|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Heed not the folk who sing of say
In sonnet said or sermon chill,
"Alas, alack, and well-a-day!
This round world's but a bitter pill."
We too are sand and careful; still
We'd rather be alive than not.
~ Graham R. Tomson (pseudonym of Rosamund Marriott Watson), Ballade of the Optimist
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
Careless or, specifically, worthy of rebuke.
As the dictionary version and my version mean the same thing, methinks your "worthy of rebuke" is unneccessary ("careless" is, of course, accurate and indeed, but). Ain't the addition of an "s" in pronunciation (and parbably spelling <wink>) as I *do is an excellent example of just one of the ways languages breathe?
Live and let live!?
I'm not saying the exception proves a new rule, I'm sayin' if it is understood as it was intended the rebuke of spelling is quite *pointless in a word used so infrequently as well as not similar enough to another word as to create confusion through spelling or enunciation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
musick:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. If you mean you think I meant *you* are worthy rebuke, then I apologize for not making myself clearer; I was only offering a definition. If you mean you disagree with that definition, I think it is at most only a little too strong. Or maybe I'm not getting you at all?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I read yours as a comment on the spelling/pronunciation of the version of the word which I'd always heard it as. I can now read yours as a definition (and it makes more sense)... yet taking lacksadaisical (whichever form) to mean *rebukable is a new one to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>I read yours as a comment on the spelling/pronunciation of the version of the word which I'd always heard it as.<<
Whew! Glad we cleared that up!
>>yet taking lacksadaisical (whichever form) to mean *rebukable is a new one to me.<<
In a way, I agree. I wouldn't have given that definition if I hadn't already followed the trail at dic.com. In terms of origins, that definition seemed apt, and the reason I offered it was that I wasn't satisfied with the notion that one could be both industrious and careless at the same time. One can, of course, not be industrious and also not be deserving of rebuke -- at least, I hope so; but the contexts in which lackadaisical is most often used, in my experience, is one in which someone is supposed to be doing something and doing it carelessly. I exclude such circumstances where point-of-view is of paramount importance, such as work slowdowns, or resistance to unethical orders and the like.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
811
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
