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 (1921)	3/1/1999 12:50:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

Sooner or later we all have to face the fact that the language does change. We also have to decide which changes we will accept and use. Personally, I find the changes that emerge from street talk a lot more useful and a lot less offensive than those from oleaginous bureaucrats. Bu that's just me.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1921)	3/1/1999 8:38:00 AM
From: broken_cookie	Respond to of 4711

As to interject, the origin is jacere, which means to throw. Throw MUST be transitive -- you have to throw something. Now I want to throw up.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1921)	3/1/1999 2:00:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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?>> You're preaching to the converted and elucidating the obvious. <<For the purposes of this intentionally nit-picking thread, I will stick resolutely to the letter of the language.>> But Christopher, the person to whom you addressed your message had made clear she knew the letter of the language, so you were contributing little with your generic fiat to what was proposed, good-humoredly, as a discussion as to the merits of a possible exception-- "...isn't there an argument to be made", I said, and proposed that we consider the possibility that there there was, in fact, an object, albeit an implied one. (I also argued the literary merit of 'throw' in the sentence under discussion.) <<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.>> I conjectured* [oh, do see the next to the paragraph below, re 'conjecture'!] for the fun of the conversation, that an intransitive use of 'interject' offers two specific advantages over the alternatives, I didn't simply say, "I think it's useful." You were actually responsive, in spite of your stuffy tone, to my conjecture, in your offering of three alternatives of which you approved. As it happens, I found your suggestions unpersuasive, because they do exactly what you say 'interject' used intransitively does-- they "lose the power of action." The image was of a person unable to 'throw' a few words into the teeming many. It was more amusing and vivid, to me, than the image of a person unable to 'interrupt' a conversation. <<As to interject, the origin is jacere, which means to throw.>> Yes, I mentioned that. I should confess that my entire post was mostly playful. You seemed to be quite, uh, resolute in yours. Or possibly I misunderstood your tone. Sometimes when one is writing quickly, one can sound patronizing when one is only in a hurry. (Re conjecture: verb-intransitive, origin jacere, meaning to make a conjecture... So evidently, Christopher, it is an erroneous conclusion on your part that "Throw MUST be transitive.") <<or if he really wanted to startle, could have resurrected the archaic but startling irrupt.>> If you have no objection to archaic words, I'm afraid you must now retract your objection to 'interject' used as an intransitive verb, Christopher. From the OED: Interject v 2. intransitive b. to come between; to intervene, interpose . Obs. rare.*