Something that has always frustrated me about my history professor is what he thinks of idioms. He says some idioms are "historical" and are good, but others are "plebian" and bad.
What makes an idiom good or bad to put in an essay?
Eg:
>...during the late 1770s the British ministry had much more on their plate than just the War Of Independence...
is BAD
>... for the East India Company much more lay in the the balance than simple economic gain....
is GOOD
how do i tell which something is?
>>453592
>plebian
He almost certainly doesn't use this term.
>...during the late 1770s the British ministry had much more on their plate than just the War Of Independence...
You've hidden a claim about what actually happened behind the idiom here. Also, for fussy classist arseholes this idiom would be considered common.
>... for the East India Company much more lay in the the balance than simple economic gain....
Here you've contextualised the subjective as being possessed by a past historical agent, and there's a nice pun about "balances" and "economic gain" given that balances, or weigh scales are associated with trade and money as specie.
>>454211
>plebian
He does. Hes kind of weird. But nice.
and i pulled those quotes out of my ass, theyre just examples as to two idioms, one of which he said was good and one of which was bad.
the tone/register of one is formal "lay in balance", the other very much less so "have on plate"
>>454237
so what makes the tone of something formal or informal? how do i tell which is which?
another set of examples:
>...tripped up...
is BAD
>...fell short on...
is GOOD
historiography is bullshit
>>454221
He's a bit of a cunt.
The British Ministry are plural, so it'd have to be plates, unless you think they ate off a single plate together.
>>454243
This isn't really historiography though. Sorry I don't know how to explain formality in English.
>>454243
You probably shouldn't be be writing histriographical pieces if you have a poor grasp of the nauances that lie within the language.
For example tripped up is pejorative and implies the writer did not take proper care and is clumsy oaf
Fell short on is a polite criticism, and makes it clear that you felt (intuitively) that the literature need a particular element.
I hope this helps anon
>>454389
Where do people come up with this shit, and did they make a cheatsheet?
>>456498
>and did they make a cheatsheet?
OED and canon.
>>456498
R H E T O R I C
H
E
T
O
R
I
C
>>454259
more elegant would be "their collective plate" imo
>>457626
I think we're verging into the territory where we start discussing the sideboard.
>>456498
I learned this by myself desu
I spend a lot of time reading and analysing what makes a good book.
I also write a lot of poetry so I get to the inflections of each word very well.
If you are having trouble go through a thesaurus and look up the synonym defenitions so you can know exactly what you are saying.
>>458731
*I get to know the inflections
Fukken lol
>>458731
>>456498
Anyway op
You should send me some of your work if you want help
Chuck an email to
[email protected]
>>453592
Sounds like he only likes things that agree with leftism???
>>453592
He could be a linguistic prescriptivist in which case he's a retard, or else he's advising you on subtle nuances in meaning in which case he's good.
The fact he said "historical" and "plebeian" make me think he's a retard
>>456498
>Where do people come up with this shit
By not being absolute fucktards desu senpai
>>453592
He doesn't teach an English class. Why does he care?
>>458988
if you ever want to be a historian you will have to learn the formal style of writing associated with it
>>458988
It's important for all professions to learn to express their ideas well.
>>459191
Theres expressing yourself clearly, and theirs putting on your tard helmet and honking like an autist when people dont share whatever convoluted implication's youve shoehorned into simple sayings.
