| 1 |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:09:42 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > But an admitted pedantic response deserves a reply from the OED :P |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> ...which is no more than an observer of trends. It offers precious |
| 6 |
> little help in what one ought to do. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Isn't that how language develops, through trends? My point in quoting |
| 9 |
the OED was that it is a real word, I made no claims that it was a good |
| 10 |
word, in fact I indicated otherwise. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> A few years ago our Queen uttered a solecism (well, it had to happen |
| 13 |
> sooner or later, and as far as I know it's the only one). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
How did they know, was it in a voicemail message? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The gutter press were |
| 18 |
> delighted to announce a new usage: "if it's good enough for the queen, |
| 19 |
> it's good enough for the rest of us". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
She made a mistake with English, I made a mistake with English. If it's |
| 22 |
good enough for her for the Queen... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious. |
Archives