 |
 | 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 / January 2009Lady Teasley
Gannibal! (excerpt) Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her. Lady Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta, lace, and jewelry that leaned toward precious stones of great color. Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of the fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they took the circular road inside the park to show-off themselves. Gentlemen and ladies of the younger sort displayed their horsemanship and if it was particularly good, mention of it would make the rounds of tea parties for weeks. On the day in question, Lady Teasley came riding into the park on a hired pony the same time the gentlemen had repaired to the center of the park to talk and smoke. Whether planned or not what happened next announced her entrance into society brilliantly. Just as she was trotting past the section where the members of parliament stood, she fell off her horse (some say slid) onto the ground exposing her lily white legs to every man in sight. The collective gasp could be heard all the way to Fleet Street. Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately–without anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility going back 70 quarters. Bona fide or not, she was useful and that was the paramount thing. In time she acquired her own supper box at the Vauxhall paid for by a dozen admirers. More telling still, wherever there was a gathering of any social significance no doorman could long refuse her. She'd slip him a guinea, whisper a promise she had absolutely no intention of keeping, then waltz by him as his ears smoked. EG > Gannibal! (excerpt) I haven't been explicitly invited to comment but while I wait for the iron to heat up... > Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her. Sugary as a description of appearance seems a little odd but, more importantly perhaps, I think this sentence is in dire need of a comma. Lady > Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta, > lace, and jewelry that leaned toward precious stones of great color. Leaning jewellery? What is "great" colour? Highly coloured? > Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is > well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of > the fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they > took the circular road inside the park to show-off themselves. Show themselves off. Gentlemen > and ladies of the younger sort Younger refers to age, not "sort". displayed their horsemanship and if it > was particularly good, mention of it would make the rounds of tea > parties for weeks. On the day in question, Lady Teasley came riding into [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility going back > 70 quarters. 70 quarters of what? Generations? Years? Bona fide or not, she was useful and that was the paramount > thing. In time she acquired her own supper box at the Vauxhall paid for > by a dozen admirers. More telling still, wherever there was a gathering > of any social significance no doorman could long refuse her. She'd slip > him a guinea, whisper a promise she had absolutely no intention of > keeping, then waltz by him as his ears smoked. Now I must flatten some stuff.  SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> Gannibal! (excerpt) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sugary as a description of appearance seems a little odd but, more > importantly perhaps, I think this sentence is in dire need of a comma. Oh! You mean I shouldn't have pictured a covey of wide-eyed Little Lord Fauntleroys? On 10 Jan 2009, Tasha Miller wrote >>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh! You mean I shouldn't have pictured a covey of wide-eyed > Little Lord Fauntleroys? I'm still wondering about the missing word at the end of the sentence: She was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her what? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 10 Jan 2009, Tasha Miller wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm still wondering about the missing word at the end of the > sentence: She was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her what? like she was a bag of candy... EG >> On 10 Jan 2009, Tasha Miller wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > like she was a bag of candy... "Lady Teasley was, so sugary, pretty little boys stared at her." SignatureLew >> Gannibal! (excerpt) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sugary as a description of appearance seems a little odd but, more > importantly perhaps, I think this sentence is in dire need of a comma. Really? Where...? > Lady >> Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta, >> lace, and jewelry that leaned toward precious stones of great color. > > Leaning jewellery? What is "great" colour? Highly coloured? No, great color. >> Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is >> well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point >> of the fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, >> they took the circular road inside the park to show-off themselves. > > Show themselves off. Why split the verb? 50 famous writers don't do it: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?By=0&SearchBy=4&Word=show+off Verb 1. show off - display proudly; act ostentatiously or pretentiously; "he showed off his new sports car" > Gentlemen >> and ladies of the younger sort > > Younger refers to age, not "sort". Not quite sure what you mean. The expression is an old and tested one: Goodwill Ambassadors of a younger sort > displayed their horsemanship and if it >> was particularly good, mention of it would make the rounds of tea [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 70 quarters of what? Generations? Years? Old, satirical ancestry expression. Voltaire uses it in Candide > Bona fide or not, she was useful and that was the paramount >> thing. In time she acquired her own supper box at the Vauxhall paid [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Now I must flatten some stuff. Toodles ... I did learn one thing: Show-off, takes no hyphen: Show off. >>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Really? Where...? See Tasha's post. >> Lady >>> Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, great color. And the meaning of great in this context is...? >>> Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is >>> well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why split the verb? It sounds odd if you don't, but it seems that either you have no ear for what you write or are writing for an audience that certainly doesn't include me. Possibly both. > 50 famous writers don't do it: > http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?By=0&SearchBy=4&Word=show+off [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Goodwill Ambassadors of a younger sort Is that meant to be evidence supporting your usage? Whatever. I think it sounds very odd. YMMV. [..] >>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately–without >>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Old, satirical ancestry expression. Voltaire uses it in Candide Do you think your intended audience is likely to understand it? I'm vaguely aware that there are at least two specifically North American menaings of quarters which are not common in the UK, associated with sport and education. [..] > I did learn one thing: Show-off, takes no hyphen: Show off. Unless you are referring to a show-off, of course... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See Tasha's post. No. Don't hide behind Tasha's skirts. You tell us where the comma is needed. >>> Lady >>>> Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And the meaning of great in this context is...? Great. >>>> Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is >>>> well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > what you write or are writing for an audience that certainly doesn't > include me. Possibly both. It's not a question of an "ear for" it's a question of grammar. Show off is being used the way an infinitive such as "to do" is used and you don't split infinitives. Also, I gave a cite below that shows my use is correct. Where are your cites? >> 50 famous writers don't do it: >> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/search/Search.aspx?By=0&SearchBy=4&Word=show+off [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Is that meant to be evidence supporting your usage? Whatever. I think it > sounds very odd. YMMV. I think you sound odd. This is not a piece of music, you know. Or maybe it's the music in your head telling you things don't sound right. > [..] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > menaings of quarters which are not common in the UK, associated with > sport and education. Yes, they'll understand it. The concept is wonderfully simple and -- in context -- requires no explanation at all. I don't know why Tasha didn't get it. Here's the context: "Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately–without anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility going back 70 quarters." EG > [..] > >> I did learn one thing: Show-off, takes no hyphen: Show off. > > Unless you are referring to a show-off, of course... >>>>> Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is >>>>> well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Show off is being used the way an infinitive such as "to do" is used and > you don't split infinitives. Who doesn't? It seems to me that "show off" is a phrasal verb and as such the object can come between the verb and the preposition. However, grammar or no, it sounds wrong. SignatureDavid >>>>>> Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is >>>>>> well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > However, grammar or no, it sounds wrong. I can't help that. Google "show themselves off" and it pulls up nothing. Google "show off themselves" and you get tons of cites EG >>>>>>> Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is >>>>>>> well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Google "show themselves off" and it pulls up nothing. Where "nothing" = 14,300. > Google "show off themselves" and you get tons of cites Where "tons" = 5,890. SignatureDavid elanders wrote: >> Google "show themselves off" and it pulls up nothing. > Where "nothing" = 14,300. elanders wrote: >> Google "show off themselves" and you get tons of cites "Citations." > Where "tons" = 5,890. "To show off" is a verb phrasal. "To show off themselves" means to take upon themselves the onus to show off. "To show themselves off" means to display themselves in a favorable light. Merely counting Google "cites [sic]" does not take into account this distinction in meaning. One must count the references where the meaning is synonymous. SignatureLew > elanders wrote: >>> Google "show themselves off" and it pulls up nothing. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > distinction in meaning. One must count the references where the meaning > is synonymous. Sounds helpful. Thanks. EG > elanders wrote: >>> Google "show themselves off" and it pulls up nothing. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > distinction in meaning. One must count the references where the meaning > is synonymous. Of course. But our interlocutor gave misleading numbers. SignatureDavid >> elanders wrote: >>>> Google "show themselves off" and it pulls up nothing. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Of course. But our interlocutor gave misleading numbers. The point is show off(noun) and show off (verb) are not necessarily the same thing particularly when the context implies an entirely different meaning. Words and phases are flexible like that. The notion that show off(noun) was meant in the sentence "show off themselves" is a notion only someone with a time-wasting agenda would make. There is no problem with the usage in the referenced sentence. The critic is merely showing off (noun). EG [ ... ] > The point is show off(noun) and show off (verb) are not necessarily the > same thing "Showoff" the noun is one word. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Factual accuracy and all that ... > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [ ... ] You're correct. And that means everyone who was going on about the placement of "show off" were wrong. EG >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And that means everyone who was going on about the placement of "show > off" were wrong. Not at all, Lord Copper. Your original ran: "... they took the circular road inside the park to show-off themselves". I put it to you that you have attempted to deploy a phrasal verb. Clumsily, but the fact remains that it's entirely unrelated to a noun. obAUE: Is "everyone" optionally plural? That really grates. SignatureDavid Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > obAUE: Is "everyone" optionally plural? That really grates. I know. I'm writing all these responses so making errors. There are no errors like that in my manuscript, though. Ok, let's wrap-up. The point you and everyone else was making is that "show off" was wrong, that it should have been "show themselves off." In the main, your argument was "show off" had the same negative connotation as "he was a showoff." We've since learned the noun takes a different form -- "showoff." This means "show off" is a verb or verbal phrase as you say. This was my argument from the beginning. I said it's being used as a verb so I see nothing wrong with it. And there isn't anything wrong with the way I execute it. Nothing at all. In other words, you chowder heads have been wasting everyone's time. In every instance where you're holding up a supposed error like a bloody rag, it turns out you're just masturbating. I've posted more than 10,000 words and you've delivered nothing you can sustain ... nothing. Meanwhile, the really important things about a manuscript you haven't touched. No mention of plot, dialogue, characterization, etc., presumably because these things are vastly beyond your ability to understand. Now, I make errors, lots of them, which is why I've posted my chapters. But you bottom-feeders aren't smoking them out. You want them to be there, you carry on like there are thousands of them, but the best you've been able to do is time-wasting exercises like this show off business. Crossword Bob is a good example of this. I've set up a thread to discuss all those mock edits he made, but he's too scared to respond. The guy red-penciled every sentence in my chapters and in every instance his correction was flat wrong -- and I can show him this if he'd respond to the thread. Like Crossword Bob, you people are bottomfeeders. You have no idea what you're talking about and even those among you who are published, are authors of cookbooks and dumb computer books. That's not writing; that's typing. EG elanders wrote, in small part: > In the main, your argument was "show off" had the same negative > connotation as "he was a showoff." We've since learned the noun takes > a different form -- "showoff." This means "show off" is a verb or > verbal phrase as you say. Just to keep things straight, there are dictionaries (M-W Online, for instance) that have not yet merged the two words for the noun, and "show-off" is another version of the noun. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Treading the strait and narrow path >Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? Out there in the water. The Caribbean water, specifically. Y'all have a proprietary interest in some of them...the British Virgin Islands. Near Tortola, somewhere, I purchased some local rum that gives a whole new definition to "stiff upper lip". The stiffness extends to the rest of body quickly, he said numbly. The American Virgin Islands has the castle formerly occupied by the British entrepreneur Edward Teach. His ship, by the way, was "The Queen Anne's Revenge". Not the same revenge as Montezuma's, I think. I had the good fortune to sell the hospital in Charlotte Amalie a surgical microscope, so I got to write off a scuba diving and vacation trip when I went there to install it. American Airlines paid for the instrument in exchange for rudely landing a plane past the end of the runway. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > instrument in exchange for rudely landing a plane past the end of the > runway. A salesman! Now that I respect. Toughest racket in the world. In a lot of respects, the U.S. Virgin Islands is the best of both worlds. They call it "The American Paradise" and this name is not far from the truth ... if you like island living. What makes the USVI different is that it has all the amenities of home. At least most of them. And I'm talking about living there, not a tourist vacation. What I mean is if you go there to live you'll have modern plumbing, supermarkets, telephone, internet, cable-tv, McDonalds, K-Mart, Home Depot, etc. Rent a beach-side one-bedroom apartment for $700 monthly, buy a used car for $2000 while you're there. Make sure you live in a gated community (the natives steal), and you can have the time of your life until your money runs out. Go there for six months if you can. If you're American, all you need is your drivers license to enter and leave (this may have changed since 9-11) A good 15% of the people you'll meet are American transplants. These are the folks you'll be spending 95% of your time with. The native cuisine sucks, but that's ok, because most of the restaurants serve quality stateside food. You may want to rent something larger than a one-bedroom because once your friends and relatives hear you're living there, they'll want to come over to visit. Let 'em, then charge them half the hotel rate -- $50 a head, something like that. EG >>> Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >What I mean is if you go there to live you'll have modern plumbing, When I made that trip, my wife and I were invited to the home of the surgeon who would be using the microscope. His home was up on a mountain*, and the first thing his wife told us when we arrived was that if we used the toilet we were to flush only if solids were involved. Yellow stayed. Their water supply was a cistern to catch rainwater, and it had been a dry season. They were trying to avoid paying to have water trucked up to them. *I don't know if "mountain" is the correct description. Certainly high up, and a very steep road to get there. >Rent a beach-side one-bedroom apartment for $700 monthly, buy a used car >for $2000 while you're there. Make sure you live in a gated community >(the natives steal) That was not the case when we went there the first two times. I was told that crime was rare until some major hurricane (I forget what year) destroyed the economy. On the last trip, the dive master posted a guard on the vehicles and gear when we went for a night dive off Coki Beach. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >that if we used the toilet we were to flush only if solids were >involved. Yellow stayed. That was the situation in western Europe during the drought in 1976, BTW. The Brits came up with "Don't pull for a pee" as a reminder not to waste water. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England On 12 Jan 2009, Robin Bignall wrote >>>>> Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > 1976, BTW. The Brits came up with "Don't pull for a pee" as a > reminder not to waste water. During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across "If it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2009, Robin Bignall wrote [...] >> That was the situation in western Europe during the drought in >> 1976, BTW. The Brits came up with "Don't pull for a pee" as a >> reminder not to waste water. > > During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across "If > it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". But what about this: <http://www.colon-cleanse-constipation.com/yellow-stool.html> or even this: <http://www.dreamsack.com/store/product.php?productid=112&cat=13&page=2> ? SignatureLes (BrE) > > During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across "If > > it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". > > But what about this: > > <http://www.colon-cleanse-constipation.com/yellow-stool.html> There's no way I'm clicking on that link. SignatureSML >>> During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across "If >>> it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's no way I'm clicking on that link. I agree. This discussion is getting creepy. EG > On 12 Jan 2009, Robin Bignall wrote > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across "If > it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". In California we had "In this land of drought and sun | We don't flush for number one." SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. ... >During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across "If >it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". Note to self: read thread before posting. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across >> "If it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". [Richard snipped his version, here restored:] > "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down." > Note to self: read thread before posting. No; it's a good thing that you posted the *correct* (canonical) version. Your version is the much more common, better, and older one. Circa 14,800 Google hits for yours; brown first = 224 hits. Your standard version has been used in California for at least 20 years. Signature~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman" <aman@sonic.net> filted: >>> During the dry spell of a couple of years ago, I came across >>> "If it's brown, flush it down; if it's yellow, let it mellow". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >14,800 Google hits for yours; brown first = 224 hits. Your standard >version has been used in California for at least 20 years. One of the disc jockeys here said his kids had added a third part to the rule: "if it's black, put it back"...he said it was meant to cover the case of someone dropping a hairbrush in the bowl....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Reinhold [Rey] Aman" <aman@sonic.net> filted: [...] >>> "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down." >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the rule: "if it's black, put it back"...he said it was meant to > cover the case of someone dropping a hairbrush in the bowl....r Or, as in the unhappy case of one of my brood, a mobile 'phone. SignatureMike. >> Reinhold [Rey] Aman" <aman@sonic.net> filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Or, as in the unhappy case of one of my brood, a mobile 'phone. Until a few months ago I spelled phone with an apostrophe, as above, but it appears the word has entered the language. The COD10 and Merriam-Webster's support that view. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland [...] >>> One of the disc jockeys here said his kids had added a third part to >>> the rule: "if it's black, put it back"...he said it was meant to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but it appears the word has entered the language. The COD10 and > Merriam-Webster's support that view. I confess I do it rather self-consciously: for some reason I don't really like abbreviating "telephone", but it seems to be norma-loquendic for the pocket ones. SignatureMike. >[...] >>>> One of the disc jockeys here said his kids had added a third part to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >really like abbreviating "telephone", but it seems to be norma-loquendic >for the pocket ones. I used to put "phone" in the "nite" and "lite" category of words only lazy spellers use, but there was probably never a reason to assume that superior attitude with this word. It takes substantially less time to say "phone" than "telephone", so I suspect it is here to stay. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Chuck Riggs filted: >I used to put "phone" in the "nite" and "lite" category of words only >lazy spellers use, but there was probably never a reason to assume >that superior attitude with this word. It takes substantially less >time to say "phone" than "telephone", so I suspect it is here to stay. I was saying this very thing just the other day to the driver of my taximeter cabriolet....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Chuck Riggs filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I was saying this very thing just the other day to the driver of my > taximeter cabriolet....r While you were pursued by an angry mobile vulgus chasing you in an omnibus? ("Mob" for "mobile vulgus" was one of Swift's pet peeves.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent |encroachments of those in power kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden (650)857-7572 |usurpations. | James Madison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> Chuck Riggs filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >While you were pursued by an angry mobile vulgus chasing you in an >omnibus? You left out a "voiture"....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >> Chuck Riggs filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >("Mob" for "mobile vulgus" was one of Swift's pet peeves.) Plus a posse of parents pushing perambulators. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. ... >>When I made that trip, my wife and I were invited to the home of the >>surgeon who would be using the microscope. His home was up on a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >BTW. The Brits came up with "Don't pull for a pee" as a reminder not >to waste water. "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down." SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>> Where are the Virgin Islands, anyway? >>> Out there in the water. The Caribbean water, specifically. Y'all [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > a guard on the vehicles and gear when we went for a night dive off > Coki Beach. Anybody who told you "crime was rare" was lying. It's a real and on-going problem. Your surgeon friend was living in the mountains which is away from the developed part of the town. In the developed part of the town the water and plumbing system is state of the art ... except during hurricane season. "Crime in rare" is simply a huge lie. EG >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >obAUE: Is "everyone" optionally plural? That really grates. It sure does. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [ ... ] Also: Search results for show off Go to page Notes from the Underground by Dostoyevsky, Fyodor I wrote it thinking it would sound very witty; but now that I have seen myself that I only wanted to show off in a despicable way--I will not scratch it out on purpose Go to page Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, Leo It was evident that, having devoted a great deal of trouble to improve and beautify his home, Vronsky felt a need to show off the improvements to a new person, and was genuinely delighted at Darya Alexandrovna's praise. Go to page Michael, Brother of Jerry by London, Jack Steward expected something of him, wanted him to show off. Go to page Turn Of The Screw by James, Henry Oh, yes, we may sit here and look at them, and they may show off to us there to their fill; but even while they pretend to be lost in their fairytale they're steeped in their vision of the dead restored. Go to page Moby Dick I-LXVII by Melville, Herman He was just enough civilized to show off his outlandishness in the strangest possible manner. Go to page The Yellow Fairy Book by Lang, Andrew He did not care about his soldiers, he did not care about the theatre; he only liked to go out walking to show off his new clothes. Go to page Black Beauty by Sewell, Anna We stood about fifteen and a half hands high; we were therefore just as good for riding as we were for driving, and our master used to say that he disliked either horse or man that could do but one thing; and as he did not want to show off in London parks, he preferred a more active and useful kind of horse. Go to page An Old-Fashioned Girl by Alcott, Louisa May She read it so well, that the young gentleman stopped munching to regard her with respectful astonishment, and when she stopped, he said, suspiciously, "You are a sly one, Polly, to study up so you can show off before me. Go to page Margaret Ogilvy by Barrie, James Matthew Or go to church next Sunday, and watch a certain family filing in, the boy lifting his legs high to show off his new boots, but all the others demure, especially the timid, unobservant-looking little woman in the rear of them. Go to page The Adventures of Captain Bonneville, U.S.A., in the Rocky Mountains and the far West by Irving, Washington Here She-wee-she took a sudden notion to visit his people, and show off the state of worldly prosperity to which he had so suddenly attained. Go to page Eight Cousins by Alcott, Louisa May Miss Power used to have us up to show off when people came. Go to page Little Women by Alcott, Louisa May It's nice to have accomplishments and be elegant, but not to show off or get perked up," said Amy thoughtfully. Go to page Pride and Prejudice by Austen, Jane At least, therefore, I did not assume the character of needless precipitance merely to show off before the ladies. Go to page Tom Sawyer by Twain, Mark Go to page The Golden Road by Montgomery, Lucy Maud Dan sarcastically inquired if all she went to church for was to show off her fine clothes and look at other people's; then they quarrelled and didn't speak to each other for two days, much to Cecily's distress. Go to page Of Human Bondage by Maugham, W. Somerset It was all in French, and Philip knew that she wrote in that language to show off, but he was worried all the same. Go to page The Old Curiosity Shop by Dickens, Charles Didn't she say before they had sat down five minutes that Barbara's mother was exactly the sort of lady she expected, and didn't Barbara's mother say that Kit's mother was the very picture of what she had expected, and didn't Kit's mother compliment Barbara's mother on Barbara, and didn't Barbara's mother compliment Kit's mother on Kit, and wasn't Barbara herself quite fascinated with little Jacob, and did ever a child show off when he was wanted, as that child did, or make such friends as he made! Go to page The Secret Garden by Burnett, Frances Hodgson The robin flew from his swinging spray of ivy on to the top of the wall and he opened his beak and sang a loud, lovely trill, merely to show off. Go to page Vanity Fair by Thackeray, William Makepeace Why, he rides to see the boys at the little school, too, and to show off before them his new wealth and splendour. Go to page The Business Man by Poe, Edgar Allan -- Standing on one leg three hours, to show off new-style strapped pants at 12 1/2 cents per leg per hour. Go to page A Connecticut Yankee by Twain, Mark I instructed the Marcos to keep quiet about this sumptuousness, so as to give me a chance to surprise the guests and show off a little. Go to page John Barleycorn by London, Jack And Peter and Dominick made me show off for them. Go to page Crime And Punishment by Dostoyevsky, Fyodor Go to page Wuthering Heights by Bronte, Emily Go to page Pudd'n'head Wilson by Twain, Mark But water was preferable to fire, and still the stampede from the windows continued, and still the pitiless drenching assailed it until the building was empty; then the fireboys mounted to the hall and flooded it with water enough to annihilate forty times as much fire as there was there; for a village fire company does not often get a chance to show off, and so when it does get a chance, it makes the most of it. Go to page Actions and Reactions by Kipling, Rudyard "Don't show off your futile accomplishments," said Lord Lundie. Go to page Father Sergius by Tolstoy, Leo And he asked himself whether he loved anyone, whether he loved Sofya Ivanovna, or Father Seraphim, whether he had any feeling of love for all who had come to him that day--for that learned young man with whom he had had that instructive discussion in which he was concerned only to show off his own intelligence and that he had not lagged behind the times in knowledge. Go to page Up From Slavery by Washington, Booker T. Go to page The Innocents Abroad by Twain, Mark Go to page Chance by Conrad, Joseph In the general opinion a skipper with his wife on board was more difficult to please; but whether to show off his authority before an admiring female or from loving anxiety for her safety or simply from irritation at her presence--nobody I ever heard on the subject could tell for certain. Go to page The Age of Innocence by Wharton, Edith The sport, which had hitherto known no rival but croquet, was beginning to be discarded in favour of lawn-tennis; but the latter game was still considered too rough and inelegant for social occasions, and as an opportunity to show off pretty dresses and graceful attitudes the bow and arrow held their own. Go to page The Pioneers by Cooper, James Fenimore There is a good deal of science to be shown in the bass, and it affords a fine opportunity to show off a full, deep voice. Go to page Kim by Kipling, Rudyard Go to page The Innocence Of Father Brown by Chesterton, Gilbert K. I fancy this sort of disfigurement embittered the poor chap a little; for while Smythe was ready to show off his monkey tricks anywhere, James Welkin (that was the squinting man's name) never did anything except soak in our bar parlour, and go for great walks by himself in the flat, grey country all round. Go to page The Jungle Book by Kipling, Rudyard If you do happen to have an extra joint in your front flipper you needn't show off so. Go to page The War in the Air by Wells, H.G. The general effect upon judicious observers, indeed, was not that he was treating for anything, but that he was using an unexampled opportunity to bellow and show off to an attentive world. Go to page The Man Upstairs and Other Stories by Wodehouse, Pelham Grenville We can hardly be expected to foozle on purpose, just to let Archie show off before his girl. >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > myself that I only wanted to show off in a despicable way--I will not > scratch it out on purpose <snip, snip, snippety snip, many pointless intransitive examples> Do you not see that those examples are all irrelevant to your version? You used the transitive form with a reflexive object. SignatureDavid >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do you not see that those examples are all irrelevant to your version? > You used the transitive form with a reflexive object. Some of them do and some of them don't. I didn't have time to break out the ones that do, but there were many examples of "show off" being used as a verb phrase as I do below. Again, the confusion was yours, not mine. Used as a verb phrase it's perfectly fine. Here's the sentence again: "At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of the fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they took the circular road inside the park to show off themselves." EG [and now, folks, give up it for... Elvis Presley!] >>> Search results for show off >>> Go to page Notes from the Underground by Dostoyevsky, Fyodor >>> I wrote it thinking it would sound very witty; but now that I have >>> seen myself that I only wanted to show off in a despicable way--I >>> will not scratch it out on purpose >> <snip, snip, snippety snip, many pointless intransitive examples> >> Do you not see that those examples are all irrelevant to your >> version? You used the transitive form with a reflexive object. > Some of them do and some of them don't. I didn't have time to break > out the ones that do, but there were many examples of "show off" > being used as a verb phrase as I do below. > Again, the confusion was yours, not mine. Used as a verb phrase it's > perfectly fine. Here's the sentence again: > "At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of the > fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they > took the circular road inside the park to show off themselves." OK. Briefly feeling helpful again. The Omrud's point is that all the examples you gave (and I read them all) are different from the sentence you wrote. All the examples, *all*, had the intransitive use of "show off" (no direct object) or the transitive use with a noun or noun phrase as the direct object. These uses follow a different pattern from the transitive use with a pronoun direct object, as in your sentence. Consider the difference between "pay back the loan"and "pay it back": you wouldn't say "pay back it or I'll sue," would you? The word order changes with this kind of verb phrase, when there is a pronoun as a direct object. Take our collective word on this one. This is a usage group, not a writing group, which is why your hope for writing advice will not be realised: those here who could give such advice (not me, but there are some) would be in a different group, if they wanted to discuss writing techniques. We're all pretty good at usage, though, and we're all telling you: the proper form of your sentences above is "At the time, Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of the fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they took the circular road inside the park to show themselves off." Take it or leave it. The advice won't change, because it's the right advice. >Take our collective word on this one. This is a usage group, not a >writing group, which is why your hope for writing advice will not be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Take it or leave it. The advice won't change, because it's the right >advice. I'd make it "astride horses". "Atop" would be too precarious a perch. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>Take our collective word on this one. This is a usage group, not a >>writing group, which is why your hope for writing advice will not be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > I'd make it "astride horses". "Atop" would be too precarious a perch. Not for the side saddlers. >>>Take our collective word on this one. This is a usage group, not a >>>writing group, which is why your hope for writing advice will not be [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Not for the side saddlers. But if they sidle at all, they'll slide. SignatureJohn >>Take our collective word on this one. This is a usage group, not a >>writing group, which is why your hope for writing advice will not be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > I'd make it "astride horses". "Atop" would be too precarious a perch. I'd say "on horses". The ladies might very well be riding horses rather than carriages, but they'd be riding sidesaddle, not astride. Better still would be something like "On horseback or in carriages...", dropping the "Arriving" altogether, since they not only arrived on horses or in carriages, but also took the circular road that way. >>>Take our collective word on this one. This is a usage group, not a >>>writing group, which is why your hope for writing advice will not be [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >"Arriving" altogether, since they not only arrived on horses or in >carriages, but also took the circular road that way. Yes, I'd go with "on horseback". I had forgotten about riding side-saddle. "Atop" just looks so wrong. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> [...] the proper form of your >> sentences above is "At the time, Hyde Park was the Sunday >> gathering point of the fashionable elite. Arriving in their >> carriages or atop horses, they took the circular road inside the >> park to show themselves off." >> Take it or leave it. The advice won't change, because it's the >> right advice. > I'd make it "astride horses". "Atop" would be too precarious a > perch. Good point, subject to the caveats posted. "On horseback" would have been my choice, if Barabara hadn't prequoted me on it. But I was addressing the quarrel about the form of the sentence; elanders can choose his own vocabulary. > [and now, folks, give up it for... Elvis Presley!] > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Take it or leave it. The advice won't change, because it's the right > advice. Look, I'm not going to get involved with all that. The meaning of the sentence is immediately understood and the supposed error is at most, debatable. No agent or editor would have a problem with it and I'm sure the only reason it's an issue here is because you fellows have way too much time on your hands. As a rule, published novels have 150-200 errors. There are people who, as a hobby, find these errors and write feverish letters to the authors listing them. The thing all letter writers have in common is they're all unknowns. EG "A lot of people who don't use "ain't" ain't eating regularly." -- Will Rogers [ ... ] > Look, I'm not going to get involved with all that. > > The meaning of the sentence is immediately understood and the supposed > error is at most, debatable. And this is the attitude of the guy who calls me out for a debate on nuances of usage -- As long as you can understand me, who cares? You never run out answers, landers, do you? > No agent or editor would have a problem with it. That is simply not true. "Show off themselves," except in the sense of "join others in showing off" is inferior usage, and no good editor would let it go by. Of course, it's hard to find a good editor these days, but some are still around. > and I'm sure the only > reason it's an issue here is because you fellows have way too much time > on your hands. As much as you, who answer just about everything? Not hardly. > As a rule, published novels have 150-200 errors. That's no excuse for not catching what can be caught. > There are people who, > as a hobby, find these errors and write feverish letters to the authors > listing them. And a sensible author, if he or she discovers that the correspondent is correct about a significant percentage of alleged errors, would do well to read the letter in full and tidy up the next edition, if any. I myself have pointed out an occasional blogger's error via a comment and seen the correction made. It seems only reasonable if, say, you're reading a blog in which the blogger says Omaha is the capital of Nebraska to point out that Lincoln is actually the capital. > The thing all letter writers have in common is they're all unknowns. Oh, hardly. You are perhaps limiting yourself to unsolicited letters, but even then I have read of indidents where one noteworthy wrote another noteworthy, neither knowing the other, to point out some error or infelicity. I'm too lazy to chase one down at the moment. Do you think before posting? SignatureBob Lieblich Phew! > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And this is the attitude of the guy who calls me out for a debate on > nuances of usage -- As long as you can understand me, who cares? And now we see reading for content is not something you do well either. Honestly, bob, how did you miss "the supposed error is at most debatable"? > You never run out answers, landers, do you? To your questions, no. >> No agent or editor would have a problem with it. > > That is simply not true. "Show off themselves," except in the sense > of "join others in showing off" is inferior usage, and no good editor > would let it go by. Of course, it's hard to find a good editor these > days, but some are still around. You've changed the form, dummkopf. "Show off" and "showing off" are not the same thing. >> and I'm sure the only >> reason it's an issue here is because you fellows have way too much time >> on your hands. > > As much as you, who answer just about everything? Not hardly. You mean "answers." Also, you show again you're not a writer, Bob. You should have ended with "Hardly." Putting "not" in front of hardly, gives us the opposite of hardly. Classic howler beginning writers make, Bob. >> As a rule, published novels have 150-200 errors. > > That's no excuse for not catching what can be caught. How about catching what can't be caught, Bob? Again, Bob, you give us another poorly executed metaphor only a beginning writer would pen. >> There are people who, >> as a hobby, find these errors and write feverish letters to the authors [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you're reading a blog in which the blogger says Omaha is the capital > of Nebraska to point out that Lincoln is actually the capital. The above is as pathetic as writing gets, Bob. Your language and syntax are out of the 18th century. You write like a man who's shoes are too tight waiting for the clock to strike five so he can rush home and take them off. Again, Bob, you're not a writer. >> The thing all letter writers have in common is they're all unknowns. > > Oh, hardly. You are perhaps limiting yourself to unsolicited letters, > but even then I have read of indidents where one noteworthy wrote > another noteworthy, neither knowing the other, to point out some error > or infelicity. I'm too lazy to chase one down at the moment. One "noteworthy" Hahahahaha... We'd you find that one, Bob -- Beowulf? Honestly, Bob, if this continues I'm going to make you the laughing stock of this news group. I'm very good at that. It's what I do. EG > Do you think before posting? >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >Do you think before posting? If the claim was that AUE members tend to make a great to-do over points of relatively minor importance, I have to agree. If we ask them to, editors or secretaries will generally be happy to clean up our draft manuscripts once we submit them, for that is what they are paid to do. That, at least, was my experience when writing reports and letters for the U.S. government and for several companies, from the large to the very small. Apart from the pleasures of socializing with an interesting group of people when posting to AUE, is our primary purpose to become better secretaries and editors or better writers? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland On 12 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > Apart from > the pleasures of socializing with an interesting group of people > when posting to AUE, is our primary purpose to become better > secretaries and editors or better writers? You make it sound as if the two skill sets are mutually exclusive, but modern publishing frequently expects writers to act as their own secretary and editor. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 12 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but modern publishing frequently expects writers to act as their own >secretary and editor. That has been especially true since the advent of the computer, but computers didn't turn us into secretaries; they often allowed us to skip some of the secretarial steps when producing a report or letter. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Chuck Riggs filted: >>You make it sound as if the two skill sets are mutually exclusive, >>but modern publishing frequently expects writers to act as their own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >computers didn't turn us into secretaries; they often allowed us to >skip some of the secretarial steps when producing a report or letter. It looks like you're trying to write an apologia for Microsoft Word; would you like some help?...r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >Chuck Riggs filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It looks like you're trying to write an apologia for Microsoft Word; would you >like some help?...r Thank you, Ron, but Microsoft's word processor, along with most of its other software products, needs no defense. I wrote "most" instead of "all" only because of the unfortunate release of Windows Vista. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > If the claim was that AUE members tend to make a great to-do over > points of relatively minor importance, I have to agree. If we ask them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > letters for the U.S. government and for several companies, from the > large to the very small. I see it as a fundamental psychological drive: the need to mess with other peoples' prose. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> If the claim was that AUE members tend to make a great to-do over >> points of relatively minor importance, I have to agree. If we ask them [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I see it as a fundamental psychological drive: the need to mess with other >peoples' prose. That or we have known some of the same women. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Do you not see that those examples are all irrelevant to your version? > You used the transitive form with a reflexive object. I think it's not the reflexiveness but the fact that the direct object is a pronoun (whether reflexive or not) that affects the word order: They showed off their new clothes. They showed them off. (not: *They showed off them.) They showed themselves off. (not: *They showed off themselves.) SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >the Omrud wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >They showed themselves off. >(not: *They showed off themselves.) If you look at the general class of transitive verbs that need to be tagged with a preposition to be given a special meaning, such as show (jewellery) off, turn (a lamp) off, turn (the cows) out, whose generic class name I don't for the moment recall, the preposition is usually comfortable at the end of the sentence whatever the direct object. It's just that the alternative of positioning the preposition immediately following the verb also works in the limited case of the object being a noun: show off jewellery, turn off the lamp, turn out the cows. In German verbs of this character are prefixed with the preposition in the infinitive (aufmachen, zumachen, usw) and I don't know of any general option of playing around with the position of the auf and the zu. Make the door open, make it to; always to the end. If English has evolved away from a similar kind of rule, the flexibility seems so far to have spread to noun objects but not yet to pronoun objects. SignaturePaul >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >[ ... ] The COD10 spells it "show-off" SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >>>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You tell us where the comma is needed. Depending on where it's placed, there are two possible meanings to the sentence. Only the writer can tell us which meaning was intended; if you can't figure out where the comma needs to go, I guess it means you weren't the writer of the sentence. > On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > figure out where the comma needs to go, I guess it means you weren't > the writer of the sentence. You miss the point. My position is the sentence requires no comma. Your assertion is that it does. I've asked you three times already WHERE, and each time you've equivocated. That's the point, dude. EG [ ... ] > > Only the writer can tell us which meaning was intended; if you can't > > figure out where the comma needs to go, I guess it means you weren't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My position is the sentence requires no comma. What you need, elanders, is a semester's course on "false scent" (a term originated by H.W, Fowler, I do believe). In the sentence immediately preceding this paragraph, the reader encounters "My position is the sentence" and thinks "What sentence is his position"? (Well, I did.) Okay, the rest of the sentence clarifies, but one shouldn't have to be left hanging until the end of the sentence to figure out what the grammar is. With that in mind, let's look again at the sentence that needs a comma: - Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her. Does that tell us that Lady T is "sugary pretty" or does it tell us that "pretty little boys" stared at her. Either is a permissible reading, and it is no defense to argue that the reading with "pretty little boys' makes no sense. It makes just enoiugh sense that it ought not to occur to the reader. And yet, it does. Fix: Use a comma to point up one meaning and disallow the other. Assuming you intended the more likely meaning, here's all you need to do: "Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty, little boys stared at her." I'd use "that" rather than a comma, but you need something. If your response is "Aw, c'mon, no one would read it as "pretty little boys," consider again the genre you're claiming to write in. And consider also that you're writing for publication. It isn't just the nnitpickers of AUE for whom you're writing. You're writing for people who just want to read through your prose without tripping over ambiguities or running off in the wrong direction altogether. You are failing them. > Your assertion is that it does. > > I've asked you three times already WHERE, and each time you've equivocated. > > That's the point, dude. No, fella, the point is that you're a poor writer unable to accept criticism. SignatureBob Lieblich Tiring rapidly >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >do: "Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty, little boys stared at her." >I'd use "that" rather than a comma, but you need something. I think I'd fix it with a hyphen: sugary-pretty, if I had to use that pair of words, and "that" also. >If your response is "Aw, c'mon, no one would read it as "pretty little >boys," consider again the genre you're claiming to write in. And [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >No, fella, the point is that you're a poor writer unable to accept >criticism. SignatureJohn >I think I'd fix it with a hyphen: sugary-pretty, if I had to use that >pair of words, and "that" also. I have trouble with the term with or without the hyphen. "Sugary" isn't a form of prettiness. Someone who is sugary is sweet or too sweet. It's often a term associated with someone who is falsely sweet. However, Billie Burke came across as both sugary and pretty in "Wizard of Oz" as Glenda. It was her sweetness, rather than just her looks, that made her pretty. Our contentious friend has not really established the character enough to decide whence her prettiness. The term "spun sugar pretty" could be used because spun sugar is pretty. The reader can then progress to deciding if it should be "spun-sugar" or "spun sugar". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>I think I'd fix it with a hyphen: sugary-pretty, if I had to use that >>pair of words, and "that" also. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >that made her pretty. Our contentious friend has not really >established the character enough to decide whence her prettiness. I could accept the hyphenated version as creative writing, associating sweetness and prettiness, i.e., "sugary-" as an adverb. I can even picture her face. No, wait, that's just Claudia Bassols. >The term "spun sugar pretty" could be used because spun sugar is >pretty. The reader can then progress to deciding if it should be >"spun-sugar" or "spun sugar". If that's the same as cotton candy, pink, filamentous, it makes me think of Dame Edna's hair ... not a pretty picture. SignatureJohn >>>I think I'd fix it with a hyphen: sugary-pretty, if I had to use that >>>pair of words, and "that" also. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >If that's the same as cotton candy, pink, filamentous, it makes me >think of Dame Edna's hair ... not a pretty picture. No, I was thinking of the spun sugar creations we see on cakes and as centerpieces. I understand that cotton candy is spun sugar, but I've never used "spun sugar" to describe it. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I think I'd fix it with a hyphen: sugary-pretty, if I had to use that > pair of words, and "that" also. Right. And once they told me the issue, I knew what the fix was immediately. But they were flat wrong about the comma. The sentence takes no comma. Which is why their game backfired in their faces. Rather than tell me what they were bloviating about, they kept tooting their horns and posturing. Apparently, these writing gurus know nothing about hyphens. EG >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >Apparently, these writing gurus know nothing about hyphens. I think you're right. No one here is really quite up to criticizing your fine writing. I guess you should look for guidance elsewhere. SignatureJohn >>>> [ ... ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > I think you're right. No one here is really quite up to criticizing > your fine writing. I guess you should look for guidance elsewhere. I've got a better idea: why don't you killfile yourself. Believe me, no one will even notice you're gone. EG >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >Apparently, these writing gurus know nothing about hyphens. You don't seem to know much about commas, either. I like the hyphen, here, myself, but the gurus were trying to minimally edit your carelessness by applying the rule for serial adjectives (ya know, the one that requires commas). The difference between serial modifiers and compound modifiers I'll leave others to elaborate. -- Arnow's 13th rule of exposition: If you find you're explaining the obvious, it ain't obvious. >>>> [ ... ] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > one that requires commas). The difference between serial modifiers and > compound modifiers I'll leave others to elaborate. It has absolutely nothing to do with serial adjectives. "Sugary pretty" are not in the serial adjective form. You don't seem to know much about serial adjectives ... or commas. EG > -- > Arnow's 13th rule of exposition: If you find you're explaining the > obvious, it ain't obvious. >>>>> [ ... ] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >You don't seem to know much about serial adjectives ... or commas. Hang in there, chum. It's you against the World, and I'm sure the World will soon learn the trouble it's in. > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > No, fella, the point is that you're a poor writer unable to accept > criticism. You're flat wrong. The edit is a hypen--not a comma! "Lady Teasley was so sugary-pretty little boys stared at her." In other words, I was entirely correct -- the sentence takes no comma. That's not the fix. She was wrong, you were wrong, and everyone else who said a comma was the fix is flat wrong. And that's about the 20th edit of my text you get flat wrong, Bob. And I ask you again, you're obviously not a published writer, so what makes you think you anything about this stuff, Bob? EG [ ... ] [addressing me:] > You're flat wrong. > The edit is a hypen--not a comma! I disagree. > "Lady Teasley was so sugary-pretty little boys stared at her." Leaving the reader with "sugary-pretty little" to worry about. > In other words, I was entirely correct -- the sentence takes no comma. Hey, if you feel good when you think that, you go right ahead and think that. I can't stop you. I agree, however, that you need no comma. Just put "that" after "pretty." You do need SOMETHING -- even you have figured out that much. > That's not the fix. She was wrong, you were wrong, and everyone else who > said a comma was the fix is flat wrong. If you're going to be wrong, do it at the top of your lungs. It may persuade someone. > And that's about the 20th edit of my text you get flat wrong, Bob. Clutch that feeling to your bosom, fella. It seems to warm you. > And I ask you again, you're obviously not a published writer, so what > makes you think you anything about this stuff, Bob? An ego almost half as large as yours. SignatureBob Lieblich I gotta stop doing this > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I disagree. But you're the fellow who thinks feild testing takes a hyphen. >> "Lady Teasley was so sugary-pretty little boys stared at her." > > Leaving the reader with "sugary-pretty little" to worry about. > >> In other words, I was entirely correct -- the sentence takes no comma. > > Hey, if you feel good when you think that, you go right ahead and > think that. I can't stop you. Look, the only fix was a hyphen. That's it. Conversation over. > I agree, however, that you need no comma. Just put "that" after > "pretty." You do need SOMETHING -- even you have figured out that > much. No I don't need SOMETHING. You don't know what you're talking about, Bob. Which is why you're not published nor likely to ever be published. EG [ ... ] > You don't know what you're talking about, Bob. I'll leave that to Posterity, which probably won't be bothered to decide. > Which is why you're not published nor likely to ever be published. You make it sound as if I want to be published. Aside, perhaps, from going back to crossword puzzles after I retire from my day job, I have no desire to publish anything. I do read a lot, but apparently that puts no weight on your scale. Okay, no sweat. But you don't have to play an instrument to recognize a flat note. If you really want to insult me, try something other than telling me I'm not published. It's hardly a secret. SignatureBob Lieblich Why am I bothering? > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If you really want to insult me, try something other than telling me > I'm not published. It's hardly a secret. Ok, try this: Your comments were useless. You made about ten of them each as useless as tits on a bull. Some people had useful comments; you did not. EG [ ... ] > Your comments were useless. > > You made about ten of them each as useless as tits on a bull. > > Some people had useful comments; you did not. I can see I'm not helping you at all, so I'll stop bothering you. Others will have to shoulder that burden. SignatureBob Lieblich Bye-ee > With that in mind, let's look again at the sentence that needs a > comma: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > little boys' makes no sense. It makes just enoiugh sense that it > ought not to occur to the reader. And yet, it does. Or it could mean that Lady Teasley existed, thus causing "sugary-pretty" (or "sugary, pretty") boys to stare at her, if the imputed comma were after the word "was". > Fix: Use a comma to point up one meaning and disallow the other[s]. > Assuming you intended the more likely meaning, here's all you need to > do: "Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty, little boys stared at her." > I'd use "that" rather than a comma, but you need something. ... > ... fella, the point is that you're a poor writer unable to accept > criticism. SignatureLew On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I've asked you three times already WHERE, and each time you've > equivocated. If you'd explain which of the two meanings in the sentence you were aiming at, it would then be possible to say where the comma should go. You're the writer; the meaning is your call. > On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > You're the writer; the meaning is your call. It takes no comma. The fix is a hyphen. EG On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> On 10 Jan 2009, elanders wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > The fix is a hyphen. Bzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. > >>>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without > >>>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility > going back 70 quarters." New to me, too I checked several versions of Candide. The French "quartier" in this sense is translated as "quartering" in English, which MW11 defines as: Main Entry: 1 quar·ter·ing Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 a : the division of an escutcheon containing different coats of arms into four or more compartments b : a quarter of an escutcheon or the coat of arms on it 2 : a line of usually noble or distinguished ancestry Candide in French: parce qu'il n'avait pu prouver que soixante et onze quartiers Candide in English: because he could produce no more than threescore and eleven quarterings in his arms SignatureDonna Richoux >>>>>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without >>>>>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Candide in English: because he could produce no more than threescore and > eleven quarterings in his arms Actually, it's quarterings. I've listed the reference below. I wrote "quarters" which I'll now change. It appears around page 24 of Candide: ------------------------------------------------> "Alas!" said Cunegonde, "my good mother, unless you have been ravished by two Bulgarians, have received two deep wounds in your belly, have had two castles demolished, have had two mothers cut to pieces before your eyes, and two of your lovers whipped at an _auto-da-fé_, I do not conceive how you could be more unfortunate than I. Add that I was born a baroness of seventy-two quarterings--and have been a cook!" ----------------------------------------------> EG >>>>>>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without >>>>>>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility >>>>>>> going back 70 quarters. >>>>>> 70 quarters of what? Generations? Years? >>>>> Old, satirical ancestry expression. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >conceive how you could be more unfortunate than I. Add that I was born a >baroness of seventy-two quarterings--and have been a cook!" I have no idea what you intended to express by "going back 70 quarterings" (making the change as you say you have), but you seem to be using it as an expression meaning "generations". It is not. The status would be expressed as "without anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility of 70 quarterings." SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without >>>>>>>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I've amended it to 72 quarterings, so now believe I'm using the term correctly ... at as correctly as Voltaire. Consider: In the last years of the ancien régime, before the French Revolution, the old nobility, intent on keeping its privileges, had pushed for restrictions of certain offices and orders of chivalry to noblemen who could demonstrate that their family had enough "noble quarterings" (in French, 'quartiers de noblesse'), a reference to a noble's ability to display armorially their descents from armigerous noble forebears in each of their lines of descent to demonstrate that they were descended from old noble families, who bore arms that could be quartered with their own male line arms, and thus prove that they did not derive merely from bourgeois families recently elevated to noble rank (although historians such as William Doyle have disputed this so-called 'Aristocratic Reaction'. (W. Doyle, Essays on Eighteenth Century France, London, 1995). A noble could be asked to provide proof of noble antecedents by showing a genealogy displaying seize quartiers (sixteen quarterings) or even trente-deux quartiers (thirty-two quartering) indicating noble descent on all bloodlines back five generations (to great-great grandparents) or six generations (great-great-great grandparents), respectively. This illustrates the traditional link in many countries between heraldry and nobility; in those countries where heraldry is used, nobles have almost always been armigerous, and have used heraldry to demonstrate their ancestry and family history. (However, it is important to note that heraldry has never been restricted to the noble classes in most countries, and being armigerous does not necessarily demonstrate nobility.) >>>>>>>>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without >>>>>>>>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >I've amended it to 72 quarterings, so now believe I'm using the term >correctly ... at as correctly as Voltaire. Consider: You *are* thick. The change is not just "quarters" to "quarterings", but also "going back" to "of". There's a difference. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>>>>> Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without >>>>>>>>>> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > You *are* thick. The change is not just "quarters" to "quarterings", > but also "going back" to "of". There's a difference. Let it go, man. Let it go. EG > >> "Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately -- without > >> anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > Actually, it's quarterings. When it's plural, it is. >I've listed the reference below. I wrote > "quarters" which I'll now change. It appears around page 24 of Candide: Yes, several more places in there, too. > ------------------------------------------------> > [snip] Add that I was born a > baroness of seventy-two quarterings--and have been a cook!" > > ----------------------------------------------> I hope you have fixed the "going back" as well. It's not a period of time, it describes the coat of arms you are entitled to. I looked to see how these "quarterings" have been used in literature, and found at Mastertexts.com: ...Count Gustavus, despising the difference between his twenty quarterings and her twenty thousand pounds, laid the most desperate.. --- Thackeray To get a first-class stateroom, you'd got to prove sixteen quarterings of nobility and four hundred years of descent, or be personally acquainted with the ... -- Twain Do you fancy none can use a sword unless he has a baker's dozen of quarterings in his arms, or that Oxford scholars know only how to handle a pen?" -- Kingsley So -- plain "quarterings," "quarterings of nobility," and "quarterings in his arms." Wikipedia explains the heraldic use and it led me to a picture of the 64 quarterings of Reginald Cecil Lybbe Powys-Lybbe of Berkshire: http://www.tim.ukpub.net/Heraldry/64_Picture.html SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Where are your cites? "Cite" is not a noun. <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite> SignatureLew >> Where are your cites? > > "Cite" is not a noun. > <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite> Another frustrated bean counter. Published? He doesn't even have a blog. That scares the hell out of him too. EG > > Where are your cites? > > "Cite" is not a noun. > <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite> It hasn't been until twenty years ago or so, you mean. Do you believe that a new word can exist before it is ever put into a dictionary? That would sorta hafta be true, don't you think? The dictionary-makers aren't going to put it in unless it had existed somewhere for a while. The Google Groups archives has over 9,000 hits for "any cites" and I didn't bother with other forms. The earliest for that one is: Pictures BITNET comp graphics I'm looking for the pictures from Voyager, as in an FTP cite for them, or what- ever. Also, any misc pics (any format). Any cites, or files sent to me would be appreciated. Mike (Please reply via E-mail, as I don't read this group on a regular basis) Oct 26 1989 by UD182...@NDSUVM1.BITNET - 1 message - 1 author It's a really useful word in newsgroups, to get people to provide evidence for their easily spouted claims. A random selection of the pages I saw: -- I don't have any cites, just my own experience -- Why do you never provide any cites or reference for your claims -- Do you have any cites from credible sources for this -- No one seems to be able to provide any cites that Bush was a supporter of the Nazis. -- Do you have any cites to back up your theory? -- Still waiting on any cites or documentation as to anything that could possibly back up your foolish claim -- Do you have any cites for what are frankly, your rather odd claims... SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>> Where are your cites? >> "Cite" is not a noun. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dictionary-makers aren't going to put it in unless it had existed > somewhere for a while. Well, Merriam-Webster also has "cite" as a verb. They were pretty quick to pick up "wannabe" and other words of recent coinage, far less than twenty years. I guess their research doesn't show it as sufficiently widespread to cite the noun usage. I get your point that there is a body of usage of "cite" as a noun, but it still grates on my ear, like the TV show /Ghosthunters/ describing their client debriefing as "the reveal". I stand by my assertion that it is a misuse of the word "cite" to use it as a noun. I guess I'm just old school that way. SignatureLew > Well, Merriam-Webster also has "cite" as a verb. They were pretty quick to > pick up "wannabe" and other words of recent coinage, far less than twenty > years. I guess their research doesn't show it as sufficiently widespread to > cite the noun usage. How widely used a new word must be to interest a lexicographer is a good question, and probably a standard known only to them. A usage can be very *deep*, used happily for decades or centuries by a particular trade or interest group, but fail to be *wide* enough to be more than "mere jargon." > I get your point that there is a body of usage of "cite" as a noun, but it > still grates on my ear, like the TV show /Ghosthunters/ describing their > client debriefing as "the reveal". "The reveal" is a jargon term from magician's stagecraft, and maybe from con artists as well... All the really old uses of "the reveal" that I find now are different, pertaining to windows, doors, and bricklaying. Magicians and con artists are not prone to write down their secrets. Here's the one I mean, from Google Books, mid-20th-century: The Reporter - by Max Ascoli -- 1964 ... swathed in lights on a revolving stage -- stood the 1964 Oldsmobile. ... The magic moment, as essential to auto shows as horses are to Westerns, is known in the trade as the "reveal." Properly done, it can make even the most ... It looks like those in sales wanted a name for the dramatic climax, in there with "pitch" and "close" and other selling words most of us don't need. >I stand by my assertion that it is a > misuse of the word "cite" to use it as a noun. I guess I'm just old school > that way. You're not obliged to use any new word yourself, of course. But it's the height of old fogeyism to feel that no one else is entitled to use them either. I think "cite" has been extremely handy in the world of Usenet. I assume it is short for "citation" in the same way that "quote" is often short for "quotation." Do you rail against that abbreviation, too? Or did that one show up while you were still accepting new words? SignatureBest -- Donn On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > You're not obliged to use any new word yourself, of course. But > it's the height of old fogeyism to feel that no one else is > entitled to use them either. I think "cite" has been extremely > handy in the world of Usenet. As I posted elsethread, the OED records a first use in 1957 (with a full stop for the abbreviation), and examples from the 1970s and 1980s (without). Others may disagree, but a 50-year history is good enough for me to qualify something as an established usage. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Others may disagree, but a 50-year history is good enough for me to > qualify something as an established usage. Yes, thank you, that was very useful. I'd forgotten about the origins in the legal profession. However, I hope that people also give some thought about this knee-jerk assumption that "being in the dictionary" is the same as "exists as a (good, real) word." It's like saying a person doesn't exist if they're not in the phone book. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > as "exists as a (good, real) word." It's like saying a person > doesn't exist if they're not in the phone book. Oh, absolutely; but it's always enjoyable when you can throw the book at those who *do* feel it's important. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Oh, absolutely; but it's always enjoyable when you can throw the > book at those who *do* feel it's important. Yabbut. I liked Donna's "phone book" line a lot, but word choice is /almost always/ important. Most of the things we talk about in AUE are matters of style, not of correctness, and there's nothing wrong with objecting to a particular usage, whether it be new-hatched or a thousand-year veteran, on grounds of style. I dislike noun "quote" used outside such places as the newsroom (where of course I'll use it myself without a blink), and I dislike noun "cite" in writing anywhere. I don't say or write "whilst" or "betwixt". I don't like turnips to eat, either. Why shouldn't I say so, with disparagement if I feel like it? And if I want to, why not try to persuade others to join me in my often irrational opinion? Of course, they may chuck the book at me instead of signing up; but that seems OK too. SignatureMike. >Most of the things we talk about in AUE are >matters of style, not of correctness, and there's nothing wrong with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >join me in my often irrational opinion? Of course, they may chuck the >book at me instead of signing up; but that seems OK too. Anyone care to join me in deploring the use of "dairy" as a noun, short for "dairy products"? As in "I don't do dairy". It's my current pet hate. Well, one of them. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ On 12 Jan 2009, Wood Avens wrote >> Most of the things we talk about in AUE are >> matters of style, not of correctness, and there's nothing wrong [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > noun, short for "dairy products"? As in "I don't do dairy". > It's my current pet hate. Well, one of them. I'm ambivalent about the use of the adjective as a noun, but I'm definitely not hot on the use of "I don't do X" for "I don't eat/drink X". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 12 Jan 2009, Wood Avens wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >definitely not hot on the use of "I don't do X" for "I don't >eat/drink X". Aren't we seeing the slow death, finally, of that usage? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>Most of the things we talk about in AUE are >>matters of style, not of correctness, and there's nothing wrong with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Anyone care to join me in deploring the use of "dairy" as a noun, > short for "dairy products"? As in "I don't do dairy". Oh, I see. Dairy intolerance. > It's my > current pet hate. Well, one of them. >>Most of the things we talk about in AUE are >>matters of style, not of correctness, and there's nothing wrong with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >short for "dairy products"? As in "I don't do dairy". It's my >current pet hate. Well, one of them. I will readily join you, Katy, although my dislike for dairy as a noun hasn't reached the point where I deplore it; thus far, I only hate it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland On 12 Jan 2009, Mike Lyle wrote >> On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I want to, why not try to persuade others to join me in my often > irrational opinion? No reason at all. But if someone argues that they don't use "cite" or "whilst" and that others also shouldn't "because they're not legitimate current words" (rather than "because I don't like them"), it's hardly surprising that they find a bunch of phone books dumped on their head. > Of course, they may chuck the book at me > instead of signing up; but that seems OK too. I don't see many regulars here arguing that people can't choose to promote or discourage uses on stylistic grounds. But when someone tries to call on external authority in support of their particular bug-bear -- "You won't find it in the dictionary, so there!" -- all's fair in the game of ridicule. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> On 12 Jan 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >join me in my often irrational opinion? Of course, they may chuck the >book at me instead of signing up; but that seems OK too. Three cheers to you, Mike. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> > Where are your cites? >> >> "Cite" is not a noun. >> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cite> > >It hasn't been until twenty years ago or so, you mean. Do you have a citation from a reputable dictionary that will convince us of that? That ought to be easy, if you are right, since the lag time between a new word and when it is introduced to many reference works is well under twenty years. Quotations from some monkeys on the Internet isn't good enough, in my book. Until I see proof, the noun is "citation", not the ugly "cite", at least for me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland On 12 Jan 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >>>> Where are your cites? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you have a citation from a reputable dictionary that will > convince us of that? Will the OED do? (quote) cite, n. U.S. = CITATION n. 3, 4. 1957 Atlantic Reporter 2nd Ser. No.131 102 The Legislature in 1951 passed the Police Tenure Act, (cite. omitted). 1975 Bookletter (N.Y.) 8 Dec. 3/3 He has personally collected a file of over 250,000 cites. 1984 Verbatim Autumn 10/1 The earliest cite so far uncovered for marriage-neutral Ms. 1998 Yale Law Jrnl. (Nexis) 21 Feb., First a cite to Morrall, then a cite to the source citing Morrall, and so on until the connection to Morrall is forgotten. (/quote) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>>> Where are your cites? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > book. Until I see proof, the noun is "citation", not the ugly "cite", > at least for me. Well, there's this: -------------------- cite -noun citation (defs. 7, 8). Origin: by shortening Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. ------------------- cite noun 1. a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article includes mention of similar clinical cases" [syn: citation] {...} WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. -------------------- cite citation The American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. -------------------- cite citation The American Heritage® Abbreviations Dictionary, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. -------------------- SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> Where are your cites? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >-------------------- Thank you, Skitt and Harvey. I don't know how I missed them. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Really? Where...? After "sugary" or after "pretty" -- take your pick. SignatureSkitt (in SF Bay Area) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >After "sugary" or after "pretty" -- take your pick. So, Alec, you think that Lady Teasley's sugariness was the cause of pretty little-boys staring at her? On 10 Jan 2009, Murray Arnow wrote >>>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So, Alec, you think that Lady Teasley's sugariness was the cause > of pretty little-boys staring at her? Why couldn't that be the case? It seems entirely possible to me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>>>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Why couldn't that be the case? It seems entirely possible to me. Actually, I'm at a loss as to what invites stares from pretty little-boys. That is why I asked and am glad to see that someone understands the lads. >>>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So, Alec, you think that Lady Teasley's sugariness was the cause of > pretty little-boys staring at her? Why not? I didn't write the story, but I would stare at a sugary lady. I'm a pretty big boy, though. Wide too, especially front to back. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Why not? I didn't write the story, but I would stare at a sugary lady. I'm >a pretty big boy, though. Wide too, especially front to back. Ok, f.ck the commas; where in-the-hell are the hyphens? Alec, I never thought of you as a pretty big-boy, but if you say you're a pretty-big boy, I would think that so. >>>>> Gannibal! (excerpt) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So, Alec, you think that Lady Teasley's sugariness was the cause of > pretty little-boys staring at her? Without a hyphen it's hard to come to any other conclusion. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Gannibal! (excerpt) > > I haven't been explicitly invited to comment but while I wait for the > iron to heat up... "[E]rlanders" does not have the same style, but the display of chutzpah reminds me of "D. Hencer Spines," as Bob L. used to call him. Just saying.... SignatureMaria C. > >> Gannibal! (excerpt) > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just saying.... Great minds in harmony, Maria. I think you get credit for posting it first. I mention DHS in a sig on another thread. There are also echoes of Chance Kim, but I think he limited his appearances to AEU. SignatureBob Lieblich Hi, Tootsie |
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.