<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Print, pixels and prescriptivism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:41:15 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kaleberg</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-2/#comment-259623</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaleberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259623</guid>
		<description>I must hang out with weirdos. I&#039;ve never heard anything but ob-jine for OBGYN, and I often hear people use jejune, frequently correctly. Then again, we have a household apotropaic. Now, if I could just figure out what cravel-built means. The OED is not forthcoming.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I must hang out with weirdos. I&#8217;ve never heard anything but ob-jine for <span class="caps">OBGYN</span>, and I often hear people use jejune, frequently correctly. Then again, we have a household apotropaic. Now, if I could just figure out what cravel-built means. The <span class="caps">OED</span> is not forthcoming.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bianca steele</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-2/#comment-259482</link>
		<dc:creator>bianca steele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259482</guid>
		<description>Marcel,
I&#039;m not sure what your point is.  Is it the apparent contradiction between &quot;never used correctly&quot; in the first paragraph and &quot;rarely used correctly&quot; in the second?  The first was mostly a joke, so it doesn&#039;t seem necessary to have been 100% consistent.

Or did I myself commit some error in punctuation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Marcel,<br />
I&#8217;m not sure what your point is.  Is it the apparent contradiction between &#8220;never used correctly&#8221; in the first paragraph and &#8220;rarely used correctly&#8221; in the second?  The first was mostly a joke, so it doesn&#8217;t seem necessary to have been 100% consistent.</p>

	<p>Or did I myself commit some error in punctuation?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-2/#comment-259474</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259474</guid>
		<description>@Zach, if you mean that a statement begs for a question to be asked, then perhaps you should use &quot;begs for the question&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>@Zach, if you mean that a statement begs for a question to be asked, then perhaps you should use &#8220;begs for the question&#8221;.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave2</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-2/#comment-259432</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259432</guid>
		<description>tarylcabot wrote, “Seems to be strictly a blog deconstruction.”

Could you please explain?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>tarylcabot wrote, &#8220;Seems to be strictly a blog deconstruction.&#8221;</p>

	<p>Could you please explain?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith M Ellis</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259409</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith M Ellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259409</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;...and yes, I deliberately placed the question mark outside of the quotation marks, since the whole sentence is a question...&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

The &quot;punctuation inside the quotation&quot; rule isn&#039;t universal.  As far as I know, most of the Commonwealth places the punctuation outside the quote.  In my opinion, it&#039;s an exceedingly stupid rule that is both contrary to common sense and prone to creating confusion.  I always place the punctuation outside the quote and always expect someone to correct me.  No one ever has.

I also expected someone to take issue with my claim that acronyms (defined as &lt;i&gt;initialisms pronounced as words&lt;/i&gt;) are very recent and did not exist prior to the twentieth century.  Acronyms are so common these days, and they are essential to many folk etymologies, that it&#039;s hard to believe they haven&#039;t always existed and I was very skeptical the first time I heard this claim from a linguist.  But it&#039;s true.  And it is handy to debunk, &lt;i&gt;prima facie&lt;/i&gt;, all folk etymologies that utilize acronyms.

Tarylcabot muses that he &quot;did not know there was another meaning and have never heard anyone employing the &lt;i&gt;petitio principii&lt;/i&gt; usage. Seems to be strictly a blog deconstruction.&quot;

That&#039;s odd, because I&#039;ve heard many people use it correctly—and it&#039;s not as if I grew up as a fosterling in a philosophy department or anything like that.

Here&#039;s a completely trivial irritation of mine that is only justifiable by an extreme prescriptivism that I don&#039;t agree with (meaning that I recognize that I&#039;m being irrational about it): &lt;i&gt;perk&lt;/i&gt; as a shortening of &lt;i&gt;perquisite&lt;/i&gt;.  It should be &lt;i&gt;perq&lt;/i&gt;, dammit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>&#8220;&#8230;and yes, I deliberately placed the question mark outside of the quotation marks, since the whole sentence is a question&#8230;&#8221;</i></p>

	<p>The &#8220;punctuation inside the quotation&#8221; rule isn&#8217;t universal.  As far as I know, most of the Commonwealth places the punctuation outside the quote.  In my opinion, it&#8217;s an exceedingly stupid rule that is both contrary to common sense and prone to creating confusion.  I always place the punctuation outside the quote and always expect someone to correct me.  No one ever has.</p>

