One is the difference between the British and American usage of “meant to.” Consider the following two sentences.

This décor is meant to look Egyptian.

The weather is meant to be lovely in Capri this time of year.

The first sentence sounds fine in American English, though an American would be slightly more likely to say “supposed to.” But the second is something an American just wouldn’t say; here only “supposed to” would do (unless one is referring to the gods’ purposes in arranging Capri’s weather). But it sounds quite normal in British English. The difference is that in American English, “meant to” suggests something’s being intended, while “supposed to” can mean either that or what is simply taken to be the case – which is how “meant to” works in British English.

(Actually I think the difference shows up in the first sentence too; my sense is that in American English “This décor is meant to look Egyptian” stresses the intentionality, as if to explain that the Egyptian appearance isn’t an accident.)

The other difference concerns the word “right.” There’s a fair bit of overlap between the British and American uses here, but there are also differences, and the particular one I have in mind is nicely displayed in the following video clip of the opening scene from the original BBC version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. (The scene is also charming in its own right – and incidentally does a nice job of instantly making it visually clear, to readers of the book, which actors are playing which characters.)

Now in American English, if you begin with “Right!” then you have to be responding to something someone else has said; you can’t just start off with it, the way you can in British English. What does work in American English the way “right” works in British English is “okay”; it would sound perfectly natural for an American to begin a meeting with “Okay, let’s get started” – but not with “Right, let’s get started.”

By contrast, “Okay, we shall start” – as opposed to “Okay, let’s get started” – would sound a bit off in American English, but my (fallible) sense is that Alleline’s “we shall start” is not quite natural in British English either; the Alleline character is supposed – and indeed meant – to be something of a pompous ass, and this might be reflected in unnatural speech patterns.

Just finished watching “A Scandal in Belgravia,” the first episode of Sherlock series 2. It is so, so good, and would be so, so ruined by spoilers that I will say no more about it, except:

• It’s pretty much ruined the Doctor Who Christmas special for me. Apart from some feminist grumblings I quite enjoyed “The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe,” but only because I’d forgotten how good Moffat can be when he’s at the top of his game. “Scandal” just blows “Widow” out of the water; it’s a thousand times better. (Exactly a thousand; I measured it with my agathometer.)

 

• It’s preemptively ruined Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows for me also. “Scandal” is the Sherlock Holmes movie of the present season; whatever the theatrical movie is like, it can’t hope to measure up.

 

• One of the best moments in the episode is also a Doctor Who reference. But those who know only the 21st century version of Doctor Who won’t get it. (There’s also a Wrath of Khan reference.)

On the down side: given how persnickety Sherlock was about grammar in the opening scene of last season’s “Great Game,” it’s a bit incongruous that he says “you sent John and I” in “Scandal.”

There used to be an organisation with the name “Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

Later on they switched to the more diplomatic “Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

And in more recent years they’ve informally shortened it to “Americans United.”

And until today I had them mixed up with “Citizens United.” (Or, more precisely, I had “Citizens United” mixed up with them.)

D’oh!

Actress Daryl Hannah can add another arrest to her resume after she was taken away in handcuffs on Tuesday while protesting a proposed pipeline in front of the White House.

I totally agree! They shouldn’t build a pipeline in front of the White House.

We therefore say this with regard to Enoch Powell. He was a classical scholar of great brilliance and distinction. His Lexicon to Herodotus (1938) is one of the most valuable works ever produced on the ancient historian. As well as in Latin and Greek, he was fluent in every main European language, and in Welsh. He was also at least competent in several ancient and modern oriental languages.
— Sean Gabb, 2011

And then you get cornered by some drunken greengrocer from Luton with an Instamatic and Dr. Scholl sandals and last Tuesday’s Daily Express and he drones on and on and on about how Mr. Smith should be running this country and how many languages Enoch Powell can speak and then he throws up all over the Cuba Libres.
— Monty Python, 1972

]]> http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/26/torremolinos-torremolinos/feed/ 16 http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/24/the-song-of-broken-glass/ http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/24/the-song-of-broken-glass/#comments Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:03:57 +0000 Roderick http://aaeblog.com/?p=8019 This purported quote from Krugman has been making the internet rounds:

People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.

Apparently the quote is a fake, and Krugman is irritated that people would attribute “stupid or outrageous” remarks to him without verifying their authenticity.

Certainly the people circulating this quote should have checked their sources more carefully. All the same, there’s a reason people assumed it was genuine. After all, Krugman is the guy who, the day after the 9/11 attacks, quite genuinely wrote:

Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack – like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression [sic] – could even do some economic good. … Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. … rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.

For quotes from other members of the glaziers’ lobby, see here.

]]> http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/24/the-song-of-broken-glass/feed/ 4 http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/22/should-sex-be-illegal-only-at-the-local-level/ http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/22/should-sex-be-illegal-only-at-the-local-level/#comments Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:54:34 +0000 Roderick http://aaeblog.com/?p=8000 Presidential aspirant Jon Huntsman tells Piers Morgan that he can think of no “issue more important” than the debt ceiling; “that is about as fundamental as it gets.” (More fundamental than not beating, maiming, and killing quite so many people, apparently.)

Christine O’Donnell tells Piers Morgan (shortly before bizarrely storming off his show in mid-interview) that her views on sex are not relevant to her status as a national politician “because there aren’t laws outlawing sex; and if there are, they should be on the local level.”

Speaking of O’Donnell, there ought to be something called Wiccan, Blynken and Nod. According to Google there isn’t yet, and that’s just wrong.

]]> http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/22/should-sex-be-illegal-only-at-the-local-level/feed/ 9 http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/18/cordial-and-sanguine-part-9/ http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/18/cordial-and-sanguine-part-9/#comments Fri, 19 Aug 2011 03:09:15 +0000 Roderick http://aaeblog.com/?p=7953 Charles Johnson’s post on Libertarian Anticapitalism is up at BHL.

]]> http://aaeblog.com/2011/08/18/cordial-and-sanguine-part-9/feed/ 0