"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote
WRONG! It is certainly possible to make repeated, indirect references,
which is what you have done.
*Constant allusions* then means to make a series of allusions. This is
what you did and I have accurately described your actions.

But one cannot make constant passing references. Look up the meaning of
passing references and you can see, by definition, that 'passing'
references cannot be constant.

Boy, are you ever stupid! Just admit you're wrong. Be a man for once in
your
pathetic little life.

Who says the word *passing* is a part of the definition of *allusion*? You?
LOL!
*Passing* is not used in any of my dictionaries. Since you insist on using
this qualifier, the burden is on you to show one linguist who agrees with
you. I certainly do not.
Scout
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=allusion

"Scout" wrote
*Passing* is not used in any of my dictionaries. Since you insist on using
this qualifier, the burden is on you to show one linguist who agrees with
you. I certainly do not.
Scout

Look up the term 'obiter dictum' and you will see the error of your ways . . .

Capt. Neal
Ph.D. English Language Studies

"Dr.. Neal" wrote
Look up the term 'obiter dictum' and you will see the error of your ways .
. .

I'm familiar with the phrase. I don't recall using it in my post though, so
I don't see why you should refer to it.
It's similar but certainly not synomomous with allusion.
Keep trying Doctor Knowlittle!
Scout

"Scout" wrote

I'm familiar with the phrase. I don't recall using it in my post though, so
I don't see why you should refer to it.
It's similar but certainly not synomomous with allusion.
Keep trying Doctor Knowlittle!

Apparently NOT! If you were familiar with obiter dictum, you would
know it refers to "passing" as in passing reference. Duh! And you
claim to be a teacher.

I pity your students.

CN