Fine-Tuning 25, A Somewhat Unique Post

One day Frank will admit that he, too, can be wrong from time to time. (When that happens, of course, the world will be utterly changed and the Second Coming will be acknowledged by one and all. There shall be weeping and the gnashing of teeth.)

Frank, the funny thing is that I agree with your views probably 99 percent of the time. (I don't always jump in to say so since you generally don't need backup.) This is the one percent where you and I are in disagreement. My major reason for posting, however, was not so much to register that disagreement as to share my amusement at the fact that you and Craven both seemed to be competing for the prize (whatever it might be) offered by the debating society. It tickled me no end. But I hope we can still be friends.

For e.g. there is a simple binary difference between probable and improbable. But in addition to that there are degrees. Anything over 50 is probable, anything under 50 is improbable. But there are degrees of probability beyond that.

Once you have deemed the odds of an event or circumstance to be greater than 50% -- the event or circumstance is considered to be PROBABLE.

The fact that the odds in favor of any particular event or circumstance are only 51% is of no consequences -- if it is deemed to be over 50%, it is PROBABLE.

It is not made even a tiny bit less probable if one can show that some other "probable" event or circumstance has odds of happening a great deal greater than 51% -- say 98 - 99%.

I cringed when it no longer became necessary to worry about sentences that ended in prepositions. I cringed when split infinitives were no longer no-nos. And I cringed when I found that some authorities accept unique as a modifiable word.

Grammar Puss

The scandal of the language mavens began in the 18th Century. The London dialect had become an important world language, and scholars began to criticize it as they would any institution, in part to question the authority of the aristocracy. Latin was considered the language of enlightenment and learning and it was offered as an ideal of precision and logic to which English should aspire. The period also saw unprecedented social mobility, and anyone who wanted to distinguish himself as cultivated had to master the best version of English. These trends created a demand for handbooks and style manuals, which were soon shaped by market forces: the manuals tried to outdo one another by including greater numbers of increasingly fastidious rules that no refined person could afford to ignore. Most of the hobgoblins of contemporary prescriptive grammar (don't split infinitives, don't end a sentence with a preposition) can be traced back to these 18th Century fads.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

I will continue to view it as it is, JTT: You are obsessed with me.

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5242183)
Quote:
I will continue to view it as it is, JTT: You are obsessed with me.

That response is totally in keeping with your dishonest nature, Frank. If you weren't so delusional, you would notice that anyone who advances these lies about language receives the same.

If you weren't so delusional you would have listened to Craven and his argument which should have told you, if you weren't such a blockhead, that you were out to lunch. But thru that whole discussion, you never once addressed the facts. But it should be noted that you are highly diligent in addressing, and sticking to, your delusions.

That discussion was also highly instructive in that it shows that the Frank Apisa reinvention is really the same old Frank dressed up in something you stole right from Craven.

That only highlights your patently dishonest nature.

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5243076)
Not you at all, Frank.

I explained that clearly.

That you would avoid that describes how you avoid anything pertinent in favor of dishonesty.

I don't like it when no-nothings like you try to correct others for their natural language and I don't like it when dishonest people like you flaunt their dishonesty.

Keep doing it, like you could actually stop, and you get the same - me pointing out your lies about language and your mendacious manner.

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5243092)
Catch ya later, you paradosian/apisian prevaricator.