Anglonautes > Grammaire anglaise explicative - niveau avancé > GV > Auxiliaires > Do auxiliaire > Valeurs énoncioatives > Valeur épistémique (vérité scientifique et / ou morale)

Les anglonautes

learning > grammaire anglaise - niveau avancé

GV > auxiliaires non modaux

doauxiliaire

sens et valeurs énonciatives >

valeur épistémique

formes

affirmative / emphatique,

négative,

interrogative,

interro-négative

doauxiliaire

- did au passé -

est un "mot-clé" :

What Doesauxiliaire the Coronavirus Dobase verbale

to the Body?

Here’s what scientists have learned

about how the new virus infects and attacks cells

and how it can affect organs beyond the lungs.

https://www.nytimes.com/
article/coronavirus-body-symptoms.html - March 12, 2020

doauxiliaire

a souvent

une valeur épistémique

(vérité scientifique,

historique et / ou morale) :

sortie de l'ignorance,

du questionnement,

de l'incertitude, du doute,

de l'approximation,

du paradoxe,

de la confusion

explication

du comment et du pourquoi

accès

au sens, au savoir

à la preuve, la certitude,

la vérité,

la vérité scientifique,

la vérité historique,

l'existence

L'énonciateur / l'énonciatrice

cherche / veut savoir pourquoi,

comprendre les raisons de,

"avoir les idées claires sur",

"en avoir le coeur net"

(valeurs énonciatives

de doauxiliaire dans ces contextes >

vérité + validation :

moi-expert qui vous parle,

je vous garantis

que ce que je dis est vrai)

doauxiliaire

sens et valeurs énonciatives > valeur épistémique

forme affirmative

Nsubet + do + base verbale + Nobjet

Climate solutions do exist.

These 6 experts detail what they look like

March 5, 2023 NPR

doauxiliaire

sens et valeurs énonciatives > valeur épistémique

formes interrogative

do + Nsubet + base verbale + Nobjet ?

Do electric cars really produce

fewer carbon emissions

than petrol or diesel vehicles?

In part five of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs,

we assess the greenwashing claims

Does therapy really work?

Let's unpack that.

NYT

Published May 16, 2023

Updated May 18, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/
magazine/does-therapy-work.html

The Guardian G2 p. 1 8 February 2006

The Guardian p. 9 16 November 2005

Interview

What type of policing do we want?

Met police chief Sir Ian Blair

speaks on the eve of tonight's Richard Dimbleby lecture

Martin Kettle

The Guardian

Wednesday November 16, 2005

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/nov/16/
terrorism.interviews

The Guardian G2 p. 1 5 January 2006

George Bush insists

that Iran must not be allowed

to develop nuclear weapons.

So why, six years ago,

did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints

to build a bomb?

In an extract from his explosive new book,

New York Times reporter James Risen

reveals the bungles and miscalculations

that led to a spectacular intelligence fiasco

The Guardian

Thursday January 5, 2006

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jan/05/
energy.g2

The Guardian G2 p. 1 15 October 2004

http://digital.guardian.co.uk/guardian/2004/10/15/pages/two1.shtml

The Guardian p. 5 9 February 2007

The Guardian Family p. 5 19 November 2005

Reform agenda appears to be struggling

Our survey of 400 has produced worrying results.

It suggests that lessons still haven't been learned

since the Laming inquiry in 2003

The Guardian Social Care p. 2

Wednesday October 19, 2005

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/oct/19/
socialcare1

The Guardian p. 24 28 September 2005

August 15, 2005 Vol. 166 No. 7

https://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601050815,00.html

What does the science say

about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?

February 28, 2023 NPR

Does NATO Still Exist?

JULY 7, 2016

The New York Times

Jochen Bittner

Does NATO Still Exist?,
NYT,
JULY 7, 2016,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/
opinion/does-nato-still-exist.html

‘I can’t speak properly. I am different’:

do you need to speak English

to be a good citizen?

New requirements

for public service workers to be fluent in English

echo David Cameron’s suggestion

that good language skills are part of the fight

against extremism.

But at the same time,

courses to train non-native speakers

are being cut across England

Friday 7 August 2015

14.45 BST

The Guardian

‘I can’t speak properly. I am different’:
do you need to speak English to be a good citizen?,
G,
August 7, 2015,
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/aug/07/
do-you-need-to-speak-english-to-be-good-citizen

Does America Still Believe

in Diplomacy?

August 6, 2015

2:00 pm

The New York Tiles

By Carol Giacomo

President Obama has never seemed

so sure-footed on foreign policy as now,

when he is battling against determined opponents

to persuade the American public and Congress

on the merits of the Iran nuclear deal.

Does America Still Believe in Diplomacy?,
NYT, AUGUST 6, 2015,
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/
does-america-still-believe-in-diplomacy/

Did U.S. Have to Drop Atomic Bombs

on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

AUG. 5, 2015
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/
did-us-have-to-drop-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.html

Why Do Doctors Commit Suicide?

SEPT. 4, 2014

The New York Times

By PRANAY SINHA

Why Do Doctors Commit Suicide?,
NYT, 4.9.2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/
opinion/why-do-doctors-commit-suicide.html

questions en doauxiliaire

autres énoncés

How Do Eggs Get Their Shapes?

Scientists Think They've Cracked It

Did James Comey Lie

About Interference In The Russia Investigation?

Do Carrots Really Help Your Vision?

What Does An Expanding Universe Really Mean?

Why Did Melania Trump Cover Her Hair

At The Vatican But Not In Saudi Arabia?

What Does It Mean

When ISIS Claims Responsibility For An Attack?

Does Science Know Right From Wrong?

Why do you do what you do?

Where did the universe come from?

Why Does Donald Trump Lie

About Voter Fraud?

How Much Money Do Uber Drivers Really Make?

Send Us Your Screenshots

What Does Immigration Actually Cost Us?

Did Russia Hack The NSA? Maybe Not

What Does Trump's Promise of a Nation "Under One God"

Really Mean?

Do your friends actually like you?

Does darker skin really need its own skincare?

Does U.S. Strike Against ISIS In Libya Mark

A Policy Shift?

Does Flossing Help Or Not?

The Evidence Is Mixed At Best

Does Terrorism Work?

Does NATO Still Exist?

Did U.S. Have to Drop Atomic Bombs

on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Does The Fourth Amendment Protect Us?

Does America Still Believe in Diplomacy?

Why does vinyl sound better than MP3?

Does al-Qaida really exist?

Does God have a place in science class?

Why Do Doctors Commit Suicide?

do you need to speak English

to be a good citizen?

Une question en doauxiliaire

peut dépasser

la bipolarisation du discours,

porter sur des paradoxes,

des complexités,

et donc appeler

des réponses complexes,

nuancées :

Why Do We Love Some Animals

But Eat Others?

All Mixed Up:

What Do We Call People Of Multiple Backgrounds?

Plus d'exemples :

Questions

doépistémique / be + -inganaphorique

questions en doauxiliaire

valeurs énonciatives > constat, déclaration :

ce que je dis est

vrai, démontré, incontestable

forme affirmative / négative avec doauxiliaire

forme affirmative

Nsujet + doauxiliaire + Base Verbale

forme négative

Nsujet + doauxiliaire + not + base verbale

DNA doesn't lie.

'Guilty But Mentally Ill'Doesn't Protect

Against Harsh Sentences

No,

FDR Did Not Know

The Japanese Were Going To Bomb Pearl Harbor

C'est clair et net,

ce que je dis, ce que j'affirme

est constaté, vérifié, vrai,

prouvé, démontré, scientifique,

indiscutable, incontestable,

irréfutable :

"pas de doute,

il n'y a pas

à revenir là-dessus."

polarisation du discours >

oui ou non, vrai ou faux

forme interrogative

doauxiliaire + Nsujet + Base verbaletransitive + Nobjet?

Does 'Sustainability' Help The Environment

Or Just Agriculture's Public Image?

