Sounds suspiciously post-modern to me! It is a fact that misuse and
outright error are occasionally contagious, especially among the less
well educated (code for 'dim'). Horrors such as the usage 'could of
been', 'alot' and the like are not examples of fresh and dynamic
language development - they are just plain wrong and I will continue
to put a red circle around them as is my inclination and my
professional responsibility.
So there.
AndrewF
On 13/12/2005, at 2:46 AM, Robert Swier wrote:
>
> If the person who wrote those words was a native speaker of
> English, then he
> or she isn't wrong. Whether an utterance is acceptable or not can
> only be
> judged by whether or not it is acceptable to a native speaker (or,
> group of
> native speakers). Native speakers do not make consistent mistakes, by
> definition.
>
> It is only by examining how native speakers use a language that we
> know
> anything about a language at all. They can't be wrong
> (consistently). If two
> native speakers disagree, then they speak different versions of the
> language.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert Swier
> Toronto
>
>
> On 12/12/05, Simon Worby <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Brian Swale wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Not " A few photos of I ..."
>>> Comment? (Note the :-)> )
>>>
>>
>> You are right, of course. I'm just disappointed I missed it
>> myself! But
>> I do have to do some work now and then.
>>
>> Simon
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|