On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:06:40 -0400, Casper
And sometimes, you just don't want them to have any brains.

Funny... Can't tell you how many times I've heard that said about men.

Hey! If a few women want to use me for mindless sex, I'm in!

On 10/14/2012 11:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:10:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 2:33 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1540119 20121014 042620 Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

What's wrong with that? Surely you can skid without crashing?

There was no crash to slid into. She used "crash" as an object rather
than an action.

She DE-gerunded it? How crass!


Don't get me started on "over turned vehicle". Is over turning the same
thing as over steering??? Your turn a vehicle, can you under turn a
vehicle?

No, you steer a vehicle, and have understeer and oversteer.
You overturn (aka: FLIP) Beemers, Exploders, and other SUVs.


So you would be clueless if I mentioned that there was a wreck where a
vehicle turned over?

Over turned... over is used ad an adverb. Turned over, over is the
location. I am not buying it.

On 10/14/2012 11:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:37:40 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/14/2012 10:11 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:26:20 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
We have a pretty nice looking anchor at CH2 in Houston. But she
traded
brains for looks. http://dominiquesachse.tv/

Hot, for an older woman. g Many good looking women fit that
trade-in mold.

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

Ouch!

Best watched with the volume on mute.

Dominique gain her fame in the days of faddish, overblown, bee stung
lips ... from day on you could lick her's and stick her to the ceiling.

The Jolie Era, eh?

That is about right. Both decent to look at but you would not want an
opinion from either. LOL

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:56:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:37:40 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/14/2012 10:11 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:26:20 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
We have a pretty nice looking anchor at CH2 in Houston. But she
traded
brains for looks. http://dominiquesachse.tv/

Hot, for an older woman. g Many good looking women fit that
trade-in mold.

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

Ouch!

Best watched with the volume on mute.

Dominique gain her fame in the days of faddish, overblown, bee stung
lips ... from day on you could lick her's and stick her to the ceiling.

The Jolie Era, eh?

That is about right. Both decent to look at but you would not want an
opinion from either. LOL

True. And poor Angelina has no nipples! Flat ends on those babies...

--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives
the test first, the lesson afterwards.
-- Vernon Sanders Law

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:55:09 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:10:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 2:33 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1540119 20121014 042620 Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

What's wrong with that? Surely you can skid without crashing?

There was no crash to slid into. She used "crash" as an object rather
than an action.

She DE-gerunded it? How crass!


Don't get me started on "over turned vehicle". Is over turning the same
thing as over steering??? Your turn a vehicle, can you under turn a
vehicle?

No, you steer a vehicle, and have understeer and oversteer.
You overturn (aka: FLIP) Beemers, Exploders, and other SUVs.


So you would be clueless if I mentioned that there was a wreck where a
vehicle turned over?

The engine turns over each times it is started, sir. Learn your
terminology, will ya?


Over turned... over is used ad an adverb. Turned over, over is the
location. I am not buying it.

I agree. "Went tits-up." is much more definitive, but just _try_ to
get a nun to teach that to her class. I dare you.

--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives
the test first, the lesson afterwards.
-- Vernon Sanders Law

They did it,

Arrived at around 1:00PM,PDST, half a day late but safe.

Lew

On 10/14/2012 3:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:55:09 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:10:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 2:33 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1540119 20121014 042620 Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

What's wrong with that? Surely you can skid without crashing?

There was no crash to slid into. She used "crash" as an object rather
than an action.

She DE-gerunded it? How crass!


Don't get me started on "over turned vehicle". Is over turning the same
thing as over steering??? Your turn a vehicle, can you under turn a
vehicle?

No, you steer a vehicle, and have understeer and oversteer.
You overturn (aka: FLIP) Beemers, Exploders, and other SUVs.


So you would be clueless if I mentioned that there was a wreck where a
vehicle turned over?

The engine turns over each times it is started, sir. Learn your
terminology, will ya?


Over turned... over is used ad an adverb. Turned over, over is the
location. I am not buying it.

I agree. "Went tits-up." is much more definitive, but just _try_ to
get a nun to teach that to her class. I dare you.

