New words

And Blackadder burned it.....[/QUOTE]

*Bzzzt* ITYF it was actually baldrick.

 

Granted. But perhaps you can try a bit harder to back up your
"Bollox" response to my original assertion?

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Des Coughlan

You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.

You are correct. You quoted Fowler's and The Oxford Guide to English
Usage, not a dictionary. Both clearly Harry Potter stylee books which
constantly rewrite themselves to account for mutation.

 

So, what's your definition of what a "formal rule" is for a language,
how it is recognised, and what's the process for changing it?

 

.... but your brain was too full and *something* had to go to make
room? ;o

 

heh, nice.

 

Ooh, I don't know if I can accept that argument.

If the pronunciation was used by the general masses I'd be forced to agree.
Everyone says "Aren't I?" instead of the grammatical correct "Am not I?"
(including me), and hence we can safely say that that is normal usage.

But only a select minority have adopted this incorrect usage of the "an"
article for voiced "h" words. If we start accepting any usage that occurs
within a minority (even a substantial one), then we would be forced to
accept expressions such as "I be chilling" (American black urban) and
"gostan your car" (Malay English) as legitimate English usage. (FWIW - the
Malay-English word "gostan" is a contraction of "go astern", which has taken
the meaning "to reverse".)

If however, one happened to be a member of a given select minority, then one
might tend to defend one's own dubious usages as valid. Some objectivity is
necessary, or failing that, an acceptance of one's own faults. As an
Australian, I have some vernacular usages which are completely appalling by
any standard of proper English, but I don't give a rat's arse, I'll keep on
speaking that way regardless. I just won't try to convince anyone that they
are legitimate.

Manning

 

I thought you shouldn't use a comma before 'and'...

 

Well it's the rule[1] now isn't it?

[1] The one that says that any post pointing out a spelling and/or
grammar mistake must contain a spelling and/or grammar mistake.

 

Point conceded - I should have used an umlaut.

But just to be unnecessarily pedantic, you wouldn't be able to prove it
anyway, due to the fact that to every omega-consistent recursive class 'k'
of formulae there corresponds recursive class-signs 'r', such that neither
'v Gen r' nor Neg('v Gen r') belongs to Flg (k) (where 'v' is the free
variable of 'r').

Cheers Manning
(what's the ascii code for an o with an umlaut anyway?)

 

Hold on, that's not in the FFAQ, is it?

<trots off to actually *read* the FFAQ>

Nope, not in there. How the **** are we relative newbies supoosed to
keep up at the back?

p.s. it's /which/ not that.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Manning

I think I'm going to have to claim a provable "whoosh" here. ;^)

 

I'm beginning to think that Platy's "Cleverest Man on UKRM" title is
under threat.

 

QED.

 

As in "Like I was a ream of 25% cotton bond parchment"?

 

Of course. )

Have you ever seen a ream of 25% cotton bond parchment
move of its own accord?

 

I think I'm getting the hang of this.

 

Good point

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

What, because he can find Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem in Google? Nah
mate, he's got a way to go yet. Shows promise, mind. ;^)

 

Actually no googling took place

I copied the theorem (verbatim, no understanding required) from Douglas
Hofstadler's "Goedel, Escher and Bach", page 17.