Quote:
Originally Posted by .,,  I still agree with me and all my dictionaries and my slightly less than 50 years experience talking and then writing in nothing but English.
To review history is simply to review the events. To re view. To look at again.
To look back on is to look at again or to re view or review. There is no difference so you could take your opinion to both sayings equally.
It is not logical for you to place an interpretative spin on 'to review' and then to use 'to look back on' literally and then say that the sayings are different.
To review my opinion of history is what you are trying to say but without the inclusion of 'my opinion of' the sentence is completely different.
To review the subject matter is not to change the subject matter.
To review a parade of soldiers does not change the soldiers one iota.
To review history does not change history.
Recorded history may be rewritten but this does not change (actual) history which by definition can not change..
.,,
Opinions may change but history is immutable. |
I'm afraid I am misled by my mother tongue. There is a word very similar to review (they have a common origin) which carries the meaning I assigned to
review. Thank you for your explanation.
However, when I wrote I didn't agree with you, I was referring to your opinion that history is immutable, not to the language question.
As for this matter (I think it's a very interesting one), the problem is that actual history is nothing if people don't know it.
I think Holocaust-denial is really emblematic of this. It's not such a long time ago it occured but there is people denying it.