weaker VS more weakly

One doesn't. Furthermore, colloquial means as is used in a formal conversation, look up colloquy. I don't know what you think you're saying, but claiming that something is colloquial does not mean that it can be considered good usage--it often means something which is only used in conversation and sometimes even a bad usage which is only used in conversation.

You routinely come into threads about English in which someone, and not necessarily me, has given a reasonable, helpful answer, and you muddy the waters with the bullsh*t you post. I have never seen any evidence at this site that you have a good command of English, much less that you are qualified to give advice on English usage--and the sad part is that these people take you seriously.

In defense of my detractors my Better Half, who is much smarter than I, agrees that "…the common lay person, 'everyman,' might be jarred…." by my usage

Not here it doesn't

http://onelook.com/?w=colloquial&ls=a

Yes of course, informal. But doesn't this contradict your previous assertion

We might be having a problem with semantics or typos

Again my most abject apologies to anyone I might have offended. Be assured I'm only trying to be helpful

Alas alack, partly old age and incipient Alz's, partly laziness

They must be seriously deranged

Yes, they must be seriously deranged, as you must be when you post one of those long lists of defintion. As is the case with the idiot videos that "Reasoning Logic" so often posts, i'm not going to waste my time on them. I don't have a problem with semantics, although i could certain see that you would, and often do.

Knock off the Alzheimer's bullsh*t. If you actually had that condition, you couldn't get online to read, let alone post the swine you routinely leave here to trample the pearls of others into the mud of your compositional style.

You routinely come into threads about English in which someone, and not necessarily me, has given a reasonable, helpful answer, and you muddy the waters with the bullsh*t you post. I have never seen any evidence at this site that you have a good command of English, much less that you are qualified to give advice on English usage--and the sad part is that these people take you seriously.

I didn't have to change a word - you've described yourself, Setanta.

Here's some of that famous bullshit of yours now:

I don't know what you think you're saying, but claiming that something is colloquial does not mean that it can be considered good usage--it often means something which is only used in conversation and sometimes even a bad usage which is only used in conversation.

Thank you JTT for your support. However Set's last remark, except for its introductory clause, I thought fairly accurate def of collo

Do you mean this crap, below, from Setanta, or something else, Dale?

but claiming that something is colloquial does not mean that it can be considered good usage--it often means something which is only used in conversation and sometimes even a bad usage which is only used in conversation.

I meant specifically that passage JTT, can't find anything terribly wrong with it

Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious. It happens often in one's old age

So I showed it to my No. 2 Son, who is much smarter than I, and he responded, "I don't see anything wrong with it either, except it's a sort of run-on sentence"

I suppose one could dispute the use of "only," but it's a stretch

It wasn't the grammar, Dale - the content was crap, typical Setanta crap.

Okay JTT but how exactly

Judging from just that passage alone, by my purely conventional interpretation it appears a perfectly logical def

If something has slipped past (subtle typo of some sort?) you'll have to forgive my ancient brain or the persistence of my curiosity

but claiming that something is colloquial does not mean that it can be considered good usage

This, Dale, is pure crap. Whatever is colloquial is good usage. If it wasn't good usage it wouldn't be colloquial.

-it often means something which is only used in conversation and sometimes even a bad usage which is only used in conversation.-

Setanta is confusing, as many do, the differences between standard and nonstandard English. The former is not the gold standard, against which all language is measured.

Aha now I see JTT, it's the meaning of "good." Back in my day it wasn't so clearly defined

Also I'm still puzzled about such strenuous objections from some quarters in the use of "weakly" as adj

I'll put it as simply as I can. There are lots of adjectives ending in -ly. Manly, womanly, sickly, poorly (meaning unwell), friendly, many more. A page of them here:

http://www.englishcorner.vacau.com/vocabulary/lyadjs.html

At one time there was 'weakly'. If someone was weakly they possessed the quality of, or tendency to, weakness. They lacked physical strength or vitality. They were frail, sickly or of a delicate constitution. They were a weakling. In short, they were, as we would say now, weak. It is obsolete in modern standard English. It happens to share the same spelling as a Modern English adverb.

Contrex's triumph - stealing others ideas and words and not getting caught.

Ooooooppppppps.

===============

Contrex stealing another person's words and ideas.

Quote:

http://able2know.org/topic/217676-1

Post # 5,380,743

@contrex,
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-allergy/AN01109

What's the difference between a food intolerance and food allergy?

Answer
from James T C Li, M.D., Ph.D. : A food intolerance can cause some of the same signs and symptoms as a food allergy, so people often confuse the two.

Contrex: A food intolerance can cause some of the same signs and symptoms as a food allergy, so people often confuse the two.

James T C Li, M.D., Ph.D.: A true food allergy causes an immune system reaction that affects numerous organs in the body. It can cause a range of symptoms. In some cases, an allergic food reaction can be severe or life-threatening. In contrast, food intolerance symptoms are generally less serious and are limited to digestive problems.

Contrex: A true food allergy causes an immune system reaction that affects numerous organs in the body. It can cause a range of symptoms. In some cases, an allergic food reaction can be severe or life-threatening. In contrast, food intolerance symptoms are generally less serious and are limited to digestive problems.

Aha thanks Con, now I understand what they're so upset about. I would reply, "Just wait til you're 83"

None of our dictionaries so indicate, even a Random House Webster's 1997, seems only yesterday. Alas, how quickly obsolescence sets in

Yet even today…….

http://www.google.ca/#fp=dc5d45fc1e40efce&q=is+weakly+obsolete+as+adjective

http://www.google.ca/#fp=dc5d45fc1e40efce&q=weakly+outdated+as+adjective

http://www.google.ca/#fp=dc5d45fc1e40efce&q=weakly+declared+obsolete+or+outdated+as+adjective

Perhaps to clarify: in journalese, demand for a product can be feeble, weak, flat, falling, etc or it can be strong, buoyant, rising and so on, but it can't be weakly for the same reason that is can't be manly or poorly because only a person can be weakly. Midwives might still talk about weakly babies, I suppose.

A quick Googling Con--surprisingly (to me anyhow)-- would seem to confirm that observation

http://www.google.ca/#fp=dc5d45fc1e40efce&q=weakly+demand

Even "weakly baby" is something of a stretch

http://www.google.ca/#fp=dc5d45fc1e40efce&q=weakly+baby