Pedants' Paradise

[Serial_Apologist]

Turns out he hasn't been either...

I guess it's going to be a changing story, day to day. I'm still miffed about a BBC news announcer using the word "fired" to describe a head of state's removal from office, successful or otherwise. It demeans the standards expected of the BBC.

[jean]

I agree with you that fired is inappropriate. But I think sacked would be, too.

Deposed seems most appropriate - but that's what happens in a coup, and we weren't supposed to call it that.

[french frank]

I agree with you that fired is inappropriate. But I think sacked would be, too.

Deposed seems most appropriate.

'To sack' is also described as 'slang' by the OED. 'Deposed' sounds political (which it is in this case) but I think he has, constititionally - according to the party's constitution, that is - been fired, sacked, dismissed, given the boot, given his marching orders. Dismissed has also been used. Discharged? 'Let go'?

[Stanfordian]

'To sack' is also described as 'slang' by the OED. 'Deposed' sounds political (which it is in this case) but I think he has, constititionally - according to the party's constitution, that is - been fired, sacked, dismissed, given the boot, given his marching orders. Dismissed has also been used. Discharged? 'Let go'?

Removed from office.

[Bryn]

'To sack' is also described as 'slang' by the OED. 'Deposed' sounds political (which it is in this case) but I think he has, constititionally - according to the party's constitution, that is - been fired, sacked, dismissed, given the boot, given his marching orders. Dismissed has also been used. Discharged? 'Let go'?

He has been removed from his posts in ZANU PF but not, as yet, from that of President. There is now a draft of an impeachment call which accuses him of various unconstitutional activities.

[jean]

'Deposed' sounds political (which it is in this case)...

On second thoughts, deposed would refer to his being removed from the presidency, which he hasn't been - the party has only encouraged him to remove himself (and he has refused, so far).

What they have done is replace him as party leader.

[oddoneout]

On a different tack, but I am reminded of it because it also came up this morning. In marking anniversaries it seems to be the custom now to say 'on this day', as in 'on this day 100 years ago generic notable person was born....' when I have always used 'on this date' - ie 20th November, because to me 'this day' means today, so can't be 100 years ago. Have I been wrong all these years?

[Pulcinella]

On a different tack, but I am reminded of it because it also came up this morning. In marking anniversaries it seems to be the custom now to say 'on this day', as in 'on this day 100 years ago generic notable person was born....' when I have always used 'on this date' - ie 20th November, because to me 'this day' means today, so can't be 100 years ago. Have I been wrong all these years?

While I agree with you, we might both be mistaken.
We perhaps need the likes of jean to tell us what Haec dies means!
Can it be day and date?

[oddoneout]

While I agree with you, we might both be mistaken.
We perhaps need the likes of jean to tell us what Haec dies means!
Can it be day and date?

Well I'm hoping that some clarification might be forthcoming. Part of the problem is that not so long ago it seemed to be customary to say '100 years ago today', which to me seems clear, whereas this new(?) version is, to my ears, rather clumsy,especially if the presenter is also trying to cram in further detail such as place or circumstance.

[Bryn]

"Robert Mugabe has been fired" said the lunchtime news announcer a short while ago. What do people think about the use of this Americanism? I thought it undignified when referring to the fate of a head of state, even if it was Mugabe. "Sacked" I feel would have been preferable, with its image of a person being made to quit, carrying a bag full of their past history out of office.

Ebagum, he ain't backing out easily, is he.

[Pulcinella]

Further thought.....
My Latin has got rusty, and I think I've used the wrong term/expression.

Perhaps I mean the distinction, if any, between hodie and haec dies:

Hodie Christus natus est (On this day/today Christ was born)
but
Haec dies quam fecit Dominus (This is the day which the Lord hath made)

Ignore me if I'm talking twaddle.

[jean]

...to me 'this day' means today, so can't be 100 years ago...

...Perhaps I mean the distinction, if any, between hodie and haec dies

Hodie Christus natus est (On this day/today Christ was born)
but
Haec dies quam fecit Dominus (This is the day which the Lord hath made)...

Hodie is the adverbial form of the ablative hoc die (dies is sometimes masculine, sometimes feminine). So there's no distinction between the two, really. There's no similar contraction for illo/illa die.

It's a good example though, since Christ clearly wasn't born hodie, even if you say it on December 25th. He was born two thousand years ago 'today', or 'on this day' two thousand years ago. Roughly. Or not, as the case may be.

But I like to think that haec dies isn't a specific day any more than illa dies is:

...Recordare Iesu pie,
quod sum causa tuae viae:
ne me perdas illa die...

I have no particuar day in mind, but I hope it's a good while hence.

.

[french frank]

But I like to think that haec dies isn't a specific day any more than illa dies is]

Then what is the significance of the feminine form? Dies is normally masculine and hodie, to my mind, is still most obviously explained as hōc die (in spite of some sceptics). I would understand the feminine haec dies to imply 'a particular today' a set or appointed date.

[subcontrabass]

It's a good example though, since Christ clearly wasn't born hodie, even if you say it on December 25th. He was born two thousand years ago 'today', or 'on this day' two thousand years ago. Roughly. Or not, as the case may be.

It is a standard usage of "liturgical time", i.e. celebrating an historic event as if it were taking place today and often referring to it in the present tense. This usage is widespread in older liturgical texts.

[jean]

Then what is the significance of the feminine form?

Well I have to admit that for Lewis & Short the feminine is found especially in the sense of a 'a set day, an appointed time', but I take it that doesn't mean 'exclusively'. Birthdays seem to be masculine.

Dies is normally masculine and hodie, to my mind, is still most obviously explained as hōc die (in spite of some sceptics).

I don't know about the sceptics; that's how I explained it.