Nathan Bierma was asked whether "anyways" is a word. In the end he says that it is not accepted in Standard English. However, it can be traced back to "anywise" or in Old English "aenig wisan," which meant "in any way or manner." Apparently Dickens used it in "Our Mutual Friend":

quote:

("Anyways, I am glad," says Pleasant Riderhood, for example) but without knowing the book better, I can't tell if Dickens meant it to reflect a character's regional dialect.

The questioner said that her high school students use it. In her emails to me, my daughter uses it. Have you heard it used much?

Up here in central British Columbia, I would guesstimate usage at 50 per cent for "anyways" and 50 per cent for "anyway".
I will have to listen over the next little while and see whether individual people use one or the other consistently.

I know of only one person who commonly adds the "s." The people with whom I work just grunt and point; the rest have English degrees.

It isn't common over here, but I have heard it used. The UVic Writer's Guide suggests it's a

quote:

strictly colloquial expression, as ungrammatical in written English as "anyhows" because adverbs cannot be plural.

Most online dictionaries seem to call it "nonstandard", "colloquial, or "informal". The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives "US informal for anyway"

I used to hear it a lot more in Upstate New York than I do here in the Philadelphia area.

WM

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
The UVic Writer's Guide suggests it's a

quote:

strictly colloquial expression, as ungrammatical in written English as "anyhows" because adverbs cannot be plural.

"He works sometimes."

I wondered about that dogmatic statement myself, but couldn't think of a suitable example. Anyways, who's to say that the letter "s" indicates plurality here?

Yeah, there's no reason to think that the "s" indicates plurality in "anyways" or "sometimes".

But you could maybe argue that words like

he works nights
he works days
he works weekends

are adverbs and plural.

Another adverb ending with a letter s is "always". That's surely plural, coming as it does from "all ways"?

The online OED cites anyways as an adverb, meaning "in any way, in any respect, at all." In this form there are citations from 1560, 1638, 1673, 1794, and 1834. The other definition is "in any case, at all events, anyhow," and cited as an adverb conjunction. This definition has one citation from 1865, Dickens: "Anyways, I am glad, etc."

I suspect it is used more frequently in the younger generation, but I am not sure. I have to say, it irritates me when my daugher uses it, but she has other redeeming features.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
Yeah, there's no reason to think that the "s" indicates plurality in "anyways" or "sometimes".

Yes. It is heard in the UK, used in a slangy, trendy way. It's rather like "Hows" in "Hows about a cup of tea"? But clearly not an omitted apostrophe as sometimes used to make acronyms or other abbreviations plural.
I share Kalleh's sense of mild irritation.

I've often heard a variation . . .
Anywho

Anyone else hear that?

"Anywho, that's the way the cookie crumbles."

An interesting discussion. I wonder why some feel that anyways is always incorrect or, less accurately, ungrammatical?

It occurs in the Authorized King James Version of Bible, 1611, in Leviticus 20:4 (link):

quote:

And if the people of the lande doe / any wayes hide their eyes from the / man, when he giueth of his seed unto / Molech, and kill him not:

As usual, the MWDEU has a nice discussion of the historical facts of the word and its usage (link). Elsewheres, it also discusses anywheres, nowheres, and somewheres.

It is strange that the A-H dictionary labels anywise nonstandard (link), while the current M-W (link) and the unabridged edition of 1913 (link) do not. A quick googling reveals that its use in 19th British English is common an unremarkworthy (link).

There are two different uses of -wise, one standard (e.g., clockwise, lengthwise) meaning 'in this way or manner', deriving from the Old English wīse 'manner, way, habit' (link), and the other less formal, meaning 'relating to' (e.g., foodwise, timewise). My personal favorites -wise words are: pennywise, which seems to have nothing to do with this suffix, but rather with the adjective wise, and bitwise, as in bitwise boolean and shift operators (link). There is something adverby about this -s. It occurs in upwards and towards, and in the latter can be dropped, i.e., toward.

As for anywho, not only have I heard it, but I use it informally in a jocular manner.

quote:

As for anywho, not only have I heard it, but I use it informally in a jocular manner.

Funny, I picture it as spelled, "anyhoo." Is the pronunciation a Scottish/Gaelic remnant?

anyhoo

anyhoo 1.79 Mghits
anywho 5.03 Mghits

FWIW, Google suggests anywho for anyhoo (link).

[Corrected typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

quote (correcting what I presume to be a typo):

anyhoo 1.79 Mghits
anywho 5.03 Mghits

Yes, but the latter, anywho, is the name of a popular site (which is a telephone-number directory), and that may grossly skew the figures.

For what(ever) it's worth ... google hits


whatever 340,000,000
whatevers 4,240,000
whatevah 120,000
whatevahs 5,600

quote:

An interesting discussion. I wonder why some feel that anyways is always incorrect or, less accurately, ungrammatical?

Oh, I don't think it incorrect, z (and certainly not ungrammatical)...especially after I looked it up in the OED. Now Bierma does consider it "non-standard," which is similar to considering it "wrong."

For me, the annoyance is similar to someone saying, "I have less pennies than you do." It's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, and yet I don't consider it "wrong." It's my problem, not the other person's. It's just a matter of how I've been raised. The same goes for others' irritation of my use of "I'm too nice of a person."

Maybe it is just the difference between written language and the spoken word. In speech many variant or new words or phrases are acceptable because their spoken context may contain evident elements of humour, self-mockery, or irony. In the formal constraints of writing these are inapparent, and prone to be interpreted as non-standard.

quote:

For me, the annoyance is similar to someone saying, "I have less pennies than you do." It's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, and yet I don't consider it "wrong." It's my problem, not the other person's.

Most UK speakers would consider that wrong. Less is used for uncountable nouns as in constructions such as "I am less wealthy than you" or "there is less money around these days".

For countable nouns I would use "fewer". In your example, I would write, "I have fewer pennies than you" or "I have less money than you".

Strangely the distinction does not seem to apply for adjectives describing greater quantities. "I have more money" and "I have more pennies" are both correct.

Only sort of true.
It's one of those "rules" that is more honoured in the breach than the observance. Yes, I teach classes that in formal writing "fewer" is usually used for countable nouns and "less" for uncountable nouns but the truth of the matter is that in speech, even quite formal speech, the great majority of people (even those that claim otherwise) use "fewer" and "less" interchangeably when speaking of countable nouns. In fact in most speech communities, and this is personal observation only - I have no data to back it up, it seems that "less" is the preferred form because the use of "fewer" is perceived as having a degree of old-fashioned pomposity about it.

Uncountable nouns are always described using "less".

Almost nobody would think twice about "there are less cars on the road nowadays" or "we have less games this season".

c888 King ÆLFRED Boethius De Consolatione Philosophiæ. xxxv. §5 [6] Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæðer we hit ȝereccan maȝon.
"whether we may prove it with less words or with more"

I had a feeling it had been around for a very long time goofy but couldn't think how to find the evidence. Thank you for providing it.

We've talked about "fewer" and "less" so much here that I thought we'd come to a consensus that either way is fine. Apparently not.

I think you're right about "less," Bob. I doubt this means anything, but Google shows 1,050,000,000 hits for "less" and 188,000,000 for "fewer."

<tongue-firmly-in-cheek>

You have to remember what consensus means. It means everyone is wrong and Richard is right.

</tongue-firmly-in-cheek>

quote:

Almost nobody would think twice about "there are less cars on the road nowadays" or "we have less games this season".

I am sorry to learn that you think that I am "almost nobody"

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

Almost nobody would think twice about "there are less cars on the road nowadays" or "we have less games this season".

I am sorry to learn that you think that I am "almost nobody"

Suprisingly accurate. I originally wrote "Nobody", thought of you and added the "Almost".

quote:

<tongue-firmly-in-cheek>

You have to remember what consensus means. It means everyone is wrong and Richard is right.

</tongue-firmly-in-cheek>

Too bad there isn't an emoticon for tongue-in-cheek!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I am sorry to learn that you think that I am "almost nobody"

Me too

I brought up the "fewer" and "less" discussion...and blogged about it. It irritates me, too, but I realize it's just that ugly, prescriptive head of mine that rears every once in awhile.

quote:

I am sorry to learn that you think that I am "almost nobody"

Richard, your earlier post had said:

quote:

Most UK speakers would consider that wrong.

I think Bob was just saying that isn't true. You and Pearce are perhaps in the minority. I don't know because I don't live in England, but I do know in the U.S. many people don't consider it wrong...including me, even though I use "fewer" to mean "countable" when I write or talk.

quote:

Originally posted by pearce:

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I am sorry to learn that you think that I am "almost nobody"

Me too

Does that mean that you are sorry to learn Richard is "almost nobody", pearce?

quote:

I think Bob was just saying that isn't true. You and Pearce are perhaps in the minority.

I should have said, "Most UK English speakers in my circle or acquaintances would consider that wrong". Neither Bob nor I could speak for all UK speakers.

But I will say that all the UK English style books I know of also consider the use of "less" with countable nouns, and "fewer" with countable nouns, to be incorrect.

There is less traffic; there are fewer cars is correct. There is fewer traffic; there are less cars is incorrect.

Do these books really prescribe against "fewer" with noncount nouns? "Less" is used with count and noncount nouns, but there is no such trend with "fewer", it is only used with count nouns. Would anyone say "there is fewer traffic?" Seems like a waste of time to prescribe against something that doesn't exist.

I have met many people who say that they abhor the use of less with countable nouns. I have met none who successfully avoid it in regular (i.e. non-rehearsed, non-deliberate) speech.

I, like many others, find that it frequently sounds very affected when people say things like "there were fewer people on the Metro today".

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I realize it's just that ugly, prescriptive head of mine that rears every once in awhile.

What's wrong with having some prescriptivist tendencies? Seriously, why do people have to polarise everything? Gay/straight, male/female, prescriptivist/descriptivist - what about the people who fall in between? Don't let yourself be pressured into thinking you're wrong, Kalleh .

There's a massive difference between the natural evolution of language and the degeneration of it because people can't be bothered to treat their mother tongue with due care and attention. I adore language, and to see it poorly used by an otherwise intelligent person actually pains me. Good writing is a form of art, and I subjectively cherish it.

I've read so much spite and vitriol on the Net from descriptivists about people like me who love language and hate to see it misused out of laziness rather than, say, a deliberate use of one's own dialect, an interested playfulness or artistic licence. It's really quite pathetic, and to be honest, having seen the odd example on this site, it's one of the reasons I don't hang around here so much anymore. Different doesn't necessarily mean wrong, and perhaps, just perhaps, there's room for both schools of thought to compromise? I'm quite happy for language to evolve and I'm not averse to playing with it myself, but I don't like to see it abused by people who are otherwise able but just can't be bothered. I have difficulty with the 'mob-rule' idea that just because the majority start doing something, that somehow makes it OK. It doesn't exactly work in other aspects of life, so why should language be excepted?

I also find it interesting how many descriptivists write in very traditional, prescriptively-correct English .

Bob, I use 'fewer' in formal writing and I try to use it in speech because 'less' often sounds odd to me now. I do forget sometimes because I grew up surrounded by 'less', so it's not an unconscious thing. I do it because I choose to and I like how it sounds. I suspect 'fewer' sounds pompous because of social conditioning: if everyone had been taught to use it from an early age it'd just be the norm, so you wouldn't think it pompous or affected at all - just, well, normal. And what's pompous about it really? It might even be a little reverse snobbery creeping in there...

I've read so much spite and vitriol on the Net from descriptivists about people like me who love language and hate to see it misused out of laziness rather than, say, a deliberate use of one's own dialect, an interested playfulness or artistic licence.

