Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: Debut
Posted By: Sam, on host 209.6.138.216
Date: Sunday, July 25, 1999, at 05:28:25
In Reply To: Debut posted by Julian on Sunday, July 25, 1999, at 04:54:27:

> When I see people express certain opinions, I instinctively know that I'm against them, but if I try to discuss it with them, I simply become run over before I get around to saying what I believe. Does anyone recognize this feeling?

Yeah, it sounds like me when I'm speaking rather than writing. I'm less persuasive when I have to think up arguments in real time and denied the ability to look up references. Usually I remember and use any written arguments I may have made or seen previously, then if that doesn't work, come away composing all kinds of eloquent rebuttals after the fact.

At any rate, thank you for your kind words. I value my writing skills greatly, and that kind of compliment really hits home with me.

> ...and the assertion that since a particular word had been used for four centuries, it was definitely valid, but two centuries meant that it would be on the border of bad language to use it (I interpret that as being somewhat joking, but is still amused me).

Is that what was said? As I recall, I supported the use of "nauseous" to mean "experiencing nausea" on the basis that it had been used that way for four centuries. And I *also* supported the use of "transpire" to mean "happen" on the basis that it had been used that way for two centuries -- it was the incorrectly ingrained inappropriateness of that definition that made me reluctant about it. But just "reluctant" not "unreceptive." And may I say that that sentence may be the first time I've ever used three words beginning with "in" of at least nine letters in a row, and I am very proud of myself.

> In danish the meaning of "godt og vel" has changed from "a little bit less than" to "a little bit more than" in something like 50 years.

Is it accepted usage, though? I would imagine there's all kinds of remnant uses of the old definition lying around, plus staunchy linguists that refuse to adhere to current usage.

> ...can a single message generate enough response to fill a whole page...

Nope. A "page" is defined as a fixed number of threads, not messages. (Currently, eight, but I have the option of changing that whenever I get the whim to.)

Replies To This Message