Hipstertard: only uses vocabulary from the 16th century.
Ohhh, there is nothing like a deign, nothing in the world! There is nothing you can name that is anything like a deign.
Speaking of shitting one’s pants. . . .
There’s something rotten in Deignmark.
If the comedian is being condescending, does he become Deighn Cook?
If Twittgenstein shits his pants, should he have a doctor examine his deignus?
You’re getting into mighty deigngerous territory, there.
I can hear the commercial now…
“Use Summer’s Eve to protect and cleanse your delicate areas - of all leading feminine hygiene products, it’s the most vouchesafe!”
Your deignties will thank you.
Must be somewhere in Australia.
It’s not even as difficult as you wish it to be. The very example given by Google: “he had deigned an apology.” You simply replace “an apology” with “his reasoning” and…wait a second!!! That’s the exact phrase I used wasn’t it?
Or, just go to thesaurus.com and enter “deign” or “vouchsafe.” Do you see what correlating word pops up? It’s almost as if the thesaurus is telling you that deign and vouchsafe are synonymous with the words “give,” “grant,” and “yield”…
You were wrong, and now you wish to ascribe errant descriptive intent to a grammatically correct usage of the word. It’s pathetic. The word works fine, and you were wrong. This is as black-and-white as it gets. You don’t know my intent, but you know I used the word correctly. Just bow out gracefully…
Still waiting for my apologies from BigT and Truman Burbank. Ethilrist seems to have doubled-down on his errancy. The mark of a fool.
A deigngo ite mah bybee!
Well now, we have us a 9/11 Truther who doesn’t understand customary usage for the fancy $5 words he’s trying to use.
I just felt a great disturbance on the interwebs, as if millions of civil engineers and grammarians cried out in terror and were silenced.
But seriously, “thesaurus.com”. Really? Sure, that’ll tell you if your usage is any good. That’s exactly the kind of thing high school English teachers mark down when their students try to show off, and guidance counselors warn against for college applications.
I suppose the University of Phoenix may assess correct grammar against an applicant. I wouldn’t know but I suspect the above poster speaks from experience.
Keep fucking that chicken, though. Your wrongness does not waver.
No apology from me, linking synonyms doesn’t prove correct usage. It makes a difference whether I “grant” or “give” you an apology, for example. I do not deign to do so, twit. You had to bypass several more common definitions to try to justify your mangling of the usage. No to mention failing to address several quite pertinent inquiries about your position in the OP. Double twit.
Oswald Bates, is that you?
I sure do. I sometimes help contact prospective students for my alma mater (not the University of Phoenix, by the way, but that doesn’t really matter). The ones who use a thesaurus (almost always poorly) even for writing emails are really obvious.
The knee-jerk response is “Quit trying to show off. You sound ridiculous you immature twit”. I usually exhibit just enough self control not to actually respond that way.
Of course, they have the excuse of being awkward teenagers who think it makes them sound “smart”. What’s yours?
Just google “deign” and use the second example. Switch “an apology” with “his reasoning.”
Done and correct. That easy. Don’t even need the thesaurus if you’re too lazy to see how truly wrong you are.
You’re welcome to apologize whenever for being aggressive and wrong. Doubling down on a blatant error is the mark of a fool. Just apologize and get it over with.
Showing off is a value judgement. This is simple grammar and they were wrong. Acknowledge the error and move, is what adults do. Maybe that’s a lesson for your proteges.
You have to read all of the words in a definition. “Deign an apology” works as an example, presumably because the apology was granted to a party who wanted it, either as a favor or in response to a request. You volunteered your reasoning (or some half-assed approximation thereof) - it was not granted to people who wanted it. Those details matter.
TLDR: you’re still wrong.
Oh shoot, I thought I read the definition as “condescend to give (something).”
I didn’t realize it actually said, “condescend to give (something) to a party that wants it, presumably as a favor or in response to a request.”
I guess I need thicker glasses. Those details matter.
Grammar indicates the structure of sentences, not the meaning of words. So you are, once again, back to substituting a mistaken word to make your point. (The word you were looking for was semantics.)
I have not “defended” anyone. I have pointed at you and laughed for trying to act as though you have some mystical power to let another person save face.
Veracity? You have still failed to explain how you get “warfare” from a feel-good ad that failed to attack anyone–or to apologize for being simultaneously obtuse and obnoxious. You and veracity have no connection.