Good question from young ref

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Did the voices reach a concensus?

I don't know - I'll ask them. BTW - if you want to get Juulie upset, just dangle your participle in front of her. YIKES!!!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

The closest I can come up with is "had have screwed". Example, "If he'd have screwed up that call, the coach would've gone ballistic."

Am I close?

See also: "The Return of an English pluperfect subjunctive?" by Trevor G. Fennell at http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/deptlang...rs/fennell.pdf

Enjoy.

Chuck, I can't believe you've never heard the joke about the businessman who was sent on his first trip to Boston. His boss said, "Be sure to try the fish they call scrod. It's what they do best." So when the businessman got into the taxi, he said, "I want to go where I can get scrod." The driver said, "I thought I'd heard it all, but no one's ever asked me before in the plu-perfect subjunctive."


Dexter -- If all i have to do to get an all-expense paid trip to a tropical island, is act like I'm off my meds for a few minutes -- hey, here I go:

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

See also: "The Return of an English pluperfect subjunctive?" by Trevor G. Fennell at http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/deptlang...rs/fennell.pdf

Enjoy.

And I thought chemistry papers were boring . . . .

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Did the voices reach a concensus?
[/B]

Concensus???

Mr.Spelling's head just exploded! [/B][/QUOTE]

I done would of thunked it had been done explosioned previously by Juulliiee''ss previous use of "non-chalantly".

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Concensus???

Mr.Spelling's head just exploded! [/B]

I done would of thunked it had been done explosioned previously by Juulliiee''ss previous use of "non-chalantly". [/B][/QUOTE]"Non-chalant" is the negative prefix "non" attached to the Old French word "chalant"- which is the present participle of the verb "chaloir",which means "to be concerned". Thus, you end up with "unconcerned" as a meaning of the word "non-chalant".

I thought everyone knew that!

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I done would of thunked it had been done explosioned previously by Juulliiee''ss previous use of "non-chalantly". [/B]

"Non-chalant" is the negative prefix "non" attached to the Old French word "chalant"- which is the present participle of the verb "chaloir",which means "to be concerned". Thus, you end up with "unconcerned" as a meaning of the word "non-chalant".

I thought everyone knew that! [/B][/QUOTE]

I know what it means, and from whence it is derived.

I just don't think the word has a hyphen in it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
[/B]

I know what it means, and from whence it is derived.

I just don't think the word has a hyphen in it.
[/B][/QUOTE]Well,you're one up on me,Bob. I hadda go look the word up to find out where it actually came from.

As for the hyphen, I have the utmost confidence that Juulie will post something that will back up her usage of it. I am also confident that I probably won't understand her post when she does so.

[Lotto]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
I know what it means, and from whence it is derived. [/B]

As long as we're in English class...

Whence = from what source, so the above should read:

I know what it means, and whence it is derived.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
As for the hyphen, I have the utmost confidence that Juulie will post something that will back up her usage of it.

Just so there aren't any jokes about breaking her hyphen.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Lotto

As long as we're in English class...

Whence = from what source, so the above should read:

I know what it means, and whence it is derived. [/B]

I concur that "whence" is preferred over "from whence." But:

1) I intentionally make at least one error in most of my posts (a) so you won't think I'm perfect, and (b) to give the grammar and spelling nazis something to do

2) "From whence" is, in my experience, the more common, and acceptable (even if not "more correct") usage. Common english usage contains many repeated redundancies.

[Barry C. Morris]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
Common english usage contains many repeated redundancies.
[/B]

I especially hate those redundancies that repeat themselves. I prefer the lone, single, all by themself, isolated, non-repetitive redundancy.

[Mark Dexter]

Avoid superfluous, repetative, redundancies like the plague!

[theboys]

"I'm not repeating myself! I'm not repeating myself! Oh, God. I'm repeating myself" Ryan O'Neal in one of the funniest slapsticks ever, "What's Up, Doc?".

Hey, I figured while we're off topic I'd throw in a movie quote. I'm a cross-topicing kinda guy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Avoid superfluous, repetative, redundancies like the plague!

Or else you may be called a "battologist"!

Or else you may be called a "battologist"!

Or else you may be called a "battologist"!

ad infinitum.............................

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 14th, 2003 at 12:22 PM]

[Larks]

For those wondering.....

battologist

\Bat*tol"o*gist\, n. One who battologizes.

Glad I could help.