EngFor | 1 Nov 08:59 2010
Picon

File - ReminderLetter.txt


Hi everyone,

This letter is a monthly reminder for everyone in EngFor.

Please sign your posts and clean them up before you send them. By "cleaning up", I mean deleting the bulk of
previous posts that have accumulated due to multiple replies and long messages. Leave only enough to help
readers make sense of your response. Thanks.

** To beginning English learners: 

Please feel free to write messages about any topic or question. Do not let the advanced level of English of
some of our list members scare you off. We are here to help you learn. Make mistakes boldly. It is the best way
to learn and we have all studied at least one other language so we know what it is like.

** About corrections:

Our policy is that every mistake will be corrected, so you can trust what you read here to be correct, or
corrected soon thereafter. (Make sense?)

However: 

The exception to this policy is when a conversation gets going (which we encourage), we will not always go
through every message to give corrections unless we are specifically asked to do so. We want to encourage
the free flow of ideas and practice, practice, practice.

** To native English speakers:

You are encouraged to jump in and help with the corrections. We only ask that before you do so, you add your
information to the database of EngFor Subscribers so that people will know you have the knowledge and
(Continue reading)

Jack Waller | 3 Nov 17:02 2010
Picon

The Little Word That Could

Interesting history of a American word that is now used in very many countries.
Jack
Newsweek.com Nov. 8, 12-8-10
The Little Word That Could

From left: Courtesy of Everett Collection; Neal Preston / Corbis; Pascal Parrot / Sygma-Corbis
From left, Rodney Dangerfield, Mary Lou Retton, and Yasir Arafat give the “OK” sign.
Allan Metcalf’s new book claims that the word “OK” is America’s greatest invention. This offers a pair
of provocations. How can “OK” be an invention? On a certain day, a certain guy just dreamed up the
expression that has become the most frequently spoken word on the planet? And even if it is an invention,
can one little word really be greater than jazz, baseball, and the telephone? Is it better than The Simpsons?
The answer to the first question, implausible as it sounds, is yes. In OK: The Improbable Story of
America’s Greatest Word, Metcalf locates the first use of OK in an obscure corner of a Boston newspaper on
March 23, 1839. As for the reputed greatness of the word, Metcalf’s slim volume doesn’t entirely
persuade you that OK is a more valuable invention than, say, electric light. But the fact that he even
raises the question is intriguing. If it does nothing else, Metcalf makes you acutely aware of how
ubiquitous and vital the word has become. Once you start noticing OK, you risk becoming like the knights in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail who erupt every time somebody says the word “it.”
True story: the world’s most popular word began as a joke. In the late 1830s, America’s newspapers had a
mania for abbreviations—also, to judge by Metcalf’s account, a sorry sense of humor. He devotes a
chapter to trying to explain why readers of the Boston Morning Post might have been amused to see “o. k.”
used as a jokey abbreviation for “oll korrect,” an intentional misspelling of “all correct.”
Apparently you had to be there. But the word soon got an enormous boost from Andrew Jackson—or his
enemies, anyway. They circulated the rumor that the man of the people was barely literate and approved
papers with the initials “O.K.” for “oll korrect.” It was a hoax, Metcalf concludes, “but without it
there’d be no OK.”
The word didn’t remain a joke for long. Telegraph operators began using it as a way to say “all clear.” It
became ubiquitous, turning up in all corners of the world, and beyond. Metcalf points out that OK was
technically the first word spoken on the surface of the moon; it also immediately preceded Todd Beamer’s
heroic charge on 9/11 (“OK, let’s roll.”). To stand out in conversation now, it needs some frippery,
(Continue reading)

Jack Waller | 3 Nov 18:05 2010
Picon

Corrected: The Little Word That Could

Corrected article "A" changed to "AN" (in the first sentence).
Interesting history of AN American word that is now used in very many countries.
Jack
Newsweek.com Nov. 8, 12-8-10
The Little Word That Could

From left: Courtesy of Everett Collection; Neal Preston / Corbis; Pascal Parrot / Sygma-Corbis
From left, Rodney Dangerfield, Mary Lou Retton, and Yasir Arafat give the “OK” sign.
Allan Metcalf’s new book claims that the word “OK” is America’s greatest invention. This offers a pair
of provocations. How can “OK” be an invention? On a certain day, a certain guy just dreamed up the
expression that has become the most frequently spoken word on the planet? And even if it is an invention,
can one little word really be greater than jazz, baseball, and the telephone? Is it better than The Simpsons?
The answer to the first question, implausible as it sounds, is yes. In OK: The Improbable Story of
America’s Greatest Word, Metcalf locates the first use of OK in an obscure corner of a Boston newspaper on
March 23, 1839. As for the reputed greatness of the word, Metcalf’s slim volume doesn’t entirely
persuade you that OK is a more valuable invention than, say, electric light. But the fact that he even
raises the question is intriguing. If it does nothing else, Metcalf makes you acutely aware of how
ubiquitous and vital the word has become. Once you start noticing OK, you risk becoming like the knights in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail who erupt every time somebody says the word “it.”
True story: the world’s most popular word began as a joke. In the late 1830s, America’s newspapers had a
mania for abbreviations—also, to judge by Metcalf’s account, a sorry sense of humor. He devotes a
chapter to trying to explain why readers of the Boston Morning Post might have been amused to see “o. k.”
used as a jokey abbreviation for “oll korrect,” an intentional misspelling of “all correct.”
Apparently you had to be there. But the word soon got an enormous boost from Andrew Jackson—or his
enemies, anyway. They circulated the rumor that the man of the people was barely literate and approved
papers with the initials “O.K.” for “oll korrect.” It was a hoax, Metcalf concludes, “but without it
there’d be no OK.”
The word didn’t remain a joke for long. Telegraph operators began using it as a way to say “all clear.” It
became ubiquitous, turning up in all corners of the world, and beyond. Metcalf points out that OK was
technically the first word spoken on the surface of the moon; it also immediately preceded Todd Beamer’s
(Continue reading)

Haliman | 3 Nov 23:07 2010
Picon

Re: Corrected: The Little Word That Could

Hello Jack,

In war time, O.K. stands for 0 killed or zero killed. It is a good news 
for the commander that there is no casualties. Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okay#War_Time:_.220_Killed_.2C_.28Zero_Killed.29.22

Haliman

On 03/11/2010 10:05 AM, Jack Waller wrote:
> Corrected article "A" changed to "AN" (in the first sentence).
> Interesting history of AN American word that is now used in very many countries.
> Jack
> Newsweek.com Nov. 8, 12-8-10
> The Little Word That Could
>
> > From left: Courtesy of Everett Collection; Neal Preston / Corbis; Pascal Parrot / Sygma-Corbis
> > From left, Rodney Dangerfield, Mary Lou Retton, and Yasir Arafat give the “OK” sign.
> Allan Metcalf’s new book claims that the word “OK” is America’s greatest invention. This offers
a pair of provocations. How can “OK” be an invention? On a certain day, a certain guy just dreamed up the
expression that has become the most frequently spoken word on the planet? And even if it is an invention,
can one little word really be greater than jazz, baseball, and the telephone? Is it better than The Simpsons?
> The answer to the first question, implausible as it sounds, is yes. In OK: The Improbable Story of
America’s Greatest Word, Metcalf locates the first use of OK in an obscure corner of a Boston newspaper
on March 23, 1839. As for the reputed greatness of the word, Metcalf’s slim volume doesn’t entirely
persuade you that OK is a more valuable invention than, say, electric light. But the fact that he even
raises the question is intriguing. If it does nothing else, Metcalf makes you acutely aware of how
ubiquitous and vital the word has become. Once you start noticing OK, you risk becoming like the knights in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail who erupt every time somebody says the word “it.”
> True story: the world’s most popular word began as a joke. In the late 1830s, America’s newspapers had
(Continue reading)

honeybadger_jp | 8 Nov 09:43 2010
Picon

Is this participial constructionH

Is the usage of "leading" in the sentence below participial construction?

Is "leading to destruction of ` <at> = and this unhappiness leads to destruction <at> of `"
right?

I believe this unhappiness to be very largely due to mistaken views of the world, 
mistaken 'ethics, mistaken habits of life, leading to destruction of that natural
 zest and appetite for possible things upon which all happiuess, 
whether of men or animals, ultimately depends.

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Bill Kelly | 8 Nov 12:35 2010
Picon

Re: �

Hi, honeybadger:

Yes, I would say that "leading" here is a present participle modifying 
the noun "views". It is equivalent to "views that lead ..."

Bill Kelly
Connecticut USA

P.S. Not all the typed characters came though properly in your message ...

On 11/8/2010 3:43 AM, honeybadger_jp wrote:
>
> Is the usage of "leading" in the sentence below participial construction?
>
> Is "leading to destruction of �`� <at> = and this unhappiness leads to 
> destruction� <at> of �`"
> right?
>
> I believe this unhappiness to be very largely due to mistaken views of 
> the world,
> mistaken 'ethics, mistaken habits of life, leading to destruction of 
> that natural
> zest and appetite for possible things upon which all happiuess,
> whether of men or animals, ultimately depends.
>
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

honeybadger_jp | 9 Nov 07:07 2010
Picon

Re: leading

Thank you Mr.Bill Kelly 
I remember your name.

 For more information, you mean " that lead to destruction of`"
and "that = mistaken views of the world, mistaken ethics and mistaken habits of life", do you?

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
Bill Kelly | 9 Nov 13:14 2010
Picon

Re: Re: leading

Sorry, I don't understand.

On 11/9/2010 1:07 AM, honeybadger_jp wrote:
>
> Thank you Mr.Bill Kelly
> I remember your name.
>
> For more information, you mean " that lead to destruction of`"
> and "that = mistaken views of the world, mistaken ethics and mistaken 
> habits of life", do you?
>
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
honeybadger_jp | 9 Nov 14:26 2010
Picon

Re: leading

Probably I understand what you mean. Thank you Mr. Bill Kelly.

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
honeybadger_jp | 15 Nov 09:59 2010
Picon

Is there any difference?

Is there any difference between No1 and No2 in meaning?

No1
Kelts replies that its quality is so high that it is not a short-lived phenomenon.

No2
Kelts replies that its quality is such high that it is not a short-lived phenomenon.

------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: EngFor-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

Gmane