Posted on 11/24/2017 1:17:22 PM PST by sodpoodle
“”facetious.””
I wouldn’t have been able to think of that..Good thinking.
It just popped right out.
yesssss
No no nooooooo
Sorry, no each is too archaic and/or obscure to qualify under the rules.
I scored 100% WRONG. I guess i’m not a geezer yet.
The rules are they just have to be English words. . . these are. Both are in the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. Ergo, they qualify. Obscurity does not disqualify a legitimate word. . . otherwise there are a lot of rhymed words that would be out.
I’m sorry, no. Joe’s rules. Thank you for playing.
Is this a question or statement?
How Long is China man’s name
Discuss....
Sorry Joe, You need to post your rules BEFORE the game, not make them up during the game. . . that's what Hillary does.
It's neither. There is no punctuation to give an indication either way. . . but if we are going by the actual non-sentence, we are most likely discussing a piece of porcelain pottery representing a man, not a person. Such an object d'art has no name to have a length. It merely is what it is, unless the artist who designed it gave it a name.
If we ARE discussing a specific male Chinese person, then the sentence is pidgin English and is incorrect grammar. . . and uses a term that is considered demeaning.
If it's a question it is still poor grammar as it can have multiple meanings even with proper punctuation. . . either couched in pidgin English inquiring about the length of a specific Chinese Person's name or whether that person's name is "How Long," in which case it is insulting misrepresented in the proper English transliteration of Huo Luong, the correct phonetic transliteration of the Chinese pronunciation.
Nope
Does a one legged duck swim in circles?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.