The Radio 3 Boards Forum from myforum365.com
04:48:16, 01-12-2008 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Whilst we happily welcome all genuine applications to our forum, there may be times when we need to suspend registration temporarily, for example when suffering attacks of spam.
 If you want to join us but find that the temporary suspension has been activated, please try again later.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
  Print  
Author Topic: Who was the fattest composer of all time?  (Read 3489 times)
Milly Jones
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 3580



« Reply #30 on: 19:02:37, 06-08-2007 »

Bless dear Hildegarde.  She was a migraine sufferer (like me).   That is stated in every biography and they think that this was the cause of her visions etc.  I've never seen any celestial visions I should hasten to add.   Roll Eyes
Logged

We pass this way but once.  This is not a rehearsal!
oliver sudden
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 6411



« Reply #31 on: 19:13:41, 06-08-2007 »

Er, let's be careful not to overlook Baz's wink.

Logged
Milly Jones
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 3580



« Reply #32 on: 19:21:24, 06-08-2007 »

Yes I thought it must be tongue-in-cheek.  Ascetics probably weren't fed enough to be anything other than very under-weight.  She lived a very long time considering the harsh regime under which she existed.  All that and the headache from hell too!   Roll Eyes
Logged

We pass this way but once.  This is not a rehearsal!
George Garnett
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3855



« Reply #33 on: 11:30:45, 07-08-2007 »

By the same token as Baz's Hildegaard, I suppose Ronald Binge, he of Elizabethan Serenade and Sailing By, ought to be in the running, or waddling.

I'll get my Coates
Logged
Sydney Grew
Guest
« Reply #34 on: 11:49:41, 07-08-2007 »

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:

Logged
Baziron
Guest
« Reply #35 on: 13:34:16, 07-08-2007 »

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do...

Now let's think this through...

"Here [is?] a mighty symphonist..."?

"...a mighty symphonist to omit"?

"...to omit whom"?

"...it would not do [what?]"

It seems to me little wonder that today we are informed on The News that because as many as 60% of our Primary School children have somehow "managed" to reach an acceptable standard in English, they have accordingly attained the highest achievement ever recorded (apparently!) in Primary School assessments.

We should therefore not be unduly surprised.

Baz
Logged
oliver sudden
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 6411



« Reply #36 on: 13:39:48, 07-08-2007 »

Maybe it's my living in Germany that makes that sentence seem to me something quite normal...

Still, that it would not to do omit Krzysztof Penderecki from consideration is surely reasonably clearly at what Member Grew is getting? Although considering his efforts on the Schostakowitsch front perhaps one should be grateful that he didn't attempt to spell Krzysztof... Wink
Logged
TimR-J
Guest
« Reply #37 on: 13:40:40, 07-08-2007 »

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:



May I be the first to say Dimensions of Pies and Imbibing?
Logged
Kittybriton
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 2690


Thank you for the music ...


WWW
« Reply #38 on: 13:43:01, 07-08-2007 »

I think Baziron may have omitted the heading:

Today's Spot the (missing) comma competition

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:
Logged

Click me ->About me
or me ->my handmade store
No, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish.
Baziron
Guest
« Reply #39 on: 13:54:31, 07-08-2007 »

I think Baziron may have omitted the heading:

Today's Spot the (missing) comma competition

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:

Syd (like those in the legal profession) deliberately omits commas. The difference is this: lawyers do so in order to remove any interpretative ambiguity whatsoever; but Member Grew does so in order to create ambiguity.

I cannot see why his statement "Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:" could with equally legitimate status not have been rendered as A mighty symphonist whom to omit here would not do - or equally well It would not do to omit here a mighty symphonist - or even This mighty symphonist should not be omitted here, innit!.

Baz
Logged
time_is_now
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4653



« Reply #40 on: 13:56:04, 07-08-2007 »

I think Baziron may have omitted the heading:

Today's Spot the (missing) comma competition

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:
Indeed - a comma would make it quite regular no?! Wink But then we have noted before Mr Grew's curious stubborn and we might even say characterful abstinence from the comma have we not.
Logged

The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
time_is_now
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4653



« Reply #41 on: 13:57:29, 07-08-2007 »

lawyers do so in order to remove any interpretative ambiguity whatsoever
Could you give an example of that, Baz? I'm sure you're right, but I can't quite see how it would work ...
Logged

The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
Milly Jones
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 3580



« Reply #42 on: 14:08:57, 07-08-2007 »

I think Baziron may have omitted the heading:

Today's Spot the (missing) comma competition

Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:

Syd (like those in the legal profession) deliberately omits commas. The difference is this: lawyers do so in order to remove any interpretative ambiguity whatsoever; but Member Grew does so in order to create ambiguity.

I cannot see why his statement "Here a mighty symphonist to omit whom it would not do:" could with equally legitimate status not have been rendered as A mighty symphonist whom to omit here would not do - or equally well It would not do to omit here a mighty symphonist - or even This mighty symphonist should not be omitted here, innit!.

Baz

I think it should be "don't leave 'im aht"
Logged

We pass this way but once.  This is not a rehearsal!
Chafing Dish
Guest
« Reply #43 on: 14:13:37, 07-08-2007 »

...She was reputed to be the very FATTEST of female composers before the Renaissance...


Hildegarde of Bingen (no less)!
Look, folks, you've got it all wrong. It's not pronounced Hildegard of Bingein'
Logged
Baziron
Guest
« Reply #44 on: 14:15:45, 07-08-2007 »

lawyers do so in order to remove any interpretative ambiguity whatsoever
Could you give an example of that, Baz? I'm sure you're right, but I can't quite see how it would work ...

Two children of a close friend of mine had money willed to them (quite a lot!), but they lost exactly one-third of the amount expected because the person who drafted the will inserted a single comma!!!!!

The situation was as follows: "I hereby bequeath X-thousands pound to be shared between the children of A, and B".

Now because at the time of draughting only son/daughter A had children, and also at the time of the person's death son/daughter B still did not have any children, the silly presence of this damned comma allowed son/daughter B to challenge the will in a court of law, and actually WIN for himself/herself a third of the money that was intended only to be left to the children of this generation. The consequence was that each "legitimate" child inheritor received only one-third of the amount, while the remaining third was awarded to their uncle/aunt (just because of a damned comma in the will).

QED

Baz
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
  Print  
 
Jump to: