b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 360423 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1

« Go Back | Popular

Also
Test your English

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4246472.stm
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:17, 21 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
20/20
Easy.

*smugs*
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:21, Reply)
snap
but I am an English teacher


posted mostly because of people complaining about poor English/txt spk/etc
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:24, Reply)
20/20
Question 19 is pretty dubious though...
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:29, Reply)
bah I scored 19
forgot what taciturn meant :-(
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:35, Reply)
19
and I'm an English teacher. I hang my head in shame, but I did whip through it. The one with the hyphen got me.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:36, Reply)
yeah knackerz
I'd say that 'long lost' was just as good as 'long-lost'...

Did you go for the exclamation mark then? I nearly did but went for the hyphen instead cos I thought it must be a trap.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:41, Reply)
Ostentatious?
Ostentation is not necessarily pretentiousness.
EDIT: try www.freerice.com/ for more fun and third-world aid in the process!
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:53, Reply)
it's long-lost
because it's a single characteristic

long lost implies something that has a big length, and is missing, long-lost, missing for a long period of time

EDIT - freerice - been there before, infinitely more difficult
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 12:59, Reply)
Hmm
"Ostentation is not necessarily pretentiousness."

No, but one meaning of ostentatious is pretentious. And out of the four possible answers given, that was the only synonym.

It's stuff like this that makes cryptic crosswords so much fun!
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 13:22, Reply)
17
Not bad for someone put in the special class for GCSE English.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 13:30, Reply)
I disagree flesh
I would usually write long-lost, but I would consider long lost to be equally acceptable.

I'll consult my OED when I get home, the website doesn't allow you to search the full version.

But Wiktionary agrees with me, for what it's worth.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 13:50, Reply)
19
I seem to be the only one who fucked up on 'whose'....
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 14:45, Reply)
@K2K6
Yes, indeed, but that's not what they asked. I'm just being picky for the sake of it.

A number of the sentences are missing full stops! Bah.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 14:55, Reply)
Sam
you're consulting Wiktionary? Gah!
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 15:04, Reply)
It was the only online dictionary I could find the hyphenated version in
Let alone the non-hyphenated version!

Do I redeem myself by saying that it's the full 20 volume OED2 (albeit without the additions volumes. Which I need to get) to which I shall be referring on my return home?
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 15:14, Reply)
19
Can't spell questionairre. Or fill one in for that matter, some of them are big buggers.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 15:39, Reply)
I was asked to fill lin a questionnaire once.
So I went out and beat up the doorman.




/coat
/veal
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 16:34, Reply)
Regarding the long-lost brother
Has anyone considered that he could be a long, lost brother, i.e., once lost but also phenomenally well-endowed.

Hmm...probably trying too hard there. Still, 20/20 *smugs*
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 16:55, Reply)
Jesus H Christ!
I got 19/20 and I'm sure you are all painfully aware how shit my grammar is.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 20:16, Reply)
20
but anything less would be entirely unacceptable to me, as writer.
(, Wed 4 Feb 2009, 21:48, Reply)
20
but my performance in the maths test will be truly awful : (
(, Thu 5 Feb 2009, 15:25, Reply)

« Go Back | Reply To This »

Pages: Latest, 836, 835, 834, 833, 832, ... 1