| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 56.1 | | NY1MM::SWEENEY | | Thu Feb 21 1985 22:36 | 7 |
| Originally (but don't quote me on what century) all "ugh" words were
pronounced as we now pronounce "tough" (tuf). But now we've got "through"
(thru) and "thorough" (thuro).
The long term trend is to modify spelling to conform to the way people speak.
Pat Sweeney
|
| 56.2 | | REGINA::LYNX | | Mon Feb 25 1985 21:33 | 13 |
| The proper spelling of a town's name is the name that appears on the
town's incorporation papers. Most towns in eastern Massachusetts were
incorporated 200 to 300 years ago, and, when applicable, have the
more archaic "ough" ending on their official names. (In particular,
I know for a fact that Boxborough's name is spelled as it appears in
this sentence.) If you really care, contact the town clerk or the
city hall information bureau of the town you are interested in.
An architect designs buildings. (I know of no verbal form of the word
"architecture.")
By the way, is the first comma on the third line of this note required,
optional, or incorrectly used?
|
| 56.3 | | --UnknownUser-- | | Tue Feb 26 1985 11:17 | 0 |
| 56.4 | | GVAEIS::BARTA | | Tue Feb 26 1985 11:17 | 9 |
| The FIRST comma on that line is optional -- depending on how separate
you want the two sentences joined by 'and' to be. The second,
however, is COMPULSORY, and is the kind often omitted.
Signed, a pedant. (Gabriel.)
B.t.w., give a legal sentence with five 'and's one after the other.
(See next reply, if you've given up.)
|
| 56.5 | | VIA::LASHER | | Tue Feb 26 1985 11:07 | 5 |
| Re previous:
"More archaic" ?
Only in Massachusetts!
|
| 56.6 | | GVAEIS::BARTA | | Tue Feb 26 1985 11:19 | 4 |
| In the phrase "bread and butter", there are spaces between 'bread' and
'and' and 'and' and 'butter'.
Sorry.
|
| 56.7 | | GVAEIS::BARTA | | Tue Feb 26 1985 11:30 | 7 |
| Lots of confusion: my .4 came between .3 and .5 (no really??) at the
wrong moment, confusing the author of .5; and his .5 came between my
two (.4 and .6) confusing EVERYBODY.
So, in .5, for "previous" read ".3"; and in .4, for "next" read ".6".
Whew.
|
| 56.8 | | NY1MM::BONNELL | | Tue Feb 26 1985 14:23 | 5 |
| re: 6
UGH
...diane
|
| 56.9 | | DVINCI::MPALMER | | Tue Feb 26 1985 17:39 | 6 |
| I don't think this is correct, but I once read one with 12 "had"s in a row
(11 excluding the proper name). It went something like:
For the answer, Betty had had "had had"; Had had had "had"; "had had" had
had the teacher's approval.
|
| 56.10 | | GVAEIS::BARTA | | Wed Feb 27 1985 16:29 | 6 |
| Hmmm, yes ... The last "had had" is either odd -- because it should
be just "had" to make the other tenses right; or it's archaic --
because it is an old-fashioned way of saying the conditional: "would
have had".
Gabriel.
|
| 56.11 | | NUHAVN::CANTOR | | Wed Feb 27 1985 18:22 | 7 |
| Re .6
While cute, the example is wrong. There are not five 'and's in the sentence;
there are three 'and's and two ''and''s (and the last word before this
parenthetical sentence is '''and''s', not '"and"s').
Dave C.
|
| 56.12 | | METEOR::CALLAS | | Fri Mar 01 1985 13:50 | 5 |
| There is a way to put an arbitrary number of 'had's in a sentence. It can
be done with no semicolons or by using the given name 'Had.' Other than
that, it's very much like the one mentioned above.
Jon
|
| 56.13 | | MUNOIS::DARNOLD | | Tue Mar 12 1985 19:24 | 1 |
| Sorry? so you should be!
|
| 56.14 | | BERGIL::WIX | | Fri Aug 16 1985 15:31 | 4 |
| I was charmed to hear someone new to our language say, "Would you like a
doughnut?", pronouncing it 'doff-nut'.
Jack Wickwire
|
| 56.15 | | ERIE::CANTOR | | Sat Aug 17 1985 19:16 | 5 |
| I've also heard 'doughnuts' pronounced as "dog nuts."
Bitchin' huh?
Dave C.
|
| 56.16 | | BAEDEV::RECKARD | | Mon Oct 27 1986 12:20 | 7 |
| Re .1
Try these:
BOUGH
BOUGHT
ROUGH
THOROUGH
THROUGH
|
| 56.17 | Another UGH | BAEDEV::RECKARD | | Wed Dec 31 1986 08:01 | 4 |
|
One more -
HICCOUGH
|