Pedants' Corner

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

Personally, I do not consider "conversational English" to be of a standard acceptable in a thread entitled "Pedants' Corner".

A true pedant does not recognise "conversational English" as true English.

Originally posted by Kewpie
A true pedant does not recognise "conversational English" as true English.

You don't necessarily have it entirely right, but you do indeed have a point [as for the thread's Rule 2, I shall just ignore it]. However, would a true pedant be comfortable being swept up in a generalization about pedants ~ like the one you have now entered into this discussion?

Originally posted by FMF
You don't necessarily have it entirely right, but you do indeed have a point [as for the thread's Rule 2, I shall just ignore it]. However, would a true pedant be comfortable being swept up in a generalization about pedants ~ like the one you have now entered into this discussion?

Your phrase is lacking a preposition. Did you intend to insert the word "with" between "into" and "this"?

Originally posted by Kewpie
Personally, I do not consider "conversational English" to be of a standard acceptable in a thread entitled "Pedants' Corner".

A true pedant does not recognise "conversational English" as true English.

An Australian lecturing on "true English." Now that's funny.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
An Australian lecturing on "true English." Now that's funny.

Unlike Americans, Australians use the same version of English as the English do, albeit with a few local additions. I suspect your opinion has been acquired from satirical sources, which often give excessive attention to those local additions. Many of the words in the "strine" textbook have not been heard in everyday Australia for decades.

Originally posted by Kewpie
Personally, I do not consider "conversational English" to be of a standard acceptable in a thread entitled "Pedants' Corner".

A true pedant does not recognise "conversational English" as true English.

I think you are confusing an "English Pedant" with a general pedant (who may or
may not be English). English Pedants are amongst the most pedantic of pedants
and base their whole existence on the English Language circa 1935.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I think you are confusing an "English Pedant" with a general pedant (who may or
may not be English). English Pedants are amongst the most pedantic of pedants
and base their whole existence on the English Language circa 1935.

1935 or no 1935, some of your capitalization cause me complete consternation. Allow me to plainly say, its the media that is to blame.

Originally posted by FMF
1935 or no 1935, some of your capitalization cause me complete consternation. Allow me to plainly say, its [sic] the media that is [sic] to blame.

Strictly speaking, "the media" is plural. Hence, "the media are to blame."

Originally posted by moonbus
Strictly speaking, "the media" is plural. Hence, "the media are to blame."

Strictly speaking "the media" can be considered a collective noun and as such
both "the media is" and 'the media are" can be correct. Much the same as
"my family is large" and 'my family are large" are both correct grammatically
(although they may have different connotations!).

Originally posted by moonbus
Strictly speaking, "the media" is plural. Hence, "the media are to blame."

I beg to differ. Despite what I may or may not have said earlier, I do not think the media are to blame for wolfgang59's capitalization. What's clearly wrong is you parrotting this notion without thinking it through. The more likely cause of wolfgang59's propensity for lettres inutilement capitalisés, as the French say, has been his spending too much time reading posts where there has been an attempt by their writers to add extra gravitas or sanctity to their pontifications by capitalizing words Willy Nilly.

Originally posted by FMF
I beg to differ. Despite what I may or may not have said earlier, I do [b]not think the media are to blame for wolfgang59's capitalization. What's clearly wrong is you parrotting this notion without thinking it through. The more likely cause of wolfgang59's propensity for lettres inutilement capitalisés, as the French say, has been his spending ...[text shortened]... ers to add extra gravitas or sanctity to their pontifications by capitalizing words Willy Nilly.[/b]

FMF is Quite Right.
Although I Object to the Suggestion that My capitalisation is "Willy Nilly"!

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Thanks Gambrel, but this all seems reasonable and practical to me rather than pedantic.

Originally posted by FMF (OP)
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." = So, FMF, what is the literal meaning of your first two "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."... ? <--- Kewpie, I hope this reply clarifies my meaning.

Originally posted by Kewpie
Your phrase is lacking a preposition. Did you intend to insert the word "with" between "into" and "this"?

Please see my reply moments ago on Page 3.