"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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS