"They are not both ..."
DJ
In this sentence: "They are not both English teachers"
Does it mean
1. One is an English teacher and the other one is not.
or
2. (Assuming teacher A and teacher B)
A is not an English teacher. B is not an English teacher.
Thanks,
-- DJ
tony cooper
This is not a question you should have to ask. Statements like this
don't appear without context, and context would make the answer clear.
The answer could be 1) or 2). Go look at the source and all will be
revealed.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
DJ
<snipped>
> This is not a question you should have to ask. Statements like this
> don't appear without context, and context would make the answer clear.
>
> The answer could be 1) or 2). Go look at the source and all will be
> revealed.
>
The "ambiguity" answer(could be 1 or 2) you provided is what I need :)
Thanks!
-- DJ
DJ
[quote]
"Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan, 3rd edition
110 both
6 negative structures
Instead of 'both...not', we normally use 'neither'.
Neither of them is here. (NOT Both of them are not here(*1).)
[/quote]
(*1) is crossed out on the book.
Since the author crosses out the last sentence "Both of them are not
here", it gives me the impression that it is wrong to write it, but this
syntax can also be found in books (by using Google Books).
So my question is:
Is it OK to write "Both of them are not here"?
-- DJ
Tighe
Hi,
Things like "Both of them aren't here" and much more clearly "All of
them don't do it" are hopelessly ambiguous. It's an over-
simplification to say "both...not" isn't used, but it's very useful
advice to say you should use "neither" instead, since "neither" is
absolutely clear in meaning.
Best,
Sally
Skitt
> DJ wrote:
>> While I'm at it, I have another question.
>>
>> [quote]
>> "Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan, 3rd edition
>>
>> 110 both
>>
>> 6 negative structures
>> Instead of 'both...not', we normally use 'neither'.
>>
>> Neither of them is here. (NOT Both of them are not here(*1).)
>> [/quote]
>> (*1) is crossed out on the book.
>>
>> Since the author crosses out the last sentence "Both of them are not
>> here", it gives me the impression that it is wrong to write it, but
>> this syntax can also be found in books (by using Google Books).
>>
>> So my question is:
>> Is it OK to write "Both of them are not here"?
>
> Things like "Both of them aren't here" and much more clearly "All of
> them don't do it" are hopelessly ambiguous. It's an over-
> simplification to say "both...not" isn't used, but it's very useful
> advice to say you should use "neither" instead, since "neither" is
> absolutely clear in meaning.
While I'm not arguing the ambiguity that is perceived by some, Id like to
mention that The American Heritage® Book of English Usage at
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/052.html notes that:
/Both/ indicates that the action or state denoted by the verb applies
individually to each of two entities.
/Both books weigh more than five pounds/, for example, means that each book
weighs more than five pounds by itself, not that the two books weighed
together come to more than five pounds. /Both/ is inappropriate where the
verb does not apply to each of the entities by itself.
As for the "both ... not" construction, I agree with Swan -- use the
"neither" construction. It has better style.
--
Skitt
tony cooper
No, and Yes. Depending on context.
The detective said "I would like to interview both Mr Jones and Mrs
Jones, and I'd like to see them at the same time. Bring them in."
"But both of them are not here" exclaimed the maid.
That's perfectly valid if one is here and the other is not.
Not valid is:
"I would like to interview Mr and Mrs Jones", said the detective.
"Both of them are not here", the maid replied.
That should be:
"Neither of them is here"
or
"Neither Mr Jones nor Mrs Jones is here".
or
"Mr Jones is here, but Mrs Jones is away. You will have to wait until
both of them are here".
or
"They are both away".
There are many sentences that depend on the surrounding context.
As soon as you think you've come across a "rule", you are likely to
find some context where that "rule" doesn't apply.
Not valid is:
"I would like to interview Mr and Mrs Jones", said the detective.
"Both of them are not here", the maid replied.
Adrian Bailey
Pete
Given two people, A and B there are four possibilities.
1) Neither A nor B are ETs
2) A is an ET, B is not.
3) B is an ET, A is not.
4) Both A and B are ETs
Your statement "They are not both ETs" eliminates
possibility 4. The oither three are still possible.
Peacenik
Either one, depending on the context. If the context doesn't make things
clearer, then it's a poorly constructed sentence.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
DJ
CyberCypher
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:43:39 -0400, DJ <n...@nospam.no> wrote:
>
> >In this sentence: "They are not both English teachers"
>
> >Does it mean
> >1. One is an English teacher and the other one is not.
>
> >or
>
> >2. (Assuming teacher A and teacher B)
> >A is not an English teacher. B is not an English teacher.
>
> This is not a question you should have to ask. Statements like this
> don't appear without context, and context would make the answer clear.
Nonsense, pure and simple.
> The answer could be 1) or 2). Go look at the source and all will be
> revealed.
Here's a quote from an English-language daily in Taiwan, _The China
Post_, that uses precisely the same phrase.
"The [Central Weather Bureau] added that although [tropical storm]
Wutip is coming closely on the heels of [tropical storm] Pabuk, it is
not expected to lead to a Fujiwara Effect, or Twin Typhoon Effect,
because both storm systems are not strong enough."
<http://link.toolbot.com/chinapost.com.tw/85245>
I've gone back to the source and am unable to determine which of the
THREE possible meanings the writer meant to express:
1. Wutip is not strong enough but Pabuk is;
2. Pabuk is not strong enough, but Wutip is;
3. Neither Wutip nor Pabuk is strong enough.
It's probably 3, but that ... ooops, I meant "who" ... other than you
knows?
The article doesn't explain what a "Twin Typhoon Effect" means either:
"There is a rare phenomenon called the Fujiwara effect, where two
storms can essentially collide and spin around each other,"
<http://link.toolbot.com/space.com/85246>
and
[quote]
The [Fujiwara][1] effect or [Fujiwara] interaction is a type of
interaction between two nearby cyclonic vortices, causing them to
appear to "orbit" each other.
When the cyclones approach each other, their centers will begin
orbiting cyclonically about a point between the two systems. The two
vortices will be attracted to each other, and eventually spiral into
the center point and merge. When the two vortices are of unequal size,
the larger vortex will tend to dominate the interaction, and the
smaller vortex will orbit around it.
The effect is often mentioned in relation to the motion of tropical
cyclones, although the final merging of the two storms is uncommon.
The effect becomes pronounced in these storms when they approach
within about 1450 km (900 miles) of each other and are at tropical
storm strength[2] or stronger.
[/quote]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujiwhara_effect>
NOTES:
[1] I've never seen this "Fujiwhara" romanized spelling of of
"Fujiwara". Very strange it is.
[2] Tropical storm strength = "with winds of at least 39 mph [62.8
kph]". From a CNN.com article that says "The threshold for a tropical
storm is sustained winds of 39 mph. When those winds reach 74 mph, it
becomes a hurricane."
<http://link.toolbot.com/cnn.com/85247>
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor.
Native speaker of American English.
Posting from cold, damp, and foggy San Rafael, California,
home of the BMW and Mercedes Benz and unbearable
commuter traffic
tony cooper
I would add:
4. Wutip and Pabuk, combined (both), are not strong enough to lead to
a Fujiwara Effect.
and go with that.
>The article doesn't explain what a "Twin Typhoon Effect" means either:
The "Twin Typhoon Effect" is available from Lin Lin and Ting Ting; two
bargirls who (that) work out of Cheeky Charlie's in Wufu 4th Road in
Kaohsiung.
CyberCypher
I'm sure that you would, but that factoid is easily inferable from 3,
so it's verbose, redundant, and unnecessary.
> >The article doesn't explain what a "Twin Typhoon Effect" means either:
>
> The "Twin Typhoon Effect" is available from Lin Lin and Ting Ting; two
> bargirls who (that) work out of Cheeky Charlie's in Wufu 4th Road
That's "on Wufu 4th Road" in American.
> in Kaohsiung.
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor.
Native speaker of American English.
