1 3 4 5 6 7  9 10
Things are "to", not "of", no avail.

They both sound right to me.
(Have we uncovered a generational difference here? It isn't pondian.)
> That's interesting. How about stacking them vertically?

A demi-semi-colon?

Regards
John
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Don't bother. The reply is *** and the replier is ... remarks are those of a pompous ass of a parrot

I know that I'm inviting all sorts of flak here, but just seeing the AOL part of a sender's address ... has a lot to learn, as obvious from his posts. He has chutzpah, of course; oh yeah, that he has!

Fair enough in general, I suspect, but you've missed the target in this case. Paul may or may not be obnoxious (I don't really find his posts interesting enough to read with any close attention), but he is not the sort of technotwit who sticks the AOL CD in the drive and accepts the default options. He has gone to the trouble of accessing the Berlin server using Agent via an AOL connection - not a simple process, and something that, I believe, AOL's own documentation does not even mention as possible. Hence his remarks about headers. I believe it is indeed the cheapest option in areas of the UK where broadband is not available.

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
It is TO no avail to throw population statistics at ... my language labors. Has that gotten me off the hook?

It is with the greatest of pleasure that I inform you of your acceptance to the group of speakers of ... the right coast of the pond who are devoluting the language of their forefathers who spoke the true English. Harrumph!)

Sorry to interrupt this love-fest, but I have grave doubts that "to/of no avail" is a pondian difference at all. I would be quite happy with either.

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
They presented four phrases and asked me which one was correct: (flag#1 = red/white/blue; flag#2 = green/yellow) 1. The two ... red, white, and blue, and green and yellow. I opted for number 2, but said that number 4 was acceptable.

All of them are wrong.
Never allow your students to set you forced-choice tasks. You* set the tasks for *them.
Using merely commas and 'and', it's impossible in writing to describe two flags this way. You can do it in speech, with pauses and intonation:

"The two flags were
(high intonation) red, white, and blue, (low intonation; pause) and (high intonation) green and yellow. (terminal intonation)"

But in writing you need help because you can't do intonation. Some helps you can use include:
'respectively'
The two flags were, respectively, red, white, and blue, and green and yellow.
Colons and semicolons
The two flags were: red, white, and blue; and green and yellow.

Rephrasing (the preferred way)
The first flag is red, white, and blue
while the second is green and yellow.
These first two ways essentially just try to mark with special words and punctuation what you'd do in speech with pauses and intonation. Remember: it's the speech that does the work and sets the rules; the writing just tries to report the speech, in a sort of half-assed way.

As I discovered when I took my first ESL teaching job, it's best to learn something about English before* you attempt to teach it. Otherwise your students will teach *you just how much you don't know, and this is not the most comfortable way to learn it.
Executive Summary: Make it clear before you make it short.

-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept "A man does not know what he is saying until he knows what he is not saying." G.K. Chesterton, 1936, "As I Was Saying"
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Oi! AOL is my current choice because it's the cheapest ... to read headers you'd realise how I access this ng.

What is it that I wrote that made you think that I can't read your headers? BTW, why do you use the BrE spelling of "realize"? Are you here or there?

His Lake District Walking Tours site might be a clue, Skitt.

I've never understood people that "rubbish" AOL either. For some, it's strictly a decision based on cost. Others use it because someone else in the house likes certain features of AOL. I see no particular stigma in how a person accesses the net. It's what they do when they get there that counts.
There's no difference in the difficulty of using a more "acceptable" ISP. It's all a matter of sticking in a CD. I've used Earthlink and AT&T, and would hardly claim any technical skills for successfully entering "I agree".
Fair enough in general, I suspect, but you've missed the target in this case. Paul may or may not be ... about headers. I believe it is indeed the cheapest option in areas of the UK where broadband is not available.

Neither obnoxious nor technotwittish, Don. I suspect that my attempt at humour backfired on me, not for the first time.

Paul
My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004
I've never understood people that "rubbish" AOL either. For some, it's strictly a decision based on cost.

But AOL used to cost more than most other services. Has that changed?
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I've never understood people that "rubbish" AOL either. For some, it's strictly a decision based on cost.

But AOL used to cost more than most other services. Has that changed?

Here, it's equal to or greater than the cost of most other providers. The poster is in the UK, though.
Also, if a person chose to, he or she could connect to the internet for an almost limitless time using the free trial disks. You would think this is monitored, but I've talked to people that get away with it.
Show more