Bob, at 16:43 on Jun 13 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> Prosaic adj.  1. commonplace or dull, matter-of-fact or unimaginative.
BG>               2. having the character or spirit of prose as opposed to 
BG>                  poetry, as verse or writing.

FM> That's not actually 2 meanings, it's 2 interpretations of one
FM> meaning - unimaginative (etc) like prose, cf poetry. (Although
FM> I've seen some pretty unimaginative poetry :-))

BL> Frank is wrong. 

As much as I hate saying so, I agree with you.  The above was transcribed
verbatim, and it's quite clear that there are two distinct meanings.

BL> "Prosaic" has two distinct meanings: #1 dull, and #2
prose-like. You were 
BL> not aware of the first, more common, meaning - and now you are.

Quite right too.

BL> I can speak of a prosaic performance of music or drama, that has
BL> nothing at all to do with writing prose, or poetry either. This is a
BL> pretty prosaic argument.

Yeah, Rod has fucked up on this one.  Severely.

BG> Let's just say that I mean "prose" (and still do) in its
BG> adjectival form. As in "prose-like", for example.

BL> "Prosaic" is an adjective... both of them. Your usage was ambiguous,
BL> and rather funny, actually.

In retrospect, sure.  However, my usage was also quite correct in context.

BG> So you're saying that I can't describe the works of the likes
BG> of Wells, Verne, Dickens etc as "prosaic", although
BG> "prose-like" is OK? If so, I shall do a Rod, thumb my nose at
BG> convention, and do it anyway. :) 

BL> English is a bastard, but if you are aware of the other meaning, you
BL> can work around it.

A bit hard when I wasn't aware of its common-usage meaning though.

BL> "Brilliant" is another example. It has four distinct 
BL> meanings and you can only know which one by context.

FWIW, it seems that the most confusing words, or at least those with the
greatest number of separate meanings, have their roots in French...

I also read once that the English word with the greatest number of separate
meanings was (or is) SET.  I've not verified this though.

BL> If you say that Dicken's writing is prosaic, then I agree with you;
BL> it bores my arse off. That's what it means, stated like that: dull.

Not necessarily, that's the whole problem.  It can also mean exactly the
opposite, as it did in my original re Wells and Verne (neither of whose
writings are at all dull, IMO).

BL> I will also agree that his writing is elegantly prosaic. To key-in the
BL> other meaning of prosaic you have to make it clear which you mean, or
BL> avoid it altogether and say he writes elegant prose. 

Yeah, it would have to be one of the most confusing juxtapositions I've
ever seen for one word, especially now that I know it has two meanings.  :)

BL> Your original use of "wonderfully" left it open either
way. It could mean 
BL> it was bloody awful .

Could have, but it didn't, and I'd have thought that my intention was obvious.

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq 3.10 alpha