How about available at < > website, or by purchased cd? It presents
a legitimate Open Source explanation.
Charles Reintzel
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:00 PM, Chris BONDE wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
