 KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:3 | reply to yanran
Re: SC2 Is Funnier Than Kane and Lynch 2? Funnier is a word? |
|
 marcoPremium
join:2001-09-14 | Funnier SHOULd be a word imo.
--
◄▼► |
|
 sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | The modern dictionaries will state this, "comparative of fun·ny (Adjective)".
--
A block of cheese is a good day indeed. |
|
marcoPremium
join:2001-09-14 | Also,
Funner (more fun)
isnt a word, but it should be.
--
◄▼► |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to Krisnatharok
»en.wiktionary.org/wiki/funnier
Yes it is a word.
So is any other combination of letters. There is no authority of what words are valid words. Dictionary publishers have had a historical financial reason to deny words from being words because every new word they would require a reprint. Instead they can say that AINT aint a word and then they dont have to reprint.
English majors similarly do the same thing; not out of the same reason but moreso a wish to make the language as complicated as possible with the intention of creating teaching positions for the language.
The internet however has eroded all the power they had at dragging their heels for everyone involved. English will now evolve with the full power of social evolution. The only true limitation is communication.
So in conclusion: There's no such thing as "is that even a word?" There are only combinations of letters that you dont know the meaning to; only ignorance.
--
--
if (value == 0)
return value;
else
return 0; |
|
MargolisPremium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO | said by munky99999: [ Yes it is a word. So is any other combination of letters. There is no authority of what words are valid words. you can think that all you want. But there is authority of what words are valid by common consensus. And dictionaries do revise their editions and add new words when the words become accepted, like aint. |
|
MargolisPremium
join:2003-11-24
Saint Louis, MO
3 edits | reply to marco
said by marco:Funnier SHOULd be a word imo. it is a word, from websters:
»www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/funnier
Funnier Funniest
Definition of FUNNY
1a : affording light mirth and laughter : amusing b : seeking or intended to amuse : facetious
2: differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : peculiar —often used as a sentence modifier
3: involving trickery or deception
— fun·ni·ly\ˈfə-nə-lē\ adverb
— fun·ni·ness\ˈfə-nē-nəs\ noun
— funny adverb |
|
sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | reply to Margolis
In reference to academia, then sure there is a more formal process.
--
A block of cheese is a good day indeed. |
|
Punchline
join:2005-10-11
University Of Richmond, VA | reply to munky99999
said by munky99999:» en.wiktionary.org/wiki/funnierYes it is a word. So is any other combination of letters. There is no authority of what words are valid words. Dictionary publishers have had a historical financial reason to deny words from being words because every new word they would require a reprint. Instead they can say that AINT aint a word and then they dont have to reprint. English majors similarly do the same thing; not out of the same reason but moreso a wish to make the language as complicated as possible with the intention of creating teaching positions for the language. The internet however has eroded all the power they had at dragging their heels for everyone involved. English will now evolve with the full power of social evolution. The only true limitation is communication. So in conclusion: There's no such thing as "is that even a word?" There are only combinations of letters that you dont know the meaning to; only ignorance. I used to agree with this. Or, at least, I used to agree with the sentiment - the purpose of words is communication. If I'm communicating, then I'm using words correctly - who cares of they're sanctioned, or polite, or objectively correct.
But it does matter. Not because an English major says it does (a generalization I take exception to - I've never met an English major with any real interest in language who didn't fully support the spontaneous creation of new words and expressions), but because if we don't agree that letters in combination sound a certain way, and mean a certain thing, then I can say anything I want. And when you disagree, or object, or point out a logical fallacy, I can just say you misunderstood me.
I would argue this is actually the rhetorical method of many politicians and political 'talking heads.'
-P |
|
Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to Margolis
said by Margolis:said by munky99999: [ Yes it is a word. So is any other combination of letters. There is no authority of what words are valid words. you can think that all you want. But there is authority of what words are valid by common consensus. And dictionaries do revise their editions and add new words when the words become accepted, like aint. Um you didnt read my post. I said the only limitation now is social communication. There are no longer anyone able to say something isnt a word anymore.
And yes. Dictionaries do revise.
Lets just look at aint. For a very long time... it wasnt a word; it was considered vulgar word. It then was considered an improper word and shouldnt be used. It still to this day is considered a word that autodestroys your career in the language. In otherwords if you use aint in a english-major's essay or your book.
It certainly aint related to social communication's authority but instead a very old remnants from before the internet destroyed the power they used to hold.
Dictionaries however have learnt that they lost their power and have been revising so as to stay in business. The old english-majors however have no financial requirement and wont change.
--
--
if (value == 0)
return value;
else
return 0; |
|
Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to Punchline
said by Punchline:I used to agree with this. Or, at least, I used to agree with the sentiment - the purpose of words is communication. If I'm communicating, then I'm using words correctly - who cares of they're sanctioned, or polite, or objectively correct. Indeed; but as I said. There have been many reasons why people have been essentially conspiring to deauthorize others in order to authorize themselves.
quote:
But it does matter. Not because an English major says it does (a generalization I take exception to - I've never met an English major with any real interest in language who didn't fully support the spontaneous creation of new words and expressions),
The sheer existence of the topic coming up in this thread is proof enough of this issue. Furthermore, the long long long standing history stands as evidence against english-majors in this respect.
Moreover, generalizations are generalizations. They arent meant to be a 100% perfect matching judgement.
quote:
but because if we don't agree that letters in combination sound a certain way, and mean a certain thing, then I can say anything I want. And when you disagree, or object, or point out a logical fallacy, I can just say you misunderstood me.
I would argue this is actually the rhetorical method of many politicians and political 'talking heads.'
-P
How something sounds? Im pretty sure we have a large number of words already which are accepted by the pseudo-authorities.
Schedule? How do you say it?
Shedual? I hear very few people say it that way. It's mainly a UK thing.
Skedule? This is how most people say it.
I'm saying that either are fine. I'm saying there's no authority over how you say it.
Now how do you spell schedule? Sure that's fine so far. What if I want to type it skedule from now on. There is no current word holding that spelling. The first time people see it they might take a second to think about what I was really saying. That's all.
Similarly I can use 'ur' or 'wat' which if you havent noticed is completed accepted by society.
--
--
if (value == 0)
return value;
else
return 0; |
|
Reviews:
 ·Midcontinent Com..
1 edit | I shalt not be a heathen like those that destroyed proper Latin and made it vulgar! I'm looking at you Frenchmen, Italians, and Spaniards; to name a few.
I shalt not stand for it!
Oh speaking of that. Yes, there is an authority on words. Don't lie to yourself thinking it's academia slowing evolution. When we don't regulate the system, it only takes a century or so to destroy communication between people speaking the same language.
The Latin example is one, but look at our modern language. Unfettered word manipulation has lead to us needing specialists to decipher English, namely Ebonics, because it's such a polluted version of English. It shows what happens when masses of people don't care and spread their gibberish. What happens is you get class locked and your job prospects are limited to those that understand you. A sad situation indeed.
All hail the dictionary.
--
"He should not have use his own cc. Crime does pay, you just got to be more smart about it."-silentlooker
|
|
