FelixNemis
Very Active Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2012
- Messages
- 307
I sea what you did they're
As you will observe, it is entirely possible to use language so carefully that readers would have found it easier to follow had one compromised the accuracy and linguistic style of one's writing to aid the cause of simplicity. Furthermore, I find that the time expended in the writing of this message to be much greater that would normally be taken in the composition of a passage of a comparable length. I would consider the additional effort wasted, were it not for the ironic qualities which it imparts to the posting as a whole.Never use a simple English word when a classical circumlocution suffices.
That should be "to be much greater" but otherwise not bad; certainly readable.Given that the spelling and grammar used by forum users posting in this thread seems to be degenerating into an excuse to ridicule the more pedantic members of society, I would like to add one of my own favourite sayings to the discussion:
As you will observe, it is entirely possible to use language so carefully that readers would have found it easier to follow had one compromised the accuracy and linguistic style of one's writing to aid the cause of simplicity. Furthermore, I find that the time expended in the writing of this message is much greater that would normally be taken in the composition of a passage of a comparable length. I would consider the additional effort wasted, were it not for the ironic qualities which it imparts to the posting as a whole.Never use a simple English word when a classical circumlocution suffices.
In short, I aim to have demonstrated that consideration and sophistication are not necessarily ideal for communication.
while i appreciate the thought, i would cause too much of a havoc to this place. i've already stated who would get my first ban-hammer. i'm the kind of person that would be elected on friday, and assassinated on sundayI nominate Damummy ! He's most defintly the most ... Unashamed board member .
Except that 'the former' is 'the one mentioned earlier than the latter', so you've got them the wrong way round ... </pedantry>Tenka, whose sentence mixed up "whose' and "who's", might now learn the correct usage.
The former is a contraction of "who is". The latter shows possession.
Thanks, I just woke up - the easy way to remember that is "the latter" equals "the later of the two".Except that 'the former' is 'the one mentioned earlier than the latter', so you've got them the wrong way round ... </pedantry>Tenka, whose sentence mixed up "whose' and "who's", might now learn the correct usage.
The former is a contraction of "who is". The latter shows possession.