![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanA sombre-looking and fubsy man with much to be sombre about has just wandered around the office distributing an oppugnant leaflet intended no doubt, to be roborant but hopefully not fatidical.
Oh, I give up. These words are too hard to remember, even when they are written down in front of you – you have to keep referring back to them both for spelling and to ensure you’ve picked the right one from the list.
The Times is highlighting a number of words that, it is claimed, are obsolete and in danger of being omitted from the next edition of the Collins Dictionary. Because the silly season is not quite over, the paper is giving readers the option of voting to save some words from the caliginosity of history, by showing where they are still in use on a semi regular basis. They wish us to separate out the nitid from the olid and recrement that in turn should be vilipended.
I think it says much that only two of the words I have slipped into this griseous (there is a third) opus have sailed past the spell checker without raising a hair. The caducity (a fourth) of the remainder is clearly apodeictic.
Give me another five minutes and I shan’t be able to remember, except possibly from context, what these words mean. Clearly this abstergent (a fifth) exercise is overdue.
It’s all done far better here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4799560.ece
Oh, I give up. These words are too hard to remember, even when they are written down in front of you – you have to keep referring back to them both for spelling and to ensure you’ve picked the right one from the list.
The Times is highlighting a number of words that, it is claimed, are obsolete and in danger of being omitted from the next edition of the Collins Dictionary. Because the silly season is not quite over, the paper is giving readers the option of voting to save some words from the caliginosity of history, by showing where they are still in use on a semi regular basis. They wish us to separate out the nitid from the olid and recrement that in turn should be vilipended.
I think it says much that only two of the words I have slipped into this griseous (there is a third) opus have sailed past the spell checker without raising a hair. The caducity (a fourth) of the remainder is clearly apodeictic.
Give me another five minutes and I shan’t be able to remember, except possibly from context, what these words mean. Clearly this abstergent (a fifth) exercise is overdue.
It’s all done far better here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4799560.ece