wing's". I couldn't resist the very bad temptations, so I asked "Hot Wing's what?". When met with the expected glazed look, I explained the possessive form used on the sign and offered the correct version; nothing but more glaze.

Jeff

More fun misconceptions.

Astronauts orbiting the earth are NOT weightless.

There is no such thing as a "centrifugal force".

There is no such thing as a "G-force" (except for the cartoon).

Scientists use these terms since they are simpler than the true explanation.

Not all French words translate to "we surrender"; some mean "we are so sorry, can we get you a crepe?".

SDG

I love glazed hot wings.

Jeff

OOPS!! The should have been "...may we get you..."

Fr. Benoit

From Steve's Google link : "To say or write prophesize is a shibboleth."

Shibboleth... I like that. Shibboleth. Shibbooooleth....

I just love to learn new words. Thanks for the "prophesy" clarification.

"If a lot of people use it and understand it, then I would say it qualifies as a "word" by popular vote.".... Yikes, I hope not. Say NO to the 'democratization' of linguistics! In French-speaking Quebec, "Crisser" (to Christ something... and it's not pretty) is a valid, widely used and understood term... But hopefully, it's not a word.

Jordan

Very Important Public Service Announcement

your: possessive second person pronoun, literally meaning "of you"

you're: contraction of "you" and "are"

There. I hope it is now clear that anyone who says "your stupid" is in fact refering to the "stupid" belonging to me and not telling me that I am stupid. The same goes with "your joking", "your dumb", "your crazy", etc. I have found it useful when some unfortunate fool makes this grammatical mistake to answer with the question, "What about my stupid?"

I suppose, for completeness, I should also mention another netspeak abomination.

ur: not a word, and if ever used in any form of online communication with myself, risks electronic slapping

Fr. Benoit

Italics OFF now!

Sorry about that.

And it's 'crêpe' not crepe... But of course, I understand it's not easy to put accents with an English keyboard layout. :-)

Jordan

Italics off

Fr. Benoit

what's wrong with the italics!!? Back to normal, yes?

Kevin Jones

Prophesize Me!

Where do I go to become an accredited prophet? (See NAB, 1 Samuel 3:20)

Jordan

I turned them off, Fr.

Esau

Further public service announcements may follow at some future point for your/you're and there/their/they're.

Mia,
I think more than anything else, the instances you brought attention to in your post above (like it's/its) is more likely due to a typo more than anything else.

I've witnessed prominent lawyers commit the same mistake in several draft litigation documents.

It's not really an ignorance of the rules of English so much that it's merely a typo.

Paul H

I saw a sign in the Wal-Mart deli once which read "Hot Wing's". I couldn't resist the very bad temptations, so I asked "Hot Wing's what?". When met with the expected glazed look, I explained the possessive form used on the sign and offered the correct version; nothing but more glaze.

This has nothing to do with grammar, but your mention of the employee's "glazed look" reminded me of the time I went to an ice cream shop in a local mall. I walked up to the counter and tried to place an order, but the teenage girl behind the counter just stared at me. I repeated my order, but still the stare. Finally, she informed me that the store was closed. I said something along the lines of, "oh, well your door is open, your lights are on, and you're standing there behind the counter, so naturally I assumed..." -- but still all I got was that glazed look. At that point I gave up, and have avoided that ice cream shop ever since. :-)

Not all French words translate to "we surrender"; some mean "we are so sorry, can we get you a crepe?".

LOL! :-)

Esau

And it's 'crêpe' not crepe..., you Creep! ;^)

Fr. Benoit

Here's something some of you (?) might find interesting if you ever come and visit Quebec, Canada.

