Paradife Loft

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, Language, Olde Englifh
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Of course it is "Paradise Lost". I wonder why 's" was written like "f" at that time. What do "f" look like then?

Plus and most importantly, What does "a poem in ten books" mean? Does it mean the poem is so long that it spreads out in ten volumes of books?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Milton_paradise.jpg

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 9 • Views: 4,230 • Replies: 25

[+4] - Lustig Andrei - 04/27/2012Boomerang is right. The 'f' is actually a Germanic 's'. It is still sometimes seen in modern German and was quite common in English at the time that John Milton lived. The word 'book' in the...
[+3] - McTag - 04/29/2012 Do not get fore. It's not sunny.
[+3] - Lustig Andrei - 04/29/2012I'm begining to agree with JTT, David (horrible thought, tho it is): you really shouldn't comment on language threads with your severely limited understanding of the language.
[+3] - Strauss - 04/29/2012Maybe checking out what a spoonerism is would help you.. (I know, I know, guys, explaining is not funny and can become sore!!)

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

The "f" shaped letter was a symbol for a long "s" sound -- notice that it doesn't have a full bar crossing the middle.

I think the "10 books" was just a way to divide the text. Some editions had 12 books.

1 Reply

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

The "f" shaped letter was a symbol for a long "s" sound -- notice that it doesn't have a full bar crossing the middle.

I think the "10 books" was just a way to divide the text. Some editions had 12 books.

Thank you Boomerang.
Does "paradise" refer to "the Garden of Eden?" Though possibly indirectly.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Yes. "Paradise Lost" is about the fall of man and is based on the bible.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Boomerang is right. The 'f' is actually a Germanic 's'. It is still sometimes seen in modern German and was quite common in English at the time that John Milton lived. The word 'book' in the phrase 'in 10 books' does not refer to a book as you and I think of it, i.e. a bound volume. The 'books' are simply the major divisions of a very long poem.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

I've also seen a double 's' used instead of that 'f' looking thing. Don't know why those Germans can't be even a little consistant.

0 Replies

I explained the long 's' to oristarA about 6 months ago.

1 Reply

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

I explained the long 's' to oristarA about 6 months ago.

Yeah. You said that in old-fashioned written style the first s should be written in a long shape when two ss stand together. This one is like f, however, and it is Germanic as LA explained to us. A little different. Wink

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Do not get fore. It's not sunny.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Do not get fore. It's not sunny.

I hope Contrex or JTT or others to explain me "get fore", which I've failed to get even in my dicts.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

McTag wrote:

Do not get fore. It's not sunny.

I hope Contrex or JTT or others to explain me "get fore", which I've failed to get even in my dicts.

Do not get sore. It's not funny.

He is attempting to be humorous by replacing the letter s in sore with an f and the s in sunny with an s. Although a long s looks like an f it is still an s really.

1 Reply

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

oristarA wrote:

McTag wrote:

Do not get fore. It's not sunny.

I hope Contrex or JTT or others to explain me "get fore", which I've failed to get even in my dicts.

Do not get sore. It's not funny.

He is attempting to be humorous by replacing the letter s in sore with an f and the s in sunny with an s. Although a long s looks like an f it is still an s really.

Wise man!

0 Replies

I meant to write "He is attempting to be humorous by replacing the letter s in sore with an f and the f in funny with an s."

0 Replies

@oristarA,

McTag wrote:

Do not get fore. It's not sunny.

oristarA wrote:

I hope Contrex or JTT or others to explain me "get fore", which I've failed to get even in my dicts.

I 'd have arranged the syntax of your sentence as follows,
as a native speaker of English:
I hope Contrex . . . will explain "get fore",
which I've failed to get, even in my dictionaries.
OR
I wish that Contrex . . . will explain "get fore",
which I've failed to get, even in my dictionaries.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm begining to agree with JTT, David (horrible thought, tho it is): you really shouldn't comment on language threads with your severely limited understanding of the language.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Maybe checking out what a spoonerism is would help you..

(I know, I know, guys, explaining is not funny and can become sore!!)

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I 'd have arranged the syntax of your sentence as follows,
as a native speaker of English:
I hope Contrex . . . will explain "get fore",
which I've failed to get, even in my dictionaries.
OR
I wish that Contrex . . . will explain "get fore",
which I've failed to get, even in my dictionaries.

You have to be exceedingly careful about any advice on language given by OmSigDavid, Ori. He is a native speaker of English but he has shown time and again that he has a very poor grasp of grammar and the workings of English.

David suggests to you that the above two combinations - hope/will and wish/will [underlined and one in bold] are the same. They are not.

Native speakers of English are reluctant to combine 'will' with 'wish', [though it's not impossible] because 'wish' denotes situations which within the scope of irrealis/not possible/counterfactual.

In this neutral situation, the two are not interchangeable. I suspect that this may have been what caused Merry Andrew to write, "you [David] really shouldn't comment on language threads with your severely limited understanding of the language".

0 Replies

Oristar:

I 'm only going to point this out once:
about 2 years ago, JTT repudiated the use of logic
and he ridiculed people who use logic.

If you choose to be guided by such a person,
then proceed to do so. I cannot reason with
any person who has rejected logic itself.
I can play with him, in a frivolous manner, but not take him seriously.
He is not worthy of your confidence.

Do as u will.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I 'm only going to point this out once:

I, on the other hand, will point it out as often as necessary. OmSig can't address the language issues because he is woefully ignorant of language and the workings of language.

Let me also take a moment to point out that OmSig is lying - okay, so what's new? - when he suggests that he is "only going to point this out once:". This is his usual run to line whenever he is stumped on the language issues, which, as anyone who has seen his posts on language/grammar, is always.

Quote:

JTT repudiated the use of logic
and he ridiculed people who use logic.

This is Part 2 of Om's favorite run to line but he never bothers to describe the event. Odd for a guy who purports to use "logic".

Quote:

I can play with him, in a frivolous manner,

Be honest for just once, David. That should read,

I can play with grammar and language, in a frivolous manner, but given my track record on language issues, no one should take me at all seriously.

1 Reply

@JTT,

J, I was addressing myself to Oristar, not to u.

If I cared about anything
that u believe, then maybe I 'd be interested in your response.

I hope that some day u will be so fortunate
as to recover your sanity, but that seems unlikely.

Until u do, I 'll play with u only in the same spirit
as playing with a loud dog whose opinions I don 't take seriously.

David

1 Reply

Paradife Loft

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know