1. Forum
  2. FIDO
  3. ENGLISH TUTOR

  • Can you see...

    From alexander koryagin@2:5075/128.130 to All on Thu Oct 27 13:30:43 2022
    Hi, All!

    Can an Englishmen see in the gloom? :)

    Is it a darkness or twilight?

    Bye, All!
    Alexander Koryagin
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
    * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5075/128.130 to Ardith Hinton on Mon Oct 31 09:23:15 2022
    Hi, Ardith Hinton!
    I read your message from 28.10.2022 21:46

    ak>> Can an Englishmen see in the gloom? :)
    AH> |Singular, Englishman. Plural, Englishmen.
    ak>> Is it a darkness or twilight?
    AH> It could be either. Gloom = a state of partial or
    AH> total darkness.

    Well... So an Englishman can see in the gloom and can not see in the
    gloom. ;-)

    Bye, Ardith!
    Alexander Koryagin
    fido.english_tutor 2022
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
    * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to alexander koryagin on Sat Nov 12 22:40:11 2022
    Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    Gloom = a state of partial or total darkness.

    Well... So an Englishman can see in the gloom
    and can not see in the gloom. ;-)


    I see you got the idea. Good.... :-)

    I added the correction just before posting my reply, then began to wonder if I should have said simply "-man", "-men". This pattern is akin to what dictionaries use, builds on what you & others here already know, and is easier to read. OTOH I wouldn't want anyone to read too much into it.

    Man, men. Woman, women. The same applies to "Englishman" & other words you've probably encountered before. But times change, and where folks like me grew up hearing of policemen & policewomen many such terms have been replaced by gender-neutral terms... WRT this example, "police officer". :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From alexander koryagin@2:5075/128.130 to Ardith Hinton on Mon Nov 14 09:17:35 2022
    Hi, Ardith Hinton!
    I read your message from 12.11.2022 22:40

    AH>> Gloom = a state of partial or total darkness.
    ak>> Well... So an Englishman can see in the gloom
    ak>> and can not see in the gloom. ;-)
    AH> I see you got the idea. Good.... :-)
    AH> I added the correction just before posting my reply,
    AH> then began to wonder if I should have said simply "-man",
    AH> "-men". This pattern is akin to what dictionaries use, builds
    AH> on what you & others here already know, and is easier to read.
    AH> OTOH I wouldn't want anyone to read too much into it. Man,
    AH> men. Woman, women. The same applies to "Englishman" & other words
    AH> you've probably encountered before. But times change, and where folks
    AH> like me grew up hearing of policemen & policewomen many such terms
    AH> have been replaced by gender-neutral terms... WRT this example,
    "police
    AH> officer". :-)

    So it would have been proper to ask "Can an English person see in the
    gloom?" Does it sound well?


    Bye, Ardith!
    Alexander Koryagin
    fido.english_tutor,local.cc.ak 2022
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
    * Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to alexander koryagin on Sun Nov 20 13:20:56 2022
    alexander koryagin:

    So it would have been proper to ask "Can an English
    person see in the gloom?" Does it sound well?

    I beg to remark that propriety and grammatical correctess
    are largely orthogonal.

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)