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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: Re[6]: [tied] Re: Finnish KASKA



<snip>

> > 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'.

***
It may be hard for you to draw the line but it is not for me.

They are contradictory, in my opinion.

What is "normal" today with America's sabotaged educational system is not
normal for sane people in the rest of the uninfected world.

I am well aware of sloppy usage int his word and in many others.

In all this, you never once thought to ask Ray what he intended by 'posit',
did you?

He could easily have avoided ambiguity by simply saying: "I suggest as a
working hypothesis that . . ." if that is what he meant.


Patrick


> > 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
>
>
>