Re: n. stiff, the antonym?

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:29:58 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<r_s_lieblich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:35:25 -0000, R J Valentine <rj@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:44:34 GMT Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
} So does my DIL. She doesn't want things brought in on shoes that the
} rugrats will eat.
...

You did that on purpose. Come clean.

What? Another who/that conflict?

"shoes ... the rugrats will eat."

Maybe they've seen *The Gold Rush*.

Ahhhhh....perfectly clear and normal construction. If you make it
"She doesn't want things the rugrats will eat brought in on shoes"
it's not really a better sentence. It makes it sound like the idea of
the sentence is how things the rugrats will eat are brought in when
it's only things brought in on shoes that are of concern.

The original statement was perfectly clear to me.

--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair

.