While I haven't been there, I know of it from Alan Furst's novels (which I recommend) -- he writes novels set before and during WWII and likes to often set them in places like Thessaloniki/Salonika in Greece and Trieste in Italy -- places which were on the border between two (or more) cultures and which lost a lot of their multicultural status due to the war.
>places like Thessaloniki/Salonika in Greece and Trieste in Italy -- places which were on the border between two (or more) cultures and which lost a lot of their multicultural status due to the war
It is contemporarily relevant to look at the euphemistic 'exchange of populations' during and after the Greco-Turkish War. Today it would be called 'ethnic cleansing'. In Anatolia itself, it took the form of genocide. The Turks had recently executed the Armenian and Assyrian (Sayfo) genocides.
Most vividly, it was covered by journalist Ernest Hemingway for the Toronto Star:
A Silent, Ghastly Procession Wends Its Way from Thrace (20 Oct 1922)
Refugee Procession is Scene of Horror (14 Nov 1922)
But he also put his experiences into fiction, especially "On The Quai At Smyrna", describing the tragic murderous evacuation of Greeks from (what is now) Izmir, Turkey.
You can find these works in many collections of his journalism and short stories (e.g. "Byline"). I am very glad his early work is now coming out of copyright (and the journalism in Canada too? - if someone has links to his original articles, please post them).
Here is an out-of-copyright paragraph of "In Our Time", which recollects the refugee columns passing through Thrace, to and from Salonika, in 1922:
English is a very beautiful language. There are many ways to say something similar, but each have slightly different meanings. In this case, the writer decided to use "flowery" language, which is usually to create a detailed picture, smell, and feeling for the reader. The point is not only to convey facts but to convey a sense of place. That is the reason for the complicated language.
For example, it says:
"A woman in her forties sits on a bench, fixing the shrine with her gaze."
This means that the woman sits on a bench looking at the shrine. But "fixing" it "with her gaze" means that she is staring at it with deep meaning and (possibly) reverence.
Exactly, and "fixing" in this sense means "nailing to the spot", or "fastening upon, halt, stop moving, be immobile like a fixed point or fixed price".
What it means. The most annoying about that quote is that it is a correct sentence, with one single trivial meaning. Easy right? Your favorite type of sentence. Well guess what, in the text it stands for a totally different thing (without any particular reason or benefit).
I much prefer GP's broken sentence. It is syntactically broken, but it has all the words, much better than if it was syntactically correct with an entirely different meaning than the intended one.
I legitimately would have to guess what they meant. The obvious reading to me is that she is magically repairing it by looking at it, though I would know that's not what they meant, which leaves brute force guessing.
You can say that someone is 'fixed on' something, which means to look doggedly, but 'fixing something' is totally different, who says that?
Subjective of course, but I just think it's a bad sentence.
Fixing one's gaze on something is a standard English expression, it's just the active form of to be fixed on, which is passive. It means, literally, that one's line of sight is 'fixed upon' something. One's mind can also be fixed upon something. The verb is to fix or to affix. 'Fixed to' simply means 'attached to', but 'fixed on' usually implies something lighter attached to a weightier, possibly vertical surface, or something attached by glue or paste. You can also say that a postage stamp is fixed on an envelope.
It's a great sentence if you understand the different things it is communicating compactly and efficiently.
People who watch US TV shows about the American South. Having lived there for awhile and still travel there for work today, I can say with some certainty that the folksy dialect that media gives to people of that region is either largely embellished or made-up. If we stay on the word "fix," I mostly hear it in context of someone making a meal ("Fixing breakfast," etc). The Appalachian regions are must more creative and cant-like with the language historically, but even that is being lost as the generations are exposed to more modern settings, I think. In my experience, the idioms used usually come down to the individual, which has more to do with how their sense of identity was cultivated, a concept that runs quite deep in the American South, but that is a much longer and more complex thread for another day, I reckon.
"("Fixing breakfast," etc)."
Yes, this makes sense, you can fix ('make', off the top of my head, only used in this sense for cooking really) breakfast, but surely the author doesn't mean the woman was materializing/cooking a shrine as a dish with her eyes either.
No, it’s “fix” in the sense of “fix in place” - to pin something to one spot. “I can’t move the table, it’s fixed in place.”
Her gaze is fixed upon - her gaze is fixing. Within her field of view, her deliberate staring at the shrine has fixed it in place. Her eyes are fixed in place, focused on the shrine.
Collins is a counterpoint, right? Well it is, as it doesn't know this phrase.
Thefreedictionary I don't now what that is. I'd be much more convinced if it cited examples from actual usage from books, articles, subtitles. Looks more machine generated to me than human work.
It has ~3 results. 1 talks about making something immovable with your gaze with a spell in a fantasy setting. The other 2 are in blogspam articles of German companies, one of them is also available in several other languages, presumably machine translated.
There are hits for other permutations such as ""fix them with your gaze", "fix me with your gaze", "fix her with your gaze" etc.
If you're claiming that this is "wrong" then I think that's disproven. I don't even know what the point of that exercise would be. Just finally accept it as an opportunity to learn a new turn of phrase. You don't have to even use it, just accept that others do. IDK what the gatekeeping is about.
If you still feel the need, then IDK, write a strongly worded letter about it to the editor of The Critic? It says "Britain's Most Civilised Magazine" on the home page. Have at it, present your credentials, see if you get anywhere.
Or if you don't want to engage with the piece on its own terms, then maybe it's not for you. Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that.
What do you expect me to "learn" in this context? I'm a native English speaker, there's nothing to learn here as far as I can see. No one has reported it to be a common phrase in any known dialect and the strongest defense for it is an entry in a community provided dictionary and some people misreading it as other phrases.
I have never said anything was "wrong", I said it was poor communication. Wrong is not a useful concept in language. But the whole point of language is to communicate with others and this sentence is clearly confusing to many people.
> What do you expect me to "learn" in this context?
I have now downgraded my expectations, learning is indeed optional.
> But the whole point of language is to communicate with others and this sentence is clearly confusing to many people.
Or - hear me out - maybe you're not in the target audience of this piece in "The Critic: Britain's Most Civilised Magazine". Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that. But you should at least be able to identify that it is a particular literate British tone, and know if that's your thing or not. If it is, then dig into the idioms. If it isn't then don't read it.
> I don't think this is a polite way to have a conversation, so I'm out.
Indeed, everything that I feel needs saying is already in this thread somewhere, including the 2nd para of that comment. Sometimes it's said more than once.
There's no more. You taking meaning from it is in now up to you; as I am not paid to teach, there are strict limits to the effort that I will put into it, especially when unwillingness is demonstrated and lived experience dismissed.
The construction wasn't "fixing her gaze on the shrine" (which would be correct), it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense. What the article says means either "she fastens the shrine into place using her eyes" or "she repairs the shrine with her eyes".
Indeed, the construction gives the feeling that the shrine itself might float away without her gaze, such is the intensity of her watching it. That is purposeful. It comes from the common phrase "she fixed him with her gaze" which means, not as much that her gaze was fixed on him, as that he froze when he saw her looking at him.
I think it was a conscious and valid choice to use this in relation to a static holy object in this context.
"fixing the shrine with her gaze" totally makes sense (I'm also a native speaker of English, that makes four) and is semantically equivalent to "fixing her gaze on the shrine", it merely chooses to emphasize "the shrine" as the object, rather than "her gaze". Clearly "fix" here means "attaching securely"(/"locking on to") not "repairing", that Collins citation already given above also defined "fix" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix
And adding the preposition "with" to get the preposition phrase "with her gaze" doesn't change the meaning: clearly the sentence is about her gaze being firmly on the shrine (not the shrine being firmly on her gaze).
> it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense.
Again, I disagree, it's a poetic construction, possibly a bit dated, and so the other commenter pointed out, probably more UK English than US English.
You don't have to be familiar with it. But there's a kind of closed-minded arrogance to reading such an otherwise well-written piece and concluding "is it me that doesn't know this particular turn of phrase? No, it must be nonsense!"
I mean the dictionaries don't now it, and google doesn't know it. Also what about your arrogance, just because you've heard it, it doesn't mean that it's correct. I've heard a lot of things that are considered broken English.
The irony of you accusing them of arrogance while you refuse to accept an English speaker’s description of how their own language is used - while commenting on an article about fascism and genocide and the erasure of culture - is just -
Collins and Cambridge don't know about it (despite Cambridge having one of the best and largest corpus of spoken and written English). Thefreedictionary I don't accept as reliable.
But it does use the word "fix" in the sense of "fasten upon, stop moving, make immobile" like a "fixed point" and not in the sense of "repair" or "make breakfast",
And does so in relation to "gaze" in the same sentence. How much more do you need - the rest seems nit-picking. Sentences aren't all fixed forms, they are creative combinations of words. (and as has been established, this form is not actually unique)
If you don't want to engage with the piece, then maybe it's not for you. Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that.
A dictionary doesn’t capture the entire language. In this thread there are native speakers saying that this is a well formed, meaningful English sentence. Therefore it is.
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not).
It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
a) it isn't - it might be archaic and poetic, but I don't view it as "regional"
> a regional dialect is also a form of broken English
Wrong! That's not how it works.
As the sibling comment says, what do you want? To understand the piece, improve your vocabulary or to tell the writer that they're Englishing wrong because "The Critic - Britain's Most Civilised Magazine", is using a turn of phrase that's not well known in your neck 'o the woods? I doubt that they care about that.
Well no, but I get tired of using the literary British voice after a while and I want to mix it up, demonstrate bending the rules, annoy the purists, épater le bourgeois, etc.
If you're trying to understand the original article I think you have enough information.
If you want to expand your understanding of English then you have some leads to follow and an opportunity to learn. If you don't believe them that's your choice, but it's not evidence to the contrary.
If you're trying to gate-keep and prescribe someone else's language, then you should at least respect if others don't want to join your argument.
(EDIT - Here's a past exam paper published by Cambridge that references such a phrase on page 16
I don't try to accomplish here anything. I expressed my opinion that I don't think that particular phrase is poetic, it is just broken without being poetic. Then people tried to prove that it is indeed an existing English idiom, which is usually very easy, they are in the dictionaries, in the books, in the articles, on the internet. Then they failed during this process, which made me more confident in my opinion.
> Then people tried to prove that it is indeed an existing English idiom ... Then they failed during this process, which made me more confident in my opinion.
This is a very arrogant statement.
...
> Okay, I can accept this.
LOL. And indeed LMAO.
This method is producing poor results for you, maybe re-evaluate it?
Whoa. I don't remeber an internet stranger making me _this_ angry in a while. IMO I made a perfectly valid argument overall, expressing my _unfamilirity_ with the usage, then meaningfully engaging with all the cited proofs, spending my time refuting them, then, when confronted with a good one, I concluded that I was indeed unfamiliar.
And after all this is over, the next day you come after me, lie, and shit talk me.
I guess the reason that you come after me is that you feel that here's an opportunity to shittalk someone. (Which you tenchically can, even tho all of your points are wrong, or straigt up lies.)
Have you ever wondered why do you feel the need to do this?
edit: omfg I don't have time for this. In your other comment you wrote
> ... arrogant ... entitled ... fixed mindset ... Whatever it is, it's best viewed at a distance, like car crash.
Can I ask you to take your own advice, and kindly fuck off? (Including not talking to me, and not shittalking me in other threads.)
Let's put this to bed once and for all. The sentence under discussion is:
> A woman in her forties sits on a bench, fixing the shrine with her gaze.
The construction in this sentence is perfectly standard in both British and American English, documented by reputable dictionaries, and in common usage across contexts from tabloids and young adult fantasy to newspapers of record and literary fiction.
Dictionaries: Several commenters have posted dictionary entries for related but distinct constructions like "fix a gaze on." Here are entries supporting the exact construction under discussion.
4. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fix#Verb, definition 1.1: "(Of a piercing look) to direct at someone." (note that definition 1, but not 1.1, is marked as obsolete)
- "He fixed me with a sickly grin, and said, 'I told you it wouldn't work!'"
- "She sniffed, too, comprehendingly, and fixed her son with a relentless eye."
- Footage shows the Government’s deputy chief whip Christopher Pincher fixing the Speaker with a firm stare before calling him a “bully” three times after he lectured Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom over procedure. (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8158041/government-whip-caught...)
- "Peskov was chatting over coffee here in Sochi with a few reporters, and he fixed them with a true-believer gaze as he described the Russia that will be revealed — especially to Americans viewing the world through Cold War-frosted glasses — as the flags are raised for the Opening Ceremonies on Feb. 7, 2014." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-expects-o...)
- After setting the tone for their set with explosive performances of "Brenden Lechner" and "Moldy Cannoli" while wrapping the mike around his neck like a young Iggy Pop while fixing the crowd with a confrontational blank stare, Robbie Pfeffer announced, "We are Playboy Manbaby. Not to be confused with the drum circle." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/03/2...)
Thank you, I respect the effort put into this. The free time and skills that I did not have.
I'm at this point more interested the Psychology of the readers who insisted "I don't know the phrase, and drew a blank, therefor it's wrong, broken, bad writing, how dare they not write for me". And refuse to listen to the contrary, indeed "refute" it (hah).
It's something - entitled? Arrogant? Leaning into ignorance? Fixed mindset? Whatever it is, it's best viewed at a distance, like car crash.
> I'm at this more interested the Psychology of the readers
Sure.
In my head it looked like this:
"I don't think this is an idiom" (meaning that either it is not an idiom or I am unfamiliar)
"I am an authority on English, and it is an idiom"
"Nah."
"Here are the dictionaries"
"It is not in the dictionaries"
"Google it"
"That's lazy, but sure. It is not on the internet"
"Here, it is in a pdf used in education"
"Fine"
I don't think that I am the arrogant or entitled one here. Also I don't understand why are you coming after me after this concluded. This, and your other comment. I very much don't like it.
Kinda like how I understood what you meant here ("absolutely devoid of context") in spite of your error ("derived of context"). Sometimes we need to make an effort to understand.
I wouldn't make you feel bad by saying "that's a broken sentence! I can't understand it!"
While I haven't been there, I know of it from Alan Furst's novels (which I recommend) -- he writes novels set before and during WWII and likes to often set them in places like Thessaloniki/Salonika in Greece and Trieste in Italy -- places which were on the border between two (or more) cultures and which lost a lot of their multicultural status due to the war.
>places like Thessaloniki/Salonika in Greece and Trieste in Italy -- places which were on the border between two (or more) cultures and which lost a lot of their multicultural status due to the war
"European borders aren't drawn along ethnic lines, the ethnic lines are drawn along the borders." —/u/sora_mui, two days ago <https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1j86d8i/the_balkani...>
It is contemporarily relevant to look at the euphemistic 'exchange of populations' during and after the Greco-Turkish War. Today it would be called 'ethnic cleansing'. In Anatolia itself, it took the form of genocide. The Turks had recently executed the Armenian and Assyrian (Sayfo) genocides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Gr...
Most vividly, it was covered by journalist Ernest Hemingway for the Toronto Star:
But he also put his experiences into fiction, especially "On The Quai At Smyrna", describing the tragic murderous evacuation of Greeks from (what is now) Izmir, Turkey.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Quai_at_Smyrna
Some telling quotes here:
https://www.neomagazine.com/2022/04/on-the-quay-at-smyrna-er...
You can find these works in many collections of his journalism and short stories (e.g. "Byline"). I am very glad his early work is now coming out of copyright (and the journalism in Canada too? - if someone has links to his original articles, please post them).
Here is an out-of-copyright paragraph of "In Our Time", which recollects the refugee columns passing through Thrace, to and from Salonika, in 1922:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61085/pg61085-images.ht...
There are similar scenes in our world today. Not being played out today, but really happening.
Why dont they use the simple english to understand?
English is a very beautiful language. There are many ways to say something similar, but each have slightly different meanings. In this case, the writer decided to use "flowery" language, which is usually to create a detailed picture, smell, and feeling for the reader. The point is not only to convey facts but to convey a sense of place. That is the reason for the complicated language.
For example, it says: "A woman in her forties sits on a bench, fixing the shrine with her gaze."
This means that the woman sits on a bench looking at the shrine. But "fixing" it "with her gaze" means that she is staring at it with deep meaning and (possibly) reverence.
To me that says her gaze is fixing the shrine.
Exactly, and "fixing" in this sense means "nailing to the spot", or "fastening upon, halt, stop moving, be immobile like a fixed point or fixed price".
It's a poetic expression.
What meaning do you infer from what it says?
What it means. The most annoying about that quote is that it is a correct sentence, with one single trivial meaning. Easy right? Your favorite type of sentence. Well guess what, in the text it stands for a totally different thing (without any particular reason or benefit).
I much prefer GP's broken sentence. It is syntactically broken, but it has all the words, much better than if it was syntactically correct with an entirely different meaning than the intended one.
Depends on the correct spelling of gaze.
I legitimately would have to guess what they meant. The obvious reading to me is that she is magically repairing it by looking at it, though I would know that's not what they meant, which leaves brute force guessing.
You can say that someone is 'fixed on' something, which means to look doggedly, but 'fixing something' is totally different, who says that?
Subjective of course, but I just think it's a bad sentence.
Fixing one's gaze on something is a standard English expression, it's just the active form of to be fixed on, which is passive. It means, literally, that one's line of sight is 'fixed upon' something. One's mind can also be fixed upon something. The verb is to fix or to affix. 'Fixed to' simply means 'attached to', but 'fixed on' usually implies something lighter attached to a weightier, possibly vertical surface, or something attached by glue or paste. You can also say that a postage stamp is fixed on an envelope.
It's a great sentence if you understand the different things it is communicating compactly and efficiently.
"fix one's gaze on" is not the construction used in the article.
> who says that?
People who watch US TV shows about the American South. Having lived there for awhile and still travel there for work today, I can say with some certainty that the folksy dialect that media gives to people of that region is either largely embellished or made-up. If we stay on the word "fix," I mostly hear it in context of someone making a meal ("Fixing breakfast," etc). The Appalachian regions are must more creative and cant-like with the language historically, but even that is being lost as the generations are exposed to more modern settings, I think. In my experience, the idioms used usually come down to the individual, which has more to do with how their sense of identity was cultivated, a concept that runs quite deep in the American South, but that is a much longer and more complex thread for another day, I reckon.
"("Fixing breakfast," etc)." Yes, this makes sense, you can fix ('make', off the top of my head, only used in this sense for cooking really) breakfast, but surely the author doesn't mean the woman was materializing/cooking a shrine as a dish with her eyes either.
No, it’s “fix” in the sense of “fix in place” - to pin something to one spot. “I can’t move the table, it’s fixed in place.”
Her gaze is fixed upon - her gaze is fixing. Within her field of view, her deliberate staring at the shrine has fixed it in place. Her eyes are fixed in place, focused on the shrine.
‘In place’ is implied by the context.
In Texas we’d say things like “I’m fixing to go over yonder.” Meaning “I’m about to go over there.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fix:
to direct one's attention or efforts : FOCUS
also : DECIDE, SETTLE —usually used with on
had fixed on the first Saturday in June
All eyes fixed on her as she entered the room.
Yes, exactly: 'Fixed ON', the eyes are "fixed", it's completely different grammar.
The example uses on, but the entry says usually used with on. That leaves open images that do not use on.
> Subjective of course, but I just think it's a bad sentence.
IDK, you could just look up the idiom that you are unfamiliar with? So that next time you come across it, you are better informed.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/fix+his+with+a+gaze
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix-a-g...
Collins is a counterpoint, right? Well it is, as it doesn't know this phrase.
Thefreedictionary I don't now what that is. I'd be much more convinced if it cited examples from actual usage from books, articles, subtitles. Looks more machine generated to me than human work.
If you want cites google "fix him with your gaze" or "fix it with your gaze" - including the quotes.
It has ~3 results. 1 talks about making something immovable with your gaze with a spell in a fantasy setting. The other 2 are in blogspam articles of German companies, one of them is also available in several other languages, presumably machine translated.
There are hits for other permutations such as ""fix them with your gaze", "fix me with your gaze", "fix her with your gaze" etc.
If you're claiming that this is "wrong" then I think that's disproven. I don't even know what the point of that exercise would be. Just finally accept it as an opportunity to learn a new turn of phrase. You don't have to even use it, just accept that others do. IDK what the gatekeeping is about.
If you still feel the need, then IDK, write a strongly worded letter about it to the editor of The Critic? It says "Britain's Most Civilised Magazine" on the home page. Have at it, present your credentials, see if you get anywhere.
Or if you don't want to engage with the piece on its own terms, then maybe it's not for you. Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that.
The Collins example is not the same thing; you're fixing your gaze, not fixing the object itself. Again, the grammar just isn't the same.
I have seen this construction before; I'm sorry if you have not. But that does not make it "broken".
"I have seen this construction before" is not a very high bar for communicating well.
"I have not seen this construction before, therefor it must be wrong"
Is a way to raise barriers to your own learning.
What do you expect me to "learn" in this context? I'm a native English speaker, there's nothing to learn here as far as I can see. No one has reported it to be a common phrase in any known dialect and the strongest defense for it is an entry in a community provided dictionary and some people misreading it as other phrases.
I have never said anything was "wrong", I said it was poor communication. Wrong is not a useful concept in language. But the whole point of language is to communicate with others and this sentence is clearly confusing to many people.
> What do you expect me to "learn" in this context?
I have now downgraded my expectations, learning is indeed optional.
> But the whole point of language is to communicate with others and this sentence is clearly confusing to many people.
Or - hear me out - maybe you're not in the target audience of this piece in "The Critic: Britain's Most Civilised Magazine". Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that. But you should at least be able to identify that it is a particular literate British tone, and know if that's your thing or not. If it is, then dig into the idioms. If it isn't then don't read it.
"I have now downgraded my expectations, learning is indeed optional."
So I ask you a question and you then don't answer it but instead just reply with sarcasm?
I don't think this is a polite way to have a conversation, so I'm out.
> I don't think this is a polite way to have a conversation, so I'm out.
Indeed, everything that I feel needs saying is already in this thread somewhere, including the 2nd para of that comment. Sometimes it's said more than once.
There's no more. You taking meaning from it is in now up to you; as I am not paid to teach, there are strict limits to the effort that I will put into it, especially when unwillingness is demonstrated and lived experience dismissed.
I wonder whether you have ever encountered poetry before.
> For example, it says: "A woman in her forties sits on a bench, fixing the shrine with her gaze."
This particular example I don't think is poetic rather it is broken.
> I don't think is poetic rather it is broken.
No, it is not. You are merely unfamiliar with this sentence construction.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix-a-g...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/fix-one-s-gaze
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/fix+his+with+a+gaze
The construction wasn't "fixing her gaze on the shrine" (which would be correct), it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense. What the article says means either "she fastens the shrine into place using her eyes" or "she repairs the shrine with her eyes".