;~) What it all boils down to is, like Swingman has stated about the
looks, the news people learn a new way to describe an event and they all
want to jump on board.

Not too long ago all of the weather guys mentioned heat indexes. More
recently the new word is heat "in-dee-cee's. Both are right but why change?

How about the word utilization. When will the word utilize ever not be
enough? Why add tion?

And then my new all time favorite.........."FUNCTIONALITY". Why add
"ity"? I don't recall ever hearing that word prior to 5 years ago.

On 10/14/2012 3:38 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:56:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:37:40 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/14/2012 10:11 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:26:20 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
We have a pretty nice looking anchor at CH2 in Houston. But she
traded
brains for looks. http://dominiquesachse.tv/

Hot, for an older woman. g Many good looking women fit that
trade-in mold.

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

Ouch!

Best watched with the volume on mute.

Dominique gain her fame in the days of faddish, overblown, bee stung
lips ... from day on you could lick her's and stick her to the ceiling.

The Jolie Era, eh?

That is about right. Both decent to look at but you would not want an
opinion from either. LOL

True. And poor Angelina has no nipples! Flat ends on those babies...

She has not seen me! :~)

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:48:47 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 3:38 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:56:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:37:40 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/14/2012 10:11 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:26:20 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
We have a pretty nice looking anchor at CH2 in Houston. But she
traded
brains for looks. http://dominiquesachse.tv/

Hot, for an older woman. g Many good looking women fit that
trade-in mold.

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

Ouch!

Best watched with the volume on mute.

Dominique gain her fame in the days of faddish, overblown, bee stung
lips ... from day on you could lick her's and stick her to the ceiling.

The Jolie Era, eh?

That is about right. Both decent to look at but you would not want an
opinion from either. LOL

True. And poor Angelina has no nipples! Flat ends on those babies...

She has not seen me! :~)

That's why they're not poop-inners yet.

--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives
the test first, the lesson afterwards.
-- Vernon Sanders Law

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:47:52 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 3:42 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:55:09 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:43 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:10:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 2:33 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1540119 20121014 042620 Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

What's wrong with that? Surely you can skid without crashing?

There was no crash to slid into. She used "crash" as an object rather
than an action.

She DE-gerunded it? How crass!


Don't get me started on "over turned vehicle". Is over turning the same
thing as over steering??? Your turn a vehicle, can you under turn a
vehicle?

No, you steer a vehicle, and have understeer and oversteer.
You overturn (aka: FLIP) Beemers, Exploders, and other SUVs.


So you would be clueless if I mentioned that there was a wreck where a
vehicle turned over?

The engine turns over each times it is started, sir. Learn your
terminology, will ya?


Over turned... over is used ad an adverb. Turned over, over is the
location. I am not buying it.

I agree. "Went tits-up." is much more definitive, but just _try_ to
get a nun to teach that to her class. I dare you.

;~) What it all boils down to is, like Swingman has stated about the
looks, the news people learn a new way to describe an event and they all
want to jump on board.

Not too long ago all of the weather guys mentioned heat indexes. More
recently the new word is heat "in-dee-cee's. Both are right but why change?

"In-di-cees", and it preceded the previously incorrect "indexes" as
the normal plural form of index. Mouse, mice, etc.



How about the word utilization. When will the word utilize ever not be
enough? Why add tion?

And then my new all time favorite.........."FUNCTIONALITY". Why add
"ity"? I don't recall ever hearing that word prior to 5 years ago.

On of mine is "liasing". How they scraped that out of the noun
"liason" is beyond me, as are most things the buzzword bozos do.
They're yet another reason I gave up teevee.

--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives
the test first, the lesson afterwards.
-- Vernon Sanders Law

Leon wrote:


Not too long ago all of the weather guys mentioned heat indexes. More
recently the new word is heat "in-dee-cee's. Both are right but why
change?

Indices is the plural of index. Indexes is not.


How about the word utilization. When will the word utilize ever not
be enough? Why add tion?


It's always been a valid word.

And then my new all time favorite.........."FUNCTIONALITY". Why add
"ity"? I don't recall ever hearing that word prior to 5 years ago.

