Per Fowlers Modern English Usage 2nd Edn.
....it may safely be said
1. that many people ignore the existence of wroth and treat wrath as both
noun and adjective
2. that the useful arrangement would be for wrath to be noun only
(anger)"He experienced the wrath of God" and for wroth to be the adjective
(angry) "He was wroth" whereas wrathful is an attributive adjective "A
wrathful God" ...............
Dave
Where the Hokey Pokey is the Hokey Cokey and an ice cream is a Pokey Hat
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose [mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 16 October 2011 16:41
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Work for nothing ?
On 10/16/2011 11:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> My use of the word "cross" was intended to be understatement, Moose :-)
>
> I agree with you entirely about the threat to old words. But we are
losing words today through misuse. Witness the (metaphorical) destruction
of "literally", used now as a form of emphasis. But without that meaning we
have no other word to replace it.
>
> "Wroth" looks rather like "wrath", including the pronunciation.
Same root, wrath is more recent, I think. Also, wroth is and adjective only,
while wrath, although more commonly used as
a noun, may also be an adjective.
No Wroth Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|