Bettina, I hope there is something in Knitlass’ comment on your comment yesterday, to give your son something to think about. There are plenty of ways forward other than university and all that debt, and I very much hope he will find one of them soon. As for Archie, he sounded perfectly cheerful when he phoned on Thursday with the news that he would be going to Lancaster. He’ll be fine.
His whole family, including dog, has now set forth on the drive across Europe to Edinburgh. Today, Ravenna, which for Helen, the mosaicist, will be like Shetland to me.
And as for knitting, I got the stitches picked up and the gusset decreases worked, on the second Vampire sock. Time to begin thinking about the next pair.
And I moved a bit forward with the Uncia. I am currently mired in another instruction to “repeat rows XX-YY a further 7 times”. And there’s another such passage before I reach the sunny uplands of the charts. I love the way it’s looking, fanning out indeed like a Gothic column as it expands to support the lacy ceiling of the cathedral.
Here’s the threatened grammar lesson. It’s from the article about the Trumps in the current New Yorker. The author identifies herself as Harvard, so I’m not picking on someone smaller than myself.
“…his younger sister, Esther Schulder, whom he believed was cooperating with Christie.”
That’s wrong. “Whom” should be “who”. You don’t need rules. Just unpick the sentence – “he believed (“she”? or “her”?) was cooperating…” Obviously, “she”. So “who”, when you put it back together.
Extraordinarily, there’s another example of the same construction later in the same sentence. “…he set a trap for her husband…whom he resented for having had an affair at the office.” “Whom” is right, that time. “He resented him (not “he”) for having had an affair…”
Now you know how to do it.
I still have The Hunting of the Snark open on the table here, and discover, when they have landed and are preparing for the actual hunt:
But the Beaver went on making lace, and displayed
No interest in the concern.
Though the Barrister tried to appeal to its pride,
And vainly proceeded to cite
A number of cases, in which making lacesHad been proved an infringement of right.