In a brief flurry of historical revisionism, I have just changed the word "verbal" in my two most recent posts to "oral". Any promise or communication with words in it is verbal, however the communication is delivered. An oral promise or communication can only be spoken, and that is what I meant.
Now off to watch the company six-a-side team. Unless I'm mis-remembering and it's only five a side, in which case this line too will be revised shortly.
Yes, well I had thought of making that my first communication with you for (what?) ten years, but decided that pheasants were a safer topic for that purpose. But you did the right thing anyway -- splendid.
ReplyDeleteThe last person with whom I raised the point -- after the umpteenth occurence -- was a lawyer. He responded that the confusion/mistake is so common in his profession that it no longer counts as one. I expect he added that opinion-giving to his invoice.
"Verbal", however, presumably has the advantage over "oral" that it attracts fewer wayward travellers in search of manual relief. (Assuming "manual" is correct. Digital, perhaps? Let's just call them British Gas, and then we know where we are.)
ReplyDeleteTrue, but there's still all the hits I get based on the fact that my initials are BJ. Strangely they tend to concentrate on the pages where I have mentioned teenagers.
ReplyDeleteMy latest linguistic crusade revolves around getting T-shirts printed which say 'One phenomenon, two phenomena'. But I only know about five people who would get this. Whoever currently subs IWR doesn't, put it that way.
ReplyDeleteOoh, ooh! If we're talking this kind of thing, how about the figurative use of "literal". "He literally exploded." "I literally wet myself."
ReplyDeleteLife would be much more exciting if everything "literal" literally happened.
My favourite obscure t-shirt of all time can be purchased via the Geoffrey Chaucer blog: "Okay, sometimes it raineth in March."