On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:47:09 +0800, Chris B. McKinney <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Reef Fish

You forgot to cite this:

> We (the Scuba-SE posters on the whole) are now discussing SCUBA
> and scuba-related topics again, as we SHOULD have been doing all
> along.
>
> This is NOT to invite another round of pointless flamewar on a
> word that is irrelevant in the context of the March Flamefest IN
> THE FIRST PLACE.

Are we having too much SCUBA discussion for you?


>> The only USA posters on the list who backed the FOREIGN use of
>> "recruited" to mean "successfully recruited" were
>> three who have
>> been KNOWN to find any excuse to flame "Bob".  :-)

I wonder who they were.  ;-)

>
>Smiley noted; this is not meant to be some kind of ad hominem
>attack, althout it could arguably be termed innuendo.
>
>If I recall correctly, you characterize that meaning as "foreign"
>because the first citation of that meaning was from a British
>dictionary.  Later a citation from an American dictionary was
>also used in substantial agreement with British usage.

That's why I ALSO said,

>> My BOTTOM LINE:
>>
>> English is a LIVING language.  In spite of PEDANTS
>> citing dictionary definitions (none addressed the IMPLICATION of
>> "successfully"), the ordinary USAGE of the word "recruited"
>> (in the USA) is exactly as explained by HLAviation

That's why insofar as CURRENT USAGE in the USA, in the context of
the discussion in Scuba-SE, the dictionary definition was already
DEAD, MORIBUND, by the time those books were in print.

That's why I take my English lessons from the weekly columns of
James F. Kilpatrick, rather than from the Dead Sea Scroll.  :-)


>I suppose, then, you are implying that the Oxford and Websters
>dictionaries are less reliable witnesses, because they are
>somehow partisan in the matter?

Nope. Not only out-of-date, and they contain NO IMPLICATION about
the "successfully" part in question, which is NOT implied in
common usage.   See the preceding paragraphs.  Also:

>> > >That's the "pedantic" part:  whether the word "recruited"
>> > >(in ordinary usage in the USA) implies "successfully recruited"?
>> > >It's a question in the use of the English language.


>Yes, and I of course mean all this in the most pacific and
>academic way!  :)

Don't you mean argumentative and pedantic way?  ;-))


>> Take it or leave it.  You get what you paid for.  :-)

You snipped the most relevant part, Chris!  I said,

RF> Take it or leave it.  You get what you paid for.  :-)  Save your
RF> "arguments" for you next dive trip, while you're underwater!  :-))

>No, I think the term is "you'll get a lot more than you bargained
>for!"  :)
>
>Chris

I didn't bargain for anything, and I got nothing new in return.


Here's something NEW if you wanna RECRUIT the ferners for a NEW
argumantative and pedantic thread (especially the Brits -- one
of them was pretty snooty about the Oxford Dictionary being the
bible of English usage, even for countries that gave up on them
Brits and Poms eons ago.  :-))

> Subject: Re: Tipping in France
> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:19:08 GMT
> Organization: Road Runner - NYC

> I had the same experience as Padraig on many occaisions in France.
> On one occaision I was stopped while hitch-hiking on a service
> road to the Autoroute by the Gendarme and they asked for my passport.
> I searched for my passport and one Gendarme muttered "Merde Anglais"
> and when I produced my Irish passport he laughed, apologised and
> gave me a ride to the nearest Peage (tollbooth).

> The English are not received with warmth in France, probably due
> to the attitude of the English to the rest of the world...
> Paddy, Mick, Spic, Frog, Gerry, Septic Tank, Wop, Wog, Paki,
> Camel Jockey, to name but a few of the labels bestowed on the
> worlds populace by an invasive, arrogant country on whose 'Empire'
> "The sun has finally set".

He forgot Pom, and I didn't know they are Frogs also!  :-)

-- Bob.