To the grammer/spelling freaks out there

doG1

You gave three reasons which all assert that his reasoning was flawed!! :confused:

I'm saying you can't say this absolutely.

Gosh, you really seem to like Johnson an awful lot. :s-smilie:

Did you actually read GB's post, though? There is no need to prove Johnson's reasoning was flawed, because it's quite possible that his reasoning played no part at all in his omission of this particular word. Why is that so hard to understand?

You're really quite frustrating to argue with, you know...

Reply 62

hobnob

It is a word and clearly it has been a word since the 16th century. What is there to argue about?

Sorry, could you remind me again what your point actually is? :confused:

I'm really getting confused now and your changing track halfway through hasn't made things any easier...

Look, you seem unable to concede that a counter-argument to your point even exists. You're being stubborn, i've admitted i might not have been right in my absolute assertion but why cant you do the same?

Browse the internet for a bit or something.

Reply 63

doG1

Look, you seem unable to concede that a counter-argument to your point even exists. You're being stubborn, i've admitted i might not have been right in my absolute assertion but why cant you do the same?

Browse the internet for a bit or something.

Look who's talking... :rolleyes:

You're the one using the narrow definition of "just because a word is being used and has been used for several centuries, that doesn't mean it's really a word", whereas I would say that if it is (or has been) around and is (or was) being used by several people independently of each other then it's a word, never mind how it originated. So there's nothing for me to concede, really.

Reply 64

hobnob

Look who's talking... :rolleyes:

You're the one using the narrow definition of "just because a word is being used and has been used for several centuries, that doesn't mean it's really a word", whereas I would say that if it is (or has been) around and is (or was) being used by several people independently of each other then it's a word, never mind how it originated. So there's nothing for me to concede, really.

So because a lot of people do something and have been doing for a long time then it is automatically correct?!?! Religion?

I love how you can't admit there's even a debate.

Reply 65

doG1

Correct.

Im now arguing for a possibility that he was right as you all seem to have concentrated on me being definitely wrong.

Let's take this step-by-step, shall we. There is clear evidence for the word in the sixteenth century, as given in the OED. This is prima facie evidence that Johnson was wrong to omit it, as he should have known about it in the 1740s. What reasons do you think he might have had?

If you think he (a) wasn't ignorant of the word, and (b) didn't forget to include it, and c) didn't leave it out because he was being awkward or playful, you must think he legitimately omitted the word and you will need to produce evidence of him knowing about it, deciding it wasn't valid and deliberately missing it out. Do you have this evidence, or do you, perhaps, think that one or more of my explanations is more likely?

Reply 66

Good bloke

Let's take this step-by-step, shall we. There is clear evidence for the word in the sixteenth century, as given in the OED. This is prima facie evidence that Johnson was wrong to omit it, as he should have known about it in the 1740s. What reasons do you think he might have had?

If you think he (a) wasn't ignorant of the word, and (b) didn't forget to include it, and c) didn't leave it out because he was being awkward or playful, you must think he legitimately omitted the word and you will need to produce evidence of him knowing about it, deciding it wasn't valid and deliberately missing it out. Do you have this evidence, or do you, perhaps, think that one or more of my explanations is more likely?

1. No it isn't!! He might have rejected its origin.

2. Why do i need to produce evidence if im arguing for the possibility? On the contrary, if you're making an assertion you're the one who needs to provide evidence he was wrong!! :smile:

Reply 67

doG1

So because a lot of people do something and have been doing for a long time then it is automatically correct?!?! Religion?

Not with regards to everything, but as far as language (aka the thing we're actually talking about here) is concerned, yes, why not? Language needs to be used in order to be language, so what's wrong with making usage - though not necessarily current usage - the main criterion for something to be a word?

I love how you can't admit there's even a debate.

There are people who have a prescriptivist attitude towards language which would have done most 19th-century grammarians proud and there are people saying that this might be a bit too narrow. If you want to call that a debate, then fair enough. But that still doesn't mean that if you're holding one view and I'm holding another, I'm obliged to say that your view is right or partly right.

Reply 68

doG1

1. No it isn't!! He might have rejected its origin.

If he did, then by twenty-first century standards he was wrong to do so, as mainstream lexicological opinion is that it is, indeed, a word.

Reply 69

GlamCanyon

9

What defines something as a word?

Reply 70

doG1

2. Why do i need to produce evidence if im arguing for the possibility? On the contrary, if you're making an assertion you're the one who needs to provide evidence he was wrong!! :smile:

No-one is arguing against the possibility, but the point is that if you're really just trying to argue for the possibility, then your argument (if you can still call it that) crumbles to bits. You could just as easily claim that there's a possibility that Johnson meant to write the word down but was distracted because his cat chose to bite his ankle at that very moment. But neither of those two claims, which are basically just idle speculation with no factual evidence to back them up, actually becomes an argument, unless you can prove they are true or likely to be true. If you can't prove that, there's really no reason to assume that there was any particular reason why Johnson omitted the word.

Reply 71

GlamCanyon

What defines something as a word?

Having parents who are married to each other, apparently.

Reply 72

hobnob

Not with regards to everything, but as far as language (aka the thing we're actually talking about here) is concerned, yes, why not? Language needs to be used in order to be language, so what's wrong with making usage - though not necessarily current usage - the main criterion for something to be a word?

There are people who have a prescriptivist attitude towards language which would have done most 19th-century grammarians proud and there are people saying that this might be a bit too narrow. If you want to call that a debate, then fair enough. But that still doesn't mean that if you're holding one view and I'm holding another, I'm obliged to say that your view is right or partly right.

Whether it is proper to use "firstly", rather than "first", has often been disputed.
Beginning in the early 19th century with de Quincey, who erroneously believed that "firstly" was a neologism, some have argued against the use of "firstly", advocating the sequence: "First", "secondly", "thirdly", ....
The usage of "firstly" is also deprecated by some modern style guides.[2] The Chicago Manual of Style further recommends that all such -ly forms be avoided, and that list items begin only with "first", "second", and so forth.[3]
Other authorities disagree.
The American Heritage Dictionary comments:
It is well established that either first or firstly can be used to begin an enumeration: Our objectives are, first (or firstly), to recover from last year's slump.[4]
The Oxford English Dictionary notes the dispute but does not pass judgment: "many writers prefer first, even though closely followed by secondly, thirdly, etc."[5]
"Firstly" may appear more formal than "first" and is often recommended for the formal enumeration of arguments

From wikipedia. My argument is not solely backed up by strict 18thC lexicographers.

The OED acknowledges the debate.

You dont have to admit im right or partly right, but you have to admit there is room for me to be so (ie that it's a contentious issue). I admit there's room for both sides.

Reply 73

GlamCanyon

What defines something as a word?

A word is the unit of language smaller than a sentence or phrase that would be identified by a competent native speaker of the language.

Reply 74

Good bloke

If he did, then by twenty-first century standards he was wrong to do so, as mainstream lexicological opinion is that it is, indeed, a word.

"mainstream lexicological opinion" - doesnt sound like proof to me! You've bascially conceded there is a debate, so i agree.

Reply 75

doG1

Whether it is proper to use "firstly", rather than "first", has often been disputed.
Beginning in the early 19th century with de Quincey, who erroneously believed that "firstly" was a neologism, some have argued against the use of "firstly", advocating the sequence: "First", "secondly", "thirdly", ....
The usage of "firstly" is also deprecated by some modern style guides.[2] The Chicago Manual of Style further recommends that all such -ly forms be avoided, and that list items begin only with "first", "second", and so forth.[3]
Other authorities disagree.
The American Heritage Dictionary comments:
It is well established that either first or firstly can be used to begin an enumeration: Our objectives are, first (or firstly), to recover from last year's slump.[4]
The Oxford English Dictionary notes the dispute but does not pass judgment: "many writers prefer first, even though closely followed by secondly, thirdly, etc."[5]
"Firstly" may appear more formal than "first" and is often recommended for the formal enumeration of arguments

From wikipedia. My argument is not solely backed up by strict 18thC lexicographers.
Great, so it's also backed up by a couple of people who have access to a computer and know how to edit wiki articles - and that proves what exactly?

Reply 76

Prudy

15

In the (twisted) words of Margaret Mountford: "Perhaps Durham isn't what it was..."

Reply 77

doG1

"mainstream lexicological opinion" - doesnt sound like proof to me! You've bascially conceded there is a debate, so i agree.

You are straining at a gnat. Nobody is arguing, as Hobnob has already said, that there is a possibility that Johnson was right to omit, just as there is a possibility that I will win the lottery this weekend. In both of those examples, the likelihood and logic says that both are minute possibilities, and such tenuous arguments are just not worth making without evidence.

Reply 78