Re: White Coat Day
- From: blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jun 2007 20:20:15 GMT
In article <468007ec$0$16347$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Skitt wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:[...]
J. J. Lodder wrote:
<blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]your posts appear to be a kind of free verse -- but
I'm really curious about whether this is deliberate on your part,
or an artifact of your newsreader [...]
It's not an artifact.
Others should see the same,
Funny,
how "artefact"
has changed not only its meaning
but even
its spelling.
[ snip ]
*Artefact* is
a chiefly British variant
of *artifact*,
says M-W Online.
"Artefact" is a slightly strange truncation, I suppose; but truncating
it _and_ swapping in the dative instead of the ablative makes "artifact"
even odder. But the shift in meaning is more interesting.
What shift in meaning is that? the one from "product of human
activity" to "product of [something else, such as a newsreader in
this example]"?
--
Decline To State
(But the e-mail address in the header should work.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: White Coat Day
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: White Coat Day
- References:
- White Coat Day
- From: Richard Maurer
- Re: White Coat Day
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: White Coat Day
- From: Skitt
- Re: White Coat Day
- From: Mike Lyle
- White Coat Day
- Prev by Date: Re: White Coat Day
- Next by Date: Re: the truth
- Previous by thread: Re: White Coat Day
- Next by thread: Re: White Coat Day
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
