Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Forostar, Jul 10, 2013.
We don't have a tasteful rule, do we?
This is an interesting article about Dutch universities preference for English and how some people are worried that it is causing the Dutch language and culture to be eroded.
Are they sure it's not the other way around? That the language has eroded to a strange mix of guttural sounds and now they use English in order to understand each other?
Oh wait, that was Danish.
I wonder if a purebred Englishman can study a foreign language, even Teutonic one, or the structure of his native language prevents him from it.
The lanuage structure of my people is bred pure like a high born feline animal, but the Chinese has many borrowings.
Native speakers, can the term "beast of burden" be used in contemporary English in a literal sense, i.e. referring to a mule or an ox, or is it too archaic?
In the right context it would be totally acceptable; not archaic at all.
Neither Collins nor Merriam-Webster lists this phrase as 'archaic'.
What about an academic context?
That's nice, but I'm really more interested in the actual perception, not the dictionary definition.
It's a bit flowery, tends to get associated with biblical stuff, rightly or wrongly. If you're going for a literary style, though, it's okay. It probably wouldn't work in very 'straight' writing like a sociology essay.
I'd use it, especially if making a metaphor, "He was worked like a beast of burden". If I was referring to actual horses and such, I might avoid the term.
Depends what academic context you're talking about. Scientific context? No. Paper about languge? Sounds fine.
It is a paper about etymology, and I'm sort of using it as a translation.
That's just that kind of academic context I'd expect to find this type of language/phrase. Do it.
I have an oddly specific question for all Scandinavian speakers. @Dr. Eddies Wingman @SixesAlltheway and anyone else, including @LooseCannon 's girlfriend.
In many European languages, we use similar words for slippers: Pantoffel (German), pantoufle (French), pantofla (Greek), pantofi (Bulgarian), pantofola (Italian), etc. However, it seems that all Nordic languages have dropped the first syllable - toffel (Swedish), tøffel (Danish and Norwegian), tohveli (Finnish). So my question is WHY? It can't be simply because it's shorter, that would be extremely disappointing. WHY?
Borrowed from the short form of pantoffel and pantoufle: tüffel. It says when I look it up.
So it's just economy of language. I was hoping for a more intriguing reason why you dropped the pan-. Thanks though!
In Scotland we call them "baffies".
They're called "terlik" here, which means sweater.
Sweater, as in pullover, is "kazak" or "süveter" btw.
We use terlik for these:
Separate names with a comma.