blissblogger
Well-known member
I have been collecting "prissy locutions" - itself a rather fussy way of describing writing or speech that is excessively fastidious and finely phrased.
As I labor through the far-less-pleasing second volume of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, one thing that keeps me entertained is his arcane word choices (anile, fuscous, cruddled, spilths, marcid, phasma, volitant and volitation, gracile) and his precision phrasing.
For instance, Peake is such a stickler for proper grammar that when a group of characters leave a room, he refers to their ‘exeunt” rather than "exit".
Another PL I came across recently was on some vintage UK television show (can't remember if it was a drama or a doc). A posh, well-spoken character referred to “trades unions” rather than "trade unions". Uttered with a flourish of fastidiousness that drew attention to the fact that he was pointedly saying it the correct way as opposed to the colloquial rendering.
But is he actually correct? I sort of get the thinking behind "trades union", but am not convinced
Presumably, with this thinking, you would have to refer to "trades unions leaders"? Or maybe not.
"Trades unions" is similar to a PL I have heard a bunch of times from British TV and radio news presenters - “drugs dealers”.
Okay, there is a certain logic there - dealers generally dealing in more than just the one drug. Still, it's a little grating and pedantic in feel. The conventional rendering is pleasanter on the ear.
As I labor through the far-less-pleasing second volume of Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, one thing that keeps me entertained is his arcane word choices (anile, fuscous, cruddled, spilths, marcid, phasma, volitant and volitation, gracile) and his precision phrasing.
For instance, Peake is such a stickler for proper grammar that when a group of characters leave a room, he refers to their ‘exeunt” rather than "exit".
Another PL I came across recently was on some vintage UK television show (can't remember if it was a drama or a doc). A posh, well-spoken character referred to “trades unions” rather than "trade unions". Uttered with a flourish of fastidiousness that drew attention to the fact that he was pointedly saying it the correct way as opposed to the colloquial rendering.
But is he actually correct? I sort of get the thinking behind "trades union", but am not convinced
Presumably, with this thinking, you would have to refer to "trades unions leaders"? Or maybe not.
"Trades unions" is similar to a PL I have heard a bunch of times from British TV and radio news presenters - “drugs dealers”.
Okay, there is a certain logic there - dealers generally dealing in more than just the one drug. Still, it's a little grating and pedantic in feel. The conventional rendering is pleasanter on the ear.
