How come they say aided AND abetted?

[bozo]

I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
alliteration?

[Harrison Hill]

On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> alliteration?

One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
start with the same letter. This is alliteration:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/

[Joe Fineman]

bozo <Bozo_D...@37.com> writes:

> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> alliteration?

In my book (and the AHD), aid means help, and abet means urge. One
may do either without the other.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: First you find out that there is no Santa Claus, then that :||
||: there is no God, and then that there are no grownups. :||

[Don Phillipson]

> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>> alliteration?

"Harrison Hill" <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b31b12-b0f5-487e...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/

Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
is a very old preference in the language.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:45:02 -0400, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>bozo <Bozo_D...@37.com> writes:
>
>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>> alliteration?
>
>In my book (and the AHD), aid means help, and abet means urge. One
>may do either without the other.

Like forging and uttering.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[bozo]

oh i get it, you're talking about the *END* of a word or sentence
being reserved for alliteration huh? ... maybe what I meant to say was
'redundant assonance' or something like that, or maybe we're
discussing a new literary device and brand new form of alliteration to
be reserved for sounds of assonance and rhyming only at the beginning
of a word or sentence yet to be recognized and classified as
'assalliteration' ... and title for my new doctoral thesis in English?

-bdn-

[Mike L]

Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
--
MIke.

[bozo]

On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:

not to be disrespectful or overly analytic but it sounds like they
were for the birds

-bdn-



-bdn-

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 15, 12:27 am, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:03:43 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> >> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
> >>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> >>> alliteration?
>

> >"Harrison Hill" <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:f8b31b12-b0f5-487e...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> >> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> >> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> >> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> >>http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>
> >Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
> >(since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
> >prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
> >various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.)  This
> >influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
> >by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery."   This
> >is a very old preference in the language.
>
> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
>

They usually don't. If they did the A&E departments would really be in
trouble.

[Tommy Joe]

On Oct 14, 7:01 am, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:


> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> alliteration?

Here's a guy using words like redundant and alliteration
wanting to know the difference between aiding and abetting. You have
a computer Bozo, look it up. Stop asking phony questions ala Somebody
to illicit entertainment from others. Please. Just kidding, keep 'em
coming (whatever they are).

TJ

[Tommy Joe]

On Oct 14, 6:27 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.

And battery need not include assault, using my method anyway. I
walk with a fake limp and carry a fake cane which is really a
disguised sword holder. All I do is walk around. I don't bother
anybody. I certainly don't assault them. But they see the limp and
the cane and they figure this is their best shot, a wounded animal.
So they start working their way in, sometimes as many as 3 in a group,
surrounding me as I limp slowly away only to turn swiftly at the last
minute and withdraw the sword from it's holder and slice all of the
aggressors to ribbons. Now I know you might say, "Well, you didn't
assault them, but you instigated it by pretending to use a cane and
walk with a limp." But you would be wrong. See, I don't use the cane
and limp to lure people in for assault, I do it because I think it
makes me look distinguished and goes well with my long gray hair,
goatee, and reading glasses.

TJ

[navi]

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:01:34 AM UTC-7, bozo wrote:
> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>
> alliteration?

I thought "cease and desist" was a case of redundance.

Apparently it is not:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cease_and_desist

although "normal" dictionaries seem to indicate that "desist" simply means "stop".

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/desist

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/desist

I'm quite convinced one could claim that there indeed is alliteration in "cease and desist"...

[Guy Barry]

"bozo" wrote in message
news:1b63dbf6-cba3-4762...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> > because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> > be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> > start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>
> > http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/

> oh i get it, you're talking about the *END* of a word or sentence
> being reserved for alliteration huh? ...

There's alliteration in the last line: "stone for the sake of the souls of
the slain birds sailing". Otherwise I'm not sure what Harrison was
referring to.

As far as I know alliteration requires that the words begin with the same
*sound*, not just the same letter, so "aided and abetted" wouldn't be an
example in any case.

--
Guy Barry

[Harrison Hill]

On 15 Oct, 07:07, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "bozo"  wrote in message
>
> news:1b63dbf6-cba3-4762...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 14, 5:11 am, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> > > because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> > > be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> > > start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>
> > >http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
> > oh i get it, you're talking about the *END* of a word or sentence
> > being reserved for alliteration huh? ...
>
> There's alliteration in the last line: "stone for the sake of the souls of
> the slain birds sailing".   Otherwise I'm not sure what Harrison was
> referring to.

