From: Rick McCallister
Message: 54160
Date: 2008-02-26
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>