I agree, Bob, almost no-one would use the phrase Heaven forfend nowadays. However, I'm a lot like Richard in some ways, and I might use it on occasion for effect. I suspect Richard was having some fun with you, Kalleh.

I suspect Richard was having some fun with you,

If so, I'd be surprised. It was just a normal e-mail about something quite mundane, if I recall. After hearing Bob's reply, I decided it must have something to do with Richards classical education.

I've mentioned before that my DH (dear hubby) has a habit of using odd phrases. Heaven forfend is something he would say.

He's funny that way.

In fact, although forfend is archaic in the UK (although I would use it when speaking to my friend Stewart and he would not so much as raise an eyebrow) it is actually a current (although specialist) term in US English.

It is a legal term having the meaning, "...protect by precautions..."

There are some rather nice archaic terms around that I like to use since they are often more picturesque and/or sonorous than their modern equivalents.

How much more interesting to say, "...She collected her chattels and set off for barely imagined new vistas..." than to say, "...She got her stuff and went off..."

She collected her chattels and set off for barely imagined new vistas..." than to say, "...She got her stuff and went off..."

Yes, I agree with you, Richard. And yet, in other discussions here, I remember your criticizing the vocabulary of academics. Is there really a difference?

By the way, is it "forfend" or "forefend?" Your original e-mail to me was the latter, but I misspelled it here as the former (later corrected it when I realized it), and now everyone is writing "forfend."

Forfend is correc; my original posting contained a typo.

Insofar as the use of language is concerned I draw a distinction between language that is used to make a passage sound or look beautiful, and arcane and turgid language that is used simply to give some spurious air of importance to a straightforward subject.

I suppose I get it, but sometimes I think there is a fine line between the two.

BTW, the dictionary contains both spellings, "forfend" and "forefend."

Quote "...BTW, the dictionary contains both spellings, "forfend" and "forefend."..."

Another problem for OEDILF when it gets to the "f's"...

I just looked up 'status' to see what the plural is, and they had a usage note on pronunction. They said:

"In a recent survey of the Usage Panel, 53 percent of the Panelists preferred the pronunciation (stăt'es), 36 percent preferred (stā'tes), and 11 percent said they use both pronunciations. The pronunciation (stā'tes) is the older, more traditional pronunciation, and it remains the most common one in British English."

So do you Brits say "stā'tes?"

Also, I have a question about the the start/programs/accessories/character map that jheem suggested using to get some of those characters (like the short and long "a's"). Many of them work just fine, but the upside down "e" comes out as a square. Does anyone know why?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

---

So do you Brits say "stā'tes?

---

I suppose I would, although I'd be unlikely to use it; I'd probably recast the sentence. I can't say that I've ever heard it pronounced.

quote:

---

Many of them work just fine, but the upside down "e" comes out as a square.

---

It depends on the font you are using; not every font has a glyph for each and every character.

Modern fonts or character maps ought to include the schwa symbol (upside-down e), since these days it's not just a phonetic symbol (which are largely excluded from fonts), but is now a letter in a Roman orthography. After Azerbaijan gained independence they replaced Cyrillic with Roman, and at first used the letter ä, but after a couple of years replaced it with ə, as in the native name of the country: Azərbaycan. Now the big question is whether that shows up here...

... Well, it doesn't. At least not in the browser I'm using here at work; Internet Explorer 5.5. We are still running Windows NT4 here, which has no Unicode support, so that may be the problem.

I suppose I would, although I'd be unlikely to use it; I'd probably recast the sentence. I can't say that I've ever heard it pronounced.

Really? We use "status" here quite a bit. "What is the 'status' of your project?" Or "What is the 'status' of the patient?" I would say it is fairly common here. Why would you "recast" the sentence?

quote:

---

We use "status" here quite a bit

---

Quite. It has become a jargon-word. I'd use "How is your project?" or "How is the patient?" instead.

quote:

---

... Well, it doesn't.

---

... However, revisiting from home using Opera 8 on Win MX it does appear correctly.

Status is used in the travel industry, and accurately I suggest, to denote the situation of a reservation. You will see it on air tickets where there is a reservation status box which will usually bear the comment "OK" - meaning that the reservation has been confirmed. Sometimes you will see "RQ" and this is a warning that the booking is not secure; indeed, the flight may be full and you are on a waiting-list.

Now, arnie, just because I said that it is used "quite a bit," doesn't mean that it is overused. I don't think that 'status' is overused at all. The 'status' of the project would mean, to me, where precisely you are with it. What step are you on. "How is your project" would be too vague. As for the 'status' of the patient, you are probably right.

quote:

---

just because I said that it is used "quite a bit," doesn't mean that it is overused

---

Agreed. I said it was overused.

The whole world, I think, has been intrigued by the Prince Charles's proposal to Camilla. I read an article today that said Prince Charles would be declared a saint by American women. Why? Because famous men in our country fall in love with women 30 years younger than they are! How refreshing, said one publication, that Prince Charles is in love with a woman who is, in the eyes of this reporter, "a bit of a frump."

Anyway, what a lot of Americans are asking is this: What is a Princess Consort?

We (Americans & Brits) post together here in the English language, and our cultures seem very similar. Yet, it is situations like this that show how very different our cultures really are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:

Anyway, what a lot of Americans are asking is this: What is a Princess Consort?

---

A Princess Consort is a brand new made-up title to avoid provoking a constitutional crisis.

Unfortunately it also sounds to my ear like a 1950s or 60s motor car (I drive an Austin Princess Consort...)

Actually the more I think about that car, been around the block a few times, nothing much to look at, bit of an old banger...


Sorry, I'll stop now.

Quote "...A Princess Consort is a brand new made-up title to avoid provoking a constitutional crisis...."


It's new only in the sense that It's never previously been used for the wife of a king. It was first used in the masculine sense in Victorian times when Queen Victoria's husband, Albert, was The Prince Consort. He was never referred to as King.

It's new in the sense that "Princess Consort" is new.
Had we been discussing "Prince Consort" I would of course agree with you.

Unfair it may be but the fact is that had Albert been called "King" he would have outranked Victoria and he would have been our monarch. Camilla could technically be called "Queen" without outranking Charles (as he would be King) .

...I'll bet she's not even a Tudor (two-door).