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