![]() ![]() I wanted to be in love, but I really didn’t think there was any way I’d be so in love with someone who reciprocated all the same feelings. I never imagined myself saying that about anyone. My heart flutters every single time I catch him being so him. I’ll just watch my boyfriend taking notes in church or folding his laundry or just watching a movie – he never has any idea I’m stealing a glimpse and it makes him even more adorable. They have no idea anyone is looking at them and that’s what makes them all the more lovable because they’re totally unaware of your fascination – they’re just really being themselves? If that is important to you, then go with the upstart.By Kaitlin Chappell Updated December 20, 2020ĭo you ever just look at someone, watch them while they’re doing such a simple task and just smile. Of course you should also know that nowadays "wait for" is more common and more formal. Use whichever you want, and know that if you use "wait on" then you are using the language of Shakespeare. ![]() In conclusion "wait on" has just as much of a claim to "correctness" as "wait for". That German and English were the same language many hundreds of years ago is also evidence that "wait on" is the older form, and that "wait for" is the upstart. I also draw readers' attention to German "warten auf", which means "to wait on / for" something and the fact that "auf" is cognate with English "on". ![]() This is a whopping victory for the pedigree of "wait on" made even more whopping if "wait upon" is included. ![]() In fact, searching for these terms in the online Shakespeare concordance, which shows you where and how many times the Bard used a certain word, reveals that although the great man used "wait for" four times (and "await for" once), he used "wait on" 16 times and "wait upon" 22 times. Regarding "wait for" versus "wait on" and the assertion by that no one in England would use "wait on" except Mick Jagger, I would point out William Shakespeare (a famous Englishman) used it all the time. her colonies knows that precisely the opposite is true - that linguistic change in colonies tends to proceed slower than in the mother country. Anyone who has done research into how language changes in the mother country vs. I love and lament the opinions of certain contributors to this board that English from England is more pure (and therefore more correct) than the English from colonials. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |