Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > I shall try to expedite further polyhedra!
>
>   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity, espouse
> elucidation.

I did. Mine was a perfectly straightforward and concise sentence.

I had to look up 'sedulous', and was previously unaware of 'hyperverbosity'. If
only you could have found an obscure multisyllabic synonym for 'and'... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:08:37 EDT, "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> > I shall try to expedite further polyhedra!
>>
>>   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity, espouse
>> elucidation.
>
>I did. Mine was a perfectly straightforward and concise sentence.
>

It was, it was ;)

>I had to look up 'sedulous', and was previously unaware of 'hyperverbosity'. If
>only you could have found an obscure multisyllabic synonym for 'and'... ;-)
>

How about "in conjunction with"?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >I had to look up 'sedulous', and was previously unaware of 'hyperverbosity'. If
> >only you could have found an obscure multisyllabic synonym for 'and'... ;-)
>
> How about "in conjunction with"?

Ah, but then you need multisyllabic versions of 'in' and 'with' too! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:08:37 EDT, "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:

> >Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> > I shall try to expedite further polyhedra!
> >>
> >>   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity, espouse
> >> elucidation.
> >
> >I did. Mine was a perfectly straightforward and concise sentence.
> >

> It was, it was ;)

> >I had to look up 'sedulous', and was previously unaware of 'hyperverbosity'. If
> >only you could have found an obscure multisyllabic synonym for 'and'... ;-)
> >

> How about "in conjunction with"?

  That would change the meaning.

  "Avoid A and B" means avoiding both A and B, but "avoid A in conjunction
with B" means avoiding them when done together, but doesn't necessarily
mean you should avoid them in separation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24 Sep 2009 08:25:16 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:08:37 EDT, "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> >> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> >> > I shall try to expedite further polyhedra!
>> >>
>> >>   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity, espouse
>> >> elucidation.
>> >
>> >I did. Mine was a perfectly straightforward and concise sentence.
>> >
>
>> It was, it was ;)
>
>> >I had to look up 'sedulous', and was previously unaware of 'hyperverbosity'. If
>> >only you could have found an obscure multisyllabic synonym for 'and'... ;-)
>> >
>
>> How about "in conjunction with"?
>
>  That would change the meaning.
>
>  "Avoid A and B" means avoiding both A and B, but "avoid A in conjunction
>with B" means avoiding them when done together, but doesn't necessarily
>mean you should avoid them in separation.

So it does.

Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity likewise prolixity, either
singularly or conjointly, espouse elucidation.

Someone else can get rid of the "or" :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >  That would change the meaning.
> >
> >  "Avoid A and B" means avoiding both A and B, but "avoid A in conjunction
> >with B" means avoiding them when done together, but doesn't necessarily
> >mean you should avoid them in separation.
>
> So it does.
>
> Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity likewise prolixity, either
> singularly or conjointly, espouse elucidation.
>
> Someone else can get rid of the "or" :)

You could chop out the whole 'either singularly or conjointly' I reckon. Or
maybe just replace it with 'preferably conjointly'? I think there should
probably be a semicolon in there somewhere, too.

:)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:40:40 EDT, "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>
>You could chop out the whole 'either singularly or conjointly' I reckon. Or
>maybe just replace it with 'preferably conjointly'?

You could, that's true but...

> I think there should
>probably be a semicolon in there somewhere, too.
>
>:)

I thinks so too but where is beyond me. Darren will know.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

One could also substitute the word "hyperverbosity" with "sesquipedalian
loquaciousness". Or just outright add it to the sentence.

  Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity, prolixity and sesquipedalian
loquaciousness, espouse elucidation.

  Are we getting close to shakespearean rhetoric yet?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity, prolixity and sesquipedalian
> loquaciousness, espouse elucidation.

  One more:

  Sedulously eschew obfuscatory and tautologous hyperverbosity, prolixity
and sesquipedalian loquaciousness, espouse elucidation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity, prolixity and sesquipedalian
> > loquaciousness, espouse elucidation.
>
>   One more:
>
>   Sedulously eschew obfuscatory and tautologous hyperverbosity, prolixity
> and sesquipedalian loquaciousness, espouse elucidation.

I think the semicolon should go after 'loquaciousness'.

Post a reply to this message