BL> If you say a novelist has a "prosaic style," it can only mean
 BL> that he is as dull as dishwater, but Bill's use of
 BL> "wonderfully" made it just as clear that he intended the
 BL> technical meaning of "prosaic," and that he did not know the
 BL> other, more common interpretation.

 BG> Quite correct. I'd never even heard it used before, in that
 BG> context.

  Yes.

 BL> The problem is with "wonderfully" as much as anything. He could
 BL> have said "distinctive prosaic styles" and got away with it.

 BG> No, because the meaning which I'd (correctly) attributed to the
 BG> word, is actually _enhanced_ by the addition of "wonderfully".
 BG> IOW, there was really nothing to get away with. The Macquarie
 BG> makes that quite clear too. 

  "wonderfully prosaic" is like saying "wonderfully
dull"; it can be
interpreted as irony, and is funny. Your dictionary merely makes it
clear that the word has two meanings: #1 the common meaning, and #2
the less common meaning.

 BL> Rod has gone off as usual, misunderstanding everything and
 BL> arguing about something different and calling Bill a liar, of
 BL> all things. ROFL.

 BG> No, Rod called me a "pathetic faker", I think you'll find.
 BG> Which, I suppose, is much the same thing anyway.

  Even worse, I think... and that's when I came back in. Rod was being
unfair.

 BL> I reckon I deserve a 9.6 for stirring... 
 BG> Will you settle for a .38 perhaps ? :)

  (grin)

 BL> He looked it up like I said... and I got him! He, he, he.

 BG> Says he, conveniently forgetting that the second interpretation
 BG> is exactly what I meant anyway. So no, I'm not annoyed at all.
 BG> You bastard! 

  he, he, he. I reckon it's a genuine 9.6 stir... especially when Rod 
did most of it for me.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---