Periods Meeting Quotes

I did a Ctrl F, Roberta, and found only two instances of the word 'liar'. Both were in your own postings. For me to address your statement, above, would require that you directly reference where you believe I called you a liar.

If you would care to do that, I'd be more than willing to provide you a reply.

It doesn't necessarily make you [or Frank] a liar, Roberta.

What was written is a lie. I can't imagine that you have, on purpose, set out to deceive, but what you wrote was nevertheless, a deception, something that is untrue about the English language.

I've explained it in other posts. Words like 'everyone' are grammatical singular, but that is only a convention. It's not a matter of logic or a commandment handed down from on high.

Words like 'everyone' are notionally plural which makes the singular use, the indefinite use of the they/their/them pronouns so natural. These examples are a different grammatical animal than the pronoun where there is a definite referent, which would then trigger a her or him.

You silent ones sure do like it when the sand in your sandbox lies undisturbed. That's fine for a child but haven't you long ago passed that stage. It seems not.

I think we have a hyena on the porch.

Not that any of my comments are useful to Roberta.

Why should you be concerned that your comments be useful to Roberta, Osso? Do you have so little regard for the truth?

Perhaps you might consider some comments that actually address the language issues raised.

Heyenas are mostly harmless if you just ignore them. Not worth the effort to kick them out of your way.

Eagles don't hunt flies.

True.

What gets up my goat is that an ellipsis, "more correct" and a hyphen were treated with disdain.

That Johnny English is quite the comedian.

Spell much, Tico?

You lack both the brains and the bravery to tackle any issue that is remotely controversial.

You're not an eagle, Tico. You're nothing more than a buzzard.

Note that not a one of you grammar wizards has addressed any of the actual language issues.

I've had jtt on ignore for years. Y'all clue me in to what I didn't want to read.
Pedant, pedant, pedant, pedant, pedant, pedant (and so on).

Sure, Osso, tell us another one.

In one respect, I agree with you. I view the spoken language as instinctive and informal. If someone says "everyone" and follows it with a "they," I think nothing of it.

Where we disagree is in the written language, which I view as more formal in many, but not all, cases. So when it comes to writing, your opinion is the truth, and my opinion is a lie--from your perspective. I think it's pointless to discuss this. And I won't, beyond what I've already said.

I usually avoid confrontation like the plague. But you really make me angry. What can I tell ya.

PS: Thanks to the person who added the tag. It made me laugh out loud.

Getting back to the original topic, I can see a colon fitting in there nicely:

He tilted his head to glance at me, eyebrows raised: “You ever going to get the burnt-out house cleared away?”

It has struck me Frank that another reason is that when I first came on A2K there was a clique centred in New York the members of which fancied themselves as intellectuals. They had face to face meetings and encouraged similar meetings with others further afield.

We were exposed to photographs of them from time to time. Lola's salon is how I saw it. It is now dispersed

Direct social contact tends to be much more polite than contact between strangers in the interests of preserving group unity. Certain topics are avoided.

The same thing applies in pubs. Dog lovers, happily married men, DIY fanatics, men with daughters, Autocar readers, foreign holidaymakers, abused women and suchlike are best steered away from in conversations which purport to be objective because activities of that nature are so easy to take the piss out of and thus break up the social interaction. Basically, anything the members of these temporary groups are unduly sensitive about.

I see what you complained about as a positive. Resistance analysis is a psychiatric tool which enables the shrink to get to know the nut better. The polite conversation forever remains superficial and thus a meeting of minds never really happens. It can be asserted to be happening. It often is.

To digress a little, I think that the conservative position on the coming American National Health Service is an attempt to preserve the polite relationship between the better off patient and the doctor. A National Health Service inevitable drifts into a more expert and more anonymous treatment. Whatever social cachet derives from being on first name terms with one's doctor it encourages the smooth talking type of doctor who has probably learned his patter as a cover for lack of expertise. The NHS is a great leveller and the average conservative isn't too fond of being reduced to a similar piece of meat as a hobo which he (or she) actually is scientifically.

On the resistance analysis principle Fox News gives the impression of being exceedingly sensitive to this consideration.

Which is exactly what the situation was here, Roberta. And yet you had the temerity to tell Joe England that his sentence was incorrect. It most certainly was not. Has there been an apology directed to Joe England?



You are being sneaky about this, Roberta. Of course, writing is more formal. Everyone knows that. But a post at A2K is not an example of formal writing and yet you told Joe that his sentence was incorrect. That was wrong.

Your opinion doesn't matter and neither does mine. Opinions don't drive the grammar of languages. What matters are the facts about language, which, I must note, you are going to great lengths to avoid addressing. So of course, the "I think it's pointless to discuss this" is thrown up.

It's not pointless for you to discuss it, Roberta, it's that you realize that your position has little merit.



I'm sorry that I've made you angry, but what can you expect when you provide false information about a very important topic?

What can you expect when you falsely tell someone that their natural language use is incorrect?

What can you expect when you refuse to address the language science that shows that this prescription is nonsense, that it has always been nonsense.




It made me laugh too, Roberta. But it's actually sad in a way to think that there are weasels like this who, for reasons I can't fathom, want to perpetuate the nonsense, the lies about language.

I dunno, but I suspect, that JTT had a bad experience with an English teacher
in his childhood, and this is his way of prosecuting a symbolic, obsessive vendetta based on flawed reasoning.





David

Excellent discussion of the language issues, Mensan Dave.

This is the very issue that you promised, numerous times, to address. Here it is, right in front of you and this psychology babble is the sum total that you provide.

Talk about flawed reasoning, eh, Om?

I have re-iterated, several times:
if u want me to answer a question,
then tell me what it IS.

Jesus, you are thick!

I'm not your babysitter, Om. Supposedly, you have a brain, though you give little indication of that here.