It's interesting how the meaning of words change. Words can become something else by legal decree, or be used incorrectly enough in regular conversation.
I read a blog entry today using the term 'gay nuptials'. True, nuptial is a synonym to marriage, but the word nuptial is also a common term for biologists. Nuptial describes the mating habits of animal breeding in nature.
Someday, probably not in our lifetime, a new word will be created. In that future civilization, they will have language to describe a relationship described as one man and one woman in a committed healthy relationship with the intention of raising their children together mutually.
You don't get to write about words and meaning until you can figure out how to use the English language properly. That first sentence is the only grammatically correct sentence in the entire post.
ReplyDeletePF, You're full of nonsense. Even so I'll play along. As along as sentences are grammaticly correct, the meaning of the words used don't matter? Is that the your argument?
ReplyDeleteConsidering you have failed to discuss the why words like marriage or nuptials even exist in our lexicon, are you in agreement with my post?
And why should I take advice from someone who chooses to label themselves a Personal Failure?
Take care, I'm not the horrible person you percieve me to be.
Editorial comments should be sent by email.
ReplyDeleteSorry Renee, you make a great point about it all too. I'll leave them both up for 24 hours, but they will both be deleted. Any subsequent comments on the point of grammar will be deleted too.
On Lawn, I think PF's comments should stay due to the past discussions with him, because we need to make these types of comments a teachable moment.
ReplyDeleteConsider this.
From the Urban Dictionary
"Grammar Nazi"
"While proper grammar usage is all well and good, a Grammar Nazi cavils even insignificant errors in English to somehow win an argument. Of course, rather than being genuinely persuasive in an argument, pointing out English errors is a weak attack only on the typist's credibility and never has any bearing on the underlying premises and assertions therein.
In other words, this is simply a disguised ad hominem argument which intelligent and logical people disregard. "
So the editorial should stay.