Dear Pedant: Why do cartoonists have an aversion to using a period (full stop) at the end of sentences yet they use exclamation marks (!) and question marks ?)? Regards, Cecil
Dear Cecil: Good question, and you'd need to ask a cartoonist for a definitive answer. Perhaps it's because the period (full stop) is bland, a common-or-garden mark with no personality, whereas the exclamation and question marks add strength, character, whatever.
Dear Pedant: What is the convention for use of 'authorise' or 'authorize', 'specialize' or 'specialize'? Is it just an American vs proper English thing? Alison
Dear Alison:There's a long etymological essay available to us here, but let's cut to the chase: All words of the type authorise/ize and specialise/ize may legitimately be spelt with either ending throughout the English-speaking world except in the US, where -ize is compulsory. (And except, of course, for capsize, and words that mean different things, such as prize and prise.) In Britain, the Oxford University Press (and, until recently, The Times,) uses -ize. But Cambridge University Press, and many other publishing houses in the UK, use -ise.
Dear Pedant: Should we say 'which legislation' or 'what legislation'? Googling gives me a count of about 50/50 usage on various websites and grammar texts are confusing me even further. Thanks! KS
Dear KS: It doesn't really matter, but I prefer "which". "Which legislation was it that protected Australian drop-bears in the 20th century" sounds better to me than "What legislation was it that etc."
Dear Pedant: Addressing two people. Example: A letter is addressed to Mr. David Smith and Mr. Joe Black, is the following
the right way?
Dear Messrs. Smith and Black:
Elaine
Dear Elaine: Yes - and no. First, I wouldn't use a period after Messrs, though dictionaries do allow it as an option. But second, it (a) looks awfully formal in a world that is starting to loosen up a bit and (b) is the abbreviation for Messieurs, which is French (not a problem in your country, of course!). I'd go for Dear Mr Smith and Mr Black.
Dear Pedant: Now I've started, I'm hooked on pedantry - third letter in a week. I'm surprised the "none is"-"none are" argument hasn't cropped up yet. So here it is: I believe I'm grammatically correct to say: "None of the northern populations is in conservation reserves". But if I was to speak, rather than write this, I would unconsciously ‘correct’ it to "None of the populations are......". That’s because it makes intuitive grammatical sense to follow a plural "populations" with the plural verb, even though the true subject (or it that object?) of the sentence is "none". It’s a bit like arguing whether to correct the other national Australian song ...."We are one, but we are many...". You must admit it would sound awkward to be singing "We is one, but we are many....". Your thoughts? Rosey
Dear Rosey: From the top:
Only stick-in-the-mud, fanatical pedants insist on a singular verb with "none" in all cases. Language experts generally agree that we should follow intuition, as you suggest. How could anyone justify "None of the people is working"? The plural verb -- "None of the people are working" -- shows the typical proximity agreement when the of-phrase finishes with a plural noun. In your example, "None of the northern populations are in conservations reserves". When you think about it, you're really talking about the populations, not the none!
Your analogy is false. "None is/are" is not the same as "We are/is" because "We" cannot be treated as singular, as "none" can. ("None" is an abbreviation of "not one", hence the usual singular verb. You wouldn't say "Of all our computers, not one are working".)
And since I am a pedant, may I urge you to say "If I were to speak, rather than write this ...", not "If I was to speak ..." The poor old subjunctive mood has a hard enough time of it these days without literate people like you ignoring it.
Dear Pedant: I have a Czech friend who keeps asking me 'English Language Questions'. His last question stumped me. Which is correct, a user or an user?
Here is my reply (my apologies for the references to our American friends):
Oh %^&$#. My understanding of English English grammar (as opposed to American English grammar) is that if the noun/adjective starts with a vowel ( a e i o u ) then you use 'an'. Therefore if the noun/adjective starts with a consonant then you use 'a'. However, in practice I tend to use 'a user' as it is easier to say/read... but 'an user' is probably grammatically correct. The Yanks probably use 'a user'.
Another question... Did the Titanic send a SOS call? or did it send an SOS call? You see the letter 'S' is spelt ess? The correct answer is a SOS call, because SOS is the acronym for save our souls, so the Titanic would have sent a save our souls message. How far wrong, was I? Sting uses an SOS in his songs.
Cheers, Paul
Dear Paul: It's all rather simple: you go by the sound. Do you say "a hour"? No, of course not. But why not? It starts with a consonant, doesn't it? Ah, but the consonant is unsounded. And in user the vowel is sounded like a consonant (y). A youth. A user. Do you say "an useful object"? Of course not, because the word has a Y sound at the start. Do you say "an umbrella"? Yes, because the vowel sound starts the word.
As for SOS, do you say "ess oh ess" or do you say "sos"? I'll bet you -- like everyone else -- say "ess oh ess". It is therefore an SOS call. Take the state you live in, NSW. Are you a NSW man or an NSW man? I'll bet you say the former, because people never say enn ess doubleyou, but always New South Wales, whether it's abbreviated or spelt out. The bottom line: go by the sound.
Dear Pedant: When I was schooled in Queensland, Australia, during the 60s and 70s, the word "which" was preferred to "that" wherever the two were interchangeable. The only time that "that" was preferred was when another "which" would be repetitious. For example:
"....white fragrant flowers which open at night...", is preferred to: "....white fragrant flowers that open at night..."
I know vernacular speech uses "that" more frequently but I had not encountered "that" as a preferred word in written English till MS Word's grammar check started to constantly correct me on my use of "which". I note that you, dear Pedant, seem to prefer "which" to "that". Is this a subconscious choice, or have you remained resolutely unmoved by the nagging AmerEnglish grammar check?
Who wrote this "that/which" grammar rule for MSWord? Is it just a US thing? Is "which" just as valid? And should I have used only single doovies around my 'thats' and 'whichs'? Rosalind
Dear Rosalind: From the top:
1. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, OUP 1996, spends more than a page (pp774-75) on the that/which conundrum. I don't have time to type it out here, but I'm sure your local library will have a copy. It all boils down to restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, and the example I use to show the difference comes from The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White: (a) The lawnmower that is in the garage is broken. This tells you there is more than one lawnmower, and the one in the garage is broken. (b) The lawnmower, which is in the garage, is broken. This tells you there is only one lawnmower, it is broken and, by the way, it is in the garage. "Which" clauses add extra or incidental information and are always preceded by a comma.
If you have noticed more use of "which" than "that" on this website it is an aberration, and probably stems -- as does your use of "which" -- from teachers who thought it was a "more literate" form of "that".
2. As for single doovies around your "thats" and "whiches", that is a matter of choice. You'll note newspapers use "double quotes" almost invariably, probably because their typefaces are smallish and 'single quotes' would be hard to see; but that books, in larger type, use 'single quotes'.
Dear Pedant: My pet hate is the departmental directive I am forced to use when referring to species names: to use lower case except for proper words. From experience I believe that implementing the recommendations leads to confusion of meaning.
To give examples, would a budgie with a registration band on its leg be a banded budgerigar? What about a banded land rail or the buff-banded rail? Birds vary in size: large-tailed grasswren, a little yellow robin, a greater frigatebird, lesser frigatebird, varied sittellas and uniform swiftlets. Or what of birds that have been in industrial accidents (this happens): a painted snipe, some sooty terns or an unfortunate ground parrot.
There is also confusion when using legal classifications of rarity. Under our legislation the common bentwing-bat is "common" but the common death adder is "rare". If someone writes that they saw a brown rat, are they referring to the brown rat, which is brown, or to the far more common and widespread black rat, which is also brown. Could I observe a hopping-mouse and witness a hopping mouse? There is a large forest bat and a little forest bat; but am I referring to the size of the bat, the size of the forest, or something else?
The department I work with (somewhere in Australia), says to use The style manual for publications standards. The 5th edition states, "common names of plants and animals are not given initial capitals except where they contain proper names". All my appeals for capitalised common names meet with a perfunctory refer-to-the-style-guide reply. The 6th edition, I note is more pragmatic with acknowledgment that "specialist fields" prefer to use capitals. This is a welcome change to the 5th edition’s emphatic lower-case directive. But it is not worded strongly enough for my department to change its stance without losing face.
I use many different flora and fauna manuals and exchange information with various botanical and zoological societies but most do not use lower-case common names. Yet The style manual states that "the dominant convention - that of using of lower-case letters should prevail". This "dominant convention" is actually fairly uncommon.
