"Boy, you really butchered those Waltzing Matilda lyrics," exclaims a cheerful member of the Gotcha! Gang, Australian division.
The version of A.B. (Banjo) Paterson's dialect lyric I recently quoted went "Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong/Under the shade of a codibah tree,/And he sang as he sat and he waited for his billy-boil/Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?"
Other versions exist. It's a coolibah tree, a type of fragrant eucalyptus that grows beside a billabong, which is not a water hole but a section of still water adjacent to a river, sometimes called an "oxbow lake" in the US.
And "there is no such thing as a billy-boil," which I defined as a "teapot," tartly observes another correspondent from Down Under. "A billy is a tin can used to boil water to make tea, more a kettle than a teapot."
As for swagman, one meaning in American English -- a carrier of loot -- is different in Australian English, defined as "an itinerant worker who carries his belongings, or swag, in a bedroll or knapsack."
And who was the famous Matilda?
"A matilda is a swag," notes Henry Ansgar Kelly of University of California, Los Angeles, "and one `waltzes' it by carrying it in front, not over the shoulder." (I pass this interesting thought along -- without verification -- while I soak my head, as some Aussie readers have suggested, in a billabong.)
WENT WITH THE WIND
Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor on the CIA leak investigation, on announcing the indictment of the vice-presidential aide Scooter Libby, came up with this convolution in a press conference: "I would have wished nothing better, that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then ... No one would have went to jail."
"Really, is this the way an educated attorney speaks?" asks Eve Suffin, of Holden, Massachusetts.
Fitzgerald's clear abuse of the subjunctive would invites a charge of "aggravated solecism." He confused the past tense of the irregular verb to go -- that is, went -- with the past participle, gone. The subjunctive mood with its iffy "would have" takes the past participle of the verb, not the simple past; therefore, "would have gone" is correct and "would have went" is mistaken.
GRODY TO THE MAX
In a column about ickiness, I wrote that yuck "has resisted replacement by gross and its derivative grody." Derivative wrong.
Kate Styrsky of Berkeley, California, recalls "a scene in the Beatles' Hard Day's Night in which a smug designer shows a preposterously overstyled shirt to George Harrison, who comments, Liverpudlianishly, `Grotty.' When asked his meaning, he explains, `Grotesque."'
BLATANT VS. FLAGRANT
In an exegesis of raunch, I came out bluenosedly against "blatant sexual arousal."
"What, you, too?" This from Richard Hirschhorn in Jerusalem. "Confusing blatant and flagrant?"
Blatant means "noisily offensive," and has in it a strong element of "brazen, contemptuously unconcealed."
Flagrant, rooted in "flaming," is more outrageous, possibly flouting morality and law, as in the Latin in flagrante delicto, "during the blaze of the crime."
I didn't think about it at the time, but on review from the booth, I'll stick with "blatant sexual arousal" -- much heavy breathing and raunchy noise but no crime.
SURE
While looking up murder board for a recent column about preparation for Senate testimony, I happily noted a citation in the Oxford English Dictionary from a column of mine in 1976: "W. Safire: `Program murder boards' have been established to insure [sic] that the concept is structured properly." That lexicographer's severe [sic] wiped the smirk off my face.
In British usage, assure applies to giving confidence to a person, ensure generally "to make certain" and insure specifically "to guard against financial risk."
In American English, ensure and insure have merged and are now interchangeable.
You know what? The Brits have a useful distinction; that [sic] should stick. Everybody back up on the ramparts.
ON LINCOLN
Shouldn't a rhetorical question end with a question mark?
In Abraham Lincoln's "Second Inaugural Address" ("with malice toward none"), the Civil War president posed this complex, provocative religious question: "If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?"
In the Collected Works, as well as in the manuscript in Lincoln's handwriting at the Library of Congress, the question mark appears.
But on the marble wall of the Lincoln Memorial, the sentence ends with a period.
George Van Cleve, a lawyer in Arlington, Virginia, has been petitioning the National Park Service to change it to the way Lincoln wrote it. He has been getting the bureaucratic runaround.
Other mistakes can't compare. Restore Lincoln's question mark.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS