Re: it doesn't dignify a response
- From: trio@xxxxxxxxxx (Donna Richoux)
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 03:06:42 +0200
dearcilla <dearcilla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dearcilla wrote:
...appears to exist in the wild apart from White House spokeswomyn.
There are a few other hits on the web.
Since you can search usenet by date, I did so, and found there were 251
hits for "dignify a response" before September 1, 2005.
AskOxford says (for dignify)
"verb (dignifies, dignified) cause to be or appear impressive or worthy
of respect"
it doesn't dignify a response
means
....[The film] doesn't [cause a response to be or appear worthy of
respect].
It's tricky but I don't think you've gotten that quite right. In what
you say, it would be the response that is unworthy of respect, which is
not the same as the film not being worthy of causing a response.
You're not trying to split "to be or appear", are you? I think AskOxford
meant them to be nearly synonomous. Like: (be or appear). "Be impressive
or appear to be impressive, be worthy or appear to be worthy..."
What exactly is wrong with that, anyway? Perhaps they also don't want
to dignify the film with a response, but the sentence does not appear
to be wrong as it stands.
It's a matter of transitive and intransitive. As you show, the formula
used to always be, "I will not dignify that with a response." They
wouldn't bestow dignity upon whatever the lowly thing was by replying to
it. Now they're saying they won't dignify *a response* which isn't the
same thing at all. They're dropping two words.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
.
- References:
- it doesn't dignify a response
- From: dearcilla
- Re: it doesn't dignify a response
- From: dearcilla
- it doesn't dignify a response
- Prev by Date: Re: Phrases with double meanings
- Next by Date: Re: [=SDC=] Q45 You little scum...
- Previous by thread: Re: it doesn't dignify a response
- Next by thread: Re: it doesn't dignify a response
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
