of course "pote" is not a word in and of itself. yet one can describe something as "potable". weird right? moreover, the term seldom gets used unless something is described as NON-potable. (see also: "ruthless". in that, to do something WITH ruth is neither worthy of mention nor grammatically correct.)
I’ll Take Potent Potables for a Thousand, Alex
of course "pote" is not a word in and of itself. yet one can describe something as "potable". weird right? moreover, the term seldom gets used unless something is described as NON-potable. (see also: "ruthless". in that, to do something WITH ruth is neither worthy of mention nor grammatically correct.)
ReplyDeleteand that's one to grow on..