Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests

Ed Murphy on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:22:35 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:19:37 -0800
In-reply-to: <85716AD5-97D2-4FFF-8451-671E20B41E50@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <44e5a2650901262214y5c74cc9bx738111c551810b73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <497EAA41.2090000@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <85716AD5-97D2-4FFF-8451-671E20B41E50@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0

ehird wrote:

> On 27 Jan 2009, at 06:31, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 
>> I interpret "has been assigned to" as "has been continuously assigned
>> to".
> 
> Really? cuz I don't.

Both meanings are reasonable, but one leads to breakage and the other
doesn't.  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxbe_fix
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
  - From: Elliott Hird
- Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
  - From: comex

References:
- [s-d] Oooops Priests
  - From: Jamie Dallaire
- Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
  - From: Ed Murphy
- Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
  - From: Elliott Hird

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 197 on I Propose Synonyms
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] Oooops Priests
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread