Re: A poignant point Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: A poignant point Yves

>
>
> On Sat, 6 May 2006, John Grocott wrote:
>
>> I am sure Judy will not mind me mentioning that during the compiling of
>> her last Post Factory Magazine # 9, I told her I would be ''liaising''
>> with a colleague on a future project. The resultant outburst ( dear Judy)
>> intimated that I had just invented this word as she had never, she told
>> me, in all of her ** young years come across the verb to ''liaise'' with
>> someone. Where I had learned the word I could not remember and I had
>> later to see if, indeed, it was in my dictionary. It was a surprise for
>> me to find it was there.
>>
>
>
> Actually John, you make my point... I'd never heard the word "liaise," tho
> it is indeed in Websters, as a "back formation from liaison."
>
> Though the meaning was apparent, I'd never heard it. Is it possibly more
> used in England? Whichever, now that you bring it up, it could catch on.
> I'll remember it, and so will others. Isn't this a good thing?
>
> In fact e-mail may have brought many snappy phrases to Americans from
> England... we begin to hear things like don't get your knickers in a knot
> and up ones nose, etc. For the record, however, in the US, getting
> "knocked up" still means pregnant -- morning, noon or night.
>
>
> Judy

Easy to suppose that if the word 'liasing' or to create a liasion were used
more often in our American English we wouldn't be twisted in our knickers
over electronic or hands on photography, nor a war in Iraq.

I suppose we could count that an an 'alternative.' For the sake of this
list.

Steve Shapiro
Received on 05/06/06-05:11:40 PM Z