|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
red: A pre- is one who lays it out like he thinks it ought to be; which a de- tells it like it is
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re: red: A pre- is one who lays it out like he thinks it ought to be; which a de- tells it like it is
that is according to Dale.
his use of Pre- and De- to have these specific meanings is his 'invention' (convention?)i don't know of it being used anywhere but here.
it's a DALE thing.
stay around and you'll learn other dale things. and when dale is uncertain, he claims to check with laverne, since she is smarter than he is. (but apparently laverne has no interest in being here.. i guess she is happy when dale is here, cause then, he not bothering her)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Red--look for a PM from me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
A prescriptivist believes that, if it works in practice but not in theory, something is wrong with the practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
speaking of The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, here's some more pre- vs. de-note the "name-calling" and teaching comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Helen: My goodness, as Rummy might say, why such virulent reaction to a little persiflage
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 456
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 456 |
What I get from that introduction equates descriptivists with apologists for the semi-literate and the stupid and lazy. The last aspect is usually about being too lazy to reach for a dictionary. But wait! Reaching for a dictionary is not good enough anymore since the apologists have seen fit to legitimize every idiotic word that can be invented. So diction by popular demand rather than by actual intelligence is the order of the day. With the lunatics running the asylum, humans can devolve into Fahrenheit 451 bus riders at an accelerated rate. What should be most embarrassing to the apologists is the knee-jerk thought processes that create verbal junk like the example “irregardless”. Obviously in this case some dim bulb (or several) decided that since there is an ‘irrespective’ there must also be an ‘irregardless’. And in the Age of Ignorance such a thing spreads like wildfire by the monkey-hear, monkey-say principle. So why not have a group of babbling four-year-olds edit the dictionary? Stupidity is all the rage now. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Aramis: Well put! When I was a pre- I would have agreed with you in every possible way. It would appear that each and every vulgar usage eventually finds itself into Merriam Collegiate until eventually any word can come to have any meaning you wish it to
eg, by 2098 "Drive the drive to drive my drive and blue drive" will mean, "Please label the DVD on which you wish to record my singing, then transcribe this music to the blue semiconductor chip hanging by my keychain"
However I have learned in the meantime that resistance is futile, that one might as well join the de-‘s, simply lie on his stomach and spread his cheeks...
However, for what it’s worth (which evidently isn’t very much), an otherwise valuable parting thought: When faced with a new concept in search of a label, instead of applying a divergent new meaning to an old word, I highly recommend instead the coining of a brand-new one
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
PS: I apologize for somehow ensconcing this thread in Weekly. I would transfer it en masse to Misc but I don't know how
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Quote:
What I get from that introduction equates descriptivists with apologists for the semi-literate and the stupid and lazy. The last aspect is usually about being too lazy to reach for a dictionary. But wait! Reaching for a dictionary is not good enough anymore since the apologists have seen fit to legitimize every idiotic word that can be invented. So diction by popular demand rather than by actual intelligence is the order of the day. With the lunatics running the asylum, humans can devolve into Fahrenheit 451 bus riders at an accelerated rate. What should be most embarrassing to the apologists is the knee-jerk thought processes that create verbal junk like the example “irregardless”. Obviously in this case some dim bulb (or several) decided that since there is an ‘irrespective’ there must also be an ‘irregardless’. And in the Age of Ignorance such a thing spreads like wildfire by the monkey-hear, monkey-say principle. So why not have a group of babbling four-year-olds edit the dictionary? Stupidity is all the rage now.
Every word, every construction, every piece of syntax and grammar in that post was horribly incorrect at some point in the past. The language changes and we manage to understand and be understood.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,995
Members9,198
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,044
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
