-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 10:56 AMThe general consensus was "no" last time it was discussed. Are you just missing Heather or do you feel that a moderator is needed here? -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 10:59 AMMissing Heather. -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 3:50 PMWho me? -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 9:03 AMWho else?
Or is it, whom else?
:o)
-
-
-
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sat, March 22, 2008 - 8:01 AM"Wherefore" means "why," not "where."
Sigh. -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sat, March 22, 2008 - 8:18 AM>>>>>>>>"Wherefore" means "why," not "where."
Sigh. <<<<<<<
And yet, Deborah, English speakers since Shakespeare's day have used "wherefore art thou?" as I did above. It is no mistake. -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sat, March 22, 2008 - 2:41 PM -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sun, March 23, 2008 - 4:54 AMThanks Jeau and Deborah, my ignorance is now slightly less than it was before reading this thread. I love this tribe!
-
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sat, March 22, 2008 - 3:53 PMYes, I cannot see the need for correction when one is quoting Shakespeare.
-
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sun, March 23, 2008 - 8:58 AMBut Juliet wasn't saying WHERE ARE YOU, ROMEO
Juliet was saying WHY ARE YOU ROMEO (i.e., a Montague etc.) as the next lines IIRC are deny thy father and refuse thy name bla bla bla.
I have no quibble whatsoever with quoting Shakespeare. I do have a quibble, in a tribe called "Lexical Elitists," at being called down for pointing out an incorrect usage, however common.
-
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sun, March 23, 2008 - 9:50 AMOf course, the questions that still hang in the air are "Why is Heather Heather?" or perhaps "Why is Heather?" and "Why is Josh asking Heather why she's Heather?". Though, both being somewhat existential questions, I suspect there may not be easy answers to either question.
Deborah, I've appreciated your elite lexicality regarding "wherefore". Does it mean the same thing in a legal context as it does in a Shakespearian one?
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Sun, March 23, 2008 - 10:51 AMComrades:
I am most amused! I always took it for granted that "wherefore" was a "where-the-hell-is" interrogative. I speak German, but never thought about "wozu" and "wofür" as "where" interrogatives, because I just learned their semantic value of "why" and left it at that. Duh.
Glad I learned something today.
Craig in Arcata -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:32 AMI know that Juliet wasn't saying "Where are you, Romeo?"
But *since* the play, the line has taken on a life outside of it. Indeed, *other* than in quoting that line, "wherefore" is hopelessly archaic.
When someone uses the line now, they are using it in the sense I did above. -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:46 AMJosh - Ah, the common usage defense! ;-) Not really lexically elite to stoop to mass use as being the arbitrator of appropriate use, and perhaps not taking into account that (since it directly references the play) correct usage/meaning within the play surely supersedes mistaken common usage, but I'd suspect you'll get out of here without being well hanged for your crimes against Shakespearean English! -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Mon, March 24, 2008 - 8:51 AM>>>>>>>>>>Josh - Ah, the common usage defense! ;-) Not really lexically elite to stoop to mass use as being the arbitrator of appropriate use....<<<<<<<<
I believe that this is the *only* extant use of "wherefore art thou". (Actaully, each of those *three* of those words, as used here, is archaic and should *never* be joined to ask 'why are you?' this or that.) -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Mon, March 24, 2008 - 1:19 PMJosh–I think that what fifi meant by “common usage” was “common usage of the Shakespeare quote.” I don’t think she was arguing that this is a common English phrase today, apart from people casually lifting it from Romeo and Juliet. And I agree with fifi’s argument. Mass misuse is not a convincing defense.
You said that “...this is the *only* extant use of "wherefore art thou". (Actaully, each of those *three* of those words, as used here, is archaic and should *never* be joined to ask 'why are you?' this or that.”
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Are you arguing that it’s acceptable to take a phrase from literature and perpetuate its misuse, but it’s *never* okay to use it as the original author intended?
It sounds like you’re just reluctant to admit that you goofed. Even lexical elitists make mistakes. I don’t think Shakespeare would have minded...he was pretty good at borrowing the words of others and probably didn’t get those right all the time either. But who would question Shakespeare? -
-
Re: Heather? Wherefore art thou, Heather?
Mon, March 24, 2008 - 4:04 PM>>>>>>>>I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Are you arguing that it’s acceptable to take a phrase from literature and perpetuate its misuse, but it’s *never* okay to use it as the original author intended? <<<<<<<<<<
It is fine to use it as the author intended but that is not required, and one must realize that it will sometimes cause great confustion.
Consider the expression, 'the exception that proves the rule.' When originally uttered, 'proves' had the sense of "tests" and the saying meant that the acception *puts the rule to the test.* But almost no one who hears the expression in conversation now takes it that way and that's because we rarely use "proves" that way anymore. If you want to say that news of an exception comes as a serious challenge to the rule of thumb you and your collegues have been applying, you'll want to say it some other way!
We don't use "art" anymore the way it is used in "wherefore art thou" (excpet in saying "Our Father, who art in heaven") and we don't use "thou" unless we're reading old books or affecting a period accent, either, though we *do* use "wherefore art thou" as a playful way to say 'where are you?' It's the only gig "wherefore" gets anymore. -
-
Two views on "wherefore..."
Mon, March 24, 2008 - 7:10 PMThat's a good argument Josh. Meanings do shift over time, and can give expressions (and idioms) a new and even an opposite cast. While your example seems to support you, I do think that an English expression or proverb and a quote from literature are fundamentally different situations. When someone says "the exception proves the rule," they are not alluding to a particular published work, thus not providing a misinterpretation of a text. I guess it's a question of how closely tied to Shakespeare one perceives the quote. As a lexical elitist, I would argue that everyone who hears this quote and has a shred of an education instantly thinks of Shakespeare. Thus, it should retain its original meaning as Shakespeare intended. (If indeed it had "a life of its own," it would not evoke Romeo and Juliet.) But--as a linguist--I would argue that it means whatever the masses *think* it means. This *is* a good argument from a linguistic standpoint. Change (whether or not we find it logical or seemly) is the nature of language, and this is how meanings evolve. So the question is...are we lexical elitists, or are we linguists? In my experience, and as the tribe name suggests, people in this forum care more about how language *should* behave, and less about reality. Myself, I walk the line... -
-
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 4:51 AMJeau - "Myself, I walk the line..."
Me too, though my toe tends to creep over into the living language playground more often than not. Nice breakdown of the differences between being a lexical elitist and a linguists. I'm all for creative use and appropriation of language, I just prefer to know what rules I'm breaking and original meanings as well. Otherwise I may end up adding an unintentional meaning or layer of meaning which may distort what I'm actually trying to communicate. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Two views...
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 8:02 AMFifi--I meant to mention that the differences between these two views are (in linguistics) referred to as "prescriptive" vs. "descriptive." The former is the philosophy of this tribe, the latter that of linguistics. Wiki has good synopses: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ling...escription and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desc...inguistics . Many debates in this tribe come down to this issue of differences in philosophy. I usually take the prescriptivist stance here, as I think that is the purpose of this tribe. Here, everyone (linguists included) can pretend to be persnickety English teachers. No offense to those who actually *are* persnickety English teachers. ;) -
-
Re: Two views...
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 8:29 AMJeau and Josh - Thanks! I'm going to check out the wiki entries. This whole discussion has been quite illuminating and interesting.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 12:39 PMre: walking the line.
i have this conversation with people all the time ("common" vs. "correct" usages/meanings). more colloquially (sp?) minded people tend to upbraid me for being too strict when i dwell on original meanings or historical/linguistic backgrounds for words or phrases, and accuse me of believing in stagnation of language.
i agree that language is evolving, that it is in the nature of languages to evolve. i just don't see how ignoring the history, the context, the orginis will help that process. i am solidly behind Fifi here when she says she doesn't want to add "an unintentional meaning or layer of meaning which may distort what I'm actually trying to communicate".
language is about communication ultimately. i find that the less precise and accurate my words are, the more my meaning is misunderstood, the more extra talking i have to do to make myself clear. the "right" word for the job is the one that gives the clearest most precise meaning, in my opinion.
*btw, thank you all for having this little banter about "wherefore", especially deborah whom i already adore. i've been using it wrong without thinking for ages and i have studied english and theater. i am so glad to know i've been messing this up; it makes so much more sense now!* -
-
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 12:58 PMSi - "the "right" word for the job is the one that gives the clearest most precise meaning, in my opinion."
I'm with you on that, and I think this means being flexible to a certain extent when we're communicating (in either the written or the spoken word). It's about context, meaning who we're talking with, what we're talking about and so on. There's nothing more fun than text (or a conversation) that's actually active on a couple of different levels of meaning. Well, to a word geek like me anyway!
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Thu, March 27, 2008 - 11:55 AM>>>>>>>>>>I'm all for creative use and appropriation of language, I just prefer to know what rules I'm breaking and original meanings as well.<<<<<<<<
No rule was broken here. We are not in Elizabethan England and are not subject to its grammatical rules (-which were quite fluid, especially where spelling was concerned), and there exists no current rule for correct usage of a four-hundred-year-old expression in a contemporary conversation.
This is not a *grammatical* issue.
-
-
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 8:15 AM>>>>>>>>As a lexical elitist, I would argue that everyone who hears this quote and has a shred of an education instantly thinks of Shakespeare.<<<<<<<'
Of course! But I should think any educated person would as well realize when I said, "Wherefore art thou, Heather?" that I was *not* asking *why* she was a Capulet.
A more recent example concerns the phrase "the road less traveled." Many people associate the phrase with the poet Robert Frost (-though some will associate with a book by M. Scott Peck), and that is the line's source, but those who know the *poem* know that often in in common usage "I took the road less travelled by" has taken on a meaning that Frost didn't intend. (The poet had no objection to the road he *didn't* take and wished that he could take that one as well; he was sorry that he could not travel both.) Yet when someone says "I took the road less travelled" in conversation, it is to be expected that people will take it the way people tend to take it now and not as Frost intended, and this goes even for those who know and love Frost.
And now a personal example. I was seeing a therapist a few years back and he knew that I loved jazz, as did he. Once when he was telling me to cool my jets about a stormy work relationship and he said, "Do nothing till you hear from me." Duke Ellington made that song famous. The lyric of the song was not at all about a therapist / patient relationship, but the line was perfect for the occassion because a) I got his point, and b) the way he expressed it was through an idiom we both appreciated. (There are even games of conversing only in song lyrics---great latitude is allowed in how they may be used so long as the line used is actual.)
This is one of the fun things about reading! -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Tue, March 25, 2008 - 9:41 AMJosh–nobody thought you were asking why Heather was a Capulet.
Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” actually uses the phrase “I took the one less traveled by,” *not* “the road less travelled.” Can you show that this modern phrase is a direct descendant (a semantic distortion of) Frost’s words? I’m not convinced that it hasn’t arisen separately.
But I think, again, your examples are a bit beside the point. The argument is not so much about word play in general, or the meaning of an entire phrase, but of a single word, whose accepted definition for centuries has been “why.” More specifically, and as used by Shakespeare, “wherefore” really means “for what purpose” (hence the difference between “whys” and “wherefores,” which not-really-redundant phrase is yet another “gig” for “wherefore.”) Is the meaning of “wherefore” changing within the context of “wherefore art thou?” Linguists (descriptivists) might agree.
But prescriptivists have grounds for outrage at this concept, for it would not only promote misreading of the line for which it is most famous, but would likely change its use (however limited) in any context. “Whys and wherefores” will end up meaning “whys and wheres.” How tragic. And then there’s the matter of precedence...common misuse of any word can then become becomes grounds for its acceptance. How terrifying. ;)
I rest my case. -
-
Re: Two views on "wherefore..."
Thu, March 27, 2008 - 12:02 PM>>>>>>>>The argument is not so much about word play in general, or the meaning of an entire phrase, but of a single word<<<<<<<
At least here I see the grounds for disagreement. You see me as misusing the word "wherefore" while I see me as using the well-known phrase "wherefore art thou" (in a way, I should add, that confused no one).
I'm content knowing that many here disagree with my usage. I have no objection to that, nor do I have any apology for using "wherefore art thou" as I did.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-