a joke about two pere ubuists

[MalignD at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/8/03 7:42:21 AM, abdieloabdiel at yahoo.com writes:


> It's impossible. That's a fact.  Why prescription? Who
> will benifit? Why? The notion that prescription is
> tied to precision and complexity of thought is utter
> nonsense. As I said previously, there is a linguist in
> the world that believes such nonsense.
> 
And that linguist's name is?

Should I assume you meant to say "not a linguist"?   Or are you making a 
subtle point about negatives?   Do you wish me to understand you?   

Do you intend to spell benefit "benifit"?   Should I assume a mistake on your 
part or are you making a point about the rules of spelling?   Do you wish me 
to get your point?   Would you prefer I didn't?

<<You've not provided an argument that can be supported
by anything other than politics/economics.  You are
making a political argument and then covering your ass
by claiming that the argument has been politicized.
Prescriptive grammar does not guarentee precision in
thought or expression.>>

<<In Education And Experience Dewey says, "There is no
such thing as educational value in the abstract.">>

I agree.   One practical use of the rules of prescriptive grammar is to make 
one's communications understandable.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20030308/7062fa9e/attachment.html>