Re: The new illiterates

On Feb 13, 4:08 am, "Heidi Graw" <h...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1171342230.484401.247280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 12, 11:08 pm, "Heidi Graw" <h...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"FoggyTown" <foggyt...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1171326458.124318.149790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(snip)

Foggy wrote:
Heidi, don't pay any attention to Daniels. He's always like that:
rude, abrasive and very up himself. I'm sure he thinks he's important
in some fashion.
Heidi wrote:
Ya, I know. I've gotten used to Peter's abrasive style. He's actually
much more mild than what one can find elsewhere on Usenet.

I'll be he
Peter wrote:
You will??

Typing error: It should read, "I'll bet he..." But then, you already knew
that.



doesn't believe "google" is a real word either.
Peter wrote:
?????????????? Have you any idea what criteria for "wordhood" might
be?

Oh, do please enlighten me. What is *your* criteria for "wordhood?"

In my wordhood, I allow for free radicals...free words. Of course, these
tend to rile up the staticians, but I don't care. Change happens.
Get used to it, buds. ;-)

First of all, there is no universal definition of "word" that works
for all languages.

Second, a word is a word if someone uses it as one. "Bombasted" became
a word when you invented it. It is NOT a word because you found it in
a dictionary 500 years ago.

It is preseriptivists like Ron Harding and FoggyBrain who have a
problem with that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The new illiterates
    ... don't pay any attention to Daniels. ... >rude, ... In my wordhood, I allow for free radicals...free words. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The new illiterates
    ... Heidi, don't pay any attention to Daniels. ... rude, ... in some fashion. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The new illiterates
    ... don't pay any attention to Daniels. ... rude, ... in some fashion. ... I'll be he doesn't believe "google" is a real word either. ...
    (sci.lang)