"sparrows and such who swansing, dusk"
"the hawk on fire, the halter height"
"stabs and paddles In the pebbly dab-filled shallow and sedge"
"wharves of water where the walls dance
"his whirlwind silence save, who marks the sparrows hail for their
souls' song""

[Fred]

On 15/10/2012 12:01 a.m., bozo wrote:
> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> alliteration?
>

Neither. It's just a quick way of saying aided, abetted, helped and
assisted.

[Guy Barry]

"Tommy Joe" wrote in message
news:9b362eb3-c488-4d34...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 14, 7:01 am, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:

> Stop asking phony questions ala Somebody
> to illicit entertainment from others.

"Illicit"? (Sorry, but if you're going to crosspost to alt.usage.english
you'll need to be more careful than that.)

--
Guy Barry

[bozo]

It wasn't a phony question, and besides, if i can get a distinguished
answer like "aid means help, and abet means urge", I'll take that any
day over Wikipedia.

-bdn-

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message
news:bb6d57ab-ead3-4bac...@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

Thank you. I should have read more carefully. You have to look for
examples of alliteration in that type of verse; they don't automatically
jump out at you.

Medieval verse used alliteration as a standard feature, of course, as in
"Piers Plowman":

In a somer seson, whan softe was the sonne,
I shoop me into shroudes as I a sheep were,
In habite as an heremite unholy of werkes,
Wente wide in this world wondres to here.

http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/1772/piers-plowman---prologue.html

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Special Offer!
Three assaults for the price of two. Batteries not included.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[CDB]

On 15/10/2012 4:55 AM, Guy Barry wrote:

> "Harrison Hill" wrote:
>> On 15 Oct, 07:07, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[alliterations overboard]

> Thank you. I should have read more carefully. You have to look for
> examples of alliteration in that type of verse; they don't automatically
> jump out at you.

> Medieval verse used alliteration as a standard feature, of course, as in
> "Piers Plowman":

> In a somer seson, whan softe was the sonne,
> I shoop me into shroudes as I a sheep were,
> In habite as an heremite unholy of werkes,
> Wente wide in this world wondres to here.

> http://www.poetryatlas.com/poetry/poem/1772/piers-plowman---prologue.html

Alliteration was a standard feature if the medieval poet was writing in
the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Alliteration requires the same consonantal sound (or any two vowel
sounds) to begin the stressed syllables, not the word; so "aided and
abetted" isn't alliterative, but "bide abed" is.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> writes:

> bozo <Bozo_D...@37.com> writes:
>
>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>> alliteration?
>
> In my book (and the AHD), aid means help, and abet means urge. One
> may do either without the other.

Exactly (although in my dialect, "abet" doesn't really exist outside
this phrase). It's not sufficient to help because you're threatened
or to do something that incidentally helps. You have to be actively
in favor of the crime being committed when you help in order to become
an accessory.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |...as a mobile phone is analogous
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Chicago (1964-1982) |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Ross Howard

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Mike L]

Note: batteries rechargeable only if fresh evidence comes to light.

--
Mike.

[Katy Jennison]

Available at the flic of a switch.

--
Katy Jennison

[OllieN...@aol.com]

On Oct 15, 4:47 pm, Katy Jennison <k...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:
> On 15/10/2012 21:06, Mike L wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:18:37 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

> > <m...@peterduncanson.net>  wrote:

>
> >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:27:37 +0100, Mike L<n...@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:03:43 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

> >>> <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca>  wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo<Bozo_De_N...@37.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
> >>>>>> alliteration?
>

> >>>> "Harrison Hill"<harrisonhill2...@gmail.com>  wrote in message

> >>>>news:f8b31b12-b0f5-487e...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
> >>>>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
> >>>>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
> >>>>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
> >>>>>http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>
> >>>> Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
> >>>> (since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
> >>>> prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
> >>>> various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.)  This
> >>>> influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
> >>>> by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery."   This
> >>>> is a very old preference in the language.
>
> >>> Mind you, an assault need not include battery.
>
> >>   Special Offer!
> >>   Three assaults for the price of two. Batteries not included.
>
> > Note: batteries rechargeable only if fresh evidence comes to light.
>
> Available at the flic of a switch.
>
> --

> Katy Jennison- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Laid and bedded is better.

[Tommy Joe]

"Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Illicit"?  (Sorry, but if you're going to crosspost to alt.usage.english
> you'll need to be more careful than that.)

I'll bet you and your type were against the use of the word
"crosspost" when it first appeared, just as you 'by the book' types
are opposed to any kind of change. I appreciate your guidance and
realize that my English is not perfect. Was I wrong to capitalize the
word 'english' just now? I don't know. Please God in heaven help me
to spell correctly and to choose just the right words to make everyone
happy from this point forth, thank you God.

