Search options (Page 11 of 30)

Yes, but like p***y , t**t has another unoffensive meaning.  I like p***y does mean I like my cat ever so very much even though I have taken to calling him p**py lately.

I'm sorry that the penny hasn't dropped for you yet.  In England, the word does not have the meaning, or quite the explicit meaning, you think it has. I mischievously used the word to trap another but got you instead while the one to whom it was directed would know what I meant, should he not have been a complete pretender.

Well, the operative word here is "written" when it was editorially suppressed within the context of the prescriptivist English movement that began in the 1870 's. "Snuck" and other words have been slowly premitted back because of the Ebonics movement - following on the fact that blacks, North and South, almost universally use the word over "sneaked"  For similar reasons, generationally propagating antebellum white Southerners have always used the word, too.  I never heard the word "sneaked" until I lived in Pittsburgh, whose natives rather perversely use older English past-tense verb-forms (wept, leapt, smelt) because of early Scots and later German inhabitants.

That is backwards history. The history is complicated by the fact that "sneaked" snuck into English in the Old Country as proper probably well into the 18th century partly we might suppose because the Great Vowel Shift mentioned before equalized many words like "leak" and "sneak" by the 17th century - but not always among the lowers classes, North and Scotland from which emigration to America was most common.

Again, the history is backwards. English changed rapidly in England (1600-1800) and not so rapidly in America (outside of New England), so American English is original English (outside of London, Essex, Sussex, etc.) in broad generalization. Canada is irrelevant. Australian and South African are stuck in a timelock ca. 1750. because of relatively low immigration in early empire.

Because England has increasingly become irrelevant since 1900 and will cease to be anything much at all before William ascends, it should be accepted that proper English comes from the U.S.A. but without American bigotry that you cannot speak and write English as you wish in your little country.

No, what I was referring to was that instead of your addressing ...

... you corrected my typing "i" instead of "f" and another writer typing "your" instead of "you're"  ...

... proving that you are an obnoxious pseud.

There is no need to correct anyone's grammar/punctuation on an internet forum in which proofreading is not requested unless the meaning is unclear. Doing so invariably means you have nothing else, or ever anything relevant, to say. Similarly, Corra's constantly carping her feminist messaging when she feels the need to do so is rude.

man-hating, anti-white bigotry is now pc-approved bigotry, and because within that sphere -- which is the belief that "feminism" has had any political validity beyond coercion to take from some to give to others for two generations -- you are such a bigot, and any simple topic of discussion like "sneaked" vs. "snuck" has elicited here significantly the very same bigotry that created modern feminism to create official approval of "sneaked" and disapproval of "snuck" a century ago because only those people, those anti-feminist, traditionalist, Southern-U.S. people, use "snuck."

No, he can't be so in a public forum. I informed him that his entire contribution to the discussion was worthless because sneaked v.s snuck never came up in his Josey Wales example to demonstrate his bigotry.

What is not mentioned, because it was a bonehead Oxfordian mistake from the beginning, is that "leak" and "sneak" were not at all pronounced the same in the Middle Ages until after the Great Vowel Shift 1400-1600 and still not in Northern parts of GB.Leak had a short-e vowel sound and sneak had a long-i/ay sound (the same as "snake" was pronounced then), and so the business is about bad spelling and not that "sneaked"/snuck should have ever conformed with "leaked."

What is important to this discussion, it appears, is that you cook and play the spinet well.

No, what I mean is that I object to someone making fun oi the way I speak and write that is, in fact, proper and fine English, and on top of that he bluffs his way on purported facts that are his juvenile (or might it be senile?)  "mis-rememberings."

Can you notice neither "sneaked" nor "snuck" is available to the reader in all this stuff you trot out here.

No, of course not. I assume you are a foreigner.

What is "so 19th century" about 3rd person omniscient past-tense telling is strict adherence to one person---and this applies the 1st person limited narration, too --- telling of the story which, though natural, can tend to be tedious and predictable. It is now acceptable for an author to mix it up by interjecting inner thoughts and perceptions of more characters while still in the context of author's omniscient telling. Present tense effectively gives that in-the-moment personal feel to a character's telling. This is perspective writing. For example, in my Maximilian's Achilles and Patroclus (which is an experiment in alternate perspective writing) Alec is telling the story of a meeting between Chris and him in Hammock Park as if it has already happened, but Chris is telling the story -- a different story in a different, his own, perspective from that of Alec -- in the here and now.

I stood beside Pa’s Buick in Hammock Park in Ocean Ridge waiting. I was there because the men on the other side of the cameras let me. The Intracoastal Waterway and the cameras were the barrier-island town of Ocean Ridge’s moat against Boynton Beach. [etc.]

But two chapters later ... Chris on the same event ...

There in Hammock Park I wrap my arms around Alec and hug him not from strategy but from pure destination; so he is surprised, and I am happy to have my friend back if only for that moment to remember the day when we were twelve fighting together. [etc.] 

So what I am suggesting that you try as an exercise is to write short piece from one character's POV in past tense and then the same event from another POV of a character, also part of the event, in the present tense, as if it was still going on, almost like a running commentary.

I find a whole story written in the present tense annoying, at the very least for the reasons in the article I cited -- it is limiting to absurdity, but if tense change is treated like a spice added cautiously, it can add an appealing flavor.