• Paul (unregistered)

    I've been lurking on this site for about six months and I've never felt the need to comment, but this thread really takes the biscuit and I have to say my piece - will the grammar police please STFU. You're ruining a decent site.

  • (cs) in reply to awt
    awt:

    Yes, comprise = be composed of. So comprised of = ?

    Thank you.

    The problem isn't that the exact meaning of "comprise" is contested, but that the basic structure of the sentence is incorrect.

    To all the replies arguing, essentially, that English is a living language, and thus subject to change through usage, I'd like to say that this is an inadequate reason for all misuse.

    The point of a language is to facilitate communication, which requires a certain level of agreement between parties for each to understand the other.

    The main problem I have with English grammar is that a large proportion of its speakers seem to have no idea why they structure sentences in a particular way. This seems to be mainly because the teaching of formal grammar in schools has become unfashionable. My understanding of English grammar, for example, is derived from the rules I learned while studying German.

    Is an understanding of your native language really such a useless skill?

    Edit: I would have felt obliged to comment on the story but it's really just a tired and worn out generic clueless user jab.

  • (cs)

    This thread made this site feels like Worse Than Grammar.

  • Richard McBeef (unregistered)

    The real WTF here is: "As a ten-store family-owned chain, the IT budget was generally three or four figures."

    How can you have 10 stores and not generate enough money to buy a few decent computers and legitimate software? You've got some serious issues with your business management skills.

  • (cs) in reply to drinkingbird
    drinkingbird:
    awt:

    Yes, comprise = be composed of. So comprised of = ?

    Thank you.

    The problem isn't that the exact meaning of "comprise" is contested, but that the basic structure of the sentence is incorrect.

    Thanks to both of you and the few others who actually understood the dictionary definition.

    I haven't read this thread since I originally posted the "comprised != composed" comment. I lost a little more faith in humanity this morning when I realized that people were using a dictionary definition that proved my argument correct in an attempt to prove it incorrect.

  • (cs) in reply to Caleb
    Caleb:
    About the 'low IT budget' aspect of this story, I think companies often don't realize what resources they have available past cash flow. A couple interesting solutions I've seen for cash-strapped companies getting IT work done:

    Trade. There's bound to be someone out there who wants your goods/services but doesn't want to pay for it.

    Advertise at local college. Get a college kid studying IT (make sure you screen candidates of course) and offer your willingness to be a good reference on their resume.

    Of course, you won't find as many candidates with these solutions as you would simply offering to pay someone, but with a little persistence, you'd be surprised well old fashioned bartering can work.

    And since its a bookstore, maybe they can smooth your IT headaches in exchange for that semesters books and other relevant material. Depending on the extent of work, that may be a fair trade. The one place I would put my money on is the POS system though, if those problems get big enough, people will go somewhere else to avoid standing in line for that reason.

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Jake Vinson:
    Servers were of the Frankensteinian variety, comprised of hardware that store employees didn't need anymore.

    "Comprised" != "composed". Using less common words in an attempt to sound more intelligent usually makes one sound less intelligent.

    ahem

    The Free Dictionary:
    com·prise (km-prz) tr.v. com·prised, com·pris·ing, com·pris·es 1. To consist of; be composed of: "The French got ... French Equatorial Africa, comprising several territories" Alex Shoumatoff. 2. To include; contain: "The word 'politics' ... comprises, in itself, a difficult study of no inconsiderable magnitude" Charles Dickens. See Synonyms at include. 3. Usage Problem To compose; constitute: "Put together the slaughterhouses, the steel mills, the freight yards ... that comprised the city" Saul Bellow.
    Which shows that 'comprised' is roughly synonymous with 'composed of'. However, that being said,
    University of Michigan Manual of Style:
    Compose, comprise. Comprise expresses the relation of the larger to the smaller, not the other way around (think of comprise as meaning to embrace or take in). The whole comprises the parts; the whole is composed of its parts. The parts compose the whole and are comprised in it. Do not use comprised of; use instead compose, constitute, or make up. (Include is not a synonym for comprise, but comprise has the sense of inclusion.)
    states that the sentence should have more likely read "Servers were of the Frankensteinian variety, which comprised hardware that store employees didn't need anymore."
  • (cs) in reply to Pingmaster

    My gosh, more comments were made on this post just over one stinking word. Golly if somebody wants to use one word over the other, I figured we were all having fun here anyway.

  • (cs) in reply to drinkingbird
    drinkingbird:
    awt:

    Yes, comprise = be composed of. So comprised of = ?

    Thank you.

    The problem isn't that the exact meaning of "comprise" is contested, but that the basic structure of the sentence is incorrect.

    To all the replies arguing, essentially, that English is a living language, and thus subject to change through usage, I'd like to say that this is an inadequate reason for all misuse.

    Actually it's more an attempt to cover up laziness. (Inability to perform a simple substitution of the dictionary definition into the original sentence is further evidence of this.) In mitigation, we have at least one attempt to qualify this attitude:

    PerdidoPunk:
    The American Heritage Dictionary says,

    Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected.

    I guess that the aforementioned 35 percent comprises you and several others in the minority regarding acceptable usage of this word. The usage of idioms or colloquialisms does not imply an attempt to sound more intelligent, nor does it suggest low intelligence. If anything, it suggests knowledge of the particular vernacular that comprises such word usages and phrases.

    This is a nice balanced effort, but it still fails. Reducing the rules of language to a glorified Gallup poll is neither practicable nor desirable.

    Apparently, forty-two per cent of American college graduates believe in the existence of flying saucers, up from thirty per cent in around 1980. Does this mean that, if the trend continues, flying saucers will exist by 2020? Of course not.

    Someone You Know:
    "Comprised" != "composed". Using less common words in an attempt to sound more intelligent usually makes one sound less intelligent.
    A bit of a straw man here -- I suspect it was just a brainfart. A little less pontificating from all of us, and maybe we could keep the flame wars away for a while? (Me being a kettle in this case, of course.)
  • Gareth (unregistered) in reply to gabba

    I should imagine it was more of a power cut than a power surge .

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    "Comprised" != "composed". Using less common words in an attempt to sound more intelligent usually makes one sound less intelligent.

    Being a nitpicking little pissant always lets people know you're less intelligent.

  • (cs) in reply to swordfishBob
    swordfishBob:
    The funny thing about language is that usage defines the language. Given sufficient improper usage, that usage can eventually become proper.

    We have.. "stories" in place of "story's" "are you sure you now?" "you forgot to site your source" (actually he sited it on worsethanfailure.com but without citing) "usage" for "use"

    These comprise improper use (usage?).

    Sorry. I was feeling xevious (captcha) seeing all the grammar police about. And leave my granma out of it!

    Touche!
  • (cs) in reply to Carnildo
    Carnildo:
    Getting Linux to work on arbitrary old hardware is generally quite easy: open the box, write down the numbers on all the big chips, and select the appropriate drivers in the kernel configuration. This gives you a working kernel, and from there, setting up networking and X is pretty straightforward.

    This is assuming the hardware is new enough to support Ethernet and 16- or 32-bit display modes. If you're stuck with token-ring or palletized display modes, things can get exciting.

    Right.... I can see my mother (who just turned 67) opening the box and writing down the numbers on all the big chips, and then setting up the configuration for the kernel before building and installing it. Sure.

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to iogy
    iogy:
    Using less common words in an attempt to sound more intelligent usually makes one sound less intelligent.
    On a similar note, what the hell is up with "utilize" when "use" will do just fine? "Congratulations! You've just wasted 4 keystrokes!"

    Oh, you can say that about so many things, like methodology instead of method. It doesn't even make sense. I caught me using the phrase "going forward" the other day, I nearly slapped me. It's not like I can make time move backwards...

  • (cs) in reply to NotanEnglishMajor
    NotanEnglishMajor:
    Doug:
    You forgot to site your source.

    No. He forgot to CITE his source.

    -Notan

    Nah. Doug's almost right. "Cutty McPasty" forgot to sight his source; he didn't see it anywhere, he made it up. :-)

  • (cs) in reply to Jon
    Jon:
    What I don't get is why someone would write "is comprised of" when it is easier to type "comprises." It avoids the usage dispute, too.

    What I don't get is why it even matters. This is a humor site, people. Get a friggin' life!

  • charlie (unregistered)

    And the real WTF is they are using Windows? or some other virus infested system.

    C'mon if they want free (both as in speech and beer) proven technologies GNU/Linux is the way to go.

  • foppy (unregistered) in reply to drinkingbird
    drinkingbird:
    awt:

    Yes, comprise = be composed of. So comprised of = ?

    Thank you.

    The problem isn't that the exact meaning of "comprise" is contested, but that the basic structure of the sentence is incorrect.

    To all the replies arguing, essentially, that English is a living language, and thus subject to change through usage, I'd like to say that this is an inadequate reason for all misuse.

    The point of a language is to facilitate communication, which requires a certain level of agreement between parties for each to understand the other.

    The main problem I have with English grammar is that a large proportion of its speakers seem to have no idea why they structure sentences in a particular way. This seems to be mainly because the teaching of formal grammar in schools has become unfashionable. My understanding of English grammar, for example, is derived from the rules I learned while studying German.

    Is an understanding of your native language really such a useless skill?

    Edit: I would have felt obliged to comment on the story but it's really just a tired and worn out generic clueless user jab.

    "comprise = be composed of" is just one of its definitions. It can be used in other ways.

    CAPTCHA: muhahaha <--- wtf

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to Jon
    Jon:
    What I don't get is why someone would write "is comprised of" when it is easier to type "comprises." It avoids the usage dispute, too.

    Well, go away, read for a degree in psychology, concentrate you studies towards neural and cognitive linguistics, then come back here and laugh at all the people having usage disputes WRT language and relax in the knowledge that you will one day rule the world muwahahahaha.

    Well, maybe not the last bit, but I'm sure you get my point.

    (I know, I know, my previous post does imply that I should take my own advice, but whatever.)

  • (cs) in reply to drinkingbird
    drinkingbird:
    The problem isn't that the exact meaning of "comprise" is contested, but that the basic structure of the sentence is incorrect.

    No. The problem is all of the morons who think that they have to be grammar police about a humorous article on a humorous website. Pedantic assholes.

    drinkingbird:
    Edit: I would have felt obliged to comment on the story but it's really just a tired and worn out generic clueless user jab.

    Just like the tired and worn out imbecilic grammar Nazi posts (like yours)? You should have felt less obligated to post your drivel at all.

  • K (unregistered) in reply to KenW
    KenW:
    No. The problem is all of the morons who think that they have to be grammar police about a humorous article on a humorous website. Pedantic assholes.

    The FAR larger problem is dipshits like you who militantly advocate for the decline of manners and courtesy.

    Using proper grammar is a courtesy to your readers; improper grammar is rude, period.

    Railing at people who demand proper grammar is akin to talking loudly on your cellphone while wearing a hat in a restaurant, and then getting angry when someone asks you to stop.

  • Spoe (unregistered) in reply to Cuttie McPasty
    Cuttie McPasty:
    The most cautious route is to avoid using “of” after any form of “comprise” and substitute “is composed of” in sentences like this: “Jimmy’s paper on Marxism was composed entirely of sentences copied off the Marx Brothers Home Page.”

    Unless you're in an AP English class like the one at my old High School (almost 20 years ago) with a fruitbat teacher that would dock you a letter grade on a paper if you used that for use of "passive voice".

    Of course, this was the same teacher that defined dramatic irony as "regular irony with a little more oomph".

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to K
    K:
    Railing at people who demand proper grammar is akin to talking loudly on your cellphone while wearing a hat in a restaurant, and then getting angry when someone asks you to stop.

    Hmm, interesting analogy...

    I would liken it to using an umbrella to hammer in a nail because it is the first seemingly suitable thing that comes to hand.

    I quite like the thought the wearing a hat in a restaurant offends people. I'd not considered it before.

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to NeoMojo

    To clarify, I meant that currently incorrect use of words is like using an umbrella to hammer in a nail because it is the first seemingly suitable thing that comes to hand.

  • Arioch (unregistered) in reply to cynic
    cynic:
    The funny thing about language is that usage defines the language. Given sufficient improper usage, that usage can eventually become proper.

    And now, when U pushed English to be a cross-world interlingva, it no more used by British, not even by American. Now English is used (and engineered) by Chineese, Indian, Russian (and all the Eastern Europe), Africans, mix-in what you like. It is now WE, who care not a tiny bit about English, who determine and rule its future.

    Surrender! All your base are belong to us!!!

    CAPTCHA: pointer. Quite sure, after i made this brilliant point, i am the one!

  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to K

    "K", you are a jackass.

    If you think that wearing a hat in a restaurant is rude, you are completely messed.

    Also, improper grammar is not rude, you fucking assfuck. At most, it is a mistake, period. That's like seeing someone slip on an ice patch and then complaining to them about how rude they have been to you, "How dare you not keep your balance while in my presence". People like you just like to show off what they know and tear down other people in the process.

    You are trash.

  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to NeoMojo

    Really? Do you? Please tell me why. I need to know. I have a feeling it will blow my mind.

    NeoMojo:
    K:
    ...wearing a hat in a restaurant...
    ... I quite like the thought the wearing a hat in a restaurant offends people. I'd not considered it before.
  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    Someone You Know:
    "Comprised" != "composed". Using less common words in an attempt to sound more intelligent usually makes one sound less intelligent.
    A bit of a straw man here -- I suspect it was just a brainfart. A little less pontificating from all of us, and maybe we could keep the flame wars away for a while? (Me being a kettle in this case, of course.)

    You're probably right. In my life I am surrounded by people who do actually act as I described (for instance saying "someone like myself" instead of "someone like me" because they believe it makes them sound smarter) so I suppose I tend to see it everywhere.

    I had no intention of starting a flame war, but I admit to finding it interesting that so many people were so quick to respond without first considering that the verb phrases "to compose" and "to be composed of" had different meanings.

  • xybre (unregistered) in reply to werdan

    Interesting you should mention that, you know why Americans spell things differently? Due to This Webster fellow, whose dictionary people have quoted several times thus far. He decided that since there was no standardized spelling, he'd write a dictionary in which the spellings of many words were "simplified".

    Language is fascinating. Grammar nazis beware, however, you're probably just being elitist bastards if you feel the need to beat someone over the head wit ha dictionary when they use a phrase you don't like, yet still know the meaning they were trying to convey. On the other hand, if you didn't understand them, then maybe it is you who is the problem. :o

    Though certain words or phrases are just annoying and contradictory, for instance, irregardless (which, I'll add that firefox recognizes as a legitimate word), the meaning is apparently the same as regardless, though perhaps with an implication of dismissiveness. It's less of an improperly used word than a redundant one. Maybe I'm the problem. Hrm.

  • xybre (unregistered) in reply to NotanEnglishMajor

    He didn't sight his sores? What?

  • NeoMojo (unregistered) in reply to Stupidumb
    Stupidumb:
    Really? Do you? Please tell me why. I need to know. I have a feeling it will blow my mind.
    NeoMojo:
    K:
    ...wearing a hat in a restaurant...
    ... I quite like the thought the wearing a hat in a restaurant offends people. I'd not considered it before.

    Well, if it will calm you down. You seem quite agitated.

    The thought that someone wearing a hat could offend seemed absurd to me, but as I thought about seeing someone sat in a restaurant wearing a hat it occurred to me that I might wonder why they hadn't taken it off. I realised that, in this country, it is seen as good manners to take your hat off when indoors, a thought I hadn't consciously had before, and this struck me as amusing. I like having amusing thoughts.

    I hope that helps.

  • whicker (unregistered)

    Severs were of the Frankensteinian variety, compromised of hardware that sore employees didn't need anymore.

    Malapropisms ahoy.

  • SysKoll (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    "Idiom" means "only idiots speak that way".

    It's simple: The verb "to comprise" is a synonym for "to include". You don't say that a network is included of computers, now, do you?

  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to NeoMojo

    Well, my coy friend, I was agitated, but not so much. The first guy agitated me more. Your explanation didn't really help. You basically said "It's offensive because in this country it's offensive." Then, you said it amused you. NO reason.Flawless victory for you, buddy. Stop trying to be so calm and collected when you tell people to calm down. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. It's a Hulk joke, not a threat...calm down friend, you pal-o-mine...

    Make you could answer questions properly in the future. I hope this helps you. It looks like you need help. Please, I'm just trying to help you. Look at how modest I am!!! I hate you

    NeoMojo:
    Stupidumb:
    Really? Do you? Please tell me why. I need to know. I have a feeling it will blow my mind.
    NeoMojo:
    K:
    ...wearing a hat in a restaurant...
    ... I quite like the thought the wearing a hat in a restaurant offends people. I'd not considered it before.

    Well, if it will calm you down. You seem quite agitated.

    The thought that someone wearing a hat could offend seemed absurd to me, but as I thought about seeing someone sat in a restaurant wearing a hat it occurred to me that I might wonder why they hadn't taken it off. I realised that, in this country, it is seen as good manners to take your hat off when indoors, a thought I hadn't consciously had before, and this struck me as amusing. I like having amusing thoughts.

    I hope that helps.

  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to NeoMojo

    FYI NeoMojo, cause you need some...

    I need to know. = exaggeration I have a feeling it will blow my mind. = sarcasm

    Now you made me agited. I honestly hate you.

    NeoMojo:
    Stupidumb:
    Really? Do you? Please tell me why. I need to know. I have a feeling it will blow my mind.
    NeoMojo:
    K:
    ...wearing a hat in a restaurant...
    ... I quite like the thought the wearing a hat in a restaurant offends people. I'd not considered it before.

    Well, if it will calm you down. You seem quite agitated.

    The thought that someone wearing a hat could offend seemed absurd to me, but as I thought about seeing someone sat in a restaurant wearing a hat it occurred to me that I might wonder why they hadn't taken it off. I realised that, in this country, it is seen as good manners to take your hat off when indoors, a thought I hadn't consciously had before, and this struck me as amusing. I like having amusing thoughts.

    I hope that helps.

  • cellocgw (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    Dear Anon: ̛It is only because of dumbasses like you that dumbass dictionaries (not all dictionaries are dumbasses, BTW) have allowed the incorrect usage of "comprise" into their recent versions.

    I fully understand the need for dictionaries to keep up with new words and changing idioms, but I stand firm with SomeoneYouKnow that dictionaries should not change usages just because the world is full of dumbasses trying not to sound like the dumbasses they are.

    I expect any day now some dumbass dictionary will decide "If I was king" is an acceptable variant of the subjunctive.

  • (cs) in reply to Stupidumb
    Stupidumb:
    FYI NeoMojo, cause you need some...

    I need to know. = exaggeration I have a feeling it will blow my mind. = sarcasm

    Now you made me agited. I honestly hate you.

    Lighten up, Francis.
  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to caffeinatedbacon

    No.

    (BTW, Bobby, I'm sure that calling me "Francis" is some really clever reference and I am proud of you. Also, I wouldn't be so agitated if there weren't a bunch of jerks everyone.)

    caffeinatedbacon:
    Stupidumb:
    FYI NeoMojo, cause you need some...

    I need to know. = exaggeration I have a feeling it will blow my mind. = sarcasm

    Now you made me agited. I honestly hate you.

    Lighten up, Francis.
  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to Stupidumb

    jerks everywhere.

    What a shit-storm that would have created if I didn't find that.

    Stupidumb:
    jerks everyone.
  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to Sgt. Preston
    Sgt. Preston:
    Anon Fred:
    I read the store name as "The Book Burner." Now I want to start a store with that name...
    I gather you're a Republican.

    Yeah, because the opposite of that, the far left has never wanted to suppress knowledge. Stalin and Lenin loved public discourse and dissent......

  • Anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to Stupidumb
    Stupidumb:
    The forums on this site are composed of assholes
    There, fixed that for you. *smirk*
  • Anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to K
    K:
    The FAR larger problem is dipshits like you who militantly advocate for the decline of manners and courtesy.
    From someone complaining about people being rude... how consistent.
  • (cs) in reply to Stupidumb
    Stupidumb:
    No.

    (BTW, Bobby, I'm sure that calling me "Francis" is some really clever reference and I am proud of you. Also, I wouldn't be so agitated if there weren't a bunch of jerks everyone.)

    I guess I just made the list...

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    This is a nice balanced effort, but it still fails. Reducing the rules of language to a glorified Gallup poll is neither practicable nor desirable.

    Apparently, forty-two per cent of American college graduates believe in the existence of flying saucers, up from thirty per cent in around 1980. Does this mean that, if the trend continues, flying saucers will exist by 2020? Of course not.

    In the interest of entertainment, I will continue to add to this pointless thread. I don't think this is a very good comparison. We're debating accepted style of language here, which is hardly a tangible object or even anything about which you can make objective statements. Considering the fact that English grammar is often completely ambiguous and very context-sensitive, it seems irrelevant, in my opinion, to compare it to physical phenomena. The definition of acceptable English grammar can certainly change due to popular consensus, and in fact, this is how language evolved in the first place. It is, however, quite impossible for the opinion of the populous to change the existence of a physical phenomena over which humans have no control. Now, having made my point, I will terminate this post with two sentences joined by a semicolon; hopefully that ever-controversial punctuation mark will add even more fuel to the fire.