The title "Father" is used to address all English-speaking priests but the French equivalent "Père" is used only to address French-speaking religious priests. Instead, the expression "abbé" (Monsieur l'abbé) is used for French-speaking diocesan/secular priests. With my parishioners, I am M. l'Abbé Benoit Morrier. Of course, abbé comes from 'abba', father, so it basically means the same thing, but the usage is different. Sulpician priests in Quebec are addressed simply as "Monsieur" (not Père or Abbé). They were among the founders of Ville-Marie (Marianapolis, now Montreal--- Mount Royal) and they were called back then The Lords of Ville-Marie (les Seigneurs)... When someone spoke to them, they would call them "Mon sieur" (my lord)...

A bit of French Canadian history for you all today. Enjoy ;-)

Edward

"Loose" means less tight.

"Lose" means to misplace, or otherwise cease to be in possession of something. It can also mean to be on the short end of the score in a sporting event.

Edward

correction, "loose" is the OPPOSITE of tight.

Esau

Other Pet peeves:

People who say:
That thing is *more* better than the other.

more better????


Also: "irregardless"
I still find the word "regardless" to be the appropriate word.


And:
"We wasn't doing nothing wrong!"

John

You couldn't be more wrong, Decker2003. Repeated use of the non-word, "prophesize," will never make it a word. For who-knows-how-many decades or centuries, some people have been saying, "brang" (or "brung"), instead of "brought." And yet, the millions of uses of those syllables have not made "brang" (or "brung") into a word! The same will be the fate of "prophesize."

Esau

You couldn't be more wrong, Decker2003. Repeated use of the non-word, "prophesize," will never make it a word. For who-knows-how-many decades or centuries, some people have been saying, "brang" (or "brung"), instead of "brought." And yet, the millions of uses of those syllables have not made "brang" (or "brung") into a word! The same will be the fate of "prophesize."


Like in the movie Mean Girls:

Regina:
Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!

Mia Storm

One more:

If you are speaking of two children, then you speak of an elder child and a younger child:

Example: My two daughters love to play cards. The elder prefers gin rummy and the younger likes poker.

Only if you are talking about three or more children to terms such as eldest and youngest come into play.

John

Esau, when people use "irregardless" in my presence, I ask, "Don't you mean, 'irregardful?'" (Although the latter is not really a word, it could serve as a quasi-synonym of "regardless," while "irregardless" is an antonym of the genuine word!)

Esau

Only if you are talking about three or more children to terms such as eldest and youngest come into play.

Mia:
That's a good point!


I know folks who, when comparing the characters of two individuals, they'd say:

"The worst of these candidates..."

Esau

Esau, when people use "irregardless" in my presence, I ask, "Don't you mean, 'irregardful?'" (Although the latter is not really a word, it could serve as a quasi-synonym of "regardless," while "irregardless" is an antonym of the genuine word!)

Thanks, John!

That's so fetch! ;^)

(j/k)

LarryD

This is a little off topic, but....

"You say tomayto, I say tomahto. You say potayto, I say potahto. Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto, let's call the whole thing off!"

Gotta love Gershwin!

Here's a verbal pet peeve of my dad's: when I was younger, describing a movie scene or TV show, I would say: "...and then this guy goes, 'You better...", and my dad would interrupt and say "Which guy? Is 'this' guy here right now?" To which my reply was "Well, no." "Then it's not 'this' guy, but 'a' guy or 'the' guy." So then I would restart the story. "....and then the guy goes...'You better...", to which he would interrupt "Goes where? Don't you mean 'said'? People say things, they don't 'go' things." At which point I would tell him to go watch the movie himself.

Esau

"You say tomayto, I say tomahto. You say potayto, I say potahto. Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto, let's call the whole thing off!"


Anyways...

Oh yeah, did I also mention that "anyways" can also be as annoying?

Esau

So then I would restart the story. "....and then the guy goes...'You better...", to which he would interrupt "Goes where? Don't you mean 'said'? People say things, they don't 'go' things." At which point I would tell him to go watch the movie himself.


So goes the story!

Brian John Schuettler

Here is one that drives me crazy.
Someone says that something is sort of or very unique...no such thing.
Unique cannot be qualified or conditional...it is one of a kind, it is, well, UNIQUE!

KWS

How about the mangling of "quote" (verb) and "quotation" (noun)?

Instead of saying, "here's a quote from so-and-so," it should be, "here's a quotation from so-and-so." Misused all the time.

One that's popular around election season is the phrase, "We promise to grow the economy." True, grow can be transitive, as in "the farmer grew the corn," but it is usually intransitive if the object in question is not agricultural. My ear still isn't used to it used in the economoic case.

Oh, (last one) in Barry Manilow's song Copa Cabana there's the stanza:

And then the punches flew
and chairs were smashed in two
There was blood and a single gun shot
But just who shot who?

Arrrgggghhh! It gets me every time! It should be "who shot WHOM...WHOM...WHOM!!!" "Who" in the objective case becomes "whom," dangnabbit!

arthur

And another Public Service Announcement:

Cavalry: Soldiers mounted on horses

Calvary: The hill where the Crucifixion took place

--arthur

J.R. Stoodley

my brain is melting due to this horrifying revelation.

J.R. Stoodley

the prafasi one not the Caflurry one.

The problem with the latter is not knowing the difference but pronouncing the wanted word correctly.

Esau

the prafasi one not the Caflurry one.

J.R.,
You just had to barge in here with that wit of yours again! ;^)

Slowboy

I feel a need to prophetize that this rule will be broken before the sun meats the sure.

SDG

Prafasi...? No get it. My stupid.

Esau

No, SDG:

You're just morally retarded!

(just kidding -- I just love that new term that Tim J. invented in that other thread!)

Monica

I came back from a trip to Greece years ago and a friend asked me if I saw the 'Acropolypse'.

Personally, I speak very good the English, so I don't need no stinkin' rules.

Jordan

Your stupid, indeed. :D

Esau, when people use "irregardless" in my presence, I ask, "Don't you mean, 'irregardful?'" (Although the latter is not really a word, it could serve as a quasi-synonym of "regardless," while "irregardless" is an antonym of the genuine word!)

For some reason, this reminds me of Laurel and Hardy movie I saw the other day.

Laurel: The sea was infatuated with sharks!

Hardy: "Infatuated"! He means infuriated.

Esau

Actually, does grammatically retarded also work?

"Are you a grammatic retard?"

"Then, just order Amazing Wonder's new educational tool designed to help the grammatically-challenged!"

"This product usually sales for $299.99, but at a special low price, we're selling them now in this T.V. offer for just $19.99!"

"Plus, if you call now, the first dozen callers will receive a free copy of The Elements of Style!"

DJ

Then there's effect vs. affect. I still can't remember which one means which...

Esau

CORRIGENDUM:

"This product usually sells for $299.99, but at a special low price, we're selling them now in this T.V. offer for just $19.99!"


hehehhee...

DJ

Phosphorus - noun
Phosphorous - adj

gray - a color
grey - the colour of the sky in England.

mr

I tell this story a lot (including on blogs...maybe this one?), and I should stop because no one seems to think it is funny, but I do. A colleague's philosophy student said that "Descartes would have been a great philosopher had he not been struck in the quagmire of Cartesian dualism." OK, not a grammatical error, but still my favorite student howler!

Esau

I feel a need to prophetize that this rule will be broken before the sun meats the sure.

Posted by: Slowboy | Dec 5, 2006 1:26:16 PM


"They call me Slowboy, Slowboy, Slowboy

But I ain't lonesome and I ain't blue

'Cause I could never be a Slowboy
As long as I’ve got a dolly like you!"

-- from THE KING!

JGC

Imagine the distress I caused when I walked into the college cafeteria and gave the student help my Public (dis)Service Announcement that their sign was spelled wrong: Polish Sausage Sandwich $1.98! And told them it actually spelled "poll-ish", not "pole-ish"!

John Henry

Thank you for this... I have heard them mispronounced for so long that I was starting to doubt myself.

SDG

grey - the colour of the sky in England

I still use "grey," even though I'm American.

Partly because I ran into that spelling of the word at a young age, reading The Hobbit for the first time, in the figure of Gandalf the Grey. Partly because I like Britishisms. And partly it's a narcissistic reflection of my own last name. :-)

J.R. Stoodley

I had no idea "gray" was correct and American. Darn. Stupid Webster or whoever messed up American English.

And isn't gray (shudder) soil gley not glay? It just gets worse.

My spell-check accepts both gray and grey, but neither gley nor glay.

Tim J.

I also use "grey" almost exclusively. Why??? I dunno.

The sky isn't ALWAYS grey in England.

That's just a rumour.

Esau

'Grey' is more better, I think.

Terentia

Twice this week, on a TV news program, I have heard " We are efforting to..." Efforting? What's wrong with "trying" or if that's too simple a word, use "attempting." The administrative people at my place of employment are experts at turning simple into idiocy. The latest example is "The new signage will be up on the building next week." It makes me want to stand up and scream "SIGN, SIGN, SIGN, It's a perfectly good word!" BTW, mr, I think the story is hilarious.

DJ

There's a name for Americans who like to use English spellings for words (grey, colour, realise, etc..) I can't seem to find it, otherwise I'd link the Wikipedia article..

Annalucia

``There's a name for Americans who like to use English spellings...''

They're called Canadians.

Esau

They're called Canadians.

Anyone been at the theatre lately or at the Arts Centre?

Esau

Bugger, I forgot...

``There's a name for Americans who like to use English spellings...''

Joy

Just read this sentence in a note from the director of composition at the community college where I used to teach. "You can give the form to John or myself."

I could give it to myself. John could give it to himself. You could give to your yourself.

Notice the pattern? Use the reflexive pronouns correctly, people, or soon your English teachers won't know the difference!

That original sentence sould read, "Give the form to John or me."

Here's another error that is becoming more and more common. Students often write "would of" instead of "would've."

Sometimes the student errors are good for a laugh though. The best one lately is from the student who bragged about his uncle being a member of the Green Barrettes.

JohnD

"6:00 a.m. in the morning" is redundant.

Starting a sentence with the word "honestly" is pointless.

Nutcrazical

This isn't a grammatical error, but it always amuses me:

Only for .99¢!

Imagine how many of those one could buy with a dollar!

At a school fair I once saw: Coke: $0.50¢. I kid you not.

Maureen

Actually, lots of people saying something does make it a word, and does make it proper grammar. That's pretty much how these things happen.

(There seems to be a tipping point, though.)

Re: brang

You're right about "brang" not being correct (except maybe in certain Old English dialects, but "brung" has been there since the creation. :) The problem is that it's a weird irregular, even back in Old English, and therefore people have always wanted to regularize it to the same pattern as "sing". But there's probably ghosts of old phonetics past buried in there, which make the past tense follow the same paradigm as "feohtan".

Here's the conjugation of the verb (ge)bringan.

http://www.verbix.com/cache/webverbix/23/bringan.shtml

Note the following particularly:

Preterite Indicative:
Sing. 1: brohte (should be "brong")
Sing. 2: brohtes/t (should be "brunge")
Sing. 3: brohte (should be "brong")
Plur. 1-3: brohton (should be "brungon")

Preterite Subjunctive:
Sing. 1-3: brohte (should be "brunge")
Plur. 1-3: brohten (should be "brungen")

Past Participle:
broht/e (should be "brungen")

Maureen

Intensifiers and reiterators are not pointless. Giving a point more emphasis is an important function. (For example, it seems that the medieval scholars used the word "scilicet" in their arguments just about as often as teenagers say "like, you know, okay". It served the same function, too, as far as I can tell.)

