be of a reader. How can this sentence be right?

It would have been an incorrect and, frankly, stupid perception, but I can't be responsible for the over-defensiveness of some people.

A true (and accurate) perception, on the other hand, would be that you are a knob.

Inasmuch as you were commenting on my post, i feel entitled to point out that i didn't vote down the post, that i don't vote down posts, and that i had no feeling negative or positive on your post. I frankly don't care what other people think of the language we use.

I agree, which would be why I made that post.



but I can't be responsible for the over-defensiveness of some people.

but I can't be responsible for the over-defensiveness of some people.

A fair cop...

If I was commenting on anything, it would be JTT's assertion that my post had earned a "big fat zero", as if I had been score-chasing. I don't see how saying a particular usage is mainly confined to US English is "maligning Americans".

Does it not depend on what "great" means. It could mean a voracious reader or it could relate to comprehension of what is read.

I think "as great of a reader" applies to the latter. And also the ability to read out loud in public.

There might be a tendency in readers off tele-prompters to have little or no idea what they are reading means but to be great readers of tele-promters. From what I have seen such a skill seems to correlate with jerky and exaggerated movements of the hands, arms and head which are not always in sync with the emphasis of the words.

A great reader of the Bible might be someone who reads it a lot and never understands its meaning, Or it might mean somebody who reads it far less and who understands it. Or understands it better.

Another example might be the reading of statistics. "I was not as great of a reader of statistics as everybody else in the class was..." means she hadn't the flair for spotting connections others could. "I was not as great a reader of statistics as everybody else in the class was..." means she didn't study statistics so much as the others.

Many avid students of horseflesh have bowed to Lester Piggott's ability to read it at a glance.

It's an interesting subject nateriver. I suggest you change your user-name because it reminds me of at least two things I don't care to be reminded of. One is the natron in which the ancient Egyptians infused bodies with in preparation for embalming. It would be indelicate to mention the other.

Neither do i.

You've got me racking my brains now. How about a clue?

As I mentioned, in perhaps a fashion that has evidently escaped you, C, that most certainly was not my assertion at all. The big fat zero was a simple observation of fact.



Me neither. So, how to explain the big fat zero.

May as well try to explain the failure of the dog to bark in the night, or to put it another way, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Summary: what are you blathering on about? I don't care about those little numbers. Never have. Maybe you should up the Adderall?

I understand that you are attempting to avoid acknowledging you failed to understand, C. Fair enough. We can't change your spots overnight.

Why don't you take up greasy pole pillow fighting JT?

It seems a perfect sport for your temperament.

Could you fill me in on the rules, Spendi?

I understand that you are a troll. Piss off.

No, you are wrong. Native speakers tend to be quite bad at explaining grammar. I have seen it for long time. They always say it's idiom even though it is grammar and Korean grammar teachers very well explain it gramatically. So is this. The reason you guys it is idiom is that you guys don't know how to explain this in grammar ^^

No, you are wrong. The sentences function the same, they deliver the same (unambiguous) message, with or without "of" being inserted. There is no rule of grammar which explains the function of that preposition in this expression. It is simply idiom, and the strongest evidence of that is that English-speakers who are not Americans don't use the expression.

Yes, it's idiom, and its ungrammatical idiom too.

I'm not much of a reader.- okay
I'm not so great a reader.- okay
I'm not so great of a reader.- ungrammatical, idiom.

Oh? What grammatical rule does it violate, McT?

Fill a large tank with water and place a 9 inch diameter smoothed log across it. Grease the pole thickly. The contestants start from each end armed with a pillow. The first in the water is the loser. It should be in the Olympics.

With you Yanks being so tough and all you could replace the water with burning coals.

Right up your street JT.