Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: Help translation
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:45:35 +0000
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <slrnd1mdrv.8b7.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
References: <42163aa3$0$15815$636a15ce@news.free.fr> <cvf3k1$hcb$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
Reply-To: chris@keristor.net
X-Trace: individual.net X7HyqXO6x17U5q8BikjVKga/AuZYt05HEWhjXznwHW7WbmMsY=
X-Orig-Path: ccserver.keris.net!news
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:606
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:55:16 +0100, kimpolik
<rafbuk@wp.pl> wrote:
> I found also a word "to dust" but i'm not sure am i right :-)
No, dusting is normally done with a duster (a cloth ot in some places
feathers on a stick), and applies to solid and often delicate objects
not to the floor (conversely, a vacuum cleaner is not usually applied to
delicate objects).
Although I generally dislike verbed nouns ("verbing weirds nouns!"),
most people would probably use "to vacuum" ("vacuuming") or "to hoover"
(based on a common make of vacuum cleaner).
("But if vacuums are empty why do they need cleaning?")
Chris C
|
|