The Classic FM-isation of R3 is almost complete

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Serial_Apologist
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 37591

    Originally posted by jean View Post

    Julius Caesar does it all the time.
    I can picture your absolutely straight face as you deliver(ed) that line, jean!

    Comment

    • jean
      Late member
      • Nov 2010
      • 7100

      Originally posted by french frank View Post
      Is there a difference though between what is a literary (written) stylistic device for effect and normal spoken English?
      Possibly the spoken style might aim to be even more immediate?

      Comment

      • jean
        Late member
        • Nov 2010
        • 7100

        Originally posted by kernelbogey View Post
        Another sad decline is the use of the what I call the pluperfect to describe what happened before the past thing that I was just talking about.

        E.g. Radio 3 announcers were more formal in their speech in the 1970s: the Third programme had been even more formal in this respect.

        (Compare: Radio 3 announcers were more formal in their speech in the 1970s: the Third programme was even more formal in this respect.)
        The question of how many time-periods you might find it useful to specify in a single sentence is an interesting one, which should maybe migrate to Pedants' Paradise or somewhere.

        How do you feel about the near-absence in English of the future perfect, which if I remember (and I am aware of ff's presence at my shoulder) the French seem to be much more attached to than we are?

        (I made my original comment on this thread from a feeling that in the matter of dumbing-down, one should choose one's battles.)

        Comment

        • kernelbogey
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 5735

          Originally posted by jean View Post
          The question of how many time-periods you might find it useful to specify in a single sentence is an interesting one, which should maybe migrate to Pedants' Paradise or somewhere.
          My example was off the cuff, and I admit, unimpressive. But I have read sloppy use of the past tense in journalism where clarity would have been greater had the different time frames been defined by use of the pluperfect.

          Originally posted by jean View Post
          How do you feel about the near-absence in English of the future perfect, which if I remember (and I am aware of ff's presence at my shoulder) the French seem to be much more attached to than we are?
          I'm sorry, but just now I don't have time to answer this but I'd appreciate an example and will return to it.

          But pedantry... hmm, I think I'm supporting the idea of the careful use of English for maximum quality of communication.

          Comment

          • french frank
            Administrator/Moderator
            • Feb 2007
            • 30243

            Originally posted by jean View Post
            Possibly the spoken style might aim to be even more immediate?
            It might, though I'm not convinced that the device is used in what I would have called 'normal spoken English'. The question would be whether television presenters use that or a different form of spoken English.

            How do you feel about the near-absence in English of the future perfect, which if I remember (and I am aware of ff's presence at my shoulder) the French seem to be much more attached to than we are?
            In fact, I couldn't comment on either language. I hadn't been specially aware of the 'near-absence' of the form.
            It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

            Comment

            • pastoralguy
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 7737

              Originally posted by kernelbogey View Post
              I listened to some of Essential Classics this morning in the car - a programme I rarely listen to - and heard the mind-numbingly banal conversation of Sarah Walker and Richard Bacon (who he?); from which I had supposed that 'Suzy Klein talks to conductor Christian Curnyn' about Haydn would have been some relief. But (almost) the same banal level of conversation again, the employment of the modish 'historical present' to talk about the eighteenth century (the past tense is so last century, yeah?) that makes me despair again of the morning output of this station. Such a dreadful contrast with the elegance of CotW on Mozart, JC Bach et al in eighteenth century London. Why does the station have to talk down to its audience so much?

              End of rant. I feel a bit better now.
              Yes, that Richard Bacon 'chat' was, for me, a new low point. Apparently, he wants to 'learn about' classical music (whatever that is), and is using this programme as a means to an end. He was supposed to be on the show earlier this year but his wife was giving birth so he couldn't do it. This entailed much chat on Monday about the sprog that is only of any interest to the pertinent family - not a Radio 3 audience...

              Anyway, he didn't like to first movement of Prokofiev's 'Classical' symphony. I'm sure Prokofiev is weeping buckets in heaven.

              Comment

              • Serial_Apologist
                Full Member
                • Dec 2010
                • 37591

                Originally posted by kernelbogey View Post


                I'm sorry, but just now I don't have time to answer this but I'd appreciate an example and will return to it.
                Pendant le weekend, peut-etre?