Posting from hot, dry, and sunny San Rafael, California,
tony cooper
The idea of a list is to present the possible reasons. The object is
to pick the best reason from the presented points and not to have to
infer from another point. If we're going to infer, we don't need a
list.
>> >The article doesn't explain what a "Twin Typhoon Effect" means either:
>>
>> The "Twin Typhoon Effect" is available from Lin Lin and Ting Ting; two
>> bargirls who (that) work out of Cheeky Charlie's in Wufu 4th Road
>
>That's "on Wufu 4th Road" in American.
>
>> in Kaohsiung.
I can't infer that. If "Wufu 4th Road" is a district, then "in" is
correct. If it's a street name, then an American would use "on". I
have no idea if "Wufu 4th Road" is a district or a street.
athel...@yahoo
[ ... ]
>
> While I'm not arguing the ambiguity that is perceived by some, Id like to
> mention that The American Heritage® Book of English Usage athttp://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/052.htmlnotes that:
>
> /Both/ indicates that the action or state denoted by the verb applies
> individually to each of two entities.
>
> /Both books weigh more than five pounds/, for example, means that each book
> weighs more than five pounds by itself, not that the two books weighed
> together come to more than five pounds. /Both/ is inappropriate where the
> verb does not apply to each of the entities by itself.
Maybe it's pondial, because I definitely don't agree with your
quotation so far as BrE is concerned. My first thought on hearing
"Both books weigh more than five pounds" would be that it was
ambiguous, and if forced to choose an interpretation I would choose
the opposite one from your source.
The version that reads "each book weighs more than five pounds"
illustrates a general point that non-native English speakers would do
well to incorporate, that constructions using "each" are frequently
valuable for avoiding ambiguity.
athel
Tighe
To my British ears, "Both books weigh more than five pounds" clearly
means "more than five pounds each".
Sally
Mike Lyle
But that's the problem: to my British-trained ears, it wouldn't be at
all clear what _somebody else_ meant by it unless there were other
clues. In practice, those clues would nearly always be there, and I
don't think I could use the expresion if they weren't. It's important to
distinguish my view of what I'd mean if I used an expression from what
another speaker might mean by it: we get a lot of that confusion here in
a.u.e. Maybe you trust the buggers out there more than I do.
--
Mike.
Tighe
wrote:
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Or maybe I'm just more arrogant about my native-speaker perceptions.
Sally
Mike Lyle
> On 10 Aug., 12:35, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Tighe wrote:
>>
>>> To my British ears, "Both books weigh more than five pounds" clearly
>>> means "more than five pounds each".
>>
>> But that's the problem: to my British-trained ears, it wouldn't be at
>> all clear what _somebody else_ meant by it unless there were other
>> clues. In practice, those clues would nearly always be there, and I
>> don't think I could use the expresion if they weren't. It's
>> important to
>> distinguish my view of what I'd mean if I used an expression from
>> what
>> another speaker might mean by it: we get a lot of that confusion
>> here in
>> a.u.e. Maybe you trust the buggers out there more than I do.
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-
>> Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>>
>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>
> Or maybe I'm just more arrogant about my native-speaker perceptions.
Hmm. Take care: that way, the disinterested can get decimated.
Robert Bannister
For myself, I could only get that meaning if it were "Both books together".
--
Rob Bannister
Oleg Lego
Really? "Both books together weigh more than five pounds" would make
me think you meant that the total weight of the two books was greater
than five pounds.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <CyberCyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 10, 2:23 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> CyberCypher <CyberCyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Aug 8, 5:03 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:43:39 -0400, DJ <n...@nospam.no> wrote:
> >> The "Twin Typhoon Effect" is available from Lin Lin and Ting Ting; two
> >> bargirls who (that) work out of Cheeky Charlie's in Wufu 4th Road
>
> >That's "on Wufu 4th Road" in American.
>
> >> in Kaohsiung.
>
> I can't infer that. If "Wufu 4th Road" is a district, then "in" is
> correct. If it's a street name, then an American would use "on". I
> have no idea if "Wufu 4th Road" is a district or a street.
Oh, that's right. The word "Road" in an address creates ineluctable
ambiguity: "Does 'Road' mean 'Street' or does it mean 'District'?"
This question occurs to me every time I read and hear someone say
"road". There's that country song "Dead skunk in the middle of the
road", and I had to ponder for months about whether it meant that the
dead skunk was in the middle of the red-light district, the black-and-
white-district, or the highway. And then there's Doc Watson's famous
song: "Going Down The Road Feeling Bad", which always confused me too.
I wondered whether he meant "Going Down The District Feeling Bad".
Artist/Band: Watson Doc
Lyrics for Song: Going Down The Road Feeling Bad
Oh, it's going down the road feeling bad
Bad luck's all I've ever had
Going down the road feeling bad, Lord, Lord
And I aint' a-gonna be treated this a-way
Got me way down in jail on my knees
This old jailer he sure is hrd to please
Feed me corn, bread and peas, Lord, Lord
And I ain't gonna be treated this a-way
(break)
Sweet mama, won't you buy me no shoes
Lord, she's left me with these lonesome jailhouse blues
My sweet mama won't buy me no shoes, Lord, Lord
And I ain't a-gonna be treated this a-way
And these two-dollar shoes they hurt my feet
The jailer won't gi'me enough to eat
Lord, these two-dollar shoes they hurt my feet, Lord, Lord
And I ain't a-gonna be treated this a-way
(break)
I'm going where the climate suits my clothes
Lord, I'm going where these chilly winds never blow (hmmhmm)
Going where the climate suits my clothes, Lord, Lord
And I ain't a-gonna be treated this a-way
Yes, I'm going down the road feeling bad, Lord, Lord
Lord, I'm going down this road feeling bad
Bad luck is all I've ever had (it sure is)
And I ain't a-gonna be treated this a-way
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor
Native speaker of Northeast-coast American English
Posting from the Latin-American southwest
"So I was like in the Asian Garden Restaurant in Reno one afternoon,
and except for three ethnic Asians -- the owner, my wife, and my son
-- the only workers and other diners in the place (about a dozen) as I
was chomping down on my Beijing burrito were Latin-Americans chatting
in chopstick-punctuated Spanish." Anymouse
tony cooper
<Cyber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't infer that. If "Wufu 4th Road" is a district, then "in" is
>> correct. If it's a street name, then an American would use "on". I
>> have no idea if "Wufu 4th Road" is a district or a street.
>
>Oh, that's right. The word "Road" in an address creates ineluctable
>ambiguity: "Does 'Road' mean 'Street' or does it mean 'District'?"
Try it on "Bourbon Street" or "Rush Street" or "Seventh Avenue" or
"Michigan Avenue". They are used to describe districts and not just
the businesses on those streets or avenues.
Take, for example, the famous Pat O'Brien's in New Orleans. It's not
on Bourbon Street, but it is in the Bourbon Street district. Same
with Preservation Hall.
Just to add another nail, http://king_kings.sinotour.com/
says: "The hotel is only 3 minutes from Kaohsiung Railway Station and
just 20 minutes from Kaohsiung Airport, close to Liu He Night Market,
Zhong Zheng business district, Zhong Shan business district and Wu Fu
business district."
BTW, I mentioned "Cheeky Charlie's" in Wufu 4th Road. Cheeky
Charlie's is at 75 Hsinle Street. It seems to be one of the
businesses "clustered in Yencheng District, especially around Wufu
Fourth Road", so it seems that "Wufu Fourth Road" signifies a district
of entertainment centers much like the clubs around - but not all on -
Rush Street.
Your move.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <CyberCyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I can't infer that. If "Wufu 4th Road" is a district, then "in" is
> >> correct. If it's a street name, then an American would use "on". I
> >> have no idea if "Wufu 4th Road" is a district or a street.
>
> >Oh, that's right. The word "Road" in an address creates ineluctable
> >ambiguity: "Does 'Road' mean 'Street' or does it mean 'District'?"
