The tin-ear test is reasonable as a way of accounting for one's own prejudices. The test cannot reasonably be made the basis for quasi-moral judgments on "good" vs. "bad" grammar. Such judgments, in the past, have usually been part of a strategy to keep the lower orders in their putative place. They still are. "Ugly" writing usually betokens a non-reader, and non-readers, for the dedicated reader, are distinctly the lower orders. There are other, and better, grounds for sneering at the George Bushes of the world. Harold Hungerford Santa Rosa, California On May 6, 2004, at 8:41 PM, David Ritchie wrote: Thank you for your explanations, Harold and Judy. They explain what I already understood, but I thank you for taking the time to write them. Judy's lists of examples will come in handy at some point. I stand by my first post, to the last. I think the solution fails the ugliness test. It's no use telling me that language changes and so we must adapt. Of course, of course. I have taught courses on the history of English. But when fingers scratch the blackboard, when people write English with a tin ear, using the language as if it were a runabout from Rent-A-Wreck, I expostulate uselessly. It's a habit. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html