MovieChat Forums > Time After Time (1979) Discussion > Linguistic Nitpick

Linguistic Nitpick

posted 21 years ago by Simon_Crutchley
48 replies | jump to latest

If anyone reading this is as big a language geek as I am, you may have noticed that Jack says two things an Englishman of his class and time would not say.

1. He says to Wells, whilst they're in the hotel room, "You're so Victorian." That name wasn't applied to that era until well after 1893. How would someone from 1893 know how people in 1979 referred to that time period? Possibly, Jack may have heard that term used in 1979, but that seems a weak possibility considering the short amount of time he'd spent in 1979 and the circles in which he was travelling.

2. He says to Wells, in that same scene, "Your finding me here is rather fortuitous. For me that is." In 1893, "fortuitous" didn't--and, really, still doesn't--mean "fortunate." Rather it means something much more like "accidental." A well-educated Englishman from 1893 would not commit a solecism of this type, methinks.

All in all, though, this is a movie I can watch over and over. Having the DVD is a special treat because Nicholas Meyer's commentary is superb. Not only is he the director of the movie, but he's also very articulate and consequently able to explain well his thoughts in putting together the movie. My only beef--and it's a small one, admittedly--is that he comes across as a tad self-important, ditto on the Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan commentary. Still, he did a great job--on both movies--and I thoroughly enjoyed them both.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simon_Crutchley 20 years ago

No, no time travel involved. I prefer "whilst" to "while" simply because it falls more pleasingly on the ear.

Yes, the movie has some serious plot holes, but I marvel at reviewers who are willing to swallow hook, line and sinker the concept of a TIME MACHINE yet quibble over far smaller details. To paraphrase William Shatner, "It's a movie! Get over it!" : )

No, I'm not English; I merely prefer to use some British idioms because, like "whilst," they strike me as a skosh more elegant.

Now you've got me wondering whether I'm correct, but I'm fairly certain the movie opens in 1893. I've not seen it since I last posted here and I've lent my copy to a friend. I'll have to check when he returns it.

To which term are you referring? "Victorian" or "fortuitous"?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simon_Crutchley 20 years ago

lol

Shatner cracks me up. Of course, Nimoy singing "If I Had a Hammer" is *almost* as good.

[–] richardscd 16 years ago

Nick Meyer actually admits to the fortuitously mistake in the director's commentary. As for the other, I do not know if it would be correct or not (I may be wrong, but I do believe the term Victorian was in use by that time, though in its infancy), but using Victorian was just shorthand to allow us the viewer an idea if what they were talking about. Clearly, they were sacrificing absolute truth for dramatic brevity (and thank goodness for that).

~Chris R~
"I...I don't believe it!"
"That is why you fail."

[–] Simon_Crutchley 20 years ago

P.S. Indeed I am correct. : )

As for "discipline," my dictionary has both meanings; to subject to training in order to develop self-control and character, and to punish.

An unsolicited lesson: in the possessive form, "its" has no apostrophe, as in "in its truest sense." In the contracted form of "it is," it takes an apostrophe.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simon_Crutchley 20 years ago

It's easy to remember when to use "its" versus "it's." All you have to do is remember that "it's" is short for "it is," like "can't" for "cannot," etc. Then think on it this way: when you come to spot where you use "its/it's", can you substitute "it is" for its/it's and still be correct? For example, "Every relationship has its/it's plusses and minusses." If you wrote, "Every relationship has "it is" plusses and minusses" you can see that that doesn't make sense. And because "it's" is short for "it is," you know that "it's" is wrong, so you use "its".

Simple, no?

"lie" and "lay." "Lie" is an intransitive verb, "lay" is a transitive verb. But never mind the nomenclature. Just remember this; "lay" is the past tense of "lie". "I have to lie down" is present tense. "I lay in bed this morning until ten o'clock" is past tense. The problem is that "lay" is used so rarely this way that it sounds and looks wrong to the modern speaker, but it's not.

The only time you use "lay" in the present tense is when it takes a direct object. In other words, you apply the action of laying *to* something. My English teacher once told our class, "You can lay bricks or lay each other, but you CANNOT lay down! Unless you're spreading feathers around." So you lay a book on the table, you lay your hand on the beck of your beau's neck, but you plan to lie down for a nap. See?

