CHURCHILL'S SPEECH

Hi,

Here’s an excerpt

This then, my lords and gentlemen, is the message which we send forth today to all states and nations, bound or free, to all the men in all the lands who care for freedom's cause.
To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right.

Please could you paraphrase this – I’ve looked through all 30 meanings of “draw” and I can’t choose which would fit.

drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/410612bwp.html

Thanks

"getting nearer / from across the ocean / with all their power"

OK, thank you, Clarke.
Now I'd like to clarify the "ever".

Why use the singular in the thread title?

Churchill is renowned for making a number of well documented historic speeches during WW2 all the way from the:

"Never was so much owed by so many to so few" following the heroic Battle of Britain in 1940 which in turn followed on from his stirring: "We will fight them on the beaches, on the streets and on the hillsides - we will never surrender!" to his memorable words towards the end of WW2:

"An Iron Curtain is coming down across Europe" with the advent of Communist control in Eastern European countries dominated by Soviet Russia.

It was Churchill who coined the phrase "iron curtain" in that context - the imaginary division between a Free Market liberty and a State centrally controlled form of tyranny across a Continent that lasted for well over forty years. The Berlin Wall of course was the material and actual concrete proof of this, not to mention the thousands of miles of an armed barbed wire topped frontier cum barrier between West and East Europe....the tangible sign of Churchill's Iron Curtain, now happily long since demolished in our new Europa.

And now, Damian, a couple of words on the "ever', if you will.

"Ever" there emphasises the "drawing closer" and adds a sense that the approach is unremitting and ceaseless.

"Always" would have the same effect.

"Always" wouldn't have quite the same nuance of meaning as "ever".

With "ever" the speaker is suggesting that, in a process prior to and ending in the expected arrival, there will be a limited interlude of this drawing near, however formidable and unstoppable it may be for the present ; whereas "always" could convey that there was a frequentative, or even a perpetual element.

"Ever" holds the specific promise of imminent arrival by increments, in a way that "always" cannot.

That is the genius of Churchill, and of English.

Did Churchill write his own speeches? No "emotional" responses allowed. Cold hard facts.

<whereas "always" could convey that there was a frequentative, or even a perpetual element. "Ever" holds the specific promise of imminent arrival by increments, in a way that "always" cannot. >

While "always" does have the meaning you suggest, it can also be used in the incremental sense:

<We proceeded in the dark, getting always closer to the enemy>

In our example, the context would make it quite clear:

<drawing ever/always closer in their might across the ocean>

It's true what you say about the context, Clarke. It's just that "ever" seems to home in on the sense and style of what is approaching and how.

"Always" - also-ran.

It may be that while the kind of approach remains the same in both cases, i.e. continuous and unremitting, "ever" injects more apprehension, tension, or excitement. So

<drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean>

heightens the emotional aspects of the approach, while

<drawing always closer in their might across the ocean>

gives a calmer impression.

And I would suggest that your calming effect of "always" was induced by a memory in the listener's mind telling him that "always" sometimes draws in a sense of frequentative activity and perpetuity.

In the context of Churchill's speech, "ever" quivers expectantly.

But "always" dances faithlessly around the message. It nags us with a sneaking suspicion as to its actual intentions. Why, it's much like the French, really :

behind their savoir-faire
They share
A common contempt for every mother's son of us.

---

THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT THE FRENCH
(from 'Conversation Piece' by Noël Coward)

--Verse 1--

SOPHIE:
A life of love is curious
But not injurious
If you are wise.

MARTHA:
For you get pleasure,
Leisure,
Knowledge to treasure
After the gay life dies;

SOPHIE:
Though men we seldom bind to us
They're often kind to us,

MARTHA:
And entre nous
English Gentlemen,
Spanish Noblemen,
Indian merchantmen too,
Always play the game,
Never cause us shame.

--Refrain 1--

BOTH:
But there's always something fishy about the French!
Whether Prince or Politician
We've a sinister suspicion
That behind their savoir-faire
They share
A common contempt
For every mother's son of us.
Though they smile and smirk
We know they're out for dirty work,
We're most polite
but don't put out the night-light!
Every wise and thoroughly worldly wench
Knows there's always something fishy about the French!

--Refrain 2--

BOTH:
Oh, there's always something fishy about the French!
As a race, they're conscientious
But undoubtedly licentious,
Though the compliments they pay
Are gay
And ever so nice,
We don't believe a word of them,
They may kiss our hands
And talk to us of foreign lands,
We 'Toi' and 'Moi'
And watch for 'Je ne sais quoi' -
Every time their fingers begin to clench -
Well, we know there's something fishy about the French!

.oOo.

Great job, Clarke and Quintus.
Many thanks.

<But "always" dances faithlessly around the message. It nags us with a sneaking suspicion as to its actual intentions. >

It just sounds more confident, Q.

If Churchill had written "always", you would now be praising his resolute avoidance of that flighty, excitable, melodramatic "ever".

Very likely, Clarke, very likely.
#:P