The question then becomes, “At what point does it belong in the dictionary?” (meaning it is acceptable usage).
That’s a fucking stupid argument as has been pointed out to you before, dictionaries do not make up words out of whole cloth, they record words already in use.
Humpty Dumpty’s dictionary does!
Right. Most dictionaries being descriptive, and relying on common use.
I’m saying that I don’t like that this word is becoming commonly used in this way.
But, as I’ve said many times before (despite certain sniveling posters who can’t seem to read), our entire language is built on common use, and many of the words and uses we accept today are yesterday’s errors. I have no problem with that. It’s just not easy to watch. It’s like watching your teenagers grow up and move out and do whatever they want, even if you don’t like their choices. You know it has to happen, and you know you did it yourself, but it’s still not fun to go through.
What a retarded analogy.
Then that’s your problem. It doesn’t mean it’s actually wrong. Cope.
I never thought the Kübler-Ross Model was relevant in a discussion about word usage, but boy, I was wrong!
Do you believe it’s even possible for a word to be “wrong?”
Kubler-Ross applies to just about everything in life.
The wrong choice for a specific context, sure. A word may not be accepted by your audience either due to not knowing it or disliking the aesthetic and thus impede communication or present an image you don’t want to present.
Simply, objectively wrong? No.
In this case I’m referring to content words, which is the category cite is in. Function words can be wrong, because they form the grammatical bonds and using an incorrect word can result in something that isn’t English. Even then, popular use can overcome it, it just has a much higher barrier. Imagine a world in which “I would of done that but he should of called first” was perfectly grammatical.
Fine. The difference is basically immaterial. I’m merely saying that, in this example, using “cite” as a noun is the wrong choice for a specific context. That is changing, perhaps, and that’s okay. I accept that the rules are not created by authorities, and aren’t really rules at all, just “choices,” but on a day to day basis, that’s not really useful. You can’t grade papers or edit copy that way.
No it isn’t.
No, you’re not. Don’t be a weasel.
You’re being an asshole.
Responding to your addition:
Oh my god! Something can be WRONG!
Incorrect! Something that isn’t English!
:rolleyes:
lance strongarm, can you look through these quotes of yours and see the problem? In the first one, you say “cite” is not a noun. You repeat in a number of them that using it that way is an error. Then you say it shouldn’t be in the dictionary. Then you say that it’s only improper in a “specific context.”
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that you’re backing off your original unsupportable position, but trying to argue that the last stance is an “immaterial” difference from the first stance is also unsupportable.
“X is wrong” does not equal “X is wrong in this context.”
It’s like a cranky monkey at a typewriter.
User Name!
The problem is that I’ve said a few things here and instead of people listening to what I’ve said they keep spewing attacks (not from you). It’s weird. I’ve gone out of my way to explain myself already. I’m tired of trying.
Oh, it’s the meanies making you think about what you say that’s the problem and not your goal posts that shift another foot with every comment.
But I just cut and pasted what you’ve said. I’m reading what you’ve said and what you’ve said is changing. Can you see that?