Look at these differences in speech, and convention, a century has done... do you have other examples?

I think it would offend…

What would? The writing style?

I don’t think it’s offensive, just a little old-fashioned. What do you suppose folks would find offensive about it?

“not known to have either wife or children, which may
happen to the most honest people;”

“A single domestic sufficed to
serve him.”

Maybe I’m old-fashioned.

But I got my two babes to write in my Q. Yay.

* sigh *

Well, sure writing styles and moral conventions have changed in 100 years but isn’t that why we like to read classics? Although, having said that, there has been a great deal of censorship of Huckleberry Finn in recent years because of its condescension to Jim. I don’t believe in censoring fiction from the past; I do believe in using it as departure points for discussion.

(And now a third “babe” has weighed in.)

I see nothing offensive or insulting here, especially to those experienced with 19th century English literature. Many of us are literate and openminded enough to deal with a wide range of moral approaches.

Those among us who are unlikely to even approach such literature are certainly sheltered form offense or insult. I pity them more than I fear for their sensibilities.

@zenele Ain’t you the sneaky ol’ dog?
I agree with all above, no offense.
Maybe a longing among the more reclusive for affordable domestics. LOL

@anartist ;-)

How about changes in the meanings of words, such as “gay” (which was once and is now primarily defined as “1 a: happily excited : merry [in a gay mood]; b: keenly alive and exuberant; having or inducing high spirits [a bird’s gay spring song]; 2 a: bright, lively [gay sunny meadows”]; b: brilliant in color; etc.) or “diva” (“a principal female singer in an opera or concert organization”)?