Re: A wacky language

On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 03:08 PM, Tristan McLeay wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Ray Brown wrote:
>>> 'in a big dog' could be 'big in dog', couldn't it?
>>
>> Er, sort of like Latin 'magno in cane'? I would think something
>> sanctioned
>> by
>> Classical Latin is automatically disqualified from wackiness.
>
> No-no, I mean both at the same time. So when you have an odd number of
> words in a imposition-modified clause(?), you put the imposition in the
> middle of the middle word, but when you have an even number of words, it
> goes between the two middlest ones.
Right, but that still makes the even numbered ones rather less than whacky,
  surely.

Why not go the whole hog, so to speak, and be really wacky: bigin doing
(minagno cinane  :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760