Hi, Paul! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:
[re "yellow polka dot bikini"]
So, was it a white bikini? ;)
I was wondering about the same thing until I remembered
that polka dots & coin dots (which were larger & typically
worn by little old ladies 'way back when) were almost
invariably white in those days. As I understand it the
bathing suit in question was probably bright yellow with
white polka dots, and the teenager who was wearing it
desperately wanted to sport the latest fashion from Europe
but wasn't quite ready to do so on a public beach.... :-Q
Really? Nah, can't be yellow on yellow. (Do you see my
point? I'm safe from polka dot bikinis too.)
I suppose it could be if there were two different shades of yellow. What I was thinking you meant, however, was along the lines of your joke about the purple people eater. Is this critter purple... or does he/she/it eat only purple people? Is the background yellow... &/or are the polka dots yellow? I understand there are various theories WRT the grammatical analysis of a string like this. When I compare them to my own experience with people & polka dots, Mark Forsyth's explanation is a lot more straightforward & practical AFAIC. I would be interested in seeing what he can do with a string describing a person such as an attractive red-haired female English horn player... [chuckle].
I'm thinking a red or a blue always makes a great combo
with yellow. (Yellow looks really nice as a 'trim' on the
bikinis worn by the Chinese beach volleyball contestants,
being either red or blue.)
Yes, WRT paint & fabric dye they are the primary colours... or so I was taught in art class at elementary school. WRT light things are different. I'm still trying to figure out what's happening on my computer monitor. Years ago it seemed few people understood terms like "cyan" & "magenta"... and those who did were heavily influenced by fashion moguls who worked with fabric. ;-)
OTOH, I note with interest that you a use a single word
'thank you'. Is that a Canadian thing?
You've opened a nice can of worms there, my friend. Give
yourself another gold star & fasten your seat belt... [chuckle].
Oops. It's a recent point of interest. I queried myself and
mistakenly checked a dictionary (singular, and may have been
via uncle Google).
You certainly got me interested there. I checked four dictionaries which we have here at home, then turned to Uncle Google & FOWLER'S for further clarification. I don't need to do the latter when I'm 99% sure I'm right & my OXFORD CANADIAN DICTIONARY, which is designed specifically for people who want to communicate with others in an international context, agrees with me. Every dictionary has its own strengths & weaknesses, however... and through years of practice I know what to expect from my favourite four in many cases. I'm glad you realize one dictionary isn't always enough. Not everybody does. With the help of Uncle Google, we are no longer limited to what we & the public library have on our bookshelves. But we still need to ask... as I advised my students to do years ago... who is this person & why should I take his her word for it? With material we find on the Internet, we may not know who the author is. :-)
In short: this spelling has been traced to Australia,
Canada, the UK, and the US.
Oh, dear.
I understand. My comment was descriptive, but reading between the lines I take it your spelling remains the most widely accepted... [wry grin].
In formal writing it is definitely not recommended. :-)
That is what I like to see. Thank you. ;)
And thanks to FOWLER'S, which I often turned to when I was a first- year teacher... and still do. I have an updated edition now, but it takes the same British no-nonsense approach the earlier edition did. For those who have the patience to wade through a much more detailed explanation than the average dictionary can offer there are a lot of concluding statements like this. :-))
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)