Richard - 14 March 2013 11:13 PM

To Wilton:

Truculence: Ferociously cruel actions of behavior. Exhibiting violence or destructiveness. How does this apply to me? You are either unfamiliar with the word or you enjoy indulging in hyperbole.
.

From OED:

truculent, adj.

1 b. Of speech or writing: Violent; rude; scathing; savage; harsh.

As ever Dave chose his words with care.

Do any of you have an original thought? What a blog of wimps and sycophants.

Follow the thread on “cursive writing” in January’s postings. There is no posting of mine where I claim to be a teacher of writing as Wilton claimed. Must he resort to prevarication to establish his tenuous position? Again, I find it very suspicious that none of you agree with my viewpoint on grammar.

Lionello, how can an apology be abject[/i?,Learn your adjectives. Abject: extremely bad, miserable, vile,poor. You subscribe to a blog on words but you’re not familiar with their meanings.

I think Dave misunderstood your statement that your views on cursive writing were “based on my personal experience with university students”; he probably took that to mean that you actually taught them, rather than, say, happening to know some (as almost anyone might) and calling that “experience with” them.  Careless perhaps, but hardly nefarious.

Another selective cite from a dictionary, eh Richard? That won’t work on this board.

From OED:

abject, adj. and n.

2.

a. Of a person, an action, a situation, etc.: of low repute; despicable, wretched; self-abasing, servile, obsequious. In later use also as an intensifier: complete, utter.

Lionello is using the adjective as an intensifier, of course.

From World English Dictionary (Collins)

abject (ˈæbdʒɛkt)

— adj
1.  utterly wretched or hopeless
2.  miserable; forlorn; dejected
3.  indicating humiliation; submissive: an abject apology
4.  contemptible; despicable; servile: an abject liar

And from Merriam-Webster Online
Definition of ABJECT
1: sunk to or existing in a low state or condition <to lowest pitch of abject fortune thou art fallen — John Milton>

2a : cast down in spirit : servile, spiritless <a man made abject by suffering>
b : showing hopelessness or resignation <abject surrender>

3: expressing or offered in a humble and often ingratiating spirit <abject flattery> <an abject apology>

(bolding added)

Again, I find it very suspicious that none of you agree with my viewpoint on grammar.

If you consider that your viewpoint might be wrong, then the fact that no one agrees with you is hardly suspicious.

I think Dave misunderstood your statement that your views on cursive writing were “based on my personal experience with university students”; he probably took that to mean that you actually taught them, rather than, say, happening to know some (as almost anyone might) and calling that “experience with” them.  Careless perhaps, but hardly nefarious.

That is exactly the case. I inferred that someone with “personal experience with university students” was a teacher. I was incorrect, but it was not an unreasonable leap.

Oh, and you litigate issues, not people.

Dave - enough is enough.
Please.

As languagehat mentioned earlier, the title of this thread is indeed become ironic.

I perceive Richard to be a troll, with ‘troll’ casually defined (wikipedia) as: “...someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion....”

Trolling is an art. I am of the opinion that Richard is pretty good at it and deserves credit.

However, I am still interested in learning more of what Richard intended to mean by “dire consequences” in his earlier post: “...and the ramifications might have dire consequences.”; and, in another post: “...very steep and slippery path to ambiguity."--particularly since ambiguity is so meaningfully useful in writing, poetry, and other arts, notably music.

Sobiest, I’ve had no response from Richard about “ramifications” and “dire consequences” which proves that his posts are full of unsubstantiated, hyperbolic tosh.

D N F T T

I think I’ve been quite thorough in my previous comments; therefore there is no point in iterating what I’ve already posted.  I’ve explained my position on grammar rules (read the thread) and I’ve elaborated on the anticipated and vogue trolling condemnation.

Regarding abject, I think it was misused, but if it wasn’t, it certainly was overly dramatic and misused in the context of Lionello’s statement. (Regardless, I’m not going to deviate into arguing semantics.) For heaven’s sake, we’re debating on an internet site, I against Wordorigin’s team, but Lionello whimpers, “[i]Dave I owe you an abject [/i]apology.” Followed by: “ I cannot believe that this last shocking torrent of vituperation was produced from a normal person.” Welcome to planet earth Lionello.

Seriously, regarding Wilton’s comment: “If you consider that your viewpoint might be wrong, then the fact that no one agrees with you is hardly suspicious.”

I will iterate, (note, all you word connoisseurs, iterate means, to repeat; whereas, reiterate, which is constantly misused, means to repeat over and over again.) my viewpoint is not at all wrong, an opinion can never be wrong, my position is supported by many prescriptivists and a few linguists and grammarians. My suspicion is based on the fact that no one “on your blog” agrees with me. After all, I did imply that some of the grammatical rules might be bogus. Not one person, as in January’s debate, has come to my defense. 

In my opinion when someone condemns or dismisses “proper grammar”, but stringently adheres to those grammatical rules in discourse or writing, then I think there’s a taint of hypocrisy. For expressing this opinion I am being excoriated by Wordorigin’s crew, but I thank you all for the edification.

Wilton also accused me of truculent behavior, a complete mischaracterization of my behavior. Nobody, apart from subscribers to this blog, would characterize my behavior as truculent; although my last posting was perhaps vitriolic, but far from truculent.

Languagehat snidely and condescendingly suggested that I should take a course in linguistics or at least read a book on it, because obviously he objects to my opinion. I responded to his patronizing remarks and his next posting was: “ The post title has become ironic…” Apparently everyone can spew out veiled invective, but I cannot retaliate, because all of you are cocooned in a false sense of self-righteousness, and I am the neophyte intruder.

The war on grammar is historic and perpetual and we will not end it on this silly blog. My opinion counters all of yours, and I’m entitled to it. I respect everyone’s position on this site, but I shall vigorously defend mine.