Autopsy Swans Vs Geelong Rnd 18

[Crust]

"Versus" means "against" in Latin.
To say someone is "versing" another in that context is the same as saying they are "againsting" another.
Thus, Richmond is "againsting" Geelong on Saturday.
Or you could simply and correctly say that Richmond is playing against Geelong on Saturday.

And don't get me started on those abominations, would "of", could "of" and should "of".

 

[Kapers]

"Versus" means "against" in Latin.
To say someone is "versing" another in that context is the same as saying they are "againsting" another.
Thus, Richmond is "againsting" Geelong on Saturday.
Or you could simply and correctly say that Richmond is playing against Geelong on Saturday.

And don't get me started on those abominations, would "of", could "of" and should "of".

If your going to chain yourself to an old language at least chain yourself to one that isn't dead.

Latin is useful for a lot, but it doesn't need to be adhered to blindly.

Argument for why we shouldnt use a word in a particular sense:
"According to a dead language that we have stolen parts from for our language, and even though there are many words we have taken from other languages that we use differently from the original meaning, this one particular language we will make sure not to change."

Noice, I'm sure the thought of the word vanity changing, or the use of the word nickname (used to be derived from eke meaning other) also offend you.

How dare someone say Nick name when it was original eke, such a disgrace on our language.

There's countless words like this, and to say that meaning can't change, or that the old way is right is setting yourself up to be slam dunked in the future when you inevitably say something slightly wrong.

Don't know why people choose grammar to be the hill they die on, like it means anything beyond a bunch of random dead dudes deciding something 100s of years ago.

 

[MarkP]

Don't know why people choose grammar to be the hill they die on, like it means anything beyond a bunch of random dead dudes deciding something 100s of years ago.

Surely you can. Your statement is the worst thing I have ever read on here.

Without grammar and consistency of meaning there is no thought and no individual.

It is the absolute essence, the bedrock, the foundation of freedom and self.

 

[Crust]

If your going to chain yourself to an old language at least chain yourself to one that isn't dead.

Latin is useful for a lot, but it doesn't need to be adhered to blindly.

Argument for why we shouldnt use a word in a particular sense:
"According to a dead language that we have stolen parts from for our language, and even though there are many words we have taken from other languages that we use differently from the original meaning, this one particular language we will make sure not to change."

Noice, I'm sure the thought of the word vanity changing, or the use of the word nickname (used to be derived from eke meaning other) also offend you.

How dare someone say Nick name when it was original eke, such a disgrace on our language.

There's countless words like this, and to say that meaning can't change, or that the old way is right is setting yourself up to be slam dunked in the future when you inevitably say something slightly wrong.

Don't know why people choose grammar to be the hill they die on, like it means anything beyond a bunch of random dead dudes deciding something 100s of years ago.

Fair points, and maybe I'm setting myself up to be shot down, but the Latin word versus is not dead. It has been absorbed into English, it is a preposition and it means against. I don't like the turning of a preposition into a verb. It is inaccurate and can lead to misunderstanding.

So: "the person alonged the footpath" Jogged? ran? ambled? strolled? spewed?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

My issue is not with those making the errors, although they are, unintentionally, the irritants.

My issue is entirely with the generation of educators that have allowed this butchering of the English language to continue.

 

[sataris]

My issue is not with those making the errors, although they are, unintentionally, the irritants.

My issue is entirely with the generation of educators that have allowed this butchering of the English language to continue.

Someone from 200 years ago would consider modern English a butchering and insist that 'we must do better'.

Someone from 400 years ago would consider English 200 years ago a butchering and insist that 'they must do better'.

PS: If anyone has ever used the word 'meld' to mean combining something, then you're a hypocrite, and should quietly stfu.

 

[dosser]

"Versus" means "against" in Latin.
To say someone is "versing" another in that context is the same as saying they are "againsting" another.
Thus, Richmond is "againsting" Geelong on Saturday.
Or you could simply and correctly say that Richmond is playing against Geelong on Saturday.

And don't get me started on those abominations, would "of", could "of" and should "of".

Now, now. See? You are placing an English suffix on a Latin word to make a point. This is a false argument. It's standards like these that result in such abominations as Herald Sun editors.

 

[Jimmy Willis Jawline]

Oh hey guys I just wante........

 

[sataris]

Oh hey guys I just wante........

You spelled the word `wanted` incorrectly. As such your sentence is completely incomprehensible and I can no longer understand the point you were trying to convey.

Your posted image does nothing to alleviate my confusion.

What are you trying to say?

 

[BloodySwan]

You spelled the word `wanted` incorrectly. As such your sentence is completely incomprehensible and I can no longer understand the point you were trying to convey.

Your posted image does nothing to alleviate my confusion.

What are you trying to say?

Your use of the word spelled instead of spelt is just another way of the Americanisation of our English language

 

[sataris]

Your use of the word spelled instead of spelt is just another way of the Americanisation of our English language

I did that on porpoise.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Don’t get me started on the use of “women” as an adjective. It’s not. It’s a bloody noun. You don’t have “women Prime Ministers” you have “female Prime Ministers”!