Hi again, Anton!  This is a continuation of my previous message to you:

AH>  I have requested MODERN AMERICAN USAGE from the public
AH>  library.  :-)

AS>  Make sure it is the original edition, because even the
AS>  most zelaus
          |zealous ("zeal" + "-ous", rhymes with "jealous"

AS>  descriptivists agree that later editors betrayed the
AS>  dead Fowler and ruined his dictionary.


           What I had in mind there was not FOWLER'S, but the work of an author
 from the US.  Because I don't speak US English I saw little need for it until
I became curious about why Americans do what they do with, e.g., "of" and
thought I'd best consult a USAian expert....   :-)



AS>  But you can have some Fowler for free on Bartleby:

AS>               https://www.bartleby.com/116/
AS>               [King's English]


           Ah... thankyou.  I'd heard of it, but as yet I haven't read it.  :-)



AS>  which, to me, has the advantage of being a coherent book


           That's what I enjoyed about Lynne Truss's book EATS, SHOOTS & LEAVES
 as well.  It's a good read if one is simply open to new ideas....  :-)



AS>  instead of a set of disjoined articles in alphabetical
AS>  order.


           WRT disjointed articles in alphabetical order, I find it challenging
 at times to locate the information I need when somebody asks about a
particular topic because I feel as if I'm searching a filing cabinet where
unless you know what was going on in the secretary's mind you have no hope of
finding anything. I don't give up very easily when I &/or one of my students
really wants to know about something in particular, however... with the result
that over the years I have honed my skill.  Recently Dallas & I watched a
series about Queen Victoria in which the actress said (when HM was 8 1/2 months
 pregnant & was not allowed, by the standards of the day, to do as she wished)
said "I'm bored of this".  At a similar stage I was reminded of people who had
built a ship in the basement & wondered how they'd ever get it out... and when
I asked Dallas to help with the vacuuming I got a new vacuum cleaner almost
immediately.  But when I exclaimed, "What... Queen Victoria wouldn't have said
that!?" the 1998 edition of FOWLER'S confirmed my suspicion that "bored of"
emerged well over a century later.  :-))



AS>  Some topics merely touched in MEU are expouned in great
AS>  deatail in "King's English".  The chapter on "will" and
AS>  "shall" is a masterpiece (which I understood upon a fouth
AS>  re-reading :-).


           Perhaps I should refresh my memory in that regard.  Although some of
 us probably learned about it at school, North Americans in general don't make
a distinction between "will" and "shall".  I think much of the power & sublety
of the language is lost when folks try too hard to simplify or naturalize it. 
:-)



AS>  The usage of "shall" and "will" and "should" and "would" by
AS>  Agatha Christie and Anthony Hope is now much clearer to me.


           While I know very little about Anthony Hope, I think I know what you
 mean WRT Agatha Christie.  She could speak volumes about a man by saying he
was wearing spats & riding in a first-class railway compartment... in much the
same way as the photograph I saw of her wearing pearls while eating breakfast
on the patio of her country estate spoke volumes.  When you understand the fine
 points of grammar &/or the upper-middle class customs of the day you'll
understand far more than the kids whose chief ambition is to fit in with their
age mates.  :-Q




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
SEEN-BY: 104/57 106/201 116/18 123/140 124/5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018
SEEN-BY: 130/803 138/146 15/0 153/250 757 7715 16/101 19/33 36 218/700 222/2
SEEN-BY: 230/150 152 2320/105 240/1120 250/1 261/100 38 266/512 267/155 275/100
SEEN-BY: 282/1031 1056 291/1 111 31999/99 320/119 219 34/999 340/400 342/13
SEEN-BY: 3634/12 387/21 396/45 5020/1042 715 712/848 801/161 189 90/1