frank

Joined: January 2, 2011  (email not validated)

Number of comments posted: 14

Number of votes received: 5

No user description provided.

Recent Comments

Re: Difference between “lying” and “misleading”  •  January 10, 2011, 7:59pm  •  0 vote

Sarah - misleading someone is not necessarily unintentional. Someone can tell a person something with the intention of misleading them or deceiving them.

Re: affectatious  •  January 9, 2011, 4:29pm  •  0 vote

It would indeed. And just because they're obsolete it doesn't necessarily follow that they should be expurgated from the language. Just imagine if they removed all the words that "access" is replacing

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 8, 2011, 11:45am  •  0 vote

Forkin' hell. What have I done? You're drawing a long bow here, porsche. It is colloquial, by the way. But back to your reasoning: does this mean the back forks are three in number? Or two? Or more? S

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 7, 2011, 11:42am  •  0 vote

Well you could try looking up some references. Pair of twins or two twin boys/girls – you haven't heard it? You should listen to some of the news broadcasts round here. A pair of trousers is singul

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 6, 2011, 5:49pm  •  0 vote

Grammarians whose job it is to compile texts on the subject. A fork, in, of or on anything, is singular. A fork in the road – though it may have several over its length and though colloquially we take

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 6, 2011, 3:14pm  •  0 vote

It is indeed incorrect, strictly speaking, but common usage gives it credibility in dialect/colloquial language. One does take the left or right fork of a fork, though again, strictly speaking, it's i

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 6, 2011, 11:33am  •  0 vote

Christ on a crutch, Ian; don't come down the ladder! The OED doesn't comment on the correctness or otherwise of usage – that's for other references – but records a word's existence. There's heaps o

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 5, 2011, 6:03pm  •  0 vote

Okay - the OED paper version gives fork as [chiefly] US, forks as Australian and English. A pair of forks would properly refer to the back and front fork or two of each, and just because the manufactu

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 5, 2011, 9:50am  •  0 vote

Well, you could try the OED for a start. Do you have any evidence that forks is grammatically correct rather than just the colloquial use?

Re: affectatious  •  January 2, 2011, 12:52pm  •  1 vote

Affectatious is obsolete and has pretty much been replaced by affected anyway. Of course your character should say 'dahling' if you want her to – she's your creation – and there's no need to add "in a

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 2, 2011, 12:39pm  •  0 vote

And of course I should have written "…among the most fascinating aspects of any language."

Re: Why are some single objects plural?  •  January 2, 2011, 12:36pm  •  0 vote

When we speak of a bicycle fork in the USA and the front (or back) forks in Australia and England, we are not worrying about the correctness or otherwise of the term. Fork is strictly correct, but her

Re: Does “Who knows” need a question mark?  •  January 2, 2011, 12:22pm  •  4 votes

Well said, Kim. Frank Merton states that "…breaking with unnecessary rules is cause for happiness… Rules that achieve nothing except make pedants happy and allow people to consider themselves super

Re: Difference between “lying” and “misleading”  •  January 2, 2011, 12:06pm  •  0 vote

scyllacat is right. If the person being lied to doesn't believe what is said, then that person is not misled. You could also have told someone what you believed was the truth when in fact you were