Now, as a stylistic matter, you may prefer to strip your statements of intensifiers until and unless they become absolutely necessary. But that is your choice. Scilicet, there is no grammatical or even aesthetic sin in being verbose.

Monica

Maureen, your post a headache has ongebrungen.

Jordan, that Laurel and Hardy brings up the whole (or should I say 'a whole nother' fun topic of Malapropism! I LOVE THEM THANGS. My favorite is from a friend of my grandmother, who said "I think that man is a hormone sexual!"

Esau

Scilicet, there is no grammatical or even aesthetic sin in being verbose.

There is in being annoying! ;^)

P.S. Incidentally, isn't "copacetic" a made-up word that somehow became legit?

AnonnyMouse

And the reason the three wise men were wearing fire helmets is because...
"Three wise men came from afar" but it is only good if you are a Southerner.
Like, dem shore some right durn good sweet patater pie maw.
I had to read Huckleberry Finn out loud, and I am from the South, and I laffed till I rolled on the floor!

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse

If I may humble add, to this discussion on theological diction, that the name our our Lord is NOT pronounced "Gee-AY-zuss-uh". It is not a four syllable word, regardless of how exercised you are at the time you say it.

Kris

"If I may humble add, to this discussion on theological diction, that the name our our Lord is NOT pronounced "Gee-AY-zuss-uh". It is not a four syllable word, regardless of how exercised you are at the time you say it."

It is if you're from south of the Ohio River!

RTW

Far above, Jeff wrote:

More fun misconceptions.



Astronauts orbiting the earth are NOT weightless.



There is no such thing as a "centrifugal force".

There certainly is such a thing as centrifugal force. Many are the dynamics problems I struggled through in Engineering School dealing with that. The trick is that centrifugal force exists only in the reference frame of the moving body. In that reference frame, the force is as real as real can be. Of course, once one has the answer in that reference frame, one must then go through some transformation (Lorentz? -- I forget, ) to get the answer back into a contentional (so-called "inertial") reference frame.


Similarly, in the reference frame of the astronauts they really are weightless, since they feel no force pulling them to the center of the earth.

Tim J.

I can't be certain that I invented the idea of being morally retarded... that may have been Mark Shea.

and;

"Arrrgggghhh! It gets me every time! It should be "who shot WHOM...WHOM...WHOM!!!" "Who" in the objective case becomes "whom," dangnabbit! "

You need to relax. Just rela-a-a-a-x.

Anyways, that's what you get for listening to Barry Manilow.

Jeff

"There certainly is such a thing as centrifugal force. Many are the dynamics problems I struggled through in Engineering School dealing with that. The trick is that centrifugal force exists only in the reference frame of the moving body. In that reference frame, the force is as real as real can be. Of course, once one has the answer in that reference frame, one must then go through some transformation (Lorentz? -- I forget, ) to get the answer back into a contentional (so-called "inertial") reference frame."

Using a fictitious force to make a dynamics problem look like a statics problem does not make it real. In the real world, there is NO SUCH THING as a centrifugal force.

Scott W (that other one)

Please Note:

1. Lead is the present tense of the verb "to lead". It is pronounced "leed".
2. Led is the past tense of the verb "to lead". It is pronounced "led".
3. Lead is a noun meaning the graphite material in the middle of a pencil. It is pronounced "led".

Please don't confuse these words. It makes my eyebrows curl.

Thank you.

J.R. Stoodley

Lead as a noun can popularly refer to the graphite in the middle of a pencil, but it more properly refers to the metalic element with the atomic number 82.

J.R. Stoodley

oh, and yes I know it is not pure graphite in the middle of a pencil. Scott's "graphite material" is better in that way.

Fr. Benoit

``There's a name for Americans who like to use English spellings...''

They're called Canadians.

Indeed :-) And I am Canadian !

Fr. Benoit

Arghh! Again with the italics! Stop!

Fr. Benoit

Why. won't it. stop....? :-(

J.R. Stoodley

J.R. Stoodley

You have to end it with a if that shows up.

