Padraic Brown wrote:
>--- Tristan <kesuari@...> wrote:
>
>>I couldn't plug my mouse on this computer onto my
>>other computer; it lacks the necessary (PS/2) port.
>>
>>
>Buy a PS/2 to serial port converter. They're cheap. I
>think I have one around if you're desparate. ;)
>
I've got one... it works normally. Just not with this particular mouse.
Dunno why... works perfectly fine otherwise...
>>Though I'd admit someone might say 'Stop unplugging
>>the mice!' just as
>>willingly as 'Stop unplugging all the mouses!'. But
>>'Leave the mice
>>plugged in' and not 'Leave the mouses plugged in'.
>>
>>
>Still sounds totally unnatural, "mouses".
>
Probably in the same way that 'books' would sound unnatural to someone
for whom the normal plural of 'book' (or _boc_) was 'beech' (or _bec_).
>>>Here, "sweet-tooths" is a compound (meaning "likes
>>>sweet foods"), whereas "sweet teeth" are, well,
>>>
>>>
>>"teeth
>>
>>
>>>that taste sugary".
>>>
>>'Sweet-tooths' doesn't make proper sense.
>>
>>
>If more than one classical music lover has one, it
>makes perfect sense. One CML = one sweet-tooth; many
>CMLs = many sweet-tooths.
>
I still have to disagree...
>>>>3a) Your mother and I dig the Doors.
>>>>3b) ?Back in the Sixties, your mother and I dug the Doors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Took me some time to work out what (3b) here meant.
>>
>>
>"Dig" in that sense means to like intensely. It's a
>tad archaic, though.
>
Yeah. I just mean that I recognised what 'your mother and I dig the
Doors' meant, but not 'your mother and I dug the Doors'. I've never
heard that expression in the past tense before.
>>Nought (and is that not how the digit is spelt?) is
>>a perfectly ligitimate starting place. Ask any computer ;)
>>
>>
>I ain't a computer, nor is anyone else of my
>acquaintance. Computers can start on nought if they
>like (but they can only count to 1 anyway)
>
Indeed, and you can only count up to nine?
$ seq 0 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Seems my computer can count beyond 1 quite happily...
>; people
>start on one. I'm not generally a prescriptivist, but
>this is one of those things that gets a sigh of
>exasperation from me.
>
Based on the fact that no-one seems to know what it's trying to prove,
I'll assume that John started on 0 because it was a prelude to the rest...
Tristan.