henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:56 pm
Veg,
Yeah, language/grammar gets codified, but the foundation of language/grammar is still largely a matter of (as I say) 'reasonableness', not 'rules'.
#
Phil,
Why you wanna feed trolls?
Not really. Trolls can easily avoid my threads or, even better, not troll. So the question is what do the trolls gain from getting fed? I'm helping the readers identify those who are trolls as a public service.
PhilX
I do avoid them for the most part (and so does everyone else), unless it's about something that interests me and that I can contribute constructively to. The trouble is that 90+ percent of your threads are on topics that you know absolutely nothing about, then you get nasty when you are shown up as the complete ignoramus that you are.
Another lie. Name calling just lowers your reputation further.
How ironic that the US 'gifted' the world the McDictionary--a failed attempt to phoeticise English, and then 'gifted' the world the 'look say' method of teaching reading to children--a method that removed the tried and true phonic method of teaching--resulting in subsequent generations of illiterate children. English is phonetic 'to a point' (if the only words you will ever need are 'it, cat, bat, hat, rat, sat, mat, tit, pot.......), which is fine for five year olds, but reading and a good education is supposed to take care of you after that. Phonics gave the best possible early basis for good reading skills.
You haven't read the article about aluminium and the British. It was Americans who called the metal aluminum
and some fool British who decided to add the i to harmonize it with potassium so you got your history backwards. And if I do enough research with the British, I'm sure I'll find plenty of other illogical examples.
PhilX
Well said VEG. Unfortunately this US fella - phil - always appears to struggle with logic as he yet again fumbles his way through another one of his thread spams. Both of us have made it clear how there is nothing 'more logical' about US screwing around with the spelling within the English language, where does it stop? culla for colour? was my example. or maybe phil would have preferred 'kulla'...maybe that would have been 'more logical'.
And phil - stop calling non US people 'fools' it only serves to render yourself even dumber when you have failed yet again in one of your own threads.
An entire country that daily pour (for phil:- 'por') liquid petroleum into their cars and call it 'gas' ..duh!
Apparently you're as prejudiced as VT. I gave several examples where the British added letters to words, in at least one instance for reason of harmony. The US isn't playing around with the British language, rather they adjusted within the American language to make improvements. But it was the British that the article clearly showed who screwed around with the word aluminum to make it aluminium for British taste.
I'll call anyone a fool when the word applies. And duh, it is gas or gasoline in my country. If you want to call it petrol or petroleum in your country (note the extra letters here) just strengthens my case. So thanks for your nonbrilliant example.
PhilX
They didn't 'add letters' oh mother of all twits. Seriously, 'donut' must look like baby-language even to a baby like you.
Well said VEG. Unfortunately this US fella - phil - always appears to struggle with logic as he yet again fumbles his way through another one of his thread spams. Both of us have made it clear how there is nothing 'more logical' about US screwing around with the spelling within the English language, where does it stop? culla for colour? was my example. or maybe phil would have preferred 'kulla'...maybe that would have been 'more logical'.
And phil - stop calling non US people 'fools' it only serves to render yourself even dumber when you have failed yet again in one of your own threads.
An entire country that daily pour (for phil:- 'por') liquid petroleum into their cars and call it 'gas' ..duh!
Apparently you're as prejudiced as VT. I gave several examples where the British added letters to words, in at least one instance for reason of harmony. The US isn't playing around with the British language, rather they adjusted within the American language to make improvements. But it was the British that the article clearly showed who screwed around with the word aluminum to make it aluminium for British taste.
I'll call anyone a fool when the word applies. And duh, it is gas or gasoline in my country. If you want to call it petrol or petroleum in your country (note the extra letters here) just strengthens my case. So thanks for your nonbrilliant example.
PhilX
They didn't 'add letters' oh mother of all twits. Seriously, 'donut' must look like baby-language even to a baby like you.
Once again proving what an idiot you are. Unable to put forth a good argument and lying as the article from the authoritative Oxford Dictionary explicitly British editors did make the change fool. About the only thing you're good at is name calling.
Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:46 pm
Just amazing seeing people who think that there is some centralized board of decision-makers who determine what language is used in the USA. The USA has a First Amendment, which would make any such board unconstitutional. In the USA, language is determined by the people who use it, and the language used is constantly changing, and there are also numerous local variations. I'm sure this is largely true for most other western nations as well.
Fewer, and less, have been misused on TV and radio for years.
The misuse has begun to appear in print.
Does constant misuse make the misuse appropriate?
The discoverer of aluminum gets first dibs on its naming and syllables.
What does that have to do with anything? By the way--aeroplane has beauty. 'Airplane' is fucking ugly. The words aero and air are not interchangeable. They have subtly different meanings. Do you say 'airdynamics'? 'Airnautical'. I hated Hemingway anyway. Always killing something or other. Trying to prove how 'manly' he was, due to the fact that he had a famously minute penis.
It's only your idiot friend who's quibbling about the number of letters in words. Take it up with him.
“Combinations beginning with air- are customary both in BrE and in AmE for the language of aviation: airborne, aircraft, aircrew, airlift, airmail, airman, air traffic controller, etc.”
British no longer land their aeroplanes at aerodromes.
(The anything it has to do with that you ask about is cause.)
As I pointed out, there is a subtle difference. Even if there were not, why change it? More of that anti-French bigotry? You lot could at least be consistent. A lot of English words come from French. And so what? Shove your bigoted politics and language wrecking up your collective arse.
I don't think anyone says they need some fresh aero. Or that they breathe aero. Or that a diver is running out of aero. English is full of lovely subtleties. Shame it was ever spoken by such crass, unsubtle, uneducated oafs.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:16 am I hated Hemingway anyway. Always killing something or other. Trying to prove how 'manly' he was, due to the fact that he had a famously minute penis.
In that vein, all those unnecessary letters and curlicues to make words bigger could be a matter of compensation, perhaps even envy.
And if I do enough research with the British, I'm sure I'll find plenty of other illogical examples.