TJ

[Tommy Joe]

On Oct 15, 4:53 am, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:

> It wasn't a phony question, and besides, if i can get a distinguished
> answer like "aid means help, and abet means urge", I'll take that any
> day over Wikipedia.

A dictionary ought to do the job.

TJ

[R H Draney]

Katy Jennison filted:

In the meanwhile, keep the accused in a dry cell....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[J. J. Lodder]

Why not subject him to the acid test?

Jan

[bozo]

okay well then what i meant to say was if i can get a short

distinguished answer like "aid means help, and abet means urge", I'll

take that over Wikipedia or your contentious ramblings any day

-bdn-

[bozo]

On the distinction between the three devices, I came across this
'disambiguation' between Alliteration, Assonance, and Consonance --->
The matching or repetition of consonants is called alliteration, or
the repeating of the same letter (or sound) at the beginning of words
following each other immediately or at short intervals, ---> which
would seem to suggest that the matching of sounds is not reserved just
for consonants ... ARISE YOU VOWELS AND TAKE WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY YOURS,
VOWELS CONSONANTS AND ALL! ...

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/alliteration.html

PS: you see initially I was just joking about the need for adopting a
new classification called 'assalliteration' for describing the
repetition of vowel sounds, and maybe there is room for a doctoral
thesis on it

-bdn-

[Guy Barry]

"Tommy Joe" wrote in message

news:37d6528a-ed70-4edb...@o5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

> "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> > "Illicit"? (Sorry, but if you're going to crosspost to
> > alt.usage.english
> > you'll need to be more careful than that.)

> I'll bet you and your type were against the use of the word
> "crosspost" when it first appeared, just as you 'by the book' types
> are opposed to any kind of change.

I presume that "crosspost" has been around more or less as long as Usenet.
The concept wouldn't have had any meaning beforehand (and doesn't really
have any meaning outside this context).

> I appreciate your guidance and
> realize that my English is not perfect.

"Illicit" is an adjective meaning "unlawful" or "forbidden". The verb
meaning "to draw out or evoke" (an admission or response) is spelt "elicit".
They're occasionally confused.

> Was I wrong to capitalize the
> word 'english' just now? I don't know.

No, "English" is always spelt with a capital letter. (The newsgroup name
"alt.usage.english" is an exception, of course; but Usenet naming
conventions require lower-case.)

> Please God in heaven help me
> to spell correctly and to choose just the right words to make everyone
> happy from this point forth, thank you God.

You can always drop the crossposts, you know. People on a.u.e enjoy picking
over language.

--
Guy Barry

[CDB]

On 16/10/2012 4:59 AM, bozo wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:31 pm, Tommy Joe <j...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 4:53 am, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:

>>> It wasn't a phony question, and besides, if i can get a distinguished
>>> answer like "aid means help, and abet means urge", I'll take that any
>>> day over Wikipedia.

>> A dictionary ought to do the job.

> okay well then what i meant to say was if i can get a short
> distinguished answer like "aid means help, and abet means urge", I'll
> take that over Wikipedia or your contentious ramblings any day

Yeah, TJ, less rambly, please.

"Aid" means "help", and "abet" means "assist [help, yah?] or encourage,
usually in some wrongdoing". The last bit is from the quickdef at
OneLook, and I would have said "often" instead of "usually".

Lots more definitions at

http://www.onelook.com/?w=abet&ls=a

[OllieN...@aol.com]

Proper English or proper any language is bullshit. All language was
changing until they invented books and codified language. I hear the
French are the worse about it.

English teachers want the same strict laws of syntax and semantics as
you have in mathematics.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-10-14 16:03:43 +0200, "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> said:

>> On 14 Oct, 12:01, bozo <Bozo_De_N...@37.com> wrote:
>>> I mean is there a big difference or is this just redundant
>>> alliteration?
>

> "Harrison Hill" <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f8b31b12-b0f5-487e...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>

>> One word is reinforcing the other - I imagine there is a legal nuance
>> because this is a legal concept in the UK. There isn't enough of it to
>> be "alliteration" (as I understand the term); both words happen to
>> start with the same letter. This is alliteration:
>> http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/over-sir-john-s-hill/
>

> Alliteration is an ancient feature of both English poetry
> (since the language emerged, cf. Beowulf etc.) and English
> prose (cf. the Book of Common Prayer e.g. invocations that
> various virtues should "abide and abound" in us etc.) This
> influence entered statute law, so that some crimes are defined
> by two terms rather than one, e.g. "assault and battery." This
> is a very old preference in the language.

Lawyers like it because it avoids arguments about whether there is any
difference between a will and testament, etc.


--
athel

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Sometimes one of the words is of germanic origin and the other from
Norman French / Latin. That is so with "last will and testament".
However, those two words used to have different meanings.

