Hi, Alexander!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

ak>  Olly Richards obviously tried to make his pupils to see 
ak>  in their imagination some bright images. 


          Plenty of action... no long descriptions & no polysyllabic linguistic terms such as "colloquial", "jocular", or "regional dialect"?



ak>  I was given this textbook by a man who studied English 
ak>  in California when he was a boy. 

       
          That might explain a lot.  Although the language is fairly simple the content isn't (as our daughter would say) "too little kiddy", and I see how the latter probably appeals to various students of various ages.  :-)



ak>  As for me I read any book got in my hands. :)


          Uh-huh.  IMHO it's all grist for the mill, and I'm quite sure that if you don't understand something you'll look it up &/or make enquiries here.  :-)



ak>  Another fun I notice was the way the Americans use the 
ak>  word "shorts". Until now I was sure that shorts are a 
ak>  kind of short trousers. 


          That would be my initial reaction....  :-)



ak>  But it seems were underpants - 


          Yes, there is a style of male underpants known as "boxer shorts"... I think that's what the author was referring to.

          I also presume that while this guy was invisible his clothing may not have been, and he felt rather uncertain as to what the monsters could see.  :-Q




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+