Oooh, man; this one irks me to no end! I've known someone whose last name was "Fabre", and it was pronounced "Fahb". Therefore, I very steadfastly posit that his name should be pronounced Brett "Fahv". I mean, the frickin' V very clearly comes before the R!
right, that point speaks to the nature of language. it is what enough people says it is. and if it is a proper name, then it is what one person says it is. so if people believe a word is something or means something, then it does. even if it was stupid and wrong at some point. the trick is determining when it happens. like i dont think irregardless will ever turn the corner because of how obviously ridiculous it is. but if i and the rest of the morons use anagram almost interchangeably with initialism then it really does mean that. the one that has historically bothered me the most is using the word "literally" to mean things other than literally, basically as a synonym for intensely or sometimes metaphorically. but the tide is overwhelming, and james joyce and mark twain (the 2 best writers of all time) are on the opposing team. so i give up, and i wont correct anyone anymore for that one.
I guess I just prefer to keep insisting that something is right when I know it is rather than just get swept up by the tide of laziness! If nothing else, it helps me pass a somewhat slow work day.
poor ron paul cant get any press even threads about him are interrupted by the far more relevant topic of grammar and the evolution of language.
Martin, you are so right dude. Poor Ron Paul, I'm thinking he could sweep every delegate in the United States and still wouldn't make the front page.
Red is right. Paul long ago realized he could not win the nomination. He went for the caucuses rather than the primaries. He wants to have a major say in the drafting of the platform. He won the Louisiana caucus because he gets his vote out. I ran as a delegate on another slate and have come to the conclusion that the GOP should stop having caucuses and base delegates on the primaries.
