John von Doe78p
507 comments posted · 12 followers · following 40
[youtube VP4C0XCJpmg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP4C0XCJpmg youtube]
So good, almost makes you buy sneakers and go running. Almost.
I come bearing legal tender issued by the government of the United States of America.
Please take me to the woodworking interwebs page of lastcigaretteme where I may exchange this tender for high-quality, handcrafted receptacles and furniture at a reasonable price.
Should you fail to comply, I will not buy anything.
(pretty pretty please, esp. SteveHoltsMtr?)
I don't remember any comments that hit 69 fonzes and stayed there though. Sad.
"But it's far more pleasant for everyone when we don't run around playing Hall Monitor with the comments of those we don't like." - Pot, kettle, log in your eye.
1. Is it clear?
2. Do enough modern, educated people use it?
If "yes" to both, I assume the usage is correct.
I ignore what language mavens prescribe and go by how they use it, because the so called "mavens" get it wrong themselves too often to count. One example (a stylistic guide, but still) I particularly like is the injunction against passives in Strunk & White. Pullum has a good take down of how Strunk&White misidentify passives then states rules about not using passives http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-G... . It's kind of like telling someone not to commit larceny when you have no idea what larceny is.
And resorting (or copy/pasting) to OED as the authority, some notable people/publications have used "unique" with modifiers so your rage should be directed at these people as well:
1908 K. Grahame Wind in Willows viii. 168 ‘Toad Hall,’ said the Toad proudly, ‘is an eligible self-contained gentleman's residence, very unique.’
1912 G. K. Chesterton Manalive i. iii. 86 Diana Duke..began putting away the tea things. But it was not before Inglewood had seen an instantaneous picture so unique that he might well have snapshotted it.
1938 Burlington Mag. June 259/1 Ingres was..too unique to be a chef d'école.
According to an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary ( http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/... ) some extremely notable people who have used "literally" as an intensifier and offend our modern sensibilities: Jane Austen, John Dryden, Alexander Pope, Charles Dickens.
If "literally" as an intensifier is good enough for these people, it's good enough for me.
There's a name for this dander getter-upping and it's called the recency illusion ( http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv... ) a language specific version of "get off my lawn".
And since I"m figuratively bored, here's another one people knot their thongs over. The original meaning of "disinterested" used to be "uninterested" and "uninterested" used to mean "disinterested". Then they swapped places in America ( href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=511 ). So if you want to correct people misusing "disinterested", you might be right according to modern usage in the US, but don't bring up historical usage to back you up and say that it's an instance of language deteriorating or people being stupid.
So it's not your fault. But if you want to make it your fault, I'll toss gawker's latest snafu and the breaking border skirmish between north and south Sudan at your feet as well. You're equally culpable of all those things.