At the risk of being off-topic: >The Merriam-Webster dictionaries have, I suppose, legitimate uses in >schoolrooms, but their editorial bent is resolutely populist and >anti-intellectual. They, for example, list 'octopi', which is bog Latin, >instead of 'octopodes' as a legitimate plural of 'octopus'. Why? Because >some subliterate Americans use/say it. (For those who fancy such >constructions there is of course no objection to using resolutely English plurals, here 'octopuses'; but to get a Latin plural wrong is inexcusable.)
You just don't get it! Books of style and proper usage enforce language. Dictionaries do NOT. Rather, they report on common usage. There is nothing wrong with their "inexcusable" behavior. They are doing their job (reporting). A dictionary should NEVER be used as an authority for enforcing standards. When I was a kid, I heard: "Ain't ain't in the dictionary"! It is now, because it's common usage. Don't blame the dictionary. Blame the degradation of common discourse. When in doubt. PANIC!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