Indeed, the construction gives the feeling that the shrine itself might float away without her gaze, such is the intensity of her watching it. That is purposeful. It comes from the common phrase "she fixed him with her gaze" which means, not as much that her gaze was fixed on him, as that he froze when he saw her looking at him.
I think it was a conscious and valid choice to use this in relation to a static holy object in this context.
"fixing the shrine with her gaze" totally makes sense (I'm also a native speaker of English, that makes four) and is semantically equivalent to "fixing her gaze on the shrine", it merely chooses to emphasize "the shrine" as the object, rather than "her gaze". Clearly "fix" here means "attaching securely"(/"locking on to") not "repairing", that Collins citation already given above also defined "fix" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix
And adding the preposition "with" to get the preposition phrase "with her gaze" doesn't change the meaning: clearly the sentence is about her gaze being firmly on the shrine (not the shrine being firmly on her gaze).
> it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense.
Again, I disagree, it's a poetic construction, possibly a bit dated, and so the other commenter pointed out, probably more UK English than US English.
You don't have to be familiar with it. But there's a kind of closed-minded arrogance to reading such an otherwise well-written piece and concluding "is it me that doesn't know this particular turn of phrase? No, it must be nonsense!"
I mean the dictionaries don't now it, and google doesn't know it. Also what about your arrogance, just because you've heard it, it doesn't mean that it's correct. I've heard a lot of things that are considered broken English.
The irony of you accusing them of arrogance while you refuse to accept an English speaker’s description of how their own language is used - while commenting on an article about fascism and genocide and the erasure of culture - is just -
What do you hope to accomplish here?
Only if one is determined to be stubbornly pedantic about it! That would make no sense, so the poetic sense is obviously the one intended.
Collins and Cambridge don't know about it (despite Cambridge having one of the best and largest corpus of spoken and written English). Thefreedictionary I don't accept as reliable.
Seems like this proves my point tbh.
GP post cites Collins defining "fix a gaze on"! https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix-a-g...
Yes Collins knows about it.
Even this lesser-known site knows about it: https://texttospeech.io/thesaurus/gaze
> Definition of gaze: (n): a long fixed look; "he fixed his paternal gaze on me"
We are talking about 'fixing smth with a gaze' and not 'fixing gaze on smth'. The verb, the object and the subject are different.
But it does use the word "fix" in the sense of "fasten upon, stop moving, make immobile" like a "fixed point" and not in the sense of "repair" or "make breakfast",
And does so in relation to "gaze" in the same sentence. How much more do you need - the rest seems nit-picking. Sentences aren't all fixed forms, they are creative combinations of words. (and as has been established, this form is not actually unique)
If you don't want to engage with the piece, then maybe it's not for you. Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that.
A dictionary doesn’t capture the entire language. In this thread there are native speakers saying that this is a well formed, meaningful English sentence. Therefore it is.
Are there? Where? Point at one? Two?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351605
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351500
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43351604
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not).
It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
Yes, I am a native UK English speaker.
> It might be a regional dialect,
a) it isn't - it might be archaic and poetic, but I don't view it as "regional"
> a regional dialect is also a form of broken English
Wrong! That's not how it works.
As the sibling comment says, what do you want? To understand the piece, improve your vocabulary or to tell the writer that they're Englishing wrong because "The Critic - Britain's Most Civilised Magazine", is using a turn of phrase that's not well known in your neck 'o the woods? I doubt that they care about that.
Excuse me, do you have a license for that gerund?
Well no, but I get tired of using the literary British voice after a while and I want to mix it up, demonstrate bending the rules, annoy the purists, épater le bourgeois, etc.
Thank you, that reason is on the list of allowable exceptions.
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
If you're trying to understand the original article I think you have enough information.
If you want to expand your understanding of English then you have some leads to follow and an opportunity to learn. If you don't believe them that's your choice, but it's not evidence to the contrary.
If you're trying to gate-keep and prescribe someone else's language, then you should at least respect if others don't want to join your argument.
(EDIT - Here's a past exam paper published by Cambridge that references such a phrase on page 16
https://pastpapers.co/cie/O-Level/English-Language-1123/2019... )
I don't try to accomplish here anything. I expressed my opinion that I don't think that particular phrase is poetic, it is just broken without being poetic. Then people tried to prove that it is indeed an existing English idiom, which is usually very easy, they are in the dictionaries, in the books, in the articles, on the internet. Then they failed during this process, which made me more confident in my opinion.
> https://pastpapers.co/cie/O-Level/English-Language-1123/2019...
Okay, I can accept this.
> Then people tried to prove that it is indeed an existing English idiom ... Then they failed during this process, which made me more confident in my opinion.
This is a very arrogant statement.
...
> Okay, I can accept this.
LOL. And indeed LMAO.
This method is producing poor results for you, maybe re-evaluate it?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43358412
Whoa. I don't remeber an internet stranger making me _this_ angry in a while. IMO I made a perfectly valid argument overall, expressing my _unfamilirity_ with the usage, then meaningfully engaging with all the cited proofs, spending my time refuting them, then, when confronted with a good one, I concluded that I was indeed unfamiliar.
And after all this is over, the next day you come after me, lie, and shit talk me.
Now I am incredibly angry. Wow.
So to sum up: You are unable to admit fault, are bad at regulating emotions, and are projecting.
I guess the reason that you come after me is that you feel that here's an opportunity to shittalk someone. (Which you tenchically can, even tho all of your points are wrong, or straigt up lies.)
Have you ever wondered why do you feel the need to do this?
edit: omfg I don't have time for this. In your other comment you wrote
> ... arrogant ... entitled ... fixed mindset ... Whatever it is, it's best viewed at a distance, like car crash.
Can I ask you to take your own advice, and kindly fuck off? (Including not talking to me, and not shittalking me in other threads.)
> Can I ask you to take your own advice, and kindly fuck off?
Certainly, have a nice day!
(part 1/3)
Let's put this to bed once and for all. The sentence under discussion is:
> A woman in her forties sits on a bench, fixing the shrine with her gaze.
The construction in this sentence is perfectly standard in both British and American English, documented by reputable dictionaries, and in common usage across contexts from tabloids and young adult fantasy to newspapers of record and literary fiction.
Dictionaries: Several commenters have posted dictionary entries for related but distinct constructions like "fix a gaze on." Here are entries supporting the exact construction under discussion.
1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fix-with
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fix%20(someone)%2...
3. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix, definition 9: "If you fix someone with a particular kind of expression, you look at them in that way."
- "He took her hand and fixed her with a look of deep concern. [VERB noun with noun]"
- "He fixed me with a lopsided grin. [VERB noun with noun]"
examples from other Collins entries:
- "The man fixed his interrogator with a steady gaze and spoke quietly but firmly." (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/sentences/english/gaze)
- "He pulls his other hand towards his face and fixes me with an intense gaze that has been well practised." (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/inte...)
4. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fix#Verb, definition 1.1: "(Of a piercing look) to direct at someone." (note that definition 1, but not 1.1, is marked as obsolete)
- "He fixed me with a sickly grin, and said, 'I told you it wouldn't work!'"
- "She sniffed, too, comprehendingly, and fixed her son with a relentless eye."
5. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis..., idioms: "fix somebody with a look, stare, gaze, etc.: to look directly at somebody for a long time"
- "He fixed her with an angry stare."
6. Examples from other dictionaries exhibiting the construction:
- "To glare is to fix another with a hard, piercing stare" (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=gaze)
- "Aron Nimzowitsch, a contemporary of Alekhine’s, would smoke a noxious cigar and fix his opponent with a dread stare." (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nimzowitsch)
(part 3/3)
Examples from British newspapers:
The Times
- She fixed me with a beady gaze, allowed a dramatic pause, then replied slowly and carefully: “I’m afraid I think I do”. (https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-s...)
- Pairs of stretching lions fix you with a goggling gaze, licking their lips and unsheathing their shining claws. (https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/englands-embr...)
- Neil Armstrong fixed her with a steady gaze. (https://www.thetimes.com/article/a-robot-from-the-dark-side-...)
Metro
- She fixes him with a lustful, narrow-eyed stare as they move together. (https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/15/bridgerton-fans-can-make-mirr...)
- My GP fixed me with a steely stare as she uttered the worst sentence imaginable: ‘Have you tried running?’ (https://metro.co.uk/2024/02/15/doctor-prescribed-running-dep...)
- Any time I attempted to say anything complimentary to Lemmy to his face, he would fix me with a kind of amused, contemptuous stare. (https://metro.co.uk/2016/01/01/queens-brian-may-calls-lemmy-...)
Daily Mail
- She would fix me with a regal stare and say, "Do I look all right?" (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1231133/How-fines...)
- The catwalk queen fixed the camera with a sultry gaze as she sipped her drink (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5059909/Kate-M...)
- All the while he fixes me with a similarly powerful gaze, which makes me rather nervous. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-97398/Why-celebri...)
The Sun
- Footage shows the Government’s deputy chief whip Christopher Pincher fixing the Speaker with a firm stare before calling him a “bully” three times after he lectured Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom over procedure. (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8158041/government-whip-caught...)
- Tyra Banks fixes the camera with a sultry gaze in modelling snap (https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3878793/americas-got-t...)
- FLAME-haired model Emily Deyt-Aysage shows her mettle by fixing the camera with a steely gaze. (https://iframe.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/29013053/emily-deyt...)
