Mum accused of trafficking daughter in airline blunder

Following up to Des Small

Isn't it "and I'll show you a child molester"?

They used to call it "boarding school", but idioms change of course.

I wonder where Gary Glitter was educated?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On 03 Mar 2006 10:20:49 +0000, Des Small
wrote:

B writes:

On 02 Mar 2006 18:55:39 +0000, Des Small
wrote:

B writes:

I teach an English class in our local evening school. We use a text
produced by Oxford University and some of the usages it proposes make
me cringe. Last night, I encountered "Firstly", the use of which would
have given my English teacher hives. I usually warn my students that
such usages are not universally accepted.

Well, Oxford usage and Noo Joisey(?) usage may have been different
back then, too. The Intergalactic NYT Scrapbook-Tribune gets on my
tits more than somewhat when it writes about foopball ("soccer") with
the American convention that teams are singular nouns.

Has "firstly" always been considered standard in the UK?

Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (1926) has this to say:

"""
First(ly), secondly, lastly. The preference for 'first' over
'firstly' in formal enumerations is one of those harlmess pedentries
in which those who like oddities because they are odd are free to
indulge, provided they abstain from censuring those who do not share
the liking. It is true that 'firstly' is not in Johnson; it is true
that De Quincey labels it 'your ridiculous & most pedantic neologism
of "firstly"'; the boot is on the other leg now; it is the pedant that
begins his list with 'first'; no-one does it by the light of nature;
it is an artificialism. Idioms grow old like other things, & the
idiom-book of a century hence will probably not even mention 'first,
secondly'.
"""

More interesting, to my mind, is the astonishing length of time in
which educated persons continue to hold their gradeschool English
teachers' whims in awe. (I'm not accusing you, of course.)

"Give me the child for his first seven (7) years and I'll give you the
man", isn't it?

I don't know if it's because of my origins across the Atlantic, but
firstly was never my "natural" way of enumerating a list, so my
teachers could only have reinforced an existing feeling that "firstly"
was artificial.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

B writes:

On 03 Mar 2006 10:20:49 +0000, Des Small
wrote:

B writes:

Has "firstly" always been considered standard in the UK?

Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (1926) has this to say:

"""
First(ly), secondly, lastly. The preference for 'first' over
'firstly' in formal enumerations is one of those harlmess pedentries
in which those who like oddities because they are odd are free to
indulge, provided they abstain from censuring those who do not share
the liking. It is true that 'firstly' is not in Johnson; it is true
that De Quincey labels it 'your ridiculous & most pedantic neologism
of "firstly"'; the boot is on the other leg now; it is the pedant that
begins his list with 'first'; no-one does it by the light of nature;
it is an artificialism. Idioms grow old like other things, & the
idiom-book of a century hence will probably not even mention 'first,
secondly'.
"""
[...]

I don't know if it's because of my origins across the Atlantic, but
firstly was never my "natural" way of enumerating a list, so my
teachers could only have reinforced an existing feeling that "firstly"
was artificial.

I'm pretty sure Fowler is sticking to BrE. But then, I'm pretty sure
the OUP is too. (Full disclosu my li'l sis works for the OUP's
TEFL (Spanish) department, but I do not discuss usage with her.)

Des

B Vaughan wrote:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 06:49:18 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:


B Vaughan writes:


Because of all the news items about international traffic in infants.

What if she doesn't watch CNN?


I don't watch CNN either.

Nor do I! (The version here in the U.S. has become just as
bad as the rest of our so-called "news" sources.)

Des Small wrote:


Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ (1926) has this to say:

"""
First(ly), secondly, lastly.

Those are generally clues to the nationality of the author
of English-language books I read - along with "orientate"
and "orientated" in place of "orient" and "oriented".
Things like "our" endings for words Americans end simply
"or" (honour/honor, humour/humor) are a less reliable
indication, since many Americans (myself included) use
either (depending upon context).

Mxsmanic writes:

What if she doesn't watch CNN?

Where are all the news items about trafficking in infants, then?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin writes:

Not in the EU.

Australia isn't in the EU.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Those are generally clues to the nationality of the author
of English-language books I read - along with "orientate"
and "orientated" in place of "orient" and "oriented".

Also words such as 'spelt' and 'whilst', rather than 'spelled' and 'while'.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:20:55 +0000, The Reid
wrote:

Following up to DDT Filled Mormons

But she was Australian, and wasn't her husband Italian? Hardly
suspicious characters, and I assume no-one doubted it was her baby.

what counts as "suspicious", just Arabs?

No, just people from poor countries where this activity is common.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:32:21 +0000, Lansbury
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:05:15 +0100, DDT Filled Mormons
wrote:

Because of all the news items about international traffic in infants.

But she was Australian, and wasn't her husband Italian? Hardly
suspicious characters, and I assume no-one doubted it was her baby.

I have dealt with for child abduction people from the UK, USA, Portugal,
Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and quite a few
other countries that don't readily spring to mind.

Which of those would you class as suspicious.

The ones with Brown skin.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--