Yeah, no, I’ll take a peg-nose instead.
I think I’d rather just do what Brahe did and wear a prosthesis, look at the stars and get drunk and fornicate all day on my island with my friends.
This same technique (somewhat refined) was used into the 1930s to treat facial injuries from much worse than swords & syphilis–artillery, machine guns and mustard gas: https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww#hl=en&q=tubed+pedicle
See famous astronomer Tycho Brahe, of that time period, who lost his nose but went with a prosthesis instead.
Love the way she emphasises the location in ‘remember, this was sixteenth century Europe’, as if the cosmetic surgeons of sixteenth century continental America would have McCoyly snorted in derision at the primitive techniques. Bless her cotton socks.
The alternative would probably be 16th century India, as in Susrutha’s method - 16th century BCE, that is…
Yeah, you’d still probably die of sepsis if they weren’t too careful, you’d be spared weeks of going around with your arm tied to your nose!
Because obviously the intention was to compare Europe to Continental/Colonial America, rather than to emphasize the Europe of the 16th century as compared to the Europe of a later date!
By the way, there was no Continental/Colonial America in the 16th Century. Virginia Colony was founded in 1607. Unless you want to count the various failed colonies started by Spain, France, Russia, and others. Or maybe you think the author was referring to the medicinal skills of First Nations/Native Americans?
If a speaker emphasises place in a sentence containing both place and time, it is not unreasonable for the one addressed to assume an intent to contrast place and not time, notwithstanding your subtle attempt to cast doubt on this with sarcastic emphasis. Similarly, the default assumption for a listener - in the absence of further information from the sentence in question - is that the places being contrasted are locations of equivalent weight, the there (i.e. continental Europe, where the speaker is not) and the here (i.e. continental America, where the speaker is). The precise civil organisation of the inhabitants of the ‘here’ does not figure under such a drought of content. That’s just how English works. I’m sorry my silly remark offended you, but you absolutely over-reacted to it.
Oh, I wasn’t offended. Sarcastic, sure, but not offended. 
I personally disagree with your argumentation, citing the fact that language is often constructed superfluously, and that meaning is meant to be culled from context more than form, but I think we’re both firmly entrenched on opposite sides of the fence on this one.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
