From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54182
Date: 2008-02-26
> If the purpose for which words are intended is____________________________________________________________________________________
> transmission of ideas, i.e.
> communication, then acknowledging the validity of
> two _contradictory_
> definitions for a word like 'posit' is a giant step
> backward in linguistic
> evolution.
>
> For a penultimate time, I am _not_ talking about
> linguistics but rather
> grammar and vocabulary and pronunciation that used
> to be taught
> prescriptively as the means to unambiguous and
> effective communication.
>
> "Improper" is this context is the acceptance of any
> usage which impedes that
> process - like contradictory definitions for a word.
>
> You are living in a dreamworld. There are no
> dogmatic grammarians teaching
> in American education these days, more is the pity.
> They are labeled
> "undemocratic" and "elitist" by the nihilistic
> anarchists who guide US
> educational aims and policy.
>
> And because no standards for anything are being
> taught, let alone enforced,
> we have now a few generations of really uneducated
> and rudderless youth who
> cannot compete successfully except in ruthlessness
> with properly educated
> and trained non-American youth.
>
> If you are unaware of any of this, then you are a
> part of the problem not
> the solution.
>
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick McCallister" <gabaroo6958@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA
>
>
> > Ahhh, improper according to whom? Linguistics is
> > descriptive, dogmatic grammarians are
> prescriptive.
> >
> > --- Patrick Ryan <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Where definition #1 and definition #2 contradict
> > > each other, I do not think
> > > it is I who am out of step to reject definition
> #2
> > > as improper.
> > >
> > > I miss out on nothing to not accept improper
> usage.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> > > To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA
> > >
> > >
> > > > At 11:33:05 PM on Monday, February 25, 2008,
> > > Patrick Ryan
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> > > >
> > > > >> At 10:21:31 PM on Monday, February 25,
> 2008,
> > > Patrick Ryan
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> [...]
> > > >
> > > > >>> We do not "posit" in linguistics.
> > > >
> > > > >> We most certainly do.
> > > >
> > > > >> AHD4 s.v. <posit>, definition 2: 'to put
> > > forward, as for
> > > > >> consideration or study; suggest'.
> > > >
> > > > >> M-W Online s.v. <posit>, definition 3: 'to
> > > propose as an
> > > > >> explanation'.
> > > >
> > > > > I usually go by #1 definitions.
> > > >
> > > > Then you miss out on a great deal of perfectly
> > > normal,
> > > > unexceptionable English.
> > > >
> > > > > The #2 definition is just another symptom
> that
> > > our
> > > > > teachers are afraid to teach, and are
> willing to
> > > accept
> > > > > any sloppy meaning or pronunciation or
> grammar
> > > or
> > > > > vocabulary as 'usage'.
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary, it's a perfectly normal use
> of
> > > the word.
> > > > You're the one who's out of step here.
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> >
>
> >____________________________________________________________________________________
>