DavidK wrote: > I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to > notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on > that day.
Gamblers' Anonymous. I suppose it's weekly, I'm not sure. And I don't know how much Jim knows about Alistair's gambling.
Marjorie wrote: > DavidK wrote: >> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >> that day.
> Gamblers' Anonymous. I suppose it's weekly, I'm not sure. And I don't > know how much Jim knows about Alistair's gambling.
Oh, *that* umbrella. I was confused, being convinced that Shula already knew.
> DavidK wrote: >> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >> that day.
> Gamblers' Anonymous. I suppose it's weekly, I'm not sure. And I don't > know how much Jim knows about Alistair's gambling.
When Jim was staying with them before, they went to some lengths to make sure he didn't know anything about it. When Jim taught Daniel how to play poker, they both went ballistic but chose not to come clean about why they felt so strongly about it.
-- Cheers, Serena To save money while donating to ME Research, see www.justfourquid.com
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this. (Anon)
Serena Blanchflower wrote: > * Marjorie wrote, On 05/07/2009 11:28: >> DavidK wrote: >>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >>> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >>> that day.
>> Gamblers' Anonymous. I suppose it's weekly, I'm not sure. And I don't >> know how much Jim knows about Alistair's gambling.
> When Jim was staying with them before, they went to some lengths to make > sure he didn't know anything about it. When Jim taught Daniel how to > play poker, they both went ballistic but chose not to come clean about > why they felt so strongly about it.
Hmm, I wonder how long it will be before Jim discovers the secret and effectively begins to blackmail Alistair, threatening to tell Daniel?
DavidK wrote: > I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to > notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on > that day.
I think it may be on Thursdays. Or perhaps Wednesdays. With any luck, Jim will be leading such a busy social life of his own, he won't notice. I must admit, I'm really glad he's back, though I agree that his story line is rubbish.
Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella from GA who* Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word for it?) by Alistair?
*I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) -- Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Traditionally-Traditionally Built Gumbat
Gumrat wrote: > DavidK wrote: >> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >> that day.
> I think it may be on Thursdays. Or perhaps Wednesdays. With any luck, > Jim will be leading such a busy social life of his own, he won't notice. > I must admit, I'm really glad he's back, though I agree that his story > line is rubbish.
> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, > but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella
Ryan from GA who* whom HTH
> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away > at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he > caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word > for it?) by Alistair?
No, it was not a figment of umratic imagination but for real. The police charged into Ryan's flat and found all kinds of nicked stuff that he hadn't yet got rid of. I think in the end Alistair didn't even need to appear in court as a witness or anything and Ryan did get a prison sentence.
> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who > or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully > received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
-- Jane The potter in the purple socks email jane at cloth and clay dot co dot uk
> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, > but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella from GA who* > Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away > at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he > caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word > for it?) by Alistair?
> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who > or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully > received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. But life is too short to waste that much time on grammar. To save you any more pondering, it should be "whom". If you rearrange the sentence to include a pronoun, it would be "him" and not "he" (Snappy took *him* under his wing), and the "whom" is equivalent to "him".
>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, >> but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella from GA who* >> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away >> at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he >> caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word >> for it?) by Alistair?
>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. :-) > But life is too short to waste that much time on grammar. To save you > any more pondering, it should be "whom". If you rearrange the sentence > to include a pronoun, it would be "him" and not "he" (Snappy took *him* > under his wing), and the "whom" is equivalent to "him".
Thank you for the explanation, much better put than the on-line grammar sites I found!
-- Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Traditionally-Traditionally Built Gumbat
>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
> >>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should > >>> be who or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction > >>> gratefully received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
> >> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose.
> >Nobody Swiss around here is there ? > Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
Should we have a roll call for all the Swiss here?
Jane Vernon wrote: > Gumrat wrote: >> DavidK wrote: >>> I ought to know but I've forgotten. Presumably umbrella is going to >>> notice eventually that Alastair is never available for 7pm supper on >>> that day.
>> I think it may be on Thursdays. Or perhaps Wednesdays. With any luck, >> Jim will be leading such a busy social life of his own, he won't >> notice. I must admit, I'm really glad he's back, though I agree that >> his story line is rubbish.
>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here >> already, but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella > Ryan > from GA who* > whom HTH >> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were >> away at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was >> he caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right >> word for it?) by Alistair?
> No, it was not a figment of umratic imagination but for real. The > police charged into Ryan's flat and found all kinds of nicked stuff that > he hadn't yet got rid of. I think in the end Alistair didn't even need > to appear in court as a witness or anything and Ryan did get a prison > sentence.
The wife and child he had talked about were, however, a pair of figments.
Jo Lonergan wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>> Marjorie wrote: >>> Gumrat wrote: >>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >> Nobody Swiss around here is there ?
the Omrud wrote: > Jo Lonergan wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
> Joined the Swiss Navy?
You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can tell you more :-)
-- Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Traditionally-Traditionally Built Gumbat
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:09 +0200, Gumrat <gum...@gmail.com> wrote: >the Omrud wrote: >> Jo Lonergan wrote: >>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can tell >you more :-)
What, are you suggesting she can say Hello Sailor in four official languages?
Linda Fox wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:09 +0200, Gumrat <gum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the Omrud wrote: >>> Jo Lonergan wrote: >>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps? >>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>> You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can tell >> you more :-)
> What, are you suggesting she can say Hello Sailor in four official > languages?
