Posted on 01/20/2009 8:03:06 AM PST by dangus
No, I got your point, but as a lover of the English language, I find it irritating when people, such as yourself, excuse the maligning of words while simultaneously misusing words themselves. I was going to post a response which indicated that we should not concern ourselves with such trivialities and details since Obama was probably going to mandate a change in the acceptable definition of enormity because of his constant misuse of the word, but I found pointing out your little error much more satisfying.
Glad I could satisfy you. The real issue behind this is a battle of dictionaries. It seems Merriam-Webster believes that language should evolve and new words and/or definitions can be added simply by popular use. They recently added ‘meh’ after all. Whereas it seems the American-Heritage dictionary runs through a panel in an effort to protect or control or force, depending on your view of it, classic word usage rejecting popular usage.
No, I think the real issue here is the hubris of the intellectual elite who have been touting Obama as the greatest genius mind to ever sit on the throne—uh, I mean—in the Oval Office. These elitists that constantly vilified Bush for his frequent misuse of the language are now being held to their own high standard. Except that Obamabots will make excuses (such as you did) for his error, because they just can’t admit that perhaps...just perhaps...Obama might have been WRONG about something! Instead, they insist that the English language is malleable, fluid, and changeable and words can mean whatever we want them to mean. And while I agree, new words come and old words go, (we don’t have much use for the word dwine anymore) and meanings change drastically (gay leaps to mind first), these evolutions come as a result of years and decades of common use (or lack thereof), not just because the fuhrer has deemed it thus, while his cheering throng stand in awe and tolerance of his every misspoken word. I’m just sayin’.
>> There was a copy of the invitation to the inauguration in our newspaper over the weekend. The year was stated as “two thousand and nine”. Seems to me that this in incorrect grammar? Does anyone know? <<
Two Thousand Nine is normal. It would definitely be incorrect to say Two Thousand and Seven Hundred, but I believe it’s just being a little overly formal to add the “and.”
Aw, what’s the matter, noob? Did someone profane your Dear Leader?
Yes, the third paragraph of American Heritage does mention that it may be used as a synonym of “enormousness,” and also posts that this is “usage problem” which may cause bursts of laughter.
>> Stupid post...if you want to call him evil just do it on your own instead of twisting words with partially sited facts.. <<
Did someone fail to enforce the “fairness doctrine” on all these heretics around here? America’s about to crash into the toilet, and we reserve the right to have some gallows humor about the ignorant, evil bureaucrats who are doing it. So go back to the Daily KOS and quit whining like a spoiled toddler.
Well, first, I’m not an “Obamabot”, I just don’t like when people run with an idea instead of thinking, in this instance, maybe he used a different dictionary that supports the use of the word in the way he meant it. I do this with everything, even did it with Bush. It drives my wife insane often.
And even with American-Heritage, I can still use gay to decribe me feeling happy or a color I just painted a room with, even though the popular usage is used for sexual preference. I would be most likely attacked for using the word wrong and told to use a different word. Obama is human like the rest of us and WILL make mistakes just like the rest of us. If its valid I’m down with it. If its not, then I don’t go with it. Even the author of this post says he didn’t know the actual meaning of “enormity”, perhaps suggesting he understood it to mean how Obama and staff and reporters to meant it to mean?
Well, I replied and 20 mins later it still hasn’t shown up. So here we go again.
First, I’m not an Obamabot. I do this with anything. I drive my wife insane with it too. I even did it with Bush. I don’t like it when people grab a thought and run with it without thinking about it first, checking a few sources and confirming. If it checks out then I’m in, if not then I don’t stand for it. Like in this case, rather than assume incorrect usage, check a few dictionaries to see if maybe the usage they are going for is in another one. In this case it is, so this whole deal is a mute point. And the original poster, Jay Nordlinger on National Review, should know better.
Even with gay, as you mentioned, I can still use it at a decriptive word for my feelings, or a color, etc. according to American-Heritage. But I bet if a politician said that the ball they had last night was a gay time, reporters would be all over it and it’d blow up to a huge deal. Even though its perfectly acceptable according to both Merriam-Webster and American-Heritage to use it to describe a merry time.
>> So really what you are saying is that Merriam-Webster is an invalid dictionary, even though its the only dictionary I was ever told to use in school?? <<
Well, if that’s where you learned words like “invalid” and “site,” maybe it’s worse than I thought. Does your school really pick your dictionary for you? Even with all the horrors schools are committing, it’s amazing that they would keep your brain on such a short leash.
The standard reference, incidentally, is the Oxford English Dictionary, but it’s not available for free on line, and a lot of schools are too cheap to buy one. (It’s a whole bunch of volumes.)
So I’ve tried to reply 3 times to your post over the past two hours, but it seems there is a huge delay or somebody doesn’t want me posting anymore...I was going to let you know that I’m not an “obamabot”, I did this stuff with Bush haters too. Even non-presidential figures. If its legit, I’m down with it. If its not I don’t stand for it. I just have issues with people who don’t do their full research. In this case it seems clear they used a different dictionary than the American-Heritage Dictionary. So this whole discussion on Jay Nordlinger posting on http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTFjNWMzYjA5ZjViNTIyZWQzYzI4YjIzNTEzM2ZlMzc= is a mute point.
I fully expect Obama to make legit word use mistakes, just like we all do. I even expect him to make even more important mistakes that actually affect our livelihoods. He’s not perfect, nor was Bush, nor any other president that held the office. But it seems the moderators of the thread want to let it end with erkyl calling me an obamabot and that I’m the stereotypical Obama worshiper, etc. Maybe they like suppressing voices that make legitimate points that do not agree with the sites mainstream thoughts???
“MUTE” point. Funny....
thanks...to those who didn’t get it, it should have said “moot”. :) I havn’t had this much fun since messing with an old gf who was an English major back in college.
>> Maybe they like suppressing voices that make legitimate points that do not agree with the sites mainstream thoughts??? <<
Again, typical of liberal whining. You come new into a forum and call my post stupid. And when I respond to your post, you go whining about “suppressing voices that make legitimate points that do not agree with sites (sic) mainstream thoughts.”
You know what? I thought it was a funny mistake. Did you even noticed it’s tagged as “humor?” Probably not, because you’re the newcomer. And rather than learn about the site you’re on, you come in to impose your judgment.
Guess what? You’re not welcome. This isn’t the Republican Party; this is a conservative forum. And if finding something Obama says ironic and funny gets your panties in a bunch, you’re free to leave.
>> So this whole discussion on Jay Nordlinger ... is a mute point. <<
And for God’s sake, don’t get into an argument about correct word usage if you’re going to “site” a dictionary as “invalid,” so as to declare a “mute point.”
It’s a “moot” point. “Mute” means incapable of speech. “Moot” means that it is no longer relevant because a dispute has already been settled.
>> I havn’t had this much fun since messing with an old gf who was an English major back in college. <<
I see you’ve already been corrected. I was betting “91” was your birth year. You mean you’ve actually gone to college, and you still refer to the dictionary your school teachers made you use? And that was Webster’s?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.