There's this guy running for president, see, and he keeps yelling about "America" and "freedom" and how noble our pursuits are, and how barbaric and backwards and cruel our enemies are, and how "the values of this great land are those values that make us the greatest nation on earth,"
Agenda has become fully Anglicized as a singular, referring to the sum of all agenda; I never heard anyone ever talk about an agendum, and sure enough, my browser's spellchecker just highlighted that as an error.
But it would be a travesty to the English language to forget that it has many different etymological influences, and to attempt to regularize English grammar. What's next: deers, salmons, potatos, photoes, childs, mans, mouses, axises?
BTW, for people who know what a corrigendum is, it's invariably corrigenda. Also too, media.
<blockquote>(also, some of the most <em>[unrepeatable]</em> rules in &quot;English&quot;, like not ending a sentence with a preposition, or not splitting an infinitive, are based on Latin rules and totally irrelevant to English and should never have been taught) </blockquote>
I strongly disagree with both claims. A Latin infinitive is a single word, there&#039;s no need for a rule in Latin about splitting infinitives as it is simply impossible. As to prepositions, declension rules in Latin make it possible to move prepositions around a sentence in ways that are simply impossible in English, a fact of which Latin poets took full advantage. The need to place the complement adjacent to the preposition arises from the grammar of the Germanic family of languages, and Wikipedia claims the proscription against preposition stranding originated with John Dryden in 1672.
<blockquote>probably as a result of applying the rules of Latin syntax to English</blockquote>
CITATION NEEDED!!!
(actually, citation impossible, because Dryden never explained his complaint. Your author makes this assertion based on writings from the 18th and 19th century, in other words, <em>long</em> after the 1611 objection)
fucking draft dodging chicken hawks. always first with the most aggressive postures.
for someone else.
oh and btw mitt: this sort of thing does not sit comfortably with your sophisticated businessman image. though to be fair, there is very little that is comfortable about you.
Nobody expects the Romney campaign! Our chief weapon is surprise <em>[and you will be surprised whenever it is you find out what the candidates actual policies are, if ever]</em>. Surprise and fear <em>[of the other]</em>. Fear and surprise. Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency <em>[that&#039;s what we call it when we shut down your factory and outsource production to China]</em>... Our <b>three</b> weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Prophet <em>[and also personal profit]</em>.... Our <b>four</b>...no... <b>Amongst</b> our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I&#039;ll come in again.
Wasn&#039;t Goldsmith the one who prompted the infamous hospital visit to Ashcroft by refusing to sign off on warrantless wiretapping? Anyway, he&#039;s also the one who effectively ended waterboarding by rescinding the Bybee memos.
See &quot;quiet rooms&quot;, <i>supra.</i>
Firefox, on a Mac, with AdBlock plus active, and no such problems here. Try it with all add-ons disabled (look under the Help menu.)
Agenda has become fully Anglicized as a singular, referring to the sum of all agenda; I never heard anyone ever talk about an agendum, and sure enough, my browser&#039;s spellchecker just highlighted that as an error.
But it would be a travesty to the English language to forget that it has many different etymological influences, and to attempt to regularize English grammar. What&#039;s next: deers, salmons, potatos, photoes, childs, mans, mouses, axises?
BTW, for people who know what a corrigendum is, it&#039;s invariably corrigenda. Also too, media.
<blockquote>(also, some of the most <em>[unrepeatable]</em> rules in &quot;English&quot;, like not ending a sentence with a preposition, or not splitting an infinitive, are based on Latin rules and totally irrelevant to English and should never have been taught) </blockquote>
I strongly disagree with both claims. A Latin infinitive is a single word, there&#039;s no need for a rule in Latin about splitting infinitives as it is simply impossible. As to prepositions, declension rules in Latin make it possible to move prepositions around a sentence in ways that are simply impossible in English, a fact of which Latin poets took full advantage. The need to place the complement adjacent to the preposition arises from the grammar of the Germanic family of languages, and Wikipedia claims the proscription against preposition stranding originated with John Dryden in 1672.
In Mitt&#039;s singing, it&#039;s specious lies.
At least normalcy is shorter than normality, reversing the usual trend which occurs when the ill-educated attempt <em>accurateness</em>.
<blockquote>probably as a result of applying the rules of Latin syntax to English</blockquote>
CITATION NEEDED!!!
(actually, citation impossible, because Dryden never explained his complaint. Your author makes this assertion based on writings from the 18th and 19th century, in other words, <em>long</em> after the 1611 objection)
Confectionary mastication sequence begins. Pause. Synchronize facial grimace, Issue short audible diaphragm spasms. FUNNY_WITH_ZINGERS routine completed.
We&#039;s-tor(ture) Amercia
fucking draft dodging chicken hawks. always first with the most aggressive postures.
for someone else.
oh and btw mitt: this sort of thing does not sit comfortably with your sophisticated businessman image. though to be fair, there is very little that is comfortable about you.
Iron Maiden or GTFO!
And I don&#039;t <em>just</em> mean blaring hair metal from boomboxes.
Nobody expects the Romney campaign! Our chief weapon is surprise <em>[and you will be surprised whenever it is you find out what the candidates actual policies are, if ever]</em>. Surprise and fear <em>[of the other]</em>. Fear and surprise. Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency <em>[that&#039;s what we call it when we shut down your factory and outsource production to China]</em>... Our <b>three</b> weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Prophet <em>[and also personal profit]</em>.... Our <b>four</b>...no... <b>Amongst</b> our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I&#039;ll come in again.
Wasn&#039;t Goldsmith the one who prompted the infamous hospital visit to Ashcroft by refusing to sign off on warrantless wiretapping? Anyway, he&#039;s also the one who effectively ended waterboarding by rescinding the Bybee memos.
<blockquote>they can all fucking DIAF, and not <em>just</em> with votes. </blockquote>
FIFY.
Holdouts will be forced to listen to a reading from the Book of Mormon while wearing magic underwear.
People who talk in breathless soundbites and slogans? Should not be POTUS.