When my grandparents passed away we went through and separated their things among the family members. My grandmother had embroidered a picture of a pot of flowers and my grandfather had made a frame for it. I got it.
All that was on the back was a piece of cardboard duct taped to the wood, so I got a proper backing for the frame and took it off. Between the cardboard and the embroidery there was a black and white photo of my grandparents when they first started dating in their 20’s.
I have no idea why they hid it in there, but it was a really emotional moment for me. I scanned the photo and distributed it to the family, before writing their names on the back of the photo and putting it back in the frame. I was into pyrography at the time, so I ended up burning a design into the backing I had purchased, before attaching it to my Grandfather’s frame. I plan on passing it down when I’m old - I think it would be really great if a future generation found the photo.
Oh I got it. It seems however it was I that took the corner too fast. I was gently ribbing you for once again leaving out details of one of your stories to add… drama!
I mean, come on, why not just mention the book title and the author? Could it be so that someone like moi would try to drag it out of you? Guilty!
Years ago, my wife wanted to get a copy of So Long and Thanks For All the Fish, so off we went to Half Price Books. I was wandering around while she looked through the stacks for the book. A few minutes later she called me over to show me the copy she’d found.
On the opening leaf was written, “To Todd, Best Wishes, Douglas Adams.”
*My *name is Todd. :eek:
Needless to say, we bought it. That was my Christmas present that year.
Then, years later, we went to a Douglas Adams booksigning with that book. I put it in front of him and told him the story. He signed it, “And Again, Douglas Adams”. It’s one of my prized possessions.
I found a signature by Richard Halliburton (died 1939). I also find old leaves, put in to dry out…who knows how long ago. i also find gift notices-in a copy of a book publish in 1940, a note that the book was a gift to man.
Because it’s pretty much irrelevant to the story, and the names involved wouldn’t mean much to anyone outside the field.
If you don’t think it’s odd/funny that Kinda Notable Name A inscribes a book at length to Pretty Notable Name B, and B just dumps the book like an old magazine, and that I happened to know both parties and had a chance to have a little fun with the incident, then I guess the story’s not for you. You should probably just move on to the used-condom and shopping-list stories.
(Poster makes note to use only short declarative sentences for certain of the audience here.)
Stop the sniping in this thread, people…especially you, Amateur Barbarian, you’re getting unnecessarily short and snarky with people in this thread, so this is just a note to bring it back a bit.
But you said “not-unfamous” in both cases, which after solving for x and reducing the fractions, means “famous”.
So, somehow it’s famous critics and authors but totally so esoteric no one could possibly know who they are outside of the publishing industry? Which is it?
I hope this doesn’t go against Idle thoughts instructions, but I just wanted to point out that your link shows that Twit hit it’s peak in 1875 at 0.0000147% and had eventually climbed back up to 0.0000128%.
Tease on the other hand is at 0.000213% using your same search parameters.
Also, I would argue that most of the modern usages of Twit are to describe a fool and not to tease someone.
Well, he is correct in using it as a synonym for “tease”, but it’s quite archaic, and easily confused with a non-existent but plausible back-formed verb from Twitter. It’s best to avoid coy archaisms in everyday communication; they’re best saved for the SCA newsletter, where they… aren’t unexpected.
I think the usage was confused more on the lines of when your Dad says they sent a friend a twit today. You try to correct him and he responds “It’s Twitter, not Tweeter.”
Well, I think it makes more sense if you think of “Twitter” being mistaken for a noun which is formed with a verb plus an “-er” suffix. Like “writer” or “speaker”, a “twitter” would then be someone who “twits”, and to use Twitter would be to twit. It’s wrong, but it’s wholly consistent with how nouns and verbs work in English; it’s the sort of mistake someone learning English would make.
And no, it’s not irrelevant to the story. I’d argue it’s wholly relevant.
If I were to post, “I acquired this second-hand book by an author I know, and inside was a thing that was totally surprising—if you knew this author, but you don’t—that was stuffed there by someone who didn’t like his work!”
That’s totally mundane and boring, if not pointlessly coy and annoying. Details are relevant to the tale here. If you can’t divulge the names/details, why bring it up?
