Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Odd Construction

I always notice when I read the (what seems to me) British construction, "don't lets." The most immediate example is "My message to the news media: We are under enough fire as it is. Don't let's make our job even harder by giving Palin and her millions of supporters a legitimate grievance."

No particular reason to notice this, and I'm not saying this in a manner meant to be negative. It's just not a word pair I see often, and while its meaning is clear, it strikes me as odd.

For some reason, though, I had never really thought through the meaning of the dual contraction: "Do not let us." That phrase strikes me as very elegant. Funny. They're really the exact same thing, but the one strikes me as notably odd; the other as notably well-said.

How very British.

BTW, I stand by my earlier statement that if Palin wants to use her body image as a publicity and political tool in her favor, then it's no sin for others to use it against her. Same with her family, same with her Xrazy Xristian morals. If you're going to put some aspect of your existence on the table as an argument in your favor, others should have the right to disuss that aspect. And puh-leeze don't try to tell me that her physical appearance wasn't and isn't a major aspect of her self-promotion. Don't ask Rich "Starburst" Lowry, either.

On the sexism hubbub, though, it looks like I'm on the losing side. I understand and respect the arguments being laid out by writers such as the one linked at the top, I just disagree that this particular instance can be called sexism, while ones like Lowry's aren't called out in the mainstream press in a similar manner. Yeah, even at age fifty, I still get "starbursts" when confronted by a fabulous babe whether in the media or in real life. That doesn't mean I have an overpowering urge to boink her. And it certainly doesn't mean that she's qualified to be VP.

No comments: