Nomblog Domain Overview🔒 SSL Verified

Table of Contents

• ↓ Thumbs up – spotlight on the good things happening in the world
• ↓ France, euthanasia and counter-civilization
• ↓ France, euthanasia and counter-civilization
• ↓ Bishop John Strickland–bringing Light and Leaven to the world
• ↓ Bishop John Strickland–bringing Light and Leaven to the world
• ↓ Husband, wife, or ‘partner’? How words can shape ideas about marriage
• ↓ Top Alternatives to nomblog.com

6-Month Traffic Trend Estimate

Official Contact & Profiles

Visual representation extracted from nomblog.com

Content Snippets from nomblog.com

"As a fan of British television, I am also a fan of certain “British-isms” that are foreign to the ordinary American ear. For example, there’s a certain colloquialism, originally associated with the north of England, but now used more broadly, though not without affectation. It involves the ungrammatical use of the past participle of certain verbs. The most common instance is the verb “to sit.” Thus, one might hear a Britisher reminiscing about childhood saying something like, “I remember weekend mornings coming downstairs to find Mum sat there reading The Sunday Telegraph .” Grammatically, one ought to say Mum “was sitting” there; or else that one found her “sitting” there. I suppose if one had reason to employ the perfective aspect, or, I suppose, if you wanted to speak in a more perfective aspect and wanted to make clear that the action not only happened but also ceased in the past, one could describe how she “had sat” there or “had been sitting” there. The point, though, is that it’s ungrammatical to speak of Mum “sat” there like this. Nonetheless, I find it charming. (If I may be allowed a geeky aside: the way this usage seems to function is by oddly blending subject and object, or the active and passive voice. It sort of tricks the mind into imagining a fuller context of the verb: mum “had sat herself” there—or, more fancifully, she “had been sat” there by some other agency or power—fate, habit, or the household gods, I suppose. But in any case, this seems akin to the Irish-ism of using “himself” or “herself” in subject or nominal predicate positions: “Himself isn’t home at the moment.” It would be a fascinating linguistic study to find whether there’s any association between these sorts of usages, or to what cultural or socio-economic forces they may relate.)"

"Forgive me my tangent, though. What I intended to write about is the fact that, while I do enjoy many of these quirky Britishisms, there’s one that positively rubs me the wrong way: a usage which thankfully never gained much traction here in the States (though it did enjoy a certain vogue for a time among certain people), but is very common in England. That’s the use of the word “partner” in place of “spouse” or “husband/wife.”"

"Now, I’m not entirely sure of the origin of this silliness in England. I can recall that here in the US, at least, when briefly this did have some currency, it seemed tied up with political correctness. Though the word “non-heteronormative” (a pox upon it) was unheard of back then, looking back we could fairly say that in today’s terms that the use of “partner” in place of “spouse’ seemed to have once come into fashion in order to eschew “heteronormativity.” As I said, I’m not entirely certain of whether the origin of the usage in British English was for similar reasons, but I think it likely enough."

Key Topics & Focus Areas for nomblog.com:

Thumbs up – spotlight on the good things happening in the world

France, euthanasia and counter-civilization

France, euthanasia and counter-civilization

Bishop John Strickland–bringing Light and Leaven to the world

Bishop John Strickland–bringing Light and Leaven to the world

Husband, wife, or ‘partner’? How words can shape ideas about marriage