I know what you mean. Me, I'd much rather haunt those warm fuzzy prescriptivist boards where folks are polite as well as linguistically erudite. Try Vocabula Review.

It's really quite pathetic, and to be honest, having seen the odd example on this site, it's one of the reasons I don't hang around here so much anymore. Different doesn't necessarily mean wrong, and perhaps, just perhaps, there's room for both schools of thought to compromise? I'm quite happy for language to evolve and I'm not averse to playing with it myself, but I don't like to see it abused by people who are otherwise able but just can't be bothered. I have difficulty with the 'mob-rule' idea that just because the majority start doing something, that somehow makes it OK. It doesn't exactly work in other aspects of life, so why should language be excepted?

Where are these folks who advocate mob rule? Almost my only argument with prescriptivists is that they get the basic facts of language wrong again and again. I know most of the prescriptivist "rules" for English, and I tend to use the less controversial ones when I write formally. Descriptivists are not saying that there are no rules and anything goes. They are saying that if you wish to find out what the rules are (and there are so many more than the prescriptivists ever dreamed of in their narrow view of what grammar is), you need to look at how the language is actually used. For example, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Austen all used the non-gender-specific singular they construction. Prescriptivists say that obviously mistakes are made even by good authors, and that this construction is ungrammatical for reasons of logic, taste, or some other non-linguistic reason. I have yet to find a prescriptivist who writes as well as Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Austen, and so I'll side with those authors and hazard that the construction is perfectly valid for formal English. (Though in truth, discrimination being what it is in this divisive world, I would not use the construction in formal written English, because of what some people might assume about my intelligence or hire-worthiness.)

I also find it interesting how many descriptivists write in very traditional, prescriptively-correct English Wink.

That's because most descriptivists love language, too. In fact, I'd say they love it far more than the soi-disant "grammar mavens". That's why they've chosen to study it as it is, in the wild, rather than as some one or two people think it ought to be. Oh, yes, and have fun using it. But people who actually study language as it is, know when and where has a lot to do with how you speak or write. Most people handle more than one register easily. Speaking like Milton wrote with a five-year-old is not going to do much to advance the cause of communication.

Having said that, in my regional dialect, as well as in Standard Formal US English, the usages which Bob cited above are ungrammatical.

quote:

Seems like a waste of time to prescribe against something that doesn't exist.

Good point, Goofy. One would never hear fewer used with non-countable nouns, such as "money."

quote:

Don't let yourself be pressured into thinking you're wrong, Kalleh

Perhaps, Cat, you've missed the discussion about my use of "I'm too nice of a person." I find myself more pressured by the prescriptivists here, than by the descriptivists.

quote:

It's really quite pathetic, and to be honest, having seen the odd example on this site, it's one of the reasons I don't hang around here so much anymore.

"Odd example?" Do you mean "anyways?" It isn't so odd here in the U.S., and the whole subject had come up in a language column. BTW, I am sorry you don't hang around here so much. I've missed you. If I were to rate this site "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive," I'd say it's more the latter. On the other hand, I do agree that setting up sides is never a good thing. A cogent discussion, though? That's priceless.

Lastly, z quite articulately said what I am feeling. I will leave it at that.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
[Me, I'd much rather haunt those warm fuzzy prescriptivist boards where folks are polite as well as linguistically erudite. Try Vocabula Review.

I think I'll pass, thanks! I don't like to read vitriol full stop. Also, pointing out that one's opponents do something unpleasant neither detracts from nor excuses one's allies for doing the same thing... *slaps your wrist*

Where are these folks who advocate mob rule?

I've often read people say something along the lines of 'if enough people use it, then it becomes acceptable'. I've seen that opinon on this board but there are too many threads for me to search through, or I'd copy and paste a quote. Even wikipedia (not the best source, I know) says that descriptivists "accept[] forms as correct or acceptable when they achieve general currency." So if enough people do it, it becomes right, which is what I mean by mob rule. Democracy is pretty similar at times too .

You say "descriptivists aren't saying that there are no rules and anything goes", but if the language structures used by every group of people become rules, and if all of those rules apply even when they contradict the ones used by other groups, it makes me wonder: how can we accept all these rules without approaching another Babel? If we're studying, say, English as a whole rather than one dialect, I mean. I think we need a standard so people of different backgrounds can understand each other (and as you say, most people can cope with more than one register so maintaining a standard written form is within most people's grasp).

Like I said above, it's laziness I can't tolerate, not different registers, playing with and enjoying language, or its organic flux.

Before I toddle off to bed, I've not at any point said prescriptivism or descriptivism is the way to go with the other side being Bad And Wrong - that's the very antithesis of what I think - and I did infer from your reply some of the polarisation I mentioned: saying 'prescriptivists say X' rather than qualifying it with 'some', 'many' or 'rabid' - do all of them really exhibit identical behaviour, and is it fair to tar them all with that brush? It's that kind of thing I find annoying, akin to when people say 'Women do X' or 'Americans say Y'. I find it equally as frustrating when some prescriptivists make similar negative generalisations; I don't think they help anybody and serve only to drive a further wedge between the two groups.

In conclusion zmj, I think we actually agree on a lot of things about this subject, although we disagree on others. What gets me most - and was the reason for my original comment - is the antagonism between the Ps and Ds that does nobody any favours. It's quite ironic that so many of the people who are so vociferous and generally clued-up about language find it hard to communicate with each other.

(That wasn't a go at you personally by the way! It's an observation I've made after reading articles etc from both sides)

Oh, which usages that Bob quoted are ungrammatical in your dialect? I'm not sure which ones you meant.

Hi Kalleh - you can have a reply all of your own .

By 'odd example', I meant 'occasional example', in that I've seen in the past a couple of rather unpleasant snidey comments on this board directed at 'prescriptivists' after someone has made a comment similar to the sort of thing I'm talking about: protecting language from laziness. Saying something like that doesn't necessarily make one a prescriptivist, and even if the person does identify as one, I don't think ridiculing a whole group is productive. Like you, I much prefer discussion and debate.

I know things can get a little heated on discussion boards, and this one remains one of the politest and flame-free communities I've seen (which is some feat to achieve!), but even so, in the last couple of years some of the discourse has taken on a flavour I find unpleasant (not just in the P vs D debate; that was just one example), so I choose not to read as much so as not to risk coming across it. I also have less time available now, so it's not the only reason I'm here far less than I used to be - just one of several .

I wish I could find an example to show you what I mean, but I really can't go through the archives! If I come across one by accident though, I'll post it.

Hey, you never know, I might even remember one of the chats in time one weekend...

quote:

What gets me most - and was the reason for my original comment - is the antagonism between the Ps and Ds that does nobody any favours.

I think that is partially my fault. I tend to write of "prescriptivits" and "descriptivists" on this board, and I suspect most here are somewhere in between. Most of us enjoy words and language and love discussing the nuances. Sometimes when I bring these discussions up at work, I just get a blank stare. That's when I realize the difference.

We all interpret what we read through our own lenses. I tire of the prescriptivism that I see here, whereas you tire of the descriptivism. That tells me that we are probably somewhere in the middle. If you (or others) have felt "ridiculed" for your views, well, that shouldn't happen, and I am sorry. I will admit that occasionally I've felt ridiculed by the prescriptive attitude (including recently about the "nice of a person" comment).

Bottom line, I will try not to create the "we" and "they" scenario, which I suppose I did above.

quote:

you can have a reply all of your own

Z's analysis so perfectly described my thinking that I saw no reason to reiterate the points. That's all.

quote:

Originally posted by Cat:
You say "descriptivists aren't saying that there are no rules and anything goes", but if the language structures used by every group of people become rules, and if all of those rules apply even when they contradict the ones used by other groups, it makes me wonder: how can we accept all these rules without approaching another Babel?

