For a Moment I though this was about ATR’s Grammar… Rate this:Share this:RedditTwitterFacebookEmailLike this:Like Loading... Related 3 thoughts on “For a Moment I though this was about ATR’s Grammar…” Add yours This sort of reminds me of a dictum of my Geometry teacher in HS, who would disparage attempts to improve on Euclid: “There are good books and there are new books, but the good books are not new and the new books are not good.” Reply Did you ever finish Robertson’s Grammar? How far are you? Reply just over a third. Since I started actually working, I’ve had less time. Reply Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here... Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email (required) (Address never made public) Name (required) Website You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change ) w Cancel Connecting to %s Notify me of new comments via email.
This sort of reminds me of a dictum of my Geometry teacher in HS, who would disparage attempts to improve on Euclid: “There are good books and there are new books, but the good books are not new and the new books are not good.” Reply
This sort of reminds me of a dictum of my Geometry teacher in HS, who would disparage attempts to improve on Euclid: “There are good books and there are new books, but the good books are not new and the new books are not good.”
Did you ever finish Robertson’s Grammar? How far are you?
just over a third. Since I started actually working, I’ve had less time.