Grammar

pe, your conclusion is not a logical outcome of your initial, questionable observation about the during of existance of species. Do you want to spell out your argument?

As a practising editor - that breed renowned for their nitpickiness - I have to say I've got nothing on you guys.Sheesh.But, yeah, there was a comma missing before that second "too".------------------
o--greyline--o

wj:I think you're confused by the way prophecyexclaimed wrote that. He was actually responding to NoseyNed in message three (who was responding to mike-the-wiz from message 1). Basically, reformatting to show what really transpired: NN was responding to mike's statement: Mike conceded the point when someone (PaulK, I think) showed him pictures of extinct critters that were still generically "type" (sharks, in this case, and specifically Megalodon) as examples of how simply because a "type" of organism has persisted, it doesn't imply that the particular species persisted for millions of years.prophecyexclaimed, IOW, was making a bald assertion: A one-shot, off-topic irrelevancy.Hope that clarifies things.

quote:

---

Obviously, millions of years don't exist

---

Ok lets say they don't. Why then can I not find Modern animal fossils with Dinosaurs? explain this to me please I would really like to know. I have Been on Digs and I have yet to Find a single fossil of a Human , A tiger , a cow , a rat etc... where are they? why can I not find them in the same beds as Dinosaurs?[This message has been edited by DC85, 08-11-2003]

I would have sworn I'd replied to that post. I remember writing it. hmmm.... must have never posted. grrr... I hate that.Rhhain's focus on the word 'too' is so far off base that it is comical. I don't care about, nor did I mention, the word 'too.'My comment concerned your rewrite of IrishRockHound's sentence, which can be found in post #70 of this thread. Granted, somewhere along the way I got it into my head that you were correcting mikethewiz instead of IrishRockHound. That is embarrasing, but irrelevent.The 'correct' or 'more correct' sentence you offered is stereotypically wrong. English teachers have a fit over that sort of thing. I know this. I gave them many such fits.What is bizarre about this is that Rhhain responded to your post # 72 first and acknowledged that such a rule exists in English, and accurately portrays the hundred year old debate about the rule. So far, so good. But then he changes directions and stubbornly denies what he's already acknowledged. Typical Rh, based on my past experience debating with him.Now, with his last post, he's thrown in a bit of misdirection. Again, typical.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The 'correct' or 'more correct' sentence you offered is stereotypically wrong. English teachers have a fit over that sort of thing. I know this. I gave them many such fits.

---

English teachers are not the arbiters of correct English - thank god.------------------
o--greyline--o

John writes, quoting me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, it is a preposition and it is generally considered good grammar not to end a sentence with a preposition.

---

​

So far, so good. But then he changes directions and stubbornly denies what he's already acknowledged. Typical Rh, based on my past experience debating with him.

---

Typical John, confusing his inference for the other's implication.To paraphrase from the remake of D.O.A.What I mean? That's "imply."
The way you take it? That's "infer."Question: When did "generally considered" become equivalent to "there is a rule"?And in another classic example of dishonesty, John leaves out the full context. Indeed, I said the above, and immediately followed it up with: Now, all but the most casual observer would agree that it appears that I am not exactly beholden to that "general consideration" regarding ending sentences with prepositions. I even follow it up with a joke: Again, it would appear to be the case, even to the most casual observer, that I am not exactly defending the case that sentences should never be ended with prepositions.Instead, it appears that I am simply explaining to Parasomnium why it is you seemed to think that there was an error in the original statement, "Also, would a little grammar be too much to ask for?"In other words, I responded that you were whining about the sentence ending in a preposition...a stance that many people in the speaking community will claim to be cognizant of and even claim to be an example of "good English" (i.e., "generally considered good grammar")...but that to be slavish to this heuristic is to commit an even worse error: Awkward speech (i.e., "up with which I will not put.")I'm sorry you missed the subtlety, John, but do not confuse your inference with my implication.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Erm, guys?Could you kiss and make up please? I wouldn't want the two of you to argue about a mistake I made in my presumptious attempt to correct a native speaker. That my example was, in some strict sense, grammatically incorrect is a shame of course, but in my defence I can only say that I hear native speakers use this form (ending a sentence in a preposition) quite a lot. I could argue of course that instead of talking about grammar I was merely pointing out that stylistically the sentence could be improved upon (sorry), but that would be pedantic, so I won't. See? I even struck it out.Maybe we can conclude that language is yet another thing that is susceptible to evolution, which is what we really should be talking about (sorry), and which I think you both show an admirable ability and zest in doing. Keep it up!Cheers.

