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

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?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>