Will Schryver wrote:I take it you disagree in some way with my analysis of the origin of "plangent." Feel free, then, to elaborate. I'm always up for having my mind expanded by superior knowledge.
Perhaps you disagree that "plangere" is Latin? Or that it is the origin of the same now-archaic word "plangere" in Italian, which is "to weep." Or that "piangere" is the verb "to weep" in Italian? Or that our English word "plaintive" does not derive from the same word?
Please teach me, dear professor.
Here's a free lesson, Will. I offer it because you seem to have some aspirations, albeit temporary, to move in academic circles. Maybe these aspirations go no further than Mormon apologetics, I don't know. If they don't, you are probably safe. If they do, then this will save you minor embarrassment. In the end, I don't suppose it is such a big deal. It should, however, suggest to you the wisdom of being less quick to point out the linguistic errors of others, especially when those others have a little education under their belts.
Your little lecture on "plangent" was the kind of ham-handed pedantry that looks so jaw-droppingly affected and pompous that no self-respecting scholar, let alone academic, would engage in it. Oh, I suppose the "peeps" in rural Utah would be impressed, and I will say that I saw more of this kind of old-school prancing about at BYU, where religion teachers love to play "scholar," but the difference between someone who really knows their stuff and feels confident about it, and what you just did, is vast.
(I once had a classmate who used to brag that he could read the Book of Mormon in multiple languages to impress ignorant kids in his seminary class. I watched him brazenly read from a published translation in class through an entire semester of Herodotus. LOL!)
Now, what Doctor Scratch is doing with the word "plangent" is something that I have seen a number of scholars do. In its own way it is probably just as silly, but it is less noticeably affected (at least in the eyes of a fellow academic) than what you are doing. Scratch loves the word. He feels comfortable enough with his grasp of literature and the language to risk an out-of-the-way usage. Maybe he came across it in a favorite novel, or a beloved mentor used it that way. I don't know. When he does it, however, I recognize him as one of my people.
You should realize that in teasing you I am not challenging your intelligence or knowledge. I am ribbing you for trying to elbow your way into the academic club with a measure of clumsiness and noticeable insecurity. Hey, Will, I
get that you are a smart guy. I am sorry others tease you relentlessly and dismiss you (admittedly, I have done it too). Many of the people who do are on no better ground than you when it comes to formal training and credentials. All of you look awkward as you fight with each other for title "king of the amateur scholar hill." I find it somewhat amusing; although, in another way, I am excited to see you guys getting involved.
Anyway, to cut to the chase, only buffoons use the phrase "the old Latin" anymore. I get the utility of the distinction, especially when the Vatican still updates its Latin lexicon, but, really, almost no academic younger than seventy would say that. In your lecture, that was the most striking gaffe.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist