SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: E who wrote (1916)3/1/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (3) of 4711
 
Do you really want to start on the "English is a growing language and we need to accept changes in it" vs. "if anyone can use English to mean whatever they want it to, then it eventually loses all meaning" discussion?

For the purposes of this intentionally nit-picking thread, I will stick resolutely to the letter of the language. Otherwise, this thread will degenerate into a "I think it's a useful construction so that makes it okay" "I don't agree" set of exchanges which gets us nowhere.

As to interject, the origin is jacere, which means to throw. Throw MUST be transitive -- you have to throw something. There is a certain purity in retaining the integrity of the origin of words as long as that remains feasible. If you allow intransitive use of interject, I think you lose some of the power of action. What he meant to say was that one interrupted as his own risk, and he could easily have said that. Or he could have used interpose (v.t. or v.i.) or intrude, or if he really wanted to startle, could have resurrected the archaic but startling irrupt. Or he could have recast the sentence to make his point better. But simple laziness in finding an appropriate word or construction is not an adequate excuse for misusing a word.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext