Re: Improving the WHOIS format
Dwayne Henderson <[email protected]> Sat, 14 Jan 2012 05:00:07 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.irc.irssi.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOOO88Bfjd2rZjiRoFzOmc34p4zbEkjMeMgRPxR=G=eFFifQ_g@mail.gmail.com> |
--00151747c0ee5cba0804b67504b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:13 AM, David Romano < [email protected]> wrote: > Nothing about being phonetical. You're changing the subject. > You're the one all of a sudden arguing that acronyms don't always have to be uppercase. I was just playing along. > > > Now, Strunk & White made a lot of mistakes: > > [2]http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/ > Right, prescriptivists can make mistakes, just as descriptivists. To be > honest, > it looked to me that you are prescribing whereas others are describing. > > > But I guess it was intentional, so I guess it's okay. > No, I wrote: It's not a typographical error if it's intentional. Don't take > "typographical error" to mean a rule on grammar. > Right. > > > See my previous message. > > > > Join X to a Y. > > X is joined to a Y. > > X is joined to too many Ys. > > > > Or how about X joins Y. > > X joined Y. > > X has joined too many Ys. > Red herring. Your position is that 'X is joined to too many Ys' is > *ungrammatical*, not that 'X has joined too many Ys' *is* grammatical. > Those > are completely different positions and I would never argue *against* the > latter. > My position is that it's a misuse of "to", not ungrammatical. It's just not something regular people would use on a regular basis. It sounds unnatural. Maybe it's different where you come from, I don't know. If X and Y were to be objects on the other hand, say for instance in the world of object-oriented programming, that would be different. > > Since you seem to be handy with citing wikipedia, there's probably a > > page > > describing the terms "ad hominem" and "pedant": enjoy. > > > > This Jake already dissed me on IRC calling me a pedant the first day I > > joined this list. Ad hominem you say? > I wasn't on IRC so I can't say if you and he were in an argument and > resorted > to "ad hominem". If he calls you a pedant on the first day, it's not > necessarily "ad hominem". Stating that others are bigots because they don't > agree with you is. > > If calling me a pedant because they disagree with me ain't ad hominem, then calling them a bigot in return ain't nothing but self-defense. --Dwayne http://wearebuild.com +44(0)208 521 1040 (Vimeo<http://vimeo.com/wearebuild/videos> ) --00151747c0ee5cba0804b67504b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:13 AM, David Romano <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href= =3D"mailto:david.romano%[email protected]">david.romano+irssi-users@g= mail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote cl= ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p= adding-left:1ex"> Nothing about being phonetical. You're changing the subject.<br></block= quote><div><br>You're the one all of a sudden arguing that acronyms don= 't always have to be uppercase. I was just playing along.<br>=A0<br></d= iv> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-= left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div class=3D"im"><br> > =A0 =A0Now, Strunk & White made a lot of mistakes:<br> </div>> =A0 =A0[2]<a href=3D"http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-St= upid-Grammar/25497/" target=3D"_blank">http://chronicle.com/article/50-Year= s-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497/</a><br> Right, prescriptivists can make mistakes, just as descriptivists. To be hon= est,<br> it looked to me that you are prescribing whereas others are describing.<br> <div class=3D"im"><br> > =A0 =A0But I guess it was intentional, so I guess it's okay.<br> </div>No, I wrote: It's not a typographical error if it's intention= al. Don't take<br> "typographical error" to mean a rule on grammar.<br></blockquote>= <div><br>Right.<br>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg= in:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1e= x"> <div class=3D"im"><br> > =A0 =A0 =A0See my previous message.<br> ><br> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Join X to a Y.<br> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 X is joined to a Y.<br> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 X is joined to too many Ys.<br> ><br> > =A0 =A0Or how about X joins Y.<br> > =A0 =A0X joined Y.<br> > =A0 =A0X has joined too many Ys.<br> </div>Red herring. Your position is that 'X is joined to too many Ys= 9; is<br> *ungrammatical*, not that 'X has joined too many Ys' *is* grammatic= al. Those<br> are completely different positions and I would never argue *against* the<br= > latter.<br></blockquote><div><br>My position is that it's a misuse of &= quot;to", not ungrammatical. It's just not something regular peopl= e would use on a regular basis. It sounds unnatural. Maybe it's differe= nt where you come from, I don't know.<br> <br>If X and Y were to be objects on the other hand, say for instance in th= e world of object-oriented programming, that would be different.<br><br></d= iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;bord= er-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div class=3D"im"><br> > =A0 =A0 =A0Since you seem to be handy with citing wikipedia, there'= ;s probably a<br> > =A0 =A0 =A0page<br> > =A0 =A0 =A0describing the terms "ad hominem" and "pedan= t": enjoy.<br> ><br> > =A0 =A0This Jake already dissed me on IRC calling me a pedant the firs= t day I<br> > =A0 =A0joined this list. Ad hominem you say?<br> </div>I wasn't on IRC so I can't say if you and he were in an argum= ent and resorted<br> to "ad hominem". If he calls you a pedant on the first day, it= 9;s not<br> necessarily "ad hominem". Stating that others are bigots because = they don't<br> agree with you is.<br> <br> </blockquote></div><br>If calling me a pedant because they disagree with me= ain't ad hominem, then calling them a bigot in return ain't nothin= g but self-defense.<br><br>--Dwayne<br><a href=3D"http://wearebuild.com/" t= arget=3D"_blank">http://wearebuild.com</a> <a href=3D"tel:%2B44%280%29208%2= 0521%201040" value=3D"+442085211040" target=3D"_blank">+44(0)208 521 1040</= a> (<a href=3D"http://vimeo.com/wearebuild/videos" target=3D"_blank">Vimeo<= /a>)<br> <br> --00151747c0ee5cba0804b67504b0--