|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:52 am
Fenrys Kijin Alabang For the record, slang has already invaded our dictionary. Webster's has words like, "bootylicious". You've got to be kidding me. I heard it from an English teacher... My dictionary's old, so I don't have that word... Edited: Dictionary.com has it, though... Here's the entry: Main Entry: bootylicious Part of Speech: adj Definition: sexually attractive, esp. in the buttocks Etymology: booty + delicious Usage: slang
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:27 pm
Judas lscariot Yokushi Judas lscariot Actually, Canterbury Tales looks horribly written. It doesn't look "fancy" at all. Actually, I am not refering to Canterbury Tales specifically. Chaucer wrote many things in his time. Basically, I was naming one author of many to make a point. And it is actually only in your opinion that it doesn't look fancy. I respect it, but it's only what you think. KayJuran I agree with everything this guy says here. Thanks. xd I really believe in my opinion of it, and I'm glad to know you think the same. Quote: Whan that Arcite to Thebes comen was, Ful ofte a day he swelte and seyde `Allas,' For seen his lady shal he nevere mo; And shortly to concluden al his wo, So muche sorwe hadde nevere creature, That is, or shal whil that the world may dure. Quote: With this he took his leve, and hom he wente; And lord, so he was glad and wel bygon! Very fancy. It looks to me like somebody who really needs to learn to spell was trying to play with his sentence structure a bit. Are you kidding me, man? This was normal English for them when he wrote it. Like I said, I respect your opinion, but how can you know that when it was read in those times it didn't sound beautiful? Just remember what times we are referring to here. And think of it this way, in the future other people might be reading things we wrote and they'll be thinking the exact same way you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:35 pm
Um... I understand the whole language evolving thing, but... How does this particular post apply to this thread?
Unless the evolution of language was the whole point of the post, I'm confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:43 pm
Yokushi Judas lscariot Yokushi Judas lscariot Actually, Canterbury Tales looks horribly written. It doesn't look "fancy" at all. Actually, I am not refering to Canterbury Tales specifically. Chaucer wrote many things in his time. Basically, I was naming one author of many to make a point. And it is actually only in your opinion that it doesn't look fancy. I respect it, but it's only what you think. KayJuran I agree with everything this guy says here. Thanks. xd I really believe in my opinion of it, and I'm glad to know you think the same. Quote: Whan that Arcite to Thebes comen was, Ful ofte a day he swelte and seyde `Allas,' For seen his lady shal he nevere mo; And shortly to concluden al his wo, So muche sorwe hadde nevere creature, That is, or shal whil that the world may dure. Quote: With this he took his leve, and hom he wente; And lord, so he was glad and wel bygon! Very fancy. It looks to me like somebody who really needs to learn to spell was trying to play with his sentence structure a bit. Are you kidding me, man? This was normal English for them when he wrote it. Like I said, I respect your opinion, but how can you know that when it was read in those times it didn't sound beautiful? Just remember what times we are referring to here. And think of it this way, in the future other people might be reading things we wrote and they'll be thinking the exact same way you are. You're just proving my point for me, you realize. I was arguing with this point: Yokushi Chaucer as well wrote in a way that people from his time would understand. We read the original versions of everything they wrote and it seems weird and classical and fancy in our eyes; but it was normal for them. Which you just negated, yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:45 pm
You're posting in the wrong thread...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
