There are differences of opinion about this among coloro che sanno,
but IBM-MAIN is almost certainly not the appropriate forum for
pursuing them.
My substantive particular point was anyway that the three adjectives
'aweful', 'pompous', and 'artificial' once had, and in some contexts
still have, no
In
,
on 07/05/2013
at 05:14 PM, John Gilmore said:
>The Shakespearean epithet "aw[e]ful, pompous, and artificial" was
>adapted by Charles II, who used it, with highly complimentary intent,
>to describe his first impressions of Sir Christopher Wren's St Paul's
>Cathedral.
It is certainly true
JG writes: Long, long ago, when the late C. S. Lewis spent a year at the
Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton...
You should definitely notify IAS that they left such a personage as C S Lewis
off their "A Community of Scholars" list
http://www.ias.edu/people/cos/search?lastname=Lewis
--
Hilarious, and understandable to boot! Well done, MacNeil.
On 7/5/2013 10:40 AM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
It's rarely the grammar, but frequently the vocabulary and the historical and
literary references. But I sometimes learn from
looking them up, and all in all I consider the style well within t
The Shakespearean epithet "aw[e]ful, pompous, and artificial" was
adapted by Charles II, who used it, with highly complimentary intent,
to describe his first impressions of Sir Christopher Wren's St Paul's
Cathedral.
Long, long ago, when the late C. S. Lewis spent a year at the
Institute for Advan
In <0936283674477258.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
07/05/2013
at 10:58 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>"Uncleftish Beholding".
Technically flawed, but perfectly understandable. OTOH, see "awful,
pompous, and artificial" in "A Tragedy of Errors".
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,
Agreed. My take is generally if I don't understand the message, I
ignore it. May as well post in Sanskrit. Unless I am personally
fascinated, I won't bother. I may miss something, but eventually
somebody will take pity on us poor U.S. English-only wackos and likely
explain it is simpler words.
On
Style is personal. We are all creatures of our different experiences.
I seldom comment upon them, but I find Mr. MacNeil's grammatical
errors in Canadian/British English every bit as grating as he finds my
vocabulary.
As I have suggested here before, no one need took at my posts who does
not wan
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 15:40:14 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>
>It is never the receiver's fault if the message is truly not understood; it's
>the sender's.
>
http://xkcd.com/1133/
Or even to eschew alien words:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD
>It's rarely the grammar, but frequently the vocabulary and the historical and
>literary references. But I sometimes learn from
looking them up, and all in all I consider the style well within the charter of
thls list.
But, the purpose of communication is to communicate.
Deliberately masking/ob
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 21:58:32 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
>On 5/07/2013 9:53 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
>> The intellectual difficulty of learning to use regular expressions is
>> being greatly exaggerated here. The principles involved could be
>> written out, for the convenience of notionally reacti
11 matches
Mail list logo
