| 1 |
On 20/09/2015 18:40, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:45:18 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> One of the OED definitions of readable is "interesting or pleasant to |
| 5 |
>>> read". I stand by my original statement, argumentative pedants |
| 6 |
>>> notwithstanding. :P |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I agree with you. It's Alan I called a pedant for trying to split hairs. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I know, a wonderful case of the pot calling the kettle black :P |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> I had a trial version of OED* on my mobile, but it was not good so I've |
| 13 |
>> reverted to Chambers, which includes "legible" as its first definition |
| 14 |
>> of Readable, and "clear enough to be deciphered" as its first |
| 15 |
>> definition of Legible. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I have a proper printed OED, all 1800 pages of it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If you don't have it in the morning anymore, it's because I broken into |
| 20 |
you house and stole it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You lucky bugger you. I've wanted such a dictionary for years |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 27 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives