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: Wigglesworth who wrote (2526)	5/21/1999 11:36:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

Another example, Weisenheimer: This sentence, illustrating one of the uses of the word "both", comes from the Cambridge International Dictionary, an English dictionary for foreigners: Tension continued to grow on both sides* of the border.* That same thought could be expressed, quite correctly, as follows: Tension continued to grow on each side* of the border.* I should also like to return to another point. This is not a thread for one-up-manship, for "getting" the other guy. It is a thread for people who love language, and who share that love with one another. jbe

To: Wigglesworth who wrote (2526)	5/21/1999 11:50:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 4711

>The implication is that it is NOT important at other times.< Correctly inferred I say. Furthermore, the implication holds truth. It's possible to know the difference between right and wrong and yet keep one's counsel out of courtesy. Factual and social correctness are at times hypergolic. I would be loath to win the battle and forfeit the war.

To: Wigglesworth who wrote (2526)	5/22/1999 12:11:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

One more point, Mr. W. I think your argument is more illogical than mine. There is all the difference in the world between violating a totally imaginary or antiquated rule and violating a rule that every educated person is still expected to observe. For example, most educated people no longer observe the very elaborate rules for the use of "shall" and "will", to which Fowler devotes 20 full pages in The King's English. As a matter of fact, not even Fowler, writing in 1906, expected them to. As he put it then (93 years ago): "It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous), is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being virtually useless." Why not go back to Chaucer? Certainly we no longer speak Chaucerian English....Think of all the "rules" that have been violated in order to get us to where we are today! Languages evolve, and you can no more prevent them from evolving than you can keep a child from growing. The confusion of "sight" and "site" is a simple spelling error. One look at the dictionary reveals which is which. (It also helps to have studied Latin, which should make it obvious that the two words are derived from two different languages.) Although no doubt I should point out that in Chaucer's day, or in Shakespeare's day (how many different ways did Shakespeare spell his own name?), this confusion would have bothered no one. The confusion of "they're" and "their", on the other hand, is a grievous grammatical error. Anyone who makes it reveals that he (or she) can't tell a verb form from a possessive adjective. Although languages DO evolve, they are highly unlikely to lose whole parts of speech. And so forth and so on... It seems to me that we are needlessly re-fighting the battle between "prescriptive grammar" and "descriptive grammar." jbe

To: Wigglesworth who wrote (2526)	5/23/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 4711

Here in your post, we have the perfect illustration of your problem. I'm glad I found it. It's your intention that is getting in your way. You see, L.R.R. happens to be one of the wittiest and most humorous people on SI. Additionally, he has an abhorrence of vilification of people. I'm saying he's right or wrong, I'm saying he's an artist when he writes. If you read his posts, you would see that. Your attempt at ridicule is not only stale, it is useless. Your intention is clear, you wish to draw the people you are talking to down to the emotional state you are in. To some extent, you have succeeded, but only because others refuse to be sucked in to your personal debate. Overall, your post remains illustrative of a pompous and short sighted boor, a person who insists on being correct at the expense of living life, a person who ends up "dead right", a person who gets his own jokes and doesn't get anyone else's. Why create enemies from people who could easily be your friends? Would it not be easier to create some friends? You must examine your intention, my friend. That is the key.