Talk:Elizabeth Porter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Style and grammar are poor; probably all worth saying can be said more compactly. Reaching that point may permit a better judgement on whether merging it with Samuel Johnson will do any harm to his article -- which would probably be the only reason to consider leaving it as a separate article. She is not notable, tho the fact that her story has survived suggests that the interest in him has made her story ency'ic as a part of his.
--Jerzy·t 18:31, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
Cleanup done. Tearlach 12:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd say not merge: there's enough here for a self-contained article. Tearlach 12:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
A picture of the lady would be nice. Does one exist? Bastie 00:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- One does: here at the Johnson Society website (somehow I missed it previously). It'd be worth asking them permission for use; I can definitely improve the gamma on that image. 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] first married, with three grown-up children
"she was first married, with three grown-up children, to Henry Porter, a Birmingham merchant." -- Say what?
- She and three grown-up children were married to Porter?
- She had three grown-up children when she first married?
- When she was first married, to Porter, he already had three grown-up children?
The last seems the most logical choice, but also the most difficult to extract from the grammar of the sentence.
- Oh heck, now I'm thinking that this might mean,
- "When she married Johnson, she already had three grown-up children from her first marriage."
Help, please! -- 201.78.233.162 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, my fault for the klunky phrasing. The last is the case. Her first marriage was to Porter, by whom she had three children, who were grown-up when Johnson came on the scene. Tearlach 20:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)