h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'Make mine a large one,' as the bishop said to the actress.

The author of the letters was Mary Wortley Montagu, daughter of the Earl of Kinston-upon-Hull. At the time of writing the letters, she was the wife of the British ambassador to Turkey. I'd have thought that if anybody spoke/wrote the 'Standard English' of the day, she would have. Her husband was a grandson of the Earl of Sandwich. I don't know where she grew up or was educated, but with two Earls in the family she possibly spent a fair amount of time in London.

I appreciate that the rules of speech/grammar change, that's why I asked the question. I also realise that some people still speak that way, but it's something kids were always reprimanded over when I was younger.

So, to rephrase the original question, when did we start to set down rules for grammar?

I would say "two gin and tonics, please", gin and tonic singular, add s to the end to make it plural?

Unless I was in my local, when I would say "Supersonics all round", rhyming slang having solved the conundrum for me.

>>I'd have thought that if anybody spoke/wrote the 'Standard English' of the day, she would have.

Ah - but the thing is that there wasn't such a tightly-defined Standard in those days. To take an example...Samuel Johnson, one of the leading literati of his day, was known (and satirised) for his Staffordshire dialect. Outwith London, the accent of the nobility was determined by wherever they had their landed estate.

A similar situation still pertains in many countries (eg Italy, Germany) in which even if they have a de facto Standard, regional varieties aren't denegrated to the same extent as they are in Britain.

To some extent this is even true of Britain. Posh Scots is acceptable, even though it's slightly different (in grammar and idiom, as well as accent) to Standard English.

G&Ts. Never Gs&T.

On that subject what about trade union?

Is it trades unions or trade unions?

t.

PS Two gins for me. You can keep the tonic

I've seen - and used - both. You can thik of it as either several unions, each for one trade or several unions for each of several trades.

Fifty five years ago I was taught 'trades union' and therefore shudder inside when I hear 'trade unions' but I bet I say it sometimes too.
'mothers in law' seems to be drifting a bit as well
I'm going out on a limb for the original question: spelling started to fix post Johnston, grammar with public schools, ie mid-Victorian.
Webster published a grammar book in the states slightly earlier

Probably about right. Grammar was shoehorned into the prescriptive pattern of the Classics - hence all that nonsense about not splitting infinitives, etc.

Doesn't really work for English, because it's really a creole. Our grammar is an inconsistent and flexible mess of Norse, Anglo-Saxon and French.

>> So, to rephrase the original question, when did we start to set down rules for grammar? <<

English grammar originated as a direct result of the first tourist phrase books published in England during the late Renaissance for visitors from Europe. Especially French and Italian.

I suspect the Italian - being derived from Latin - imposed a certain amount of grammar on the translations. But it is important to recognise that grammar was merely a side issue to these 'phrase books' and 'English/whatever' translating dictionaries. Because of these our 'rules' of grammar were arrived at by a kind of reverse osmosis.

~jwf~

'My postillion has been struck by lightning.'

That used to be the singular term, but it changed over time . . . a spurious oversingularisation akin to suburbs becoming suburb.

Talking about such groups, one of Ireland's big unions is called SIPTU, which stands for Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union http://www.siptu.ie/

I wondered idly one day about the order of the letters. There seemed to be some pecking order involved, Services and Industrial being a notch humbler than Professional and Technical . . . but surely Professional ranks highest?

But then it struck me that if you put it first you would get the unpronounceable PTISU, and if you put it last it would be--

SIT PU

>> PTISU <<

Gesundheit.

RF

Eduardo becomes more and more obscure in his references.



...by English writer, Patricia Beer, in 'The Oxford Book of Contemporary Verse 1945-1980' chosen by D.J.Enright...

The Postilion Has Been Struck By Lightning

"He was the best postilion
I ever had. That summer in Europe
Came and went
In striding thunder-rain.
His tasselled shoulders bore up
More bad days than he could count
Till he entered his last storm in the mountains.

You to whom a postilion
Means only a cocked hat in a museum
Or a light
Anecdote, pity this one
Burnt at milord’s expense far from home
Having seen every sight
But never anyone struck by lightning."


~j~

It's even earlier. It's that Portuguese bloke who wrote an English-Portuguese phrasebook despite knowing no English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_As_She_Is_Spoke


...or so I thought. But seemingly not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_postillion_has_been_struck_by_lightning


'Meu hovercraft está cheio de enguias '

Perhaps the phrase "my postillion has been struck by lightning" is not well known in the wiles of Canada, but it is familiar to every flood-blooded pedant on this eastern side of the pond, I believe.

>> ...to every flood-blooded pedant...<<

Flood blooded is not a term I'm familiar with.
I'd be quite happy to learn its meaning or to hear that it was simply some sort of Freudian typo. Not knowing will become unbearable.

~j~

"Flood-blooded" was indeed a typo, possibly Freudian.

What worries me is the 'wiles of Canada'. Is the country particularly cunning or tricksy? Or maybe it's packed with coyotes chasing ground-living birds (Wile. E. Coyote, in case you hadn't gathered).

'Wiles' is one of those nouns that's always associated with a particular adjective, isn't it? Do we ever talk about any other kind of wiles apart from 'feminine wiles'?

The adjectival form is more flexible. Foxes (or coyotes) can be wily.