-
29-06-2016, 10:02 AM
#10561
Originally Posted by macduffy
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!
-
29-06-2016, 10:09 AM
#10562
Well said fp. Language can /will change but it should not be because of laziness.
-
29-06-2016, 04:39 PM
#10563
Originally Posted by 777
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.
-
29-06-2016, 06:47 PM
#10564
Originally Posted by 777
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
-
29-06-2016, 08:01 PM
#10565
Originally Posted by westerly
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.
-
29-06-2016, 09:28 PM
#10566
-
01-07-2016, 07:38 AM
#10567
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.
Last edited by elZorro; 01-07-2016 at 07:39 AM.
-
01-07-2016, 10:40 AM
#10568
"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.
-
02-07-2016, 08:26 AM
#10569
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.
Hopefully you find my posts helpful, but in no way should they be construed as advice. Make your own decision.
-
02-07-2016, 11:41 AM
#10570
Shamubeel Eaqub with a thoughtful piece on the Brexit vote result.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...ay+2+July+2016
Last edited by elZorro; 02-07-2016 at 11:42 AM.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks