This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

To the grammer/spelling freaks out there

Good bloke

Of course not. All it shows is that Johnson was (a) wrong, (b) overwhelmed by the task or (c) opinionated enough not to care about giving correct information (which several of his definitions demonstrate - his definition of oats is infamously anti-Scots, for instance. Or all three, which is most likely.

Good bloke you didnt give Johnson the possibility of being correct in the above quote!!

Reply 81

Prudy

15

Elementric

Yes it is.

I expected better from an English Student....

Noooooooooooo. You'll eset him if you say that.

Reply 82

Good bloke

19

doG1

Good bloke you didnt give Johnson the possibility of being correct in the above quote!!

Don't start that again. :mad:

Reply 83

doG1

Prudy

Noooooooooooo. You'll eset him if you say that.

Have you followed me around to annoy me? And i also love how you keep spelling things incorrectly in every post. :lol:

Reply 84

doG1

Good bloke

Don't start that again. :mad:

I highlighted your contradiction :confused:

Reply 85

Prudy

15

doG1

Have you followed me around to annoy me? And i also love how you keep spelling things incorrectly in every post. :lol:

No, I happen to be a regular on TSR and notice when threads keep popping up. And I'd ask you to look through my other ~7,500 posts if you are going to argue I spell things wrong in every post.

Why don't you take a step back and ask whether it's really worth being such an incorrigible troll...

Reply 86

hobnob

14

doG1

That's cheap, dont pull the old 'wikipedia is rubbish' argument.

Fine, don't pull the (equally old and equally cheap) 'it's in wikipedia, so it must be right' argument, then. :dontknow:

What ive proved is that it is a debate acknowledged by many not just lexicographers 300 years ago.

You haven't proved a single thing. You've just kept going on and on about possibilities and possibilities and if what you have is an argument at all, it's a circular one.

You only conceded that there was a small little issue in the 18thC. I'm saying it continues.

I said no such thing (and incidentally, it was a very big deal in the 18th century). I said that some people still subscribe to a view of language which is deeply rooted in the - in some sense narrow-minded - attitudes of 18th- and 19th-century grammarians and lexicographers.
Are you now going to change your argument to "all I said was that there was a debate (or the possibility of a debate)"?

Reply 87

RadioElectric

2

doG1

Would you say that 'electronical' ,'emo' or 'shemale' are words? You know what they mean though. (Not sure why my examples are so weird...)

Dude... I think you just invented a new genre of music, "electronical shemale emo".

Reply 88

munro90

12

doG1

Yeah i concede it might not be straightforward now. :biggrin:

Some seem sure i haven't got a leg to stand on though..

gotta say it was never something I had heard before but a little research showed it was a matter of opinion- so thanks for increasing my grammatical knowledge :smile:

Reply 89

Good bloke

19

doG1

I highlighted your contradiction :confused:

Based on the evidence of the OED and common usage for the last 400 years I accept the utility and legitimacy of firstly. I believe Johnson was either wrong or perverse in omitting it. No matter what the reason, its omission from his dictionary is not evidence of it being a non-word, or one with a dodgy inception, which you have been claiming. It is evidence of nothing more than the omission itself without further evidence.

Now, either start to post something useful and sensible or go away.

Reply 90

doG1

hobnob

You haven't proved a single thing. You've just kept going on and on about possibilities and possibilities and if what you have is an argument at all, it's a circular one.

I proved there is a debate taking place - the OED also says this, are you arguing with this?

The reason that that's now what im arguing for is because your argument was based on the premise that i was completely and utterly and totally wrong.

Reply 91

doG1

Good bloke

Based on the evidence of the OED and common usage for the last 400 years I accept the utility and legitimacy of firstly. I believe Johnson was either wrong or perverse in omitting it. No matter what the reason, its omission from his dictionary is not evidence of it being a non-word, or one with a dodgy inception, which you have been claiming. It is evidence of nothing more than the omission itself without further evidence.

Now, either start to post something useful and sensible or go away.

I think it would be useful if i just admitted defeat on Johnson just so that you go away and let us argue the actual issue (which has now become whether or not there is room for debate).

Dont care about Johnson :hello:

Reply 92

doG1

munro90

gotta say it was never something I had heard before but a little research showed it was a matter of opinion- so thanks for increasing my grammatical knowledge :smile:

You're welcome, this is all im looking for! :smile:

Reply 93

hobnob

14

doG1

I proved there is a debate taking place - the OED also says this, are you arguing with this?

The reason that that's now what im arguing for is because your argument was based on the premise that i was completely and utterly and totally wrong.

OK, so you have changed your "argument" yet again.

Reply 94

Good bloke

19

doG1

Dont care about Johnson :hello:

Yet he was the whole basis of your argument before. You are losing me in these constantly shifting sands.

Reply 95

doG1

hobnob

OK, so you have changed your "argument" yet again.

The way you're going about this is quite sad. I'm asking for a clear, fair concession and you're just focusing on little side points and a few particular sentences. :rolleyes:

Reply 96

doG1

Good bloke

Yet he was the whole basis of your argument before. You are losing me in these constantly shifting sands.

I'm arguing against 2 different people about 2 slightly different things and im just trying to get you to stop going on about the considerably less important point. :shot:

Reply 97

hobnob

14

doG1

The way you're going about this is quite sad.

Well, all I can say to that is :ditto:

, I'm afraid.
It's clearly hopeless to argue with you because you seem to have a very strange idea of what an argument actually is, so I give up. I can only say that for your own sake, I hope you're more coherent in your essays.

Since this is evidently going to lead nowhere and since the OP's original problem was already resolved on page 1 of this thread, this can be closed now, I believe.

To the grammer/spelling freaks out there

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you