Re: n. stiff, the antonym?

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:18:08 +0200, "Father Ignatius"
<FatherIgnatius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g49dv1t9h638tufu941bdv202rafkgbnru@xxxxxxxxxx
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

Unless you feel clarity is important.

Clarity? Surely this is the wrong word. The sentence is neither
unclear nor ambiguous. It may be of questionable construction to
grammarians, but it is hardly lacking in clarity. Even an
English-learner would follow it. To say the meaning could be mistaken
is hyperbole.

I'll accept that a rearrangement would please some here, but not that
the sentence lacks clarity.

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.


--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
.