|
|
|
What?
|
|
|
|
Stephen
Friday 28/7/06 16:12
- # -
|
Even though I read that discussion (hell, I'm probably responsible for half the wordcount) I didn't connect it when I read the headline in the FF RSS bookmark. In fact, I expected to find a subtle and understated discussion of a dispute, which you had cleverly and in an oh-so-cool fashion shortened to its final syllable.
|
|
|
david
Friday 28/7/06 16:23
- # -
|
Dispute works too.
"Didya come here in dispute or take dabus?"
|
|
|
Tom Tyler
Saturday 29/7/06 02:54
- # -
|
Can we Latinise it?
sing: Sputum, pl: Sputa.
Or we could always Francois it as a verb (to drive an SUV: Sputer, or perhaps Sputir or Sputre? Nous avons sputés au supermarché) Or perhaps I should just shut up already...
|
|
|
Squander Two
Saturday 29/7/06 13:57
- # -
|
If it were to be a French verb, it'd have to be "sputre", 'cause then the past participle would be "sputu", which is class.
And surely the perfect tense would take etre, not avoir.
|
|
|
Tom Tyler
Saturday 29/7/06 19:00
- # -
|
1. I agree.
2. I disagree. It depends: if you think that "sputre" is in the same category as 'We went/went into/went out of/arrived/left', then it's etre.
I think that Sputre describes HOW we went, rather than THAT we went. ('we walked/ran/drove/sailed/flew/took the Spute').
|
|
|
|
If you're really that interested, here's an RSS feed for the latest comments to this blog. Never miss another pointless argument.
Of course comments are moderated, in a common-sense sort of a way. You don't have to give your email address to post here.
If you know your HTML, you can use <a>, <b>, and <i> tags, and entities, too. If you don't, you can still use them, but with a greater sense of trepidation.
Cheers.
|
Comment management by HaloScan.
|