Same thing Leon - functionality has always been a valid word.

--

-Mike-

On 10/14/2012 8:46 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Not too long ago all of the weather guys mentioned heat indexes. More
recently the new word is heat "in-dee-cee's. Both are right but why
change?

Indices is the plural of index. Indexes is not.


How about the word utilization. When will the word utilize ever not
be enough? Why add tion?


It's always been a valid word.

Not disputing that. the fact is however that it means nothing other
than utilize. It is over glorification.






And then my new all time favorite.........."FUNCTIONALITY". Why add
"ity"? I don't recall ever hearing that word prior to 5 years ago.

Same thing Leon - functionality has always been a valid word.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

On 10/14/2012 7:56 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:48:47 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 3:38 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:56:38 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 11:40 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:37:40 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/14/2012 10:11 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 22:26:20 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:
We have a pretty nice looking anchor at CH2 in Houston. But she
traded
brains for looks. http://dominiquesachse.tv/

Hot, for an older woman. g Many good looking women fit that
trade-in mold.

I think she was born in the 70's, I recall when she started with CH2 as
the fumbling stumbling new kid back in the mid 90's. And I recall her
still infamous quote, "The airplane skidded into a crash."

Ouch!

Best watched with the volume on mute.

Dominique gain her fame in the days of faddish, overblown, bee stung
lips ... from day on you could lick her's and stick her to the ceiling.

The Jolie Era, eh?

That is about right. Both decent to look at but you would not want an
opinion from either. LOL

True. And poor Angelina has no nipples! Flat ends on those babies...

She has not seen me! :~)

That's why they're not poop-inners yet.

Poop or pop? ;~)






--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives
the test first, the lesson afterwards.
-- Vernon Sanders Law

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 22:17:43 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/14/2012 7:56 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

True. And poor Angelina has no nipples! Flat ends on those babies...

She has not seen me! :~)

That's why they're not poop-inners yet.

Poop or pop? ;~)

Our family has always referred to belly buttons as poop-outers and
poop-inners. I used poetic license there.

--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives
the test first, the lesson afterwards.
-- Vernon Sanders Law

Leon wrote:


Not disputing that. the fact is however that it means nothing other
than utilize. It is over glorification.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

Not really - both versions of the words are used to describe the ability of
each. The ability to be utilized and the ability to function. The root
words wouldn't work in those contexts.

I do agree with you though. My all time favorite (not...) was when the word
dialog became misused. We didn't sit down and talk anymore, we sat down to
"dialog". I hated that. And then there's the word "hate"...

--

-Mike-

On 10/15/2012 5:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Not disputing that. the fact is however that it means nothing other
than utilize. It is over glorification.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

Not really - both versions of the words are used to describe the ability of
each. The ability to be utilized and the ability to function. The root
words wouldn't work in those contexts.


Give me an example of when "utilization" will work but "utilize" will not.

On 10/15/2012 8:19 AM, Leon wrote:
....

Give me an example of when "utilization" will work but "utilize" will not.

"utilize" is a verb, "utilization" is a noun.

--

On 10/14/2012 10:16 PM, Leon wrote:
....

And then my new all time favorite.........."FUNCTIONALITY". Why add
"ity"? I don't recall ever hearing that word prior to 5 years ago.

Same thing Leon - functionality has always been a valid word.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

"functional" is an adjective, "functionality" is a noun.

Something _is_ functional; functionality is a property of, say, a set of
tools.

It's grammar, Leon...

--

On 10/15/2012 8:19 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 5:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Not disputing that. the fact is however that it means nothing other
than utilize. It is over glorification.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

Not really - both versions of the words are used to describe the
ability of
each. The ability to be utilized and the ability to function. The root
words wouldn't work in those contexts.


Give me an example of when "utilization" will work but "utilize" will not.



Whoa!!!!!!! I screwed up! How bout that!

The words I meant to compare are actually "Use" and "utilize" and you
can tack on utilization.

"Use" can always be use in place of utilize and utilization.

On 10/15/2012 9:31 AM, Leon wrote:
....