August 22, 2017 NPR

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/08/22/
545022259/does-sustainability-help-the-environment-or-just-agricultures-public-image

La question

que je pose / prétends poser

pour la première fois

(effet rhétorique)

est essentielle pour :

sortir de la confusion,

déconstruire un mythe,

différencier / démêler

le vrai du faux,

les informations incontestables des fake news,

les rumeurs de la vérité,

l'apparence de la réalité.

savoir si la loi / la théorie

s'applique,

comprendre / expliquer le sens

d'une technique, d'un processus,

d'une action, d'une relation,

savoir si telle action / technique

est vraiment nécessaire, efficace

Cette volonté

d'en "avoir le coeur net"

sous-tend les questions en doauxiliaire,

à un tel degré que ces questions

comprennent souvent

l'adverbe really :

Une question en doauxiliaire

(did au passé),

même si elle porte

sur un thème connu

- Where did the universe come from? -,

se veut souvent objective,

nette, nouvelle,

sans présupposé,

sans a priori :

la question

est présentée / mise en scène

sur le mode de l'inédit.

question en beverbe / auxiliaire

≠

question en doauxiliaire

questions en beverbe / auxiliaire

Une question

en beverbe / auxiliaire

porte sur la justification

de la détermination :

est-il justifié

de déterminer Nsujet

par adjectifattribut

Nattribut ?

Is Inflammation

Bad For You Or Good For You?

Une question

en beverbe / auxiliaire

contient au moins

un élément de réflexion :

adjectifattribut seul

Is the universe infinite?

adjectifattribut portant sur une / deux propositions infinitives

Is it wrong to buy a kidney to save a life?

Nattribut

Is our universe the only one?

Une question en beverbe / auxiliaire

peut être moins précise

qu'une question en doauxiliaire,

et donc contenir une "inconnue"

- un simple pronom interrogatif

pour tout élément de réflexion :

- What is the universe made of? -.

questions en be + -ing

A l'inverse

des questions en doauxiliaire,

une question en be + -ing

repose souvent

sur un présupposé,

sur du connu / vu / entendu,

et donc sur une idée

qui n'est pas nouvelle :

Are We Loving Our National Parks to Death?

Traduction explicative :

N'aimerions-nous pas trop

nos parcs nationaux,

au point de les mettre en danger ?

Cet article s'inscrit

dans un contexte particulier :

la commémoration des cents ans

du service des parcs nationaux

aux Etats-Unis.

En août 2016,

pour les Américain - e-s,

loving our national parks

n'a rien de nouveau.

http://www.nationalparks.org/our-work/celebrating-100-years-service

WALPOLE, N.H. — THOUSANDS of people are expected to gather at the north entrance to Yellowstone National Park on Aug. 25 to celebrate a uniquely American idea. The National Park Service turns 100 years old, and its birthday party will take place under a stone arch emblazoned with the words “For the benefit and enjoyment of the people.”

No nation had ever set aside such a magnificent place for that reason. Wild reserves had been the exclusive property of nobility or the rich. Decisions by Congress to protect Yellowstone and other wonders reflected a different idea: In a democracy, such landscapes should belong to everyone.

But that idea included a challenge: Places like Yellowstone must also be “preserved,” as President Theodore Roosevelt urged his fellow citizens, for our “children and their children’s children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred.”

That tension between access and preservation has become ever more strained today.

In 1916, when the National Park Service was created, there were a dozen national parks, all of them in the West, visited by 326,506 people. Today, 412 parks, national monuments and historic sites cover more than 84 million acres and were visited more than 307 million times last year. Attendance is setting records this summer, and by the time the year ends, the number of visits over the last 100 years is expected to crest 13.5 billion.

The fear that the nation’s parks might be “loved to death” is not new, only more pronounced.

(...)

Are We Loving Our National Parks to Death?,
NYT,
Aug. 6, 2016,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/
opinion/sunday/are-we-loving-our-national-parks-to-death.html

A l'inverse

d'une question en be + -ing ,

une question en doauxiliaire

part d'un autre postulat :

on est dans l'inconnu,

l'incertitude,

on doute,

donc toute réponse

nouvelle et cohérente

est acceptable.

Une question en doauxiliaire

est souvent d'ordre moral,

légal, éthique :

est-il juste / justifié

ou injuste / injustifié

de faire ceci ?

est-ce vrai ou faux ?

Une question en doauxiliaire

peut être aussi

de nature philosophique,

historique, scientifique, biologique,

sociologique, psychologique,

existentielle,

tout simplement

d'ordre économique,

pratique, mécanique,

fonctionnel :

est-ce que ça marche ?

ça marche ou pas ?

comment

ça marche ?

pourquoi

ça s'est passé comme ça?

Cette affirmation

est-elle étayée

par des études scientifiques ?

How does

[ doauxiliaire ]

he do

[ dobase verbale ]

that?

Lisa Benson

political cartoon

GoComics

September 02, 2016

https://www.gocomics.com/lisabenson/2016/09/02

doauxiliaire

sens et valeurs énonciatives > valeur épistémique

forme négative

Nsubet + do + not + base verbale + Nobjet

The United States government

does not authorize or condone torture of detainees

Bob Englehart

Hartford, Connecticut -- The Hartford Courant

Cagle

8 December 2005

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/englehart.asp

Condoleezza Rice, 66th Secretary of State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice

Jack Ohman

Portland, OR, The Portland Oregonian

Cagle

7 December 2005

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/ohman.asp

Left: Condoleezza Rice, 66th Secretary of State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice

John Deering

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Cagle

11 November 2005

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/deering.asp

Left: George W. Bush,

43rd president of the United States.

Right: Vice-president Dick Cheney.

After 3 Decades,

Guilty Verdict in Rape Case,

With Help From DNA

November 10, 2005

The New York Times

By JULIA PRESTON

Thirty-two years after a young woman was raped at knifepoint in a Manhattan apartment, the man accused at the time was convicted yesterday for the assault, in a case that displayed the power of DNA testing to identify elusive criminals.

The guilty verdict against Fletcher A. Worrell, which a jury reached after deliberating less than two hours, closed a circle of justice for the victim, Kathleen Ham, now 58. Mr. Worrell's 1974 trial for the rape ended in a hung jury after his defense lawyer suggested that Ms. Ham was a prostitute and tried to cast doubt on whether she had been violently assaulted.

More than three decades later - after Mr. Worrell was arrested last year after trying to buy a gun in Georgia - Ms. Ham took the witness stand last week. She retold the story of the assault, and of the insomnia and painful personal isolation she had lived with virtually every moment since.

"I feel very, very vindicated," said Ms. Ham, with a smile of relief, at a news conference after the verdict. "It's taken a long time." Ms. Ham, now a lawyer living in California, has insisted that her name be published along with accounts of the trial, saying that she is not ashamed to have been a victim of rape.

Mr. Worrell, 59, who was tried the first time under the name Clarence Williams, was convicted in State Supreme Court in Manhattan of one count of first-degree rape and one count of robbery. Police found four dollar bills, which he had taken from Ms. Ham's purse, in his pocket when they first arrested him just a few minutes after the rape, at dawn on June 26, 1973.

Mr. Worrell faces 8 to 25 years in prison on each count, and is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 28. But this trial was just the beginning of multiple charges being brought against him. The authorities say he has been linked by DNA evidence to at least 21 other sexual assaults in Maryland and New Jersey, including a string of rapes in Montgomery County, Md., attributed to an attacker the police called the Silver Spring rapist.

Mr. Worrell jumped bail in 1975 before he could be tried again for Ms. Ham's rape, and left New York. He was arrested in Georgia in May 2004 after he tried to buy a shotgun, and a background check turned up the open warrant. But the biggest break in the case came when a DNA sample was recovered from the underpants that Ms. Ham wore on the day of the crime, which were found stuffed in the files in the Manhattan district attorney's cold case unit.

In her closing argument this morning, a prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Melissa Mourges, said that the DNA profile recovered from the underwear and Mr. Worrell's DNA profile were "identical in every way." Ms. Mourges told the jurors that Yankee Stadium could be filled with 50,000 people once a day for 54,000 years and there would not be another person who would match Mr. Worrell's profile.

Mr. Worrell's attack, Ms. Mourges said, was his attempt to impose his "total domination" and to "reduce Kathleen Ham to nothing but a piece of meat."

But, Ms. Mourges told the jurors, in the new trial, "it was her turn to hold the power - her turn, because DNA works."

Ms. Ham was not able to identify Mr. Worrell in the first trial because he pulled a sheet over her head during the attack, so she never saw his face.

In a 57-minute summation, Mr. Worrell's lawyer, Michael F. Rubin, argued that the DNA analysis done by the chief medical examiner's office was incomplete. Mr. Rubin said there might have been genetic mutations that could have disqualified his client.

The jurors were not convinced.

"Everybody agreed that the DNA evidence was so strong," said the jury foreman, Celestino Gregorio, 57, a sales manager for a pharmaceutical company. "That's why everybody voted guilty in this case."

Mr. Gregorio said that if Mr. Rubin had intended to challenge the science of the DNA testing, he should have called an expert witness rather than make the argument himself.

Mr. Rubin did not call any witnesses.

Mr. Worrell, in a brown cap and a bushy salt-and-pepper beard, sat impassively as the jury announced its verdict. He exhibited no emotion throughout the two and a half days of trial.

Several jurors said they were shocked when they learned, after the trial, that Mr. Worrell had been linked to other rapes. Robert L. Jones, 56, an illustrator who lives in Harlem, said, "It makes me feel better about taking him off the street and putting him away for rest of his life."

The verdict, and the role of DNA, prompted District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau of Manhattan to propose a change in state law to eliminate the statute of limitations for violent sexual assault and to elevate those crimes to the highest level of felony, a Class A felony.

"I felt such horrible guilt," Ms. Ham said of the first trial. "I knew a monster had been unleashed on the city." She, too, supported an end to the statute of limitations.

"DNA doesn't fade away," Ms. Ham said,

"and DNA doesn't lie."

Anemona Hartocollis

contributed reporting for this article.

After 3 Decades,
Guilty Verdict in Rape Case, With Help From DNA,
NYT,
10.11.2005,
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/
nyregion/after-3-decades-guilty-verdict-in-rape-case-
with-help-from-dna.html

Budget blues

The Audit Commission says

the government's supported housing programme

is in danger of failing vulnerable people.

Do the experts agree?

Budget blues, Interviews by Matt Weaver,
G,
19.10.2005,
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/oct/19/
communities.guardiansocietysupplement

Do the arts matter?

Next month, John Carey, emeritus professor of English Literatureat Oxford university, publishes What Good Are the Arts? It's the queen bee of questions. And it leads to a swarm of others: What is art? Who decides? Are there absolute standards? Can art make us better people? To answer these, Carey gathers a crowd of philosophers, poets, artists, writers and ordinary people, with provoking results. Carey's own definition of art is this: a work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art. As he well knows, this will only deepen the mystery and excite further argument, and it is in this spirit that The Observer asked a few people who ought to know...

Headline and sub,
O,
8 May 2005,
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/may/08/
art.oxforduniversity

Did Blair mislead us?

Two legal experts make their case

29 April 2005

The Independent

Yes, says Maurice Mendelson QC,
the expert in international law

Finally, then, the Attorney General's opinion of 7 March 2003 has been extracted from a most reluctant Government. Does it amount to a "smoking gun", or is it just a damp squib, as Tony Blair claimed yesterday?

Attorneys general are not usually trained in international law. For this reason, the Foreign Office has lawyers who are experts in this, and at least one is seconded to the AG's office to advise him. We know (from the resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the FO), and the opinion now confirms, that Lord Goldsmith originally shared the specialists' grave doubts about the legality of the war. We also know he had been pressed by US government lawyers to change his original view.

The opinion of 7 March looks much like that of a lawyer already straining to the utmost to support a course of action about which he entertains grave doubts, but on which his client is set. He canvasses the arguments on both sides; but the best he can say is that a "reasonable argument" can be made in favour of going to war.

But he is sitting on the fence. If he was strongly of the view that the war was legal, he would have said so. (In this context, it is relevant to note that most qualified international lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic were always clear that the war would be illegal without a further Security Council resolution.) There seems little doubt that if the Cabinet, let alone Parliament, had been shown this opinion, Mr Blair would have had far more difficulty in getting backing for war.