I wrote a similar letter pleading my case to the editor of the relevant chapter of The Style manual, but she thought the examples which I included above were just a little twee. I asked her to, "please tell me to which conventions you refer so that I can take my case directly to them". She evaded answering this.
I got a literary pat on the head and was told to defer to the dominant convention. Just who or what is this mythical "dominant convention". The editor of the relevant chapter had lots of qualifications relating to literature, but none to do with biology. So why would she think she is qualified to determine biological naming conventions? Eh, you probably share many of the same letters with her and you'll band together against me: uniform banded pedants.
I know this is a long letter; sorry. Feel welcome to use your editorial discretion and cull it (cullinory skills?). And put me out of my misery.
R. Edgar BSc
Dear R: Uniform banded pedants! Love it! But no, I have never corresponded with the editor of your style manual (despite being the editor of one myself). Were I to do so, I would be on your side. (Surprise, surprise!) Surely one reason for using capitals -- as with punctuation -- is to avoid ambiguity. That's why we cap proper names, so people don't mistake Rose Bush for a rose bush.
While your manual's sixth edition has relaxed its stance a little, it takes no account of the needs of different disciplines (other, it seems, than literature), leaving a wide gap for ambiguity to sail through.
Even such non-scientific organs as newspapers bend their no-capitals rules to avoid ambiguity. They refer to Large White pigs, for instance, to distinguish the breed from pigs that are merely large and white.
Yes, there is a trend away from capitals in the English-speaking word -- few now insist on French windows or Gladstone bags, let alone a Sandwich or a Cardigan -- but where they are necessary to eliminate ambiguity and ensure accuracy they must be used.
Dear Pedant: In your "Why is it so?" section Mat asked for information on Australian style guides online. The "Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers", AGPS, may be found online in pdf format at: http://www.agimo.gov.au/information/publishing/style_manual. Have a good one, matey! Christine Bayne
Dear Christine: Many thanks. I hope Mat returns here to see that. I'll check the guide myself immediately -- who knows, I might learn some "Strine".
Dear Pedant: The word family refers to a single unit. So "The family loved its house" is correct and "The family closed its eyes" is not, nor is "The family opened its mouth". Surely then "The family said it was pleased" is damn wrong too.
Dear Chris: Why? If a family can love its house, why can't it be pleased? They're both simple verbs. The agreement of subject and verb is often seen as a problem with collective nouns, but if we use common sense and treat them as single units when they can act as such, and treat their members as individuals when we need to, the problem usually disappears. The family clapped its hands is clearly wrong, because "it" doesn't have hands - "they", the members of the unit, have hands. But the family walked home is fine, because the family, as a unit, can do so. If the family can love its house, surely it can be pleased, too.
Dear Pedant: "... you're doing your quotation marks wrong". Something wrong with the word wrongly? Then again, the writer was an American, and I have failed every American spelling test I have ever taken. I have taken issue with an American regarding "write me". All right, I am able to write "me", but will anyone write to me, and will I care? To take things a little further, "it is my practice"; surely in this instance "practise" would be correct. The joys of being a pedant. Regards once more, Christine
Dear Christine: You will be surprised to hear that the evidence of language databases shows that the use of the -ly form - wrongly, in this case - is slightly more common in American than in British and other Englishes. There is nothing wrong with the word wrongly, but wrong is not, er, wrong. It is known as a zero adverb, one that drops the -ly. Others include bad, cheap, clean, clear, close, deep, direct, easy, fair, flat, high, loud, quick, right, sharp, short, slow, tight and wide. When there is a choice, this zero form is usually the more colloquial.
As you have become aware, Americans drop prepositions that the rest of the English-speaking world takes comfort in using, and put them in where the rest of the world eschews them. AmE: write me. RoW: write to me. AmE: meet Monday. RoW: meet on Monday. AmE: sell off, buy up. RoW: sell, buy. AmE: meet up with. RoW: meet. And so on.
Finally, why do you say practise would be correct in It is my practice? It is a noun in this construction, and the noun in British, Australian, New Zealand, South African and most other forms of English is practice. The American noun is practise (and the verb is practice, so they have transposed the RoW spellings).
Dear Pedant: I was always taught that one used either Mr. John Smith OR John Smith Esq. NEVER both. And do people still use Esq.? I was also taught to never begin a sentence with 'and'. I am enjoying reading your site. Regards, Christine
Dear Christine: You are right -- it's either Mr John Smith or John Smith Esq. I would, however, urge you to drop the full point from after Mr and Esq. Mr is a contraction that ends in the last letter of the full word, mister, so no point is needed. Esq does not, but the point is a relic of days when all abbreviations and contractions carried them. (They are dropping out of much abbreviated material anyway. You are more likely to see TS Eliot than T.S. Eliot these days.) And yes, you can start a sentence with and. The reason you were taught not to was that clauses starting with the word often contain no verb, and sentences should. Your teachers were trying to stop you writing, "And black and white", whereas "And it was black and white" is, of course, legitimate.
Dear Pendant: I read some time ago how English differs from, say, French, Italian or others, in the number of words available to express certain concepts. For example, (if I remember correctly) English has a fairly limited number of words to describe love/affection, but a larger selection for war/aggression. Something along those lines. Can you help, or suggest an internet resource to find out more? Thanks in advance, Des Theodore
Dear Des: First, while I hang around a lot I am a pedant, not a pendant. Second, I have no facts or figures handy, but you might try surfing your way through http://www.quinion.com/words/ - a comprehensive site. Its owner, Michael Quinion, also does Q&A, and will almost certainly respond to you. Good luck.
My very dear pedant: My friend and I were watching a press conference given by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Sabah. A reporter asked them a question, and Secretary Powell said something like: "That's an issue that I can't speak to." My friend turned to me and asked if Secretary Powell should not have said: "That's an issue that I can't speak OF." or "...can't speak ABOUT." On the other hand, if you "speak to" someone, you "address" them, and you can address an issue, so can you speak to an issue, or only of/about it? Many thanks in advance, Malcolm Muggeridge
My very dear Malcolm: First, I'll bet you don't remember meeting me (obviously, since you are no longer alive!), but our paths did cross in 1959 -- yes, the Pedant is old! -- when we spent a pleasant four hours together on a country car trip. Second, the words are pretty much interchangeable, really a matter of personal preference. I prefer "That's something I can't speak on". You might prefer "about". Powell seems to like "to". There is no "rule" here.
Dear Pedant: What principle, or misunderstood principle, could prompt a senior journalist to constantly change phrases -- and even actual quotes -- from reading, say, "they will also go" or "he said they would also consider" to "they also will go" and "he said they also would consider". The changes made appear to confound the most common usage, but does it have some arcane underpinning of correctness? I have been unable to suss it out elsewhere. Curious
Dear Curious: First, remember this: "The strongest human drive is not that which pursues sex or food, but the uncontrollable urge to change another person's copy." Second, your senior journalist thinks they are doing the right thing. They think they are avoiding split infinitives. The trouble is, they have no idea what the infinitive is and know nothing of compound verbs and auxiliary verbs. As the cases you cite suggest, they think "will go" and "would consider" are infinitives and must not be split by anything. (I am quite confident of this diagnosis. I have come across it several times in my working life. If you can manage to do so without upsetting your career, ask why the next time it happens. I'll bet that's the answer you get.) Apart from the fact that these are not infinitives, of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with splitting infinitives. The Latin infinitive was one word, and therefore could not be split. England's 19th century grammarians decided what was good for Latin was good for English (hence "do not end sentences with prepositions" and other Latin grammar truisms) and applied the "rule" to it. Anyway, "they will also go" and "he said they would also consider it" are not only natural, sensible word orders, they also break no rules.
Dear Pedant: I am looking for a good online Australian style guide, any suggestions? The more I pay attention to editing copy the more differences I see in all of our "respected" publications. I am finding that especially in relation to political terms the differences are enormous. Looking forward to your advice. Kind Regards, Mat
Dear Mat: As far as I can find out, there are no Australian style guides online. The most widely used newspaper guide appears to be that published by News Ltd -- you can order a copy at http://www.newstext.com.au/pages/wn.asp# -- but I cannot find one online. (My spies tell me News Ltd is discussing putting their guide online and charging a small fee for access, but there is no word on when this might happen.) There are plenty of style guides online -- the best list is here: http://www.eltweb.com/liason/Grammar/ -- but none is Australian.