I wouldn't dare comment :-)
-- Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Traditionally-Traditionally Built Gumbat
> Gumrat wrote: >> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here >> already, but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella > Ryan > from GA who* > whom HTH >> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were >> away at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was >> he caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right >> word for it?) by Alistair?
> No, it was not a figment of umratic imagination but for real. The > police charged into Ryan's flat and found all kinds of nicked stuff that > he hadn't yet got rid of. I think in the end Alistair didn't even need > to appear in court as a witness or anything and Ryan did get a prison > sentence.
It didn't happen while they were away over Christmas though, but a few weeks later, while Shula was doing the school run, having forgotten to set the burglar alarm.
-- Cheers, Serena To save money while donating to ME Research, see www.justfourquid.com
You will be better advised to watch what we do instead of what we say. (A.A.Milne)
>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here >> already, but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella >> from GA who* Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst >> they were away at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? >> If not, was he caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is >> that the right word for it?) by Alistair?
>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. > But life is too short to waste that much time on grammar. To save you > any more pondering, it should be "whom". If you rearrange the sentence > to include a pronoun, it would be "him" and not "he" (Snappy took *him* > under his wing), and the "whom" is equivalent to "him".
Thank you for that. That's the most useful rule of thumb for "who" vs "whom" that I've heard.
-- Cheers, Serena To save money while donating to ME Research, see www.justfourquid.com
Perfection is not required of us; but that we walk cheerfully in the right direction, seeking to live sustainably on our earth. (BYM Epistle 2008)
Serena Blanchflower wrote: > * Jane Vernon wrote, On 06/07/2009 11:38: >> Gumrat wrote:
>>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here >>> already, but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella >> Ryan >> from GA who* >> whom HTH >>> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were >>> away at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was >>> he caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right >>> word for it?) by Alistair? >> No, it was not a figment of umratic imagination but for real. The >> police charged into Ryan's flat and found all kinds of nicked stuff that >> he hadn't yet got rid of. I think in the end Alistair didn't even need >> to appear in court as a witness or anything and Ryan did get a prison >> sentence.
> It didn't happen while they were away over Christmas though, but a few > weeks later, while Shula was doing the school run, having forgotten to > set the burglar alarm.
Oh, right. Thank you. I don't remember that at all.
-- Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Traditionally-Traditionally Built Gumbat
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:47:09 GMT, Linda Fox <linda...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:13:09 +0200, Gumrat <gum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>the Omrud wrote: >>> Jo Lonergan wrote: >>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >>>>>>> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >>>>>>> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
>>You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy. Jo can tell >>you more :-)
All I know is that it's based in Genoa.
>What, are you suggesting she can say Hello Sailor in four official >languages?
Gumrat wrote: > the Omrud wrote: >> Jo Lonergan wrote: >>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:19 +0200, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>>>> Marjorie wrote: >>>>> Gumrat wrote: >>>>>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be >>>>>> who or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction >>>>>> gratefully received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) ) >>>>> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >>>> Nobody Swiss around here is there ? >>> Dunno, has Ralph taken the plunge, perhaps?
>> Joined the Swiss Navy?
> You may jest, but it exists, there is a Swiss Merchant Navy.
You'll be telling us next that the Swiss hold the Americas's Cup.
>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
> That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose.
Is someone Swiss? Nobody tells me anything! -- Martin
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:25:42 +0200, Gumrat <gum...@gmail.com> wrote: >Jim will be leading such a busy social life of his own, he won't notice. >I must admit, I'm really glad he's back, though I agree that his story >line is rubbish.
I'm having trouble listening to the evneing TA at the moment as other stuff is happening and seem to miss next afternoon's too. I tried to get Sunday's on the internet radio this morning and it wasn't there and streaming is no good on the laptop.
Downloading a podcast probably won't b either as it is too slow and I'd have to reboot in linux to hear it and then find it. I could do it on the living room tv but that is more of a performance as the wireless keyboard is not well so you can't type stuff.
Taking the difficulties together with the story line and since I get the email updates now I'm not too sad about missing two TA in a row. That does happen now and then but it's now looking good now for me to go back to being a regular listener.
I think it's a plot. Rubbish obnoxious storyline and irritating characters, mess up the LA on the radio. OK they are not responsible for the laptop being shite, but two out of three ain't bad.
>> Sorry to duplicate something I'm sure has been ascertained here already, >> but I've lost the plot.. Was it established that Umbrella from GA who* >> Snappy took under his wing broke into The Stables whilst they were away >> at Christmas, or was that simply Umratic speculation? If not, was he >> caught and imprisoned after having been fingered (is that the right word >> for it?) by Alistair?
>> *I've just spent 15 mins trying to work out whether that should be who >> or whom. On-line grammar sites not helpful. Correction gratefully >> received. (F'r'Us strikes again - ouch :-) )
>That's what comes of being Swiss, I suppose. >But life is too short to waste that much time on grammar. To save you >any more pondering, it should be "whom". If you rearrange the sentence >to include a pronoun, it would be "him" and not "he" (Snappy took *him* >under his wing), and the "whom" is equivalent to "him".
That seems wrong to me. It isn't the same as him in the other sentence. Snappy took him is direct. Umbrella, who snappy took under his wing, robbed the stables is a subordinate clause. But if you said snappy took who under his wing? As a question it would still be who not whom. Er....I can't explain it as well as you but it feels right.
|
