Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
[Alfred Ayres The Verbalist: A Manual Devoted to Brief Discussions of the Right and the Wrong Use of Words, and to Some Other Matters of Interest to Those Who Would Speak and Write with Propriety, New York, 1895.]
[H. W. Fowler A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd edition, revised by Sir Ernest Gower, OUP, 1965.]
[Bryan A. Gardner A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, OUP, 1998.] I thought of lengthy, and its curious rise to standardness, when reading elsewhere today of the backformed denominal verb restorate (from, no doubt, restoration), which is similar in motive to orientate (from orientation). Although the latter, orientation is not a valid latin word, but already a strange kind of morphological monster from oriens adj. 'rising' (from orior 'to rise', whose proper past participle is ortus not orientatus. Anyway, I like its slide from ugly Americanism to standard in the anglophone world. Now that's progress! Another resonance with restorate, contra "why coin a word, when we have a perfectly good one already," i.e., restore, is how lengthy which may have started as a near perfect synonym has subtly changed its meaning over a century of usage or so to fit the genius of the language and its speakers. (Note also, we have restaurate from restauration.) [Fixed typo.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd, —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | ||
|
Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zmjezhd: Zmj, What an excellent exposition. I am inclined with Fowler to restrict lengthy to imply something tedious as well as long.This message has been edited. Last edited by: pearce, | |||
|
Member |
Ta, Pearce. For me, it's also about tediousness as well as lengthiness. Here are some gems from the article in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of American Usage:
I like how the British have come to accept it, but the Americans, worried over their pronvincial accents and grammar, have not. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|