 |
 | 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 2009found another British actor with a poor American accent
"Murder Is Easy," in the series *Six by Agatha*, included in *Mystery! *. But it wasn't entirely the actress's fault; she was given at least three Anglicisms in her dialogue, which led to the suspicion that she was actually faking her American background and would be revealed as the murderess: "May I go through?" when asking permission to enter the church after the service to make brass rubbings (Am. "May I go in?") "On the seventeeth floor of an apartment block?" when asked if in her American home she had a picket fence, presumably a stereotype learned from TV [but in 1955, when the story was set?] (Am. "apartment house") and omission of the subordinating conjunction "that" in a sentence I don't recall, where it would be required in Am. (And much non-rhotacism, and pronouncing "block" with [A.] (is that the low back slightly rounded, turned alpha, symbol?) rather than unrounded [a].) > "Murder Is Easy," in the series *Six by Agatha*, included in *Mystery! > *. But it wasn't entirely the actress's fault; she was given at least [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > American home she had a picket fence, presumably a stereotype learned > from TV [but in 1955, when the story was set?] (Am. "apartment house") Apartment building or complex in America. Anything with 17 floors is well out of the "house" category. > > "Murder Is Easy," in the series *Six by Agatha*, included in *Mystery! > > *. But it wasn't entirely the actress's fault; she was given at least [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Apartment building or complex in America. > Anything with 17 floors is well out of the "house" category. She referred to her upbringing in New York City. In New York City, we call them apartment houses. A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to a gated community, not to an apartment building. > > > "Murder Is Easy," in the series *Six by Agatha*, included in *Mystery! > > > *. But it wasn't entirely the actress's fault; she was given at least [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - AFAICT, NYC has its own vocabulary when it comes to real estate and housing. The rest of the country has aparment buildings and aparment complexes. An apartment building is one building with one or two outside doors giving access to a hallway (and stairs and/or elevator going to hallways on the higher floors) with doors to the apartments themselves. An apartment complex is a group of buildings, each containing several apartments with each apartment having its own outside access; these are generally two to four stories high with the second through fourth story apartments letting out onto balconies that have stairways to the ground. > > > > "Murder Is Easy," in the series *Six by Agatha*, included in *Mystery! > > > > *. But it wasn't entirely the actress's fault; she was given at least [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > second through fourth story apartments letting out onto balconies that > have stairways to the ground.- In the NYC area those latter were called "garden apartments," and fortunately they're not being built any more. The gated communities, however, that look as if they're adjoining townhouses often turn out to be apartment buildings in which the layouts of the apartments bear no relation to the articulation of the facade. In Chicago what you describe are called "four-plus-ones," four floors of apartments over an open parking area, and they were the cheapest sort of mass production put up in the 50s and 60s. > > A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to > > a gated community, not to an apartment building. Not necessarily gated, and not even necessarily more than one building. I've heard those big H-shaped buildings in Rego Park, for instance, called "complexes." > AFAICT, NYC has its own vocabulary when it comes to real estate and > housing. The rest of the country has aparment buildings and aparment > complexes. The places I've lived have apartment houses, too. If it looks something like an ordinary house, it's a house. If it doesn't, it's a building. ¬R > > > A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to > > > a gated community, not to an apartment building. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The places I've lived have apartment houses, too. If it looks something > like an ordinary house, it's a house. If it doesn't, it's a building. I guess that settles it, Mr. "Knickerbocker" (an affectionate term for New Yorkers since early in the 19th century at least). Apartment houses _are_ ordinary houses in New York City. > I guess that settles it, Mr. "Knickerbocker" (an affectionate term for > New Yorkers since early in the 19th century at least). Apartment A friend of mine once mentioned seeing a TV documentary that laid the blame for creating the myth of our prestige and connection to the City on some other author besides Washington Irving. I thought it was the Ric Burns miniseries, but we rented the first two episodes and didn't find what he was talking about. Any idea who it might have been? > houses _are_ ordinary houses in New York City. Right. To the rest of us, a brownstone might look enough like a house, but a brick or concrete high-rise is definitely just a building. ¬R > > I guess that settles it, Mr. "Knickerbocker" (an affectionate term for > > New Yorkers since early in the 19th century at least). Apartment [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ric Burns miniseries, but we rented the first two episodes and didn't > find what he was talking about. Any idea who it might have been? Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own family's name? When Washington Irving published his "Knickerbocker's History of New York" (which is a _magnificent_ work; I call it the first work in Modern, not Early Modern, English -- compare e.g. James Fenimore Cooper, who was a couple years younger, and Poe, who was almost a generation younger) -- I _think_ it was published serially like a Dickens novel, in the 1810s -- the name was already associated to at least some degree with old Dutch New York. (I learned at the Museum of the City of New York that services were held at the Collegiate Church in Dutch into the 1760s, so the language survived at least four generations after the British took over in 1664, and I think longer in Brooklyn.) > > houses _are_ ordinary houses in New York City. > > Right. To the rest of us, a brownstone might look enough like a house, > but a brick or concrete high-rise is definitely just a building. "Hgh-rise" was an alien term to a NYC boy in 1965: the first time I ever heard it was from my mother's cousin's wife, whom I met in Miami Beach that Christmas. (We _almost_ got tickets to the Jackie Gleason Show.) >"Hgh-rise" was an alien term to a NYC boy in 1965: the first time I >ever heard it was from my mother's cousin's wife, whom I met in Miami >Beach that Christmas. (We _almost_ got tickets to the Jackie Gleason >Show.) Dang, but you New Yawk boys was bumpkins. The first time I went to Rockford, Illinois (my wife's home town) was in 1963. She pointed out the "sights" in Rockford, and that included Rockford Towers. She proudly mentioned that this six-story edifice was Rockford's first high rise apartment building. Rockford, at the time, was the second largest city in Illinois. Maybe the third largest. Peoria claimed a larger population, but Rockford people pooh-poohed this because Peoria was counting people who didn't live in the city limits. According to http://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Illinois.html , Rockford is now in third place behind Aurora. Peoria has dropped to seventh.  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > proudly mentioned that this six-story edifice was Rockford's first > high rise apartment building. Which further demonstrates that out in the sticks (of Miami and Rockford, at least) the concept of living in a tall building was worthy of comment less than fifty years ago. The first fashionalbe apartment house in NYC, the Dakota, was built in 1872. Who's the bumpkin? > Rockford, at the time, was the second largest city in Illinois. Maybe > the third largest. Peoria claimed a larger population, but Rockford [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > According tohttp://www.citypopulation.de/USA-Illinois.html, Rockford > is now in third place behind Aurora. Peoria has dropped to seventh. When did Aurora get so big? For my 25 years in Chicago, Rockford was always #2. > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > When did Aurora get so big? For my 25 years in Chicago, Rockford was > always #2. I'm pretty sure I remember mutterings about how no one wanted to live in highrise appartments in the Detroit suburbs in the 1960's and 70's John Kane, Kingston ON Canada > > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I'm pretty sure I remember mutterings about how no one wanted to live > in highrise appartments in the Detroit suburbs in the 1960's and 70's No one wanted to live anywhere near Detroit in those days ... > > > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > No one wanted to live anywhere near Detroit in those days ... "High-rise apartment houses, by law, must have their own parking facilities." - NY Times, 30 March 1958 "High-rise" as an architectural term first appears in the early 50's, though (judging from the newspapers at least) a little earlier in Chicago and elsewhere than in NY. I wonder if it was taken over from the fashion trade, where "high-rise" trousers and skirts go back at least 20 years earlier? Ross Clark On Jul 14, 6:40 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > the fashion trade, where "high-rise" trousers and skirts go back at > least 20 years earlier? Hmm, did they have high waists or high cuffs/hems? > On Jul 14, 6:40 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Hmm, did they have high waists or high cuffs/hems? The former, as far as I can make out. I'm not suggesting any precise semantic correlation, just that the phrase was already common in another field at the relevant period. Ross Clark > > I'm pretty sure I remember mutterings about how no one wanted to live > > in highrise appartments in the Detroit suburbs in the 1960's and 70's > > No one wanted to live anywhere near Detroit in those days ... get up everybody's gonna move their feet get down everybody's gonna lose their seat > Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own family's > name? When Washington Irving published his "Knickerbocker's History of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generation younger) -- I _think_ it was published serially like a > Dickens novel, in the 1810s If so, that happened after its publication as a book. Google Books shows a copy of volume 2 of Diedrich Knickerbocker's _A History of New York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty_ with a publication date of 1809, and that accords with Wikipedia. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To find the end of Middle English, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you discover the exact date and Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time the Great Vowel Shift took |place (the morning of May 5, 1450, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |at some time between neenuh fiftehn (650)857-7572 |and nahyn twenty-fahyv). | Kevin Wald http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own family's > > name? When Washington Irving published his "Knickerbocker's History of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > York, from the Beginning of the World to the End of the Dutch Dynasty_ > with a publication date of 1809, and that accords with Wikipedia. What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you have nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution since devising the phonetics transliteration system usually seen here? Did you miss the "I think" at the start of the sentence? Is the decade of the 1800s _that_ different from the decade of the 1810s two centuries on? God, you're annoying. >> > Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own >> > family's name? When Washington Irving published his [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Why, no. Unlike some, I don't consider myself the "greatest" anything. But I am pretty good. > Do you have nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution > since devising the phonetics transliteration system usually seen > here? Nah. Nothing of note. > Did you miss the "I think" at the start of the sentence? Of course not. When Peter T. Daniels says "I think", bells go off, and I think to myself "I wonder if he's wrong again". > Is the decade of the 1800s _that_ different from the decade of the > 1810s two centuries on? Not at all. What got me interested enough to check was your belief that it was published serially. It didn't take very long to determine that you were quite likely wrong in that, as well as in the date. > God, you're annoying. You have my permission not to read what I write. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There is no such thing as bad data, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only data from bad homes. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Did you miss the "I think" at the start of the sentence? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that it was published serially. It didn't take very long to determine > that you were quite likely wrong in that, as well as in the date. In this kind of context, 'I think' introduces something the speaker isn't certain of, doesn't really care very much about, and would probably not depend on for anything serious. In such circumstances, the speaker's impression can indeed be wrong, but hardly the speaker, who is from the onset advertising that the impression isn't a sure one. > >> > Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own > >> > family's name? When Washington Irving published his [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You have my permission not to read what I write. Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? No, which is why I merely said that you were "quite likely wrong" and that "if so, it happened after its publication as a book". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law. |If you don't pay your taxes, you'll kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine, (650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to |escape from jail, you'll be shot. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke > > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? > > No, which is why I merely said that you were "quite likely wrong" and > that "if so, it happened after its publication as a book". It would be rather odd for a book to be published serially after it had already appeared as a book. >> > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It would be rather odd for a book to be published serially after it > had already appeared as a book. Hence the deduction from "if so, it happened after its publication as a book" to "quite likely wrong" that it was published serially. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |We never met anyone who believed in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |fortune cookies. That's astounding. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Belief in the precognitive powers |of an Asian pastry is really no kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |wackier than belief in ESP, (650)857-7572 |subluxation, or astrology, but you |just don't hear anyone preaching http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Scientific Cookie-ism. | Penn and Teller > >> > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hence the deduction from "if so, it happened after its publication as > a book" to "quite likely wrong" that it was published serially. Now why would you leap to the postulation of multiple errors, instead of simply noting that the book's publication date was 1809, not 1810 or slightly later? Somehow, my copy isn't with the rest of my Library of America volumes so I can't check the notes on the text. >> >> > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > instead of simply noting that the book's publication date was 1809, > not 1810 or slightly later? Perhaps because I saw the "1809" on the title page, and it seemed more likely that that indicated that the book was published in 1809, according with other sources that said that the book was published in 1809 than that they messed up printing the date *and* that you were correct in your belief that the book had been previously published serially but nobody else seemed to mention it. I leapt to the postulation of a single error: your belief was incorrect. > Somehow, my copy isn't with the rest of my Library of America > volumes so I can't check the notes on the text. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read > >> >> > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I leapt to the postulation of a single error: your belief was > incorrect. No, you leaped to postulating that someone could think that a book could be published serially _after_ it was published whole. You still haven't explained why guessing that a work from early in the 19th century was published in the second decade of that century rather than the (arguably) last year of the first decade is such a heinous error (when the point being made was how much more modern it seems than other well-known works published decades after).. > > Somehow, my copy isn't with the rest of my Library of America > > volumes so I can't check the notes on the text. >> >> >> > Did you determine that it was _not_ published serially? >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > No, you leaped to postulating that someone could think that a book > could be published serially _after_ it was published whole. Well, *I* certainly believe it could (and I'm sure I've seen books in the nineteenth century that were), but I've never indicated that I thought that *you* thought that that was what happened. Just that I was willing to allow that a strange situation may have made your belief that it was published serially turn out to be true. > You still haven't explained why guessing that a work from early in > the 19th century was published in the second decade of that century > rather than the (arguably) last year of the first decade is such a > heinous error (when the point being made was how much more modern it > seems than other well-known works published decades after).. You're projecting. You made a statement that piqued my curiousity, I looked into it, discovered that the evidence indicated that it was incorrect, and "published" my findings. Not "heinous". But wrong. The scholarly thing to do would have been to say "Oh. It turns out I was mistaken. I wonder what led me to believe that. Anyway, thanks." That's for the "published serially". The date I saw as more helping your other point than attacking you. When you're talking about the "first" something, the date matters. If it had turned out to be, say, 1819, I would have said that _Frankenstein_ (published in 1818) was a good contender. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >No, you leaped to postulating that someone could think that a book >could be published serially _after_ it was published whole. It's not entirely unknown. Alex Haley's *Roots* is a modern example, serialized in newspapers after it was made into a TV series. ¬R / Darla: Leftovers aren't the mark of a man. \ www.bestweb.net/~notr Andrew Reid: Actually, they are, because that's how men's shirts button. >Somehow, my copy isn't with the rest of my Library of America volumes >so I can't check the notes on the text. There are plenty of copies of various editions online with introductions that show the missing-person advertisements for Diedrich Knickerbocker placed in New York newspapers in November 1809 in advance of its December 1809 publication. I have a vague memory that it *was* serialized after its original publication, but I'm not finding anything to substantiate that. ¬R "People late for work only deal with the essentials, cutting away uneccesary tasks like Occam's Razor with no time to shave." --oTTo--Bahn >> > Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own family's >> > name? When Washington Irving published his "Knickerbocker's History of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution since devising > the phonetics transliteration system usually seen here? He's one of the best I know. That's high praise, btw. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > Can you be a bit more explicit? "Knickerbocker" is your own family's > >> > name? When Washington Irving published his "Knickerbocker's History of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > He's one of the best I know. One of the best what? > That's high praise, btw. You imply you have a very vast range of acquaintances, but your statement is meaningless without knowing the range of accomplishment of those acquaintances. >> > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you >> > have nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > statement is meaningless without knowing the range of accomplishment > of those acquaintances. You may choose to believe him or not, but it seems strange to both call his statement "meaningless" and correctly state an implication that it entails. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you > >> > have nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > call his statement "meaningless" and correctly state an implication > that it entails. Now _you're_ the one confusing meaning for something else -- in this case, entailment. Symbolic logic operates entirely on symbols that have no meaning -- "If p then q," etc. -- and the implications and entailments can be stated perfectly clearly. > Symbolic logic operates entirely on symbols that have no meaning -- > "If p then q," etc. -- and the implications and entailments can be > stated perfectly clearly. In symbolic logic propositional variables -- "p", "q", ... -- are taken to stand for arbitrary propositions. Meaningless symbols and such like neither imply nor entail anything. SignatureAatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@uta.fi) "Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus > > Symbolic logic operates entirely on symbols that have no meaning -- > > "If p then q," etc. -- and the implications and entailments can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to stand for arbitrary propositions. Meaningless symbols and such like > neither imply nor entail anything. Again, not what "meaning" means to a linguist. "p" and "q" have no semantic content, or any semantic content. >> >> > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you >> >> > have nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "If p then q," etc. -- and the implications and entailments can be > stated perfectly clearly. So his statement entails something[1] but doesn't mean anything on its own? Fascinating. [1] And not, as it would if it were a contradiction, anything. You picked a particular sentence that it implied. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you have >> > nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution since devising [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One of the best what? In the paragraph immediately above my statement you asked three questions. Two were about doing and one was about being. In that context there is one clear and obvious meaning: He's one of the best f.cking fact checkers I know. But actually he checks facts on a wide range of topics for us. A wonderful and greatly appreciated service. >> That's high praise, btw. > > You imply you have a very vast range of acquaintances, but your > statement is meaningless without knowing the range of accomplishment > of those acquaintances. That's why I explained it. I know a lot of people who are actually interested in the facts behind things, preferring them to vague recollections and hand waving. They, like me, delight in finding the facts out. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you have > >> > nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution since devising [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > checks facts on a wide range of topics for us. A wonderful and greatly > appreciated service. Not really. "Know-it-alls" aren't especially welcome. > >> That's high praise, btw. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > recollections and hand waving. They, like me, delight in finding the > facts out. Do most of them do it so nastily? >> >> > What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do you have >> >> > nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a contribution since devising [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Not really. "Know-it-alls" aren't especially welcome. That's true, Petey, but we tolerate you anyway. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>> What are you, the world's greatest f.cking fact-checker? Do >>>>>> you have nothing else to do? Have you _ever_ made a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That's true, Petey, but we tolerate you anyway. Awaken Tonto: time for his notorious question. SignatureFrank ess On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:00:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:9acccd8e-17dc-499c-a4ec-d836fe9752e4@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >> He's one of the best f.cking fact checkers I know. But >> actually he checks facts on a wide range of topics for >> us. A wonderful and greatly appreciated service. > Not really. "Know-it-alls" aren't especially welcome. 'Fact checker' is not synonymous with 'know-it-all'. Judging by his occasional appearances in sci.lang, Evan is most definitely the former and not the latter. [...] >> I know a lot of people who are actually interested in >> the facts behind things, preferring them to vague >> recollections and hand waving. They, like me, delight >> in finding the facts out. > Do most of them do it so nastily? I've not seen any nastiness from Evan or Nick. Brian > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:00:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 'Fact checker' is not synonymous with 'know-it-all'. The difference is in their presentation. Someone who looks up every incidental mention of anything, usially irrelevant to the main point, (a) has far too much time on his hands and (b) definitely falls in the latter category. > Judging by his occasional appearances in sci.lang, Evan is > most definitely the former and not the latter. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I've not seen any nastiness from Evan or Nick. Then I guess you don't read his consistently nasty "checkings" of statements by me that are preceded by e.g. "I think." How does Nick come into the nasty-tact-checker category? On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:4cb35bb1-dadd-4e7f-aa0a-905ca8619fb1@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:00:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:9acccd8e-17dc-499c-a4ec-d836fe9752e4@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>>> He's one of the best f.cking fact checkers I know. But >>>> actually he checks facts on a wide range of topics for >>>> us. A wonderful and greatly appreciated service. >>> Not really. "Know-it-alls" aren't especially welcome. >> 'Fact checker' is not synonymous with 'know-it-all'. > The difference is in their presentation. That's not the only difference, but it's certainly an important one. > Someone who looks up every incidental mention of anything, > usially irrelevant to the main point, (a) has far too > much time on his hands and (b) definitely falls in the > latter category. Not necessarily. As you say, it's largely a matter of presentation. Some of us simply have wide-ranging curiosity. I have similar tendencies myself. >> Judging by his occasional appearances in sci.lang, Evan is >> most definitely the former and not the latter. >> [...] >>>> I know a lot of people who are actually interested in >>>> the facts behind things, preferring them to vague >>>> recollections and hand waving. They, like me, delight >>>> in finding the facts out. >>> Do most of them do it so nastily? >> I've not seen any nastiness from Evan or Nick. > Then I guess you don't read his consistently nasty > "checkings" of statements by me that are preceded by e.g. > "I think." I don't read them *as* nasty. > How does Nick come into the nasty-tact-checker category? Your 'Do most of them do it so nastily' was a response to Nick's 'They, like me, delight in finding the facts out' and so is most naturally read as a reference to him. The overall context, on the other hand, suggests that it refers to Evan. In view of the ambiguity, I chose to cover both possibilities. Brian > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > to Evan. In view of the ambiguity, I chose to cover both > possibilities. So despite the disambiguating context, you chose to go for the unlikely (and incorrect) ambiguity interpretation? On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:f3f742d0-3df2-4c4e-ad7f-b56682df50a5@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:4cb35bb1-dadd-4e7f-aa0a-905ca8619fb1@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: [...] >>> How does Nick come into the nasty-tact-checker category? >> Your 'Do most of them do it so nastily' was a response to >> Nick's 'They, like me, delight in finding the facts out' and >> so is most naturally read as a reference to him. The >> overall context, on the other hand, suggests that it refers >> to Evan. In view of the ambiguity, I chose to cover both >> possibilities. > So despite the disambiguating context, you chose to go for the > unlikely (and incorrect) ambiguity interpretation? I did not choose the incorrect interpretation; as I said, I covered both possible interpretations. If you're denying that it was ambiguous, you're simply wrong. > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > covered both possible interpretations. If you're denying > that it was ambiguous, you're simply wrong. I am asserting that you consciously chose to violate Gricean Maxims of Conversation. On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in <news:6fefefc7-9c8d-462a-bfa8-5719aa798210@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:15:46 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:f3f742d0-3df2-4c4e-ad7f-b56682df50a5@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> >> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in >>>> <news:4cb35bb1-dadd-4e7f-aa0a-905ca8619fb1@m18g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> >>>> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> [...] >>>>> How does Nick come into the nasty-tact-checker category? >>>> Your 'Do most of them do it so nastily' was a response to >>>> Nick's 'They, like me, delight in finding the facts out' and >>>> so is most naturally read as a reference to him. The >>>> overall context, on the other hand, suggests that it refers >>>> to Evan. In view of the ambiguity, I chose to cover both >>>> possibilities. >>> So despite the disambiguating context, you chose to go for the >>> unlikely (and incorrect) ambiguity interpretation? >> I did not choose the incorrect interpretation; as I said, I >> covered both possible interpretations. If you're denying >> that it was ambiguous, you're simply wrong. > I am asserting that you consciously chose to violate > Gricean Maxims of Conversation. And I'm telling you that I didn't, because the context was *not* disambiguating. > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And I'm telling you that I didn't, because the context was *not* > disambiguating. Ah, but who are you to determine what you "consciously chose" to do? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ah, but who are you to determine what you "consciously chose" to do? He is himself? "The overall context, on the other hand, suggests that it refers to Evan." Yet he failed to reject the Griceanly most improbable interpretation. >> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it refers to Evan." Yet he failed to reject the Griceanly most > improbable interpretation. I suggested this a while back, but don't you think that if people regularly, and improbably (in your eyes) misinterpret what you are saying, the fault may not be entirely theirs? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > regularly, and improbably (in your eyes) misinterpret what you are > saying, the fault may not be entirely theirs? I don't have time to write dissertations like Franz's. >>>>> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:34:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" >>>>> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I don't have time to write dissertations like Franz's. And if you did write dissertations like Franj's, it's quite probable people would have *less* an idea of what you were talking about. > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Some of us simply have wide-ranging curiosity. I have similar > tendencies myself. The product of such wide-ranging curiosity is usually information that will be remembered by someone in the future, or met again afterwards until it sticks. Whereas the modern 'know-it-all' brings up irrelevant data that no one will ever have any use for or recall again. In times past, it at least entailed some effort; nowadays, anyone can look up such stuff online. > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > past, it at least entailed some effort; nowadays, anyone can look up > such stuff online.- I wonder whether he bothered to look up the birthdates of Irving, Cooper, and Poe, in order to be sure I wasn't lying about their order of precedence or closeness of birth. And then didn't bother to mention that that information was correct. We all know we just observed Poe's bicentennial, shortly before Lincoln's. > I wonder whether he bothered to look up the birthdates of Irving, > Cooper, and Poe, Yes, actually (at least for Irving and Cooper, because I wasn't sure). > in order to be sure I wasn't lying about their order of precedence > or closeness of birth. I don't recall ever having accused you of lying about anything. I've merely noted some times when you've been mistaken. > And then didn't bother to mention that that information was correct. This may surprise you, but I don't actually find your not being wrong about things to be remarkable. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> in order to be sure I wasn't lying about their order of precedence >> or closeness of birth. > > I don't recall ever having accused you of lying about anything. I've > merely noted some times when you've been mistaken. It should be noted that Peter seems to have a very low threshold of what 'lying' is. >name? When Washington Irving published his "Knickerbocker's History of >New York" ... in the 1810s -- the name was already associated to at >least some degree with old Dutch New York. With the state, maybe, but with the City? All the Knickerbockers mentioned in the book except Diedrich himself are from Scaghticoke. "The Author's Apology" that appeared in the 1848 edition suggests that the rash of naming Manhattan businesses for us came well after the publication of his History. I'm thinking that the popularizing work my friend couldn't quite remember must have been in the 1820s, before The Knickerbocker magazine started up in 1833. ¬R Blood is useless, outside its original container. http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/davidcar.html --Don Rauf >> A friend of mine once mentioned seeing a TV documentary that laid the >> blame for creating the myth of our prestige and connection to the City [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > generations after the British took over in 1664, and I think longer in > Brooklyn.) You two might be interested in this article: The mesmerizing show currently at the Hudson River Museum explores the Dutch origins of Hudson Valley culture, not just with visual imagery but also through documentation in a companion book. Together they present something that is both enlightening and ambitious, and somewhat rare these days in regional museums: an old-fashioned social history exhibition. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/nyregion/19artwe.html SignatureThe generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. [Robert R. Coveyou] > >> A friend of mine once mentioned seeing a TV documentary that laid the > >> blame for creating the myth of our prestige and connection to the City [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/nyregion/19artwe.html The Museum of the City of New York, not surprisingly, is having the same exhibit -- it being the 400th anniversary of Mr. Hudson's arrival. The Hudson River Museum is valiant but tiny (and even has a tiny planetarium attached to it). >> A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to >> a gated community, not to an apartment building.- Hide quoted text - > AFAICT, NYC has its own vocabulary when it comes to real estate and > housing. The rest of the country has aparment buildings and aparment [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > second through fourth story apartments letting out onto balconies that > have stairways to the ground. That's what "apartment complex" means in rural and semi-rural Virginia too. SignatureSteve: Now, okay. I did say that monkeys could program Visual Basic. Leo: But not that all Visual Basic programmers are monkeys. Steve: Exactly. [Security Now 194] > >> A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to > >> a gated community, not to an apartment building.- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's what "apartment complex" means in rural and semi-rural Virginia > too. Note: _Group_ of buildings. >> >> A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to >> >> a gated community, not to an apartment building.- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > going to hallways on the higher floors) with doors to the apartments >> > themselves. This sentence >> > An apartment complex is a group of buildings, each >> > containing several apartments with each apartment having its own [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Note: _Group_ of buildings. is the bit I was agreeing with --- not a gated community. SignatureIn the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001) > A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to > a gated community, not to an apartment building. "Apartment complex" with quotation marks fetches 2,990,000 Googles. Pictures at http://preview.tinyurl.com/nbvskx SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:37:03 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pictures athttp://preview.tinyurl.com/nbvskx Which actually required an _extra_ step to get to your google images search ... They would appear to be groups of apartment buildings. > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:37:03 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels" > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Which actually required an _extra_ step to get to your google images > search ... Uh, yeah. The original URL is too long to fit on a single line. Some newsreaders will break the URL up so that it can't be accessed with a single click. A TinyURL will always fit on a single line. If you click on a TinyURL without preview it will send you directly to a web site whose actual URL you've never seen. Some web sites are malicious. The reason for inserting "preview" in the TinyURL is so that the reader can view the actual, complete address and decide for himself if he wants to go there. The use of a preview TinyURL is a courtesy. I'm sorry if it bothers you. > They would appear to be groups of apartment buildings. Some are, some aren't. In any case the number of buildings in a complex is irrelevant. I was responding to your "A 'complex,' if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer to a gated community..." It's clear that "complex" is used in many, many places, and that few of the complexes pictured are gated. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:46:21 UTC, "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > It's clear that "complex" is used in many, many places, and that few > of the complexes pictured are gated. It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. >> Some are, some aren't. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. I agree. (As we all know, many people say things that don't make sense....) SignatureNobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. [Mencken] > >> Some are, some aren't. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I agree. (As we all know, many people say things that don't make > sense....) Especially Realtors. These days they're selling apartment homes. >> > It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > These days they're selling apartment homes. Earlier this year, Mark Liberman posted on Language Log in March about readers' reactions to "incentivized", which had appeared in a previous post. [1] There were some readers' comments to the effect that opposition to some neologisms (especially -ize ones) --- as opposed to scientific terms such as "pressurize" and "randomize" --- is a form of snobbery against people in business/management ("incentivize") and fashion ("accessorize"), as opposed to scientists. I wrote: It seems to be standard practice [among linguists] to say, "Let's examine the usage of good authors..." and then show that Shakespeare / Donne / Brontë / Gowers split infinitives, used "between" with more than two arguments, etc. Surely the "good authors" argument doesn't apply to people who write management books? [1] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1241 SignatureThe three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978] Adam Funk filted: >Earlier this year, Mark Liberman posted on Language Log in March about >readers' reactions to "incentivized", which had appeared in a previous [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Surely the "good authors" argument doesn't apply to people who > write management books? They're excluded because we're talking about writers of *English*....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? Peter T. Daniels filted: >It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. Just as, pace George Carlin, it makes to sense to call them "apartments" when they're together....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. Even if it surrounds three courtyards and a pool? I'm sure we would have called the last place I lived in Houston an apartment complex even if it hadn't had a second building with it. ¬R >> It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. > > Even if it surrounds three courtyards and a pool? I'm sure we would > have called the last place I lived in Houston an apartment complex even > if it hadn't had a second building with it. For what it may or may not be worth, a reasonably competent desk dictionary (that is, one not from Merriam) gives: "2. an assemblage of units, as buildings or roadways, that together form a single comprehensive group." On the one hand, multiplicity appears mandatory; on the other, something that "surrounds" a fair bit of real estate would seem to be composed, at least conceptually, of multiple structures (assuming a U-shape, one might think of each of the three "legs" as a separate structure). Just grist . . . . SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > >> It makes no sense to call a single building a complex. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Just grist . . . . He posited a _single_ bulding "surrounding" four entities. Perhaps it's a rectangle with four interior courtyards, or perhaps it's like a Phoenician samek, with six wings demarcating (but hardly "surrounding" four large bays. Sounds big, but not like an assemblage. >He posited a _single_ bulding "surrounding" four entities. Perhaps >it's a rectangle with four interior courtyards, Just three. The pool is in the largest one. Hmmm, another feature is probably relevant: The apartments had exterior main entrances (facing the courtyards). I think there was some other expression besides "garden apartments" for this, an expression from New Orleans, but I don't recall it. If the apartments were instead connected by interior hallways and had patios and balconies facing the courtyards, I'd be more inclined just to call it a building. ¬R > >He posited a _single_ bulding "surrounding" four entities. Perhaps > >it's a rectangle with four interior courtyards, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by interior hallways and had patios and balconies facing the courtyards, > I'd be more inclined just to call it a building. The pictures I pointed to on Google Images make clear, whether it makes sense or not, that "apartment complex" to refer to a single building is common usage, at least among real estate agents. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >He posited a _single_ bulding "surrounding" four entities. Perhaps >> >it's a rectangle with four interior courtyards, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >makes sense or not, that "apartment complex" to refer to a single >building is common usage, at least among real estate agents. Leave it to an estate agent to glorify an image. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> He posited a _single_ bulding "surrounding" four entities. Perhaps >>> it's a rectangle with four interior courtyards, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > makes sense or not, that "apartment complex" to refer to a single > building is common usage, at least among real estate agents. With all the respect due to the participants, this has got to earn the prize for the most uninteresting. discussion. ever. Anywhere. >>>> He posited a _single_ bulding "surrounding" four entities. >>>> Perhaps it's a rectangle with four interior courtyards, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > With all the respect due to the participants, this has got to earn > the prize for the most uninteresting. discussion. ever. Anywhere. Yes, but the side snides are so wonderfully fulfilling. SignatureFrank ess >With all the respect due to the participants, this has got to earn the >prize for the most uninteresting. discussion. ever. Anywhere. Asieoniezi! Asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi, asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi. Asieoniezi asieoniezi; asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi. Asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi-asieoniezi asieoniezi. (Asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi!) Asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi. Asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi. Asieoniezi-asieoniezi asieoniezi, asieoniezi asieoniezi. Asieoniezi asieoniezi "asieoniezi"! asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi asieoniezi... asieoniezi. >> A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer >> to a gated community, not to an apartment building. > > "Apartment complex" with quotation marks fetches 2,990,000 Googles. > > Pictures at http://preview.tinyurl.com/nbvskx To me, an apartment complex would be a group of apartment buildings, such as shown in many of the pictures at your URL. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >> A "complex," if that's actually used anywhere, might possibly refer > >> to a gated community, not to an apartment building. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > To me, an apartment complex would be a group of apartment buildings, such as > shown in many of the pictures at your URL. Cf. hospital complex, dormitory complex, factory complex -- not idiomatic at all. > > "On the seventeeth floor of an apartment block?" when asked if in her > > American home she had a picket fence, presumably a stereotype learned > > from TV [but in 1955, when the story was set?] (Am. "apartment house") > > Apartment building or complex in America. > Anything with 17 floors is well out of the "house" category. Almost anything, that is: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Business/International-Business/Mukesh-Ambani s-2-billion-home-worlds-most-expensive-Forbes/articleshow/3002586.cms I found the whole episode pretty boring, well filmed and well acted, but boring. I so much lost track of the plot that I thought that pretty young thing was actually British. > I found the whole episode pretty boring, well filmed and well acted, > but boring. > I so much lost track of the plot that I thought that pretty young > thing was actually British. In case you're referring to "Murder Is Easy" [one can't tell since you included no context whatsoever], the impression given by the opening credits is that the "Six by Agatha" are actual novels or stories by Dame Agatha Christie. It would be a simple matter for someone who cares for her writing (I found her both unreadable and unfair to the reader) to check whether the mistakes were her doing or the screenwriter's. >> I found the whole episode pretty boring, well filmed and well acted, >> but boring. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >reader) to check whether the mistakes were her doing or the >screenwriter's. I wasted an hour and a half watching that last night. It was boring, and so implausible as to be ridiculous. A series of murders by means unlikely to kill reliably - what are the chances that a person pushed over on an escalator would be killed by the fall, and not be able to tell who pushed her? SignatureJohn > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > over on an escalator would be killed by the fall, and not be able to > tell who pushed her? I wasted less: I fell asleep. I did wake slightly for the finale, and had the same (if sleepier) thought: not at all plausible. She could have kept the secret so much more easily by murdering her daughter, instead of so many others: why didn't she think of that? <g> Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "It started out as a simple genocide, but somehow it ended in tragedy." [Michael S. Schiffer] > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels" > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > over on an escalator would be killed by the fall, and not be able to > tell who pushed her? Yeah, definitely a Christie specialty! >> I found the whole episode pretty boring, well filmed and well acted, >> but boring. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >reader) to check whether the mistakes were her doing or the >screenwriter's. I sometimes enjoy Agatha Christie's mysteries, but I greatly prefer those by PD James. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > "Murder Is Easy," in the series *Six by Agatha*, included in *Mystery! > *. But it wasn't entirely the actress's fault; she was given at least [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the low back slightly rounded, turned alpha, symbol?) rather than > unrounded [a].) There was another American character, on this week's "They Do It with Mirrors," but he probably didn't have as many as 10 lines (he was only momentarily a suspect). He was supposed to be a cowboy from Wyoming, though there was nothing regional about his speech; rather than try some sort of American accent, he adopted a sort of Brando-mumbling approach that served his taciturnity well. The motive for murder was perhaps even less plausible than last week's, but at least the method was more realistic -- a knife in the back. |
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.