 | | Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Bradley Dale
|
| | | Why are the notes now on a differnet page than the pictures? I usually visit the guide to read people's opinions, and seperating the comments from the main page of the set makes the guide less enjoyable to use. I suppose I'll get used to it quickly (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Paul Hartzog
|
| | | | | this is the second post i've seen about this so i decided to take a look and i have to say, although i LOOOOOVE the lugnet site i agree that the guide is now a lot less useful. i used it primarily to see others comments see who was selling sets, and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Kyle Keppler
|
| | | | | | Well that probally had to do with the sets that many, many people have, such as Star Wars. If you look at the starwars sets you see that it is very cluttered and takes a while to load for those sets due to all the names. It could also be a strain on (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Kyle Keppler
|
| | | | | | (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Brad Hamilton
|
| | | | | I'm happy with the new way. I do like to read people's comments, but its fine to have to do an extra click. I could care less about people who own the set, want the set, or want to sell it. Bradley Dale <dinosauria_ca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Aaarrrgh!! I don't know who decided "couldn't" should be shortened to "could" but it seems to have caught on. I suppose it's possible that you could care less - but I bet you meant you couldn't care less. Not that I have anything against (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hey, I resemble that nasturtium! I'll have you know that I too cringe when I hear that phrase (no offense, Brad!). It also pains me that I have seen two people on Lugnet who certainly should have known better write "between you and I". And (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) We'll show 'em! (...) Must've missed the other one(s), sorry 8?) (click,click,click....read....) Oh, there it is! (URL) Looks like a few other people like that one, too. Well I guess I've got one of your favourite words pinned down, not sure (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes, you got it! Actually I had never heard of Marmite except on Lugnet, but ever since the Men At Work song I have been quite curious about Vegemite-- I even asked my mother-in-law once if she would pick me up some when she went to Australia, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I've been told by those not brought up on Vegemite that it's basically inedible. Pity, I've been eating it since before I could walk! You'll see my favourite concentrated yeast extract even gets a mention on my profile page (URL) to the (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Wow, "More Vegemite, less Marmite"!!! You must be one of the militant ones.... Maggie (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: joy of yeast paste (was re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide...)) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Oh there's plenty of us around... check out my post here: (URL) this excellent article on Vegemite Zen: (URL) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.loc.au)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Say on, sister! A particular gripe for me is "irregardless," which for some reason sees a lot of use in my office. Further, as I've mentioned before, I am thoroughly vexed by "nukuler" in place of "nuclear." I'm not sufficiently pedantic to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes on both counts! Here's one that was pointed out to me long ago by a Ph.D. in biology: "dissect" does NOT rhyme with "bisect". The "dis-" has the same short i as in the word "discord". And this makes sense when you think of the meaning of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) There are people who really pronounce dissect with a short i? Wow. I've never heard it that way. Steve (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Adrian Drake
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | According to Mirriam Webster (www.m-w.com), it's pronounced either way. Adrian (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) *sigh* Yeah, that's the thing about the English language, it is constantly evolving (some might say devolving!)-- otherwise I suppose we'd all go around talking like Chaucer's characters. The rate at which one accepts these changes is one of (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Santosh Bhat
|
| | | | | | | | | | Is that metal Aloomenum (which I'm sure Americans are keeping secret from the rest of the world) actually useful for anything? Santosh (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) How else would you pronounce aluminum? Can't be five syllables with only four vowels. ;-) Bruce (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Except on most periodic tables, you'll see it spelt "Aluminium". Most dictionaries list one as a variant of the other. ROSCO (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Don't you mean "spelled" ? ;^) ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) No use crying over spelt milk... ;) Jeff (follow-ups to o-t.pun) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Hmmmm, well, my father-in-law - who has has multiple degrees in chemistry from Cal Tech and teaches chemistry - spells it aluminum. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh! :-P And since you note both are listed, it kinda reduces you first comment's (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | My God, header frenzy!: (...) Sure, those Cal Tech boys can rig up an RF unit to screw with the Rose Bowl scoreboard, but can they really spell...? It's like asking someone with a doctorate in pediatrics (paediatrics for the ANZAC/UK crowd) to take (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English ('Muricans) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Okay, there. Pared down. Happy? :-) (...) That depends: engineers can't spell, scientists are better about it. (...) You can call me Al, but you don't need to call me Aluminium? (...) Nothing to make it a long U. The root word is Al-um, not (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English ('Muricans) —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Oh quit cracking jokes. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English ('Muricans) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) You don't want to get into a geology-based pun-fest with me or you may find yourself thrust-faulted in your orogenous zone. Grund Flet Admiral Entegummi (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English ('Muricans) —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, I guess I took things for granite. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —John D. Forinash
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) And just to add more useless information to this discussion, I threw both spellings at Google to see which spelling was more often used online: Aluminum: 1,560,000 Aluminium: 749,000 Both: 56,800 -JDF (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | It's very useful - more useful than al-u-MIN-ium, which doesn't exist ;-) (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (URL) A division of AOL Time Warner | Please do not associate my (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Thomas Main
