mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: Amarillide
User Name: Amarillide
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Gender: None Specified
Joined: Thursday, February 13, 2020
Last Visit: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:30:31 AM
Number of Posts: 138
[0.01% of all post / 0.31 posts per day]
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Lovecraft bad reviews
Posted: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:30:30 AM
Thank you Tella!
Yes, I agree, it is a matter of style that someone may not like.

I was after some "official" bad review, but apparently it is harder than I thought to find somenthing...

Thank you anyway for your lines on HPL, it is always interesting to read diffrent perspectives on this controversial author.

Topic: Lovecraft bad reviews
Posted: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 11:47:09 AM
I have always read that H.P. Lovecraft has often been considered as a kind of bad writer. Very often, also by people who admire his ideas and thematic innovation.
I am very curios to read one of these considerations "at a professional level". I mean, I am not able to find any document apart from internet bloggers and co. I am after some journalist or literary critic who writes on these lines.
So far, I have just found the Edmund Wilson's 1945 article, nothing more in terms of bad review.

I would very much apreciate if someone could help,
thank you in advance!
Topic: To decline a pronoun
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:15:14 AM
thar wrote:

It is already hard enough to know how to pronounce or spell a word, what its plural may be, and what register of formality it is. If you had gender and case endings as well, people's heads would just explode. Whistle

Brick wall Brick wall Brick wall ... Tell me about that! Eheehheh! Everytime I have to write something my mind rife with doubts. No to talk when I have to SAY something... well, there I just cut me some slack, ohterwise I wouldn't be able to say the simplest thing.
Topic: To decline a pronoun
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2021 1:52:26 AM
Thank you Sureshot, I haven't thought of this other possible meaning for the verb to decline... it actually could have made sense also like that, in the sense of "to dismiss". 

I was actually thinking at its grammatical meaning as it was explained by Thar. 
So... Thank you Thar!
First thing first... now I know one more reason why Icelandic Language is not used for international communications!
And last but not list, of course, I think I have clearly grasped the precise use of the verb to decline in English grammar!

A great day to you all,

Topic: To decline a pronoun
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:24:13 PM
Hi there, 
I was wondering if it would be possible to use the verb "to decline" for something like feminine and masculine pronouns.
I'll explain it better with an example.
Can I say something like:
 “I have used the feminie pronoun, but it can be declined as one pleases”

Is the verb correctly placed? Would it be better to say something different?

Thank you in advance to anyone who wants to help,
Topic: Confining something from... to...
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2021 11:52:02 AM
thar wrote:

I must admit I gave up the will to live at some point reading that...


thar wrote:

And no, it is not crystal clear. Covered in greasy marks, a few cat hairs and a bit of unidentified food.

DOUBLE LOL (by the way... how come we don't have the laughing emoticon??)
Well, it really comforts me that I am not the only one. I think I found myself on the verge of suicide many times these days.

Thank you very much Thar,
your explanation was (as always) extremely clear and detailed.

As I feared, the answer was in front of my very eyes (a kind of... I am of course talking about syntax), but somehow I was stuck in linking together "from" and "to"... May this slip be an invitation not to be stiff when I try "to enter a sentence"!


Topic: Confining something from... to...
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2021 5:45:45 AM
Hi there,
I hope someone can help with this thing I am stuck into... it may be something quite straightforward, but there is something that just doesn't add up.

Despite the philosophical nature of the text, I assume it should be crystal clear for a mother tongue.
As always, I suspect the answer may be blatantly easy but it is just that I am blind to it.

My doubt is only about the part in bold, but I'll put fprward a little bit of context...

"A recent line of response to this sort of criticism has been to deny the relevance of such imaginative constructions by arguing that since utilitarianism is a moral philosophy for working with the problems of the world in which we actually live, it must be evaluated on the basis of how it instructs us to deal with real, not imaginary problems and possibilities.
Thus, this defense of utilitarianism undercuts a line of criticism by emphasizing the practicality of ethics, and this takes the form of confining the domain of inference from the principle of utility to matters of contemporary concern and possible response."

My first option is that it means that the domain shifts from the principle of utility to matters of contemporary concern. Could it be possible? Could the verb to confine have this value here in this very context?

The second (quite odd) option is that principle of utility and the matter of contemporary concern, are the limits of this confinement, they delimit the space of the domain of inference. But I fear that this wuoldn't make too much sense in the context.

Of course, there may be a third option that I am neglecting...

I would really appreciate it if someone would make it clear for me,
Thank you in advance for your time,

Topic: Fires at the Exchange in "A Journal of the Plague Year"
Posted: Saturday, December 5, 2020 2:25:29 PM
Thank you so much, Guys!

