We don't have a tasteful rule, do we?
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?
Neither Collins nor Merriam-Webster lists this phrase as 'archaic'.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'.
Depends what academic context you're talking about. Scientific context? No. Paper about languge? Sounds fine.What about an academic context?
Depends what academic context you're talking about. Scientific context? No. Paper about languge? Sounds fine.
That's just that kind of academic context I'd expect to find this type of language/phrase. Do it.It is a paper about etymology, and I'm sort of using it as a translation.