In context of the plot, Henry V on campaign in France, on the way to Agincourt, it fits as a borrowing from the French. En avant, to the front, couillons, cowards, as Henry whips his troops forward.A little more belittling to come ...
Is that supposed to be English or misspelt/mispronounced French?
Here's a spelling lesson, Shakey-baby:
En avant, couillons.
or maybe he meant...
Allez vous-en, couillons.
In context of the plot, Henry V on campaign in France, on the way to Agincourt, it fits as a borrowing from the French. En avant, to the front, couillons, cowards, as Henry whips his troops forward.
With apologies to Julia, to whom this epithet has never applied.
A masterpiece play, one of my favourites.
Enjoying this thread
Yes, there's a 1944 film starring Sir Laurence Olivier, and then in 1989 starring Kenneth Branagh, both excellent productions.Did you see the movie.
Wasn't it good! ..and all said in the original Shakespearian language.
Ha Ha Ha!!Bloody phone I have been posting on lately has that predictive word thing where you start to type a word and it highlights the popular options for the completed word so occasionally thank you will become thankful, also it may be Yankee because I realize I need some advise.
All most true except it pronounced "would ov"as in ov...ulation
Absolutely my pet hate. And despite how often attention is drawn to it, people on this very forum persist with it.If language is dynamic, I predict that 'would have', 'could have' and 'should have', along with their contractions 'could've', 'would've' and 'should've' will be extinct in the English language within in one generation.
This is due to my observation of the preponderance of the use of 'would of' etc instead (which has been mentioned several times already).
FFS people!!!
If language is dynamic, I predict that 'would have', 'could have' and 'should have', along with their contractions 'could've', 'would've' and 'should've' will be extinct in the English language within in one generation.
This is due to my observation of the preponderance of the use of 'would of' etc instead (which has been mentioned several times already).
FFS people!!!
I could put up with could'a, would'a, should'a.
But native speakers are always going to make these spelling mistakes to approximate a phonetic quality when writing something quickly.
They are? Only perhaps because of the moronic phonetic spelling experiment the social engineers tried a few years ago. Blind Freddy knew it was going to result in these difficulties with non-thinkers.
People think of the meanings of the words 'of' and 'have'. They are not just fillers, they have grammatical import. This makes the use of 'would of' etc an absolute nonsense.
It's simpler than that. I meant that the "uv" sound in an unstressed syllable can be spelt phonetically as "of" or " 've" regardless of the intended meaning.
A non-native speaker, who already has trouble speaking, will put more effort into orthography, so isn't likely to make this spelling mistake.
I guess it came about from a time just before then when everyone started getting home computers and were only able to use 4 fingers to type slowly. So any kind of abbreviated spelling aided their typing.I can never recall this mistake before the phonetic spelling travesty of the 80's and 90's. And speaking of orthography, why go to the trouble of getting the un-phonetic spelling of could, would and should right, and the f*** up the contraction of 'have'?
What next? cood unt, wood unt and shood unt?
My pet hate is the almost universal Australian habit of inserting the "r" sound in words where it doesn't belong e.g. "elecshern". The "ion" suffix which should be pronounced "shn" is now pronounced "shern". And it's not only "ion" but this inanity is propagated by the ABC which was once our role model on spelling and grammar and syntax.
One of my favourites on words ending in "ence" is;
"The following program is rated M for mature 'audiernces'. It may contain 'violernce'."
My spell-check is going haywire.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?