My wife is an English Major, so I eventually had to ask her... and she feels the message is correct.
I did have to explain it to her in detail though so I guess initial confusion is understandable. Prolonged confusion, however, is not. Johan On 11/18/05, J Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:46:40PM -0800, the unit calling itself Ted > Unangst wrote: > > [i was trying to stay away, but can't.] > > On 11/18/05, J Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:58:28AM -0800, the unit calling itself Greg > Thomas wrote: > > > > What part of adjusting do you not understand? Nowhere in the log > message > > > > does it say that that adjusting is finished. You are just being > obnoxious > > > > for obnoxious' sake because you didn't get your way. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are > you? > > > What part of the definition of the word "by" to you not understand? > > > > > > Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined > yourself > > > in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and > someone > > > said to you, "adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg." > > > > the log message says "adjusting". that's the present participle (not > > to be confused with gerunds). it means "not done yet." > > Agreed, and it's definitely not a gerund > > > q: "what are you doing in front of the clock?" > > a1: "i adjust the time (this instant only)" -- no > > a2: "i adjusted the time" -- no > > a3: "i will adjust the time" -- no > > a4: "i'm adjusting the time" -- we have a winner. will you be done > > adjusting the time the instant that the sentence is out of your mouth? > > or will the adjusting [gerund form here] continue for some time after > > the statement is issued? > > You have ignored the word "by" in the log message... according to > Webster, by = "in the amount of" > > Therefore: adjusting... by = adjusting in the amount of