J.R. Stoodley

it didn't, let's try it with spaces in between the angly brackety things. End italics with < /i > and no spaces between it and the end of the text.

decker2003

I refer all of you who insist that "proper grammar" trumps common usage to the following article on the debate between prescription and description in linguistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_and_description

As one who has previously written definitions for widely used English-language dictionaries, I lean strongly towards the descriptivist point of view. Language is created by people. I don't see how some of the people can tell other people that they are not using the language "correctly." The language belongs to all of us, so there is no higher authority one can appeal to decide which usage is correct.

If no dictionaries include the term, that could mean that the usage is not yet sufficiently widespread to be noticed by language researchers, or that the dictionaries consulted do not do adequate research. In my own dictionary work, a significant part of the work consisted of research to see what words were actually in common use and should be included. Usage is dynamic, so new words come into the language and old ones drop out, which is why we keep issuing new editions of the dictionaries on a regular basis.

Francis DS

Prophesize, also spelled prophecize, is not a word. Do not pronounce it.

That's the test I use to sift between a true and false prophet. If they say: "Rev X prophesized...." then I know it's a false prophet. But if they say: "Mr. Y prophesied..." then I know I should sit up and listen.

Heresy - false teaching
Heretic - ahderent to false teaching
Hereticize - distorting true teaching to make it a heresy.
Heresied - teaching a false teaching


georgette

MONSIEUR FATHER and "MISS CLAVEL"?

Fr.Benoit, since you bring up the practices and customs of what priests are referred to in French -- "Sulpician priests in Quebec are addressed simply as "Monsieur" (not Père or Abbé)" -- I was wondering if you can tell us what nuns and sisters are called.

In the children's books, Madeline, the headmistress nun of the all girls Parisian school is referred to, plainly, as "Miss" Clavel, which always bothered me! Is this also a French custom to refer to sisters or nuns as simply "Miss"

Language is created by people. I don't see how some of the people can tell other people that they are not using the language "correctly." The language belongs to all of us, so there is no higher authority one can appeal to decide which usage is correct.

Oogley boogley doogley. In situatun you has not familiarizen youself with me's dialex, that roughlin translaz to: "You is off you's rockir." Reamembir peepel: langwaj belonns to awl ov us, so you canut vocat me's Englisatun kak (oar "bad" as yous has learnen 't).

My Cat's Name Is Lily

"Heresy - false teaching
Heretic - ahderent to false teaching
Hereticize - distorting true teaching to make it a heresy.
Heresied - teaching a false teaching"

All of which brings to mind my own pet peeve: heresy vs.hearsay....As, "You can't testify to that in court; it's heresy!"
Makes me want to put up a stake & put another log on the fire....and me a Methodist!

Anonymuse

All of which brings to mind my own pet peeve: heresy vs.hearsay

Your (sic) talking about that chocolate company in Pennsylvania, right?

Francis DS

A contribution: "Ye olde ".

I just learned a couple of years ago that you read "Ye" as "The" (there is no y sound in Ye)

Jeff

Actually, lots of people saying something does make it a word, and does make it proper grammar. That's pretty much how these things happen.

This sounds like Wikipedia logic; if enough people believe or say that something is true, then it must be so.

SDG

``There's a name for Americans who like to use English spellings...''

They're called Canadians.

"And... Canada is separate from the United States because… Canadians like to be alone!" — Stuart Little 2

BTW, I don't use British spellings generally. Just "grey." But I do tend toward some British expressions. I spent a long time studying British English for some writing I was doing, and some of it stuck.

I just learned a couple of years ago that you read "Ye" as "The" (there is no y sound in Ye)

But what about "Ye/Thee"? "Thee" is singular, "Ye" is plural (at least, in Shakespearean/Elizabethan type English, if not always in Quaker usage). Surely that distinction was reflected in pronunciation as well as spelling?

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31