What are your pet peeves re English usage?

ceraitve spellnig is fun

((Sigh))



There is no deception, JTT, but I am not surprised that you are unfamiliar with the technique. It is called making a point and, by the way, winning an argument.



I would say you are either deliberately misunderstanding, which is most probable, or you need to take another look because you didn't understand, which is less probable.



You cannot possibly be serious. Have you never read any of your own posts? You condescend with every syllable! I am assuming you are referring here to my initial post - the one for which I was, ahem, taken to task. Everything written, as you absolutely know, was intended as lighthearted. If you think otherwise, then you've misinterpreted. If you have specific issues, then be clear.



Which is precisely what you are doing when you try to "apply scientific principles to preferences."

A: People shouldn't be irritated by the use of "literally" when meaning "virtually"

B: Oh, why?

A: Because they know what is intended, and because the dictionary says it can mean either literally OR virtually, therefore they have to like it. They have to like it because science and the dictionary say so.




But I am not applying scientific principles to preferences; that would be you. My whole point, as you surely must know by now, is that preferences do not require scientific principles! They don't require second opinions! You are saying that there must be some logical foundation before a preference can be credible, and I am saying that's ridiculous. To be a true and valid pet peeve must it also come with certification? Perhaps I should have my list of peeves documented in writing, witnessed and notarized. Or is a pet peeve permit required?



Well, if you must have support from others to form an opinion, then perhaps your circle of "knowledgeables" is too small. Widen out.

Virago

Hooray! Another argument!

Well said, Virago, robustly but politely stated.

On this "language" thread, it is amazing how personal these post can get. Not dusty at all, not in the first sense of the word at least. :wink:

As far as the goofy language issue is concerned, it may make some sense while texting simple messages on a mobile, but makes little sense from a keyboard. On the GIGO principle, the answers elicited will tend to be goofy too.

hey wat bowt my ansr? i bin ig-nord or wat?

fuggedaboudit I look in dick shunry

think you could use either McT

repugnant being stronger

I would use that word for casual speech

repellent is as you say for technical use eg treated surfaces

But I do have a water proof repugnant jacket somewhere

A lovely good morning to our spirited members from across the pond. Such fun to be had this fine Sunday morning.

Whaddeverr!!!

And good afternoon to you Setanta.

I said to the vicar this morning that Genesis was plaigarised, just lifted from The Epic of Gilgamesh, as you said...

And how did the good man take that assertion, Steve? One would assume that good manners would have denied him the outlet of fire and brimstone . . .

Well of course your name came up straight away and he said in that case there is no contest.

He's leaving the Church now to join a bunch of travelling minstrels.

I hope he has the stamina for it. Travelling minstrels are in short supply; clerics are a dime a dozen.

indeed

gotta go now


have some serious repentin'to do

Hereabouts that's pronounced "Whaddevah", Smorgs.

Yo.
Yoiks.

Same? Different? Related?

I'll stick my neck out . . .


"Yo" is a form of address, intended to get someone's attention.

"Yoiks" is an expression of surprise, and perhaps dismay.

That's my story, an' i'm stickin' to it.

<muttering>

Hoy hoy...

Hoo-boy.

Floy floy . . .


Oh, the flat foot floogie with a floy, floy,
Flat foot floogie with a floy, floy,
Flat foot floogie with a floy, floy,
Floy doy, floy doy, floy doy.

And let's not forget Hutsat Ralston (Sp.?)