Erudite (potentially boring)

[Top_Cat]

Sorry to start this but I'm a grammar Nazi sometimes and I can't let this one go but I'm posting here so as not to take the original thread it was posted in OT again. Besides, grammar is an interesting debate academically so if anyone else wants to weigh in, please do.

English is a flawed, often silly language and it remains an evolving language. There is nothing "wrong" whatsoever about the way in which I have adapted "omnipresent". Definitions are not all clear cut so my superior adaptation should be respected as it is, and by none other than one of the world's most omnierudite leading social commentators ever, ME. Words take on different meanings over the years and you need to be of flexible mind to come to terms with this.

The old 'English is an evolving language' argument. Seen it a million times before and it's still wrong. If you're talking colloquial English (which never claims to be correct), maybe but the reason why you won't see it in Oxford, etc. is because for the official language to evolve the new word or combination of words to form a new one has to follow a logical (read again; LOGICAL) path and the end result has to have logical meaning. Based on the original meaning, sticking omni in front of the word is logically incorrect which is WHY it's not in the dictionaries of the world.

I mean, you can't be 'omniintelligent' can you? You are either intelligent or not. What determines that level is subjective and has to have other words around it to describe how (just like erudite) but the labelling has to be applied correctly and in your case, it is you who are on the wrong side of the argument here. All you need to do is look up the form of the word 'erudite' (dictionary.com won't help you on this one, mate) and you'll see applying omni to erudite is strictly incorrect. Anyone who has done any form of English language at 1st year Uni level would know this is why I'm astonished I'm still seeing this argument come out of your mouth. A cursory glance at its etymology (use dictionary.com to look up 'etymology') will show you why your use is just plain wrong.

Interesting note; I chucked the word into google and aside from the 'Grandiloquent Dictionary', a few sites like Amazon using it in a keyword search and a few blog links (NB: absolutely NO proper dictionary or sites similar were sighted), the following came up:

http://www.womenssportsnet.com/Forum...nkline%20Jones

http://www.racingandsports.com.au/ra...id=92691&sum=1

Interesting. It seems the person promulgating the word most is you. Can't say I'm surprised. This is also incredibly interesting in light of your criticism of Richard's post count. Just how many other forums are you signed up to?

Lawsy is right. A high post count is the mark of the unemployable and/or the aimless drifter.

If you don't need to sleep, and you have more time on your hands than most, you should be helping out at the soup kitchen, or writing the first great novel of the 21st century, or learning Japanese, not haunting an internet forum making thousands of banal observations.

Your life is a gift to be seized with both hands, not trudged through, filling time in meaningless ways.

I thought you were gone? What a surprise to see you back purely to insult someone.

Sorry to take this thread OT again

[David]

In its own way fascinating.

However, I do not think the society of today particularly gives a ****.

Etymology /éttimólləji/ n. (pl. -ies) 1 a the historically verifiable sources of the formation of a word and the development of its meaning. b an account of these. 2 the branch of linguistic science concerned with etymologies. (theres some other stuff after like adjectives and adverbs and other stuff† too)
■ 1a see DERIVATION.

I should really learn more about my own language, but it seems to be unimportant to people today.

†Somewhat humourously, this other stuff turns out to be the etymology, now how is that for a blunder?

OOC: Does anyone know the code for subscript/superscript?

[Nnanden]

haha i should have taken the warning! interesting to some im sure... but im tired, and i probably wouldnt understand anyway

[nibbs]

top cat, if in future you could write shorter posts, that'd be swell

[BoyBrumby]

One word:

Bouncebackability

For any non-UK posters (and maybe some UK ones without Sky and/or an interest in football) I'd suggest you Google it.

[steds]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

One word:

Bouncebackability

[Anil]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Based on the original meaning, sticking omni in front of the word is logically incorrect which is WHY it's not in the dictionaries of the world.

are you just bashing the arbitrary use of "omni" by pinkline jones or are you saying that putting omni in front of any word is incorrect? because from what i know, omnipotent, omniscient, omnivorous etc are valid english words...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

One word:

Bouncebackability

For any non-UK posters (and maybe some UK ones without Sky and/or an interest in football) I'd suggest you Google it.

Bloody made-up-word ****ed me off God-knows-how-many times during the SA series.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by Anil

are you just bashing the arbitrary use of "omni" by pinkline jones or are you saying that putting omni in front of any word is incorrect? because from what i know, omnipotent, omniscient, omnivorous etc are valid english words...

I think it's the former.

[Top_Cat]

are you just bashing the arbitrary use of "omni" by pinkline jones or are you saying that putting omni in front of any word is incorrect? because from what i know, omnipotent, omniscient, omnivorous etc are valid english words...

Of course I'm not bashing the use of 'omni'. Those words, as you said, are correct because they follow logical English guidelines to be formed. Omnierudite does not. I thought that was pretty clear but hey, I'm known to be verbose but ambiguous at the same time. So I'm coming up with a new word; verbiguous. Thats me.

[Belford]

The problem here is that Pinkline Jones is operating about 6 levels above the minnows who are criticising him.

Sure, there may be no "logical" basis for sticking omni in front of erudite.

But Pinkline Jones is a humorist. "Omnierudite" might be illogical, but it is funny.

If you do a bit of reading, you will see that there are many fine stylists who muck around with grammar and syntax and even invent their own words, in the context of the piece they are writing. They are not wrong - they are inventive. They are funny. They are clever.

By all means, have a go at someone who says "youse" instead of you, or "athaletics" instead of "athletics", out of ignorance. But don't have a crack at a fellow who is cleverer than yourself for having some linguistic fun in an inventive way.

[Top_Cat]

I'm well aware he was having fun and that it's all in jest (and in fact I think I mentioned that colloqially, new words are being invented all the time). That said, it still doesn't change the fact that he's wrong grammatically. Doesn't make me inferior to him in any way.

Yes it's funny but he wasn't saying that; he was arguing that it was logical and 'correct' which is patently not the case. Simple. It all started when he stated he was more 'omnierudite' than I am and I just said (jokingly), 'if you're going to criticise me, criticise me with a word that exists' or something along those lines. Then he started arguing that the word is right/exists, etc. If he'd just said what you said from the start, it wouldn't have been a problem.

[Mr Casson]

Hey TC, would a Grammar Nazi spell "who's" instead of "whose"?

[Sudeep]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

I'm well aware he was having fun and that it's all in jest (and in fact I think I mentioned that colloqially, new words are being invented all the time). That said, it still doesn't change the fact that he's wrong grammatically. Doesn't make me inferior to him in any way.

Yes it's funny but he wasn't saying that; he was arguing that it was logical and 'correct' which is patently not the case. Simple. It all started when he stated he was more 'omnierudite' than I am and I just said (jokingly), 'if you're going to criticise me, criticise me with a word that exists' or something along those lines. Then he started arguing that the word is right/exists, etc. If he'd just said what you said from the start, it wouldn't have been a problem.

He might be confused between omnierudite and inerudite.

[Top_Cat]

Mr Casson: