Reading a JF novel: Trojan

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Oleg Lego - 24 Jan 2007 05:34 GMT

Last Saturday I was in the library, and noticed they had a book sale
on. I picked up _Trojan_ by James Follett. Quite a coincidence,
considering the posting he made last week.

Anyway, there are several words and phrases I have questions about,
and will be posting some of them here.

I found this:

"The magazines that he poured over in the reading library were packed
full of ads for them: fabulous cameras, some costing hundreds of
pounds."

1. Is a "reading library" a type of library, or a section of a more
general library? Would it be one that does not loan books?

2. "poured" is, of course, an obvious wrong usage, that would evade
the spoil chequeing program, but I was wondering if there are any
actual proofreaders any more, or is it all automated?

Trojan, so far, is a pretty good read.

Reply to this Message

pcutilisateur@gmail.com - 24 Jan 2007 06:35 GMT

> Last Saturday I was in the library, and noticed they had a book sale
> on. I picked up _Trojan_ by James Follett. Quite a coincidence,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> 1. Is a "reading library" a type of library, or a section of a more
> general library? Would it be one that does not loan books?

In Toronto we have a library called Toronto Reference Library, and it
doesn't loan books. I have not read the book in question, but I would
assume author means something similar. If the author is from Berkshire,
UK, then he probably means Reading Libraries. They do allow their
member to borrow 20 books, in Toronto its 15 :(

URL: http://www.readinglibraries.org.uk/

Interestingly enough, in libraries' catalogue there are some "reading
book" they are reserved for deaf people. Hopefully, someone familiar
with the book will enlightens use all.

Reply to this Message

Ray O'Hara - 24 Jan 2007 07:18 GMT

Yes "reading room"is a common term too.

> 2. "poured" is, of course, an obvious wrong usage, that would evade
> the spoil chequeing program, but I was wondering if there are any
> actual proofreaders any more, or is it all automated?
>
> Trojan, so far, is a pretty good read.

"Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage

Reply to this Message

cybercypher - 24 Jan 2007 06:52 GMT

>> Last Saturday I was in the library, and noticed they had a book
>> sale on. I picked up _Trojan_ by James Follett. Quite a
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage

It's "pored over". "Poured over" is not fine unless one has a Middle
English Hangover.

From Answers.com dictionary:

pore 1 pronunciation
intr.v., pored, por·ing, pores.

1. To read or study carefully and attentively: pored over the
classified ads in search of a new job.
2. To gaze intently; stare.
3. To meditate deeply; ponder: pored on the matter.

[Middle English pouren.]

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"If you are still not convinced of the a.s-brain connection, finish
this sentence: 'It is easier to think after I … (a) get a haircut
(b) take a dump'." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 12 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews now charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Reply to this Message

Peter Moylan - 24 Jan 2007 07:45 GMT

> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage

By coincidence, "pored over" means something similar.

Signature

Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Reply to this Message

cybercypher - 24 Jan 2007 06:55 GMT

>> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage
>
> By coincidence, "pored over" means something similar.

Its amazing that it's meaning is so similar, especially when they sound
so much a like that they could mistaken for one another by some one who
didn't know about the a.s-brain connection, viz. a spell-checker.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Bob Martin - 24 Jan 2007 18:40 GMT

>>> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage
>>
>> By coincidence, "pored over" means something similar.
>
>Its amazing that it's meaning is so similar,

:-)

Reply to this Message

Steve Hayes - 24 Jan 2007 09:45 GMT

> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage

Like "waisting time"? Or my watch "loosing time"?

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message

cybercypher - 24 Jan 2007 09:03 GMT

> "Ray O'Hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage
>
> Like "waisting time"? Or my watch "loosing time"?

Now, those are two ankles I didn't sea.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Peter Duncanson - 24 Jan 2007 13:17 GMT

>Like "waisting time"? Or my watch "loosing time"?

I'm not sure about the first, but the second seems reasonable: time
is dripping out of (evaporating from, radiating from?) the watch.
The watch cannot keep up. Einstein might have a Theory covering it.

On the other hand the watch may have an alien parasite in it, living
on the energy from the battery or spring.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message

Oleg Lego - 24 Jan 2007 14:10 GMT

The Ray O'Hara entity posted thusly:

>> Last Saturday I was in the library, and noticed they had a book sale
>> on. I picked up _Trojan_ by James Follett. Quite a coincidence,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> "Poured over" is fine. It means to look at. A common enough usage

Common enough, but hardly correct. "pore" is the intended word.

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

Reading a JF novel: Trojan