Literacy

[benhall.1]

No, that's not what I meant. I know that facit and facere are from the same verb. I was just trying to reproduce what the OED says, so that it was clear. The point I was making is that the OED says that "factitious" comes from "facticius", which was a Latin word which meant "made from art". "Factitious" doesn't come directly from facere, although "facticius", the Latin word, clearly did. And I certainly wasn't trying to imply any value judgement by the OED. I've looked through my post again, and I just can't see how it could be interepreted that way ... ? Do you mean, by saying that the OED is saying that "factitious" didn't come directly from "facere" or "facit"? That is what it says, if you follow the OED's useage - it gives the primary source of the word first and then any derivations of that primary source. Or am I missing something?

Mind you, I am looking at the 13 volume OED right now, and I'm blowed if I can see where it uses the word "factitious" in describing "its" or "it's" at all. Is this an issue connected with which edition I have? Or have I missed another point (more than possible)?

And, after all this, it still remains the case that the correct current form of the genitive neuter is "its", not "it's".

[I.D.10-t]

I now think that illiterate means "not able to communicate".

[benhall.1]

I now think that illiterate means "not able to communicate".

Sign me up.

[s1m0n]

It doesn't mean 'art' in the high art sense, it means art in the sense of artifice, artificial, or artefact - the product of deliberate human intelligence, rather than grown, born, or created by accident. "Made' comes pretty close; in the form 'begotten, not made', this the term the nicene creed uses to draw the identical distinction.

[Nanohedron]

I now think that illiterate means "not able to communicate".

I like "dyscommunicative" for that.

[I.D.10-t]

I now think that illiterate means "not able to communicate".

I like "dyscommunicative" for that.

Such a waste of vocabulary.

[Nanohedron]

I now think that illiterate means "not able to communicate".

I like "dyscommunicative" for that.

Such a waste of vocabulary.

I toss 'em out like candy at a dentists' convention.

[I.D.10-t]

So it is bait I ate?


I dislike the rule of three.

[Nanohedron]

So it is bait I ate?

Not this time. I was just chatting, as it were.

I dislike the rule of three.

So do I. I miss the days when we went nutso with that stuff.

[s1m0n]

Mind you, I am looking at the 13 volume OED right now, and I'm blowed if I can see where it uses the word "factitious" in describing "its" or "it's" at all. Is this an issue connected with which edition I have? Or have I missed another point (more than possible)?

It's in my Shorter OED, which isn't the most current edition, in exactly the passage I quoted earlier, which is very near the top of def. 1 of 'it'.

[SteveShaw]

A change similar to the invention of 'it's' as the neuter pronoun is occurring right now. In the past two or three decades, people have been abandoning the awkward 'he or she' for a non-gendered or rather unspecified or uncertain gender second person singular pronoun, and opting to use the plural form 'they' instead. I expect we all likely do it, but a generation or so ago that would not have been correct. 20 years ago if I'd heard someone use 'they' for a romantic interest, I'd have mentally busted them as gay, but now you can hear it from anyone.

This is very interesting. I think it's been going on for far longer than you suggest, actually, Simon. I don't possess a book scholarly enough to delve into this matter, but I'm always mindful of the propensity in more than one language to use the "plural" in more formal or polite settings. "Vous" in French for example, or, in the northern England dialects, "thou" and "thee," which are ambiguous and interchangeable with respect to intended singular or plural. Alongside all that, the use of "their" to get round the clumsy issue of "his or her" seems positively in keeping, not jarring at all, and quite elegant with it. I think that the strategy has far more to do with avoiding clumsiness than it has with political correctness, ever the way with English. As we haven't really got a word to fit in English, I think the solution we've arrived at is actually quite graceful.

[s1m0n]

"Vous" in French for example, or, in the northern England dialects, "thou" and "thee," which are ambiguous and interchangeable with respect to intended singular or plural.

I called he, she and they second person, but they're actually third. I meant third. Your examples, - you, Thee, Thou, Tu and Vous are all second-person pronouns, and they're not numbered or gendered in english or french. Except in Texas*.

I dunno about Yorkshire, but the French they teach in Canadian schools has no ungendered third person plural; or rather it does, but it's ils, which is the same as the masculine form. That's the closest the french I know gets to 'they'. I have no idea what's being taught to present ESL learners.

*Where second person singular is y'all and plural is all y'all.

[cowtime]

Its cause more womans then mans are graduating from collage. If moore mens graduated the literal rate would go bach up,

that's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!

[cowtime]

First- I haven't read this whole thread-

Now that graduation time is upon us, I see quite a number of announcements/thank you cards coming through the mail. Just a couple of days ago I remarked on one among many that looked like my first grade granddaughter had addressed the letter. Pitiful. I can only imagine how impressive their job applications will look if these folks have to actually put pen to paper.

[s1m0n]

Pen to paper? They should be so lucky if any live human being actually reads their CV at all. They'll submit their applications online and a machine will read it. They'll do a lot better refining their CV's keywords than they will its penmanship. Or even penwomanship.