Frank, at 08:30 on Jun 11 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 meaning -
FM> unimaginative (etc) like prose, cf poetry. (Although I've seen some
FM> pretty unimaginative poetry :-))

Dunno, that's not the way I'd read definition #1 at all.  If they meant
"like prose", they should have said so, the whole point being
that I don't find prose unimaginative or dull at all (in general; as you
say, there is certainly some unimaginative poetry about).  Matter-of-fact
just doesn't fit at all though.

BG> In case you wondered, in its original context, mine is definition #2.

FM> In its original context you meant to use the word "prose", not
FM> "prosaic".

Let's just say that I mean "prose" (and still do) in its
adjectival form.  As in "prose-like", for example.  Not my fault
if the Macquarie and COD are wrong.  Indeed, I'd be interested to know what
your COD has to say about that.

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

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10 alpha