sigurd

Joined: February 1, 2011

Number of comments posted: 43

Number of votes received: 10

No user description provided.

Recent Comments

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 31, 2011, 3:49am  •  0 vote

I didn't say I'm a native English speaker, and, regardless of whether or not I see English from a different perspective because of it, both native and non-native anglophones have experienced the same

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 30, 2011, 11:21pm  •  0 vote

'against'

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 30, 2011, 11:20pm  •  0 vote

I don't think it's againt the nature of English, since they used to be part of it and still are dialectally and ecclesiastically at least. "Game"? Also, I was typing about the practicality of si

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 27, 2011, 10:04pm  •  0 vote

Porsche: ‘‘Come on now. surely, none of your are really serious that we need to (or even can) revamp all English pronouns to suit your particular pet peeves.’’ I know an official change is probably

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 27, 2011, 9:45pm  •  0 vote

I’m aware there’d still be a lack of the possessive forms, but, even with just the readdition of a clear objective and subjective plural, English is much more practical, even if it’s just in personal

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 27, 2011, 12:12pm  •  0 vote

‘‘Don't you think that if there had been a real problem, the language would have adapted somehow.’’ Language doesn’t always evolve for the better/to be practical. And, yes, I and many other people

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 26, 2011, 5:30pm  •  0 vote

Warsaw Will: ‘‘When we use 'you' we are addressing someone or more than one directly. Both sides know who is being referred to.’’ Balderdash. There are plenty of situations where an audience is unc

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 26, 2011, 5:12pm  •  0 vote

AnWulf, I meant using ‘ye’ as both the subjective and objective plural as I stated in ‘[...] willing to accept ‘ye’’s other meaning *alongside* its original one [...].’ Also, what do you (or should

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 26, 2011, 7:07am  •  0 vote

Likewise, ‘you’ should only be a plural, yet, like ‘ye’, it’s been established as meaning something else too in more recent times. Ideally, if ‘thou’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’ were in use today, ‘

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 25, 2011, 8:44am  •  0 vote

I’d rather not stay away from them. I’m curious and seek answers. I want to know if ‘your’ and ‘yours’’s plural exist or have been used in English. Moreover, according to the OED, ‘ye’ was also use

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 25, 2011, 4:09am  •  0 vote

(‘[...] As such, you can't say "ye are"; thus no "ye're".’) Why not? ‘Ye’ was also used as ‘thou’, wherefore ‘thou art/are’ is ‘ye are’, ‘ye’re’.

Re: ye, yer, yers  •  December 23, 2011, 10:15am  •  0 vote

Apparently, ‘ye’re’ and ‘ye’ve’ are English, though deemed archaic. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ye Maybe ‘yer’ and ‘yers’ exist too (?).

Re: Isn’t the word “feminism” itself gender-biased?  •  December 21, 2011, 11:29pm  •  0 vote

‘‘By far, common usage and every formal definition I have checked, is simply "American of African descent" with an occasional addendum of "especially of black African descent"’’ Hyphenated or not,

Re: Isn’t the word “feminism” itself gender-biased?  •  December 21, 2011, 10:44pm  •  0 vote

‘‘Further, I have often seen the idea that African-American might refer to "descended from black slaves..." portrayed as itself a form of naive and provincial bigotry stemming from a stereotypical and

Re: Isn’t the word “feminism” itself gender-biased?  •  December 20, 2011, 7:01am  •  0 vote

However, since one can’t always know every black person’s heritage, be it African-American, Caribbean, African, South American, Malagasy or what not, it’s better to just use the all-encompassing term

Re: Isn’t the word “feminism” itself gender-biased?  •  December 20, 2011, 3:33am  •  1 vote

I stand by my intial statement that ‘African-American’ (hyphenated), which may also be written ‘Afro-American’ (hyphenated), specifically refers to the descendants of United States’ Black slaves.

Re: ...ward/s and un...worthy  •  December 3, 2011, 5:08am  •  0 vote

Ignore the inverted commas following the first sentence.

Re: ...ward/s and un...worthy  •  December 3, 2011, 5:07am  •  0 vote

njtt, I disagree. Rarely used and/or unfamiliar to some people, a word or form isn’t necessarily unacceptable/incorrect. ‘’ Since ‘Jerusalemward/s’ has been used by Geoffrey Chaucer (‘[...] Jerusal

Re: ...ward/s and un...worthy  •  November 27, 2011, 4:33am  •  0 vote

Because ‘sunward’ exists, that makes me wonder if ‘Sunward’ is correct too. It would be useful a distinction, since there’s the Sun (our star) and the sun (the light or warmth of the Sun). Also, if

Re: ...ward/s and un...worthy  •  November 26, 2011, 9:22pm  •  0 vote

Correction: Of course, with ‘un[...]worthy’, I meant the thing mentioned is NOT worth/deserving swimming, watching and buying respectively.

Re: Interchangeability of possessive “s” and “of”  •  November 25, 2011, 8:45pm  •  0 vote

To me, they sound natural. In British English, I’ve heard people say, ‘[town/city/area name]’s [person]’ when association is meant, especially as a way to differentiate the person mentioned from other

Re: Interchangeability of possessive “s” and “of”  •  November 25, 2011, 6:44am  •  0 vote

Another correction: ‘A Loxley’s townsman and an Arc’s townswoman, [...]’.

Re: Interchangeability of possessive “s” and “of”  •  November 25, 2011, 4:23am  •  0 vote

I meant ‘[...] his Babylonian captivity [...]’.

Re: Interchangeability of possessive “s” and “of”  •  November 25, 2011, 4:20am  •  0 vote

I very much appreciate all the answers. I know now ‘possession’’s meaning is broader in the linguistic sense and can denote association distinct from property. However, I still don’t see how ‘the C

Re: Interchangeability of possessive “s” and “of”  •  November 23, 2011, 1:14pm  •  0 vote

Thank you for answering, but I’m not entirely convinced ‘’s’ only denotes possession. I think it can also denote association. E.g., ‘Though Godfrey’s friend, Liam isn’t owned by Godfrey’ and ‘The t

Re: Had he breakfast this morning?  •  November 20, 2011, 1:48pm  •  0 vote

Oh, I see now. Thank you, Warsaw, for the helpful answer. :)

Re: Correct way to omit words?  •  November 12, 2011, 9:23am  •  0 vote

Correction: ‘porsche’ with ‘s’.

Re: Correct way to omit words?  •  November 12, 2011, 9:20am  •  0 vote

porche, referring to your last paragraph, does that mean ‘Had he breakfast this morning?’ is correct when meaning ‘Did he have breakfast this morning?’ I just want to be sure.

Re: Correct way to omit words?  •  November 12, 2011, 9:13am  •  0 vote

Moreover, if ‘Haven't you anything better to do?’ when meaning ‘Have you not anything better do?’ is correct, then, following the same logic, isn’t ‘Hadn't you been there, they would have fallen throu

Re: Semicolon between sentences joined by a coordinating conjunction  •  October 25, 2011, 3:42am  •  1 vote

Since the semicolon joins sentences, which can stand on their own, I think whether or not a coordinating conjunction can follow a semicolon as in the aforequoted examples depends on if an independent

Re: Semicolon between sentences joined by a coordinating conjunction  •  October 22, 2011, 12:59pm  •  0 vote

I’m still confused as to why the semicolon would be necessary in the aforequoted examples. Isn’t ‘When I finish here, I will be glad to help you, and that is a promise I will keep’ perfectly unders

Re: While/among/amid vs whilst/amongst/amidst  •  September 20, 2011, 6:57am  •  0 vote

Thank you.

Re: Comma before “respectively”?  •  August 19, 2011, 2:35am  •  3 votes

In this case, ‘respectively’ is essential (no comma) as it denotes ‘in the order already mentioned’, with 18 being the monthly sewer projection and 200 being the yearly counterpart. Without ‘respectiv

Re: Comma before “respectively”?  •  August 3, 2011, 5:11am  •  2 votes

I think the example is incorrect. The word ‘respectively’ is essential to the sentence’s meaning and shouldn’t be separated by a comma.

Re: Isn’t the word “feminism” itself gender-biased?  •  July 22, 2011, 2:03am  •  3 votes

Isn’t the word ‘feminism’ itself gender-biased? If it isn’t, then neither is ‘masculinism’. That’s why I say ‘gender equality’ instead, though I wish there were a single word to denote ‘gender equalit

Re: Is “nevermore” a real word?  •  May 12, 2011, 8:56am  •  0 vote

I guess so ... .

Re: Rules for -ise and -ize  •  March 12, 2011, 10:00am  •  0 vote

The z vs s rules aren't the same. The -ize rule might be, but the -yze endings of American English, for example, are always spelled -yse in Oxford spelling.

Re: Rules for -ise and -ize  •  March 11, 2011, 12:00am  •  0 vote

I disagree with Oxford spelling's -ize being an Americanism (because it isn't). Oxford spelling has -ise endings for some words that end with -ize in American English. For instance, 'advertise' is spe

Re: Rules for -ise and -ize  •  March 8, 2011, 2:18am  •  0 vote

To clarify, Oxford spelling is British English - just without the much later -ise Frenchism when -ize should be used. That said, I still don't know exactly which words should end with -ise vs -ize in

Re: Is there a gustative equivalent to the olfactory “malodour”?  •  February 25, 2011, 9:41am  •  0 vote

I'm looking for a word that denotes/means bad taste.

Re: Is there a gustative equivalent to the olfactory “malodour”?  •  February 23, 2011, 10:22am  •  0 vote

English, please. :)

Re: Is there a gustative equivalent to the olfactory “malodour”?  •  February 2, 2011, 6:08am  •  0 vote

I'd rather use "unpalatable" as an adjective. However, I'm looking for a gustative equivalent to "malodour", a noun.

Re: Is there a gustative equivalent to the olfactory “malodour”?  •  February 1, 2011, 5:02pm  •  0 vote

Ignore the second paragraph. I'm looking for a word for "bad taste".