Originally posted by FMF Rules: [1] You don't necessarily have to be entirely right, but you do need to have a point. [2] Rule 2 isn't really a rule at all.
The word "so" may be either an adverb or a conjunction, and in both cases require a word or phrase to qualify. It cannot be an entire sentence of itself.
The displayed "So." may be a contraction of the word south and is sometimes used as part of a display of geographic coordinates.
Originally posted by Kewpie The word "so" may be either an adverb or a conjunction, and in both cases require a word or phrase to qualify. It cannot be an entire sentence of itself.
Originally posted by Kewpie That string of words is totally unacceptable English. Where are the subjects and verbs, at a minimum?
It did convey an idea, however. Having said that, I agree with the general idea of criticizing it for narrowly defined reasons rooted in an adherence to a particular view of legitimacy conferred by conventionality.
Originally posted by FMF Your question is partially redundant because for at least the last 7-8 of the last 50 years we know full well she has been right here.
Originally posted by HandyAndy So? She's obviously not paying attention.
Strictly speaking, something obvious - or something obviously so - must be perceived as such through the sense of sight which is not possible in the case of Kewpie as she is located, out of sight, in the Australian boondocks.
Originally posted by FMF Strictly speaking, something [b]obvious - or something obviously so - must be perceived as such through the sense of sight which is not possible in the case of Kewpie as she is located, out of sight, in the Australian boondocks.[/b]
True enough. But she is on display when she posts here. I can see her quite well. 😉
Originally posted by HandyAndy True enough. But she is on display when she posts here. I can see her quite well. 😉
There is a time and place for metaphysics and metaphor.
As for "true enough": are there degrees of "truth"? If a "truth" is deemed merely sufficient, is there then some further "truth" above and beyond it that's "more than enough"?
Originally posted by FMF There is a time and place for metaphysics and metaphor.
As for "true enough": are there degrees of "truth"? If a "truth" is deemed merely sufficient, is there then some further "truth" above and beyond it that's "more than enough"?
Originally posted by HandyAndy True enough barely makes the cut.
I hardly think that a metaphor alluding to the mechanism for advancement to later rounds in a sports tournament, like golf for instance, is commensurate with a matter as serious as I have chosen to make this one.