mjj (flemmings) wrote,

I'm glad Mary Robinette Kowal is devoted enough to make an Austen word list and not use anything non-period in her historicals; and I'm glad she has so many editors and beta-readers to help her out in the task. But for the love of God, Montresor, why did none of them disentangle her confusion over lie and lay? and why did she not notice Austen's usage of same? (Granted, Jane's grammar and punctuation is occasionally sui generis.) But the fact remains that the past tense of lay is not lay, and pregnant women in the Regency did not have laying-ins.
Tags: language, reading_17

  • (no subject)

    The dread Torontonian three h's are upon us: hot, hazy, and humid. Must still say it's not that hot- 28 may be muggy and unpleasant but doesn't…

  • (no subject)

    Today was a classic Bad Knee Day and after doing a supermarket shop for, among other pressing things, tonic water to cushion the prophylactic gin, I…

  • (no subject)

    The result of refusing to get up at 8-whatever a.m. and going back to sleep for another three hours was to get me a dream of being in not!Japan,…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded