Misused: Antiquated Linguistics

Before anything can be done about the most controversial aspect of this page (the thoroughness of the Self-Demonstrating Article conceit), I think we have to face an even broader question: what the heck is this trope actually about? Is it for:

• Works set between 1850 and 1930 that inexplicably and anachronistically use 18th-century English? (That's what the trope description makes it out to be, if one endeavours to parſe the veritable Moraſs of textuall Explication contain'd therein.)

• Any post-18th-century work that uses 18th-century English? (That's what most of the examples seem to assume.)

• Works that use a Theme Park Version of Victorian English? (That's what the Artistic License – Linguistics page claims, and a few of the examples seem to support this reading. But if so, what does this theme-park language actually sound like? Surely it can't be identical to the strict 18th-century Georgian English pastiche in which the trope description is written?)

It looks to me as if we could solve this problem by splitting the trope in two, with one trope for the Theme Park Version of Georgian English (1700s) and another for that of Victorian English (1800s). This would be nicely consistent with similar tropes such as Flowery Elizabethan English (for the Renaissance) and Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe (for the Middle Ages).

While we're at it, we might also consider establishing a supertrope for all these theme-park Englishes, since they all have something huge in common: a creator using one variety or another of antiquated language for stylistic reasons. If so, perhaps that supertrope is the one that best fits the title "Antiquated Linguistics."

edited 4th Jan '16 9:06:30 AM by tropesinreadiness

99% of tropers do not understand the difference between those two eras. Locking this.

edited 4th Jan '16 9:09:09 AM by shimaspawn