I could look you in the eye and tell you that you're full of crap.
Kerry did not vote for the war. There was never any vote for the war. There was a congressional vote to permit the President to use force with the UN in order to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. You can read Kerry's full speech from the Senate floor here: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/ kerry-iraq.html.
The resolution succeeded, getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq. They never found WMDs, so Bush invaded, without a congressional vote and without UN authorization--a violation of the US consitution and the UN charter.
There were two votes, as you know, on the $87billion "body armor" vote. The first, which Kerry voted FOR, would have repealed those portions of the $1.3trillion tax cut that went to the richest Americans, so that the $87billion could actually be paid. Kerry voted FOR that. Congressional Republicans voted AGAINST that. The President threatened that he would VETO such a bill. Who's playing politics? The President would have vetoed a bill to actually pay for that equipment if it resulted in his cronies losing part of that tax cut. The President thinks it is better to borrow money than to actually pay for things. When it was clear that the next version of the $87billion funding bill would pass, since congressional Republicans could pass it themselves, Kerry gave a protest vote against the bill. There was never any chance that our troops would go without supplies as a result of Kerry's voting. Bush was the one who threatened to veto the bill outright if he didn't get his way.
QSpy. Back in the olden days (about 8 years ago), it was QSpy. When they started doing more and more non-Quake games, it became GameSpy. Ah, the memories.
Just one final comment from me. I don't say that anyone should use 'virii' on Slashdot or elsewhere. I simply say it is a word. But more importantly, I want to remind you that this is Slashdot. I don't think 'intellectual' or literate are words that anyone would say characterize Slashdot. I would go as far as to say that they mischaracterize the site.
To your first point, I don't believe "to my perspective" to be a neologism. Perhaps it's not as common within American dialects or is simply less common in spoken language.
To your second point, I'll remind you that you said I looked "like a retard". So, if you're insulted... hmmm... I guess I'm prepared to live with that, but primarily because I suspect my supposition was correct.
I'm sorry if I'm confusing you. The phrase "the lexicon" is a technical term. It has no relation to physical dictionaries. "The lexicon" refers to the set of all lexical items (listemes) in a language (see, for example, any basic textbook or webpage on linguistics dating from the 50s or later). It's basically a theoretical concept. Every language speaker has his own lexicon inside his head. When I write the word 'virii', and you know what I mean by it, that indicates that 'virii' exists in both of our mental lexicons.
If you were to argue that your mental lexicon had a little star by the word 'virii', indicating that it is ungrammatical, that would be fine. But if you know the word well enough to argue that it doesn't exist on the grounds of connotations it posses, you're admitting that it is part of your lexicon and it is therefore a word, however much you may personally despise it and its use.
I never claimed that 'virii' was "in common literate use". In fact I state something completely different, which you then attacked. I stated that it is part of a specific linguistic register and is in use primarily within a specific linguistic subgroup. That subgroup has expanded from what initially consisted of virus enthusiasts to a much larger group of computer users. Whether or not they themselves would choose to use the form 'virii' rather than the more standard 'viruses', the word does exist in their lexicons.
Unliterary provenance is the norm in word creation. And what you refer to as "ahistorical provenance" is by no means uncommon. Once upon a time, 'pea' did not exist as a word. Instead, English had a word pronounced like the modern word 'peas' (for the singular form as well as the plural). In spite of folks of like minds to yours and in spite of its historical pronunciation, people began using 'pea' for the singular rather than 'peas' at some time during the 17th century.
As we all know, civilization crumbled as a result. No, no, I'm kidding, it didn't.
So, you admit I'm right, yet you nevertheless feel the need to say I look like a retard. If I were a retard, what would that make you?
If that construction is doesn't sound right to you, that's fine. It may simply not be part of your dialect. And it suggests that I may read a little bit more than you. Totally fine. But don't pretend you're the ultimate authority.
I'm a linguist, and I've studied my share of lexicography, sociolinguistics, and issues surrounding wordhood. So if you really must have an authority, I offer myself. Okay? Good, I'm glad that's settled.
Perhaps what I should have done was define word itself. I was using it in the sense of any item listed in the lexicon (a listeme, in other words, according to the definition provided by DiSciullo & Williams (1987)).
If, within any linguistic community (in this case, I suppose that would be the community of computer virus enthusiasts), a wordform is accepted as grammatical and enjoys any amount of use, that makes it a word. The word can, of course, spread outside that community, in which case it is still a word but is not limited to a single register. Word formation can violate normal morphological rules, as in the case of 'virii', if the community is willing to violate those rules. With 'virii', it seems pseudo-pedantry was able to override English plural formation rules. We could, indeed, some day see pseudo-pedantry override English causative formation rules and permit 'embiggen' as a word, but at this point in time, it has not.
Prescriptivist notions that some words are better than others are completely irrelevant to the question of wordhood.
