Intp male dating Text sex chat without register in mobile
I just can’t picture any competent speaker of English saying it and thinking it correct.
Sometimes it might be the case that introduces an ambiguity, but just as often it avoids an ambiguity.
Here’re these pedants crying about how English has to adhere rigidly to logic, and they don’t notice the one time the language actually behaves like a system of formal logic.
The point is that singular by David Gelernter, a computer science professor at Yale.
Certainly many prescriptivists assert that singular , calling the issue “unresolved” but noting that it “is being left unaltered by copy editors” and that aside from pedants, “such constructions are hardly noticed any more or are not widely felt to lie in a prohibited zone.” [p.
776] (This is an especially interesting stance because it goes against Fowler’s own original position from 1926.) Grammar Girl also comes down unambiguously in favor it, if she’s your cup of tea.
Some old style guides even saw the light a century ago. And yet, (1) is a well-formed sentence, and the other option (“My family stops by regularly and it always brings pizzas”) sounds absurd.
The key point here is that it’s not the syntactic number, but rather the semantic number that matters.
” This appeal to imagined authority wouldn’t be convincing regardless, but it rings especially hollow when you realize it’s patently false.
And are not an antecedent and a pronoun referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number.
They are a “quantifier” and a “bound variable,” a different logical relationship.
It refers to a “petty, self-styled export on grammar, usually a niggling, precise type who can stab a bony finger at a dangling participle or split infinitive but lacks a true appreciation of writing in all its riches and varied styles.
The rule-conscious pedant who sees writing not as good or bad but as right or wrong.” Or as the OED more briefly puts it, “A petty or inferior grammarian.