Re: CHAT: Must Needs?
|From:||Roger Mills <romilly@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 5:07|
Dirk Elzinga wrote:
>At 1:24 AM -0500 03/18/02, David Peterson wrote:
>>It's certainly a (literary only) archaism to older American ears likemine;
>>quite likely utterly unknown to many of the Younger Generation (Mr. E.Lash
>>excluded!) 8-)))>> Wrote Roger...
>>??? I'm young. All young Americans seem to know this. We all are forcedto
>>study a Shakespeare play a year. The phrase is the subject of fun, and
>>because of that, hardly not unheard of. However, it's never usedseriously,
>>and probably understood to mean "an old way to say 'must'"--that's the wayI
>>understood it, until now. How does "needs" mean "absolutely"? Any ideaas
>>to the history?
>Maybe Roger's point was not that younger Americans wouldn't
>*recognize* the construction, but that they wouldn't be able to use
Thank you, Dirk, for clarifying my (as too often) fuzzy verbiage......
Rather than exempting only E.Lash, I should have said "all Listmembers", who
are, of course, above average on the scale of linguistic sophistication.