[quote name=\'TenPoundHammer\' post=\'209273\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 05:23 PM\']
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'209258\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 05:11 PM\']
[quote name=\'TenPoundHammer\' post=\'209241\' date=\'Mar 1 2009, 04:09 PM\']Forgive the bump, but wouldn't "McCain and Palin" be buzzed since it's a prepositional phrase?[/quote]
Your English teacher would like a word with you. "And" is not a preposition. It is a conjunction.
/Cue the music.
[/quote]
Bleah. I meant conjunction. I swear, I'm having more brain farts than ever. Do they have Brain Beano for that?
Seriously, I was under the impression that conjunctions weren't allowed either. I know I've seen phrases with "and" buzzed on $25KP/$100KP.
[/quote]
Ordinary conjunctions were generally legal; subordinating conjunctions were not, because they generally turned into descriptions.
Example: THINGS ON A LICENSE PLATE (actual category)
Clue: the state in which it was made (actual buzzed clue)
As an example of prepositions and ordinary conjunctions, I give this.
Example: THINGS THAT ARE TRADED (actual category)
Legal clue (mine): Brock and Broglio
Illegal variant: Brock for Broglio
I suspect that the "description" rule got extended to prepositional phrases in general because they tended to be descriptions. In the above example, Lou Brock and Ernie Broglio are two players who were traded, no problem. In the latter, the meaning is that Lou Brock was traded for Ernie Broglio. "for Ernie Broglio" here modifies the verb "traded", not the noun "Lou Brock".