Beyone Said...
"Cause if you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it"
I'm not sure this is what she meant! Silly Boy ;)
A Munich man has set what may prove an unassailable record for the number of steel rings lodged on a penis after presenting himself at a local hospital with no less than 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member. Die Welt explains that the unnamed 52-year-old had endured four days of entrapment when he rolled up at …
The preciousssssss
3 rings for the Elven Kings, under the sky,
7 for the Dwarf lords, in their halls of stone,
13 for mortal Men, doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord, on his Dark Throne, in the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all,
Except for those 13, which are all icky, and I don't want stinking up my beautiful Barad Dur! Thankyou!
I don't believe adding frostbite to said Precious would be conducive to an active sex life...
Can you get frostbite from methedrine these days? Whoda thunkit? Fifty years ago it just made you ejaculate without an erection and without an orgasm. Bit of a waste of money if you ask me...
You're going out on a limb there. Forums are full of the 'no less' v 'no fewer' arguement.
(no less than) Used to emphasize a surprisingly large amount.
'That test has been applied in this Court on no less than eight subsequent occasions.'
(OxfordDictionaries)
I guess he knows.
I've always wanted to ask a "Grammar Nazi" something. What do you get out of this?
"It's annoying to us to see incorrect usage. Even if it IS listed in 'OxfordDictionaries'.
Back in my day they knew how to use spaces, where's my sherry"
Err;
IS = is
OxfordDictionaries = Oxford dictionaries
Spaces = see above
Where's my sherry = where's my sherry?
Now call me a pedant but ... pot kettle black !
>OxfordDictionaries = Oxford dictionaries
No, it is Oxford Dictionaries. It is the name of an organisation, and thus a proper noun. Similarly, we have British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, and not Bbc.
Without the space, OxfordDictionaries suggests to most people here that it is probably a website, and the capitalised D aids legibility.
Sorry so late to the party. If there's still room, might I throw the poor hapless imbeciles who mistake thus for a "highfalutin" way of saying so into the pot? Please? Especially the ones who allow themselves to become so addled by their ignorance that they start using "thusly" when attempting to evoke thus.
Also, RE: "There is no Old English equivalent for 'fewer'."
...which explains why he was unable to use it, doesn't it? A deficiency which has long since been resolved. Please try to keep up.
I should have revisited this thread earlier. I’m reading some interesting and informative posts from GNHQ itself, no fewer.
It's a website, OxfordDictionaries.com, God knows where the '.com' went; maybe I deleted it.
I do enjoy reading comments where the GNs start correcting each other. Great stuff… keep up the good fight.
Uhh, I think I couldn't care less!I know this is sort of an American vs British thing, but it's interesting to compare the two statements logically and linguistically.
I think it's more down to how little different people are capable of caring. In my case I quite definitely could care less. My capacity for not caring is rarely tested to its limits even by grammar disputes.
In my mind "less" and "fewer" are used when there is no indication of the exact number. In other words things like "10 items or fewer", "less than 10grams of cocaine" etc.
In this instance, the phrase "[...] himself [...] with no less than 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member" produces the received meaning of "the chap had 13 rings on his cock, no less" which equals "the chap had 13 rings on his cock, amazingly". Rephrasing the original, it comes out as "presenting himself at a local hospital with an amazing 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member"
It's not that they didn't know how many he had jammed on there, of course they did, it's just that "no less" was being used like an adjective.
"The person who showed up to perform the removal operation was no less than the head surgical consultant". Being a countable item, shouldn't that be "... operation was no fewer than the head surgical consultant"? Of course not.
This post has been deleted by its author
Whilst being a grammar pedant myself (my particular bugbear is the inability of some to distinguish the words lose and loose), I also like to wind other pedants up. I do this by liberal use of the word 'fewer' when the correct word is 'less'. This is like fingernails down a blackboard for a died-in-the-wool true grammar nazi.