Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Tony Cooper |
| Date | 03/28/2014 00:08 (03/27/2014 19:08) |
| Message-ID | <vma9j9tjacalat7ra66asfhpagjl582pcc@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (7h & 15m) > Tony Cooper |
On 27 Mar 2014 22:43:04 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanStretch yourself and try for some accuracy. We use words that are accepted *with a particular meaning*. A word might accepted as a word applicable for some meaning, but not accepted in some other sentence.
In article <0pg8j9d4v9j7ka0hv2r0ib70a87g4995da@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:Tony CooperSandman
Other words have definitions that *seem* to fit what you want to say, but are not used idiomatically that way by those of us who do have that "magical" feel for the language.
Now Tony think he has some "magical" feel for English. Remember, this is the guy that once claimed that words need to be "accepted", regardless of their presence in those "dictionary" thingies.
For example, a while back you said you provided an "onslaught" of substantiation about something or other. I accept "onslaught" as a word, and it's in the dictionary, but not with the meaning you seemed to have in mind.
Now Tony is trying to convince himself that he has ever provided a correction to a definition of a word I have provided, when in fact all he has ever done is try to claim he has a "magical" "feel" for the words and that words need to be "accepted" and that native speakers somehow can use words totally unrelated to how they are defined in a dictionary.Well, yes we can. The new meaning eventually makes it into the dictionaries, but usage occurs before the inclusion.
Again, though, you miss in accuracy. I don't try to correct your definitions. What I do is point out that your definitions are either too limited or that you've chosen the wrong word for what you're trying to impart.
-- Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
03/13/2014-
-
