If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

I agree, fungus. But let's not revisit the matter of how the language is changing, however much it hurts to try to imagine weighing an amount of backflips!
I've finally come to terms with the fact that English is a living language and that words mean what Alice's Red Queen says they mean!

I haven't. Such an absurdity as an amount of backflips stops me in my tracks and I lose my train of thought. I realise many don't - but I ain't one of them!

[777]

Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.

[jonu]

Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.

Getting way off topic here, but laziness has been a driver of change in language for centuries. You have used the abbreviation fp. Why? Can't be bothered writing out the full name I would guess. I just used CAN'T for the same reason.

[westerly]

Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.

My Oxford Dictionary defines amount used as a noun as "the total number" If you replace “amount” with the “total number” of back flips etc “ it would appear to be correct usage, but who am I to argue.
Of more importance is the irony of a National Party who made much of Helen Clarke and the terms “nanny state and auntie Helen” passing a Health and Safety Bill with such draconian punishments, we have Real Estate agents worried about whether they should give a safety lecture and have people sign a “they know the risks” indemnity form before viewing an open home.
Uncle John is really looking after us. I am not sure what has happened to self reliance.

westerly

[fungus pudding]

My Oxford Dictionary defines amount used as a noun as "the total number" If you replace “amount” with the “total number” of back flips etc “ it would appear to be correct usage,


westerly

Absolute rubbish. Amount applies to volume or mass. Number applies to things that can be counted (count nouns). An amount is something you can have less of. A number is something you can have fewer of.
You can have an amount of footwear, but a number of shoes.
An amount of traffic, but a number of cars.
You could have less footwear but fewer shoes.
Getting it right avoids ambiguity.

[elZorro]

Yeah, well, this is getting off the very important topic of how to make sure National don't get back in, come the next elections..

I suggest some of the previous posts could be more applicable to the

Markets/Off Market Discussions/What's wrong with the youth of today/Poor grammar thread

[elZorro]

Stuart Nash brings up some important points.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ay+1+July+2016

Later on in the comments, corporate tax evasion could easily be in the order of $10,000mill a year. Welfare fraud in NZ, that's more like $30mill a year. 300 times smaller. However, you're three times more likely to be jailed for welfare fraud if you go before the courts, than for tax evasion.

[Snapper]

"However, you're three times more likely to be jailed for welfare fraud if you go before the courts, than for tax evasion."

Agree that there is a disparity there; I suppose the difference is because tax evasion is based on how much you give while welfare fraud is based on how much you take. I have a certain sympathy for welfare fraud, though. I was briefly unemployed after I sold my business a few years ago and went on the dole for about two months - it wasn't even enough to buy my groceries! It must be an incredible struggle for anyone on social welfare and we have one of the most generous systems around.

[Daytr]

Ha ha, so many experts on the English language. I always find it amazing what irks people . Probably my spelling of amasing will do the same as I've used the American spelling from my text predictor. And yet American English in many instances is more correct than what is spoken in England, well that is if you live in a museum. It seems modern dictionaries define amount as also a number of, whereas more traditional dictionaries say its an amount that can't be counted.... Shakespeare was the biggest changer of the English language, by introducing over 1700 words. He changed nouns into verbs, he joined words and just made them up. Typically I find people who get bogged down with such pedantic BS, don't see the wood for the trees.
At this point I take my leave.

[elZorro]

Shamubeel Eaqub with a thoughtful piece on the Brexit vote result.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...ay+2+July+2016