The first one I can't answer without research. Here's the only help I can offer without looking anything up: My mother often used "lit" to mean "drunk"; she never said "lighted" in that context. I think her usage may have been a contraction of "lit up like a Christmas tree."
As to "that" and "which," as relative pronouns, "that" may be used with people or things, "who" may be used only with people (except by Lilian Jackson Braun, who has a dispensation from the Goddess in Charge of English to use it with cats) and "which" may be used only with things. It's a crazy language, isn't it, when relative pronouns differ over such matters. And it's a crazy world in which people differ over relative pronouns.
The answer to your question about "normalcy" is Warren Harding, in the 1920 campaign. At least that's what Wikipedia said. Actually, again according to the wiki, proponents of the term in 1920 found its use as far back as 1857. I never use the word. I've never experienced the concept.
LOL! Well, thank goodness you've never experienced normalcy then. You are a good man to know, Steve! Thanks.
Whether or not the info will stick is another thing. I tend to blog as I talk, sloppy grammar and all. I've also noticed a funny thing, my spelling has gone to shit as I seem to be typing more phonetically.
ellroon, I see I missed one of your original questions. "I could not care less" (or "I couldn't care less") is the conventional expression. "I could care less" is sometimes said with deliberate irony, but it means the same thing. As far as I can tell, you may use either form in any circumstance. As to which you choose to use... I couldn't care less.
You should be grateful I didn't get into my confusion over why anyone would actually be giving a shit. Why would giving shits be an action anyone would want to participate in?
5 comments:
Many of the nine were already known to me. And my boss does not disapprove. Sometimes it's great being self-employed...
The first one I can't answer without research. Here's the only help I can offer without looking anything up: My mother often used "lit" to mean "drunk"; she never said "lighted" in that context. I think her usage may have been a contraction of "lit up like a Christmas tree."
As to "that" and "which," as relative pronouns, "that" may be used with people or things, "who" may be used only with people (except by Lilian Jackson Braun, who has a dispensation from the Goddess in Charge of English to use it with cats) and "which" may be used only with things. It's a crazy language, isn't it, when relative pronouns differ over such matters. And it's a crazy world in which people differ over relative pronouns.
The answer to your question about "normalcy" is Warren Harding, in the 1920 campaign. At least that's what Wikipedia said. Actually, again according to the wiki, proponents of the term in 1920 found its use as far back as 1857. I never use the word. I've never experienced the concept.
LOL! Well, thank goodness you've never experienced normalcy then. You are a good man to know, Steve! Thanks.
Whether or not the info will stick is another thing. I tend to blog as I talk, sloppy grammar and all. I've also noticed a funny thing, my spelling has gone to shit as I seem to be typing more phonetically.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
ellroon, I see I missed one of your original questions. "I could not care less" (or "I couldn't care less") is the conventional expression. "I could care less" is sometimes said with deliberate irony, but it means the same thing. As far as I can tell, you may use either form in any circumstance. As to which you choose to use... I couldn't care less.
Thanks, Steve. I really shouldn't care, but I do.
You should be grateful I didn't get into my confusion over why anyone would actually be giving a shit. Why would giving shits be an action anyone would want to participate in?
Post a Comment