Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI believe that I just posted twice?
This should be a very simple question to resolve.
Suppose I am in some debate and have a very large number of related points to make and defend. Suppose that the number of characters I require to do this exceeds RHP's post length threshold several times over. Suppose that accordingly, I perforate my points into numerous (say, 5) segments, enter ...[text shortened]... ne post per day, and I enter these five segments in one sitting, have I violated our agreement?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wrong as you pronounce, the company surrounding me appear to agree with the usage of criteria in the singular form. Wrong, indeed, I am of criterion as the plural of the same. As with the shift between data, datum/agenda/agendum, I appear to have been (temporarily at least, given the confluence of language) left in the cold.
You can't have it both ways, FreakyKBH. You can't desire to correct people for using some
words incorrectly, but be tolerant of other words' being used incorrectly. Either you want
language to be a static thing with clearly delineated rights and wrongs, or you are going to
let language evolve, with errors today being the grammar of tomorrow.
A cursory study of non-literate languages will show you that language evolves at an alarming
rate; studies of languages from a single tribe from the 1920s compared with studies today
show a high degree of non-concordance between the two vocabularies.
As far as a 'grammatical crusade' is concerned, which way would you have it? You would rather the reader of the posts herein should labor, while the posters sloppily spew, carefree of any heavy work, such as at least resembling the language? I disagree. Although not espousing a campaign for colons, I think posters owe it to their adoring public, a modicum of precision.
How would I have it? Strive for personal excellence in your own writing -- that's what I do.
Note errors other people make and make sure you don't make them. But, don't correct
other people in a forum where they are not soliciting such advice. If they want to be 'carefree,'
then that's their right. The only time I 'correct' someone is if their language makes their
argument unintelligible. If I can understand what they meant, then I let it go.
This isn't academia. This is a chess website with a debates group. If this were a site
dedicated to debate, you'd find I were much harsher on posters and more prone to
correcting sloppy grammar.
Too, why call me to self-improvement, if said improvement will be met with such reproach?
I will never reproach self-improvement. Several people on this site have emailed me personal
files for my editorial perusal. It is when you try to improve others who haven't asked for
it that I become reproachful, especially when there are errors in your own writing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEither you want language to be a static thing with clearly delineated rights and wrongs, or you are going to let language evolve
There are commonly acceptable terms and usages, held by most people speaking the given language. Most know the language will evolve, but not at the expense of clarity.
Strive for personal excellence in your own writing -- that's what I do.
It is when you try to improve others who haven't asked for it that I become reproachful, especially when there are errors in your own writing.
As do I. However, when there are especially egregious errors, which cloud the entire meaning of the post, I will tweak the same. Your correction of the latter part of my use of criterion, while appreciated by me, would not qualify as egregious, as my original use did not, in any way, obscure the meaning. Nor did I solicit your advice. Good advice to give, not to follow?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDid you really think kirksey's use of the definite article indicated that he believed there exist only two verses in the Bible?
Most know the language will evolve, but not at the expense of clarity.
However, when there are especially egregious errors, which cloud the entire meaning of the post, I will tweak the same.
Wasn't it rather perfectly clear that he believed there would exist only two verses in the proposed debate, thus making his use of the definite article correct? After all, if he intended the former, then there would be no need for him to "pick" the verse, as there would be no set of remaining options from which to choose, and thus his sentence would be incoherent. Performing a basic logical analysis, even in the unlikely case in which a semantic analysis does not yield resolution, must lead you to the correct conclusion about his sentence's meaning.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNot to be picky whilst you are picking my pickiness apart, but Cap'n Kirk cited passages of Scripture, not verses.
His issuing of a challenge which would be judged on several criteria assuredly would also include clarity, which he obviously failed, prior to the first shot.
And your point was?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe only thing you need to know is that Ivanhoe did not pick up the challenge. End of story.
Not to be picky whilst you are picking my pickiness apart, but Cap'n Kirk cited passages of Scripture, not verses.
His issuing of a challenge which would be judged on several criteria assuredly would also include clarity, which he obviously failed, prior to the first shot.
And your point was?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There are commonly acceptable terms and usages, held by most people speaking the given language. Most know the language will evolve, but not at the expense of clarity.
These 'commonly acceptable terms and usages' were the result of incorrect usage.
So, if you are deciding that consensus of opinion dictates usage, then the use of subjunctive,
for example, would almost never enter the picture.
I assure you, by the way, that if you tried to submit a scholarly article to a professional
submission, the use of 'criteria' in the singular will get a 'red mark.' Take it from
someone who knows this first hand.
And, yes, language will evolve, and Kirk's sentence was perfectly clear (while erroneous).
You knew what he meant, but you still corrected him. There was no ambiguity,
just an error in article usage.
So, which standard are you going to use? The academic standard or common usage?
If you are going to use the latter, then you owe DoctorScribbles an apology for correcting
his use of a preposition at the end of a sentence. If you are going to use the former,
then you better not use 'criteria' as the singular.
And, whichever you use (I certainly don't care), correcting other peoples' posts when
the meaning is patent is unnecessary and rude.
As do I. However, when there are especially egregious errors, which cloud the entire meaning of the post, I will tweak the same. Your correction of the latter part of my use of criterion, while appreciated by me, would not qualify as egregious, as my original use did not, in any way, obscure the meaning. Nor did I solicit your advice. Good advice to give, not to follow?
As I said in my post, I never correct another person's post unless the meaning is unclear.
The reason I have targetted you is because you have made yourself a target by repeatedly
correcting other people. There have been precisely two other people on this site whom I
repeatedly have corrected: Bowmann and Pcaspian (no longer with us) who did the same
arrogant thing, correcting other people when their posts were otherwise clear. I have done
so intermittantly with RBHILL when he gets in a bizarre mood and starts correcting people
(the gall!) and I did it once to Ivangrice (I think) when she corrected Ivanhoe's misuse of the
apostrophe in 'its.' She, I might add, is the only one who apologized for being silly.
So, are you going to relent with your absurd crusade and only request clarification when
it is necessary, or am I going to continue to edit your posts and pretend I don't understand
them when there is a typo, grammatical flaw, or improper usage?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you genuinely feel that Kirk's challenge was not clear, then you are a bald-faced
His issuing of a challenge which would be judged on several criteria assuredly would also include clarity, which he obviously failed, prior to the first shot.
liar when you made the claim of having an IQ of 170+.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThese 'commonly acceptable terms and usages' were the result of incorrect usage.
Not necessarily. 'Correct usage' infers uniform agreement at minimum, or unvarying standard, at the far end of the scope, which, as has been established, is simply not the case with language.
'Incorrect usage' infers ignorance, which does not fit the bill, either. As Webster employed biblical definitions of words, reactionaries found ways of tweaking the language by sometimes-subtle, sometimes-blatant alterations of long-standing concepts. Other than reactionaries, more changes came via other purposeful acts.
Take it from someone who knows this first hand.
It's already been tooken.
You knew what he meant, but you still corrected him.
You think? It was precisely because everyone knew exactly what he meant that made the post, in my opinion, ironic. Here he threw down the gauntlet, and it bounced off the ground, striking him in the head, rendering him unconscious. Very Monty Python-esque. In my opinion.
So, are you going to relent with your absurd crusade and only request clarification when it is necessary, or am I going to continue to edit your posts...
Relent? Never. Are you going to continue editing? How the hell would I know? I can only hope you would offer such services for free, but only you can answer that question. Silly.
Originally posted by NemesioThe issue wasn't my feeling, the issue was his lack of clarity, which hurt my feeling. [When you only have one, it's a big deal.]
If you genuinely feel that Kirk's challenge was not clear, then you are a bald-faced
liar when you made the claim of having an IQ of 170+.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAs you may have noticed, I am one of those who love correcting others. I hold myself back most of the time because I know many people don't like it, but especially if the mistake is funny or if it's something I find really annoying, I find it hard not to comment on it. It's not out of arrogance, I just think that grammar and spelling are a lot of fun. I would be happy if people did the same to my posts, as I would like to learn. Maybe I should correct you a few times, so that you'll get annoyed and start editing my posts. 😉
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, whichever you use (I certainly don't care), correcting other peoples' posts when
the meaning is patent is unnecessary and rude.
By the way, "visa" is another word which has lost its singular form. In German, it's still "Visum", but people start to use "Visa" more and more for the singular in German, too.