mpt, you must tell us what you think the correct English word would be to describe something that cannot be reddened!

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the phrase comes from the fact that you have prearranged for the tickets to be held for you (usually so you can get guaranteed good seating) and you "will call" for them at the booth when you get there.

"Call" in this case does not mean the phone call you make to arrange the tickets to be held for you, or a shout to the fellow on duty, but something like what's meant in the phrase "a social call" (i.e. visit).

I somewhat self-consciously pronounce "oral" with a sound that tends toward a long O, and "aural" with a sound that tends toward AW. But I am aware of making a special effort in this respect.

I understand the difference is purely one of dialect. It is no less correct to pronounce the words differently than it is to pronounce them identically.

I'm not making myself clear. What I mean is that in modern times words are no longer formed by adding "be-" to them.

Yes, that's right... "benighted," "besieged," "bewitched," and "belabored" are all examples of words that you can't remove the "be-" prefix from.

But the "be-" prefix is no longer used, except facetiously (just for fun).

Goossun, "martyred" is sufficient in this case.

The use of "be-" as a prefix is obsolete--though many words that use it (bedaubed, besprinkled, etc.) still survive. In most cases the word also exists without the "be-" prefix, so it's also correct in the two cases just mentioned to say "daubed" or "sprinkled." For example:

"The child's smock was bedaubed (or daubed)with finger paints."
"The cupcakes were besprinkled (or sprinkled) with colored sugar."

From http://www.takeourword.com/TOW131/page2.html we have this:

"The word was initially (1878) 'geestring,' and it referred to what amounted to a loincloth held up by a string and worn by certain Indians. Most etymologists think that 'geestringi' was probably originally an Indian word which was adopted in a form that was more familiar to English tongues.... It was shortened to 'g-string,' possibly by contamination from the notion of stringed instruments like guitars and violins, by 1891, at which time we find this interesting quotation in Harper's Magazine: 'Some of the boys wore only "G-strings" (as, for some reason, the breech-clout is commonly called on the prairie).' This suggests that the word may have been of Sioux or other Plains Indian origin."

But.... Ummm... I don't know. That sounds pretty darn silly to me. A linguist could tell you if the consonant sound "-str-" is common in the Sioux language or any Plains Indian language. I'm skeptical.

I was once told that the G stood for "genital" (as in "the genital organs"), because that is all it covers. Of course this is unattested (no evidence to support it) and I can't say yes or no on it.

The best that The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed., via Dictionary.com) can do is to throw up its hands and declare "Origin unknown."

It's not strictly "correct," but I LOVE IT. KEEP IT. OR I WILL BE UPSET. :)

It is perfectly clear and easy to understand. It does not strike me as illiterate or ignorant at all. It is reminiscent of the unrelated word "irredeemable."

Actually I am not sure what the correct word would be! You can "redden" something (and then it "has been reddened"). I think most native English speakers would tend to use the "un-" prefix because it is usually seen as the default. So "unreddenable."

But let me say this again... your title is very artistic in itself. I think this is just one of many occasions when what is "correct" in one sense must give way to what is correct and pleasing artistically.

goossun:

You made the word according to known English rules, but no such word actually exists. instead you'd use "oddness" or even just "oddity" as an adjective, or use a synonym that fits in context, such as "unique" or "peculiar."

yes, I am a monolingual idiot and it's surprising I ever learned to sing the mass in Latin. LOL. Well, my fiance is an artist too, and he goes to the Art Institute (of which there is a branch in New York City), and I'm having him ask there. No stone left unturned in the cause.

Berlitz undoubtedly teaches English classes, but I'm unsure if their Copenhagen location is anywhere close to you.

as far as traffic to the site... I just got here, but I talk enough for ten normal people. :))