Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA

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
>
>
>