i'm now posting from TB+ES (Thunderbird + Eternal-September).
it seems that... most of my recent posts from GG didn't get distributed
properly. (e.g., the following on Dec 28)

_____________________________________________________________________________
for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common as for Americans
to say (orally) "i.e." today ?

6 views Subscribe

henh...@gmail.com's profile photo henh...@gmail.com

Dec 28, 2023, 3:37:16 AM
to

The following (if pretty accurate) shows that Bard.Google.Com is an
amazing resource.

_________________ for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common
as for Americans to say (orally) "i.e." today ?

Comparing the oral usage of "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today
isn't quite apples-to-apples, as they have differing levels of
historical and practical use. Here's a breakdown:

== "DV" (Deo Volente):

-- 1940s: Uncommon. While "Deo Volente" existed in English, it was
primarily a formal, written phrase. Most Americans wouldn't use Latin
abbreviations in everyday speech.

-- Today: Extremely rare. Latin phrases like "DV" are even less
prevalent in modern, informal conversation.

== "i.e." (id est):

-- 1940s: Moderately common, especially in formal settings and among
individuals with strong education in classical languages.

-- Today: Less common in oral speech, but still used occasionally in
formal or academic contexts. However, simpler alternatives like "that
is" or "in other words" are more prevalent in casual conversation.

Therefore, while both phrases have seen a decline in oral usage, "DV"
was never truly a part of everyday spoken language, unlike "i.e." which
still pops up from time to time, albeit less frequently.

In summary, comparing "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today paints a picture
of two linguistic paths with distinct starting points and trajectories.
One was a niche written phrase that never made it to the casual spoken
realm, while the other, though experiencing a decline, still holds on in
specific contexts.

HenHanna wrote:
> i'm now posting from TB+ES (Thunderbird + Eternal-September).
> it seems that...  most of my recent posts from GG didn't get distributed
> properly.   (e.g., the following on Dec 28)
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common as for Americans
> to say (orally) "i.e." today ?
>
> 6 views      Subscribe
>
> henh...@gmail.com's profile photo          henh...@gmail.com
>
> Dec 28, 2023, 3:37:16 AM
> to
>
>
> The following (if pretty accurate) shows that Bard.Google.Com is an
> amazing resource.
>
> _________________ for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common
> as for Americans to say (orally) "i.e." today ?
>
>
>           Comparing the oral usage of "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today
> isn't quite apples-to-apples, as they have differing levels of
> historical and practical use. Here's a breakdown:
>
>        ==    "DV" (Deo Volente):
>
> -- 1940s: Uncommon. While "Deo Volente" existed in English, it was
> primarily a formal, written phrase. Most Americans wouldn't use Latin
> abbreviations in everyday speech.
>
> -- Today: Extremely rare. Latin phrases like "DV" are even less
> prevalent in modern, informal conversation.
>
>
>
>         ==  "i.e." (id est):
>
>
> -- 1940s: Moderately common, especially in formal settings and among
> individuals with strong education in classical languages.
>
> -- Today: Less common in oral speech, but still used occasionally in
> formal or academic contexts. However, simpler alternatives like "that
> is" or "in other words" are more prevalent in casual conversation.
>
>
> Therefore, while both phrases have seen a decline in oral usage, "DV"
> was never truly a part of everyday spoken language, unlike "i.e." which
> still pops up from time to time, albeit less frequently.
>
> In summary, comparing "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today paints a picture
> of two linguistic paths with distinct starting points and trajectories.
> One was a niche written phrase that never made it to the casual spoken
> realm, while the other, though experiencing a decline, still holds on in
> specific contexts.
I'll speak for the UK.
"I.e. " is still in popular usage, and it predominates over "what I mean
is", "in other words", "that is to say" etc.
"DV", on the other hand, never has been on the streets. Even among
academics it would have appeared as "Deo volente", and, even then, with
some kind of contextual apology.
We have Latin phrases appearing on coins of the realm, and so most
educated Brits will use these freely enough. "Defendor Fidei" (granted
as a title to king Henry VIII for his defence of Catholicism). Rex,
regina, Britannia.
We also have various French phrases enshrined in our heritage; Dieu et
mon droit; Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Deo volente; even "God willing" is seldom heard.
Ed
P.S. Well done with TB + ES. You'll prosper with them. Keep away from
GGroups. Google has abandoned them, and spam and trolls have invaded.
You always sound like a healthy mind, reaching out for new
understanding. You don't want the paranoid beings who spend so much time
and energy just hurling self-defensive garbage at each other.

