Hi, All!

Can an Englishmen see in the gloom? :)

Is it a darkness or twilight?

Bye, All!
Alexander Koryagin
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 28.10.2022 21:46

ak>> Can an Englishmen see in the gloom? :)
AH> |Singular, Englishman. Plural, Englishmen.
ak>> Is it a darkness or twilight?
AH> It could be either. Gloom = a state of partial or
AH> total darkness.

Well... So an Englishman can see in the gloom and can not see in the
gloom. ;-)

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor 2022
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

Gloom = a state of partial or total darkness.

Well... So an Englishman can see in the gloom
and can not see in the gloom. ;-)

I see you got the idea. Good.... :-)

I added the correction just before posting my reply, then began to wonder if I should have said simply "-man", "-men". This pattern is akin to what dictionaries use, builds on what you & others here already know, and is easier to read. OTOH I wouldn't want anyone to read too much into it.

Man, men. Woman, women. The same applies to "Englishman" & other words you've probably encountered before. But times change, and where folks like me grew up hearing of policemen & policewomen many such terms have been replaced by gender-neutral terms... WRT this example, "police officer". :-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)

Hi, Ardith Hinton!
I read your message from 12.11.2022 22:40

AH>> Gloom = a state of partial or total darkness.
ak>> Well... So an Englishman can see in the gloom
ak>> and can not see in the gloom. ;-)
AH> I see you got the idea. Good.... :-)
AH> I added the correction just before posting my reply,
AH> then began to wonder if I should have said simply "-man",
AH> "-men". This pattern is akin to what dictionaries use, builds
AH> on what you & others here already know, and is easier to read.
AH> OTOH I wouldn't want anyone to read too much into it. Man,
AH> men. Woman, women. The same applies to "Englishman" & other words
AH> you've probably encountered before. But times change, and where folks
AH> like me grew up hearing of policemen & policewomen many such terms
AH> have been replaced by gender-neutral terms... WRT this example,
"police
AH> officer". :-)

So it would have been proper to ask "Can an English person see in the
gloom?" Does it sound well?


Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
fido.english_tutor,local.cc.ak 2022
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
* Origin: Usenet Network (2:5075/128.130)

alexander koryagin:

So it would have been proper to ask "Can an English
person see in the gloom?" Does it sound well?

I beg to remark that propriety and grammatical correctess
are largely orthogonal.

---
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)