Frank, at 12:48 on 1995-06-25, 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> OK, the precise definition from the COD is...

FM>     "Like prose, lacking poetic beauty; unromantic, commonplace, dull,
FM>     (a prosaic life, person, view of things)"

Mmm, seems the MAD is slightly more specific than the COD then.

FM> However, I was looking in the 2-volume Shorter Oxford yesterday and
FM> noticed...

FM>     1. Of, pertaining to, or written in prose; (of an author) writing in
FM>        prose. Now rare or Obs.
FM>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesn't mean it's unacceptable though, just uncommon usage.

FM>     2. Having the character, style, or diction of prose as opp. to
FM>        poetry; lacking poetic beauty, feeling, or imagination; plain,
FM>        matter of fact.

That seems contradictory, unless they have condensed all meanings under the
same heading.

BG> So you're saying that I can't describe the works of the likes of Wells,
BG> Verne, Dickens etc as "prosaic",

FM> Certainly they're not prosaic.

Sure, they're not "commonplace or dull", but they could certainly
be said to have "the character and spirit of prose".

BG> although "prose-like" is OK?

FM> No, I'd just call them prose.

I'm sorry I asked then.  :)

BG> If so, I shall do a Rod, thumb my nose at convention, and do it
BG> anyway.  :)

FM> Whatever you feel gets your meaning across *precisely*. :-) After all,
FM> you're writing for your reader(s), not for yourself.

Are you asbsolutely certain about that?

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq 3.10