Examples from books:
- Tenga fixed him with a pointed gaze, as if the question made him doubt Eragon's intelligence. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Brisingr_Or_The_Seven_P...)
- She sounded slightly strangled until she paused to clear her throat, then fixed him with a steady, determined gaze. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lord_of_Chaos/owkKhVCq6...)
- She fixed him with a serious gaze. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Pawnbroker/11WUYsOt...)
(part 2/3)
Examples from American newspapers:
New York Times
- He fixed me with a hard gaze and said: "I just gave you a $5,000 raise. Now tell me what happened." (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/opinion/12friedman.html)
- She fixed him with a steely gaze and finished him off with a single line: "You, sir, are a cad." (https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/13/magazine/about-men-unhand...)
- Ms. Smith fixed him with a stony gaze. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/health/navajo-children-cu...)
Washington Post
- "Another student fixed his sweatsuit with a stinging gaze." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/27/...)
- "She fixed her interviewer with a direct gaze and rejected the idea that she is pursuing policies that are detrimental to public safety." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/26/rachael-rol...)
- "Peskov was chatting over coffee here in Sochi with a few reporters, and he fixed them with a true-believer gaze as he described the Russia that will be revealed — especially to Americans viewing the world through Cold War-frosted glasses — as the flags are raised for the Opening Ceremonies on Feb. 7, 2014." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-expects-o...)
Wall Street Journal
- In an early scene in "To Have and Have Not" she fixed Mr. Bogart with a smoldering gaze that became known as "the Look." (https://www.wsj.com/articles/lauren-bacall-dies-at-age-89-14...)
- As he fixes the camera with a steady gaze, you can see the magnetic mystic he must have been. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303325204579465...)
- The King fixed me with a serious look. (https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-american-ninja-warrior-the-f...)
USA Today
- She fixed me with a hard look and shot back with a slap at (Geraldine) Ferraro. (in a quote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/columnists/rochelle-rile...)
- In the middle of dialogue, he turned, fixed them with a square stare and said, “Now pay attention to the play.” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/15/nh-e...)
- After setting the tone for their set with explosive performances of "Brenden Lechner" and "Moldy Cannoli" while wrapping the mike around his neck like a young Iggy Pop while fixing the crowd with a confrontational blank stare, Robbie Pfeffer announced, "We are Playboy Manbaby. Not to be confused with the drum circle." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/03/2...)
Thank you, I respect the effort put into this. The free time and skills that I did not have.
I'm at this point more interested the Psychology of the readers who insisted "I don't know the phrase, and drew a blank, therefor it's wrong, broken, bad writing, how dare they not write for me". And refuse to listen to the contrary, indeed "refute" it (hah).
It's something - entitled? Arrogant? Leaning into ignorance? Fixed mindset? Whatever it is, it's best viewed at a distance, like car crash.
> I'm at this more interested the Psychology of the readers
Sure.
In my head it looked like this:
I don't think that I am the arrogant or entitled one here. Also I don't understand why are you coming after me after this concluded. This, and your other comment. I very much don't like it.At least in British English it’s perfectly fine. A bit poetic, but not an obscure construction.
edit — NB This is a British English publication. This is an American English default site.
It is not an informative article, it's a piece designed to convey emotions and sentiments so readers are more willing to embrace author's view.
There seems to be an agenda there.
If you check wikipedia at least, the muslim-christian population exchange between Greece and Turkey wasn't quite like the article describes it.
The facts may be somewhere in the middle, but certainly not in this article.
FWIW The Critic is associated with the British conservative movement so there is definitely a leaning to the political right
(This is a comment on the magazine that published TFA, not TFA itself)
Could you describe how the muslim-christian population exchange actually happened?
What is the agenda of this piece?
I've pointed you to wikipedia. I'm no historian (trustable or not) so you'll have to document yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Also there is a top level post with a bunch of references now.
I'm still mystified about the agenda of the piece? I'm not implying that it has one or doesn't have one, I'm keen to know what agenda you saw in it.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
Not all writing needs to be as dry as a technical bulletin.
That’s how you do a proper propaganda piece, you write an emotional article that is mostly correct and insert subtle nudges to your actual topic :)
Here you go: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessaloniki
That's a broken sentence.
Broken seems a bit harsh. It might not be idiomatic, it might fall foul of some grammatical standard. But you know what it means.
No, I do not! It is absolutely derived of context.
Kinda like how I understood what you meant here ("absolutely devoid of context") in spite of your error ("derived of context"). Sometimes we need to make an effort to understand.
I wouldn't make you feel bad by saying "that's a broken sentence! I can't understand it!"
Be glad it's not Pidgin.