Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #24421
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy |
| Date | 2013-07-12 03:14 -0400 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <kroa4r$1f7$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <krgd8b$vji$1@dont-email.me> <da311a5c-8839-4dc7-808f-323c6d2a619c@googlegroups.com> |
<hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:da311a5c-8839-4dc7-808f-323c6d2a619c@googlegroups.com... > I told you previously that the hallmark of the > ignormami is the use of the word "prove" to mean > "provides supporting evidence for." > > Not very quick on the uptake, are you? > > I suppose that next you'll say that this post proves > that I'm an idiot. lol Sure, why not... Let's try it: The plural of "ignoramus" is "ignoramuses". It's not "ignorami". Even if "ignorami" was an accepted plural form of "ignoramus", you still misspelled it: "ignor[m]ami"... You used "use" when you meant "misuse". The word "use" indicates the usage is correct, but you stated the usage was incorrect immediately afterwards. The word "misuse" indicates the usage is incorrect. That's the word you really wanted. No one has any idea why the "for" is there at the end of that sentence: "blah blah ... for." For what, exactly ... ? It leaves you hanging or dangling... You used a rather awkward phrasing: "to mean 'provides ...'". It's like a pause, perhaps a comma, dash, or colon is needed. Something is missing inbetween "mean" and "provides". In the original sentence: "Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy," the word "prove" can be replaced by this phrase: "is evidence in support of the belief that." The phrase you posted for "prove" doesn't work so well ... You could've easily written an understandable sentence: "I told you previously that the hallmark of ignoramuses is the misuse of the word 'prove' to indicate: 'supporting evidence.'" RP
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-09 07:14 +0000
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-07-09 01:03 -0700
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-07-09 19:32 +1000
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-09 22:26 +0000
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-11 00:01 +0000
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-12 12:10 +0000
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2013-07-10 11:10 -0700
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-07-12 03:14 -0400
Re: Fortran proves Forth a stone-age toy Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2013-07-12 05:14 -0500
csiph-web