Shakespearean usage is not modern vernacular. Though even in this usage it means “madmen to their senses”. In that usage senses is a euphemism for sanity, not a direct definition of senses or wits. This again is you trying to obfuscate the fact you used “wits” to mean intellect of which only wit is used. No one says “to wits”. Try harder because this is just sad.
Though even in this usage it means “madmen to their senses”. In that usage senses is a euphemism for sanity, not a direct definition of senses or wits.
Precisely. So restore their sanity, as I said.
This again is you trying to obfuscate the fact you used “wits” to mean intellect of which only wit is used.
Not sure how you got that idea. After all, I did say: "You have your wits (i.e. are sane)."
Yes, being sane. I.e. "though it have holp madmen to their wits".
Nice try, come again.
No, this is hilariously stupid. Senses does not equal sanity nor is “sanity” your original use but intellect was. Squirm more
I mean, you're a nit...wit, so this is not exactly surprising.
What do you think "though it have holp madmen to their wits" means?
Shakespearean usage is not modern vernacular. Though even in this usage it means “madmen to their senses”. In that usage senses is a euphemism for sanity, not a direct definition of senses or wits. This again is you trying to obfuscate the fact you used “wits” to mean intellect of which only wit is used. No one says “to wits”. Try harder because this is just sad.
Precisely. So restore their sanity, as I said.
Not sure how you got that idea. After all, I did say: "You have your wits (i.e. are sane)."