atw: Re: Correct usage conundrum: 'Match to' vs 'Match with'

  • From: Evan Read <eread@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:58:18 +0800

When do American's mix up the words fact and opinion?  Could you use them in 
sentences with their American meanings?

Thanks.

Evan.

On Mon Feb  1 12:52 , 'Geoffrey Marnell' <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> sent:

..
 
>As for your US correspondents who mix up the meanings 
>of "fact" and "opinion", well, there will always be people who use language 
>unconventionally (deliberately or through ignorance). They're not, though, 
>using 
>language incorrectly. They are simply not using it as the majority of English 
>speakers use it, at present. It's much like "regular" and "frequent". These 
>were 
>once distinct words. Now there is a such a critical mass of folk using 
>"regular" 
>to mean "frequent" that the words are in transition, and best avoided until a 
>single strong primary meaning re-appears. Maybe "fact" will mean "opinion" in 
>100 years. Who knows. But there will be other words to take its 
>place (maybe some still to be invented). Note Richard Dawkins's invention 
>of "theorum" in his latest book. A useful little word. I hope it takes 
>off.
> 
>Cheers
> 
> 
> 
>Geoffrey 
>Marnell
>Principal 
>Consultant
>Abelard Consulting Pty 
>Ltd
>T: +61 3 9596 
>3456
>F: +61 3 9596 
>3625
>W: www.abelard.com.au
>Skype: 
>geoffrey.marnell
> 
>
>
>
>From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine 
>Kent
>Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:03 PM
>To: 
>austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: atw: Re: Correct usage conundrum: 
>"Match to" vs "Match with"
>
>
>
>
>So 
>can we now use alternate instead of alternative?
> 
>I 
>agree with Geoff, but there are SOME examples of just plain â??incorrectâ?? 
>usage, 
>which result in a degradation of the language and the nuances we can express 
>using language.
> 
>I 
>have just had an argument on an American based forum where I have tried to 
>explain that opinion is opinion and fact is fact, as most on the forum do not 
>seem to grasp the difference between the two.  Should we drop â??factâ?? from 
>the language, because some cannot differentiate between fact and opinion. 
> I have tried to explain the difference between intellectual debate where 
>divergent ideas are openly discussed, and abuse where people are insulted for 
>their ideas.  Should we drop â??debateâ?? from the language because all 
>intellectual debate is now seen as personal abuse?
> 
>Perhaps 
>we should have an unwritten rule that we adapt the language any which way we 
>like, as long as we do not lose meaning and subtlety in the process.  But 
>then, one personâ??s meaning and subtlety is different (to/than/from) 
>anotherâ??s, 
>so who is the arbiter of loss of meaning and subtlety?
> 
>Christine
> 
> 
>
> 


**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).

To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go 
to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. austechwriter
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2010