You seem to be operating on the notion that I want this conversation to go forward and that I will work with you to make sure that it does.
Not at all, Joe. I'm operating on the principle of calling out those who describe silly notions about English. You certainly qualify there. I believe, firmly, that you do not want this conversation to go forward. That's evident from all your tangents, from you refusal to actually address the issue that, note, Joe, YOU RAISED.
Furthermore, I am quite confident that you are much more eager to interact with me -- or, for that matter, anyone -- on this board than I am interested in interacting with you.
I'm not really interested in interacting with you at all, Joe. It's not all that enjoyable trying to sort out your dissembling.
I'm just not willing to let someone advance ludicrous notions about language.
As for interaction, there's been none from you. You advanced that ludicrous idea without ever offering anything in the way of proof. You fell back immediately to your lawyering ways, twisting everything in order to avoid the issue. It must have been because you have realized just how dumb that prescription is.
This might lead one to think that you are doing this just to be malicious considering how inane the idea is. You can rest assured that there aren't many, [any? besides Eva] who agree with you because there are many who would love to set me straight about language.
This would even be something that could draw Setanta or Tico out of their little holes.
Suffice it to say that JoefromChicago, previously thought to have some smarts about English and language, is just another silly prescriptivist. A prescriptivist who is comfortable wallowing in his own ignorance.