  • (cs) in reply to cellocgw
    cellocgw:
    Dear Anon: ̛It is only because of dumbasses like you that dumbass dictionaries (not all dictionaries are dumbasses, BTW) have allowed the incorrect usage of "comprise" into their recent versions.

    I fully understand the need for dictionaries to keep up with new words and changing idioms, but I stand firm with SomeoneYouKnow that dictionaries should not change usages just because the world is full of dumbasses trying not to sound like the dumbasses they are.

    I expect any day now some dumbass dictionary will decide "If I was king" is an acceptable variant of the subjunctive.

    If humans used languages with unambiguous grammatical structures, malformed sentences simply would not parse in the brain, and then you wouldn't have to be so agitated. :)

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to SysKoll
    SysKoll:
    It's simple: The verb "to comprise" is a synonym for "to include".
    Except that a network that is composed of computers is all-computer, while one that merely includes them may have two printers and a pocket calculator in it too.

    How's that for pedantry?

  • Brandon (unregistered) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Jake Vinson:
    Servers were of the Frankensteinian variety, comprised of hardware that store employees didn't need anymore.

    "Comprised" != "composed". Using less common words in an attempt to sound more intelligent usually makes one sound less intelligent.

    Unfortunately for you, either word is correct there.

    Flaming people for mistakes in word usage that are not actually mistakes usually makes one sound less intelligent than the original poster would have been had they made a mistake in the first place.

  • Stupidumb (unregistered) in reply to caffeinatedbacon

    Hehe, I wasn't reffering to you. I just thought the Francis thing was weird, but if you think you made the list...

    caffeinatedbacon:
    Stupidumb:
    No.

    (BTW, Bobby, I'm sure that calling me "Francis" is some really clever reference and I am proud of you. Also, I wouldn't be so agitated if there weren't a bunch of jerks everyone.)

    I guess I just made the list...

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymouse
    Anonymouse:
    Stupidumb:
    The forums on this site are composed of assholes
    There, fixed that for you. *smirk*
    No, no, no ... not "forums on this site" (which should be "fora," anyhoo). That makes no sense at all. Digital assholes; whatever next? (And please, no links to the G thing.)

    "Mickey burgers are composed of assholes."

    Now, that makes sense. Context is everything.

  • (cs) in reply to PerdidoPunk
    PerdidoPunk:
    real_aardvark:
    This is a nice balanced effort, but it still fails. Reducing the rules of language to a glorified Gallup poll is neither practicable nor desirable.

    Apparently, forty-two per cent of American college graduates believe in the existence of flying saucers, up from thirty per cent in around 1980. Does this mean that, if the trend continues, flying saucers will exist by 2020? Of course not.

    In the interest of entertainment, I will continue to add to this pointless thread. I don't think this is a very good comparison. We're debating accepted style of language here, which is hardly a tangible object or even anything about which you can make objective statements. Considering the fact that English grammar is often completely ambiguous and very context-sensitive, it seems irrelevant, in my opinion, to compare it to physical phenomena. The definition of acceptable English grammar can certainly change due to popular consensus, and in fact, this is how language evolved in the first place. It is, however, quite impossible for the opinion of the populous to change the existence of a physical phenomena over which humans have no control. Now, having made my point, I will terminate this post with two sentences joined by a semicolon; hopefully that ever-controversial punctuation mark will add even more fuel to the fire.

    The semicolon is the red squirrel of the world of grammar (and btw, "grammar anti-nazi" pop-pickers, the incorrect choice of a verb has nothing to do with grammar: it's semantics), pushed out of its natural habitat by the grey squirrel that is the comma. Glad you're with us holy grammar rollers on this one.

    Case not proven; sorry. That's a heck of a lot of words to state a position that you must surely know I agree with 100%. (Apart from the "grammar" bit.)

    The point was not some Bergsonian rant about the extended vs the unextended. The point was that the reduction of any discussion of "correctness" to a cheesy popularity poll, whatever the issue, seems to me to be evidence of laziness at best and a wilful refusal to think about you're saying at worst. "Infer" and "imply" are diametrical opposites. "To compose" and "to comprise" are diametrical opposites. There are cases where words change their meaning, sometimes by turning round 180 degrees, such as "nice." However, this effect is normally achieved over the course of centuries, and via a number of back-alleys and niche usages.

    Not simply twenty years of blind fucking ignorance, egged on by people who should (and in your case do) know better. That way leads to universal slobbering incomprehensibility.

Leave a comment on “Point of Fail”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article