"Lense" is not a word!

[rey]

OK, Dan Quayle wannabees, I think we can end this thread now...

[Norm in Fujino]

Thaipo Negative wrote:

"I think you need some grammar lessons first. The first 3 you havent finished the sentences. . ."

All right, since we're stretching things pretty thin in any case, let's keep up the charade.
The first is a complete sentence in either case. "John went to sea" or "John went to see" (in response to the question, "why did John go?"). Are you really arguing it's ungrammatical?

As for the other two, that's why I called them "sentence fragments." The issue isn't grammar here, but ambiguity, the potential for misunderstanding. People use lots of ungrammatical idioms, but the ambiguity level is suppressed either through context or such conventional niceties as spelling differences. It's not unusual for people to say (ungrammatically), "I'm going to the store. You want to come with?" I don't like to hear it, but I understand it, because there's no other meaning that "with" can have (although one who didn't understand the idiom might think it was a sentence fragment that left off who I was supposed to come with). But a fragment like "John came to" could be misunderstood as a fragment (to a place, to perform an action), or to mean that he gained consciousness after being unconscious, or that he also came. Spelling doesn't cure all the ambiguity, but it lowers it.

if she likes to hang around them, you would write, liked, rather than likes
She liked to frequent

Huh? But only if she liked to in the past. If she still does today, she "likes to frequent."

I'm not saying that the ambiguity defense is usable in all cases of debate over spelling; in many cases simple convention is a better response. But spelling does help maintain the S/N level in many cases.

[SteveDak]

Thaipo Negative wrote:

I think you need some grammar lessons first. The first 3 you havent finished the sentences, and the last:

If she likes to hang around them, you would write, liked, rather than likes

She liked to frequent

You are now introducing a different tense. 'Liked' is past tense which in this instance would imply that she once enjoyed 'hanging around wrestling matches', but perhaps does not any longer.

Why do you find it necessary to edit so many of your posts Thaipo? I'd suggest you give more thought to your answer to this question,than you have hitherto to your rather trite and ill-considered arguments.

[GoCubs]

Who cares? Go take a picture everybody!

[Thaipo Negative]

ane likes 2 frequent wrestling matches.
Does she like to hang around them, or does she like those that occur with excessive frequency?

does she like those that occur with excessive frequency?

If you were to speak this rather than write it, you would not have the luxury of spelling to differentiate, yet somehow we can tell the difference, without having to ask the other person to spell out the word or ask them which one they are talking about. You would write the sentences differently, so how would you write the above quoted in a sentence? You wouldnt write it the same as in the first quote. The second quote doesnt really make a lot of sense.

[Thaipo Negative]

You are now introducing a different tense. 'Liked' is past tense which in this instance would imply that she once enjoyed 'hanging around wrestling matches', but perhaps does not any longer.

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?w=liked/a/1400857

[a] found pleasant or attractive; often used as a combining form; "a well-liked teacher".

So this means that the teacher is no longer liked? Is that how you would understand this sentence?

[Thaipo Negative]

The first is a complete sentence in either case. "John went to sea" or "John went to see" (in response to the question, "why did John go?"). Are you really arguing it's ungrammatical?

John went to see? See what? It is not something that you say on its own

John went sea? Is that something you say and nothing more?




Why do I edit posts? Its having an open mind to improve and not being arrogant thinking everything I say or do is always perfect, first time every time. this is why they have so many scriptwriters on TV shows, because they take one idea and improve it. Can you imagine someone coming out with all the one liners of Frasier all the time, right off the top of their head? This is why some shows are great while others suck, they have more money to spend on scripwriters to take a simple idea and make it better. So its not about correcting mistakes but improving. All depends on your perspective; is the glass half full or half empty?

[Thaipo Negative]

GoCubs wrote:

Who cares? Go take a picture everybody!

The americans did away with the u in some "our" ending words, so how many other letters dont we need? Ona global scale how much ink and paper is wasted printing letters we dont need? Anyway, this is a photographic forum and not really the place to be going into any great debate about language, so like what he said: "Who cares......."

[rduve]

rey wrote:

Chillax buddy, I'm sure everyone here knows what "lense" are...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lense

Huh? What? "Chillax" is not a word... D'oh!:blah:

This is where this thread should have ended. What a great comeback! And have you noticed how Chris Brewster never came back into this forum off of his high horse? I guess he was too embarrassed.

[ChrisBrewster]

Well, about my high horse, I line up with those who argue that the reason for grammar is to make a point clearly. Of course, if the thought is simple and the speaker and listener are from the same cultural context, they'll understand each other perfectly. But in technical areas (I'm a technical writer), the people can easily misunderstand a passage. I spend all my time trying to keep the point clear, and I still fail some of the time. It has nothing to do with snobbery, nazism, or whatever. I'm completely open to new usages as long as people can just understand each other. Andmany internet postings leave me wondering what was meant.