Their table was superlatively stupid.

Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map

View thread | Previous message | Next message

Their table was superlatively stupid. Written by Stephanie (4/22/2010 2:50 p.m.) in consequence of the missive, "Hug" not the same meaning?, penned by Graciela

The one meaning we needed for this passage was different. Just as

to applaud or congratulate one's self, on account of supposed advantage or superiority

has passed out of usage for 'HUG,' 'stupid' ceased meaning 'not speaking,' and 'wanted' has stopped being 'needed' and ...

Previous message | Next message | Board index

Mr. Darcy may hug himself Jeannine K (4/16/2010 12:32 p.m.)

Darcy may congratulate himself (so to speak)... Adrian (4/16/2010 12:35 p.m.)
- Like "patting himself on the back" kathleen (elder) (4/16/2010 8:09 p.m.)
From Johnson's dictionary, 1828 Graciela (4/16/2010 11:52 p.m.)
- Fun to Find "Hug" Used in Regency England Lenora (4/21/2010 12:20 p.m.)
  - Same with "stupid" CarolTS (4/21/2010 2:18 p.m.)
    - Stupid did not necessarily have the same meaning... Christopher (4/21/2010 4:09 p.m.)
      - Neither did "hug" nfm   CarolTS (4/22/2010 12:32 a.m.)
        
        "Hug" not the same meaning?   Graciela (4/22/2010 2:13 a.m.)
        
        Their table was superlatively stupid.   Stephanie (4/22/2010 2:50 p.m.)
Thank you for the explanation (nfm) Jeannine K (4/18/2010 10:47 a.m.)

Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.

View thread | Previous message | Next message Board index

- Jane Austen | Republic of Pemberley -

Quick Index

Home

Site Map

JAInfo