Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Poopie said:

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Brits often have trouble staying sober past 3 p.m. See the Rose & Crown,
the Otter & Bump, the Dirk & Dragon, the Coot & Kipper, etc., etc., etc.







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:59:01 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Graham

Momentarily and soon seem to give them trouble too. And of course
American English is now a language essentially without adverbs.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:59:01 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Graham

Momentarily and soon seem to give them trouble too. And of course
American English is now a language essentially without adverbs.

d

You speak truthfully.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


liquidator said:

According to Webster's and Princeton University the words are pretty
much
interchangeable.

That's like saying brass bolts and steel bolts are pretty much
interchangeable. All the dictionaries are telling you is that you won't be
misunderstood by choosing one word or the other. You have omitted to
enrich your opinion with the stylistic inflection, and concomitant
connotation, of choosing grammatical over grammatic. Furthermore, it's not
a question merely of meaning but also of usage. Why are both words current
and equally prescribed if no difference exists? One would expect the
less-used word to fall into disuse or archaism. And yet both are still
easily recognizable as commonly used.

While I agree grammatical sounds less clumsy, I spent time as a
journalist,
where if two words are synonyms, the shorter is generally preferred.
There
the concern is fitting information into less space, the economics being
space is sold for money.

"Journalistic style" is the apotheosis of elegance in writing. All
newspapers also require omitting the serial comma (sorry, don't know the
Brit term) in the same cause of saving space.

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.

The Usenet law about a grammar flame (or is that grammer flayme?)
automatically engendering a grammatical error was fulfilled.






--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

George Middius proceeds to prove himself a complete and utter twit. None of
what he says is true or even logical.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Don Pearce said:

Momentarily and soon seem to give them trouble too. And of course
American English is now a language essentially without adverbs.

That's bad grammar, Don. Call your editor.








--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus Graham "Poopie" Stevenson really be an engineer?
 

Andre Jute wrote:

Eiron wrote:

The main error, grammatic and otherwise, in this thread, is:
"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

Really? Perhaps you'd care to explain why, Eiron. Unless we're supposed
to divine what is in your mind by the magic of "homogenious" rods.

I think it is your turn to explain what these qualities of metals
might be which are concentrated at the surface of a rod. We all
know how rods and tubes behave under tension, compression, torsion
and bending, but the fact that the surface may be more stressed
than the centre doesn't mean that the metal has any different quality.

--
Eiron.

Can this ignoramus Graham "Poopie" Stevenson really be an engineer?
 

Eiron wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Eiron wrote:

The main error, grammatic and otherwise, in this thread, is:
"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

Really? Perhaps you'd care to explain why, Eiron. Unless we're supposed
to divine what is in your mind by the magic of "homogenious" rods.

I think it is your turn to explain what these qualities of metals
might be which are concentrated at the surface of a rod. We all
know how rods and tubes behave under tension, compression, torsion
and bending, but the fact that the surface may be more stressed
than the centre doesn't mean that the metal has any different quality.

They must be the same mythical *magic* properties that underly all popular
audiophoolery. One must not speak their name lest the magic escape.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

George M. Middius a scris:
Don Pearce said:

Momentarily and soon seem to give them trouble too. And of course
American English is now a language essentially without adverbs.

That's bad grammar, Don. Call your editor.



another grammatic error.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

in article , liquidator at
wrote on 12/30/06 2:31 PM:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

George Middius proceeds to prove himself a complete and utter twit. None of
what he says is true or even logical.




And we should care on R.A.T. because???