Re: "mulct" no longer used?

From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 13:05:47 GMT

me wrote:

That is, would no one now say, "Hynix mulcted for substantial damages by
Rambus"?

Hynix decked by Rambus to huge tune
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31222

Would that at any point in the history of English have been a
grammatical sentence?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "mulct" no longer used?
  - From: benlizro

Prev by Date: Re: The map of typological features
Next by Date: Re: each other?
Previous by thread: Re: "mulct" no longer used?
Next by thread: Re: "mulct" no longer used?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: "mulct" no longer used?
... That is, would no one now say, "Hynix mulcted for substantial damages by ... most common in the 19th century. ... But is Rambus the plaintiff or the judge? ... "Mulct" does seem to have become less common since the 1960s. ...
(sci.lang)
Re: "mulct" no longer used?
... "Hynix decked by Rambus to huge tune ... staggering $306.5 million today from Korean firm Hynix. ...
(sci.lang)
Re: "mulct" no longer used?
... That is, would no one now say, "Hynix mulcted for substantial damages by ... most common in the 19th century. ... But is Rambus the plaintiff or the judge? ... "Mulct" does seem to have become less common since the 1960s. ...
(sci.lang)
Re: "mulct" no longer used?
... That is, would no one now say, "Hynix mulcted for substantial damages ... Hynix decked by Rambus to huge tune ... "Mulct" does seem to have become less common since the 1960s. ...
(sci.lang)