 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2007Harry Potter 7 - re-read it again
>From the publisher's blurb for "Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows": "The spellbinding, richly woven narrative, which plunges, twists and turns at a breathtaking pace, confirms the author as a mistress of storytelling, whose books will be read, reread and read again". Reread AND read again? Mike M On 25 Jul, 16:54, I wrote: > >From the publisher's blurb for "Harry Potter And The Deathly > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Reread AND read again? It's catching. From one of the most recent Amazon.co.uk reader reviews: "I devoured the story within about 8 hours (will be re-reading again very soon)". Mike M >>From the publisher's blurb for "Harry Potter And The Deathly > Hallows": [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Reread AND read again? Repetition or near repetition is a well-known rhetorical device with a long history.  SignatureRob Bannister > >>From the publisher's blurb for "Harry Potter And The Deathly > > Hallows": [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Repetition or near repetition is a well-known rhetorical device with a > long history. Yes, the triplet is often used in rhetoric - lock, stock and barrel; right, left and centre. And you could argue that 'reread' refers to the second reading, and 'read again' to subsequent rereadings. Peter Mad-Eye Mooney writes: > > > "...whose books will be read, reread and read again". > > > Reread AND read again? > ... you could argue that 'reread' refers to the second reading, > and 'read again' to subsequent rereadings. Could argue? It seems obvious to me that it does. SignatureMark Brader "Do YOU trust US?" Toronto "YES!! Well, we try to." msb@vex.net -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing > Mad-Eye Mooney writes: > > > > "...whose books will be read, reread and read again". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Could argue? It seems obvious to me that it does. OK. To me, "reread" and "read again" are synonymous. "Read and read again" would have been perfectly adequate, and sounded less clunky. If they'd wanted repetition for effect, I'd have gone with "Read again and again and again..." Mike M >> Mad-Eye Mooney writes: >> > > > "...whose books will be read, reread and read again". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Mike M The recipe for cod reads "Bread, re-bread and bread again". irwell filted: >The recipe for cod reads "Bread, re-bread and bread again". Tell me, where *is* fancy bread?...r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > irwell filted: > > >The recipe for cod reads "Bread, re-bread and bread again". > > Tell me, where *is* fancy bread?...r Good attitude. It's our dough and we can spend it any way we like. -- Mike. [ ... ] > The recipe for cod reads "Bread, re-bread and bread again". Strikes me that all the breading in the world won't produce a single cod. For only God Can make a cod >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >For only God >Can make a cod Thanks! I have been arguing with my wife for years its pronouced as breeding, she insists it is like bredding. Where's me cod-piece gone? >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >For only God >Can make a cod Would that be the piece of cod that passeth all understanding? SignatureMike Page Who has a space after the two dashes in his sig. separator, honest. >On 26 Jul, 08:41, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote: >> Mad-Eye Mooney writes: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >If they'd wanted repetition for effect, I'd have gone with "Read again >and again and again..." Tradition would have "Read, read, and read again" (albeit with the second comma optional). SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! > >> Mad-Eye Mooney writes: > >> > > > "...whose books will be read, reread and read again". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Tradition would have "Read, read, and read again" (albeit with the > second comma optional). Exackerly. That's repetition for effect. "Re-read again" is redundancy. Mike M |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.