I'm sorry Para, but your suggestion about kissing is in the wrong thread. I would suggest either the "We youth at EVC are in moral decline" or "Same Sex Marriage" threads would be more appropriate.[/Moose emulation mode]

[nervous]Shit! Just as I thought I was winning Admin's favour by suggesting they stay on-topic, it turns out that I'm guilty of off-topicness my self! [/nervous] [hysteric]Aaaargh! I'm doing it again! Sorry, sorry, sorry! [/hysteric]

quote:

---

Typical John, confusing his inference for the other's implication.

---

Don't be an idiot, Rh. I understand that must be hard, but try.Quote old movies all you wish, it doesn't make any more since now than it did the first time. It is language. All I have is what I can infer. All anyone has is what can be inferred. Unless you have some secret line on direct communication-- ie. telepathy-- stop whining.

quote:

---

Question: When did "generally considered" become equivalent to "there is a rule"?

---

Its language. That is about as close as you can get. Or do you wish to change position again? Or maybe you just inferred the wrong god-damned meaning of rule and went on a hissie-fit?Gee... I see that one definition of rule reads "a principle that customarily governs behavior" and another that reads " a rule describing or prescribing linguistic behavior.""Generally considered" fits nicely with "customarily governs" and, frankly, it foolish to think countless grammar books aren't "prescribing linguistic behavior" whether anyone follows the prescriptions or not.

quote:

---

And in another classic example of dishonesty, John leaves out the full context.

---

In fact, I referenced just this very context. You are a bad liar, Rh.

quote:

---

Now, all but the most casual observer would agree that it appears that I am not exactly beholden to that "general consideration" regarding ending sentences with prepositions.

---

Obviously.Strangely, it has nothing to do with what you like or dislike. Weird, huh? Hard to imagine.That the 'general consideration' exists at all is sufficient.

quote:

---

Again, it would appear to be the case, even to the most casual observer, that I am not exactly defending the case that sentences should never be ended with prepositions.

---

Never said you were. I said you acknowledged the rule. You did. I did not say you defended it. I don't care. And after having acknowledged it it you go about denying it. Bizarre.Is it your position that only rules that are universally accepted are 'rules'? If so, we can just about ditch the whole language. There are no 'real' rules. But that would be silly, so shift to some reasonable conception of 'grammatical rule,' eh?

quote:

---

In other words, I responded that you were whining about the sentence ending in a preposition...

---

LOL... damn sure was. It was a joke, based on the agony every kid I have every known has gone through in English class.

quote:

---

...but that to be slavish to this heuristic is to commit an even worse error: Awkward speech (i.e., "up with which I will not put.")

---

Only if you are not clever.

quote:

---

I'm sorry you missed the subtlety, John, but do not confuse your inference with my implication.

---

It is sad that you have no clue as to how language actually functions. But once I get that memo on telepathy we can just skip language altogether.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-12-2003]

The title of this thread provides no hint of the original topic, and reading the last 10 or so messages provide no hint, either. Should I rename the topic "Grammar" and move it to the Coffee House forum?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Why not rename it 'semantic pedantry' instead?

Actually Percy, topic drift began about 2/3ds of the way down page two, was totally gone by page 3, and has never recovered. If you want an unsolicited opinion, closing it would be mercy killing.

Thread moved here from the Miscellaneous Topics forum.