minnow at belfry.org.uk
Fri Mar 30 05:42:17 EDT 2007
>a grandmother who would
>have been old-fashioned in the 70s, or even the 50s',* but! It turned
>out there was a good reason for this. Hoorah.
>I add... Yes indeed! A LOT of my mentees/assessees get this wrong. They have
>parents in the 2000s telling their 11 y-o daughters (born in the late 1990s)
>to "behave like ladies"... or else talk about them being "tomboys" because
>they wear jeans!
Well, I did once tell my 11-y-o born in the 1980s that she ought to learn
to behave like a lady. It was in specific circumstances, though, and one
particular lady I wanted her to emulate. :-)
>Then there are the incorrect-for-the-generation names...
Some people probably did call their daughters Rose and Ivy rather than
Laurel and Holly in the later twentieth century...
>DWJ usually has a reason for seeming to get it wrong. I even thought of a
>Tollie saying he was going to "tell on Hayley" when he had done it already.
>1. He was going to tell on HAYLEY specifically, not the rest in general, and
Oh. Yes. That makes sense.
>2. he is a mythosphere person, and so the times may be a little mixed. He
>has told/ will tell/ is telling because that's what Tollie DOES.
The rest of it is a bit more temporally linear in that household, though.
That's why I was confused by it.
More information about the Dwj