Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lord Peter Wimsey - linguistic question

105 replies

Flyingfish2019 · 27/11/2019 21:54

A linguistic question I (as a non native speaker of English) had reading Lord Peter Wimsey novels. There is sometimes unusual grammar like.

“To myself says I“ or “I see him. Mr. if forgot his name) that is“ or use of ain’t all the time.

To me it seems like “I said to myself“, “I see him. That is Mr...“ would be more correct English. Are the characters meant to speak odd or is it oldfashioned English or is it just me not knowing enough about the english language?

OP posts:
akkakk · 02/12/2019 10:48

@Flyingfish2019
Sorry, I am not sure if I can understand the difference.

probably because I am not good at explaining :)
it is a subtle difference - but my point is that the order of the words gives a different meaning - in the text, it means:
That is him - you, know, the one we were talking about (listener knows who they mean - they are confirming it)

your version means:
That is him - you don't know who I am referring to, so I will explain - let me introduce you to Mr xxx

the text implies a different previous conversation or level of knowledge in the person to whom the character is speaking - very subtle, but different

BertrandRussell · 02/12/2019 11:02

It’s insight like that which makes me very sad that Kipling is so often dismissed as an old white racist. He was, of course. But he was so much more than that.

RiftGibbon · 02/12/2019 11:07

@Flyingfish - I can see why it may be difficult to follow as a non-native speaker.

Firstly it's written in the "voice" of a working-class man.
The 'redcoat' which is used as a slight form of abuse refers to the scarlet or red coat that a military man as a member of the British Army.
In the first verse, the publican obviously dislikes soliders for some reason; or perhaps can tell by Tommy's speech that his is too "common" (working-class) to be in his pub. Or, feels that soldiers may cause trouble by drinking and becoming rowdy, and so he doesn't want them in his pub.

The solider (Tommy) is considering that as a soldier he's very much respected and wanted when there's a war on and people need protecting, but the rest of the time, people think he is beneath him and are rude and scornful.

The name of the solider is taken from instructions written at the time about filling out forms and "Tommy Atkins" was a name used as we might use "Joe Bloggs" or "A.N. Other" to simply indicate that someone should put a name in the space - essentially he's anybody. He's your typical soldier.

In the poem, Tommy is saying that he is well aware of the double-standards, and he is well aware that people mock him and are rude behind his back. That people have little respect for soldiers when they are not defending the country.
He says that he's just like anyone else - not a saint, not a hero, not a demon.

He refers to people who are asking for an improvement in conditions (food, pay, etc) and basically says that they should act rather than just speak; e.g. it's no good saying we need more food if you're not going to provide it.

Terpsichore · 03/12/2019 09:53

Slightly off-topic now, but going back briefly to the upper-class use of ‘ain’t’, I’m reading the memoirs of John Richardson (biographer of Picasso) who was born in 1924 to an older father (Richardson senior was 70).

He recalls his father’s unmarried sisters, who ‘played a lot of croquet, said ‘ain’t’ and dropped their g’s - ‘we’re goin’ for a turn on the heath’ - like fashionable people a hundred years earlier.’

This would have been in the late 1920s/early 30s.

TeaAndStrumpets · 03/12/2019 13:44

That's really interesting, terpsichore.

If we were to deduce how people spoke in earlier times, purely from the written language, we'd have no idea!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread