The number of quantity

@fresco,

Rhetoric seems to be your field of expertise and I admit your being good at that.

However, you contradict yourself in the specific case.

Dale has demonstrated that he is immune to any kind of advice that could improve his poor skills.

Nonetheless he keeps pretending to have such "know-how".

I suggest, but don't define that as a guide line, that you read some of his ill-considered posts.

2 Replies

It makes sense to give users like me a straightforward reply. But I am ‘shocked’ by the site’s vitality. My post has got some many enthusiastic replies. Thanks to all of you, whether you are straightforward or erudite.

I will use this site more in my teaching and research. It is simple and clean, full of experts and kind people.

1 Reply

@timur,

Whether considered to be a rhetorical reply or otherwise, I would say I took account of Dale's professional (journalistic) interest in language in my reply to him. Perhaps we should not allow impressions of members gleaned from one thread to unduly influence us on another thread. Having said that, I must admit to amusing myself with David's "gun fixation" from elsewhere, as an alternative to an attempt to drag him kicking and screaming through Linguistics oo1.

1 Reply

@fresco,

0 Replies

@shengliver,

shengliver wrote:

It makes sense to give users like me a straightforward reply. But I am ‘shocked’ by the site’s vitality. My post has got some many enthusiastic replies. Thanks to all of you, whether you are straightforward or erudite.

I will use this site more in my teaching and research. It is simple and clean, full of experts and kind people.

Thank u for your kind words.

David

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

....where (linguistic)ignorance is bliss, rtc.....

I question whether it matters, Fresco.
Men shud be held responsible for what thay say,
not for what thay have in the privacy of their respective minds.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Allow me to suggest you compare your prescriptivity with your liberalism and that this might give you an insight into the nature of what we call "self" . That insight may give answers to the question about "what matters".

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Allow me to suggest you compare your prescriptivity
with your liberalism and that this might give you
an insight into the nature of what we call "self".

I accept the rules of grammar (for the most part)
because thay r well grounded in logic (for the most part).
To the extent that thay deviate from logic, I do not respect them.
For instance, I see no merit in the rationale against splitting an infinitive verb
on the basis of the fact that it is 1 word in Latin.
I will not care about that until I speak Latin; accordingly, I ignore that rule.

fresco wrote:

That insight may give answers to the question about "what matters".

I shud have indicated the criteria
by which it "matters" for my thought to have been complete.

David

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

A spirit of inquiry of individual members is perhaps more important than a claim to "expertise".

Fres what a fine and understanding fellow you are

Quote:

Dale has demonstrated that he is immune to any kind of advice that could improve his poor skills.

Not an immunity Tim but a sort of blockheadedness buttressed by an overwhelming laziness

Quote:

I will use this site more in my teaching and research. It is simple and clean, full of experts and kind people.

True Sheng but full also of the other kind

Quote:

I would say I took account of Dale's professional (journalistic) interest in language in my reply to him.

The first time in my oun career anyone has so described me. If there's a God Fres, may he eventually award thee

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

To the extent that thay deviate from logic, I do not respect them.
For instance, I see no merit in the rationale against splitting an infinitive verb
on the basis of the fact that it is 1 word in Latin.
I will not care about that until I speak Latin; accordingly, I ignore that rule.

You see no merit in the split infinitive because you are not speaking Latin yet you have stated that when you use words that came from Latin you [the general 'you'] are momentarily speaking Latin and so you ought to use the Latin plural form.

Your inconsistency comes from your gross ignorance about how languages work. You have been accurate in your descriptions on language so few times that they are notable.

Quote:

I shud have indicated the criteria
by which it "matters" for my thought to have been complete.

You have repeated this "criteria" of yours, verbatim, numerous times, like the automaton you are. There is not thought involved in your ideas on language, just rote lunacy.

1 Reply

@timur,

You seem to have a problem with Dale, Timur. There are a lot of folks much much worse offering specious advice on language and yet you remain silent on them. Why would that be?

2 Replies

@JTT,

Yes Tim, why

0 Replies

@JTT,

Each one of us has his own faults and shortcomings.

However, those are most of the time limited to a single field or domain in which we still pretend to have some expertise.

It seems obvious to those really knowing said field that others should humble down and be quiet about disciplines they know little about.

You are the first to claim such.

I can see that many A2Kers sometimes offer advice and views that defy simple logic, reasoning and, above all, knowledge.

As they are also good in other fields, I pass on that.

But Dale (and in a less measure OMSig) is the archetype of a shallow character that knows nothing about nothing.

Nonetheless, he still pretends to give advice, which is, in most cases, useless or even dangerous.

I do not intervene in matters of English language, as you seem to suppose I do.

It would be presumptuous as I'm not a native speaker.

On the other hand, I believe my other fields of expertise can be of some help on A2K.

I like helping people, don't you?

4 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You have repeated this "criteria" of yours, verbatim, numerous times

As long as we're picking nits, criteria is a plural whose singular is criterion.

So the pronoun should be plural, yes?

You're welcome.

2 Replies

@timur,

Quote:

OMSig) is the archetype of a shallow character

I think I've got to disagree. OSD is not a shallow character, and he's not stupid.

He's just weird.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Even though I said "in a less measure", I maintain what I said, so we will disagree.

However, I didn't say they were stupid.

Unless you consider inability to evolve and improve a stupidity.

1 Reply

@timur,

Quote:

I didn't say they were stupid.

Well that's true, but you said

Quote:

OMSig) is ... a shallow character that knows nothing about nothing.

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

1 Reply

@McTag,

As a matter of fact, I think you misunderstood me.

Compare my actual quote with the part of the phrase you quote.

I don't think they have the same meaning:

Timur wrote:

But Dale (and in a less measure OMSig) is the archetype of a shallow character that knows nothing about nothing.

However, we can pass on small disagreements of that kind..

1 Reply

@timur,

Quote:

However, we can pass on small disagreements of that kind..

I'm happy to concur.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

As long as we're picking nits, criteria is a plural whose singular is criterion.

So the pronoun should be plural, yes?

You are, to speak frankly, but with great generosity, simply full of ****, McTag.

1 Reply

The number of quantity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know