I'm sorry but your agent provocateuring seems to consist largely of making
gratuitous, nasty comments about me, and it is very tiresome, not to
mention boorish and ignorant.  Once is no doubt forgivable; this has gone
way beyond that.

To the list:

When personally nasty comments are made in this public forum, the
object of the trashing is put in the absurd position of ignoring it--and thus
treating it as normal and ok--or responding and thus participating in
boorish and ignorant behavior.

Neither option is at all attractive, but, as Jane Eyre said, otherwise the bad
people have it all their own way (paraphrase).  So I have responded this
time though I often did not in the past.

I have never figured out why anyone thinks a public forum is a valid place
to be rude and hateful and personal.


Date sent:              Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:34:32 -0500
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Jacek Niecko <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: Screw grammar/ Apostrophe's
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Jacek is not distressed.

Jacek took upon self the role of agent provocateur  vis-a-vis this group,
hopes this has now been recognized as a minor ruse, and begs to be
forgiven for his many trespasses.

Life is like that--it tends to bring up unexpected challenges.

Jacek also assumes Eliot would have enjoyed Brideshead Revisited in its
several dimensions--support for gay rights being one of them--after all,
having read the Painted Shadow, we all know where we are with this--

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Screw grammar/ Apostrophe's

> Dear Carrol,
> I cannot make the thorn mark, so I am transcribing it as a capital "Th,"
> and omitting the other marks, but this transcription will show the
> similarity:
> THa genealaehte he and wraTH his wunda and on ageat ele and win and hine
> on his nieten sette and gelaedde on his laecehus and hine lacnode;
> Then approached he and bound his wounds and in poured oil and wine and
> him on his beast set and took into his hospital and him treated;
> Sorry to everyone who can transcribe the OE on their computer, but it
> shows the Germanic placement of the modifier before the verb--on his
> beast set.  (Not my translation.)  OE inflections also have the
> genitive, dative, accusative, etc., for both singular and plural.
> I have no idea why Jacek is distressed that I had an undergraduate
> teaching minor in German and about 5 semesters of Anglo-Saxon
> language and literature in the doctoral program at Michigan (partly with
> Sherman Kuhn, editor of the Middle English Dictionary, but this is a
> ridiculous choice to note that.  One cannot do Scottish Studies without
> a comparable linguistic base even if one is not a specialist in
> linguistics. What IS his problem? Nancy
> Date sent:              Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:39:32 -0600
> Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum."
> <[log in to unmask]> From:                   Carrol Cox
> <[log in to unmask]> Subject:                Re: Screw grammar/
> Apostrophe's To:                     [log in to unmask]
> Nancy Gish wrote:
> >
> > It seems worth noting that Old English is a Germanic language and that
> > it is easier to learn it if you speak German than if you speak modern
> > English.  Because the changes (post 1066) took place more slowly and
> > less completely in the north than the south, modern Scots is much
> > closer to German and shares sounds lost in modern English (the sound
> > of Loch, licht, and muir--which get mispronounced by English and
> > Amercans as "k" and "oo," and has many more cognates:  "ken" is know;
> > for example, "licht" is light in both languages; "kirk" is "kirche"
> > and "night" is "nicht." So I think we really have as a history an
> > invasion of German by French that became "English" and the reversal of
> > English words in German is just part of a constant process.  But I
> > think the Germans should refuse to let their version be invaded. Nancy
> >
> It's been fifty years since I read any Old English -- and I don't
> remember whether it had that participial construction of modern German
> and Russian. And if I remember correctly -- this is also 50 years or so
> ago -- my Russian instructor said that the Russians had deliberately
> imported the construction from German, during a period of infatuation
> with German culture. The Russian language _allows_ it but hadn't had it
> before sometime in the 19th century. (I won't swear by this because my
> memory of it is pretty vague.)
> Carrol