Harold Ensle wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:15:22 +0000, R A Brown <ray@...>
> wrote:
[snip]
>>True - but, following the maxim of my English teacher "By their deeds
>>shall ye know them", the uses of 'ago' are the same as those of quite a
>>few other words in occurring after a phrase denote time or space. It is
>>true that 'ago' cannot be used by itself and in this respect _may be_
>>unique, but that is IMHO hardly a criterion for setting up another part
>>of speech.
>
> Excuse me if I interrupt the thread here...which by the way...I started.
With respect, you did not. It is true that you first used the simple
subject line 'ago', but the thread about 'ago' had started some time
before. Previously the subject line was 'THEORY ago (was: Most common
irregular verbs?)'.
Strictly speaking the thread began during the 'Most common irregular
verbs' thread when other irregularities were suggested. One was to have
a language with prepositions, but the odd postposition such as 'ago';
Charlie replied to this that he understood that 'ago' was an adjective
and this the thread began.
> But I have a few questions about how this list works.
>
> Do people usually read the previous posts in a thread before they
> add a new post?
FYI *I* have read every single email in this thread under its various
subject lines ever since the thread began.
> Or are they suppose to simply attach a new post
> to the nearest unread thread by random selection?
I am very sorry that you are taking this attitude; as I said, I have
read every mail in this thread and I am under the impression that others
have. With respect, I think your implicit accusation is unfounded.
> In *this* thread the function of "ago" was already resolved.
And I thought the function of 'ago' had already been resolved when the
thread had the subject line 'THEORY ago (was: Most common irregular
verbs?)'. I was in fact surprised to read your email of 19th of this
month which harked back to the "The Columbia Guide to Standard American
English" quote (about which I had commented on the 17th Jan. and IIRC
others had also commented) and it appeared to me to add nothing new to
what had already been said before.
I wondered why you had resurrected the thread and, indeed, felt similar
annoyance to that you are apparently feeling now. I had the impression
that you may be had not read all posts. But I did not write in to say so.
> Thereafter followed a swarm of posts which ignored the initial findings
> in the thread but in fact ended up using many of the same
> arguments and examples that were already stated before.
Touché.
> Though, for some reason, they were still...for the most part....
> NOT able to come to the reasonable and confident solution that
> the thread had already achieved.
Touché.
> This seems most inefficient.
>
> Do the list members each see all of the posts in a thread
> or are some posts invisible to some members?
I don't know - but I imagine all are invisible. But threads on this list
to tend to ramble and often give rise to other threads (just as the
irregular verb thread gave rise to the 'ago' thread(s)) - and one just
has to accept it.
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY