Pedants' Corner

-Removed-

Nobody has called my willy like that since... 1994 😵

Originally posted by Seitse
Nobody has called my willy like that since... 1994 😵

What? Crap tonight?

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.

So.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
So.

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.

Please clarify your post.

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.

So? Now what?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
So? Now what?

That string of words is totally unacceptable English. Where are the subjects and verbs, at a minimum?

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 Kewpie
That string of words is totally unacceptable English. Where are the subjects and verbs, at a minimum?

It's conversational English. Where have you been for the last fifty years? Get with it.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
Where have you been for the last fifty years?

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 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.

So? She's obviously not paying attention.

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"?

True enough barely makes the cut.

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.