So sorry to hear your news about your close friend very worrying for you. Do hope that she recovers well and that you've been able to stay in touch. You take care it takes a lot out of you dealing with worries about close friends and relatives.Hi All been missing for nearly a week. Good Friday was a nice gathering of the boys DILs and 4 mo grandson who wasn’t in best form (think teething starting) but did allow me to read The Wonky Donkey to him. For his age he shows remarkable concentration in picture books. I did a cold platter of smoked salmon, poached salmon flakes from M&S (the only form of salmon I like though it is honey roasted) black prawns and local crabmeat from the coast. A big green salad. A good cheeseboard and very good bread which got me into trouble! For afters there was Colin the Caterpillar meets Easter Lamb and a big dish of mixed berries. I tried a sliver of Colin and it was so sweet it made me wince!
The rest of the time since has been dominated by worry about close friend, very much a member of our family, (she and I talk on phone every day without fail at 5pm) suddenly in hospital with acute heart failure and very unwell. Meals since have been a cycle of what we usually eat.
Today usual brekkie of slice LC toast, cooled with thick butter, copious tea.
Lunch will be two scrambled eggs topped with generous Parmesan shavings. Tea. Supper just me so will either be Greek salad or if fancy hot will be meaty sausages with Stokes low sugar ketchup and veg.
Just added some more photos and a guideline 're amounts from the sauerkraut I made today seeSorry. I got confused. I think I meant Kimchi (with the cabbage and stuff in). Apologies for the confusion.
Send some Now!garlic Yarg
Agreed @Annb. We have perfectly adequate terms for some of these words and plenty of slang expressions of our own without importing other people's LoL.Someone else's slang becomes part of the language - see new entries in the Oxford Dictionary. Some seem to me to be very short-lived, but they are there as officially part of the language. I don't know why we do it, but I suppose people think it is smart. For example: anti-technology (that's me); backhaul cockamamie; dork; frontlash; gigglehouse; Ngati Pakeha; wicked; wingsuiting; woke. Some from US, others not, some appropriate because of a new action, others could easily use traditional words.
Yes @Annb , if 'gotten' were revived here, we would have fewer grounds for complaint. After all, its use started here in the first place!Gotten, I think harks back to the Germanic origins of parts of the English language. We do still have that form in "forgotten" and "begotten".
Oh, I don't know @Annb. The question of whether to include the 'are' is purely a matter of style, IMO. Neither inclusion or omission in that particular context is ungrammatical.Your gut feeling is quite right, Antje. It's more correct, just as it would be more correct to use whom rather than who in many circumstances (it would include a different sentence construction as well, in many cases). It makes for a much more formal tone to the sentence and is frequently left out these days - another example of changing language. Example: Who does this belong to? and To whom does this belong?
This was certainly one of the threads @MrsA2. Terrific news! We have an Aldi store within striking distance.{{{{Hugs }}} to @Antje77
Is this the thread where where was talk about purple sprouting broccoli? Spotted in Aldi today British grown. Bought some, not cooked it yet but looks the proper stuff
I've learnt some grammatical rules in English in school, but English was only taught after I was 13, and at my school the focus was on being able to communicate in everyday life, not proper grammar. Which I think makes a lot of sense, as a starter in a new language you'll want to be able to buy rolls or beer, or ask for the way to the museum, no matter if your irregular verbs are correct (and I've never got - see, I've learnt! - to the stage of anyone explaining the 'whom', although I'd love to understand).Oh, I don't know @Annb. The question of whether to include the 'are' is purely a matter of style, IMO. Neither inclusion or omission in that particular context is ungrammatical.
Whether to use whom or who OTOH is governed by grammatical rules. When it comes to our mother tongue most of us, the world over, grow up copying our parents without thinking about the grammar, but that doesn't mean there isn't any! Learning another language, forces you to remember its rules or you're bound to slip up. In your example whom not who is correct, as you say, because Whom does this belong to? and To whom does this belong? are both accusative case. That was drummed into us at school. (If that doesn't happen now, then standards must have slipped). 'Who' in that context is just plain wrong in my view. I've heard it in speech btw, but not seen the error in print as yet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?