Re: Common Errors in English

Subject: Re: Common Errors in English
From: "Michael West" <mbwest -at- bigpond -dot- com>
To: techwr-l
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:45:31 +1100

David Locke wrote:
> So we should elect a prescriptivist of the week? Idiomatic expression
> isn't systematic, nor is it an error. Redundancy is what makes
> language work.
> Peccadillians are fun. Prescriptivists are not. We all be speaking in
> iambic pentameter if it were up to the prescriptivists. And, what
> about all those declensions we had to learn in Latin class. They were
> perfectly systematic.
> Another point here is the notion that a language should become a least
> common denominator facility. No thanks. Isn't English becoming easier
> all the time?
> David Locke

I don't think I understand what you're driving at,
but if I found "for all intensive purposes" in a technical
document, I'd stop reading it. Writers have a responsibility
to use language thoughtfully, and not to waste a reader's time
with gibberish.
Michael West

Previous by Author: Re: Converting American English to British English
Next by Author: Re: Common Errors in English
Previous by Thread: Re: Common Errors in English
Next by Thread: RE: Common Errors in English

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads