Scott
That must have taken you ages!
And again I accept your right to consult such tomes, online or off, but it has
‘American’ in the title. I tend to consult my 1980s Shorter Oxford, if only to
comfort myself in the face of assaults on the language ;-)
I do understand the dynamism of the language (I read your previous post on the
subject), but my point about losing useful words stands. And it’s all very
well to adjust the language to suit our needs, but it’s being adjusted by the
masses on the basis of ignorance (sorry if that reads as arrogance).
But that is an interesting resource, nonetheless.
Chris
> On 1 Mar 2015, at 15:41, Scott Gomez <sgomez.baja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Well, Chris, perhaps this comment on usage from Oxford? I read it as being
> a concession to the idea that usage of unique, isn't... unique. :-)
>
> "Usage
>
> There is a set of adjectives
> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adjective
> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/adjective>>
> —including
> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/include
> <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/include>>
> *unique*, *complete
snip
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|