re: Eats, Shoots & Leaves page 22

Including many true-blue Americans, especially when looking back, but probably not for the same reasons as yours.

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that: Canada's not exactly a servile dependent of the Crown.

Modern day Canada offers the best example of what America could have become had she retained the civilizing influence of the British to a greater extent. Being a feisty sort I'd have undoubtedly been on the side of the revolutionaries back then, but looking back I see it could well have been a mistake to take that position. The colonists several gripes with the king seem somewhat trivial to me, looking back. We enjoyed a higher standard of living than the people in Britain even. How often were the colonists reminded of that by their leaders, if they knew it at all?

Charles Riggs
My email address is chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net

Well, I wouldn't be too sure about that: Canada's not exactly a servile dependent of the Crown.

Modern day Canada offers the best example of what America could have become had she retained the civilizing influence of ... in Britain even. How often were the colonists reminded of that by their leaders, if they knew it at all?

I wish I'd read enough to know if the mid-Victorian granting of self-government to the Australian colonies and Canada was the result of lessons learned over the 13 colonies, or if it would have happened at the same time anyhow? (Irish constitutional issues blur the picture, of course: I still don't really understand how that *** got *** up.)
Mike.

Modern day Canada offers the best example of what ... that by their leaders, if they knew it at all?

I wish I'd read enough to know if the mid-Victorian granting of self-government to the Australian colonies and Canada was ... anyhow? (Irish constitutional issues blur the picture, of course: I still don't really understand how that *** got *** up.)

It was mainly about geting them to pay their own way.

"These wretched colonies are a millstone about our necks." - Disraeli

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

I wish I'd read enough to know if the mid-Victorian ... still don't really understand how that *** got *** up.)

It was mainly about geting them to pay their own way. "These wretched colonies are a millstone about our necks." - Disraeli

Sure there was the vexed issue of the Australian warships, for example but I still wonder whether or not perceptions had been altered by the experience with some of the American colonies.

Colonies were always expected to pay their own way as a general rule: consider even Uganda, for which the first Governor was given a hundred Indian soldiers and IIRC £100,000 as a once-and-for-all float.

Mike.

I wish I'd read enough to know if the mid-Victorian granting of self-government to the Australian colonies and Canada was the result of lessons learned over the 13 colonies, or if it would have happened at the same time anyhow? ...

I think the former is closer to the truth. The Lower Canada Rebellion or Patriotes Rebellion of 1837, which continued well into 1838, was viewed as a warning sign; there was also a much smaller Upper Canada Rebellion at the same time, led by a former Mayor of Toronto. The British government sent Lord Durham to investigate why people were wanting to rebel, and his report recommended the institution of responsible government.
He also recommended eliminating Lower Canada as a separate colony, with the intent of forcing the assimilation of its largely French-descended population. That one the British government went along with; respon- sible government for colonies was too radical an idea for the early 1840s. But the issue didn't go away once people started talking about it, and later British leaders did accede. Responsible government came in 1848 in both Nova Scotia and Canada, and I presume the other North American colonies followed. See e.g.
.

(The "Canada" above is not the entity meant by the term today; the latter was formed in 1867 by the federation of the previous Canada with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The 1841 union of Lower and Upper Canada was undone at the same time, respectively forming Quebec and Ontario.)

Mark Brader "Never re-invent the wheel unnecessarily; Toronto yours may have corners." (Email Removed) Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Carmen L. Abruzzi infrared:

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwheret.html Back in the days when English had many more ... "mannes" became "mann's". The apostrophe stands for the omitted letter.

That doesn't explain why we still use the apostrophe in words that end in '-e', like "stone's". The letter is still there, even if silent.

Many people nowadays would say that the 'o' in 'stone' is not silent, but is instead part of the 'o.e' vowel. It's a little weird to indicate the pronunciation of a vowel by adding a non-adjacent 'e', but that's the way English spelling has evolved.
In any case, I have a feeling (but not enough energy to search for references) that the 'e' in 'stone' was added well after Old English turned into Middle English. Perhaps that's irrelevant, though, because I think the e-dropping happened yet later again.

(Sorry to come into this so late. These days I read aue by random sampling.)

Peter Moylan [email protected] http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Richard Bollard infrared:

What do you call a pair of ducks having a 69?

A quack-up.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Many people nowadays would say that the 'o' in 'stone' is not silent, but is instead part of the ... indicate the pronunciation of a vowel by adding a non-adjacent 'e', but that's the way English spelling has evolved.

It's a non-concatenating orthography.
\\P. Schultz

Richard Bollard infrared:

What do you call a pair of ducks having a 69?

A quack-up.

A pair of sticky beaks.

Richard Bollard
Canberra, Australia