Chris Barker wrote:
> No, I've never heard "despond" as a verb. It's archaic English and
> it's a noun.
In that original writing by Daumier, there WAS no "despond" anywhere. Where
did that come from? Hmmm.
keith whaley
> It is normally "despondency" now but it could have been an artistic
> contraction. If only I could remember the poetry or prose where I
> read it. It might have been a bit from "Paradise Lost".
>
> Chris
> On 25 Jul 2006, at 13:49, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> "despond" is a verb so the word here should be "despondency".
>> Colloquially, it might not work with a lot of Americans. Except those
>> from the south (like Walt) where slough/slew/slue is a fairly common
>> word, probably half wouldn't know the meaning of "slough" and a
>> quarter
>> probably wouldn't know the meaning of "despondency".
>>
>> "In the swamp/dregs/gutter of depression" might be understood by 80 or
>> 90 percent. Of course, OM'ers, being generally smarter and more
>> literate, would have no problem with any rendition. :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|