Treespeak Battlewarden: The realm is overrun with hordes of vile creatures that must needs be put to the sword. Who here has the courage to stand against this blight which poisons our very livelihood?
The "that must needs be put" part! Double multiple verb word action commotion time point? Please wishfully give help me clarity palpability. Thanks appreciation.
Treespeak Battle Warden
Printable View
-
07-21-2011, 03:39 PMApplePieTreespeak Battle Warden
-
07-21-2011, 04:07 PMCidolphus
It's ye olde English. Chill the f-ck out.
-
07-21-2011, 05:23 PMCatapultNo, no it's not. Ye Olde English may have been more flexible on spellings and forms, but they still had a certain degree of grammar. Sentence structure should not make one's head spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cidolphus
-
07-21-2011, 10:45 PMViridiana
I can't be the only one that sees that as perfectly valid modern English. . .
I mean, sure, it's a bit eccentric and sounds like somthing I'd say at the height of my smart-assery, but that doesn't make it wrong. -
07-26-2011, 05:02 AMApplePie
The subject is plural, the first helping verb is plural, but the second verb used isn't plural and also is a helping verb in the sense of this sentence as well. Either remove needs and leave the infinitive form of "to be", or remove "be" and replace needs with the plural form, which still sounds awkward to me. The phrase is "needs must" and not "must needs" btw. If the localization team switches the ordering around, no problem, but until then, it is incorrect.
-
07-26-2011, 07:58 AMquantumsaint
"Must needs be" is correct English. It's archaic, but not incorrect.
-
07-26-2011, 11:10 AMViridianaQuote:
Originally Posted by ApplePie
I don't think there's anything in that post that isn't wrong. >_> -
07-26-2011, 11:55 AMEemeefu
*sounds ringside bell* Ding, ding, ding!
As duly pointed out by several olde English enthusiasts, this is an archaism, and an awesome one at that.
Nice fight gentlemen, but I think it's about time we must needs call this one! ;)