|
|
Posted by Stephen Adams on 10/17/75 11:36
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> writes:
>Michelle Steiner wrote on [Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:57:23 -0700]:
>> In article <slrndro5hi.96a.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
>> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > And that, sir, is essentially "living without it," unless one is a
>>> > literalist.
>>>
>>> So, in fact, you have not lived without it.
>>
>> If you want to take it literally, uptight, and anal retentively, yes.
>> If you want to take it metaphorically, as most people would, no.
>>
>
>Saying you have lived without something all your life most certainly
>implies you have never used it. Whether that's what you meant that is
>what you have said.
The *common* understanding of her phrase (as pointed out by several
people here) is that it would mean she doesn't have one. If that
phrase were used by anyone I know (and it has been), I would assumed
(rightly) it meant they didn't own/lease/rent a car, not that they
NEVER used one.
Stop taking the language so damned literally. It's NOT meant to be
taken that way.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|