Bos amic?

[Marius Hancu]

Hello:

Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?

Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...

----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
For to you we owe a real debt:
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.

From: Ezra Pound, Amities
http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities
----

Thanks,
Marius Hancu

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amitieshttp://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities

My first thought was Catalan, for which"amic" looks quite good, but
"bos" less so. However, searching for "bos amic" with quotes omitted
on google yields as first choice a page that is certainly in Gascon,
and in which "bos" seems to correspond with French "vous".

athel

[CDB]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound,
Amitieshttp://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities

My first thought was Catalan, for which"amic" looks quite good, but
"bos" less so. However, searching for "bos amic" with quotes omitted
on google yields as first choice a page that is certainly in Gascon,
and in which "bos" seems to correspond with French "vous".

The whole poem that Marius linked to, snipped from this post, may
offer further clues.

"Amities
Old friends the most.-- W.B.Y.

I

To one, on returning certain years after.

You wore the same quite correct clothing,
You took no pleasure at all in my triumphs,
You had the same old air of condenscension
Mingled with a curious fear
That I, myself, might have enjoyed them.
Te Voila, mon Bourrienne, you also shall be immortal.

***
Napoleon had a private secretary named Bourienne, and googling
indicates that one of his lieutenants, Soult, who retained his favour
to the end, was a Gascon. Pound would find Bonaparte, or Pound's
conception of him, fascinating and sympatico. Napoleon on his return
from Elba, considering some of his earlier supporters?

[Marius Hancu]

Post by ***@yahoo

Post by Marius Hancu
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.

My first thought was Catalan, for which"amic" looks quite good, but
"bos" less so. However, searching for "bos amic" with quotes omitted
on google yields as first choice a page that is certainly in Gascon,
and in which "bos" seems to correspond with French "vous".

It may well be Gascon.

Thank you all.
Marius Hancu

[the Omrud]

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amities
http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities
----

Amic is Catalan for "Ami" as you suspect. I don't know enough to say
what "bos" is but you should be able to find it by looking at Catalan
sites or dictionaries. But I wouldn't be surprised if it meant "good".

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:10:32 +0100, the Omrud

Post by the Omrud

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amities
http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities
----

Amic is Catalan for "Ami" as you suspect. I don't know enough to say
what "bos" is but you should be able to find it by looking at Catalan
sites or dictionaries. But I wouldn't be surprised if it meant "good".

An online dictionary at
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.net/translation/ tries
to find the meaning of a submitted word in a variety of
languages. For "amic" it returns

Catalan amic friend.
Languedocien amic friend.
Romanian amic friend.
Valencian amic friend.

But for "bos" it gives only

Slovak old bos? barefoot.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Bob Cunningham
An online dictionary at
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.net/translation/ tries
to find the meaning of a submitted word in a variety of
languages. For "amic" it returns
Catalan amic friend.
Languedocien amic friend.
Romanian amic friend.
Valencian amic friend.
But for "bos" it gives only
Slovak old bos? barefoot.

Where's the beef?

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:13:33 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Bob Cunningham
An online dictionary at
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.net/translation/ tries
to find the meaning of a submitted word in a variety of
languages. For "amic" it returns
Catalan amic friend.
Languedocien amic friend.
Romanian amic friend.
Valencian amic friend.
But for "bos" it gives only
Slovak old bos? barefoot.

Where's the beef?

Good question. The site has a Latin dictionary, but it
failed to pick up Latin "bos". When the Latin dictionary is
searched for "bos" directly, it finds

Latin bos bovine animal.
Latin bos (bovis) cow, ox. bull.
Latin Bos bubalus Ceylonese carabao.
Latin Bos grunniens Tibetan yak, wild yak, yak.
Latin Bos indicus Zebu.
Latin Bos javanicus Banteng, Bantin, Banting.
Latin Bos mutus wild yak.
Latin Bos primigenius aurochs.
Latin Bos primigenius f.taurus cattle.
Latin Bos taurus common ox.

But it doesn't have "Bos lucas", "elephant", which the
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

(because the Romans first encountered elephants in
Lucania)

The _CMleD_ has the following comment, among others, under
"bos":

optat ephippia bos (of a discontented person)

I know almost nothing about Latin, but "ephippium" is a
saddle, and words with "optat-" have to do with wishing.
What does all of that have to do with discontent?

There are several words in Latin starting with "amic-" and
having to do with friendship, including "amice". I wonder
if a larger Latin dictionary would give a clue to what Latin
"bos" might have become in some of the Romance dialects.

* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

[LFS]

Post by Bob Cunningham
The _CMleD_ has the following comment, among others, under
optat ephippia bos (of a discontented person)
I know almost nothing about Latin, but "ephippium" is a
saddle, and words with "optat-" have to do with wishing.
What does all of that have to do with discontent?

I know nothing about oxen but wishing to saddle an ox suggests to me
wanting to do something beyond one's capacity and thus possibly a source
of frustration and discontentment.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:05:05 +0100, LFS

Post by LFS

Post by Bob Cunningham
The _CMleD_ has the following comment, among others, under
optat ephippia bos (of a discontented person)
I know almost nothing about Latin, but "ephippium" is a
saddle, and words with "optat-" have to do with wishing.
What does all of that have to do with discontent?

I know nothing about oxen but wishing to saddle an ox suggests to me
wanting to do something beyond one's capacity and thus possibly a source
of frustration and discontentment.

Sounds good to me.

[Mike Lyle]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:05:05 +0100, LFS

Post by LFS

Post by Bob Cunningham
The _CMleD_ has the following comment, among others, under
optat ephippia bos (of a discontented person)
I know almost nothing about Latin, but "ephippium" is a
saddle, and words with "optat-" have to do with wishing.
What does all of that have to do with discontent?

I know nothing about oxen but wishing to saddle an ox suggests to me
wanting to do something beyond one's capacity and thus possibly a
source of frustration and discontentment.

Sounds good to me.

Close, but it's the ox who's the subject. Horace adapted, or even
quoted, a proverb: _Optat ephippia bos piger, optat arare caballus_.
"The sluggish ox wants a horse's trappings; the horse wants to plough."

I think _ephippium_ can only be "saddle" in a tropical use: it's really
a saddle-cloth, but I suppose the plural here could well imply the whole
kit.

[Shani]

Post by Bob Cunningham
The _CMleD_ has the following comment, among others, under
optat ephippia bos (of a discontented person)
I know almost nothing about Latin, but "ephippium" is a
saddle, and words with "optat-" have to do with wishing.
What does all of that have to do with discontent?

"the bull whishes for a saddle" I think

[Daniel al-Autistiqui]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case? The top ten hits on Google for
"Chambers Murray Latin English Dictionary" all have an initial capital
on both words.

daniel mcgrath

[Bob Cunningham]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:16:34 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case?

I saw it on the title page of the dictionary, the front
cover, and the spine.

My copy is
Paperback
ISBN 0-550-19003-1 (Chambers)
ISBN 0-795-3323-6 (Murray)

Maybe you can find it in a local library and see for
yourself.

However, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll see "Latin" and
"English" capitalized, even on a picture of the front cover,
so chances are a copy you would find at a library might have
the same change.

As long as the copy I have in front of me is the one I refer
to, I will continue to write the title as it's shown on the
title page, with lowercase "latin" and "english".

[Daniel al-Autistiqui]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:58:59 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:16:34 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case?

I saw it on the title page of the dictionary, the front
cover, and the spine.
My copy is
Paperback
ISBN 0-550-19003-1 (Chambers)
ISBN 0-795-3323-6 (Murray)
Maybe you can find it in a local library and see for
yourself.
However, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll see "Latin" and
"English" capitalized, even on a picture of the front cover,
so chances are a copy you would find at a library might have
the same change.
As long as the copy I have in front of me is the one I refer
to, I will continue to write the title as it's shown on the
title page, with lowercase "latin" and "english".

Bob, do you *really* think that the title should be written with lower
case on the two words in question -- say, in the body of a sentence --
just because it appears that way on the title page? If it was printed
in all caps, would you insist on writing something like "I was looking
in the _CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_ last night"?

I was trying to make a point here, and I'd bet there will probably be
other people on AUE who agree with me.

[Oleg Lego]

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:58:59 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:16:34 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case?

I saw it on the title page of the dictionary, the front
cover, and the spine.
My copy is
Paperback
ISBN 0-550-19003-1 (Chambers)
ISBN 0-795-3323-6 (Murray)
Maybe you can find it in a local library and see for
yourself.
However, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll see "Latin" and
"English" capitalized, even on a picture of the front cover,
so chances are a copy you would find at a library might have
the same change.
As long as the copy I have in front of me is the one I refer
to, I will continue to write the title as it's shown on the
title page, with lowercase "latin" and "english".

Bob, do you *really* think that the title should be written with lower
case on the two words in question -- say, in the body of a sentence --
just because it appears that way on the title page? If it was printed
in all caps, would you insist on writing something like "I was looking
in the _CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_ last night"?
I was trying to make a point here, and I'd bet there will probably be
other people on AUE who agree with me.

Another point you might want to consider is that the title of a book,
when you are writing the title, should be exactly what the title of
the book is.

So yes, if the title was "CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY",
then you would write it "_CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_".

If, on the other hand, you are not specifying the actual title, but
rather describing the work, it would be fine to refer to it as "The
Chambers and Murray Latin/English dictionary".

[Bob Cunningham]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:53:38 -0600, Oleg Lego

Post by Oleg Lego

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:58:59 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:16:34 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case?

I saw it on the title page of the dictionary, the front
cover, and the spine.
My copy is
Paperback
ISBN 0-550-19003-1 (Chambers)
ISBN 0-795-3323-6 (Murray)
Maybe you can find it in a local library and see for
yourself.
However, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll see "Latin" and
"English" capitalized, even on a picture of the front cover,
so chances are a copy you would find at a library might have
the same change.
As long as the copy I have in front of me is the one I refer
to, I will continue to write the title as it's shown on the
title page, with lowercase "latin" and "english".

Bob, do you *really* think that the title should be written with lower
case on the two words in question -- say, in the body of a sentence --
just because it appears that way on the title page? If it was printed
in all caps, would you insist on writing something like "I was looking
in the _CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_ last night"?
I was trying to make a point here, and I'd bet there will probably be
other people on AUE who agree with me.

Another point you might want to consider is that the title of a book,
when you are writing the title, should be exactly what the title of
the book is.
So yes, if the title was "CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY",
then you would write it "_CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_".
If, on the other hand, you are not specifying the actual title, but
rather describing the work, it would be fine to refer to it as "The
Chambers and Murray Latin/English dictionary".

Thank you. I'm glad I read your post before I said almost
the same things myself. However, I would not have quotes in
your last sentence, and I would lowercase the "the".

[Oleg Lego]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:53:38 -0600, Oleg Lego

Post by Oleg Lego

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:58:59 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:16:34 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case?

I saw it on the title page of the dictionary, the front
cover, and the spine.
My copy is
Paperback
ISBN 0-550-19003-1 (Chambers)
ISBN 0-795-3323-6 (Murray)
Maybe you can find it in a local library and see for
yourself.
However, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll see "Latin" and
"English" capitalized, even on a picture of the front cover,
so chances are a copy you would find at a library might have
the same change.
As long as the copy I have in front of me is the one I refer
to, I will continue to write the title as it's shown on the
title page, with lowercase "latin" and "english".

Bob, do you *really* think that the title should be written with lower
case on the two words in question -- say, in the body of a sentence --
just because it appears that way on the title page? If it was printed
in all caps, would you insist on writing something like "I was looking
in the _CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_ last night"?
I was trying to make a point here, and I'd bet there will probably be
other people on AUE who agree with me.

Another point you might want to consider is that the title of a book,
when you are writing the title, should be exactly what the title of
the book is.
So yes, if the title was "CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY",
then you would write it "_CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_".
If, on the other hand, you are not specifying the actual title, but
rather describing the work, it would be fine to refer to it as "The
Chambers and Murray Latin/English dictionary".

Thank you. I'm glad I read your post before I said almost
the same things myself. However, I would not have quotes in
your last sentence, and I would lowercase the "the".

I agree. I was debating using the quotes, and decided that the phrase
needed to be delimited as something I would have said outside the
meaning of the sentence I used it in, and the capital in "The" was
because I initially wanted to use a complete sentence within the
quotes.

[Daniel al-Autistiqui]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:55:38 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:53:38 -0600, Oleg Lego

Post by Oleg Lego

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:58:59 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:16:34 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case?

I saw it on the title page of the dictionary, the front
cover, and the spine.
My copy is
Paperback
ISBN 0-550-19003-1 (Chambers)
ISBN 0-795-3323-6 (Murray)
Maybe you can find it in a local library and see for
yourself.
However, if you look it up at Amazon, you'll see "Latin" and
"English" capitalized, even on a picture of the front cover,
so chances are a copy you would find at a library might have
the same change.
As long as the copy I have in front of me is the one I refer
to, I will continue to write the title as it's shown on the
title page, with lowercase "latin" and "english".

Bob, do you *really* think that the title should be written with lower
case on the two words in question -- say, in the body of a sentence --
just because it appears that way on the title page? If it was printed
in all caps, would you insist on writing something like "I was looking
in the _CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_ last night"?
I was trying to make a point here, and I'd bet there will probably be
other people on AUE who agree with me.

Another point you might want to consider is that the title of a book,
when you are writing the title, should be exactly what the title of
the book is.
So yes, if the title was "CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY",
then you would write it "_CHAMBERS MURRAY LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY_".
If, on the other hand, you are not specifying the actual title, but
rather describing the work, it would be fine to refer to it as "The
Chambers and Murray Latin/English dictionary".

Thank you. I'm glad I read your post before I said almost
the same things myself. However, I would not have quotes in
your last sentence, and I would lowercase the "the".

Look, Bob. Have you ever had an occasion to refer to the title of a
book on which the title-page artist happened to print the title in all
upper case? I think there are many such books.

