“I mean I’m a huge Albert Brooks fan too, but unfortunately I’m not as good as him, so can’t keep the cadence and interest while simultaneously saying “well, it wasn’t actually French, you see the French language didn’t really exist quite yet as we know it, I mean, it wasn’t even really France yet as a thing, it was really more of a hodgepodge of — ”
See, boring. And what actual relevance does that have to the central thread of the speech?
Not a fucking bit.”
English degree here (since it seems we’re pulling out our degrees). I think that, to be nice, I must first clarify that I appreciated the actual substance of your article and enjoyed reading it and discussing it with friends who have also read it. (Some people seem to think you’re anti-science. It was a surreal conversation.) But I stumbled through the comments — as one does when one is intent on enjoying an article to the fullest— and found dude above’s little gem and your reply.
Your reply about your article seems incongruous with your article itself. It’s just that. . . somehow you had room to also use “Anglo-Saxon English” in your article, instead of just “English,” and yet you couldn’t say “Anglo-Norman French” in favor of just “French”? And you didn’t even have to explain your use of Anglo-Saxon! It’s almost like “Anglo-Saxon English” flowed naturally, almost as naturally as “Anglo-Norman French” might have done. . . had you actually used it.
I hate nitpicking, would normally pass over this, and I think dude above is hella pretentious with his full explanation and assumption that you didn’t know the difference between Anglo-Norman French and modern French— a simple “Hey, yo, where’s the Anglo-Norman French if you can use Anglo-Saxon English?” would have sufficed — but your explanation of why you didn’t use “Anglo-Norman French” doesn’t seem to add up either. It’s probably silly of me to even bother asking, but what gives?