What does "t" mean in this handwriting?

@JTT,

Quote:

You often use slang. Everyone does.

Even in this here thread, sho' nuff.

But our purpose here is to help OristarA understand the difference, and learn. He is a good student, and has come far. You should not put obstacles in his way just to show how learned and clever you are. The effect is counterproductive.

1 Reply

@McTag,

You are the one who puts obstacles in the way with your irrational lies regarding language. You all too often advance these silly notions without thinking. And certainly without any knowledge of how language works.

More of your ignorance; 'sure enough' is not slang. Ori knew you had made a mistake but McTag soldiers on with his stupidity.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I was right though.

And where's my specimen sentence?

2 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

I was right though.

I can't remember the last time you were right, McTag, and you certainly weren't right this time either.

All you did was parade your ignorance over more a2k pages.

McTag: Even in this here thread, sho' nuff.

Another example where you were wrong. We must remember to save the next time you are right about a language issue.

There have been numerous examples given.

1 Reply

@JTT,

What nonsense.

I wonder why it is, since your superiority is so evident to yourself, that no-one else will take you at your own valuation?

1 Reply

@McTag,

It isn't a matter of my superiority, McTag; the issue is your stunning ignorance and the death grip that you have on it.

1 Reply

@JTT,

My ignorance is so stunning that I'm right and you're wrong.

Quote:

It isn't a matter of my superiority, McTag

You got that right at least. Is that the first time this month?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

My ignorance is so stunning that I'm right ...

Your ignorance is so stunning that you can't even remember that you admitted you were wrong. You said 'good' isn't an adverb, then,

McTag: That "good" can be, and is, used as an adverb can be seen from Post #1, but that doesn't make it right.

Then more ignorance issues from McTag's gob.

McTag: Or "+" to stand for "and", come to that.

Again in complete defiance of reality. And as is usual, with zero discussion of the actual language issue.

1 Reply

@JTT,

You don't seem to understand the language you are using.

Ori is asking questions about standard English. He need a clear steer, and that what I give. The phrases and symbols you have highlighted here (as an example, for goodness sake!) are not standard English.

"Bumface" can be used as a name, or an endearment, although it is neither of those. That would not be standard English usage.

4 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

Ori is asking questions about standard English.

What is Standard English?

Quote:

He need a clear steer, and that what I give.

Yes, that's readily apparent, McTag.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the language you are using.

You really are a dolt, McTag. A hilarious dolt.

You can't discuss the most minor of grammar issues or usage. You are completely absent from any discussion save for those where you've cribbed a prescription from a style manual or you were given abysmal instruction from your parents.

And you have the gall to state the above.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Your posts are getting sillier.
In amassing all this knowledge you keep telling us about, you seem to have dropped the common sense most of us are born with.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag's common sense:
1. good isn't an adverb.
2. good is an adverb.

McTag goes on and on even though, as is usual, he is wrong. Plug dumb this guy.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the language you are using.

I'm not the one making all these ludicrous statements, McTag, like the one below.

McTag: Or "+" to stand for "and", come to that.

You frequently do this - you defy reality. Why is that?

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

I was right though.

------------
The M-W Dictionary of English Usage

page 480

2. Good as an adverb. Although the adverbial use of good dates back to the 13th century, ... .

Quote:

And where's my specimen sentence?

"This works pretty good. ..."
-- Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegone Days 1985

---------

... with the Communists. They goose us; we goose them back good. -- John Kenneth Galbraith, Ambassador's Journal 1969

--------

" ... had a tree fall on it and smash it up real good -- Bill Paul, Wall Street Jour., 27 May 1975

Ibid - page 481

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

If OristarA was studying Jamaican patois or Louisiana creole maybe, but he's not. We're striving for standard English here.

To see McTag hang himself with his own petard see,

able2know.org/topic/240936-1#post-5632807

0 Replies

@McTag,

Quote:

You don't seem to understand the language you are using.

Ori is asking questions about standard English. He need a clear steer, and that what I give. The phrases and symbols you have highlighted here (as an example, for goodness sake!) are not standard English.

/////////////////////

MORE TIMEWASTING GARBAGE, ANOTHER COPY-EDITING MORON

...

Lots of garbage and a lot of garbage are both grammatical and mean basically the same thing. Lot here is not used in any literal sense; it's what's called a non-count number-transparent quantificational noun (CGEL ch. 5 sec. 3.3). The main difference is that lots of is more informal in style (especially with count plurals: lots of stupid quibbles is distinctly more informal than a lot of stupid quibbles. But informal does not mean incorrect. It is perfectly appropriate, and becoming standard, to use informal English constructions in computer programming books and lots of other kinds of academic and technical published prose.

1 Reply

This describes you, McTag, with your silly 19th century prescriptions.

Quote:

But the rest (familiar copy-editor changes all) are based on nothing more or less than flatly false claims about what is grammatical in contemporary Standard English. This copy editor should be told not just to lay off, but to go to school and take a serious grammar course. Enough of these 19th-century snippets of grammatical nonsense that waste authors' time all over the English-speaking world.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000918.html

The quotes in the previous post are/were from the same source listed directly above.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

But informal does not mean incorrect. It is perfectly appropriate, and becoming standard, to use informal English constructions in computer programming books and lots of other kinds of academic and technical published prose.

This author expresses an opinion which I don't share. Above all, it is important for the learner to recognise the difference between formal and informal usage.
I would venture the opinion that if "academic published prose" uses informal language then it will be perceived as less "academic" that that which does not.

1 Reply

@McTag,

What does it matter if you, a know nothing about language, disagrees with an expert on language and how it is used, McTag?

You're so dishonest that you haven't yet admitted you are/were wrong.

Quote:

I would venture the opinion that if "academic published prose" uses informal language then it will be perceived as less "academic" that that which does not.

And away you go, repeating the same silly behavior that got you into all this trouble in the first place.

Quote:

Above all, it is important for the learner to recognise the difference between formal and informal usage.

We all agree on that. But there's no need to introduce ignorance and lies into such explanations.

1 Reply

What does "t" mean in this handwriting?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know