Romany, I loved your colleague, the Indian science technician, I really think that this is one of the human being beauties and mysteries, when in the same person, and despite being trained in Sciences, incompatible elements coexist!

thar wrote:

I think the bonfires in the streets was a more reasoned and logical approach than the attitude some people seem to have today! Whistle

Tell me about that... it is so scary how easy is to go move masses backward...

Anyway, thank you so much for the detailed answers!

Topic: Fires at the Exchange in "A Journal of the Plague Year"
Posted: Friday, December 4, 2020 6:02:19 AM
Hey Tautophile, 
thank you!

Still, there are some clues that make me think they are not "ordinary fires", especially at the end when it says "no more fires, and especially on this account, namely, that the plague was so fierce that they saw evidently it defied all means, and rather seemed to increase than decrease upon any application to check and abate it." It sounds like something they did trying to control the plague.Od course, it could also be that they were ordinary fires, as you suggest, but they were kept on for extraordinary reasons. 

I am starting to think that these must be some "public fires" made all over the city in order to somehow keep the air sanitized. He talks about that many pages further, and this is the thing that strikes me as a bit unusual: the above extract, where he talks about the decision of ending the fires (and where he names these fires for the first time) precedes the part in which he tells they decide to set up these fires and where he explains what these fires are, many pages afterward: 

"The latter opinion prevailed at that time, and, as I must confess, I think with good reason; and the experience of the citizens confirmed it, many houses which had constant fires kept in the rooms having never been infected at all; and I must join my experience to it, for I found the keeping good fires kept our rooms sweet and wholesome, and I do verily believe made our whole family so, more than would otherwise have been."(...)"The public fires which were made on these occasions, as I have calculated it, must necessarily have cost the city about 200 chalders of coals a week, if they had continued, which was indeed a very great quantity; but as it was thought necessary, nothing was spared. However, as some of the physicians cried them down, they were not kept alight above four or five days. The fires were ordered thus:—One at the Custom House, one at Billingsgate, one at Queenhith, and one at the Three Cranes; one in Blackfriars, and one at the gate of Bridewell; one at the corner of Leadenhal Street and Gracechurch; one at the north and one at the south gate of the Royal Exchange; one at Guild Hall, and one at Blackwell Hall gate; one at the Lord Mayor’s door in St Helen’s, one at the west entrance into St Paul’s, and one at the entrance into Bow Church. I do not remember whether there was any at the city gates, but one at the Bridge-foot there was, just by St Magnus Church.I know some have quarrelled since that at the experiment, and said that there died the more people because of those fires; but I am persuaded those that say so offer no evidence to prove it, neither can I believe it on any account whatever."

This may be due to the unusual style of the book, which is a collection of scattered memories (yes, of course...fake memories, as he was 5 years) rather than an organized account of the events. This strikes me as extremely modern/experimental. 
Thank you,
of course, any other thought about it will be more than welcome!
Topic: Fires at the Exchange in "A Journal of the Plague Year"
Posted: Thursday, December 3, 2020 1:12:54 PM
Hi there, I was wondering if anyone has any idea of what kind of fires Defoe is talking about in the following extract from A journal of the plague year.

"No wonder the aspect of the city itself was frightful. The usual concourse of people in the streets, and which used to be supplied from our end of the town, was abated. The Exchange was not kept shut, indeed, but it was no more frequented. The fires were lost; they had been almost extinguished for some days by a very smart and hasty rain. But that was not all; some of the physicians insisted that they were not only no benefit, but injurious to the health of people. This they made a loud clamour about, and complained to the Lord Mayor about it. On the other hand, others of the same faculty, and eminent too, opposed them, and gave their reasons why the fires were, and must be, useful to assuage the violence of the distemper. I cannot give a full account of their arguments on both sides; only this I remember, that they cavilled very much with one another. Some were for fires, but that they must be made of wood and not coal, and of particular sorts of wood too, such as fir in particular, or cedar, because of the strong effluvia of turpentine; others were for coal and not wood, because of the sulphur and bitumen; and others were for neither one or other. Upon the whole, the Lord Mayor ordered no more fires, and especially on this account, namely, that the plague was so fierce that they saw evidently it defied all means, and rather seemed to increase than decrease upon any application to check and abate it; and yet this amazement of the magistrates proceeded rather from want of being able to apply any means successfully than from any unwillingness either to expose themselves or undertake the care and weight of business; for, to do them justice, they neither spared their pains nor their persons."

So far, I haven't found anything that mentions this attempted anti-plague solution, neither an explanation of what they were.
Any suggestions? I thought that, maybe, also if you don't exactly know what it is about, you may suggest some source I could check out...
Thank you in advance!