Number 31
I've long wondered about the word virtue as it has so often been applied to women in a certain sense rather more than to men. The root is the Latin vir, meaning man. Fred says that although the concept of virile excellence came from the early Romans, when the Christian world used the word, the qualities indicated were not strictly those of manly power. But that's the word we got.
Virtue also came to mean chastity, so much so, that sometimes the word brings only that to mind, even though it is just one of the virtues. It used to seem to me that chastity was the only virtue ever associated with women. Think about it: If, for example, a character in a Shakespeare play says a woman is "virtuous", what do you think it means? This used to annoy me mightily, but now I'm old enough to think that a virtuous woman need not suggest only a Roman heroine fighting to the death to preserve her honor, for example, but that this manly strength could imply self-possession as well as Amazonian purity. I like the second definition in www.dict.org:
Active quality or power; capacity or power adequate to the production of a given effect; energy; strength; potency; efficacy; as, the virtue of a medicine.
The following example for this definition is particularly apt herein; perhaps I should take it as a motto:
A man was driven to depend for his security against misunderstanding, upon the pure virtue of his syntax. ~ Thomas De Quincey
Talk softly and carry a big syntax, say I.
In PO 26, I mentioned the Armed Forces edition of The Barefoot Mailman by Theodore Pratt. Publication date was 1943, though it was set half a century or more earlier in Florida. I found some unfamiliar idiomatic expressions in it, but I can't say whether they are early South, or mid-twentieth century Pratt. However, his narrative style was more standard English than his characters' dialogue, so I'll assume the dialogue examples below were early Florida:
And this titillating and alarming square dance call:
Dip for the oyster, dive for the clam,
Now take a dip for the promised land.
Promenade all around the hall;
You know where and I don't care;
Throw her in the old armchair.
Gents bow, the ladies know how;
Turn your opposite twice once;
Kick her in the shins
And knock her down."
The first one sort of makes sense, but the second one appears to be one of those mixed metaphors of hardly any sense at all. It's fun to try to picture it, though the mind inevitably wanders to "shooting fish in a barrel".
"Entail" means "require"; what the speaker meant was "what the costs will be". The costs will be high; they will require payment in one form or another, from somebody or other.
How? Actively or passively? Did we get ambushed or did we ambush someone? I suspect the former, because usually "ambush" is applied to enemy actions, as it suggests a sneak attack, although any reasonable attack ought to have an element of surprise. In any case, "involved" is a weasel verb.
Our Side is broadcasting news in Arabic to Iraqis over Towards Freedom TV. I've been wondering about scholarly papers that begin "Toward . . . " something or other. Do a search for "Toward a Pedagogy of" and you'll turn up lots of examples. How did this dud become so entrenched? As if we might otherwise expect someone to surprise us with the final word on anything. "Towards Freedom TV", however, expresses a suitable modesty and hopefulness. Just plain "Freedom TV" would not be convincing at this juncture.
I have no opinion about toward vs. towards. Both are venerable usages and I can discern no difference in meaning.
Still languishing over my English anguish class, I did a web search for "declining academic standards" and actually pulled up quite a few sites. Leading the list was Society for a Return to Academic Standards, Little Rock Chapter, by Patrick Moore, with many good articles on grade inflation, student evaluations, etc. Another good article is "Declining Standards" by Walter Williams.
I e-mailed a few people on this list who are or were teachers, and received some interesting responses ~ also from some who have been, or have given birth to, students. I'll report on this next time. I wrote to Patrick Moore and Walter Williams also, received an answer from Professor Moore, and am waiting to see if Professor Williams replies.
Copyright Rhonda Keith 2003. Parvum Opus or part of it may be reproduced only with permission, but it is permissible to forward the entire newsletter as long as the copyright remains.
Parvum Opus is a publication of KeithOps / Opus Publishing Services. Feel free to comment in the Guestbook, linked below the back issue links.
Feel free to e-mail me with comments or queries. If you don’t want to receive Parvum Opus, please reply with “unsubscribe,” “quit,” “enough,” or something like that in the subject line, and I’ll take you off the mailing list.
Return to KeithOps.