h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(a) he said it once only
(b) he said it at least once
The grammar aimed at is that which other people will (A) understand in the way that you meant it and (B) not be kaughed at

kaughed?
Is that a cross between a laugh and a cough?

On the button!

Not convinced!

I agree with Wand'rin Star, but with a subtle twist.

The form with "has" is called the perfective aspect of the verb. Technically, in grammar, it means something which has happened in the past, but has some relevance to the present. So, "he said" is a direct report: you're referring to a specific occasion, that's why it implies "he said it once". "He has said" refers to a non-specific time in the past. It implies that it is recent and that the speaker/writer expects that "he" would say the same thing now (i.e. this is a view that "he" holds). If you're being pedantic, you could argue that it is often used in exactly the opposite case: to contrast what he has said that somehow contradicts something else.

RE:
> you could argue... <

That's because the 'has' formation postulates a premise. (1)

And god knows politicians never keep their premises.

~jwf~


(1) a premise is like a theory - it demands discussion and polarised debate - one would use the 'has' formation, especially, to introduce an argument against a stated premise.

I'm with W on this

TB has said = he said it at least once in the past even if he changed his story later(we don't have it on the tape).
TB said = we have it on the tape.

Yep, Manolan,
but with a small equivocation:
he said = direct report,
he has said = he said it on an unspecified occasion,
but if heading for an argument or attempt to discredit, then
he had said.
(Thinks)
"He said that he has said that he had said that he would buy me an ice cream, but he forgot."
H'mmm.

Vanilla was it?

Did we include buff in the sense of someone who knows all about something?

Film buff, car buff...

There.

But haven't they just been polishing up their knowledge?

Buff in the sense of polishing, the colour, and an expert all stem from buffe - French for buffalo: the hides got called buffs, and by association the colour of buffalo hides became buff too; watchmakers and jewellers used buff for polishing, which created the verb; New York volunteer firemen were known as buffs because of their uniform, and the word got transferred to apply to mean any volunteer or enthusiast.

"Steady the Buffs."

If Mycroft is to be believed (and I suggest he is in this case) then logic dictates that "bare buff" comes from this same source. There is no reason to suspect we are being buffaloed this time.

Logic is right, John: being in the buff means you're wearing nothing but your hide. Plaguesville's Kipling quote has the same provenance, albeit a different meaning. To be in buff meant to be in the army, as many uniforms of the 16th and 17th centuries were made from buffalo hide.

Shirley not their whole Uniforms? Maybe their Boots or their Uniforms were buff in colour....

Don't call me Shirley!

No, not their whole uniforms - although a few regiments did sport attire from the Davy Crockett collection. I should have said 'buff leather' rather than 'buffalo hide', as most buff doesn't even come from buffalos. Just to confuse things, elements of many soldiers' uniforms were buff in colour, but not made from buff leather, while most of the bits that were made from buff got dyed or bleached. All the white straps and details on an English redcoat's jacket, for example, were made from buff.

Is buffalo hide made from the Old World Water Buffalo or is it from the American Buffalo (Bison)?

It refers to the Old World one. The only meaning of buff to come out of the USA is the enthusiastic one.