Re: OT: ago

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 08:29:52 +0000, R A Brown <ray@...>
wrote:

>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?)'.
YES I did start this thread..which has the simple subject line 'ago'.
The fact that the subject is virtually identical to another thread
does not make it part of the other thread. That is why this list
and newsgroups have either a reply or new post choice available.
I used the new post which indicated I was starting a new thread
SAME TOPIC but NEW THREAD. Of course, the reason I chose new post
was because I really wasn't responding to a particular individual.

>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.
No...the topic started then or perhaps at some earlier time, but the
idea of "thread" is built into the mechanics of posting and not
into the subject of discussion. For example, it could be very well be
possible to have two threads running simultaneously about an identical
subject.

>> 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.
Sorry. My last comment was a bit much.

>
>> 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 did read relevant posts to see if someone had identical
comments as my own. If someone had made the same comments I would
not have needed to make them myself. I did see that people were
"uncomfortable" with the adjective classification, but I didn't
see my particular arguments being made. I also disputed The Colombia
Guide's adverb classification in their particular context which
I also did not see done 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.
Then why did you not "respond" to my post telling me so and revealing
to me the previous resolution instead of continuing to add "nothing new"
on top of my "nothing new"?

BUT there is even a difference here. My "nothing new" was launched in its
own thread. I would not have followed someones post without even
acknowledging their existence. And I would certainly read previous
posts in a thread I was responding to.

H.Ellis Ensle

Reply