Comments on: Financial Times 13,944 – Dante http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/03/15/financial-times-13944-dante/ Never knowingly undersolved. Fri, 24 May 2013 03:41:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Sil van den Hoek http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/03/15/financial-times-13944-dante/#comment-186799 Sil van den Hoek Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:36:55 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=41626#comment-186799 Thanks all.
Unqualifiedly clear now!
:)

]]> By: KayOz http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/03/15/financial-times-13944-dante/#comment-186761 KayOz Thu, 15 Mar 2012 02:44:42 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=41626#comment-186761 Qualified can mean ‘limited or restricted, not absolute’, therefore not qualified is absolute or total.

]]> By: Rishi http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/03/15/financial-times-13944-dante/#comment-186758 Rishi Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:50:28 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=41626#comment-186758 I think I understand Sil’s reservation on 12ac. but I am not sure if I can articulate properly my own opinion.

We may speak of a Government having unqualified success in bringing in an administrative measure; we may say that the Minister has not qualified his statement by adding any rider.

In the second example of mine above, we cannot use ‘total’ instead of ‘not qualified’.

Yes, we can say “The Minister’s statement is not qualified”; but can we say “The Minister’s statement is total” and mean the same thing?

However, instead of “unqualified success”, we can indeed say “total success”.

What I am trying to point out is that we need to derive “unqualified” from “not qualified” before we get ‘total’.

Does anyone else agree with me?

]]> By: Tokyocolin http://www.fifteensquared.net/2012/03/15/financial-times-13944-dante/#comment-186757 Tokyocolin Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:45:40 +0000 http://fifteensquared.net/?p=41626#comment-186757 A simple DD. e.g. Unqualified success. And Total as a verb, to sum up.

]]>