Wordwizard

Is this seeding a political discussion? If so, it would be more than what is going on in our benighted bloody parliament. No. It is a sideswipe at process. It is no longer possible to have meaningful discussion and debate about the substantive issues in this country. Whichever side you are on (and ...

"Where's Peer Gynt?"
"He's behind you."

azz wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:00 am

That was another brilliant reply to a simple question!

I am no guru. I am just as liable to be wrong as the next person. The only thing I do know is that although there may be simple questions, there are rarely simple answers.

Oh heavens! So much to talk about! There are (at least) 3 issues here: The distinction between "what" and "which". The distinction between "what" and "what kind(s) of" Singular/plural agreement with "what kind(s) of". I shall try to be uncharacteristically brief. 1. Distinction between "what" and "w...

Hi Steven. It is always very hard to explain humour. I think this is very funny indeed. It made my day. The pizza restaurant is advertising itself with "girls, girls, girls" to attract men's attention, as if they had "dancing girls" at the restaurant. And then they say "I was only joking, in fact we...

Yes, I agree with Shelley. There is no ambiguity. And the term "poorhouse" is now historical, so few people would think of using it outside of a historical context. Incidentally, a "poorhouse" and a "workhouse" are not strictly synonyms, although the reality in the 19th century often meant that a po...

Thanks Erik. I was agonizing over whether to do the same thing.

The breathtaking irony is almost poetic.

To be brutally fair, I think the question should be "what do Brits understand by pantomime?". For Brits, "pantomime" has lost its original meanings, all of which are related to narrating a story by dance or exaggerated body movement (and including what we would call "mime"). The only meaning we have...

P.S. Not sure, but I think a hyphen belongs in "newly-poured." I think that I can safely assume that most regulars here will know me to be largely accepting of changes that happen to our language. I may not like some of them or use them myself, but I will rarely use the terms "right" or "wrong" in ...

The title of the post suggests that Steven was asking about "newly poured" for the cement. I would probably say "freshly concreted road" or possibly "freshly poured concrete road". I am not entirely sure what the difference between concrete and cement is, but I would use "concrete" when talking abou...

Erik is right. The "let alone" construction is nowadays only used under pretty strict constraints. The basic structure of the construction is usually as follows: NEGATIVE CLAUSE + "let alone" + POSITIVE INFINITIVE CLAUSE (generally presenting a proposition more difficult or advanced than the first c...

P.S. Somehow, I like the old emoticons better . . . ;^) If it really bugs you: When you are logged in, click on your name at the top right and choose "User Control Panel" Click the "Board Preferences" tab Choose "Edit display options" on the left Set "Display smilies as images" to "No" and then cli...

Shelley wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:51 pm

what if I'm wrong? What if I make a mistake?

Don't be so bloody daft! Shelley doesn't make mistakes.

Try speaking them out loud with a pause at that comma (or writing them with brackets around "whose name was Jack Smith), and comparing them with the versions without the commas or brackets. In the intended meaning, "whose name was Jack Smith" and "called Jack Smith" are parenthetical.

In sentences 1 and 2, the normal rules for punctuating defining/non-defining relative clauses apply. This means that sentence 1 is nonsense (Tom's name is also Jack Smith). The same applies in sentences 3 and 4, although you will rarely see the case of defining/non-defining ellipted relative clauses...