Ed Cryer wrote:
> HenHanna wrote:
>> i'm now posting from TB+ES (Thunderbird + Eternal-September).
>> it seems that...  most of my recent posts from GG didn't get
>> distributed properly.   (e.g., the following on Dec 28)
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________________
>> for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as common as for
>> Americans to say (orally) "i.e." today ?
>>
>> 6 views      Subscribe
>>
>> henh...@gmail.com's profile photo          henh...@gmail.com
>>
>> Dec 28, 2023, 3:37:16 AM
>> to
>>
>>
>> The following (if pretty accurate) shows that Bard.Google.Com is an
>> amazing resource.
>>
>> _________________ for 1940's Americans to say (orally) "DV" -- as
>> common as for Americans to say (orally) "i.e." today ?
>>
>>
>>            Comparing the oral usage of "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e."
>> today isn't quite apples-to-apples, as they have differing levels of
>> historical and practical use. Here's a breakdown:
>>
>>         ==    "DV" (Deo Volente):
>>
>> -- 1940s: Uncommon. While "Deo Volente" existed in English, it was
>> primarily a formal, written phrase. Most Americans wouldn't use Latin
>> abbreviations in everyday speech.
>>
>> -- Today: Extremely rare. Latin phrases like "DV" are even less
>> prevalent in modern, informal conversation.
>>
>>
>>
>>          ==  "i.e." (id est):
>>
>>
>> -- 1940s: Moderately common, especially in formal settings and among
>> individuals with strong education in classical languages.
>>
>> -- Today: Less common in oral speech, but still used occasionally in
>> formal or academic contexts. However, simpler alternatives like "that
>> is" or "in other words" are more prevalent in casual conversation.
>>
>>
>> Therefore, while both phrases have seen a decline in oral usage, "DV"
>> was never truly a part of everyday spoken language, unlike "i.e."
>> which still pops up from time to time, albeit less frequently.
>>
>> In summary, comparing "DV" in the 1940s to "i.e." today paints a
>> picture of two linguistic paths with distinct starting points and
>> trajectories. One was a niche written phrase that never made it to the
>> casual spoken realm, while the other, though experiencing a decline,
>> still holds on in specific contexts.
>
> I'll speak for the UK.
> "I.e. " is still in popular usage, and it predominates over "what I mean
> is", "in other words", "that is to say" etc.
> "DV", on the other hand, never has been on the streets. Even among
> academics it would have appeared as "Deo volente", and, even then, with
> some kind of contextual apology.
>
> We have Latin phrases appearing on coins of the realm, and so most
> educated Brits will use these freely enough. "Defendor Fidei" (granted
> as a title to king Henry VIII for his defence of Catholicism). Rex,
> regina, Britannia.
> We also have various French phrases enshrined in our heritage; Dieu et
> mon droit; Honi soit qui mal y pense.
>
> Deo volente; even "God willing" is seldom heard.
>
> Ed
>
> P.S. Well done with TB + ES. You'll prosper with them. Keep away from
> GGroups. Google has abandoned them, and spam and trolls have invaded.
> You always sound like a healthy mind, reaching out for new
> understanding. You don't want the paranoid beings who spend so much time
> and energy just hurling self-defensive garbage at each other.
>
>
(Written in the style of
A
Fallen
Tower
of
Humanity,
Wilkins Micawber)
Pending my devoted perlustrations of that most marvellous exhibit of
novellistic skill, (namely "David Copperfield"), I did fall upon a
certain sentence therein inscribed, which did afford me both surprise
and new cognisance of our linguistic past and heritage. The
aforementioned conglomeration of words formed into a stipulated
expression of rational communication, included the hereby felicitously
transmitted words;
"In stating that I shall be (D. V.) on the outside of the south wall of
that place of incarceration on civil process, the day after tomorrow, at
seven in the evening, ......"
D.V. Deo Volente.
How common was it in Dickens' time?
https://tinyurl.com/225q7x26
(Deo Volente)
https://tinyurl.com/265zw6hs
(DV)
As a P.S. I would like to add one of of my favourite quips from a W C
Fields film. I can't recall which, but he said "During our first trip to
Afghanistan we lost the corkscrew; and we were condemned to live for
several days on just food and water".
Ed