Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (2819)	6/10/1999 3:50:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

Christopher, a few comments on your suggestions. We have often discussed usage (in the sense of your point <a>), and some of the exchanges have actually been quite entertaining. I have been thinking of putting some of them together for a new Anthology to post in the Grammar Clubhouse. Perhaps some of the old discussions will help spark new ones. Or new ones will spark interest in the old ones. Or whatever. Speaking of emoticons, btw, it seems to me that it is not the word people object to so much, as the concept. That is, emoticons DO exist, so you have to have a word for them. But some people deny the need for, or the desirability of, their very existence. I was among their number once. (How have the mighty fallen!) In fact, we had a long discussion about them once right on this thread, in which, as I recall, we denounced emoticons heartily -- and then proceeded to use them liberally. As for the criteria to be used in deciding which words or usages should be "approved," my bet is that posters here will fall into one of two opposed camps: the camp of the "prescriptivists," and the camp of the "descriptivists." (Believe it or not, I belong to the latter camp, most of the time.) It will be interesting to see.. Joan