Wednesday, December 8, 2010

"You taught me language; and my profit on't is I know how to curse"(The Tempest)

.....Since comments on these blog posts are really not designed for lengthy dissertations , I'm taking this opportunity to respond to recent comments.  First of all, Phil, my dearest and most welcome commenter, my mentor and honorary uncle, questions whether or not his comment on my recent blog about the dual language in our country was fomented by what he called "knee-jerk liberals" and which I called "vitriolic bashing".  Why was this vitriolic he asks. It is so to me because this phrase  indicates contempt, and since I have made no secret about my liberal persuasion, I consider that I've been liberally bashed, and I'm not happy about it.  This blog was not meant to be political, and this phrase made it so.  I don't even know what "knee-jerk" means, but I know it is not complimentary.  Secondly, in all of the seven books of posts I've written, I have never used a  caustic adjective in describing a conservative, of which persuasion I am not a member.  Thirdly, let's not place the entire blame on liberals for the situation I described.  I don't believe that the many companies I've called on the phone who require pressing numbers for the language one speaks are run by liberals.  The Republican legislators in Florida are responsible for printing our ballots in Spanish as well as English.  Liberals may have created the GI Bill, Medicare, Social Security, the Peace Corps, the 40 hr. work week, unemployment compensation, and the Civil Rights Act, but they should not be held responsible for the creation of the Universe.

.....And then there is Emrys who has added another dimension, and a welcome one, to the commentary.  In response to "Phil's" comment, Emrys indicated that he was a "knee-jerk liberal" himself, and that he was going to his doctor to correct the jerk in his knee.  Having done so, Emrys has now been rendered harmless, and so this should assuage Phil B. and correct the shape that he has been bent out of by some knee jerking.  And, I need an explanation of who and what and why someone is being referred to as "Mrs.".  Sounds like sarcasm to me; I wasn't born yesterday--more like yesteryear. 


.....And then there is my loving cuz, Ruth Grimsley, the virginal English woman as she refers to herself in her email address.  She is always there--that is she "has my back".  Baron is so fortunate to have a poet and a brilliant mind ready to comment on what Baron has to say.  And she knows much more about America and its politics than any of the other commenters know about England, and she recognizes how fortunate we are to have a president such as we have, and too bad that more people do not understand and appreciate that.  And Ruthie, my dear, I will expect a birthday poem on my birthday in February.  And PhilB, the next time some liberal or (P)resident upsets you, take two aspirins and go to bed.

12 comments:

  1. Phil, as you know, needs a mind as brilliant as his own to amuse him. So sometimes his wordplay, or letter play is a puzzle that is delightful when solved...if solved. As for "Mrs", this is what I have deciphered:
    em=M
    ry=R
    s=S

    Therefore, Emrys=Mrs. A-Ha!
    Could be sarcasm; could be just fun. Who knows what's going on in that mind that Be Fill'd with so many thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joel, as always, is correct. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. A-Ha! Little "Doc" has done it again. Helps to have spent 20 years in the Agency.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Didn't hurt to have spent even more years under the beneficent brilliance of the Mighty Doc. Joel's sibs are all unique characters with their own special brand of excellence. The interplay between all of them has created a race of Super Sibs. God bless them, each and every one. And, of course, God bless the Doc, the noblest non-Roman of them all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Baron also creates his own subtle puzzles: Please note how today's blog entry quotes from The Tempest, but he attributes it to The Taming of the Shrew, just to see who is paying attention. Very shrewd.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now do you all see what a burden it is to have a child who worked for the government and learned how to look over my shoulder? Correction noted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ruth.grimsley@virgin.netDecember 10, 2010 at 7:57 PM

    Well, thank you for all the kind things you always say about me, dear Cuz Baron. A poem you shall have! Would you like a serious one or a comic one? Or will you leave it up to me to make the choice?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is a blessing to have such a child.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ruth.grimsley@virgin.netDecember 14, 2010 at 12:22 AM

    Sorry, have I missed something? The blog entry I read said "The Tempest," not "The Taming of the Shrew." Of course, the words are Caliban's in the former play. (Hope you've all noticed that I've correctly used the word "former," not "first," because where there are only two things in English, you must not use the superlative form of the adjective, only the comparative. I have three children, of whom two are male. This means that Manny is my youngest child, but my younger son.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. ruth.grimsley@virgin.netDecember 14, 2010 at 12:26 AM

    Additionally, having three children, I can't really claim to be a virgin. Nor, actually, would I want to, ha ha. Blame Sir Richard Branson.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ruth, there are only two monarchs named James for the English. However, we do not say "James the Former"; we say "James the First." Also, if you claim that Manny is NOT your youngest son (for grammatical reasons), might someone think that you have a son who is younger still than Manny? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. ruth.grimsley@virgin.netDecember 15, 2010 at 11:08 PM

    Joel, the naming of kings started a long time before English grammar was coherently formulated. Additionally, here would be a sensible reason for retaining the archaic and'or erroneous nomenclature - if a third James were to ascend the throne, all the back records would have to be altered. And I never say "Manny is not my youngest son," except whan demonstrating the grammatical point, as there is an ambiguity in that, which you have observed, but not identified as such. And he'll NEVER be my youngest son, as I am past childbearing and don't want to adopt! Luvya, Cuz Ruth

    ReplyDelete