BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 07:00 AM

Thank you for your condescension: Interesting that you think I can decimate birds but not weeds, but we can let that one go I suppose.
You don't need to 'let it go'. You could just admit that you're wrong.
And don't try to back up your suppositions by using the thesaurus:
Synonyms of "decimation" from Merriam-Webster, Bill. Are you ready?

annihilation, destruction, demolishment, demolition, desolation, devastation, extermination, extinction, havoc, loss, mincemeat, obliteration, ruin, ruination, wastage, wreckage
A thesaurus gives words 'similar in meaning to' the chosen word. This is to allow you to choose the most suitable word. The words in any particular group are not all interchangeable.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 07:45 AM

I wasn't being condescending (I was accepting what you said, actually), I wasn't wrong and I know that synonyms are not interchangeable, Nigel, though they do help to steer towards good word usage. Now I'd far sooner go down this line of argument than revisit those sterile old arguments about the Troubles, etc., but it would be more pleasant if you could just drop your dog-with-bone stance for a minute or two. We're not writing legalese here, we're using language as informally and idiomatically as possible whilst trying to maintain the rules of grammar. Words are not set in stone, at least not since Moses went up the mountain. Their meanings evolve, some senses become less popular, others gain ascendancy. You can't fight it alone. It's fine to occasionally split infinitives and always was, it's fine to say "hopefully" and always was, and we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others. 😉 Just never use "albeit" or "on a daily basis" or "prior to" in my presence!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 09:03 AM

"we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others"

Of course you can and do Shaw. But there again you have spent most of your "working" life talking at people, not talking to them.

If you wish to put a point over to someone, or argue a case, you have to be very exact and accurate in what you say because you knowing what you mean counts for S.F.A. in any dialogue, the point of which should be to make sure the person you are talking TO understands fully what you mean by what you have said.

Nothing whatsoever wrong with using "albeit" ( alternative to using "even though" or "although") which is more than I can say for "irregardless" which most dictionaries list as being nonstandard or incorrect, and recommend that "regardless" should be used instead. Perhaps you should have used "irrespective" instead? You probably didn't because you never respect anything anyone else says unless they are in total agreement with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 09:08 AM

You can't fight it alone. It's fine to occasionally split infinitives and always was, it's fine to say "hopefully" and always was, and we can use words in any way we like irregardless of the opinions of others.
I'm not trying to fight it. I also realise that we can use words in any way we like. Much like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the looking glass".
But if we do so we lose the main function of language, which is the sharing of information. That sharing of information requires a common vocabulary where words have a common and accepted meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:08 AM

But the meanings of words evolve. Mournful resistance, of the kind put up by akenaton to the modern sense of "gay" which all bar a few troglodytes accept, is useless. The evolution of language is a very democratic process, and po-faced language pedants generally come across as idiotic, wannabe tin-pot dictators. There are some losses I do fret about, such as the useful distinction between "disinterested" and "uninterested," but when I looked into it I discovered that there was never a "rule" governing their usage in the first place. Never a rule about splitting infinitives either (most people who bemoan "split infinitives" actually harbour a faulty notion of what an infinitive is in the first place). Same with "decimation."

Well, Teribus, if I'd shown that last post of mine to a hundred people, I wonder how many wouldn't have realised that my use of "irregardless" was sarcastic. Had you been excluded from the hundred, the answer would have been none. With you included, the answer is one. You. By the way, as we've never met you can't possibly know about my teaching techniques. Standing at the front talking at people was never my style, I'll tell you that much. As for the importance of accuracy, I couldn't agree more. So I'm just wondering how, according to you, a bare-faced lie turned into a passing remark...

"Albeit" is never necessary, as "though" or "although" will always do the job. It's just pretentious. And, believe it or not, "irregardless" is a real word. Just not one I'd be wanting to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Keith, you mistake me.

i don't dispute your facts.
i dispute your interpretation and the way you emphasise certain facts.

passing a bill through parliament proves nothing. history will no doubt prove that the poor prisoner held on remand for months had the same recourse to the law that Thatcher had when she convened a court on spec at midnight to sequester the miners assets.

bills in parliament, laws, are dry abstract things. the political will to enforce something is something quite different.

similarly - i'm sure you can prove that the first world war English generals were as good as generals anywhere. however when i think of the half dozen young men whom my family lost in that conflict, i can't help bur believe a different ckass of human being would not have consigned them to their deaths.

you may feel my mind is closed. i think your analyses are naively quantitative.

in qualitative, substantive terms - England didn't do the morally right thing about Irish independence. And the first world war generals were a gang of shits.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 10:30 AM

And, believe it or not, "irregardless" is a real word. Just not one I'd be wanting to use.

You could have a good time in front of your class explaining that there is a large difference between "I'd be wanting to use" or "I would wish/want to use". Or was that more sarcasm rather than a bad choice of words?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:02 PM

It was a perfectly good choice of words. The construction is informal but grammatically correct. OK, I wouldn't include that kind of thing in my PhD thesis. I wouldn't be including "OK" either. And I wouldn't be including "I wouldn't be including." And I probably wouldn't be starting a sentence with "And," though there's nothing wrong with that. And I wouldn't be using "wouldn't" or "there's," preferring the full written-out forms. Thing is, context is everything, the point being to communicate ideas in the most appropriate way for the circumstances. I don't think about rules and I think there's more to clarity of expression than abiding by strict and narrow definitions of words. Imagine the soullessness of a performance of a Beethoven symphony in which the players all regarded the score as a mere collection of thousands of musical notes which had to be literally and mindlessly rendered. I'd rather not.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:08 PM

By the way, talking about bad choices of words, Nigel:

"Or was that more sarcasm rather than a bad choice of words?"

Which one would you leave out given another shot at it, Nigel - more or rather? 😉

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:09 PM

What a worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:14 PM

I have never yet encountered a gay homosexual, most appear to be rather neurotic.....IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:19 PM

Lumbricus terrestris? Allolobophora longa? Or have you been scratching your bum again and come up with a pesky nematode?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Mar 17 - 12:23 PM

From your postings here I would say that the reason you've never seen a gay homosexual, as you so quaintly put it, is that they always see you coming.