Thanks for playing the home version of our game, but no, I did not mean to say from. That's not to say it would have been different or incorrect, had I done so. "... Lamentable to my perspective" is perfectly grammatical.
For a few other correct uses of the "to my perspective" construction in this sense, see these. (Results 4, 6, 8, 9, & 10 use the same construction.)
Indeed. Let this be a lesson to us all. If you're going to post any kind of pedantic message, go ahead and take the extra time to fire up a spellchecker.
Insterestingly, there are a number of instances where mistakes actually end up being incorporated in languages though. One example is the sense of the word "titivate" that is synonymous with the word "titillate". As far as I can determine, this error actually stems from a mis-definition in the first edition of the OED (since current editions cite the first as an instance of this (mis)use).
You're right, absolutely. That was a purely subjective statement. It's only lamentable to my perspective. It is natural and inevitable, and from the perspective of the language, it's not bad at all. But after years in the US public school system where things like "alot" are still poor usage, I guess I'm just brainwashed into believing this change is a bad thing.
Re:"ALLLOT" IS NOT A WORD!
on
60GB iPod Coming?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In spite of your errant pedantry, some of your points are plainly wrong.
irregadless is most definitely a word. The OED, Webster's, and the American Heritage Dictionary all contain it as a listed item. (While all "words" are not necessarily listed, all listed items are necessarily words.) It's got nearly a century of documented history. Its usage may be discouraged, but it is nevertheless a word.
virii actually IS a word, however sad this fact may be. Its use is restricted to very specific groups, which qualifies it as part of a specific linguistic register (sort of like a dialect within a social subgroup of a population). So, "virii" is the plural of "virus" in and only in the context of computer viruses being discussed by the sorts of people who think writing them is a good way to spend an afternoon and their ilk. (You may find the discussion of plurals of virus in English & Latin to be found here of some interest. But these facts about what ought to be the correct plural according to English & Latin morphological rules do not discount the fact that "virii" entered one register of the English language via a route that "smacks of pseudo-pedantry.")
And, saddest of all, though this day has not yet come, alot will one day be a grammatical word in the English langauge. Words like "altogether", "instead", "nonetheless", "amiss", "already", and "alright" (the last of which is still in the process of gaining acceptance), all attest to the process by which words that frequently collocate coalesce into new words. Thankfully, we'll probably all be dead before "alot" becomes kosher in formal writing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty sad, isn't it, when the submitter won't even RTFA.
I could look you in the eye and tell you that you're full of crap.
Kerry did not vote for the war. There was never any vote for the war. There was a congressional vote to permit the President to use force with the UN in order to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. You can read Kerry's full speech from the Senate floor here: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/ kerry-iraq.html.
The resolution succeeded, getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq. They never found WMDs, so Bush invaded, without a congressional vote and without UN authorization--a violation of the US consitution and the UN charter.
There were two votes, as you know, on the $87billion "body armor" vote. The first, which Kerry voted FOR, would have repealed those portions of the $1.3trillion tax cut that went to the richest Americans, so that the $87billion could actually be paid. Kerry voted FOR that. Congressional Republicans voted AGAINST that. The President threatened that he would VETO such a bill. Who's playing politics? The President would have vetoed a bill to actually pay for that equipment if it resulted in his cronies losing part of that tax cut. The President thinks it is better to borrow money than to actually pay for things. When it was clear that the next version of the $87billion funding bill would pass, since congressional Republicans could pass it themselves, Kerry gave a protest vote against the bill. There was never any chance that our troops would go without supplies as a result of Kerry's voting. Bush was the one who threatened to veto the bill outright if he didn't get his way.
Your 90-second response? :)
QSpy. Back in the olden days (about 8 years ago), it was QSpy. When they started doing more and more non-Quake games, it became GameSpy. Ah, the memories.
Just one final comment from me. I don't say that anyone should use 'virii' on Slashdot or elsewhere. I simply say it is a word. But more importantly, I want to remind you that this is Slashdot. I don't think 'intellectual' or literate are words that anyone would say characterize Slashdot. I would go as far as to say that they mischaracterize the site.
To your first point, I don't believe "to my perspective" to be a neologism. Perhaps it's not as common within American dialects or is simply less common in spoken language.
To your second point, I'll remind you that you said I looked "like a retard". So, if you're insulted... hmmm... I guess I'm prepared to live with that, but primarily because I suspect my supposition was correct.
I'm sorry if I'm confusing you. The phrase "the lexicon" is a technical term. It has no relation to physical dictionaries. "The lexicon" refers to the set of all lexical items (listemes) in a language (see, for example, any basic textbook or webpage on linguistics dating from the 50s or later). It's basically a theoretical concept. Every language speaker has his own lexicon inside his head. When I write the word 'virii', and you know what I mean by it, that indicates that 'virii' exists in both of our mental lexicons.