Piece o' cake.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] foxfirebrand 16 years ago

Your method of substituting "it is" for every "it's" will sometimes fall afoul of the fact that the apostrophized form also means "it has." If it carries that meaning, then substituting "it is" will yield a funny sounding result-- dropping the apostrophe will sound right, but won't BE right.

It's just as easy to remember it the other way around. When confronted with "its" or "it's," are you dealing with a possessive pronoun? If yes, no apostrophe.

I think apostrophizing "it" in the genetive is fairly forgiveable-- we do use apostrophes in the genetive construction with nouns, right? You have to have an uncommon feel for grammar to remember the anomaly of dropping that apostrophe in the case of pronouns-- one could almost say it doesn't make sense.

[–] PrettySalad 20 years ago

You, sir, are a complete and total word nerd. I think I love you.

[–] Simon_Crutchley 20 years ago

And you, madame, are impertinent. I respect that quality, when possessed in some measure.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brian67761 19 years ago

In the final scene, Wells removes the crystal from the machine. That is the reason Stevenson goes to infinity/oblivion. Wells explains the purpose of the crystal early in the movie. By the way, it looks to me like Stevenson nods at Wells just before Wells removes the crystal.

[–] hachmom-1 17 years ago

Yes he does nod before he removes the crystal....Its one of my favorite moments in the movie.....

It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LadyJaneGrey 18 years ago

I do love this movie and tend to overlook such linguistic nitpicks, as you so eloquently put it, but I'm also a word nerd and language geek and must weigh in here.

I also shudder at the general state of ignorance regarding spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, grammatics, etc. I proofread everything and am horrified daily by the assault upon the English language waged by newspapers, Internet posters, closed captioning typists, etc. I work with both doctors and college graduates, and find to my astonishment that neither group can spell, punctuate, or construct a sentence correctly in most cases. And I only had a few college courses. Meh. It's not really a matter of education, but true love of language and the ability to communicate your thoughts cohesively and properly in written form by following the rules of English.

Some of my quibbles are when people:

---Cannot spell words they have apparently only heard spoken but never written down (e.g., "wallah" for "voila." This would also apply to the mother of baketball player Anfernee Hardaway, who I'd wager never saw "Anthony" written down.)

---Put an apostrophe where one does not belong or neglect to put one when needed e.g., "highfalutin'" when its "highfalutin," or the entire "its" "it's" saga.

---Misuse the word "myself." Doctors I work with continually dictate things like "I advised the patient to call myself or Dr. Soandso," which just makes me want to levitate.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent, fellow Language Persons. Maybe that should be "People." Hmmmm. One of you will let me know!

[–] SinemaGirl 18 years ago

On the NBC Nightly News a few nights ago, during a story on the war in Iraq, some graphics were superimposed over the video with the words:

MILITARY STRETCHED TO THIN

On a Network News program! It's all downhill from here, folks!

[–] Simon_Crutchley 17 years ago

Ah, a woman after my own heart. . .

What about the misuse of idioms?

Unsurprisingly, I've heard these come from putatively college-educated professional athletes:

"I did a complete 360" - meaning, obviously, a "180", or complete turnaround

"We have to get this untracked" - meaning (I think) get *on* track

In any case, it's nice to see other logophiles out there. . .

[–] ShadowsGathered 17 years ago

A bit after the fact (a great bit), I wanted to chime in with my own personal favorite "what the hell are they teaching in schools these days?"... the misuse of the phrase "Blah blah and I"... when it should be "Blah blah and me... I hear this often on the radio, television, in real life... and I just cringe! On the radio last week... "If you would like more information about this, you can call JT or I at the station"... what???? NOOOOOOOOO, they can't call "JT or I"... but they can call "JT or me"! I believe people use the word "I" thinking it makes them sound more educated or... something... it doesn't. There are a lot of other things that have been mentioned here that also make me shudder... lack of ability to: spell correctly, use correct grammar, use correct punctuation... the list goes on... and also the "myself" bloop that you mentioned... it makes me want to pull my hair out! Okay, I'm finished ranting!

By the by... what are they teaching in school these days?

...Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster...

[–] padremarquitos 18 years ago

Another error in the script occurs when Dr. Stevenson (Jack the Ripper) promises to release Amy if Wells will give him the key to the time machine. He says, "I give you my word as a gentleman," and when he obtains the key, he says to Wells that he should know by now that "I'm not a gentleman."
But in fact, though he's an evil, murderous criminal, he remains a "gentleman" by the definition in use at that time: a man of noble or aristocratic birth. The script has him using the term in a modern way, which Dr. Stevenson would not have done. (C.S. Lewis makes this point in one of his essays.)

[–] SonicAndy 18 years ago

As for Victorian - if I were The Ripper and had fled into the future, I would probably go to the nearest library and see what the historians had to say about me. And, did the Ripper get caught ? The word "Victorian" would not have seemed so strange after reading about the 19th century London. And he clearly states that he belongs in the future, making it easier for him to distinguish between the Victorian mentality Vs Future mentality.

[–] hachmom-1 17 years ago

the funny thing is he is still possessed of the external manners of a gentleman...how many modern day psychos would say please when telling their hostage to drive faster to evade pursuit?

It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 16 years ago

But in fact, though he's an evil, murderous criminal, he remains a "gentleman" by the definition in use at that time: a man of noble or aristocratic birth. The script has him using the term in a modern way, which Dr. Stevenson would not have done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman#Modern_usage.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

[–] eolloe 9 years ago

Another error in the script occurs when Dr. Stevenson (Jack the Ripper) promises to release Amy if Wells will give him the key to the time machine. He says, "I give you my word as a gentleman," and when he obtains the key, he says to Wells that he should know by now that "I'm not a gentleman."
But in fact, though he's an evil, murderous criminal, he remains a "gentleman" by the definition in use at that time: a man of noble or aristocratic birth. The script has him using the term in a modern way, which Dr. Stevenson would not have done. (C.S. Lewis makes this point in one of his essays.)

It was customary even decades before that time to refer to men as "gentlemen" in parliamentary debates in the House of Commons, so why would the implicit meaning of that term of respect (along the lines of, 'a man of good repute known for behaving decorously') not have been in use among men such as Wells and Stevenson at the time of the story?

[–] ts1979 17 years ago

I also find it interesting to "date" some of the words or slang used in movies. I think about it when characters use words that wouldn't be in use. Do you have any Internet weblinks for reference?

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

Another phrase that I'm puzzled by the use of in this flick is "motor car".

Several times, Herbert refers to an automobile as a "motor car", and he's corrected by someone (the nurse in the hospital, for instance, says, "Motor car? You mean a car.") or at the least encounters puzzled looks.

So Herbert wouldn't have picked up the phrase after arriving in San Francisco. The implication is that he brought it with him. But though the concept of an automobile wouldn't have been unfamiliar to someone with his broad general knowledge and interest in popular science back in England in the late 1880s, I don't think a term like "motor car" came into existence until the early 20th century.

Or am I wrong about that ?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=m&p=23

Motor:
1447, from L. motor, lit. "mover," from movere "to move" (see move). From 15c. as "controller, prime mover" (in reference to God); sense of "agent or force that produces mechanical motion" is first recorded 1664; that of "machine that supplies motive power" is from 1856. With explosive use 20c. as a comb. form of motor-car. First record of motor-cycle attested 1896; motor-boat is from 1902. Motor-car is from 1895; motorist is from 1896. For motorcade (1913) see cavalcade. First record of slang motor-mouth "fast-talking person" is from 1971.

If this site is correct Herbert/the filmmakers may have been a few years ahead of the word's origin. The word combination of "motor-car" may have been used in Britain, whenever it became a part of the regular usage there. I'm not sure if it was ever commonly used in America and if so it had LONG ago fell out of favor. Which would partly explain why Americans in the film thought the word strange and sounded quaint. Anyway, FWIW!

[–] puirt-a-beul 17 years ago

Interesting stuff, tt -- thanks for posting it !!

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] turtletommy 17 years ago

You're welcome and yes it is interesting!