Charles Ryder uses "lunch", as an intransitive verb - but can it be used transitively, by analogy with "wine and dine"? It would seem so.
Denis Norden raises a similar question on the radio programme "My Word!" A friend of his, doing compulsory military training, soon decides that army life is not for him, and begins a rebellion by taking every parade ground instruction, as bawled by the sergeant, as literally as possible. So, for example, he responds to the command "Stand at ease" (Stand at Hayes!) by going AWOL, until discovered by the Redcaps standing by a wall in Hayes, West London.
He gets away with it until he responds to the command "Atten-SHUN!" by attempting to leave the parade ground. He is brought before his commanding officer who, brandishing the Concise Oxford Dictionary, insists that "shun" can only be used transitively with an object. Norden's friend escapes court martial and possible firing squad by invoking the authority of the complete OED, which endorses the intransitive use of "shun".
was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. Since 2011, he has been in full communion with the See of S Peter. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. In this blog, the letters PF stand for Pope Francis. On this blog, 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers solely to the Lockean definition, Pressing a man with the consequences of his own concessions'.
8 comments:
I assume you meant that she shouted you both lunch.
Or even stood them lunch.
If one can be both wined and dined, surely one can be lunched?
As Charles Ryder replies to Lunt "Yes, Lunt, lunching out."
It should, of course, have been, "...was lunching on us both..."
Your reader (who was wrong in any case) should, by the way, have said 'So much for your being a pedant', not 'you being a pedant'.
Which is an excuse for introducing one of my favourite corny jokes:
https://theweeflea.com/2015/10/21/the-pedants-revolt/
Dear Father. That was me.
Lunching....
It sounded so weird that I just assumed you had erred but, obviously, that was a bad assumption to make because you do know grammar.
I apologise.
In my defense, I do specialse in error.
Charles Ryder uses "lunch", as an intransitive verb - but can it be used transitively, by analogy with "wine and dine"? It would seem so.
Denis Norden raises a similar question on the radio programme "My Word!" A friend of his, doing compulsory military training, soon decides that army life is not for him, and begins a rebellion by taking every parade ground instruction, as bawled by the sergeant, as literally as possible. So, for example, he responds to the command "Stand at ease" (Stand at Hayes!) by going AWOL, until discovered by the Redcaps standing by a wall in Hayes, West London.
He gets away with it until he responds to the command "Atten-SHUN!" by attempting to leave the parade ground. He is brought before his commanding officer who, brandishing the Concise Oxford Dictionary, insists that "shun" can only be used transitively with an object. Norden's friend escapes court martial and possible firing squad by invoking the authority of the complete OED, which endorses the intransitive use of "shun".
Post a Comment