1,211 reputation
2923
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen 2 days ago

Sep
30
awarded  Notable Question
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jun
17
awarded  Caucus
May
9
awarded  Yearling
Mar
8
comment Is there a difference between “less ambiguous” and “more unambiguous”?
@David: ambiguity has nothing to do with my boxer example.I wanted to give an instance of logically equivalent statements that are psychologically perceived as different. Stupid and intelligent are or are not absolute according to the context (you can say "John is less intelligent than Bill", but also ""Albert is stupid") but this is irrelevant to my point that logic and psychology differ.
Mar
8
accepted Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
Mar
8
revised Is there a difference between “less ambiguous” and “more unambiguous”?
added 304 characters in body
Mar
7
answered Is there a difference between “less ambiguous” and “more unambiguous”?
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
Yes, electronic exchanges are too fast! Anyway, thanks for answering my question before I posted it :-)
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
@FumbleFingers: I really appreciate your courteous and graceful comment. Differing on certain academic points doesn't mean being enemies and I certainly feel no such feeling against you! And, yes, I'll follow your suggestion and ask that question on this site!
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
@FumbleFingers: are you sure you can't be a witness of something? Even if that were so, what is your point? English is not my mother tongue (this is exactly at the heart of my question) and I never claimed that I don't make mistakes. Not making mistakes is only my prescriptivist unattainable goal: il n'est pas nécessaire d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. Finally, just out of curiosity, in how many foreign languages could you make a conversation in which the worst error would be the use of "witness of" instead of "witness to"?
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
@Fumblefingers: yes quite a lot has changed in the BBC courses, but in my opinion they have deteriorated. As you know there was much controversy about the BBC decision of no longer resorting to the Queen's English but of using Estuary English and the like. These were political decisions, looked upon positively by a majority to which I imagine you belong. However I have a quite different, approach, the defense of which this site is not the place. This reinforces my tender feelings for the Eckersley books and their endearing characters, the mute witnesses of a linguistic era forever gone.
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
@Edwin Ashworth: I find your writing four snarky, aggressive and completely content-free comments as well as your exhortation not to buy a book you had never heard of five minutes ago hilarious.
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
Dear WS2, I own and cherish my set but thanks for the information. I encourage everybody to at least look at those books, independently of whether they want to learn from it.
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
@Fumble Fingers: my question is not about a recommendation to buy it.
Mar
7
comment Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
@Edwin Ashworth: If you have a question, just ask it on main and let me be judge of what my question is. I find your comments unpleasant and irrelevant.
Mar
7
asked Is Eckersley's *Essential English* still in use?
Feb
24
awarded  Famous Question
Jan
4
awarded  Popular Question
Dec
17
awarded  Good Question