 |
 |
Oy vey! I don't mind be rotated, but orientated?!? (I'm hoping this has something to do with taters, eh? Them at least you can eat.) As a perspectivist, I see any one orientation as deflecting what one might perceive from other orientations. (Not, of course, that all orientations are equally useful--I'm not a relativist/individualist.) So, from a perspectivist orientation (or should I write meta-orientation), it is much better to be rotated (which also isn't a back formation) than to be orientated. Begad! Take that, varlet! Spin on, dervish. (a loaf, a cup, and . . . _Orientation_, for ye lurkers, seems to be rooted etymologically in the notion of orienting the front of cathedrals toward the holy land (i.e., east). Isn't the slogan, PUT THE ACTION IN THE VERB! That is, sentences are easiest to read if the gramatical structure subject-verb matches the cognitive structure agent-action. (Not, of course, that ease of reading is always a priority.) > I'm always glad to hear Rick undertaking fulmination. > > I wonder if this means that we can expect to find him in attendation? > Possibly having brought to remembrance the Greek name for this, um, > schematization? Russ, you're sweet. 'Twould be a pleasure sure. I'll have to check with Tom Waldrep, for I fear I owe you a dozen red gladioli. [That is the sort of remark which makes lurkers fear this list-serve is populated by an in-group that uses private references and intimacies. Fear not, brave souls. This reference is so private I doubt it means anything to Russ, perhaps not to anyone on CASLL.] But WHAT! No expectATION! Shame. Surely one could have an expectation (thereby using/usatation another word of three or more syllables to get your readability index score up, not to mention getting yet another action or actatation out of the verb). Love and Laughter (as some French feminists used to say) Or "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution." Rick