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
FM> one meaning - unimaginative (etc) like prose, cf poetry.
FM> (Although I've seen some pretty unimaginative poetry :-))

BL> Frank is wrong.

BG> As much as I hate saying so,

Why, you recon he will put a big mirror outside the dunny window or sumfin ?

BG> I agree with you.  The above was transcribed verbatim,
BG> and it's quite clear that there are two distinct meanings.

Yep. There is just a hint of what he meant in the idea that poetry
etc is the reverse of boring old prose, but thats pretty silly. Be
interesting to read the COD entry itself if he can quote it, I doubt
it really does say what he says it says. And if it does, its fucked.

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

BG> Quite right too.

Except for the tiny detail that your 'blah blah all had wonderfully
prosaic styles' STILL makes no sense using meaning #2 at the top.
Which is why Bob initially said

   BL> ROFL!!! Either you are being very sly, or
   BL> you need to look up the meaning of "prosaic".

and is now coat trailing by not putting the boot into you about.

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

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

Nope, I never said a word about definition #1, its no news to me Bill.
And I agree that that comment of Bobs sums that particular definition
up well, particularly distinguishing it from #2. I just kept saying
that your claim that you were using #2 all along just doesnt fit. Tho
I am happy to grant you that you may well not have known #1. Basically
you didnt get EITHER definition right when you made your first comment.

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

STILL makes no sense, thats the same as saying 'blah blah
all had wonderfully prosey styles' Makes no sense to say that.

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

Just fucked |-)

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

Technically correct, sort of, but pathetically faking away your blooper.

Bobs original comment makes no sense at all if you
were using #2 in a technically correct sense either.

BG> So you're saying that I can't describe the works of the likes of
BG> Wells, Verne, Dickens etc as "prosaic", although
"prose-like" is OK?

Still really doesnt make much sense coz they are clearly prose anyway.
Its not as if they sort of fall between two stools like say Shakespeare
where you might want to emphasise the prose like aspect of some stuff
when commenting on it. Those ones you list are just unambiguously prose.

And it just doesnt fit to call them 'wonderfully prose-like' either.

You fucked up and are damned if you will admit it |-)

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

Sure, but you claimed you were using one of the approved
definitions, didnt claim you were inventing your own.

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

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

Find that a tad hard to believe.

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.

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

Nope, you clearly just have a dud extra definition of your own that
doesnt fit those two above. Yes, they are prose, but you are adding
an extra that doesnt apply. It never has an opposite of dull meaning.

I retract the pathetic faking, you are just wrong on that definition.

BL> I will also agree that his writing is elegantly prosaic.

I'm not even convince you really can say that. Elegant prose,
sure, elegantly prosaic is technically still correct, but not very
meaningful when you already know those three produced prose, not poetry.

BL> To key-in the other meaning of prosaic you have to make it clear
BL> which you mean, or avoid it altogether and say he writes elegant prose.

Yep, the last one makes much more sense. And has the other advantage
that many more people presumably immediately know what elegant prose means.

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

Except #1 doesnt really work, 'wonderfully dull' is a bit weird.
And certainly isnt what you meant for those anyway even if you
did know that meaning. It would only be useful when someone was
trying to do that on purpose, say Forrest Gump etc.

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

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

Nope, just plain wrong |-)

--- PQWK202