U
SIR,—I think Strix (who, like myself, is one of the joint authors of the recently published book on the U-question, Noblesse Oblige) has, at p. 85, been unkind to me, for he there sug- gests that my cherished abbreviation, U, is itself non-U. So I must point out that my original article in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, which inaugurated the recent study of the subject, was a technical philological one and that it is the universal habit of philologists to abbreviate (if possible to a single letter) the names of the languages and dialects to which they refer (this is necessary in order to save space). I think, therefore, that my abbreviation. U, is, in itself, no more non-U (and no more U) than are our customary philological abbrevia- tions (such as OE meaning Anglo-Saxon, or BF meaning itiinterensuomalaitten).—Yours faithfully,
ALAN S. C. ROSS The University, Edmund Street, Birmingham, .5
Previous page
