Poor Lavinia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peethagora

New member
Joined
Aug 10, 2022
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Lavinia, daughter of Titus Andronicus, had her tongue and hands removed.

Is it correct English to say that her legs are true?
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I have no idea what you mean by "Her legs are true".
 

Peethagora

New member
Joined
Aug 10, 2022
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Perhaps I have not made it clear enough: here is a second example:

She had lost her tongue, and her arms were lacking hands, but her legs were still true.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Do you mean that she still had her legs? "Her legs were still true" means nothing..
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
... her legs were still attached to her body.
... her legs were still complete.

I think you need to revise the possible definitions of the word "true".
 

tedmc

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Malaysia
Current Location
Malaysia
She had lost her tongue, and her arms were lacking without hands, but her legs were still true intact.
 

Ostap

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
She had lost her tongue, and her arms were lacking without hands, but her legs were still true intact.
What's wrong with "lacking hands" though?
 

Tarheel

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
What's wrong with "lacking hands" though?
I suppose it's okay.

Quite frankly, I don't see the point in saying she still had her legs. I might say:

Her tongue and her hands had been removed.

There is no need to mention her legs.

Did that really happen?
 

Ostap

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Did that really happen?
In a Shakespeare play, yes.
Quite frankly, I don't see the point in saying she still had her legs. I might say:

Her tongue and her hands had been removed.

There is no need to mention her legs.
Maybe if the reader expects the legs (or feet?) to be removed too (e.g., if it was typical for such practice of maiming) then mentioning the legs makes sense.
 

tedmc

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Malaysia
Current Location
Malaysia
There must be a reason for mentioning the legs besides the tongue and arms, and not other parts of the body
 

Tarheel

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
In a Shakespeare play, yes.

Maybe if the reader expects the legs (or feet?) to be removed too (e.g., if it was typical for such practice of maiming) then mentioning the legs makes sense.
Yes, but thank goodness it's not normal.

Saying her legs are still intact is like (to me) saying it's not so bad. She still has her legs. No! It's really really bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top