Erik Max Francis <max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>
>> Isn't that kind of backwards? The fact that it was listed in a
dictionary
>> *sup****ts* the idea of "officially correct". Unless you're thinking
that
>> it can only be officially correct to the exclusion of the other one,
which
>> doesn't have to be the case.
>
> It sup****ts that both forms were used enough to warrant entry in a
> dictionary, which is something I'd never disputed. My point is that
> there is no such thing as "officially correct" in a language like
English.
But then a dictionary entriy should have no bearing on it one way or
another.
While you're right that strictly speaking there's no such thing as
"officially correct", it's not particularly twisted to use that term to
mean something which can be found in a dictionary agreed upon by the
parties in question to be authoritative. In this case, a word would
generally be "officially correct" if enough of the population used it to
get it in the dictionary, which is a fairly sensible position to take,
since it has a direct bearing on your ability to be understood, your
liklihood of running across that usage, etc.
But as always, more precision in terms would be better, particularly on
Usenet where people will nitpick you right to death. :)
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
|
