> On 6/28/06, mike scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > And it subsequently refers to "Bryan Garner, whose Dictionary of > > Modern American Usage...". I'm talking about /English/ not > > "American". They are different, and what's acceptable in one may > > not be in the other. As far as I can tell, it's a usage that's been > > catching on over here just in the past /few/ years - it is /not/ > > correct usage. Yet.
And there are many other different Englishes as well. > "obtain OOo free" or "obtain OOo for nothing" (*). Please?? There was a discussion about this as in free beer etc before. Still we go on. > > When I hear "for nothing" the word I put in front of it is "good" as > in "Good for nothing". You do not want to use the word "nothing" in > your advertisement. It's a negative word. "Free" on the other hand > is a very positive one. Concur > yes *ADVERTISING* matters - not the Queen's English. Maybe that is the whole trouble. Advertising matters (it makes money) and not good language ( which may cost money) >If "For Free" > was such a turn off to customers, marketing execs would have stopped > using it by now. But the fact that "for free" and the reduntant "Free > Gift" are still used all the time proves that grammar is no way to > judge the effectiveness of an ad. > I think that the term 'free gisft' was started by marketing, as it ruined the word 'gift' by ultimately charging for the gift. I still wonder how much a 'free gift' is going to cost me. Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