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Check out what The American Heritage® Book of English Usage, A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English has to say about this subject: (URL) Main main@appstate.edu (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Okay, they have a good argument, but I must say that I've heard the phrase uttered by a lot of people on whom (IMHO) sarcasm is wasted anyway, so that explanation is a bit of a stretch for me. Hey, and remember that song from long ago "Too (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Billy Squier. Dave! (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) D'oh! If you look closely, you'll see that I'm an idiot. I meant Styx. Of course, if it were Lethe I would have an excuse for forgetting... Dave! (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yep. Billy had that highly forgettable hit "The Stroke" (great rockin guitar riff though). ROSCO (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Styx. Paradise Theater. The full lyrics are here. (...) They don't make much sense, reading literally. Steve (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) And the really disturbing thing is that Styx is still touring. My wife saw them in concert about a month ago. (!) James (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Actually, I think that's "again touring", not "still touring". They had split for a long time. Long enough for various members to join/form various other bands, with varying degrees of success. Steve (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English (was re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Here's one that drives me BONKERS! *"All of a sudden."* What is a "sudden". And how does "all" of one cause something to occur quickly. What does "part of a sudden" do? (I looked it up - it is also a noun, but it still drives me crazy). Here's (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Add to that "let me aks you a question" and "I took a pitcher with my camera." Both usages are popular here in "Picksburg." Dave! (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | (...) supposably libary I know this is not improper but it always jars me when my NLS, who hails from Long Island, talks about having to stand "on line" at the post office or bank. Is this peculiar to New Yorkers or do people say it up and down the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Now that I think of it, there's another western PA-ism (and maybe elsewhere) in which the speaker drops the "to be" infinitive. For example, one might say "the laundry needs washed" rather than "the laundry needs to be washed" or "the laundry (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Wait! Where does this word come from? I once saw an episode of "Friends" where the character "Joey" uses this word as though it were correct. Were they actually making fun of an east coast regional dialect? What makes this especially (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: NOT the Queen's English —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think they get it from across the pond. They just can't bring themselves to go whole hog, and stand on queue. Steve (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Gor'blimey, those bloody colonials. Can't say nuffink right, never say the proper "f" in lieutenant, do they now? Always titterin' when you want to know iff'n they want to be knocked up inna mornin'. Bruce ;-) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) It's been that way for as long as I can remember. And I can remember a fair way back. Steve (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It's kind of like "everyone does things their own way," which is clear noun/pronoun disagreement. These colloquialisms have been around for at least decades and will no doubt ultimately be absorbed into "correct" American English. Still, for (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's a lovely sweeping generalization you have there. However, I do share your complaint. One of my LEGO-related complaints has to do with the fact that people say "Technique" when they mean "Technic." "Technique" = (tek-neek) "Technic" = (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Coby Bassett
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Word. And don't get me started on people who mispronounce "Futuron." Pedants of the world, unite and take over! Coby (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Just for my own edification, has there ever been an official pronunciation proclamation by LEGO (which, if not for the pronuciation they use, could arguably rhyme with "ego" despite its etymology) as to which is the correct way to say Technic (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) For that matter, has there ever been an official pronunciation proclamation by LEGO to prove that their product is pronounced (leh-goh) as opposed to (lee-goh) or even (lay-goh) ? I follow the course of logic that: Technical = (tek-nik-al) and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Phrenetic Phonetics —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 8^) Not me. My first exposure to "Technic" was in the form of "Technics," pronounced "teck-neeks" by a salesperson at a stereo store. Dave! (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Phrenetic Phonetics —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Wow, another person who pronounces it wrong. :^P I can't find anything in the dictionary that's spelled "Technic" and pronounced (tek-neek) ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Phrenetic Phonetics —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That's tres chic of you. 8^) Dave! FUT OT.Fun (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Jonathan Lill
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) How do you mispronounce Futuron? I assume it is to be correctly pronounced as future-on, but am I wrong in this? And while I've never heard it pronounced Duh-plo I always liked the correct pronounciation of Lego since then those old (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Santosh Bhat
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Bad Spellers of the world UNTIE! Santosh ;-) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) No one else does, right? :-) Anyway I do agree with you. "could care less" is wrong. When I slip, I explain away by agreeing that I indeed could care less... just not very MUCH less. (no real system can reach an absolute zero temperature... is (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm not so sure about this. In an episode of the George Reeves Superman series, the mad doctor of the week had developed a cold ray that projected a beam of cold 2000 degrees below zero. If this is true, then obviously "absolute zero" is no (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) If it was on TV, who am I to argue? ++Lar (it is not true that I will "paint any car for only 99.95!") (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Scott P. Costello
|
| | | | | | | (...) I tend to think here in the "colonies" we have naturally evolved the language, and thankfully so. I cannot imagine eating "Bangers and Mash" or "Spotted Dick", or even worse smoking a "fag". I will take a little linguistic laziness anyday. (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Never let it be said that a Strine[1] was adverse to a little "linguistic laziness", but in this case, it actually changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Most people know what is actually meant, but it just doesn't make sense to me, when (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Ooops missed the footnote. [1] Strine: Strine for Australian (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Okay, if attorneys general, courts martial and Rolls Royce are plural forms, shouldn't the plural of AFOL be AF'sOL? Or are the rules different for acronyms? And speaking of acronyms, hasn't it already been argued that technically in order to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Hmm.. I've heard the phrase "so-and-so drives a Rolls," which is like saying "so-and-so drives a cars." Strange. I would argue that the plural of AFOL is AFOL, since "F" can stand for "Fans" as easily as it can for "Fan." I've often heard the (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) "radar" wasn't a word until the technology was invented. So does that mean it isn't an acronym? This is what Dictionary.com has to say about it: ----- ac·ro·nym (kr-nm) n. A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Not a "real" word, but a word nonetheless, as opposed to a string of distinct letters. AFOL, if pronounced as a word ("I'm an AFOL") rather than spelled out ("I'm an A-F-O-L"), is an acronym by that definition. The convention was to say "WAC" (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) ACRONYM: A contrived reduction of nomenclature yielding mnemonics.... (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) As opposed to a certain really ominous subject that's inevitably christened "acrostic." Dave! (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Kevin Bannister
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) ACRONYM: Abbreviation by CROpping Names that Yield Meaning (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Acronyms (Was Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Oops, I should clarify that Rolls Royce is both the singular and the plural form. Maggie C. (who has once again sacrificed clarity for the sake of brevity) Oh yes, and I shall henceforth use AFOL as the plural of AFOL since your argument that (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The point is to explain the acronym the first time you use it, then just re-use the acronym where it needs to be repeated. It's actually required by the guidelines for government writing in the UK (or was that an Official Secret? Damn, I can (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) You raise an interesting etymological point--who determines the "proper" pluralization? We're all well aware of the LEGO/Legos issue; while a manufacturer may wish a certain plural form to be used, what happens if no one uses it (or if enough (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) What I had meant to say was that Rolls-Royce is the plural of Rolls-Royce (as opposed to Rolls-Royces). I can't recall where I heard/read this (probably from some snooty old guy like Edith Sedgwick's grandfather-- the one who would be (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) The colloquial singular saying is "Roller"; therefore in this case one could possess many Rollers, if one was very affluent. I've never really heard anyone seriously refer to a collection of Rollers as "Rolls-Royce's"; what is perhaps more (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I have a colleague who wrote a rather good book about the survey of India, where he specifically addressed the issue with respect to the plural of "Surveyor General." According to orthodoxy plural should be "Surveyors General," but he (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) But it's only at its best wiv a PROpper INGlish accent mate, nartymean?. (Coming to Gosport btw?) Anyway, I've got to hoover the floor... And another thing, it's "attendees" that really winds me up. It's not a word, and it's the wrong way (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I heard someone in outer London last month refer to it as needing to "dyson" the floor. !?! The man creates one silly innovation and suddenly he's a verb. [Re: Gosport, it looks like I'll be in the UK, but whether I can afford to get there, (...) (23 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Stuff (Was: some other stuff) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Sure. I can see the point if you do this and you're gonna use it multiple times *within a single document* (lawyers do it all the time!), and you can even do it using a glossary. What I detest is people who use an acronym *ONCE* and follow it (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —Brad Hamilton
|
| | | | | | Hey, Don't blame my country! I'll accept full blame for my gramatical mistake! :) The funny thing is that I'm usually the one correcting other people's grammar at work! Hmm - I guess I must have started using that phrase a long time ago and nobody (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Grammar vs Logic (was: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Apology accepted! It's just that Ive heard the phrase used hundreds (maybe thousands) of times, mostly on the 'net, always by Americans... (...) The phrase is actually gramatically correct - it's the logic that's incorrect! (...) Doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 9-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Grammar vs Logic (was: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | (...) Another one: people in the US often seem to use to the phrase "write me" which I assume means "write to me". Any idea where this comes from? I always found it a bit on the odd side, especially if taken literally. Saying that, some USisms are (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Grammar vs Logic (was: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today) —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | (...) I always assumed it was a shortened sentence for "Write me a letter." ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Grammar vs Logic (was: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenienttoday) —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | | (...) Well that certainly makes more sense. I still think it sounds odd though - "write me", as if telling me to grab a sheet of paper upon which I must inscribe the word "me". Maybe's it's just me :-) Jennifer Clark (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Grammar vs Logic (was: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenienttoday) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) "Write" like a lot of other words has several meanings. I've always understood those shorthandings (of which there are soooo many in Dutch that I can't possibly follow any but the most rudimentary conversations even after eight months) have (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet Guide a lot less convenient today —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I don't want to speak for Todd, but I do seem to recall him saying that this was actually an issue for sets with lots of comments, etc., and that it was a big server hog upon occasion. Personally, I'd "like" to see it without the extra click, (...) (23 years ago, 8-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
