[Leica] Forte and Forte: Was, Even us natives don't write English good"

[timatherton at theedge.ca (Tim Atherton)]

> Which is what I indicated earlier...if people do it incorrectly long
> enough, then the norm becomes the rule even if it is incorrect. And I'm
> not using "old printed dictionaries". I learned it correctly 40 years
> ago.
>
> But I am a conservative in language, and would like things to remain as
> they were, not as they are mispronounced. I even shun removing the final
> comma from phrases such as "Larry, Moe, and Curly" as deleting that
> second comma always means that I have to go back and reread the sentence
> again.
>
> I suppose that, before I expire, I will be reading about complimentary
> DNA. I suppose that means that adenine and guanine will be saying nice
> things about thymine and cytosine, or that you can have the DNA free,
> compliments of the house. But as long as people don't know what
> complementary means, I guess we should go with the one word they do
> understand.

The problem with this (not specifically referring to "complementary" though
I note my 15 year old OED includes two scientific meanings - one for physics
one for genes) is that many "correct" pronunciations or forms of usage or
often not the only "correct" ones. As well, if one were to be entirely
rigorous, many "correct pronunciations or forms of usage turn out on further
study to actually be "incorrect" but have become accepted because such usage
became established perhaps 200 years ago. In addition, and again on further
study, many words and phrases often have two forms of usage - one often
considered correct and one incorrect. Again, one often finds that they are
merely two branches of different traditions of usage going back two, three
or four hundred years - neither of which is either correct or incorrect
(even though there are those who, quite vocally, will declare their
particular usage is the only correct one).

tim a