Re: Thrips

From: Michael Hunt (stovehouse@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2000 - 07:25:48 PDT

Next message: Ivan Snyder: "re: Native CP in Teaching / D. anglica"
Previous message: Hideka Kobayashi: "Thrips"
Maybe in reply to: Hideka Kobayashi: "Thrips"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:25:48 -0400
From: "Michael Hunt" <stovehouse@earthlink.net>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg1917$foo@default>
Subject: Re: Thrips

Yes this is true, but you can rest assured there really is no such thing as
a single thrips. You have one you have many hundreds. :-)
~ Mike
St. Petersburg Fl
USA

----- Original Message -----
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cp@opus.labs.agilent.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:35 AM

> It is nothing important, but there is no "thrip." One thrips, two thrips,
> three thrips.... The singilar and the plural forms are the same. Just like
> fish and deer.
>
> Hideka
>
>

Next message: Ivan Snyder: "re: Native CP in Teaching / D. anglica"
Previous message: Hideka Kobayashi: "Thrips"
Maybe in reply to: Hideka Kobayashi: "Thrips"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:09 PST