In a message dated 14/12/2008 11:17:38 GMT Standard Time,
anthony.j.mills@xxxxxx.com writes:
A while ago it became fashionable amongst many who very well
knew better to say ''pacific'' instead of ''specific''. I am sorry but I
found this infuriating, stupid, and contributing no useful additional
meaning to the word as correctly used.
So frass is insect faeces and wood dust is wood dust or wood drillings. Why
not say what it is?
fuddy duddy Anthony Mills
'Frass' in my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (ninth edition, 1995,
perhaps it's time I had a new one), which is kept very close to hand, (by my
right knee in fact, to check the numerous words that I don't know) is
defined
firstly as fine powder left by insects boring, and secondly as insect
excrement.
'Specific' and 'Pacific?' surely not. My grumpy gland gets agitated by
'your' instead of 'you're' and 'could of' instead of 'could have.' On the
other
hand 'would'nt've' for 'would not have' seems vaguely progressive?
I've also got a copy of 'Eats, shoots and leaves' which is vaguely helpful
but almost annoying for what it doesn't tell me as much as what it does.
Should
we say "frass" or 'frass.' When do we use which particular sort of quotation
mark?
By and large I consider that I ought to "get a life." And as for texting (or
txtng)...... C U L8R? Help!
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
