Re: Partnership split
- From: Keith <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:33:37 +0100
In message <ecbpe2dq4f096k7i6nuhpqqkv7h8jkt5sk@xxxxxxx>, Peter Saxton <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:40:30 +0100, Keith <keith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Not at all - I deliberately misread your comment.
wrote:
No - two things cannot be 'very different'.Are you saying that two things can't be "very different"? Remember
that English evolves. What you were taught may not fit in with common
usage now or how it was used hundreds of years ago. You may not like
what's happening but that doesn't mean it isn't acceptable.
I will accept that the phrase is becoming common in usage but that
merely proves that the dumbing-down process is more widespread than
previous. Doesn't make its use acceptable.
I do not subscribe nor do I accept the argument that english grammar
'evolves'. Additional words may be accepted but the syntax and structure
of sentences is immutable.
And I was not taught '..hundreds of years ago', I was taught to Oxford &
Cambridge standards at a school where reading, writing and language
construction were considered basics of civilised human behaviour. Pity
such standards are not enforced today.... but that's another debate.
Did I make a grammatical error to lead you to believe that I said you
were taught hundreds of years ago or have you joined in the dumbing
down process?
I have looked at my message and I still can't see how you would thinkI was too busy cleaning chimneys.. ;)
that I suggested you were taught hundreds of years ago.
Sorry, have to fly. Two weeks sailing in the Gulf of Thailand beckons.
--
Keith replace nospam with ilf0rd
.
- References:
- Partnership split
- From: Dave
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Ronald Raygun
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Martin
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Ronald Raygun
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Keith
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Keith
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Keith
- Re: Partnership split
- From: Peter Saxton
- Partnership split
- Prev by Date: Re: Partnership split
- Next by Date: Re: Partnership split
- Previous by thread: Re: Partnership split
- Next by thread: Re: Partnership split
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|