The words I meant to compare are actually "Use" and "utilize" and you
can tack on utilization.

"Use" can always be use in place of utilize and utilization.

Not the _same_ use, no. There are two "uses" used here to fulfill the
function.

One is a noun and the other is a verb and they're pronounced differently
even if spelled the same.

And, if one followed your rule to its conclusion of no synonyms, English
would be rather dull.

--

Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 5:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Not disputing that. the fact is however that it means nothing other
than utilize. It is over glorification.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

Not really - both versions of the words are used to describe the
ability of each. The ability to be utilized and the ability to
function. The root words wouldn't work in those contexts.


Give me an example of when "utilization" will work but "utilize" will
not.

What is the utilization rate of a Festool drill see in the hands of a
hobbyist?

Yes - you could rephrase it to use the word utilize, but the word still is
valid and has a use. But then again, any root word that has a "tion" suffix
could be properly fit into a sentence if the sentence were to be reworded.
Perhaps my hasty example was not the best...

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:


Whoa!!!!!!! I screwed up! How bout that!

The words I meant to compare are actually "Use" and "utilize" and you
can tack on utilization.

"Use" can always be use in place of utilize and utilization.


That makes more sense. Now I am in a lot more agreement with you. I think
a lot of times words like that are used (utilized...) to make the "speaker"
sound more sophisticated - or at least that is the attempt. More... formal.
Or something like that. I agree - when there is no real need - there is no
real need. Perhaps we could dialog about this further...

--

-Mike-

On 10/15/2012 10:20 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 5:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Not disputing that. the fact is however that it means nothing other
than utilize. It is over glorification.


I have never ever heard the word before 5 or so years ago and like
utilize function fill the bill just fine. Over glorification.

Not really - both versions of the words are used to describe the
ability of each. The ability to be utilized and the ability to
function. The root words wouldn't work in those contexts.


Give me an example of when "utilization" will work but "utilize" will
not.

What is the utilization rate of a Festool drill see in the hands of a
hobbyist?

What is the use rate of bla bla bla.

You could also ask, What is the functionality of the negativity of the
person or persons that have a slant against the utilization of a much
more functional tool with tons of functionality.

I learned to make the sentence as short as possible with out all the
fancy words unless the progfssor is doing a word count.






Yes - you could rephrase it to use the word utilize, but the word still is
valid and has a use. But then again, any root word that has a "tion" suffix
could be properly fit into a sentence if the sentence were to be reworded.
Perhaps my hasty example was not the best...

On 10/15/2012 9:44 AM, dpb wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:31 AM, Leon wrote:
...

The words I meant to compare are actually "Use" and "utilize" and you
can tack on utilization.

"Use" can always be use in place of utilize and utilization.

Not the _same_ use, no. There are two "uses" used here to fulfill the
function.

One is a noun and the other is a verb and they're pronounced differently
even if spelled the same.

And, if one followed your rule to its conclusion of no synonyms, English
would be rather dull.

Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Leon wrote:


Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Oh please don't! Have you seen how poor journalistic grammar has become?
Is there even any proof-reading anymore?

--

-Mike-

On 10/15/2012 10:24 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Whoa!!!!!!! I screwed up! How bout that!

The words I meant to compare are actually "Use" and "utilize" and you
can tack on utilization.

"Use" can always be use in place of utilize and utilization.


That makes more sense. Now I am in a lot more agreement with you. I think
a lot of times words like that are used (utilized...) to make the "speaker"
sound more sophisticated - or at least that is the attempt. More... formal.
Or something like that. I agree - when there is no real need - there is no
real need. Perhaps we could dialog about this further...



Mike you now understand what I was trying to say.. My fault for the
confusion. You have hit the nail on the head with what I was thinking.
I find the over dramatization of many words being tested by the green
and up and coming news journalists. I think treacherous has been totally
used up.

On 10/15/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Oh please don't! Have you seen how poor journalistic grammar has become?
Is there even any proof-reading anymore?


I pruf reed everthang!

Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Oh please don't! Have you seen how poor journalistic grammar has
become? Is there even any proof-reading anymore?


I pruf reed everthang!

Yeah - but you're Leon... you get a special dispensation...

--

-Mike-

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:43:08 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/15/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Oh please don't! Have you seen how poor journalistic grammar has become?
Is there even any proof-reading anymore?


I pruf reed everthang!

Ewe
due??????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
To use fear as the friend it is, we must retrain and reprogram ourselves...
We must persistently and convincingly tell ourselves that the fear is
here--with its gift of energy and heightened awareness--so we can do our
best and learn the most in the new situation.
Peter McWilliams, Life 101

On 10/15/2012 10:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:44 AM, dpb wrote:
....

And, if one followed your rule to its conclusion of no synonyms, English
would be rather dull.

Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Poetry is of no value, then, in your world I take it?

--

On 10/15/2012 10:20 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

Yes - you could rephrase it to use the word utilize, but the word still is
valid and has a use....

You're missing the point of there being two words -- they aren't really
two words but the two (particular) forms of the same one: one is a noun
while the other is an adjective. Which is the right one is based on the
grammatical structure of the sentence. Just as in the other example one
was a verb and the other and adverb (iirc).

--

dpb wrote:
On 10/15/2012 10:20 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

Yes - you could rephrase it to use the word utilize, but the word
still is valid and has a use....

You're missing the point of there being two words -- they aren't
really two words but the two (particular) forms of the same one: one
is a noun while the other is an adjective. Which is the right one is
based on the grammatical structure of the sentence. Just as in the
other example one was a verb and the other and adverb (iirc).

That's exactly what i was trying to say (although I may have done so
poorly). I was acknowleging that there were two forms of the word, and that
either form could be used - if you restructured the sentence. But - it
would require restructuring the sentence to use one of the forms. I
maintain that either form could be used - depending upon the sentence
structure.

--

-Mike-

On 10/15/2012 11:36 AM, dpb wrote:
On 10/15/2012 10:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:44 AM, dpb wrote:
...

And, if one followed your rule to its conclusion of no synonyms, English
would be rather dull.

Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Poetry is of no value, then, in your world I take it?

Why, Leon has all kinds of pottery ...

g,d&r


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 10/15/2012 12:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

maintain that either form could be used - depending upon the sentence
structure.

Replace "could" w/ "must" and you're much closer.

What I was trying to clarify w/ the way you were responding/dialoging
w/ Leon was also seeming to treat them as interchangeable words instead
of pointing out the grammatical difference between the two cases Leon
seems to claim no reason for existence of but one.

--

I just hope they make some furniture out of all those trees that they
cut down to get it where it was going.

On 10/15/2012 1:13 PM, dpb wrote:
On 10/15/2012 12:23 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

maintain that either form could be used - depending upon the sentence
structure.

Replace "could" w/ "must" and you're much closer.

What I was trying to clarify w/ the way you were responding/dialoging
w/ Leon was also seeming to treat them as interchangeable words instead
of pointing out the grammatical difference between the two cases Leon
seems to claim no reason for existence of but one.

--


Perhaps I should have indicated that the words can often be used the same.

Function is a noun as you pointed out but it is also a verb. It is when
the longer version is used when the shorter version could be used is
what gets me.

The modifications will enhance the tool's function.

or as they like to say on TV,

The accessories will enhance the tool's functionality.

On 10/15/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Oh please don't! Have you seen how poor journalistic grammar has become?
Is there even any proof-reading anymore?



Actually yes and the core of my complaint. KISS.

On 10/15/2012 10:56 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Oh please don't! Have you seen how poor journalistic grammar has
become? Is there even any proof-reading anymore?


I pruf reed everthang!

Yeah - but you're Leon... you get a special dispensation...



I'm specital! Uh Special.

On 10/15/2012 11:36 AM, dpb wrote:
On 10/15/2012 10:25 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:44 AM, dpb wrote:
...

And, if one followed your rule to its conclusion of no synonyms, English
would be rather dull.

Perhaps dull but much more understood. Leave the excitement to the
journalists.

Poetry is of no value, then, in your world I take it?

--

Not to say that there is not a place for poetry but I can live with out
it. Especially in today's RAP.

sorry about the sig ......digger