🚀 go-pugleaf

goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>I stick with my charge of nastiness and xenophobia.  Kartik is guilty
>>of pomposity and failure to comprehend the nature of language; but
>far
>>too many of the postings here show the same trait.  And those who
>>rebuked him took the tack: how dare he, as a foreigner, attack
>American
>>English!
>
>I don't recall attacking him in any vigorous fashion, except insofar
>as to remind him that the rules aren't the language itself, and to
>suggest that accusations of bad usage are best fulfilled in alt.usage.
>english.
 
I don't think you were the worst offender, and I apologize if I gave
that impression.
 
>This discussion, incidentally, has absolutely no linguistic merit,
>and,
>as I explained to you via e-mail, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop put-
>ting sci.lang back into the subject line.  The thread has moved over
>to
>alt.usage.english, and if you would like to flame me there, be my
>guest.
 
You may have tried to move the thread, but you're not the only one
involved.  I post to sci.lang because it's where I hang out, and in
this instance also because Kartik started out here and was insulted
here.  I have no interest in flaming you elsewhere.

Was Kartik's choice of "venue" (we are in the Olympics) appropriate?
I think so.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be
the abode of linguists, while the pedants go to alt.usage.english?
If Kartik wanted a *linguists'* response, he was in the right place.
 
--Leo Connolly