Subjunctive use?

Look, JTT, we all know that "the person responsible for producing said language" is Setanta. Those of us who follow the language threads further know that you and Set have had a long-standing quarrel over proper useage which began way back when on the "Pet Peeves" thread you two had a regular dust-up over something or other that I can't even recall now. I would suggest that this thread was started for no other reason than to call Setanta out. So far he's not biting (and good for him, say I). Still, inasmuch as this is a public forum on which you have made a public declaration, don't you think Frank has a right to expect an answer on how you would have handled the sentence?

You can think whatever you like, Merry. I haven't paraded that fact, just expressed an interest. If you'll note, I've suggested that correcting another's grammar is a cheap shot, so why would I start a thread to do so?

I've made no public declaration. I've expressed puzzlement over something I've read, not once but a number of times.

If Setanta doesn't wish to comment on this particular use of language that's fine by me. And that goes for me, too. Frank has a right to ask, I have the right to decline.

And, once more.

Are something wrong with that?

I don't know, Frank. What's your take?

Me don't know...you was the one what brought it to ours attention.

That's why me asked.

I'm relieved to see that you've given up on offering advice about language, Frank.

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.

On the other hand, if it weren't done when 'tis done, then 'tweren't well it weren't done quickly.

So, whether or no it were done in haste, or whether or no at leisure, in the end there's no telling whether 'tis done when 'tis done.

Ergo, 'tis best to let the matter slide. Q.E.D.

"To know anything well involves a profound sense of ignorance." ... Ruskin

If only the assasination could trammel up the consequence . . .

I wish I knew what were going on here.

Aye, Andy, if only it had. However, in the case of my syllogism, I'm afraid 'twas my antecedent that was trammelled by my consequence; maugre that the Thane had done better had he come to my conclusion.

BTW, the Ruskin quote is from his "Modern Painters" in which he also declared, "He is the greatest artist who has embodied, in the sum of his works, the greatest number of the greatest ideas." Obviously he had painters in mind, but if his point is valid for all art forms, then the bard must hold the prize, what?

What's going on here is that Andrew's trammelling up the thread ...

... the innocent thread that knits up the ravell'd sleeve of care.

Debacle, Andrew knows about Ravel's sleeve of care.

Perhaps he does, Letty. You're referring to Ravel's famed Bordello, I presume.

I know it only by repute, and if at anytime or place I were to make out otherwise, there and then, no doubt, I would be found lying.

Were it not for my proper upbringing and decorous party manners I could really make something audacious (not to mention atrocious) out of that last statement of yours, Mr. D., as it were.

I take it, my merry friend, that yet again you're seeing double ... regarding entendres, at least.

No audacities, no mentioning atrocities? Well that, as it were, sucks.

So what about ripostes risqué?

The 'market' being what it is these days, I'm loath to take too many risques.

Right, M.A. It could be risky business. Hmmm. This popped into my head.

I wish I were an apple on a tree,
I wish I were an apple on a tree,
If I were an apple on a tree,
My love would come along
And take a bite of me,
I wish I were an apple on a tree.

A serious moment, y'all. I think JTT will like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4J5j74VPw