S
Scott Gordo
Guest
On Feb 25, 7:15 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/ti contact security.shtml
> > >>>>> Continental, Germany tells us :Animal paws were the model for
> > >>>> designing the tread pattern and it's surface!"
>
> Tom Sherman asks:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>> How many animals have wheels and travel primarily on pavement?
> Colin Campbell writes:
> > >>> And how many animals misuse "it's" twice in two sentences? I
> > >>> thought the UK had something to do with the English language.
> [email protected] wrote:
> > >> That language is no longer taught in schools as is apparent from
> > >> (lie/lay), (effect/impact), (affect/impact) and other speech
> > >> embellishments "overwhelming majority" aka "most" that we see all the
> > >> time.
> > >> Its the overwhelming majority of these kinds of things that give
> > >> wreck.bike a lack of clarity.
> > >> aka
> > >> Most of these things make wreck.bike unclear.
> [email protected] wrote:
> > > Actually, its/it's perfectly clear when read aloud.
>
> > > The apostrophe is helpful and even elegant punctuation on the printed
> > > page, but its/it's utterly inaudible when you read aloud.
>
> > > The same is true of they're/there/their and too/to/two.
>
> > > Or John's/Johns bicycle--the apostrophe that signals possession rather
> > > than plurality to the eye cannot be heard.
>
> > > Similarly, the contraction function of the apostrophe is literally
> > > inaudible. You cannot hear a missin' letter, even though it eventually
> > > signals the pronunciation of can't vs. cannot
>
> > > (Try to pronounce the period for abbreviation in "vs." above.)
>
> > > Somehow we manage to hear things without quite so much quibbling. The
> > > errors of grammar and punctuation on RBT scarcely ever cause even the
> > > slightest confusion.
>
> Andre Jute replies to Fogel:
> The first victim of the enemies of society is always the meaning of
> the language -- Paul Johnson, The Enemies of Society
>
> Andrew Muzi says:
>
> > Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
> > 'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
> > being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get overit.
>
> Andre Jute:
> I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
> "languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
> degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
> let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:
>
> ****> Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
>
> Some old fogies like me are driven to distraction by hearing words
> such as
>
> > 'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
>
> 'orientated' [oriented]. I have learned to smile and walk away because
> no one
>
> > being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get overit.
>
> is interested in my opinion of the language. People degrade languages.
> Get over it.
> *****
>
> Besides "languages" incestuously degrading themselves, the parenthetic
> "(me)" is a lazy affectation, "oriented" is a sample from a larger
> whole rather than a metaphor and should take "such as", we can take
> your opinion but if you imply more sharing your opinion as in "for
> one" you should tell us who they are or Creepy Carl will call you a
> liar for the deceit of claiming support you don't specify, "being
> interested" is in a limp passive case that should be rewritten and
> then allows the much more manly connective "because" before it in the
> place of the limp comma, there is no reason for your opinion of the
> language to be in the plural, you do not tell us what "languages
> degrade" nor do you in fact mean to say that languages degrade
> something but the someone degrades language to an extent where
> resistance is futile, and it makes the two ideas stronger to split
> them into separate short sentences.
>
> *****
>
> There will be no further charge for professional services, Andrew; I
> like reading your advice on the newsgroup.
>
> By the way, I have no objection to the way Andrew writes; he seems
> pretty literate and comprehensible to me. I'm merely demonstrating
> that even some of the best of us are not immune from criticism of the
> way we use the language, so we should point out solecisms politely.
> Not everyone has English as a mother tongue.
>
> Andre Jute
> "Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
> world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
> but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
> --- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can haz ur bikzzzz?
> > >>http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/ti contact security.shtml
> > >>>>> Continental, Germany tells us :Animal paws were the model for
> > >>>> designing the tread pattern and it's surface!"
>
> Tom Sherman asks:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >>>> How many animals have wheels and travel primarily on pavement?
> Colin Campbell writes:
> > >>> And how many animals misuse "it's" twice in two sentences? I
> > >>> thought the UK had something to do with the English language.
> [email protected] wrote:
> > >> That language is no longer taught in schools as is apparent from
> > >> (lie/lay), (effect/impact), (affect/impact) and other speech
> > >> embellishments "overwhelming majority" aka "most" that we see all the
> > >> time.
> > >> Its the overwhelming majority of these kinds of things that give
> > >> wreck.bike a lack of clarity.
> > >> aka
> > >> Most of these things make wreck.bike unclear.
> [email protected] wrote:
> > > Actually, its/it's perfectly clear when read aloud.
>
> > > The apostrophe is helpful and even elegant punctuation on the printed
> > > page, but its/it's utterly inaudible when you read aloud.
>
> > > The same is true of they're/there/their and too/to/two.
>
> > > Or John's/Johns bicycle--the apostrophe that signals possession rather
> > > than plurality to the eye cannot be heard.
>
> > > Similarly, the contraction function of the apostrophe is literally
> > > inaudible. You cannot hear a missin' letter, even though it eventually
> > > signals the pronunciation of can't vs. cannot
>
> > > (Try to pronounce the period for abbreviation in "vs." above.)
>
> > > Somehow we manage to hear things without quite so much quibbling. The
> > > errors of grammar and punctuation on RBT scarcely ever cause even the
> > > slightest confusion.
>
> Andre Jute replies to Fogel:
> The first victim of the enemies of society is always the meaning of
> the language -- Paul Johnson, The Enemies of Society
>
> Andrew Muzi says:
>
> > Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
> > 'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
> > being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get overit.
>
> Andre Jute:
> I agree with you, Andrew, people should write better English than
> "languages degrade". Languages degrade what? What does languages
> degrade? No, I think you mean that someone degrades the language. So
> let's rewrite in simple and direct English without the solecisms:
>
> ****> Some old fogies (me) are driven to distraction on hearing things like
>
> Some old fogies like me are driven to distraction by hearing words
> such as
>
> > 'orientated'. I, for one, have learned to smile and walk away, no one
>
> 'orientated' [oriented]. I have learned to smile and walk away because
> no one
>
> > being interested in my opinions of language. Languages degrade; get overit.
>
> is interested in my opinion of the language. People degrade languages.
> Get over it.
> *****
>
> Besides "languages" incestuously degrading themselves, the parenthetic
> "(me)" is a lazy affectation, "oriented" is a sample from a larger
> whole rather than a metaphor and should take "such as", we can take
> your opinion but if you imply more sharing your opinion as in "for
> one" you should tell us who they are or Creepy Carl will call you a
> liar for the deceit of claiming support you don't specify, "being
> interested" is in a limp passive case that should be rewritten and
> then allows the much more manly connective "because" before it in the
> place of the limp comma, there is no reason for your opinion of the
> language to be in the plural, you do not tell us what "languages
> degrade" nor do you in fact mean to say that languages degrade
> something but the someone degrades language to an extent where
> resistance is futile, and it makes the two ideas stronger to split
> them into separate short sentences.
>
> *****
>
> There will be no further charge for professional services, Andrew; I
> like reading your advice on the newsgroup.
>
> By the way, I have no objection to the way Andrew writes; he seems
> pretty literate and comprehensible to me. I'm merely demonstrating
> that even some of the best of us are not immune from criticism of the
> way we use the language, so we should point out solecisms politely.
> Not everyone has English as a mother tongue.
>
> Andre Jute
> "Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
> world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
> but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
> --- Mariah Carey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can haz ur bikzzzz?