<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with archaic</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/archaic</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'archaic' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:49:09 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:49:09 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>&quot;As well [pronoun] should&quot;</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/108866/As%2Dwell%2Dpronoun%2Dshould</link>	
	<description>GrammarFilter: Origins and form of &lt;em&gt;&quot;As well he should&quot;&lt;/em&gt;? I find myself using the phrase &quot;as well [pronoun] should,&quot; more and more lately but cannot for the life of me figure out what is going on grammatically and linguistically:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;What are the origins of this phrase? Is it a quotation or a reference?&lt;br&gt;
Both the word choice and construction seem archaic - what are the origins?&lt;br&gt;
The subject of the clause comes after the verb - why? &lt;br&gt;
Is this some particular structure of forming clauses that has siblings?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
I hope someone shares my fascination with this phrase, and can help enlighten me a bit! I know this is a back-to-back language post, so maybe we can drum up some interest.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2008:site.108866</guid>
	<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:49:09 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>archaic</category>
	<category>english</category>
	<category>grammar</category>
	<category>language</category>
	<category>resolved</category>
	<dc:creator>coolhappysteve</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>Shew?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/77855/Shew</link>	
	<description>In Anscombe&apos;s translation of Wittgenstein&apos;s Philosophical Investigations, why does he use &quot;shew&quot; instead of &quot;show&quot;? I understand that &quot;shew&quot; is an archaic version of &quot;show&quot;, but this book was published in 1968.  What&apos;s the desired effect?  Sure is annoying.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2007:site.77855</guid>
	<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:19:39 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>anscombe</category>
	<category>archaic</category>
	<category>conjugation</category>
	<category>shew</category>
	<category>verb</category>
	<category>wittgenstein</category>
	<dc:creator>ITheCosmos</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

