DRS wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B7945CBA397FReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30
>> DRS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>> "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9B79428084CB6ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30
>
> [...]
>
>>>> This was meant to be a joke on why I don't think that "alt"
>>>> is an acronym, but POSH does mean that, it is just debatable
>>>> what the words were meant to convey. The reason the
>>>> dictionary doesn't define "port outbound, starboard inbound"
>>>> is that it doesn't include obsolete definitions for terms and
>>>> acronyms, only words generally considered to be current.
>>>> There are literally tens of thousands of legitimate words in
>>>> the English language that won't be found in a standard
>>>> dictionary no matter how think or how new, but they can be
>>>> found with some judicious Googling.
>>>
>>> The word is current and in the dictionary. It is a matter of
>>> etymology, not meaning (although the Oxford does provide many
>>> archaic meanings). My New Oxford says "There is no evidence
>>> to support the folk etymology that _posh_ is formed from the
>>> initials of _port outbound, starboard home_ ..." I for one am
>>> confident in the Oxford's expertise and research.
>>
>> I know the word is current, what I said what that tens of
>> thousands of words are obsolete and have been dropped from the
>> major dictionaries. What part of that don't you understand.
>
> That is not what you said. What you said is cited above. You said
> the reason "port outbound, starboard inbound"
Uh, if you're going to argue this then at least argue over the right
acronym. "port outbound, starboard inbound" would be "POSI", not
"POSH". Geez, some people . . .
> is not in the Oxford is
> because "it doesn't include obsolete definitions for terms and
> acronyms". The problem for you is that not only does the Oxford
> frequently give archaic meanings but it also always gives a word's
> etymology. In this instance, the prevalence of the myth to which
> you
> subscribe is so pervasive the editors felt it necessary to
> explicitly
> refute it.
Further, HEMI-powered doesn't seem to be familiar with the Oxford,
which is not like "major dictionaries" such as the Merriam-Webster
unabridged. Those dictionaries, as impressive as they are, one person
can carry easily. The Oxford comes in 20 volumes and the only thing
it has ever dropped is the shelf on which it was stored. There is a
Compact Oxford that is physically about the same size as the more
commonplace dictionaries, however if you open it up you'll find that
each page contains micrographic images of 9 pages of the 20 volume set
and must be read with a magnifier (normally included in the purchase
price).
>
>> Since I'm not in the business of either reasoning with fools nor
>> doing their research for them, if you want to believe just one
>> source instead of doing some independent research on your own, I
>> guess you will remain blissfully ignorant about POSH, and
>> probably about many other things.
>
> No reputable sources support your claim. That I cited one cannot be
> assumed to be exhaustive.
>
>>> Now, do you have anything to say about photography?
>>>
>> Yes. I have a nice picture of you that I found in another
>> newsgroup of a geek with a propeller on top his beanie. Would
>> that be you?
>
> Now you can look up "hoist on your own petard."
Generally when a Chrysler product becomes recalcitrant the best
solution is to trade it in. Pity we can't do that in this case.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
Similar Threads
