Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Loki Harfagr <loki@DarkDesign.free.fr>
Organization: Dark Design
Subject: Re: What you you think?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:28:45 +0200
User-Agent: Pan/0.14.90 ('Ere, he says he's not dead.)
Message-Id: <pan.2006.06.26.10.28.43.578801@DarkDesign.free.fr>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
References: <Oc3ng.55921$Lm5.23150@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
X-LaBrea: l0k1 at free dot fr
X-approved: why not?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 19
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jun 2006 12:28:44 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.226.69.167
X-Trace: 1151317724 nnrp4-1.free.fr 10269 82.226.69.167:33947
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1256
> Is "extremely capable" a conflict of terms? I think it is. Capable means,
> at least to me, fully able. I don't think one can be more than full.
That's right, any tentative to hype a superlative has to be seen as
a "marketing men" Tourette syndrom ;-)
For your precise question, if you need to be certain that the reader
understands your "capable" as more than full, extend your sentence
with something like "he'll fit your aims", or so ...
> What
> about "exceedingly able?"
Don't !
This is quite a recurrent overabuse from TV pseudo-reporters and
marketing men :-)
It'd be ridiculous to "exceed" the best, if so you wouldn't fit!
|
|