jacob.baltuch at EURONET.BE
Tue Jul 7 19:43:12 UTC 1998
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that I knew
the reasons Elliot had for finding the passive construction seemed
I should've said I (Jacob) found it substandard. Plus, it turns out
it's my finding it substandard which is substandard. I was entirely
not used to that usage and would never have used it myself, but I'll
just have to get used to it. Thanks to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, Elliot
Stern and Georg von Simson for giving me the opportunity to learn some
more (about) English and to fine tune my "fill" feeling.
Btw, I'm not completely reckless (at least not this time) I *did* take
the trouble before posting to check my "feeling" with my small paperback
American Heritage dictionary (unfortunately I had no larger dictionary
handy) and it does not know of the usage mentioned by Georg von Simson.
It gives for fill:
1. to make or become full
2. to build up the level of (low lying land) with material such as sand or
3. to stop or plug up
4. to satisfy or meet; fulfill
5. to complete (something) by insertion or addition: fill in the blanks
6. to supply as required: fill a prescription
7. to place a person in: fill in a job vacancy
8. to occupy completely; pervade.
Unless I'm not able to read a dictionary properly, I'd say Georg von
Simson's usage isn't in there. But I'm sure the large American Heritage
dictionary has it, just as (one of the) Webster's does. I wonder if its
missing in the smaller size American Heritage means it is slightly less
common than the others. I'm not trying to find an excuse :-) I'm just
trying to figure out the scope of that usage.
Anyway, sorry for this lengthy non-Indological parenthesis that I'm
entirely guilty of having started (I'm talking of the whole subthread).
No more from me on this thread.
More information about the INDOLOGY