Elgar- In the South

[Alain Maréchal]

"Purchasing", by definition, is "costly".

No necessarily, unless we mean different things by costly. A CD for 10 Euros would not be costly, but purchasing 20 of them, because they have received positive mentions here, would be.

Robert gives expensive, dear, costly for coûteux.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A CD for 10 Euros would not be costly

It would be if one only had 11 Euros to spare.

[seabright]

A "Special Limited Edition" CD was issued in 1992 of several performances by Riccardo Muti and the Philadelphia Orchestra. This included "In the South" and I strongly urge interested Elgarians to click the link below and hear it for themselves. The "comments" under the video include several from Muti's fellow-Italians ... "Bellissimo" ... "Superba" ... "Maravilloso" ... All the other remarks are similar, ie: "wonderful" ... "terrific" ... "incredible" ... so it is not surprising that the Philadelphia audience cannot restrain itself at the end and begins applauding during the final chord. What a pity this CD hasn't been issued outside the USA ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-ZKmVHfgac

What a great orchestra this was and doubtless still is!

[Alain Maréchal]

It would be if one only had 11 Euros to spare.

I do not follow your argument, but it may be my English at fault, so I will dispute no further.

[LMcD]

I do not follow your argument, but it may be my English at fault, so I will dispute no further.

I'm not sure it's your English that's the problem - I'm confused by #47!
I enjoy reading this sort of thread, as I sometimes end up buying an alternative recording, of which I might well have previously been unaware, of a favourite work.

[Pulcinella]

I'm not sure it's your English that's the problem - I'm confused by #47!

If you only have 11 euros, spending 10 of them is a very high proportion, and hence could be considered a costly enterprise.

I enjoy reading this sort of thread, as I sometimes end up buying an alternative recording, of which I might well have previously been unaware, of a favourite work.

Don't worry about ending a sentence with a preposition unless you really care about the grammar police mistakenly hounding you.
You can always avoid the problem with judicious rewording: unless it was about a work that interested me enough to want a new/different recording?

[LMcD]

If you only have 11 euros, spending 10 of them is a very high proportion, and hence could be considered a costly enterprise.



Don't worry about ending a sentence with a preposition unless you really care about the grammar police mistakenly hounding you.
You can always avoid the problem with judicious rewording: unless it was about a work that interested me enough to want a new/different recording?

The decline in the standard of written and spoken English is something up with which I shall probably learn to put.

[Alain Maréchal]

The decline in the standard of written and spoken English is something up with which I shall probably learn to put.

Further delving into this thorny brake of English advises me that "to put up with" is a Phrasal Verb, so the entire expression is a verb.
Thus the sentence - This is something I will learn to put up with. - is not ending with a preposition, but with a phrasal verb.

I am perfectly willing to be corrected or advised further. How else could one learn?

[Pulcinella]

Further delving into this thorny brake of English advises me that "to put up with" is a Phrasal Verb, so the entire expression is a verb.
Thus the sentence - This is something I will learn to put up with. - is not ending with a preposition, but with a phrasal verb.

I am perfectly willing to be corrected or advised further. How else could one learn?

Practical English Usage (OUP, Michael Swan) gives some good examples.

1: wh- questions
Who's the present for?
What are you looking at?
Who did you go with?
Where did she buy it from?
Which flight is the general travelling on?

And in indirect questions such as
Tell me what you're worried about.

2: relative clauses
Joe's the person that I'm angry with.
That's what I'm afraid of.

3: passives
She likes to be looked at.
I don't know where he is — his bed hasn't been slept in.

4: infinitive structures
The village is pleasant to live in.
She needs other children to play with.
Can you get me a chair to stand on?
I've got lots of music to listen to.
Their house isn't easy to get to.

Other examples are given of very formal use.
It was the house about which he had told them.
She needs other children with whom to play.

I can hardly imagine an instance nowadays where such archaic style would be required or considered appropriate.

[Alain Maréchal]

These seem to me to raise even more questions.

Joe's the person that I'm angry with. Why that rather than who/whom?

It was the house about which he had told them.
She needs other children with whom to play.

Rather than archaic, they read as perfectly clear and regular to me. Perhaps I am archaic. My first teacher of English (my Scottish Grandmother) was born in the 19th Century and my first serious English reading was Trollope, Dickens and (predictably) Scott. (My first fun reading, surprisingly, was Lesley Charteris).

We seem to have commandeered this thread. My apologies to all.

[Pulcinella]

These seem to me to raise even more questions.

Joe's the person that I'm angry with. Why that rather than who/whom?

It was the house about which he had told them.
She needs other children with whom to play.

Rather than archaic, they read as perfectly clear and regular to me. Perhaps I am archaic. My first teacher of English (my Scottish Grandmother) was born in the 19th Century and my first English reading was Trollope, Dickens and (predictably) Scott.

We seem to have commandeered this thread. My apologies to all.

I wondered about the 'that', too. 'That' might suit a misbehaving animal better than a person!

And the 'archaic' was my word, not from the book I took the examples from.
The sentences may be clear, but I doubt that such word order is now considered 'regular'.

Additional apologies for continuing along this tangential track.
Good to have you still with us, Alain!

[vinteuil]

These seem to me to raise even more questions.

Joe's the person that I'm angry with. Why that rather than who/whom?
.

... continuing this diversion - surely the idiomatic rendering wd have neither 'that' nor 'who/whom'.

"Joe's the person I'm angry with."


.

[Pulcinella]

... continuing this diversion - surely the idiomatic rendering wd have neither 'that' nor 'who/whom'.

"Joe's the person I'm angry with."


.

[Pulcinella]

A different tangent:

The filler for Elgar 2 in the EMI twofer that contains the Silvestri Alassio is the Serenade for strings, again with the Bournemouth SO, but this time conducted by Norman Del Mar.
I also have it in a different coupling: listening to that CD now (see What are you listening to thread).

[Alain Maréchal]

... continuing this diversion - surely the idiomatic rendering wd have neither 'that' nor 'who/whom'.

"Joe's the person I'm angry with."


.

Merci, Monsieur. Perhaps it is akin to the c'est/il est problem!