If you were to argue that your mental lexicon had a little star by the word 'virii', indicating that it is ungrammatical, that would be fine. But if you know the word well enough to argue that it doesn't exist on the grounds of connotations it posses, you're admitting that it is part of your lexicon and it is therefore a word, however much you may personally despise it and its use.
I never claimed that 'virii' was "in common literate use". In fact I state something completely different, which you then attacked. I stated that it is part of a specific linguistic register and is in use primarily within a specific linguistic subgroup. That subgroup has expanded from what initially consisted of virus enthusiasts to a much larger group of computer users. Whether or not they themselves would choose to use the form 'virii' rather than the more standard 'viruses', the word does exist in their lexicons.
Unliterary provenance is the norm in word creation. And what you refer to as "ahistorical provenance" is by no means uncommon. Once upon a time, 'pea' did not exist as a word. Instead, English had a word pronounced like the modern word 'peas' (for the singular form as well as the plural). In spite of folks of like minds to yours and in spite of its historical pronunciation, people began using 'pea' for the singular rather than 'peas' at some time during the 17th century.
As we all know, civilization crumbled as a result. No, no, I'm kidding, it didn't.
So, you admit I'm right, yet you nevertheless feel the need to say I look like a retard. If I were a retard, what would that make you?
If that construction is doesn't sound right to you, that's fine. It may simply not be part of your dialect. And it suggests that I may read a little bit more than you. Totally fine. But don't pretend you're the ultimate authority.
I'm a linguist, and I've studied my share of lexicography, sociolinguistics, and issues surrounding wordhood. So if you really must have an authority, I offer myself. Okay? Good, I'm glad that's settled.
Perhaps what I should have done was define word itself. I was using it in the sense of any item listed in the lexicon (a listeme, in other words, according to the definition provided by DiSciullo & Williams (1987)).
If, within any linguistic community (in this case, I suppose that would be the community of computer virus enthusiasts), a wordform is accepted as grammatical and enjoys any amount of use, that makes it a word. The word can, of course, spread outside that community, in which case it is still a word but is not limited to a single register. Word formation can violate normal morphological rules, as in the case of 'virii', if the community is willing to violate those rules. With 'virii', it seems pseudo-pedantry was able to override English plural formation rules. We could, indeed, some day see pseudo-pedantry override English causative formation rules and permit 'embiggen' as a word, but at this point in time, it has not.
Prescriptivist notions that some words are better than others are completely irrelevant to the question of wordhood.
Thanks for playing the home version of our game, but no, I did not mean to say from. That's not to say it would have been different or incorrect, had I done so. "... Lamentable to my perspective" is perfectly grammatical.
For a few other correct uses of the "to my perspective" construction in this sense, see these. (Results 4, 6, 8, 9, & 10 use the same construction.)
So nyeh.
:)
Indeed. Let this be a lesson to us all. If you're going to post any kind of pedantic message, go ahead and take the extra time to fire up a spellchecker.
Insterestingly, there are a number of instances where mistakes actually end up being incorporated in languages though. One example is the sense of the word "titivate" that is synonymous with the word "titillate". As far as I can determine, this error actually stems from a mis-definition in the first edition of the OED (since current editions cite the first as an instance of this (mis)use).
You're right, absolutely. That was a purely subjective statement. It's only lamentable to my perspective. It is natural and inevitable, and from the perspective of the language, it's not bad at all. But after years in the US public school system where things like "alot" are still poor usage, I guess I'm just brainwashed into believing this change is a bad thing.
In spite of your errant pedantry, some of your points are plainly wrong.
irregadless is most definitely a word. The OED, Webster's, and the American Heritage Dictionary all contain it as a listed item. (While all "words" are not necessarily listed, all listed items are necessarily words.) It's got nearly a century of documented history. Its usage may be discouraged, but it is nevertheless a word.
virii actually IS a word, however sad this fact may be. Its use is restricted to very specific groups, which qualifies it as part of a specific linguistic register (sort of like a dialect within a social subgroup of a population). So, "virii" is the plural of "virus" in and only in the context of computer viruses being discussed by the sorts of people who think writing them is a good way to spend an afternoon and their ilk. (You may find the discussion of plurals of virus in English & Latin to be found here of some interest. But these facts about what ought to be the correct plural according to English & Latin morphological rules do not discount the fact that "virii" entered one register of the English language via a route that "smacks of pseudo-pedantry.")
And, saddest of all, though this day has not yet come, alot will one day be a grammatical word in the English langauge. Words like "altogether", "instead", "nonetheless", "amiss", "already", and "alright" (the last of which is still in the process of gaining acceptance), all attest to the process by which words that frequently collocate coalesce into new words. Thankfully, we'll probably all be dead before "alot" becomes kosher in formal writing.