From: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org (onlyJMDL Digest) To: onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Subject: onlyJMDL Digest V2011 #82 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-onlyjoni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/onlyjoni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com Unsubscribe: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe onlyJMDL Digest Thursday, March 24 2011 Volume 2011 : Number 082 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Maybe y'all won't believe this.... [Marianne Rizzo ] Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question [Catherine McKay ] Re: Grammar Question [Catherine McKay ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:47:26 -0400 From: Marianne Rizzo Subject: Maybe y'all won't believe this.... that is wonderful Bob. A similar thing happened to me also with the same song. . . (about two years ago) coasting into the auto repair shop barely making it in low and behold: "Help me," joni on the radio I could not have imagined this if it had not happened. Marianne From: "Bob Muller" > But it's true. > > I went in today for a routine colonoscopy (everything was fine) and as > they were > wheeling me from the prep room to the procedure room, guess who come on > the > speakers? Darn right! > > I had to laugh because it was 'Help Me', probably not what you want to > hear when > you're heading in to a medical procedure. Anyway, it was a comfort. I took > it as > a sign that all would go well, which it did. > > Bob > > NP: John Mellencamp, "In Our Lives" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Mags Subject: Re: for so many years...the stream flows on Another example of your wonderful writing and to the point, spot on reflections that I so love about you. A great big me too on so many points ah heck on all of them. I was about 20 when I first heard Court and Spark and was so moved by it I had to phone the radio station to ask who on earth this was. I was knocked flat on my emotional @ss by the reflections within the songs of Court and Spark. I so often wondered how on earth someone vocalize the same sad situations that I felt at that time in my life. The Billie Holiday lyric that you posted is remarkable and I thank you for the comparison to the feel of Joni's songs on Court and Spark. As we know, Joni is a big fan of Billie's . Remarkable insights there, Mark. I'm loving this revisit to Court and Spark. And reading all of the impressions, again and again. love, Mags ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:19:18 -0400 From: Bob.Muller@Fluor.com Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" And the classic Nazareth cover sings: "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent with the rock rhythm they put behind it) The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: "should have not got on this flight tonight" So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new stuff. Bob NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:46:10 +0000 From: Paul Castle Subject: 'Joni' by Mathias Eick Really like this instrumental by Norwegian trumpeter Mathias Eick from his new ECM release 'Skala' - Listen @ http://blip.fm/~130y22 In the press release for the album he writes: Joni is, of course, for Joni Mitchell, whose work Eick has long admired. A specific association here is Both Sides Now in the orchestral arrangement of Vince Mendoza. I was really touched when I heard that. This piece of mine, Joni, is also several years old. When I had the right musicians in place, like the strong band here, it seemed a good opportunity to look again at some older pieces and set them amongst the newer tunes, to shape an album. see http://bit.ly/dQsT86 best to all PaulC ____________________ http://blip.fm/paulcastle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:02:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I'm sure I've said both "got" and "gotten." And I'm no grammar expert, so which one is correct has baffled me and, when that happens, I usually look for other ways of saying things. However, I understand that "gotten" may be more common in the US, whereas "got" is more common in the UK. My ambivalence may arise from being Canadian, where we get info from both sides. Joni's just enough older than me to have had what was probably a more "British" type of education. Found this on MIT's website: "Get is the present tense form of the verb. Got is the past tense form as well as one of the two alternatives for the past participle. The other alternative for the past participle is gotten, which is generally preferred in the United States. " http://www.mit.edu/course/21/21.guide/get-got.htm I'd accept both Joni's and Nazareth's version, by Hydra's is weird. They're not English-speaking, are they? And then again, there's good old, "should of" that many people use for "should have" (probably because people shorten "should have" to "should've" which sounds like "should of." How about, "I shoulda not oughta got on this flight tonight?" Holy crap! You're heading to China TOMORROW? BON VO-YA-GEEEE! I hope this is a wonderful experience for you and please stay in touch! - ----- Original Message ---- > From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" > To: joni@smoe.org > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 1:19:18 PM > Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice > (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > > "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > > And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > > "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent > with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > > The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > > "should have not got on this flight tonight" > > So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I > suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in > one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see > if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > > And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the > metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo > address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and > posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return > (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new > stuff. > > Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:38:55 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it be be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:19 PM, wrote: > I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice > (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > > "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > > And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > > "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent > with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > > The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > > "should have not got on this flight tonight" > > So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I > suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in > one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see > if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > > And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the > metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo > address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and > posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return > (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new > stuff. > > Bob > > NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" > ------------------------------------------------------------ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are > hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Yabbut, yabbut... If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't have a pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot to pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) So: I should not get on this flight tongight. I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. - ----- Original Message ---- > From: Gerald Notaro > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > Cc: joni@smoe.org > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it be > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:31:37 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in this case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is not I have got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that plane tonight. Big difference. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > Yabbut, yabbut... > If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't > have a > pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot > to > pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. > > But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a > flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) > So: > I should not get on this flight tongight. > I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Gerald Notaro > > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > > Cc: joni@smoe.org > > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it > be > > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:59:14 -0400 From: Susan Tierney McNamara Subject: RE: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question "I should not have gotten on this flight tonight" I'm not singing that! It's hard enough staying out of the way of the slack string!! - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Notaro Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:32 PM To: Catherine McKay Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in this case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is not I have got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that plane tonight. Big difference. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > Yabbut, yabbut... > If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't > have a > pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot > to > pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. > > But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a > flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) > So: > I should not get on this flight tongight. > I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Gerald Notaro > > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > > Cc: joni@smoe.org > > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it > be > > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I misread your statement to begin with. Sorry about that. But I think it's the difference between the preferred American usage (have gotten) and the (I think) preferred British usage (have got.) So, not really a question of right or wrong, but of the different ways we speak or write certain things. > >From: Gerald Notaro >To: Catherine McKay >Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org >Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 3:31:37 PM >Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > >The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in this >case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is not I have >got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that plane tonight. Big >difference. > >Jerry > > > >On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > >Yabbut, yabbut... >>If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't have a >>pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot to >>pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. >> >>But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a >>flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) >>So: >>I should not get on this flight tongight. >>I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. >> >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Gerald Notaro >>> To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com >>> Cc: joni@smoe.org >>> Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question >>> >>> Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it be >>> be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. >>> >>> Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:01:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Hi Bob, since I love grammar and anything else to do with language, and need a distraction, I'll chip in as well. First of all, "gotten" is American English, so "got" is perfectly correct. Secondly, the difference between the 2 sentences you quote, lies strictly speaking not in the grammar but in the meaning (i.e. in the first case you add a negative to "should have", and in the second case you add it to "got", so that's a choice you have depending on what you want to say). But in the end both versions virtually lead to the same conclusion, and certainly "should not have got on this flight tonight" is the more usual syntax. I also agree with you that the mistake "should of" is awful, because it means people really don't know what they are saying: just because "should have" can be abbreviated to "should've" and therefore SOUNDS LIKE "should of" does not mean it makes any sense! The first time I came across this mistake I thought the person in question was almost illiterate. Then I realised that these days so little attention is paid to grammar (and spelling and punctuation etc) at school, that many intelligent people now end up almost unable to write properly. Yes I know, I sound like a school mistress. But as long as I have people like good old Smurph and Catherine (and you) on my side, I don't feel too bad. And yesterday, I went with my oldest son to a wonderful exhibition at the British Library, called Evolving English. It shows the evolution of the English language from Anglo Saxon to the present day (in all its diversity). It has been running for about 3 months and will close at the end of next week. If I had more time I'd write a long post about it, but I'm afraid I don't have that time, so here is a link for those who may want to find out more: http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/about.html It really is an excellent alternative to being at the exhibition itself, with a wonderful timeline you can click on. And then there is this delightful BBC interactive site on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/language_timeline/index_embed.shtml Anyway, what I wanted to say is: I was delighted to see the masses of people hovering over all the exhibits, as if they were at a popular Picasso or Van Gogh exhibition rather than this display of old texts, so I said to my son: "Isn't it great to know we are not the only language nerds in town!" All the best, Lieve in London ________________________________ From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" To: joni@smoe.org Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 17:19:18 Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" And the classic Nazareth cover sings: "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent with the rock rhythm they put behind it) The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: "should have not got on this flight tonight" So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new stuff. Bob NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:08:11 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Hey, it is rock and roll. You always sing any music the way it is written. Joni's lyrics reflects the vernacular of her characters, not the Queen's English. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Susan Tierney McNamara wrote: > "I should not have gotten on this flight tonight" > > I'm not singing that! It's hard enough staying out of the way of the slack > string!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Gerald > Notaro > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:32 PM > To: Catherine McKay > Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in > this case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is > not I have got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that > plane > tonight. Big difference. > > Jerry > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay >wrote: > > > Yabbut, yabbut... > > If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't > > have a > > pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a > pot > > to > > pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is > redundant. > > > > But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on > a > > flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) > > So: > > I should not get on this flight tongight. > > I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Gerald Notaro > > > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > > > Cc: joni@smoe.org > > > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > > > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > > > > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it > > be > > > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > > > > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:46:04 -0400 From: Deb Messling Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question My blue-haired teacher in boarding school taught us NEVER to use the word "gotten." Her little maxim was "Gotten is Rotten." - -- Deb Messling dlmessling@gmail.com http://bookbook.typepad.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:28:01 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I will argue the point with you, Lieve. The usage of gotten as a past participle is very much British, though more uncommon now among the British. It is more Old English than American, though still used here through the colonists. That doesn't make it incorrect at all, just different from modern British usage. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: > Hi Bob, > since I love grammar and anything else to do with language, and need a > distraction, I'll chip in as well. > > First of all, "gotten" is American English, so "got" is perfectly correct. > > Secondly, the difference between the 2 sentences you quote, lies strictly > speaking not in the grammar but in the meaning (i.e. in the first case you > add a > negative to "should have", and in the second case you add it to "got", so > that's > a choice you have depending on what you want to say). But in the end both > > versions virtually lead to the same conclusion, and certainly "should not > have > got on this flight tonight" is the more usual syntax. > > > I also agree with you that the mistake "should of" is awful, because it > means > people really don't know what they are saying: just because "should have" > can be > abbreviated to "should've" and therefore SOUNDS LIKE "should of" does not > mean > it makes any sense! The first time I came across this mistake I thought > the > person in question was almost illiterate. Then I realised that these days > so > little attention is paid to grammar (and spelling and punctuation etc) at > > school, that many intelligent people now end up almost unable to write > properly. Yes I know, I sound like a school mistress. But as long as I > have > > people like good old Smurph and Catherine (and you) on my side, I don't > feel too > bad. > > And yesterday, I went with my oldest son to a wonderful exhibition at the > British Library, called Evolving English. It shows the evolution of the > English > > language from Anglo Saxon to the present day (in all its diversity). It > has > been running for about 3 months and will close at the end of next week. If > I > > had more time I'd write a long post about it, but I'm afraid I don't have > that > time, so here is a link for those who may want to find out more: > http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/about.html It really is an excellent > alternative to being at the exhibition itself, with a wonderful timeline > you can > click on. > And then there is this delightful BBC interactive site on the > subject: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/language_timeline/index_embed.shtml > > > Anyway, what I wanted to say is: I was delighted to see the masses of > people > hovering over all the exhibits, as if they were at a popular Picasso or Van > Gogh > > exhibition rather than this display of old texts, so I said to my son: > "Isn't it > great to know we are not the only language nerds in town!" > All the best, > Lieve in London > > > > ________________________________ > From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" > To: joni@smoe.org > Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 17:19:18 > Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice > (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > > "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > > And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > > "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent > with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > > The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > > "should have not got on this flight tonight" > > So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I > suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in > one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see > if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > > And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the > metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo > address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and > posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return > (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new > stuff. > > Bob > > NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" > ------------------------------------------------------------ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are > hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:07:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Jerry, I think we agree, actually! I did not say that "gotten" was wrong at all. All I meant to say in shorthand was that "gotten" is now mainly used in American English - and true, it's old English (as in "ill gotten gains") but that "got" is not wrong, it is the correct past participle in current British English. (Just as quoted by Catherine from the grammar book.) All the best, Lieve ________________________________ From: Gerald Notaro To: Lieve Reckers Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 21:28:01 Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I will argue the point with you, Lieve. The usage of gotten as a past participle is very much British, though more uncommon now among the British. It is more Old English than American, though still used here through the colonists. That doesn't make it incorrect at all, just different from modern British usage. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: Hi Bob, >since I love grammar and anything else to do with language, and need a >distraction, I'll chip in as well. > >First of all, "gotten" is American English, so "got" is perfectly correct. > >Secondly, the difference between the 2 sentences you quote, lies strictly >speaking not in the grammar but in the meaning (i.e. in the first case you add a >negative to "should have", and in the second case you add it to "got", so that's >a choice you have depending on what you want to say). But in the end both > >versions virtually lead to the same conclusion, and certainly "should not have >got on this flight tonight" is the more usual syntax. > > >I also agree with you that the mistake "should of" is awful, because it means >people really don't know what they are saying: just because "should have" can be >abbreviated to "should've" and therefore SOUNDS LIKE "should of" does not mean >it makes any sense! The first time I came across this mistake I thought the >person in question was almost illiterate. Then I realised that these days so >little attention is paid to grammar (and spelling and punctuation etc) at > >school, that many intelligent people now end up almost unable to write >properly. Yes I know, I sound like a school mistress. But as long as I have > >people like good old Smurph and Catherine (and you) on my side, I don't feel too >bad. > >And yesterday, I went with my oldest son to a wonderful exhibition at the >British Library, called Evolving English. It shows the evolution of the English > >language from Anglo Saxon to the present day (in all its diversity). It has >been running for about 3 months and will close at the end of next week. If I > >had more time I'd write a long post about it, but I'm afraid I don't have that >time, so here is a link for those who may want to find out more: >http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/about.html It really is an excellent >alternative to being at the exhibition itself, with a wonderful timeline you can >click on. >And then there is this delightful BBC interactive site on the >subject: >http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/language_timeline/index_e mbed.shtml > > > >Anyway, what I wanted to say is: I was delighted to see the masses of people >hovering over all the exhibits, as if they were at a popular Picasso or Van Gogh > >exhibition rather than this display of old texts, so I said to my son: "Isn't it >great to know we are not the only language nerds in town!" >All the best, >Lieve in London > > > >________________________________ >From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" >To: joni@smoe.org >Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 17:19:18 >Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > >I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice >(as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > >"I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > >And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > >"should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent >with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > >The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > >"should have not got on this flight tonight" > >So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I >suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in >one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see >if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > >And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the >metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > >And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and >heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo >address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and >posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return >(late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new >stuff. > >Bob > >NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" >------------------------------------------------------------ >The information transmitted is intended only for the person >or entity to which it is addressed and may contain >proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. >If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are >hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, >distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon >this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please >contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > >Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual >sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. >------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:15:26 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question From grammarphobia.com. A wonderful explanation that there is a distinction of usage, and that it is correct and useful: TOMBSTONE: Use have got, not have gotten. R.I.P. People who take this prohibition seriously have gotten their grammar wrong. At one time, everyone agreed that the verb get had two past participles: got and gotten. (The past participle is the form of a verb that's used with have, had, or has.) It's true that the British stopped using have gotten about 300 years ago, while we in the Colonies kept using both have got and have gotten. But the result is not that Americans speak improper English. The result is that we have retained a nuance of meaning that the unfortunate Britons have lost. When we say, Bruce has got three Armani suits, we mean he has them in his possession. It's another way of saying he has them. When we say, Bruce has gotten three Armani suits, we mean he's acquired or obtained them. It's a very useful distinction, and one that the British would do well to reacquire. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Deb Messling wrote: > > My blue-haired teacher in boarding school taught us NEVER to use the word > "gotten." Her > little maxim was "Gotten is Rotten." > > > -- > Deb Messling > dlmessling@gmail.com > http://bookbook.typepad.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:35:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Agreed again, Jerry. In fact I think most Brits still understand that distinction, they just don't use it. Instead of saying "Bruce has gotten an Armani suit" they would say "Bruce has got himself an Armani suit" which conveys that same meaning! Lieve - ----- Original Message ---- From: Gerald Notaro To: Deb Messling Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 22:15:26 Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question From grammarphobia.com. A wonderful explanation that there is a distinction of usage, and that it is correct and useful: TOMBSTONE: Use have got, not have gotten. R.I.P. People who take this prohibition seriously have gotten their grammar wrong. At one time, everyone agreed that the verb get had two past participles: got and gotten. (The past participle is the form of a verb that's used with have, had, or has.) It's true that the British stopped using have gotten about 300 years ago, while we in the Colonies kept using both have got and have gotten. But the result is not that Americans speak improper English. The result is that we have retained a nuance of meaning that the unfortunate Britons have lost. When we say, Bruce has got three Armani suits, we mean he has them in his possession. It's another way of saying he has them. When we say, Bruce has gotten three Armani suits, we mean he's acquired or obtained them. It's a very useful distinction, and one that the British would do well to reacquire. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Deb Messling wrote: > > My blue-haired teacher in boarding school taught us NEVER to use the word > "gotten." Her > little maxim was "Gotten is Rotten." > > > -- > Deb Messling > dlmessling@gmail.com > http://bookbook.typepad.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:40:04 -0700 From: Dave Blackburn Subject: Re: Grammar Question As if to tie together the recent Court and Spark thread with the current one on grammar, I've been musing on the syntax of that phrase "Court and Spark" itself. It's really a pair of verb infinitives without the "to" preceding, but that makes it look like a pair of nouns. And the pair of verbs themselves are quite unusual choices: "to court" is old fashioned but "to spark" seems to me a bit of classic Joni compression, as if short hand for "to ignite a spark that grows into a flame." Anyone else been curious about this line and its odd syntax? Dave On Mar 23, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Bob.Muller@Fluor.com wrote: > Thanks for that, Lieve - I don't have any problem being a language nerd or > feel a need to defend myself for being correct. I've had a couple of folks > who have defriended me on Facebook because I corrected their grammar (or > as they would say "correct there grammar"). The latest was a guy who said > he wanted to "sore like an eagle". Ugh. > > I definitely did not know that "gotten" was strictly an American thing so > thanks to you & Catherine for making me smarter. I do realize as well that > writing songs sometimes requires a bit of twisting of language. Stevie > Wonder is probably the biggest offender ("then my only worry was for > christmas what would be my toy" - yikes!) but he gets a total pass from me > because I love his music so much. > > Bob > > NP: Foo Fighters, "I'll Stick Around" > ------------------------------------------------------------ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are > hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:01:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Grammar Question I remember watching the Beverly Hillbillies as a kid and I'm sure they talked about "courtin' and sparkin'." Was never really clear what the "sparkin'" part meant, but somehow always thought of it as kissing. I googled it and found some stuff, including this one: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990902 It includes Joni content too. "The word spark for 'to woo; court', is the sort of thing labelled in some dictionaries as "Older use," and this label is probably accurate. The only use I can think of that might be familiar nowadays is as part of the title of the Joni Mitchell album Court and Spark, probably her best album, except for the fact that it doesn't have "Chelsea Morning" on it, and having Joni Mitchell's version of "Chelsea Morning" on any album would go a long way towards making that the best, and of the many things that are mystifying about President Clinton, perhaps the most mystifying one of all is that he named his daughter after that song in the awful Judy Collins version, and how anyone could like the Judy Collins version after hearing Joni Mitchell's perfect goddesslike ethereal version is mystifying indeed. "But I digress. "Spark as a verb 'to woo' is an Americanism first recorded in the late eighteenth century. It is found in both transitive use ("He sparked her") and in intransitive use ("He went a-sparking amongst the rosy country girls of the neighboring farms"--Washington Irving, Salmagundi). "This verb is derived from the perhaps more common noun spark 'a lively, elegant, or foppish young man' and also 'a beau, lover, or suitor (of either sex)'. It was usually a somewhat deprecating word, more like fop than dandy. Example: "These sparks with awkward vanity display/What the fine gentlemen wore yesterday" (Pope, Essay on Criticism). Another example, because we've been short of Tatler citations recently: "My young spark ventures upon her like a Man of Quality" (Richard Steele, in The Tatler No. 2). "This spark, which dates from the late sixteenth century, is of uncertain origin. It may be a figurative use of the more familiar spark 'an ignited or fiery particle such as is thrown off by burning wood', which is a Germanic word with possible cognates in other Indo-European families. It could also be from an Old Norse word sparkr 'lively', but the relative lateness of the English word makes this suggestion problematic." Now how about the low spark of high-heeled boys? - ----- Original Message ---- > From: Dave Blackburn > To: Bob.Muller@Fluor.com; jonipeople LIST > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 9:40:04 PM > Subject: Re: Grammar Question > > As if to tie together the recent Court and Spark thread with the current one on >grammar, I've been musing on the syntax of that phrase "Court and Spark" itself. >It's really a pair of verb infinitives without the "to" preceding, but that >makes it look like a pair of nouns. And the pair of verbs themselves are quite >unusual choices: "to court" is old fashioned but "to spark" seems to me a bit of >classic Joni compression, as if short hand for "to ignite a spark that grows >into a flame." > > Anyone else been curious about this line and its odd syntax? > > Dave > > > > > On Mar 23, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Bob.Muller@Fluor.com wrote: > > > Thanks for that, Lieve - I don't have any problem being a language nerd or > > feel a need to defend myself for being correct. I've had a couple of folks > > who have defriended me on Facebook because I corrected their grammar (or > > as they would say "correct there grammar"). The latest was a guy who said > > he wanted to "sore like an eagle". Ugh. > > > > I definitely did not know that "gotten" was strictly an American thing so > > thanks to you & Catherine for making me smarter. I do realize as well that > > writing songs sometimes requires a bit of twisting of language. Stevie > > Wonder is probably the biggest offender ("then my only worry was for > > christmas what would be my toy" - yikes!) but he gets a total pass from me > > because I love his music so much. > > > > Bob > > > > NP: Foo Fighters, "I'll Stick Around" > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > > proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. > > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are > > hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > > distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > > this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > > sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of onlyJMDL Digest V2011 #82 ******************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:onlyjoni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe