|
|
Posted by Kevin Scholl on 10/01/92 12:01
Neredbojias wrote:
>> Ah Boji, you very significantly don't say what a bottomless cup
>> is. Most of us would have no trouble, it is *a bottomless cup*.
>> But all you can say is "Nope". I do understand your predicament.
>> Having eschewed a perfectly natural form of words, you are at a
>> loss to describe such a cup.
>
> A cup needs a bottom to be a cup. Is that unreasonable?
Just to play devil's advocate, is that necessarily true? What about
those cone-shaped paper cups that typically accompany water jugs in
office or sports environments? If the cone is the side(s), then the cup
has no bottom per se. Or, if the cone is in fact the bottom, then the
cup has no sides.
"What if, uh, C-A-T really spelled ... 'dog'?" :)
--
Kevin Scholl
http://www.ksscholl.com/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|