                Comment

                • kernelbogey
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 5735

                  Originally posted by jean View Post
                  There are three uses of the French future perfect that don't correspond to the English future perfect:
                  I think something had gone wrong with your post before you posted it, Jean....

                  2 & 3 appear to be missing, and I believe you had intended to include a link which has disappeared....

                  I think that I'm probably less interested in the nuances of the future and future perfect tenses; the examples you give present a delightful distinction in time between the events, though not necessarily to greater illumination of what will (or may) happen. Although 'When I have come down, you can show it to me' conveys a subtly different invitation from 'When I come down, you can show it to me'.

                  I've failed to think of a good example yet but it seems more important (to me) to be clear about relative timescales when reporting actual events.

                  However, here's a possible: 'He purchased a knife before the murder'; 'He had purchased a knife before the murder'. A subtle but significant difference, I suggest: the former implies intent, while the second avoids that imputation.

                  I agree with FF that these distinctions have primarily literary significance, however.

                  Comment

                  • jean
                    Late member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 7100

                    Originally posted by kernelbogey View Post
                    I think something had gone wrong with your post before you posted it, Jean....

                    2 & 3 appear to be missing, and I believe you had intended to include a link which has disappeared....
                    The link is there, if you click on the quoted text.

                    I didn't include the second example, because although it's a very odd use of the future perfect, we do it too:

                    Pierre n'est pas ici ; il aura oublié.
                    Pierre isn't here; he must have forgotten.

                    It's quite common in English to say He will have forgotten, though possibly with more of a suggestion that the speaker had thought it likely before the event that he would forget.

                    The third example is very odd indeed, and seems to have little to do with the future, so I omitted that too:

                    Napoléon aura pris une décision importante.
                    Napoleon made / would make an important decision.

                    George Sand aura écrit le roman La Mare au Diable en quatre jours.
                    George Sand wrote / would go on to write the novel La Mare au Diable in four days.

                    However, here's a possible: 'He purchased a knife before the murder'; 'He had purchased a knife before the murder'. A subtle but significant difference, I suggest: the former implies intent, while the second avoids that imputation.
                    But you've been stressing the importance of distinguishing time-period, and this would be something in addition!

                    Besides, I'm not sure I don't see intent in your second example.

                    Comment

                    • Lento
                      Full Member
                      • Jan 2014
                      • 646

                      R3, Sunday 4th May, 8.10am, or thereabouts:

                      Presenter to phoner-in: “Now, tell us what first drew you to Vaughan Williams’ “The Lark Ascending” (or words to that effect)…..

                      ….A minute or so later

                      Presenter: “Well, thank you for introducing this wonderful piece to us” (or similar).

                      Phoner in: “ It had to be played, didn’t it?”

                      Presenter: “It certainly did”.

                      Haydn Op 64 No 5, anybody?

                      Comment

                      • VodkaDilc

                        Originally posted by Lento View Post
                        R3, Sunday 4th May, 8.10am, or thereabouts:

                        Presenter to phoner-in: “Now, tell us what first drew you to Vaughan Williams’ “The Lark Ascending” (or words to that effect)…..
                        A dangerous question for R3, which surely risked the answer: "Because it topped the Classic FM Hall of Fame."

                        Comment

                        • DracoM
                          Host
                          • Mar 2007
                          • 12960

                          Which was exactly what AMcG said in CD Review on Saturday a.m...........................

                          Comment

                          • pastoralguy
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 7737

                            Originally posted by DracoM View Post
                            Which was exactly what AMcG said in CD Review on Saturday a.m...........................

                            Wasn't he talking about the Specialist Classical Chart which is independent of Classic FM? (although both Cfm and Radio 3 now refer to it).

                            Comment

                            • HARRIET HAVARD

                              The Lark may be ascending, but it's more than can be said for Breakfast. This mornings listener interview was toe curling: even by this programmes standards. The chestnut tree in my garden only has fruit once a year. This station manages to have chestnuts all the time. Some of the pieces played, are now played so often, they could pass for being the stations call sign.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X