In particular, I am looking just now at a book called
_Merriam-Webster's Desk Dictionary_. On the title page, I see it as
"small capitals", i.e., all of the letters are capitalized but the
initial letters are printed slightly larger. Does this mean I need to
refer to the book that way? I wouldn't think so, and my reasoning is
reinforced by the fact that the front cover and spine have the title
as I wrote it above. (Actually, I just noticed that for some reason
the possessive ending to "Merriam-Webster" is missing on the spine.)

My point, I guess, was that, even if the title page to a book
indicates more or less what the title is, the *capitalization* of a
title is not determined by the way it is printed there.

daniel mcgrath

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:11:19 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui
<***@hotmail.invalid> said:

[...]

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
Look, Bob. Have you ever had an occasion to refer to the title of a
book on which the title-page artist happened to print the title in all
upper case? I think there are many such books.

I would change all caps to upper and lower case according to
accepted rules of capitalization in titles.

I'm gratified to find support for that point of view in
Section 15.104 of the _Chicago Manual of Style_ (_CMOS_):

Words printed in full capitals on the title page are
regularly changed to upper and lowercase.

But the _CMOS_ can be interpreted to offer some support for
changing "latin-english" to "Latin-English" in the case
that's at issue in this thread:

15.103 Compiling documentary notes and bibliography
entries raises questions about the extent of editing
acceptable when applying the rules of style to the
titles of printed works. Because capitalization,
punctuation, and the use of italics on the title page
of a book or the opening page of a chapter or an
article in a periodical are generally matters
determined by the publisher rather than the author,
scholars agree that these may be changed within
limits so long as the author's spelling is not altered.

However, that opens the discussion to what is the definition
of "spelling". Is capitalization an element of spelling?

If I had been Henry Fowler choosing a title for his book on
English usage, I would have been tempted to lowercase
"modern" to emphasize the recognized great difference
between "modern English" and "Modern English". Thus the
title I would have chosen would have been

_A Dictionary of modern English Usage_

I would then have taken exception to anyone's reporting the
title as

_A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_

because it would have defeated my effort to preserve the
distinction between modern English and Modern English.

Come to think of it, though, I probably would have avoided
the ambiguity of "Modern English" by choosing other wording,
like

_A Dictionary of Today's English Usage_

As it happens, the copy of Fowler's book that I have here
has the title in all caps on the title page, so we can't
infer from the title whether or not Fowler would have
distinguished "modern English" and "Modern English".

By the way, where Fowler's book is mentioned in _The Oxford
Companion to the English Language_ (on page 415 under
"Fowler, H(enry) W(atson)"), it appears as follows:

_A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Post by Bob Cunningham
As it happens, the copy of Fowler's book that I have here
has the title in all caps on the title page, so we can't
infer from the title whether or not Fowler would have
distinguished "modern English" and "Modern English".

The edition partially available on Google Books (Wordsworth, 1994) has
it "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" on the title page, and the
back cover says "taken from the original 1926 publication".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
***@hpl.hp.com
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:55 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum

Post by Bob Cunningham
As it happens, the copy of Fowler's book that I have here
has the title in all caps on the title page, so we can't
infer from the title whether or not Fowler would have
distinguished "modern English" and "Modern English".

The edition partially available on Google Books (Wordsworth, 1994) has
it "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage" on the title page, and the
back cover says "taken from the original 1926 publication".

On what would be the copyright page if there were a
copyright stated, my copy says

First Printed in the United States of America 1944
Second Printing, 1946
Third Printing, 1947
Fourth Printing, 1950

Printed by Kingsport Press, Inc., Kingsport, Tennessee.

I don't know where it was from 1950 until I bought it in a
used book store twenty years or so later.

It's clothbound, still in excellent condition, with no
discoloration of pages that I can see.

My copy of Burchfield's so-called "Third Edition" started
to fall apart not long after I bought it. It probably has
at least one full bottle of rubber cement holding it
together after a fashion, and it shows signs of needing more
soon. (Published "Clarendon Press Oxford 1996".)

The heading to the lexicon on page 1 of Fowler's "Modern
English Usage" book says

A Dictionary of
ENGLISH USAGE

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:25:02 -0700, Bob Cunningham
<***@earthlink.net> said:


[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
My copy of Burchfield's so-called "Third Edition" started
to fall apart not long after I bought it.

New.

Post by Bob Cunningham
It probably has
at least one full bottle of rubber cement holding it
together after a fashion, and it shows signs of needing more
soon. (Published "Clarendon Press Oxford 1996".)

I must say, though, that my copy of Sir Ernest's Second
Edition of Fowler's dictionary of modern English usage is in
excellent condition. It was also published by Clarendon
Press Oxford.

