Talk:Sylvia Sayer: Difference between revisions
WP:Devon tagging |
No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject Devon|class=|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Devon|class=|importance=low}} |
||
Link to her husband is to the wrong Guy Sayer. I don't know hoe to fix it[[Special:Contributions/86.6.41.186|86.6.41.186]] ([[User talk:86.6.41.186|talk]]) 17:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:20, 28 October 2013
![]() | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
|
![]() | Devon Unassessed Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Link to her husband is to the wrong Guy Sayer. I don't know hoe to fix it86.6.41.186 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Untitled
The OED says empassioned is an older spelling of impassioned with no cites since the 17th century and no indication that it is anything but a spelling variant. Webster's Unabridged doesn't even mention the em- variation. Both say the word comes from the Italian impassionare. I won't change it, but you should consider it. Sincerely, what do you think the difference is? Ortolan88
Impassioned is just a modern fad, it'll be back to empassioned in the fullness of time. The word empassioned has for me a resonance which is sadly bereft in impassioned:
- And now it is empassioned so deepe,
- For fairest Vnaes sake, of whom I sing
- [..] Edmund Spenser The Faerie Queene
The word impassioned lacks the centrality and poeticised internalisation which empassioned provides: alliterative as it is with emotion, empathy, etcetera. Which is central to what I am saying about Sylvia Sayer, a woman for whom I have boundless admiration, perhaps one of the first serious eco-warriors. user:sjc
- Just an old-fashioned love song ... Ortolan88
Ho ho ho. user:sjc