So if we talk about the truth value in these words, it would have putative as the highest, ostensible as the middle, and supposed as the lowest:

>>TRUTH

>Putative (we'll give it a percentage of, say, 70%)

>Ostensible (≈50%)

>Supposed (≈30%)

>>FALSE/UNTRUE

e sounds mordant. "Of course" reads like "no duh" to me, but contextually, it works. A yes fits better there though.

The only time(s) that I can think of in which"Of course" is impolite is when it is inflected in a certain way.

When can bet dangerously ambiguous? Not a clue.

Alternatives: "(Yeah,) sure", "okay", "yes", etc.

DesertRat71,

I honestly don't see any problem with wikitionary in this case, and it usually has usage notes on words or phrases that are or are seen as ungrammatical. So, thy point is meaningless, but I'll indulge thee.

Catenative verb: "A verb--such as keep, promise, want, seem, and many others--that can link with other verbs to form a chain or series."

Source: http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/catenativeverbterm.htm

Catenative: "Denoting a verb that governs a nonfinite form [a present participle, past participle, or infinitive, bare or full] of another verb, for example, like in I like swimming."

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/catenative

Wiktionary was used for the express purpose of listing catenative verbs of which "go" is one.

"It appears the authoritative declaration of correct grammar went missing."

No, it didn't. The phrase isn't ungrammatical. Catenative verbs exist; thus, these phrases make sense. The quibbles are purely for a stylistic reason.

Went missing is perfectly fine. The verb go is a catenative verb and thus can chain together with, in its case, an infinitive and a gerund.

Scroll down a bit and go can be found listed:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_catenative_verbs#Followed_by_a_to-infinitive_or_a_gerund

Warsaw Will,

I think the ellipsis here is used to show an accepting reluctance: "I'll do it, but...."

That's usually how I see an ellipsis at the end of sentences. It gives the impression of the voice trailing off...

jayles,

Yes, they still exist in dialects, but I see no reason why my speech needs to be modeled after said dialect. Additionally, thou without verbs marking the case have appeared, although low:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=thou+are%2Cthou+have%2Cthou+know%2Cthou+learn&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cthou%20are%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthou%20have%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthou%20know%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cthou%20learn%3B%2Cc0

Additionally, why would I keep case endings of past tense and modal verbs? Third person doesn't anymore, so thou shouldn't either.

Finally, I do have an option of how I conjugate my verbs.

jayles,

I never said that I was bringing back the verb inflections of thou, or would thou prefer I bring back -th inflection for third person singular too? No, I'm merely making a simple substitution for singular second person.

My intent was to use the singular pronoun not verb forms. Think of it as modern thou in place of you.

At the time, I was looking for "If-clauses" through some of my documents to see whether I had been hypercorrect, and I think this may be one.

Although my Word (not always the best basis to go by) tells me that "was" should be "were", I however cannot see how this would be an unreal conditional. First, the action hasn't taken place yet; second, it doesn't seem impossible/counterfactual in the condition clause; third, only the result seems impossible; and finally, I had written the character to move his arm in the very next sentence with nothing happening.

I think that it should be the past form of the real conditional, as thou've said.

As this is my post, I have another question related to the subjunctive: should the subjunctive be used here?

"He was convinced that [if he was/were to move his arm, it would break]."

I don't think it should because the conditional is possible, but the result isn't. I just don't if the subjunctive can work that way. I think "was" should work.

Anywho, new site layout, I'm a little disappointed that I can't see what's new on the side of the page.

*aren't should be are