Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
From | Sandman |
Date | 03/28/2014 07:23 (03/28/2014 07:23) |
Message-ID | <slrnlja5ee.9fs.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Tony Cooper |
Followups | Tony Cooper (9h & 45m) > Sandman |
It's hilarious to see you keep up this "accepted" routine, yet you've never ever been able to actually point to a reference where one might determine just what the "accepted" meaning of a word is! You're just spouting "magical feel" and "only native speaker could possible understand" even though YOU'RE a native speaker and you don't even know what "ignore" meansTony CooperTony 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.
Stretch 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.
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.Yes, I know you're ignorant about the word "onslaught".
BUt, contrary to your desperate need, they don't take precedent.SandmanTony Cooper
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.You have yet to do that one single time.