Dear Pedant: English is my first language yet I still do not know which preposition follows "performance" in the following context: "Tests were devised to measure users’ performance (at/of/on/in) typical BRP tasks." Dylan Early
Dear Dylan: To me it's the users' performance of tasks. You would not refer to an actor's performance at Hamlet or on Hamlet - though you could say in Hamlet, because actors do perform in plays. But my performance in a task is wrong to my ear.
Dear Pedant: Is there an online copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage available on the Internet? I get tired of holding my beloved book open with one hand and typing with the other. Dylan Early
Dear Dylan: Me too - but help is, if you will forgive the expression, at hand. I can't find Fowler in toto, but http://www.xrefer.com/entry/591037 seems to lead to a sectionalised version of the 1965 second edition (though it is marked 1968 at the bottom of the page). If you go to http://www.oxfordreference.com/pub/views/2C_07.html you will find you can access a "pocket" version through Oxford Reference Online -- but you have to pay. You may also find http://www.eltweb.com/liason/Grammar/ helpful (not to mention http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/makeauthorpage).
Dear Pedant: Do you have another "think" coming, or another "thing" coming? For example: "If you think you're going to beat me at chess, you have another think/thing coming." Max
Dear Max: You have another think coming. You have already had one think -- that you are going to beat me at chess -- and you therefore have a second one coming.
My dear Pedant: Which is correct? "Scones" in England is pronounced "scahnz". In the US it is pronounced "sconz". Actually, I have seen it in an American dictionary with the US pronunciation listed first and the English one listed second. I maintain it is correct in UK English to say "scahnz" and correct in US English to say "sconz". Kathryn
My dear Kathryn: You can maintain it until the scones are half-eaten, but you will be only half right. The word in Britain is widespread as "skonz". That is the first pronunciation given in OED. (I wish I could use the phonetic alphabet here, but I can't.) It's "skonz" with the "o" as in "hot". The pronunciation "skoanz", with the "oa" as in "boat", is restricted to a minority in the so-called upper class who speak what is known as RP, or Received Pronunciation. Even BBC newsreaders now say "skonz". And that would seem (apart from that British minority) to be the worldwide way. I know of no one -- except perhaps in the Deep South of the US -- who might say "skahnz", with the "ah" as in "palm". Now, eat up!
Dear Pedant: My daughter asked me this question the other day: "Dad, if we evolved from apes, does that mean that all apes will one day become humans? If not, why not?" How should I answer her? Max Tomlinson
Dear Max: I am sorry, but I am a linguist, not a scientist, so can use only common sense to suggest that the species that evolved into humans, over many million years, no longer exists. A different branch of the ape family -- the one on Earth today -- did NOT evolve, and will not evolve, into humans. But this is guesswork, and your daughter should really go to her science teacher. Now, any questions about language?
Dear Pedant: The Japanese use the suffix "SAN" in names. For example Tamaguchi-san. My question is, is the suffix a substitute for Mr or could you use both ... Mr Tamaguchi-san?
Dear Tamaguchi-san: San, although it doesn't look it, is a contraction of sama, which means Mr or Esquire. So no, you cannot have "Mr Tamaguchi-san", because that means Mr Mr Tamaguchi. If you think of old forms of address in English, you'll note you never wrote "Mr John Smith Esq". It was either "Mr John Smith" or "John Smith Esq." San does the job of either, but not both at once.
Dear Pedant: Should not one say, "the Coalition of Adult Literacy needed some publicity to promote its programs"? Sincerely, Amestris
Dear Amestris: Absolutely. A coalition (a government, a committee etc) is an IT when referred to in this way. You would use the plural form of the pronoun only if you were referring to the individual members. You could not say, for example, "the Coalition of Adult Literacy clapped its hands" or "the commmittee jumped up and down on its seat". PS: Your inquiry was addressed to Grammar Lady. I am a Grammar Man.
Dear Pedant: I was reading a book about a vitriolic former editor of the Northern Miner newspaper. He was labelled a "Jackdaw of Reams". Can you tell me what that means?
Dear Means: I wonder if those doing the labelling were making a play on words (not unknown in the newspaper business). The Jackdaw of Rheims is a 19th century poem by the Rev. Richard Harris Barham, about a jackdaw that can mimic human speech and is a terrible thief. In Rheims it steals the Cardinal's ring; the Cardinal places a curse on the unknown robber; the jackdaw grows thin and moults; and when it returns the ring and the Cardinal lifts the curse, it returns to health. Was this former editor lightfingered with reams of paper?
Dear Pedant: When I wrote papers many years ago, there was no world wide web. How does one cite information that is found on the web?
Dear Web: That's a curly one, mainly because the Web is so fluid. Pages do not, as a rule, carry dates of publication as books and other documents do. I suggest something like this: Sub-page name, page name, URL, date of access. So, if you were to cite Dear Pedant (God forbid!) it would be: "Why Is It So?", Dear Pedant, www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1485, accessed 2000/4/21. It is not really satisfactory, because someone checking your citation, or merely following it up out of interest, will probably find a changed page. You could always print it out as firm evidence. I suspect someone in a tertiary institution somewhere has made rules about this. If I can find out I'll get back to you.
Dear Pedant: What is your opinion on the lack of grammar, sentence structure, spelling, forms of address and almost everything else in the use of E-mails? Does the increase in communications, and therefore the sustenance of civil society, outweigh the loss? Or do we just accept that E-mails are a ersatz spoken form of the language, and hang the expense? I will return, Cheers, Serendipity.
Dear Serendipity: First, I prefer "e-mail". There seems to me no more point in "E-mail" than in "Letter" or "Communications". Second, I would assert that e-mails are neither formal communication nor an ersatz form of the spoken language, but a new genre, with its own rules. We seem to have adopted them without hesitation and, in a relaxed country like Australia (where I see you are from), how apt. And I am not so sure that they lack grammar, spelling, sentence structure and so on. The "conversations" in chatrooms lack these things, but I have found, on the whole, that despite being less formal than paper communications, e-mails follow the rules of standard English. (Er, did you notice you wrote "a ersatz"?) *g*
Dear Pedant: "You know, I mean, sort of..." these ubiquitous phrases -- what is their function? They are meaningless ballast more commonly observed when the speaker is not familiar with public comment. They do not, by any means, only occur when the speaker is searching for the words or ideas. They are rarely in print, so I wonder they complete the prosody.
Dear Prosody: No one could, y'know, explain it better than Robert Burchfield in The Spoken Word, in which he said, sort of, such meaningless fillers "do not normally occur in scripted (broadcast) material, but are not always avoidable in informal contexts and consitute useful rhythmical aids to speakers who temporarily lose their fluency". One study showed President George Bush used 1.7 ums a minute, and talk show host Johnny Carson 1.5. And, I mean, these are Americans trained in public speaking. But I like Burchfield's suggestion: rhythmical aids. You know.
Dear Ped man: Here's something I've often asked myself but couldn't for the life of me come up with a decent answer: a) How long have we anglophones been using phrasal verbs? b) Why do we have phrasal, phrasal-prepositional, and prepositional verbs which can be used such: I switched off the light/switched the light off/I switched it off BUT NOT "I switched off it"? If you have a brief answer I'd like to know.
Dear Alex: (a) We have had phrasal verbs pretty well since English was "invented". They are a feature of Germanic, on which, as you know, English is largely based. (b) Since English is a largely unmarked language, word order is important. In the example you give, the pronoun "it" is changing its status and behaving like a clitic, halfway between a free-standing word and an affix. In such cases the pronoun doesn't like to be separated from the verb by a preposition or particle. (It's not only pronouns that resist moving around. While we say "Give me it" not "Give it me", we also say "Give the book to me", not "Give to me the book".)
Cher Pedant: Je n'aime pas vraiment votre page. Elle ne pensent pas que c'est très intéressant. Vous devriez l'essayer encore. J'espère que ceci aide. Bonne Chance! Blaise Riou.
Cher Blaise: Chacun a son gout...
Dear Pedant: This isn't related to English but why is bread masculine in Spanish, then feminine when you toast it? Is there some secret in the toasting process (could be useful for sex-change operations...)? Isabella
Dear Isabella: It's a bit like asking why das Maedchen, the girl, is neuter in German! But I think, yes, the toasting process is a clue. The last piece of toast I had definitely tasted fem . . . oh, who knows! *g*
Dear Pedant: Why is an American ten-cent coin called a dime?
Dear Dime: It comes from an old French word, dime, and that came in turn from the Latin, decima pars, meaning "a tenth part". The dime is, of course, a tenth of a dollar.
Got a burning question? Ask it here: dearpedant@hotmail.com
Get your own Free Home Page