>
> Try it on "Bourbon Street" or "Rush Street" or "Seventh Avenue" or
> "Michigan Avenue". They are used to describe districts and not just
> the businesses on those streets or avenues.
>
> Take, for example, the famous Pat O'Brien's in New Orleans. It's not
> on Bourbon Street, but it is in the Bourbon Street district.
Yes, but notice that you had to add the word "district" to make "in"
correct in American English usage.
> Same with Preservation Hall.
>
> Just to add another nail,http://king_kings.sinotour.com/
> says: "The hotel is only 3 minutes from Kaohsiung Railway Station and
> just 20 minutes from Kaohsiung Airport, close to Liu He Night Market,
> Zhong Zheng business district, Zhong Shan business district and Wu Fu
> business district."
Even in Chinese it is necessary to add the characters for "business
district" if one means "business district" or the character for "road"
if one means "road". Just FYI, "Zhong Zheng" refers to "Jiang Zhong-
Zheng", the Chinese-Japanese name of Chiang Kai-Shek, and "Zhong Shan"
refers to the Chinese-Japanese name of Sun Yat-Sen, the leader and
founder of the Republic of China from 1912 till his death (I don't
remember when). Both men were educated in China and Japan. Almost
everything in Taiwan is named after these two guys, so it's absolutely
necessary to be very, very specific about which thing named "Zhong
Zheng" or "Zhong Shan" one is referring to.
> BTW, I mentioned "Cheeky Charlie's" in Wufu 4th Road. Cheeky
> Charlie's is at 75 Hsinle Street. It seems to be one of the
> businesses "clustered in Yencheng District, especially around Wufu
> Fourth Road", so it seems that "Wufu Fourth Road" signifies a district
> of entertainment centers much like the clubs around - but not all on -
> Rush Street.
My wife went, who went to school on one of the parts (Third Road or
Fourth Road, she says) of WuFu Road in Kaohsiung (I've been there),
says that "the Yencheng District" is a political division (one which
is normally translated as "ward" in English [same Chinese character in
Japanese and also translated as "ward"]), which is quite common in
American cities. She also says that "WuFu Fourth Road" refers only to
the road and not to a business district. WuFu Fourth Road is the name
of one section of a much longer road that is divided into numbered
parts, much as Americans would divide a street into, say, North
Broadway and South Broadway. In Chinese, roads are often divided into
parts called "duan", which is usually translated into "section". WuFu
Road, however, has only four Chinese characters for each division:
"wu" = "5"; "fu" = "happiness"; [the number of the section: in this
case] "se" = "4"; "lu" = "road". WuFu Lu is divided into parts
designated "First Road", Second Road", etc. "WuFu Fourth Road" refers
only to the road, not a particular business district. It's merely a
matter of Chinese usage.
I live in Taiwan, and although I am not a Chinese-language expert nor
an expert on all aspects Taiwan's culture, I know enough about both to
know exactly what I'm talking about here. My wife knows more about
both because she is a native Taiwanese. Unless you can find someone
else from Kaohsiung who will confirm your interpretation, I think you
have no choice but to accept what I say as fact.
> Your move.
Checkmate.
--
Franke: EFL teacher and medical editor
Native speaker of Northeast-coast American English
Posting from the Latin-American southwest
"The only real workers here in the southwestern part of the United
States of America are illegal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin-
American nations. All the native-born Americans do is drive their
BMWs, Benzes, Hum-Vs, RVs, SUVs, and Porches and flash their plethora
of credit cards at any cash register that's online because they can't
stop buying cheapo goods made in China. Even Sears is having all its
electrical appliances made in China these days, so the 'Craftsman'
brand means 'Made in China' now. Except for the package of manual
screwdrivers I bought, which were 'Made in USA'." Anymouse.
Robert Bannister
I think my brain must have been in another place when I wrote that. I'm
sure someone in this thread was claiming the "both together" meaning,
but it certainly wasn't you. Apologies.
--
Rob Bannister
sallytighe
Sal
tony cooper
<Cyber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I live in Taiwan, and although I am not a Chinese-language expert nor
>an expert on all aspects Taiwan's culture, I know enough about both to
>know exactly what I'm talking about here. My wife knows more about
>both because she is a native Taiwanese. Unless you can find someone
>else from Kaohsiung who will confirm your interpretation, I think you
>have no choice but to accept what I say as fact.
I am perfectly willing to accept your word for it. I'm not
contradicting you in any way. I'm just pointing out that I'm not in a
position to infer anything from "Wu fu 4th Road" as you suggest I
should, and there's ample reason to consider it an ambiguous term.
It's been fun, though. Sometimes, though, I wish your chain had a
little more resistance so there'd be a little challenge involved.
CyberCypher
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:07:12 -0000, CyberCypher
>
> >I live in Taiwan, and although I am not a Chinese-language expert nor
> >an expert on all aspects Taiwan's culture, I know enough about both to
> >know exactly what I'm talking about here. My wife knows more about
> >both because she is a native Taiwanese. Unless you can find someone
> >else from Kaohsiung who will confirm your interpretation, I think you
> >have no choice but to accept what I say as fact.
>
> I am perfectly willing to accept your word for it. I'm not
> contradicting you in any way. I'm just pointing out that I'm not in a
> position to infer anything from "Wu fu 4th Road" as you suggest I
> should, and there's ample reason to consider it an ambiguous term.
Like I said, there's a lot of ambiguity in the word "road". It just
might mean "business district" to a special class of special persons
that just don't get it. I totally agree that it's ambiguous for you.
> It's been fun, though.
You are decidedly weird.
> Sometimes, though, I wish your chain had a
> little more resistance so there'd be a little challenge involved.
This implies that when you play by yourself with yourself, everything
is over much too quickly. I have a 70-year-old friend in Tokyo who
swears by Cialis (TM). You might want to try it next time you post.
But I'm not interested in games.
tony cooper
<Cyber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 12, 10:19 am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:07:12 -0000, CyberCypher
>>
>> <CyberCyp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I live in Taiwan, and although I am not a Chinese-language expert nor
>> >an expert on all aspects Taiwan's culture, I know enough about both to
>> >know exactly what I'm talking about here. My wife knows more about
>> >both because she is a native Taiwanese. Unless you can find someone
>> >else from Kaohsiung who will confirm your interpretation, I think you
>> >have no choice but to accept what I say as fact.
>>
>> I am perfectly willing to accept your word for it. I'm not
>> contradicting you in any way. I'm just pointing out that I'm not in a
>> position to infer anything from "Wu fu 4th Road" as you suggest I
>> should, and there's ample reason to consider it an ambiguous term.
>
>Like I said, there's a lot of ambiguity in the word "road". It just
>might mean "business district" to a special class of special persons
>that just don't get it.
And to many that do. In addition to the other examples I've provided,
consider the shops "in" Portobello Road. The ones on All Saints Road,
Holland Park, Chepstow Road, Blenheim Crescent, etc.
Like the Wu Fu 4th Road establishment Cheeky Charlie's (which is on
Hsinle Street), many businesses are identified as part of what they
are not "on".
I'd even suspect that some of the "5th Avenue shops" don't have 5th
Avenue addresses. Louis Vuitton, for example.
sallytighe
It was you, wasn't it?
Sally
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle schrieb:
>> Tighe wrote:
>>> Or maybe I'm just more arrogant about my native-speaker perceptions.
>>
>>
>> Hmm. Take care: that way, the disinterested can get decimated.
>>
> I've tried, really I have, but I don't understand what you mean.
> Help?
>
doesn't work, well, it doesn't work.
sallytighe
Mike Lyle schrieb:
> sallytighe wrote:
>
>>Mike Lyle schrieb:
>>
>>>Tighe wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>Or maybe I'm just more arrogant about my native-speaker perceptions.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm. Take care: that way, the disinterested can get decimated.
>>>
>>
>>I've tried, really I have, but I don't understand what you mean.
>>Help?
>>
>
> I mean that sometimes words are used correctly at one's own risk. If it
> doesn't work, well, it doesn't work.
>
Thank you --
Sally