1812-Now a US Patriotic Piece

[Todd S. Malicoate]

bloke "wondering what caliber the cannon are which will be employed?"

I wonder if they will research the issue thoroughly and respect the composer's "wishes."

[TexTuba]

bloke "wondering what caliber the cannon are which will be employed?"

I wonder if they will research the issue thoroughly and respect the composer's "wishes."

TODD FTW

[Rick Denney]

An even more paradoxical shift has happened with "Battle Hymn of the Republic." This time last year I was in a pick-up ensemble that played this, among other things, for about 2000 South Carolinians, who *stood up* for it, as if it was the national anthem.

Somewhere along the line, a whole bunch of people lost the thread, it seemed to me.

One characteristic of the War of Northern Aggression (as we call it here ) is that both sides were quite persuaded that they were on the side of God. And it is true that both sides included many combatants who were deeply Christian. Considering the academic argument for one type of economic system versus another at a time when both were brutal to the workers (in accordance with the standards of the day throughout the world, and for the previous many centuries), it's not hard to understand why both sides would claim the moral high ground.

It's absolutely the case that the Battle Hymn of the Republic was adopted by both sides as a hymn of the day, after the current lyrics were written and published in 1862. Only with the tune's previous lyrics ("John Brown's Body") was it strictly a northern song.

It would be fair to say that it reflects a deep connection we have to our religious roots, without it being overtly religious. That will attract more meaning in parts of the country that celebrate those roots more openly. Thus, you should not see it as a Union hymn revered by Confederates, but rather as a hymn of worship from a time that has been printed deeply into our national psyche. Really, it is now a hymn of worship when more overt hymns cannot be performed in the public square for fear of offending people.

Rick "who, as a reenactor, has worn blue sometimes and gray other times, but played the Battle Hymn of the Republic in both" Denney

[sloan]

bloke "wondering what caliber the cannon are which will be employed?"

I wonder if they will research the issue thoroughly and respect the composer's "wishes."

If they want to match modern instrumentation, only tactical nukes will do.

Or...just substitute a tuba.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

If they want to match modern instrumentation, only tactical nukes will do.

Or...just substitute a tuba.

Yeah, footnote (2), next to the line marked "Cannone" on the full score on IMSLP is interesting. Translated:

In the autograph "Bombardon" and a note which is also in Jurgenson's edition:
"An instrument used in theaters for the representation of cannon fire."

[PhilGreen]

And it's "your," not "you're." Pet peeve of mine.

Sorry Todd, thanks for picking me up on this - adds a further bit of irony that it's you picking me up on use of the Queen's own. Actually, I did know that - it was trying to work out your circular reference that addled my brainbox for a few seconds.

Oh, and starting a sentence with a conjunction is bloomin' bad form old man - but you already know that.

[Dutchtown Sousa]

We listened to this at our house on the 4th of July so we could say we sticking to the American tradition of saying music that isn't ours is ours. Anyway most people probably didn't learn much about the wars of 1812 or even the American one while in school because the wars in Europe didn't affect us very much and the war of 1812 in America was one that we really didn't win.
Anyway I like the piece itself. I recently got into buying classical records and one I found was the 1812 Overture conducted by Eugene Ormandy with the Philadelphia Orchestra, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and the Valley Forge Military Academy Band: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ZMpv9CnZk" target="_blank . I had heard one other full recording of it before and wasn't really interested but this one was so much better. I went out yesterday with my mom to goodwill and picked up 30 more records, one of which is another performance of the 1812 Overture, I am sort of keen to listen to it soon and I hope it is as good quality of a recording as the Eugene Ormandy version.

[Rick Denney]

Oh, and starting a sentence with a conjunction is bloomin' bad form old man - but you already know that.

Sez who?

Rick "who reads sentences that start with conjunctions and end with prepositions throughout the great literature" Denney

[sloan]

And that's where it's at.

[Michael Bush]

And that's where it's at.

"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put!" -W. Churchill

[OldsRecording]

bloke "wondering what caliber the cannon are which will be employed?"

I wonder if they will research the issue thoroughly and respect the composer's "wishes."

Did you know that Tchaikovsky actually hated the sound of the cannon?

[PhilGreen]

Sez who?

