OT /graphemic conventions

[Guest guest]

@@@@ :

> I've never heard anything like that. In any case it's very rare, at

> least on the Web. " Reductio absurdum " turns up 163 hits on Google

> compared to 30,000 for " reductio ad absurdum. "

@@@@@@@@

That's pretty impressive data, so I have to concede that the cleaner

version is substandard, and I will henceforth include the " ad " in

formal registers, in all of the 3-5 instances I will probably use

that phrase in my lifetime. It's certainly better to condense Latin

phrases as much as possible in English though, because they're being

used atomistically. I'm of the school of thought that generally

avoids Latin phrases and other non-productive lexical artifices,

finding greater satisfaction in overabundant riches of language-

internal resources, so fortunately I feel no stake in this matter.

I'm glad you won this one, because that way the score will come out

happily tied after the following.

@@@@@@

> Huh? Now your just making thing's up. Outside of AOL chat room's, at

> least, " yours " is more common by orders of magnitude, and Ive nev'er

> heard anyone suggest that " your's " is either common or correct.

@@@@@@@@

Well, " your's " is both extremely common and infinitely more logical

and intuitively natural, and since graphological conventions like

these have virtually nothing to do with language itself and the

institutionally " correct " convention is only enforced by the hacks in

English departments who assume the weight of vocational authority for

such dulling minutiae, or their disciples in publishing firms and

such, it's fair game to offer a better prescription that asserts

itself in the descriptive laboratory of natural, productive language

use. In my view, departures from productive, transparent, and

intuitive usage require compelling justification on an individual

basis, and none exists for the eyesores " yours " , " theirs " , et hoc

genus omne. It pains me to even put more tokens of these into the

world at large, and even my dearly beloved quotation marks don't

provide their usual comfort. There will always be a few mismatches

between robust paradigms, and in cases like this where the choice is

fairly arbitrary, the two will likely spend eternity in uncomfortable

coexistence.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

At 12:14 PM 2/16/04 -0000, you wrote:

>Well, " your's " is both extremely common and infinitely more logical

>and intuitively natural, and since graphological conventions like

>these have virtually nothing to do with language itself and the

>institutionally " correct " convention is only enforced by the hacks in

>English departments who assume the weight of vocational authority for

>such dulling minutiae, or their disciples in publishing firms and

>such, it's fair game to offer a better prescription that asserts

>itself in the descriptive laboratory of natural, productive language

>use. In my view, departures from productive, transparent, and

>intuitive usage require compelling justification on an individual

>basis, and none exists for the eyesores " yours " , " theirs " , et hoc

>genus omne. It pains me to even put more tokens of these into the

>world at large, and even my dearly beloved quotation marks don't

>provide their usual comfort. There will always be a few mismatches

>between robust paradigms, and in cases like this where the choice is

>fairly arbitrary, the two will likely spend eternity in uncomfortable

>coexistence.

>

My brain hu'urts.

The

Queen of Amok

Defender of All Things Flamingo