Subject:
|
Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:30:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
242 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> Anyway, since we are all here, 'Attendees' isn't a word.
Few are more anal than I when it comes to the proliferation of such
apparent pseudo-words as this, but the burden of precedence is against us.
According to www.yourdictionary.com the word "attendee" first saw use in
1937, so if we're (note apostrophe) going to gripe about its use, we need to
recognize that it's been used since before most of us here were born.
Obviously, simple precedence does not a "real" word make, but it lends a
great deal of credence to a word's validity. We might as well complain
about that johnny-come-lately word "dictionary" that burst onto the printed
scene as recently as 1526.
I'd much rather grumble about such dubiously used buzzwords as "proactive"
(1933), "signage" (1976), "verbiage" (1721), and "wellness" (1654). My
complaint isn't that these words are used, but that they've been co-opted
(1651) by the business community in a way that causes me great annoyage (2002).
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The "Unknown" Santa Fe
|
| (...) ...there's an apostrophe in "we're" when used as an abbreviation of "we are". I always wondered about the title of that New Zealand film "Once Were Warriors", but apparently it is intended to be the past participle of 'are', as the line is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
