Re: homophones

Subject: Re: homophones
From: Kelly Hoffman <kelly -at- NASHUA -dot- HP -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 12:57:52 EST

Sarah Mahoney <smahoney -at- U -dot- WASHINGTON -dot- EDU> writes:

> I just now read the "think" version in a magazine article, and
> I couldn't believe it! That is the first time I have ever seen
> that version in print, and I think it's a shame it made it past
> the proofreaders and editors on the magazine staff.

Why is it a shame? Just from the discussion on this list, it should
be clear that there's no consensus on this issue, so how can you
be so sure that you're right and they're wrong?

(Of course, I agree with the proofreaders and editors, and I still
maintain that the "thing" version makes no sense.)

Perhaps this isn't a regionalism so much as an age-ism. If you're a
"thing-er," do your formative years predate or postdate the Judas Priest
song? how about if you're a "think-er"?

:-) :-)

Kelly K. Hoffman kelly -at- nashua -dot- hp -dot- com
Learning Products Engineer
Hewlett-Packard, Network Test Division "Reading the manual is
One Tara Blvd., Nashua, NH USA 03062 admitting defeat."

Previous by Author: Re: another think ..uh... thing coming
Next by Author: Re: Using HTML
Previous by Thread: homophones
Next by Thread: Re: homophones

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads