Re[6]: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA

At 1:28:57 AM on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> 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.

> Where definition #1 and definition #2 contradict each
> other,

They don't. The second is a natural extension of the first,
so natural that in particular instances it can be rather
hard to draw the line between them: 'take as an axiom' >
'assume for the sake of argument' > 'suggest as a possible
basis/explanation for something'.

> I do not think it is I who am out of step to reject
> definition #2 as improper.

Rejecting a perfectly normal usage would put you
demonstrably out of step even if the definitions *were*
contradictory.

There's no law that says that you have to follow normal
usage in your own writing and speaking. It would, however,
be a good idea at least to know what accepted usage actually
is, so as to avoid using your ideosyncratic prejudices about
correct usage to bash those who disagree with your
linguistic views.

Brian