We already do speak different languages. I'm sure your spoken English isn't the same as mine, and I'm sure you use different variants in your written English than I do. But if we're really trying to communicate, then we can.

quote:

I think we need a standard so people of different backgrounds can understand each other (and as you say, most people can cope with more than one register so maintaining a standard written form is within most people's grasp).

Yes it is, but standard English is full of variation. So someone uses "fewer" and someone else uses "less". Or someone uses "awhile" and someone else uses "a while". How often to these things cause any miscommunication.

But I don't think a standard is absolutely necessary in every situation - I'm able to perfectly understand many things that are written in nonstandard English.

quote:

There's a massive difference between the natural evolution of language and the degeneration of it because people can't be bothered to treat their mother tongue with due care and attention.

I love language too, and I tend to think that because we've been using it for thousands of years, we shouldn't worry about degeneration. What does an undegenerate language look like? How do we know when it's degenerated? In order to answer these questions, we need to know a lot more about language than we do now.

Prescriptivism is often necessary and justified. I have nothing against advice about language usage, but I'd like it to be informed advice. What's in much of the popular usage books is not informed.

I still don't see descriptivists as licensing any linguistic behavior or judging it. They are merely describing grammatical rules and lexical meaning, etc. The whole war between descriptivists and prescriptivists traces back to the publication of third edition of Webster's unabridged international dictionary. The editors of that dictionary make a decision to include some words which traditionally had been excluded, drop pejorative category labels, and record controversial meanings. Their philosophy was to record the language as it was being used in the mid 20th century. A dictionary is a reference work not a legal document. Usage "rules" like the that/which restrictive/non-restrictive relative clause distinction are pretty much fantasies, though I have known people to who believe in them rather fervently. Bemoaning that people use decimate in any extended meaning other than its strictly etymological one is just so much empty noise. It is interesting to observe that in countries which have official language academies, the people who use it typically ignore most of the attempts at controlling the language.

The usage I was referring to is the one which started this thread. The "there are less cars on the road nowadays" or "we have less games this season" one. If somebody said this in my presence I'd pass over it in silence. If somebody wrote something like this in an English class, I'd correct it, and try to state how less and fewer are used by good writers of standard English. My feeling on the matter is that if you can understand something well enough to correct it, then there was no impediment to communication.

I don't really have much to add to this discussion; most of the points I'd have made have already mentioned. However, just to take up Cat's

quote:

I also find it interesting how many descriptivists write in very traditional, prescriptively-correct English

I'd say that I am one such. Whatever my private feelings about a particular construction, in formal writing I'll always try to use English that 'offends' no-one. If someone were to read my writing and think "What a moron; he doesn't know that infinitives should never be split" or whatever, that takes away the clarity of the communication, as well as possibly alienating the reader. Such prose should be pretty well unremarkable; it is the idea behind the writing that has to be conveyed; any time the mechanics of the piece are noticed, the reader is distracted.

You misunderstand me, I think, Kalleh. I meant you can have a reply all of your own because a) replies from me are rare privileges (), and b) I like you .

goofy, I'd love you to translate some of the 'English' I see on the Internet if you really can understand most non-standard writings. Some of it I can't even understand if I read it out loud (which often makes writings in dialect easier to understand). You know the stuff I mean: stream-of-consiousness sentences that hide the point by including every thought process the writer apparently had (but without adequate punctuation to separate it all out); words that don't appear to fit where they've been put; huge blocks of unpunctuated text that change subject several times etc. I'd post an example of one I read yesterday, but I'd feel wrong posting someone's words without their knowledge or permission especially when I don't know if they have a genuine problem with writing. Oh, and I also count acadamese here: being officially clever doesn't mean one can write decent English! I'm afraid that if I have to really struggle to read what someone's written, then no matter how good a point they're making I'm not going to spend lots of time and energy trying to decipher it. Accessibility and dumbing down don't have to be the same thing.

