 | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | (...) Absolutely, which why it's In My Humble Opinion. (...) I would argue (and again, this is entirely the way it works in my fat head)that you, as a LEGO user, would be as wrong (or right) to identify a single brick as "a Lego" as you would be if (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Fair enough, but you must agree that because of that circular reasoning the argument won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it. (...) I understand and accept that, but many people identify LEGO as a singular noun in that usage, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | | (...) I am so _not_ going to get in a cultural relativism argument over grammar and aesthetics. I'm a liberal in principle and a conservative in practice (except for anything from the seventies). (...) Yeah, it's not really a disagreement. I know (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Huh? The argument is circular whether viewed from a cultural relativist standpoint or not. (...) I understand that you're working on very little sleep, but to proclaim someone's lexicon as "illiterate garble" just because it doesn't adhere to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Treacleheads —David Low
|
| | | | (...) Okay. The decision in advance that "a usage is wrong" is subjective (and legitimately so) from the relativist viewpoint. And you're right, it will only appeal to people sharing those cultural norms of grammar and aesthetics (hence the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
