View Single Post
Old 08-26-2012, 08:30 PM   #11
gmw
cacoethes scribendi
gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
gmw's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,229
Karma: 69173465
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Sony650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. View Post
It's not only unnecessary to do so, I think it's a little insulting, as the implication is that I wouldn't understand the reference otherwise. It's condescending. It's also unnatural.

In some contexts, I might say (indeed, I have said...): "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought."

But I would never in real life say: "As Lord Peter Wimsey said, 'a facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.'"

And I would certainly never say, "As Lord Peter Wimsey said in Dorothy Sayers's 'Gaudy Night (tm)':..."
I have used the second, or its equivalent, in real conversation. I may even have used the last (without the "(tm)" ) - but then not everyone I speak with are fans of the same books or shows that I am, so sometimes an explanation is not unreasonable - it's not always condescending. I grant you that it's not usual, but "would never say" is a little extreme.

PS. I love the example, by the way. It's so wonderfully ... there must be a word for it, if there's not there should be.
gmw is offline   Reply With Quote