OLD BLUES WHO DIED IN WORLD WAR TWO

[Foureyes]

I have now completed my research into Old Blues who died in World War Two, either as a result of enemy action (which includes civilians who died as a direct consequence of enemy attack, such as bombing or execution) or who died for other reasons whilst serving in the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth. Each of the 212 receives a biography; these vary in length from a paragraph to several pages, but all include details of how, when and where they died. If anyone on the Forum would like a copy of an individual entry (i.e., of a relation or friend) if they send the name of the person, and their own e-mail address to me at petard249@btinternet.com I will e-mail them a copy of the entry.

For the record, the statistics were as follows:
Royal Navy ..........................27
British Army ........................59
Royal Air Force .....................87
Dominion Armed Forces ............8
Indian Army ........................10 (i.e., British officers serving in what was then the British Indian Army)
Merchant Navy ......................6
Civilians ............................15
TOTAL..............................212

David Miller
PS. I can only send indiviudal entries, please don't ask for multiple entries, such as "all in Thornton B" or "all who left in 1936," or whatever.

[Foureyes]

Alan,

I have typed it up, and with 212 entries, plus illustrations, tables, etc, it come to 294 A4 pages. I have run-off two copies. One I have sent to the Treasurer. It is now up to him what happens; basically, it boils down to money! I would very much like that it should be printed and copies offered for sale as there are some truly remarkable stories. If you are going to OB Day, I will have the only other copy with me - I will be on the Museum stand.

I didn't see your piece on Wickham - can you direct me to it, please?

David

[Fjgrogan]

My cousin had a book published by Lulu. The book itself was very interesting as far as the content was concerned, but it was obvious that the publisher did not do any kind of editing, so the grammar, spelling etc were abysmal. However that should not be a problem for anyone with a CH education!

[J.R.]

My cousin had a book published by Lulu. The book itself was very interesting as far as the content was concerned, but it was obvious that the publisher did not do any kind of editing, so the grammar, spelling etc were abysmal. However that should not be a problem for anyone with a CH education!

I didn't know she was a publisher as well as a singer !

[Jo]

My cousin had a book published by Lulu. The book itself was very interesting as far as the content was concerned, but it was obvious that the publisher did not do any kind of editing, so the grammar, spelling etc were abysmal. However that should not be a problem for anyone with a CH education!

Sorry to digress, but you have more faith than I do, Frances! I had to edit something for the Old Blue recently, contributed by an Old Blue. She had included a reference to someone entertaining "Tom and I". I corrected it to "Tom and me", sent the piece back to her to approve the various edits, and it came back amended to "Tom and I" again. We had some further correspondence and I mentioned that I'd changed it back again and would be happy to explain why if necessary. She confessed to being very confused as to which was correct...............................but the killer line was "....and I suppose I should know really; I'm an English teacher".

I wonder if she heard my Aaaaaarrrrgghhh from here

[J.R.]

My cousin had a book published by Lulu. The book itself was very interesting as far as the content was concerned, but it was obvious that the publisher did not do any kind of editing, so the grammar, spelling etc were abysmal. However that should not be a problem for anyone with a CH education!

Sorry to digress, but you have more faith than I do, Frances! I had to edit something for the Old Blue recently, contributed by an Old Blue. She had included a reference to someone entertaining "Tom and I". I corrected it to "Tom and me", sent the piece back to her to approve the various edits, and it came back amended to "Tom and I" again. We had some further correspondence and I mentioned that I'd changed it back again and would be happy to explain why if necessary. She confessed to being very confused as to which was correct...............................but the killer line was "....and I suppose I should know really; I'm an English teacher".

I wonder if she heard my Aaaaaarrrrgghhh from here

Or even... "Myself and Tom....."?

[Jo]

Possibly better than "Tom and I" in this context, but doesn't need to be "myself". I entertain myself. You entertain yourself. Someone else doesn't entertain myself: they entertain me.

(not really a pedant, oh no...... )

[midget]

Not a pedant at all! I had the same argument with a typist years ago, she altered one of my letters to "Mr. C and I" WhenI wanted her to retype it she said they had discussed it and decided I was wrong. I was most concerned because I knew that the person to whom the letter was sent would know the correct form.

[sejintenej]

Not a pedant at all! I had the same argument with a typist years ago, she altered one of my letters to "Mr. C and I" WhenI wanted her to retype it she said they had discussed it and decided I was wrong. I was most concerned because I knew that the person to whom the letter was sent would know the correct form.

You don't give the context of that correction. However I have on many occasions overheard such discussions and even been asked for my input. Secretaries may be more than willing but nobody gets it right every time - even a caucus of such experts.
On top of that, English is an ever changing medium - what is acceptable today may be unacceptable next year (Gay no longer means expressing joy!!!) and what is wrong today might become correct tomorrow. About 25 years ago, in possibly 3 lines of text the FT changed in a major manner immediately and for evermore the meaning of an important (in mathematical and financial terms) word in the English language - wow.

In the office we had two reference books: the manual written by and issued to journalists of The Financial Times which was really good. The second was "the right word at the right time" (I hope I got that correct) by Readers Digest which is good but slightly different. The first book is almost dictatorial in that it sets out the rules for publishing in that paper. The second not only sets out what is acknowledged as correct and what is acknowledged as wrong but it also sets out alternatives which are in common use but technically might not be quite correct or whose correctness is subject to argument. England does not yet have immortals to vet the language

[englishangel]

It is not pedantic it is correct. Let's leave Tom out of it.

Thank you for entertaining I just does not make sense.

I had this conversation with my boss the other day and when I took the second person out of the sentence he agreed with me.

[postwarblue]

Fowler's for me.

[anniexf]

Fowler's for me.

My copy of Modern English Usage is the 2nd. edition, 1977. The question is, could this be out-of-date or is it timeless?

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

Long may pedantry live ! I abhor qualified absolutes, which I find very unique, and which annoys people like I, and it offends peoplle such as me !

[DavidRawlins]

Long may pedantry live ! I abhor qualified absolutes, which I find very unique, and which annoys people like I, and it offends peoplle such as me !

Is this a new plural of people?