	<p>I also expected someone to take issue with my claim that acronyms (defined as <i>initialisms pronounced as words</i>) are very recent and did not exist prior to the twentieth century.  Acronyms are so common these days, and they are essential to many folk etymologies, that it&#8217;s hard to believe they haven&#8217;t always existed and I was very skeptical the first time I heard this claim from a linguist.  But it&#8217;s true.  And it is handy to debunk, <i>prima facie</i>, all folk etymologies that utilize acronyms.</p>

	<p>Tarylcabot muses that he &#8220;did not know there was another meaning and have never heard anyone employing the <i>petitio principii</i> usage. Seems to be strictly a blog deconstruction.&#8221;</p>

	<p>That&#8217;s odd, because I&#8217;ve heard many people use it correctly&#8212;and it&#8217;s not as if I grew up as a fosterling in a philosophy department or anything like that.</p>

	<p>Here&#8217;s a completely trivial irritation of mine that is only justifiable by an extreme prescriptivism that I don&#8217;t agree with (meaning that I recognize that I&#8217;m being irrational about it): <i>perk</i> as a shortening of <i>perquisite</i>.  It should be <i>perq</i>, dammit.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Bento</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259404</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Bento</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259404</guid>
		<description>Micah, interesting. I would pronounce &quot;BTW&quot; as &quot;by the way&quot; - &quot;B-T-W&quot; just sounds stupid to me and actually takes longer to say. Maybe I&#039;m becoming old school.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Micah, interesting. I would pronounce &#8220;BTW&#8221; as &#8220;by the way&#8221; &#8211; &#8220;B-T-W&#8221; just sounds stupid to me and actually takes longer to say. Maybe I&#8217;m becoming old school.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Fool</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259365</link>
		<dc:creator>The Fool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259365</guid>
		<description>@Zach who said, &#039;I hate it when people get up in arms over the “misuse” of the phrase “begging the question” because, while it does have a very specific meaning in the context of debating, the literal meaning of the words has nothing to do with an argument that assumes what needs to be proven.&quot;

Yes it does.  A question-begging argument begs by trying to get something for nothing, i.e. a specific conclusion to the very question that is at issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>@Zach who said, &#8216;I hate it when people get up in arms over the &#8220;misuse&#8221; of the phrase &#8220;begging the question&#8221; because, while it does have a very specific meaning in the context of debating, the literal meaning of the words has nothing to do with an argument that assumes what needs to be proven.&#8221;</p>

	<p>Yes it does.  A question-begging argument begs by trying to get something for nothing, i.e. a specific conclusion to the very question that is at issue.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: micah</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259361</link>
		<dc:creator>micah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:01:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259361</guid>
		<description>Martin: I&#039;ve certainly seen some internet shorthand pronounced as initialisms; BTW and LOL come to mind. I don&#039;t know about OTOH, though.

The only abbreviation I can think of that definitively has the behavior you&#039;re thinking of is &quot;iff&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Martin: I&#8217;ve certainly seen some internet shorthand pronounced as initialisms; <span class="caps">BTW</span> and <span class="caps">LOL</span> come to mind. I don&#8217;t know about <span class="caps">OTOH</span>, though.</p>

	<p>The only abbreviation I can think of that definitively has the behavior you&#8217;re thinking of is &#8220;iff&#8221;.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Righteous Bubba</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259359</link>
		<dc:creator>Righteous Bubba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259359</guid>
		<description>HTML is a metatypo generator designed to humiliate pedants.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><span class="caps">HTML</span> is a metatypo generator designed to humiliate pedants.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marcel</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259358</link>
		<dc:creator>marcel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259358</guid>
		<description>
Oops.  Close link</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Oops.  Close link</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marcel</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259357</link>
		<dc:creator>marcel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259357</guid>
		<description>While we (and &lt;b&gt;you&lt;/b&gt;  know who you are) are being petty, snarky &amp;/or pedantic, I thought I&#039;d toss this grenade &lt;i&gt;ad feminam&lt;/i&gt;.  I suspect that this thread contains other errors, but this one leapt out at me and grabbed my by the throat.