I think the advent of the Internet has made languages change more quickly than ever before - or at least let us witness the changes more easily. Presumably this has something to do with more people writing who perhaps wouldn't have bothered before. Srsly idun wanna c wrytn lik ths becum lyk tha norm init cuz nah wai whatevs lol y u wanna neva mind haha. Legible(ish) maybe, but not much fun to read!

zmj, I actually agree with most of what you say. I also think language constructs which reflect and in some ways perpetuate oppression need to be broken down rather than stuck to because they are the 'correct' forms and shouldn't be tampered with - but that's a whole other thread!

My point remains that I can't abide the way humans have a tendency to split off into 'them and us' factions and start slagging the 'them' group off as a whole without appearing to want to engage in constructive discourse. We all have to engage with the Other in our lives, so we might as well make it as pleasant an engagement as possible, for all our sakes.

any time the mechanics of the piece are noticed, the reader is distracted.

Yes arnie, I agree, and I said something similar above. I think my point about having to make the reader work to decipher what you're trying to say fits in here too.

I wasn't just talking about formal writing in the bit you quoted; I was including informal writing such as that on this board. Formal writing is a different animal with different rules, but at least not an almost entirely different language like in Welsh. Good grief, I haven't even started on the written language yet...

I don't bother with the split infinitive 'rule' because I learnt on this community that it's an arbitrary thing made up by some people who didn't have anything better to do (and in case the person is wrong I'm not naming them*!), but because a lot of people still don't know that, if I'm writing formally I may well split the infinitive to be on the safe side. As far as informal writing goes, I've always split it if it looks better to split it, and not if not. It's like choosing between synonyms: sometimes one just looks better that the other. YMMV, of course.


*Yep, I use the non-gendered 'they', because we really, really need a gender-neutral pronoun. Not just for cases like this, where 'they' works fine, but also for people who don't identify as male or female. I never know what to say in those circumstances if the person isn't around to ask, and I wish we could create a standard.

I'm probably going to have to duck out of posting again for a bit, so I'll just leave by quoting something I heard once:

"Sloppy grammar is something against which I am strongly."

quote:

goofy, I'd love you to translate some of the 'English' I see on the Internet if you really can understand most non-standard writings.

Well, I didn't say most, I said many. There are some things written online that I don't understand, and some people do have problems communicating. On the other hand, Mark Twain's novels contain nonstandard English, and it's completely comprehensible.

Aw, Cat, please don't leave. I think you express yourself beautifully and you contribute many worthy thoughts to this exchange. So did all the others. If we are to be successful in trying to keep such discussions floating along with all sides represented fairly and equally, then all sides need to stay and express themselves. When misunderstandings arise, we have to try to talk them through.

Something I observed at the gathering in Columbus was that little controversies would bubble up and be debated hotly for a few minutes and then they were over. In contrast, on the board, where it's only words on the screen, there is so much room for misinterpretation and misunderstanding because people cannot see each others' faces or hear their tones of voice, which would help them to judge the intent of the writer.

One of my professors once introduced the concept of The Ladder of Inference in class. It was an extremely useful lesson for me, because I found I often would take some offhand remark by my boss as being scathing criticism, but when I went through the steps of the ladder exercise, I could see that there was much more that may have been meant and intended than the instant conclusions I was jumping to.

Anyway, I enjoy your posts, and zmj's and Kalleh's and Arnie's and Goofy's and Bob's and CWs and, and....and as a cat lover I have to say that no Word board would be complete without two Cats!

Wordmatic

Ooh, no, wordmatic, don't worry - I'm not flouncing off in a strop or anything; I actually have a disability that restricts my ability to be online and contribute as much as I'd like, and as I have to fit into my time online other communities and basic stuff like shopping and banking, I just wanted to let people know that I might not be able to respond for a while, and might even forget to do so once the post gets buried. I just didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them .

That said, thank you for your kind words. I'll try to drop in more often, but because there are so many fascinating threads I end up on here for longer than I should be, so sometimes it's safer to avoid the temptation altogether!

Sorry for any misunderstanding caused.

Oh, glad to hear it, and there I went, flying up the Ladder of Inference again! Sorry about that!

Take care,
WM