“Resume” is a voib. I t’ink you mean “razzoomay.”
SOUND IT OUT!
This might be intended to mean, “Thou’rt correct. English shall not change.”
I reckon.
Yes, “why”* is *a perfectly cromulent word. “Irregardless” is on rather shakier ground.
I’ve seen Nicoll’s version on a t-shirt
Join me and we’ll finally take down “burgle,” the backformation invented in the 1870s as a joke, and now used seriously by people who imagine it to be the longstanding verb form of “burglar” (I blame Gilbert and Sullivan for popularizing the word).
That’s a disingenuous and ridiculous example, because no one disputes that unintentional mistakes in language – as distinctly opposed to innovative and creative inventiveness – are an impediment to comprehension, just exactly the same way that protocol errors are an impediment to any means of communication. And no one disputes the demonstrable fact that the more such unintentional mistakes there are, and the more egregious the mistakes, and therefore the farther the language deviates from the norms, the harder it is to understand.
Let me be clear about what I mean by “demonstrable”: I have seen morons write things that were literally incomprehensible to any reasonable English speaker. One might try to hazard a guess as to what they were bloviating about, but it would be nothing more than a guess. If egregious deviations are not acceptable, then more minor ones shouldn’t be, either, because the principle is qualitatively the same. As Steven Pinker said, “I am not saying that … the People should be liberated to write however they please. Some aspects of how people express themselves in some settings are worth trying to change.”
So there is actually a clear principle here, though where one draws the lines of conformance is both subjective and context dependent. But whether you like to admit it or not, we do have some control over the evolution of language, primarily through the educational system. So the question of beneficial versus detrimental change, desirable vs undesirable, is real and actionable, despite the vast number of uncontrollable factors and the natural organic substrate of language. And I reject the idea that the reader or listener having to put in extra effort to try to decipher stupid shit that the speaker or writer has just uttered by mistake is a practice that should ever be condoned as acceptable.
Sometimes, to be sure, a skilled writer will deliberately contrive an expression that requires thought to unravel, but that’s not the same and is indeed the diametric opposite. It turns comprehension into a process that illuminates rather than obfuscates; it guides the reader through a thought process rather than blaring a pronouncement at her. I admire that sort of writing. I do not admire or condone being forced to endure the gibberings of illiterate morons.
Indeed. Was it then a mistake when you called the phrase “meaningless gibberish,” or were you deliberately misleading us? Because my example is simply there to demonstrate that the intended meaning is successfully conveyed. You may have another problem with the phrase, but “meaninglessness” is a bullshit problem to have with it.
A book I read once described, in the middle of a convoluted sentence, a building “whose putative volume was ocularly quite undecidable.” That phrase was grammatically correct and had no unintentional errors. It wasn’t literally incomprehensible to any True Scotsman–err, reasonable English speaker. But it was close. It was written by a very intelligent author.
Poor writing and errors are often orthogonal to one another.
This is ridiculous. Egregiously bad writing that obscures meaning is bad because it obscures meaning. Minor peccadilloes that don’t obscure meaning aren’t bad because they don’t obscure meaning. Your standard doesn’t work. Mine does.
And it’s as if you miss the part of your Pinker quote where he writes, “in some settings.” That part is kind of key.
Bad example. I know what the writer meant because I am familiar with the proper phrase. If I were not familiar with it and had to divine its meaning strictly by my understanding of the words, I’d come up with a different answer.
OK, I finally read the rest of the OP. My head hurt and my mind’s eye was leaking something.
I think this one is a Poe? Is that what you call it?
It reads like an intentionally absurd thing cooked up by an excitable youth.
For example, “et cetera” is not spelled with œ. It is seen with æ, sometimes. And “hugely” is probably standard at this point, if informal.
Say what you will, but the OP sure knows how to chum the whine-dork waters of Pedant Bay.
This is one of those “if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle” things, innit? Because you DO know the “proper” phrase. You ARE familiar with it. So who cares what it’d be like if you weren’t? The meaning is communicated successfully, therefore it’s not meaningless.
Of course, you also know what the writer meant because you can read English. If you were not familiar with English and had to derive its meaning strictly by your understanding of Hungarian, you’d come up with a different answer.
The point is, meaning is conveyed. WHatever problems the phrase may have, meaninglessness isn’t one of them.
WELL! Excuse ME for leaving!
Ironer? Ironyer? Ironier?
Let’s ask the OP if he ever returns.
I’ve always wanted to get a job on the English equivalent of the Académie française. Easiest job in the world. You sit on your sofa in your pajamas, drinking alcohol with your feet up on your ottoman, making plans to visit the cinema with your fiance, and suddenly the telephone rings.
You pick it up. A worried voice on the other end says “Is this an English word?”
You laugh and say “It is now, man, it is now” and hang up so you can call an Uber to take you to that tappas place you’ve had a yen to visit for a while.
Actually, the proper phrase would be to throw chum into the waters. When used as a verb, “chum” means to be friendly or form a friendship.
Tapas. One “p.” 
“Chum” is established as both a noun and an intransitive verb, for both the friend and fish meanings.
Nope. “For all intensive purposes …” is ipso facto a meaningless phrase because its constituent words have no relevant meaning, either literally or idiomatically. It is comprised of English words, but it’s not meaningful English. Might I guess what the writer or speaker meant? Can you lower that bar of language standards any further? Maybe, but not much. When the recipient has to do all the inferential work it’s questionable whether we’re dealing with language at all, much as we can infer that an infant is hungry, or that a staggering drunk who trips over a park bench and pukes on the occupant “has successfully conveyed” the message “I may be in need of some assistance”.
You’re digressing into unrelated territory. Pretentious writing has been rightfully criticized for its ponderousness and occasional lack of clarity. But it mostly suffers from jargon and excessively complex constructions, and linguistically isn’t usually that much of a chore. Your example provides no context, and it’s unquestionably bad writing, but it seems pretty clear to me that the writer is saying that it was hard to tell visually how big the building was.
I want that job! But please substitute “sushi place”. 
Yes, but did that impair your comprehension? If not, who cares how many "p"s there are? Or are you one of those prescriptivist scum with a stick up your ass about so-called “rules” of spelling and grammar and bullshit like what words actually mean? 
Meh, tappas works for the casual, laid back purpose of communicating the type of food desired.
.
A t-shirt being worn by GRRM, ome presumes…
You know, I like all the British spellings. I would - I’m an Englishman - but I have no dog in this fight.