It says on the copyright page

First edition 1926
Second edition 1965
Reprinted with corrections 1965 (twice), 1966
1968 (with corrections)
1970, 1972, 1974 (with corrections), 1975

I bought mine at Harrod's in 1979. I wonder how many
printings (with corrections) there have been since then.

I suppose Clarendon Press could have forgotten how to
produce a quality product between 1975 and 1996.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:57:42 -0700, Bob Cunningham
<***@earthlink.net> said:

[about Gowers's Second Edition of Fowler's Modern English
Usage]

Post by Bob Cunningham
I bought mine at Harrod's in 1979. I wonder how many
printings (with corrections) there have been since then.

I see now in a Wikipedia article on Gowers that his Second
Edition remained in print for thirty years after it was
first published in 1965.

However, that article has a serious error in the following
statement:

The second edition was published in 1965 and
remained in print for three decades, being
succeeded by a third edition in 1996.

The "third edition" did not succeed Gowers's revision. It
was an entirely new book that had little to do with Fowler's
or Gowers's editions of _A Dictionary of Modern English
Usage_. The title of Burchfield's "third edition" is grossly
inappropriate, _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_.

I don't know whether Gowers's Second Edition remained in
print after Burchfield's book came out, but it should have.

Burchfield probably knew his book was not an update of
Fowler and Gowers, and the title was probably a ploy by
marketing people to sell more books.

Smatter a fact, I see in a Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_Modern_English_Usage ,
Burchfield being quoted from his preface to the "third
edition" where he confesses to the deception:

Robert Burchfield, who explains in the preface
that while "Fowler's name remains on the
title-page, ... his book has been largely
rewritten."

[Daniel al-Autistiqui]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:17:57 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:57:42 -0700, Bob Cunningham
[about Gowers's Second Edition of Fowler's Modern English
Usage]

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
The "third edition" did not succeed Gowers's revision. It
was an entirely new book that had little to do with Fowler's
or Gowers's editions of _A Dictionary of Modern English
Usage_. The title of Burchfield's "third edition" is grossly
inappropriate, _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_.

It's a matter of opinion, I think. I had Burchfield's book at my home
on Long Island, and it seemed to still resemble the original Fowler
somewhat. It is not "an entirely new book". (I had previously taken
a copy of the original edition out of the library; I don't know from
Gowers' edition, however.)

daniel mcgrath

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:26:46 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:17:57 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:57:42 -0700, Bob Cunningham
[about Gowers's Second Edition of Fowler's Modern English
Usage]

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
The "third edition" did not succeed Gowers's revision. It
was an entirely new book that had little to do with Fowler's
or Gowers's editions of _A Dictionary of Modern English
Usage_. The title of Burchfield's "third edition" is grossly
inappropriate, _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_.

It's a matter of opinion, I think.

I'll grant that it's a matter of opinion, and I submit that
one opinion that should be given considerable weight is
Burchfield's. Here's what he says about the matter in the
preface to his so-called "third edition":

Fowler's name remains on the title page, even though
his book has been largely rewritten in this third
edition. I hope that a way will be found to keep the
1926 masterpiece in print for at least another
seventy years. It shows what it was like to be
linguistically aware before a new race of synchronic
linguistic giants appeared, and before the advent of
new electronic technology made it possible to
scrutinize standard varieties of English in many
countries throughout the world with minute
thoroughness. It is not, of course, as antiquated
as Ælfric's Grammar nor yet as those of Ben Jonson
or Robert Lowth. But it is a fossil all the same, and
an enduring monument to all that was linguistically
acceptable in the standard English of the southern
counties of England in the first quarter of the
twentieth century.

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
I had Burchfield's book at my home on Long Island, and
it seemed to still resemble the original Fowler somewhat.

If it resembles the original Fowler, it does so no more than
it resembles any other book that discusses English usage.

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
It is not "an entirely new book".

That is your opinion. In Burchfield's opinion, as quoted
above, it is an entirely new book. And anyone who has read
both of them from cover to cover as I have knows that there
is nothing of Fowler's book in Burchfield's book except for
a few places where Burchfield quotes Fowler as he might any
other book on English usage.

[Daniel al-Autistiqui]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:31:40 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:26:46 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:17:57 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:57:42 -0700, Bob Cunningham
[about Gowers's Second Edition of Fowler's Modern English
Usage]

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
The "third edition" did not succeed Gowers's revision. It
was an entirely new book that had little to do with Fowler's
or Gowers's editions of _A Dictionary of Modern English
Usage_. The title of Burchfield's "third edition" is grossly
inappropriate, _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_.

It's a matter of opinion, I think.

I'll grant that it's a matter of opinion, and I submit that
one opinion that should be given considerable weight is
Burchfield's. Here's what he says about the matter in the
Fowler's name remains on the title page, even though
his book has been largely rewritten in this third
edition. I hope that a way will be found to keep the

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
I had Burchfield's book at my home on Long Island, and
it seemed to still resemble the original Fowler somewhat.

If it resembles the original Fowler, it does so no more than
it resembles any other book that discusses English usage.

Yes it does. It certainly contains many of the same entries, for
example.

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
It is not "an entirely new book".

That is your opinion. In Burchfield's opinion, as quoted
above, it is an entirely new book. And anyone who has read
both of them from cover to cover as I have knows that there
is nothing of Fowler's book in Burchfield's book except for
a few places where Burchfield quotes Fowler as he might any
other book on English usage.

No, you are wrong. Being "largely rewritten" is not the same as being
an entirely new book. Does Burchfield's claim that "[Fowler's] book
has been largely rewritten in this third edition" sound like a
contradiction to you? Well, I guess it might for anyone who is in
their mid-80's, having reached senility.

daniel mcgrath

[Don Aitken]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:54:12 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
If I had been Henry Fowler choosing a title for his book on
English usage, I would have been tempted to lowercase
"modern" to emphasize the recognized great difference
between "modern English" and "Modern English". Thus the
title I would have chosen would have been
_A Dictionary of modern English Usage_
I would then have taken exception to anyone's reporting the
title as
_A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_
because it would have defeated my effort to preserve the
distinction between modern English and Modern English.
Come to think of it, though, I probably would have avoided
the ambiguity of "Modern English" by choosing other wording,
like
_A Dictionary of Today's English Usage_
As it happens, the copy of Fowler's book that I have here
has the title in all caps on the title page, so we can't
infer from the title whether or not Fowler would have
distinguished "modern English" and "Modern English".
By the way, where Fowler's book is mentioned in _The Oxford
Companion to the English Language_ (on page 415 under
_A Dictionary of Modern English Usage_.

It appears the same way in the book itself, in Gowers' "Preface to the
Revised Edition" (1968). I don't suppose either Gowers or Fowler gave
a moment's thought to the possibility of attempting to specify the
capitalisation used in the title, or that any useful purpose would
have been served if they had. It is, as the Chicago Manual says, a
matter determined by the publisher.

[Nick Atty]

Post by Don Aitken
It appears the same way in the book itself, in Gowers' "Preface to the
Revised Edition" (1968). I don't suppose either Gowers or Fowler gave
a moment's thought to the possibility of attempting to specify the
capitalisation used in the title, or that any useful purpose would
have been served if they had. It is, as the Chicago Manual says, a
matter determined by the publisher.

It also appears like that on the cover of my paperback copy of Gowers'
edition.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by Daniel al-Autistiqui
On Tue, 29 May 2007 05:55:30 -0700, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
_Chambers Murray latin-english Dictionary_* explains with

[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
* Their lowercase for "latin-english"

I've been reading some of the threads from last month and the above
text and footnote caught my attention. Bob, where exactly *did* you
see the "latin-english" in lower case? The top ten hits on Google for
"Chambers Murray Latin English Dictionary" all have an initial capital
on both words.

Daniel, I have reproduced the capitalization exactly as it appears in
the paper version of this venerable dictionary as printed by the
University Press, Cambridge

The bastard title has this text:

Chambers
Murray
----
latin-english
----
Dictionay

The title page has this text:

Chambers
Murray
----
latin-english
----
Dictionay


by Sir William Smith
and Sir John Lockwood

CHAMBERS JOHN MURRAY
------------------------------------------
EDINBURGH LONDON


The British Library CIP catalogue record
<http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/?func=full-set-set&set_number=112557&set_entry=000001&format=999>
or <http://tinyurl.com/2tqe6t> does not reflect the choice of the
printers, however. Here is the text of that CIP catalogue record:

System number 009419472
Author - personal <Link> Smith, William, Sir, 1813-1893.
Uniform title <Link> [A smaller Latin-English dictionary ]
Title <Link> Chambers Murray Latin-English dictionary / by Sir
William Smith and Sir John Lockwood.
Publisher/year <Link> Edinburgh : W. and R. Chambers ; London : J.
Murray, 1976.
Physical descr. [8],817,[6]p. ; 21cm.
General note Originally published: as ’A smaller Latin-English
dictionary’. Revised ed. / by J.F. Lockwood. London : J. Murray, 1933.
Subject <Link> Latin language -- Dictionaries -- English.
Subject <Link> Latin language Dictionaries
Added name <Link> Lockwood, John, Sir.
Added Title <Link> Latin-English dictionary.
Holdings (All) Details
Shelfmark X.989/51150 Request
ISBN <Link> 0719533430
<Link> 0550190031
<Link> 0719533236
<Link> 055019004X : £4.70
Dewey class. no. <Link> 473/.2/1 18
<Link> 473/.21 19

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:10:32 +0100, the Omrud

Post by the Omrud

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amities
http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities
----

Amic is Catalan for "Ami" as you suspect. I don't know enough to say
what "bos" is but you should be able to find it by looking at Catalan
sites or dictionaries. But I wouldn't be surprised if it meant "good".

An online dictionary athttp://www.websters-online-dictionary.net/translation/tries
to find the meaning of a submitted word in a variety of
languages. For "amic" it returns
Catalan amic friend.
Languedocien amic friend.
Romanian amic friend.
Valencian amic friend.
But for "bos" it gives only
Slovak old bos? barefoot.

If we look at a whole stanza from the Gascon page that google found
for me,

Si bos sabe quauque petit passatge,
Per biuë eu mou ses tare san é net
Escoute Amic lou petit catounet,
Oun podes hé tout toun aprendisatge.

there is almost a 1:1 correspondence with French "Si vous savez
quelque petit passage...", at least at the beginning (and if we accept
"savez" where standard French would have "connaissez"), so I continue
to find "bos" = "vous" plausible, especially as "vos" survives in
River Plate Spanish as a word for "you" used between close relatives
and intimate friends.

Incidentally, does Webster On-line only do modern living languages?
Otherwise I'm surprised it didn't find Latin "bos".

a.

[Bob Cunningham]

Post by ***@yahoo
Incidentally, does Webster On-line only do modern living languages?
Otherwise I'm surprised it didn't find Latin "bos".

See my later posting in this thread, which sorta crossed in
the mail with yours.

[contrex]

Post by ***@yahoo
Si bos sabe quauque petit passatge,
Per biuë eu mou ses tare san é net
Escoute Amic lou petit catounet,
Oun podes hé tout toun aprendisatge.
there is almost a 1:1 correspondence with French "Si vous savez
quelque petit passage...", at least at the beginning (and if we accept
"savez" where standard French would have "connaissez"), so I continue
to find "bos" = "vous" plausible, especially as "vos" survives in
River Plate Spanish as a word for "you" used between close relatives
and intimate friends.

That looks so like Provencal and Nissart!

To this day, in many Spanish speaking countries including parts of
Spain the letter 'v' is pronounced in a way which English ears hear as
'b'.

[Archie Valparaiso]

Post by contrex
To this day, in many Spanish speaking countries including parts of
Spain the letter 'v' is pronounced in a way which English ears hear as
'b'.

It's more than parts of Spain; it's pretty much everywhere in Spain
except Cadiz, where the letter "b" is pronounced in a way that English
ears hear as "v" -- everybody's favourite rabbit is "Voo Voony".

-- Archie Balparaiso

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Post by Archie Valparaiso

Post by contrex
To this day, in many Spanish speaking countries including parts of
Spain the letter 'v' is pronounced in a way which English ears hear
as 'b'.

Following a consonant or when at the beginning of a breath group
(roughly, a word, but "little words" like determiners behave as
clitics). Otherwise it's heard as "v". "B" is pronounced
identically. I'm pretty sure my dictionary at home notes that it's
one phoneme (with two reflexes), and that the choice of which letter
to use is purely historical.

Post by Archie Valparaiso
It's more than parts of Spain; it's pretty much everywhere in Spain
except Cadiz, where the letter "b" is pronounced in a way that
English ears hear as "v" -- everybody's favourite rabbit is "Voo
Voony".

Interesting. Do they have [b] anywhere for "b" or "v"? Say, after
"m"?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut
|It must be ut-
***@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social
[phone] | importance.
| Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Archie Valparaiso]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:34:20 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

Post by Evan Kirshenbaum

Post by Archie Valparaiso

Post by contrex
To this day, in many Spanish speaking countries including parts of
Spain the letter 'v' is pronounced in a way which English ears hear
as 'b'.

Following a consonant or when at the beginning of a breath group
(roughly, a word, but "little words" like determiners behave as
clitics). Otherwise it's heard as "v". "B" is pronounced
identically. I'm pretty sure my dictionary at home notes that it's
one phoneme (with two reflexes), and that the choice of which letter
to use is purely historical.

Post by Archie Valparaiso
It's more than parts of Spain; it's pretty much everywhere in Spain
except Cadiz, where the letter "b" is pronounced in a way that
English ears hear as "v" -- everybody's favourite rabbit is "Voo
Voony".

Interesting. Do they have [b] anywhere for "b" or "v"? Say, after
"m"?

Oh, yes. I'm sure [mb] appears in words that aren't very common, like
*ambivalente*, but many gaditanos would pronounce *ambos embudos*
(both funnels) with something that sounds like [nv] (where [n] is
fairly nasalised): "anvoh envudo".

By the way, "árvitro" that you are, you may also be interested to know
that *fútbol* is pronounced (and often jokingly written) "furvo"-

[R H Draney]

Post by Archie Valparaiso
By the way, "árvitro" that you are, you may also be interested to know
that *fútbol* is pronounced (and often jokingly written) "furvo"-

In the manner of the British "Crimbo" for 25 December?...r

[irwell]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Archie Valparaiso
By the way, "árvitro" that you are, you may also be interested to know
that *fútbol* is pronounced (and often jokingly written) "furvo"-

In the manner of the British "Crimbo" for 25 December?...r

Or you can get a hambo at MacDo.

[j***@yahoo.com]

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amities http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities

It's Provencal for "good friend", according to
<http://books.google.com/books?
id=lGC1GYp69WAC&pg=PA59&ots=immGU3lPNU&dq=%22bos+amic
%22&sig=4KFBoKl8-073lHLMgxY9JRx3N9Q>
or <http://tinyurl.com/2hkca5>. (You also get a speculation that the
friend was Harold Monroe.) Probably medieval Provencal, given Pound's
interest in troubadour songs.

--
Jerry Friedman

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by j***@yahoo.com

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amities http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities

It's Provencal for "good friend", according to
<http://books.google.com/books?
id=lGC1GYp69WAC&pg=PA59&ots=immGU3lPNU&dq=%22bos+amic
%22&sig=4KFBoKl8-073lHLMgxY9JRx3N9Q>
or <http://tinyurl.com/2hkca5>.

Flogging a dead horse here, I know, but I don't believe it. If I had
to guess what the Proven�al for "good" would be I would guess "bon". I
looked it up last night it a (small) Proven�al grammar that I have and
it does indeed give "bon", with no alternatives. (For "friend" it
gives "ami" -- more French-and less Catalan-looking.) These are for
modern Proven�al as regularized by Mistral; the book does not pretend
to deal with all the varieties of Proven�al, and still less with all
the varieties of Occitan.

athel

[Martin Ambuhl]

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?

Remember that this group of poems is written around Pound's version of
Bertran de Born, a 12th century troubadour (& Viscount of Hautefort)
from Autafort, near Perigueux in southwestern France. His language was
Occitan, that of his main clients was Norman French. This term also
exists, I know, in 16th c. Gascon. 12th century varieties of ancestors
of modern French are unlikely to be in your dictionary.

Post by Marius Hancu
Seems French, but I'm not sure (beau ami?) ...
----
But you, bos amic, we keep on,
In spite of your obvious flaws,
You once discovered a moderate chop-house.
From: Ezra Pound, Amities
http://www.rohrnet.com/Poetry/index.htm#amities
----
Thanks,
Marius Hancu

[Marius Hancu]

Post by Martin Ambuhl

Post by Marius Hancu
Would anyone know which language "bos amic" belongs to?

Remember that this group of poems is written around Pound's version of
Bertran de Born, a 12th century troubadour (& Viscount of Hautefort)
from Autafort, near Perigueux in southwestern France. His language was
Occitan, that of his main clients was Norman French. This term also
exists, I know, in 16th c. Gascon. 12th century varieties of ancestors
of modern French are unlikely to be in your dictionary.

Occitan, that's probably it.
Haven't heard the name in quite a long time:-)

Thank you.
Marius Hancu

[Mike M]

Post by Marius Hancu
Occitan, that's probably it.
Haven't heard the name in quite a long time:-)

Pronounced ocky-tan? Or oxy-tan?

Mike M
the accidental occidental

[Mitch]

Post by Mike M

Post by Marius Hancu
Occitan, that's probably it.
Haven't heard the name in quite a long time:-)

Pronounced ocky-tan? Or oxy-tan?

and, not to answer the question but further it, is that related to
'Aquitaine'?

Mitch

[Donna Richoux]

Post by Mitch

Post by Mike M

Post by Marius Hancu
Occitan, that's probably it.
Haven't heard the name in quite a long time:-)

Pronounced ocky-tan? Or oxy-tan?

and, not to answer the question but further it, is that related to
'Aquitaine'?

Not really. Merriam-Webster says their histories probably share the
Medieval Latin suffix -itanus, but the first syllables have no
connection. Brewer's "Names" says that "Aqui-" is simply water, as you'd
expect. "Oc-" comes from the word for "Yes" in that language, apparently
in contrast to the "Yes" of Old French.

[Serge Paccalin]

Le mardi 24 juillet 2007 à 19:57:39, Donna Richoux a écrit dans

Post by Donna Richoux
"Oc-" comes from the word for "Yes" in that language,

« La langue d'oc » spoken in the southern half of France. There is still
a province called Languedoc.

Post by Donna Richoux
apparently in contrast to the "Yes" of Old French.

« La langue d'oïl » spoken in the northern half. « Oïl » would become
« oui » along the centuries.