Ctrl + alt plus "e" gives me € from within MS Word, nothing outside it. (Those shortcuts, such as ctrl + ' followed by e or a are unique to the program being used as well. They work for me in Word, but not outside it.)

If you know the ASCII value for any character, you can create that character by holding the alt key while typing zero folowed by the code, then releasing the alt key. (You must use the number pad, not the number keys above the letter keys.)

è 0232 | ò 0242
é 0233 | ó 0243
à 0224 | º 0186 (degree)
á 0225 | ¢ 0162
ç 0231 | × 0215 (multiplication)
¥ 0165 | œ 0156
€ 0128 | æ 0230
® 0174 | ™ 0153
º 0186 | ¹ 0185
² 0178 | ³ 0179
£ 0163 | § 0167
± 0177 | ÷ 0247
ƒ 0131 | ¿ 0191, ¡ 0161
µ 0181 | ß 0223
¼ ½ ¾ 0188 – 0190

" 'The accent above the last IS needed, without it the e would not be pronounced in English.'

"This is the epitome* of nonsense. Of course the 'e' at the end is pronounced, with or without an accent. You're confusing the written representation of the language with the spoken language itself.

"* So, should this be pronounced 'epi-toem' ?"

It seems to me that you are overstating the case. There is an English word "ree ZOOM" but there is no word "EH pih tohm." The accented "e"s make it much clearer (no context required) that the word is "REH zoo may."

The assertion that it was rewuired was probably too stout of an assertion, but your sweeping it aside seems to me to have been too far in the other direction.

Without the accent, it is pretty sure that context will clear things up without a hitch, but the accent is very helpful as well.

€

"rodrios says:
April 4, 2008 at 9:05 am
Here here Zirt...."

that comes form a contraction of "Hear him! Hear him!" and so is "Hear, hear," not "Here, here."

I'm highly skeptical of the knife-switch explanation. (I do love those gizmos, however.)

Of course, I cannot be autoritative about it, but I have always thought that this stemmed from:

"Cut the power" + "Turn off the power"
"Cut off the power" (similar to "cut off the flow" or "cut off access to")
By analysis, "Cut on the power."

This then has led to "cut that off," and "cut that on." I've heard both in use.

Snippet from the page: Final Score: 11/11

"This is one of the most common errors people make..."

Uhhh, that would be "One of the MORE common . . . " :-]

I have always taken this to assure that the statement that precedes it is not intended to begin a discussion for the purposes of trying to decide whether it is true, etc., but is intended just to sort of post your opinion.

"That shirt doesn't really go with those pants... I'm just sayin’..." (In my mind’s eye, this statement is delivered with shrugged shoulders and hands turned palms toward the recipient, fingers up, a posture of "I'm not looking for a fight.")

Without the latter statment, this would be an invitation to discuss it. But with the latter, it is more a piece of information for the recipient to do with as he wills--take it or leave it.

Or, if Sue says to Bob, "My boyfriend thinks I talk too much." Then he says, "You do talk a lot... I'm just saying..."

This provides Sue with input that she talks a lot (in a neutral way--neither good nor bad). But Bob is NOT saying, "...and it bothers me, too." He isn't taking up the boyfriend's fight as a proxy, nor is he opening a battle front of his own--he doesn't really care how much Sue talks. But he cares for Sue, so he provides her with his opinion, though making it clear that she can do with the info whatever she likes.

There are other appendages that can be used to modify statements in a way that is amusing, ways that make speech more fun to engage in, such as "so to speak..."