There I can only say that you are right.
However, if people write archaically, as long as they copy their
examples well, the results we get from using that material won't be
spoiled.
We have to be wary of archaisms only in syntax, I think: usually,
words and spelling can be "archaised" without errors, but syntax can
never be "copied" without errors.
It's an interesting problem. Are there some notorious passages in the
mentioned corpus where people say it is archaic artificially? I admit
I never really studied this.
Regards
Herman
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.