Assume v. Presume

[Black Hole]

Rugby commentary: "Scotland's defence is being desiccated"

 

[Trev]

Was it raining then?

 

[EEPhil]

Wouldn't desiccated indicate quite the opposite?

 

[Trev]

Nar, my comment was 'after match'. They ended up with 15 prunes.

 

[Black Hole]

it seems population of the EPG is effected by a busy processor!

Tsk!

Effected v. Affected

Either would be grammatical in the above example, but effected means similar to achieved, which is (I believe) the opposite of the intention!

 

[EEPhil]

Effected v. Affected

You could name a thread in this manner. Oh, you already have!
Yes I agree, it looks like it should be "affected".

 

[EEPhil]

From the "Nottingham Post"

How does that work?
Shouldn't that be: "Man with knife tasered by police"?

 

[hairy_mutley]

But then they would have to use a smaller font...

 

[Wallace]

Perhaps, it was an electric knife? We have one, use it at Christmas to carve the turkey.

 

[EEPhil]

Perhaps, it was an electric knife? We have one, use it at Christmas to carve the turkey.

If it works like a taser you should be able to pluck, cook and carve with the one utensil. Just jack up the voltage a bit...

 

[EEPhil]

I do not set out to deliberately offend, but neither do I surrender to so-called "Political Correctness". If you don't like it, that's your problem not mine.

Common usage, but is it a split infinitive?

 

[prpr]

is it a split infinitive?

Yes.

 

[Black Hole]

Ask yourself which carries the desired emphasis: "deliberately offend" or "offend deliberately" - I think the emphasis is carried by the first word, so I chose the former deliberately.

The question is: what's wrong with a split infinitive? "Split infinitive" is the name of a construction in grammar; it's only because somebody decided to declare it as bad grammar that some people think it is.

 

[EEPhil]

I do not deliberately set out to offend, conveys your meaning.

it's only because somebody decided to declare it as bad grammar that some people think it is.

Can I use that argument when you point out my bad grammar?
Now I shall boldly go and look at something else.

 

[gomezz]

I think that was one of Fowler's pieces of hyper-pedantry with no real linguistic justification.

 

[EEPhil]

Split infinitives don't really bother me. I thought the hyper-pedant (BH) should be more careful; pot-kettle-black comes to mind. (insert missing smiley :tongincheek:)

 

[Black Hole]

Where lies the boundary between (normal) pedantry and hyper-pedantry? Following the rules is following the rules - you either do or don't, there seems to be little latitude for grey areas... but this is a case of fashion rather than rules.

Regardless, I never suggested I'm not contrary - as I believe has been mentioned in this thread before!

 

[EEPhil]

I never suggested I'm not contrary - as I believe has been mentioned in this thread before!

Now that you mention it, I have that vague recollection.

 

[Black Hole]

(although I am the first to admit being contrary at times myself)

 

[gomezz]

Hyper-pedantry is a term used by the OED for such made up rules. If it is good enough for the OED it is good enough for me.