"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

Would you accept the use of "loves" in this

Quote:
i know O'George loves this song.

The only problem with that, JT, is that ducks and geese migrating and salmon returning to their birthplace are not part of the certain things I was referring to.

Describe for me some rules that are prescriptive.

That names of people begin with a capital letter. Which mr e.e,cummings abused as does Setanta when he wishes to downplay his ego. As you do with my username.

as does Setanta when he wishes to downplay his ego

"Terribly" is the wrong word.

I've just been reading David Foster Wallace, ... . That man could write,

I'm more than a little surprised that such a simple question could create such heat. I'm guessing this is more about personality clashes than grammar primers. I'm not interested in taking sides and I'm not sure at this point with which poster I may or may not agree. I'm not sure why I even posted since this whole whoop de do is pretty silly

glitterbag says:

Quote:

I'm more than a little surprised that such a simple question could create such heat. I'm guessing this is more about personality clashes than grammar primers. I'm not interested in taking sides and I'm not sure at this point with which poster I may or may not agree. I'm not sure why I even posted since this whole whoop de do is pretty silly

That's kind of what happens when you've got a descriptivistnazi in the house.
[/quote

I don't know what that means. I don't think I want to know.

Ossobucco, I know what you mean, sometimes authors blow me away with their skill.
To the other poster: you can learn something from someone you envy or dislike. If you are smart, you will educate yourself, if you aren't smart, c'est la vie.

Correct gammar and informal spoken English usually differ. However, if you are applying for a job, your résumé and job interview should be done in accordance with proper grammar. You never go wrong with correct grammar,

Stan·dard English

NOUN:
The variety of English that is generally acknowledged as the model for the speech and writing of educated speakers.

Usage Note:
People who invoke the term Standard English rarely make clear what they have in mind by it, and tend to slur over the inconvenient ambiguities that are inherent in the term. Sometimes it is used to denote the variety of English prescribed by traditional prescriptive norms, and in this sense it includes rules and usages that many educated speakers don't systematically conform to in their speech or writing, such as the rules for use of who and whom. In recent years, however, the term has more often been used to distinguish the speech and writing of middle-class educated speakers from the speech of other groups and classes, which are termed nonstandard. This is the sense in which the word is used in the usage labels in this dictionary. But it should be borne in mind that when it is used in this way, the term is highly elastic and variable, since what counts as Standard English will depend on both the locality and the particular varieties that Standard English is being contrasted with. A form that is considered standard in one region may be nonstandard in another, and a form that is standard by contrast with one variety (for example the language of inner-city African Americans) may be considered nonstandard by contrast with the usage of middle-class professionals. No matter how it is interpreted, however, Standard English in this sense shouldn't be regarded as being necessarily correct or unexceptionable, since it will include many kinds of language that could be faulted on various grounds, like the language of corporate memos and television advertisements or the conversations of middle-class high-school students. Thus while the term can serve a useful descriptive purpose providing the context makes its meaning clear, it shouldn't be construed as conferring any absolute positive evaluation.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Standard%20English

However this thread strikes you, gtb, the argument is not "silly".

Everything the contra-prescriptivist says is banal. It is well known that there are different ways of using language depending upon location, class, habit, pronunciation, accent, spelling and even different meanings to the same word.

A standard usage, as you imply, provides a unity. The land mass now known as the USA had many languages, as I gave an example of, not very long ago. Now there is a semblance of a unified standard which is a symbol of a unified political entity.

JTT is well known for drawi. ng attention to the damage the US causes to the world and perhaps thinks that returning the area to what it used to be in terms of language use will eliminate the power. Which it would if there was a few dozen or more localised tribes and no prescriptivist base line.

The argument is not silly. It is silly to assert that it is.
[/quot

Something tells me you are pontificating. The fact you assert this issue to be so important is silly. Lets compromise, I will acknowledge that this is superficially important if you will acknowledge the responses are all heat and no light. Sometimes an orange is just an orange, not symbolic of superficial tarted up self important clap trap designed to make someone sound smarter than the rest of the membership.

Well this has been as much fun as I thought it would be, don't think I need any more fun of this sort. Everybody go enjoy the rest of the evening.

JTT is well known for drawing attention to the damage the US causes to the world and perhaps thinks that returning the area to what it used to be in terms of language use will eliminate the power. Which it would if there was a few dozen or more localised tribes and no prescriptivist base line.

The argument is not silly. It is silly to assert that it is.

if I was you JT

Re: spendius (Post 5269726)
if I was you JT

It also helps to form a disciplined mind.