&lt;a href=&quot;http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/#comment-259291&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bianca Steele:  Don&#039;t you mean that &quot;the word is always used wrongly&quot;, or perhaps &quot;the word is always incorrectly used&quot;?  (and yes, I deliberately placed the question mark outside of the quotation marks, since the whole sentence is a question).&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>While we (and <b>you</b>  know who you are) are being petty, snarky &#038;/or pedantic, I thought I&#8217;d toss this grenade <i>ad feminam</i>.  I suspect that this thread contains other errors, but this one leapt out at me and grabbed my by the throat.</p>

	<p><a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/#comment-259291" rel="nofollow">Bianca Steele:  Don&#8217;t you mean that &#8220;the word is always used wrongly&#8221;, or perhaps &#8220;the word is always incorrectly used&#8221;?  (and yes, I deliberately placed the question mark outside of the quotation marks, since the whole sentence is a question).</a></p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lemuel pitkin</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259354</link>
		<dc:creator>lemuel pitkin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 17:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259354</guid>
		<description>So is there any reason why O for &#039;of&#039; is pronounced (and capitalized) in initialisms for government departments, but not in other initialisms?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>So is there any reason why O for &#8216;of&#8217; is pronounced (and capitalized) in initialisms for government departments, but not in other initialisms?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark R</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259337</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259337</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m prompted by discussion of initialisms and acronyms to ask about the abbreviation OBGYN, used in the U.S. for obstetricians and gynaecologists (well, originally for obstetrics and gynaecology as disciplines I think, but regularly heard now in phrases like &quot;I visited the OBGYN&quot;). It is pronounced &quot;oh-bee-gee-why-enn&quot;, even though it&#039;s formed out of two words where the letters form syllables, and are not initials. Following the pattern of &quot;sitrep&quot; for &quot;situation report&quot; or &quot;satnav&quot; for &quot;satellite navigation&quot; you might expect OBGYN to be said &quot;ob-gine&quot;, but it isn&#039;t. Are there any other abbreviations that are pronounced as if they were initialisms, and is there a word for them? Does anyone know anything about how it came to be?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I&#8217;m prompted by discussion of initialisms and acronyms to ask about the abbreviation <span class="caps">OBGYN</span>, used in the U.S. for obstetricians and gynaecologists (well, originally for obstetrics and gynaecology as disciplines I think, but regularly heard now in phrases like &#8220;I visited the <span class="caps">OBGYN</span>&#8221;). It is pronounced &#8220;oh-bee-gee-why-enn&#8221;, even though it&#8217;s formed out of two words where the letters form syllables, and are not initials. Following the pattern of &#8220;sitrep&#8221; for &#8220;situation report&#8221; or &#8220;satnav&#8221; for &#8220;satellite navigation&#8221; you might expect <span class="caps">OBGYN</span> to be said &#8220;ob-gine&#8221;, but it isn&#8217;t. Are there any other abbreviations that are pronounced as if they were initialisms, and is there a word for them? Does anyone know anything about how it came to be?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259333</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:10:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259333</guid>
		<description>NB, on jejunery, and Amis, the link with French is there, but only in parallel. Jejune comes from the Latin &#039;to fast&#039; [go hungry, hence weak and insipid], as does the French jeuner, which gives dejeuner, &#039;break-fast&#039; [now used for lunch, because people didn&#039;t used to eat much in the mornings...]

Fun with etymology, eh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>NB, on jejunery, and Amis, the link with French is there, but only in parallel. Jejune comes from the Latin &#8216;to fast&#8217; [go hungry, hence weak and insipid], as does the French jeuner, which gives dejeuner, &#8216;break-fast&#8217; [now used for lunch, because people didn&#8217;t used to eat much in the mornings&#8230;]</p>

	<p>Fun with etymology, eh?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tarylcabot</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2008/11/23/print-pixels-and-prescriptivism/comment-page-1/#comment-259330</link>
		<dc:creator>tarylcabot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/?p=8592#comment-259330</guid>
		<description>Literally, i can state that i&#039;ve only heard the predominant usage of the phrase &#039;begging the question&#039; - avoiding answering so the question still needs to be asked.  did not know there was another meaning and have never &lt;b&gt;heard&lt;/b&gt; anyone employing the &lt;i&gt;petitio principii&lt;/i&gt; usage.  Seems to be strictly a blog deconstruction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Literally, i can state that i&#8217;ve only heard the predominant usage of the phrase &#8216;begging the question&#8217; &#8211; avoiding answering so the question still needs to be asked.  did not know there was another meaning and have never <b>heard</b> anyone employing the <i>petitio principii</i> usage.  Seems to be strictly a blog deconstruction.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