Knowing that, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and Baroness Morgan of Huyton had a meeting with Lord Goldsmith. The Chief of Defence Staff was also dissatisfied without unequivocal advice that the war was legal. Mr Blair presented him with what, with hindsight, can be seen as largely false information about the threat, whether deliberately or innocently is a subject much debated. The most charitable interpretation is that Mr Blair believed what he wanted to believe. Finally, on 17 March, Lord Goldsmith came up with what he claimed was his "opinion", which stated unequivocally that war was lawful even without the further Security Council resolution. This was just a one-page set of conclusions, not an opinion. No self-respecting lawyer, even if he had persuaded himself of the legality of the war, could have written a proper opinion without canvassing the strong counter-arguments.

Yet the Government consistently sought to give the impression that the document was the only formal opinion, and that the AG had no doubts. He backed them in this. Whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the AG actually lied, the weasel words and economy with the truth was breathtaking, and sullied an already tarnished political process. Even damp squibs can sometimes sputter into life. Whether this one will remains to be seen.

No, says Geoffrey Bindman, the prominent human rights lawyer

Everyone agrees military action was only lawful if authorised by the Security Council. In November 1990, in resolution 678, it authorised action to liberate Kuwait. By April 1991, that job had been done and resolution 687 affirmed the ceasefire but Lord Goldsmith believes the authority for war did not come to an end there, but lay dormant pending the elimination by Iraq of its WMD and compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements.

By November 2002, resolution 1441 was designed to give the Iraqis a last chance to comply but did not itself authorise force. As Lord Goldsmith says "the argument that 1441 itself provides the authorisation depends on the revival of the express authorisation to use force given in 1990 by Security Council resolution 678".

This, says Lord Goldsmith, raises two questions. Is the revival argument sound? If so, can breach of 1441 revive the authorisation? He accepts the revival is controversial and not widely accepted but favours it.

But he also accepts 1441 required the matter to come back to the council for discussion before the revival could take effect. He thought it unclear whether that meant a further decision had to be made but he though it was for the council to assess whether Iraq was in material breach of 1441.

It was finely balanced, so he recommended a further resolution authorising force. He thought a case for revival of the old authorisation could be made without a further resolution but only if hard evidence of non-compliance and non-co-operation could be demonstrated.

On 17 March, Lord Goldsmith's answer was a brief and straight summary of the revival argument with the assertion that Iraq was in material breach of 1441 - but without any of the doubts in his full opinion.

In the Commons on 18 March, the Prime Minister said "the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq having been at the time of resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and continues today".

That was not an unfair summary of what Lord Goldsmith said on 17 March. It falls lamentably short of a fair summary of the difficulties of the opinion of 7 March.

I am saddened his informative opinion was not available to assist deliberations of Cabinet and Parliament. It was entirely wrong, in my opinion, that Parliament and the public did not have the opportunity to debate the legal and moral issues arising from Mr Blair's reliance on a dubious legal argument.

There is no evidence Mr Blair set out to deliberately mislead Parliament or the country. The Prime Minister preferred to rely on authorisation given 12 years earlier.

I do not charge him with dishonesty but I believe the failure to disclose the full opinion was a serious mistake that could have influenced Parliament's decision to support the war.

Did Blair mislead us?
Two legal experts make their case,
I,
29.4.2005,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/
did-blair-mislead-us-8724058.html

Does spelling really matter?

As Molesworth might have observed, any fule kno it don't. Tony Blair wrote "toomorrow" three times in a memo, Keats once spelled fruit as "furuit", Yeats wrote peculiarities as "peculeraritys", and Hemingway wrote professional as "proffessional". Clearly such mistakes may not help you to be topp in skool, but they don't signify that you are unfit to write great literature or run the world's fourth largest industrial power.

'Ooh, I know this one!':
British spelling is in decline. What can be done?
The BBC's answer is Hard Spell,
a nationwide spelling test involving 100,000 children.
We, however, asked Vivian Cook, professor of applied linguistics,
to devise a test using 10 simple but problematic English words
- then put five people with a professional interest in spelling through it.
Stuart Jeffries introduces the results,
G,
18 November 2004,
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/nov/18/
bbc.schools

Mark Trail Comics Jack Elrod 22 / 23 February 2005

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mtrail/about.htm

Flash Gordon Comics

Jim Keefe

Created in 1934

by legendary comic-strip artist Alex Raymond

30 January 2005

http://www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/fgordon/about.htm

Voir aussi > Anglonautes >

Grammaire anglaise explicative - niveau avancé

doauxiliaire