OED of "will, n,":

23.
a. A person's formal declaration of his intention as to the
disposal of his property or other matters to be performed after his
death, ...

Formerly properly used only in reference to the disposal of real
property, thus distinguished from a "testament" relating to
personal property; whence the phrase (now tautological, but still
in formal use) "last will and testament"...

[Matti Lamprhey]

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:04:05 PM UTC+1, athel...@yahoo wrote:
> On 2012-10-14 16:03:43 +0200, "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> said:

> (of "aid and abet")

>
> Lawyers like it because it avoids arguments about whether there is any
> difference between a will and testament, etc.

This is the usual explanation of the apparent redundancy. Another example is "let or hindrance", confusing because "let" would appear to be antithetic to "hindrance".

(PS Hallo again to old and good friends...)

Matti

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Hallo Matti. Good to see you back.

[the Omrud]

And to others also, I hope. Greetings and welcome.

--
David

[Skitt]

Matti Lamprhey wrote:

> (PS Hallo again to old and good friends...)
>
> Matti
>

Cheers!

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Robin Bignall]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:09:55 -0700 (PDT), Matti Lamprhey
<ma...@totally-official.com> wrote:

Long time no see. Many welcomes back.

--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Mike L]

Made my day.

--
Mike.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:04:07 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

And whether you give, devise or bequeath.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:09:55 -0700 (PDT), Matti Lamprhey
<ma...@totally-official.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:04:05 PM UTC+1, athel...@yahoo wrote:
>> On 2012-10-14 16:03:43 +0200, "Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> said:
>> (of "aid and abet")
>>
>> Lawyers like it because it avoids arguments about whether there is any
>> difference between a will and testament, etc.
>
>This is the usual explanation of the apparent redundancy. Another example is "let or hindrance", confusing because "let" would appear to

Right.

>(PS Hallo again to old and good friends...)

Welcome back.

[Tommy Joe]

On Oct 16, 6:11 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Illicit" is an adjective meaning "unlawful" or "forbidden".  The verb
> meaning "to draw out or evoke" (an admission or response) is spelt "elicit".
> They're occasionally confused.

Thanks. Even as I typed it I had a feeling I was spelling it
wrong. But while I thank you for the correction and education, at the
same time I must remind you that the fact that you knew and understood
the intent of my misused word, your correction was either meant to be
genuinely helpful, or it was meant to be a snide remark directed at my
inferior language skills.

> No, "English" is always spelt with a capital letter.  (The newsgroup name
> "alt.usage.english" is an exception, of course; but Usenet naming
> conventions require lower-case.)

I was joking actually, but I suppose there could be exceptions
even beyond the newsgroup you mention. How about 'english' one puts
on a cue ball? Is that capitalized? I could find out but I'm too
lazy and plus I don't care a whole lot. I mean, it's nice to know
some things, but it's not like I'm going to die tonight if I go to
sleep uninformed.

> You can always drop the crossposts, you know.  People on a.u.e enjoy picking
> over language.

My crossposts are not intentional. Sure, I could and maybe
should look at the address bar before sending, but ordinarily when you
get a post from me on your group it's because I'm responding to
someone from that group in my own group. I'm not an invader. But I
do think at times that certain crossposts can lead to good things.
It's like a guy who is happily married for life to his second wife but
never would have met her had he not married the first one whose guts
he hated for a while there toward the end. His new and highly
acceptable second wife came as the result of crossposting of of a
kind.

TJ - founder and president, CPA - Cross-posters of American.com

[Tommy Joe]

On Oct 16, 8:10 am, OllieNort...@aol.com wrote:

> Proper English or proper any language is bullshit.  All language was
> changing until they invented books and codified language.  I hear the
> French are the worse about it.
>
> English teachers want the same strict laws of syntax and semantics as
> you have in mathematics.

I agree with much of what you say but you would never make a dent
in the minds of those for whom language is a hobby. It would be like
trying to tell a wine snob that he doesn't know wine. There was a guy
named Richard Creed in the newspaper a few years back who had a weekly
column dedicated to proper word usage - syndicated or local I never
bothered to look. He was a real stickler as were many who read his
column. I enjoyed it at times. But the guy was so adamantly opposed
to just about any new word or term that had he been around thousands
of years ago many of the words he uses today he would not have allowed
into existence. I guess it's a constant balancing act, what goes in,
what goes out. But yes, I suppose for some of the word people it's a
hobby that elevates their egos in much the way that a wine sipper over
years of sipping wine fancies himself an expert on taste. Me? I'm a
snob too. I'm an anti-snob snob.

TJ

[musika]

Hello Matti. Good to hear from you again.
--
Ray
UK