Rick "who reads sentences that start with conjunctions and end with prepositions throughout the great literature" Denney

Says hundreds of years of learning. Yes, some of our greatest writers - Milton, Chaucer, Shakespeare, God - all used conjunctions to conjoin sentences in their writings, often to cleverly use fragmentation, often in the form of poetic alliteration. Whilst no one would ever say these were wrong to do so, in general prose the rules of standard grammar should 'normally' apply.

However, just in case you think I'm taking this too seriously - I'm not. My post was in reply to someone picking me up on a typo and was very tongue in cheek.

[Rick Denney]

Says hundreds of years of learning.

Worthless. Nobody either speaks or writes as people did hundreds of years ago.

Turns out, much to the disappointment of those of us who love language rules, that there are only two rules of language: Being understood clearly and...I forgot the other one.

Thus, those grammar rules we learned in grade school just turned out to be how grammarians summarized those authors whom they believed wrote more clearly.

The problem is, of course, that understandability changes over time, so the grammarians are always chasing the tail of language, never quite catching up to it.

And the rule that says you can't start a sentence with "and" has been broken so many times and for so long that it seems to only have entertainment value.

Rick "glad that you agree" Denney

[sloan]

"whom"?!?

[PhilGreen]

I suppose it's akin to being taught harmonisation of Bach Chorales at school. One knows not to use consecutive octaves or 5ths but, doing an ad-hoc arrangement for male voice choir and brass octet, get lazy and, well, who the hell cares! It certainly saves time having to think of a more elegant phrase. I never would, would you?

But (Doh!) who am I to argue with a certified Resident Expert. I'll take out my frustration on some infinitives - just sharpen that ol' axe.

[sloan]

And to, perhaps, be - or not to, on the other hand, be grammatically correct.

[Rick Denney]

"whom"?!?

The standard tactic in winning a grammar argument is to throw in a well-placed "whom" from time to time. As an academic, you should know that.

Rick "plausibility is more important than truth" Denney

[Michael Bush]

there are only two rules of language: Being understood clearly and...I forgot the other one.

I hadn't figured you for a sentimentalist of that particular sort.

There is a *great deal* more to it than that. There is actually a logic to much grammar and syntax, so that they serve as outward indicators of the speaker's ability to think clearly.

Knowing and using them well also serves as a marker of social location, and some people are even rich enough or hopeless enough to say they don't care about this.

[Rick Denney]

there are only two rules of language: Being understood clearly and...I forgot the other one.

I hadn't figured you for a sentimentalist of that particular sort.

That's not being sentimental.

No amount of logic in the language has any meaning if it cannot communicate to those who need to understand it. The language is always seeking more efficient ways of expressing logical constructs, and in so doing often abandons previous rules. Language is not like mathematics. Its use by the unskilled inevitably changes it, which is to be expected, given that the unskilled vastly outnumber the skilled. And that is true on both sides of the pond.

There are a number of grammatical tools from several hundred years ago that are just plainly not matched by modern usage, so that in those particular ways the language is not as precise as it once was. (It is more precise in other ways, however.) Some of those tools live on in legal jargon, attracting excoriation from those who believe legal documents should be plainer. But outside circles where precision is more important than accuracy, using those tools while being aware that they will fail to communicate the desired message is an act of hostility towards the reader.

But everyone has their ox and gets ruffled when it is gored. Language has been such since Babel.

The authors I've read who have started sentences with conjunctions include, for example, a couple of famous (British) language professors who were also famous authors. And they didn't just do it in poetry. I, for one, would think it impertinent to challenge, say, Tolkein's use of that device, or Lewis's, even posthumously. (Tolkein was, of course, a professor of Anglo-Saxon in his "day job", and Lewis was a don at Oxford and ultimately a professor at Cambridge where his specialty was English literature.)

They ended a lot of sentences with prepositions, too.

In no way, however, am I arguing against the aphorism:

Do Not Break The Rules Before Learning Them

Rick "who learned language by reading its best practitioners, not by technical study of grammar" Denney

[Michael Bush]

Well, certainly I'm not hung up at all on final prepositions or initial conjunctions. But (!) the most dependable way to be understood is to stay close to the general consensus of native speakers about what makes sense. This logic is what rules of grammar and syntax embody.