[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Wagner's yearly attempt at establishing verbal rigour [was: Re:Biggest Pr...

In a message dated 3/14/99 1:25:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
znc14@TTACS.TTU.EDU writes:

<< T. Mike Keesey wrote:
 >_G._ and _C._ are carcharodontosaurids. There is a minority opinion that
 >carcharodontosaurids are related to abelisaurids, [...]
         The majority apparently considering them to be descended from space
 aliens, I take it?
         Remember, ladies and gentlemen, *all* life is related. This "X is
 not related to Y" crud is an artifact of taxonomic rank, and wasn't even all
 that accurate under typological taxonomy anyway. >>

Uhm, I bow to no one in instinctive pedantry, which I try to mortify with
typographical errors and not using spell check whenever possible.  The
statement includes a tacit comparison (...[more] related to abelisaurids)
because otherwise there would be no contrast with the prior sentence and thus
the statement would be meaningless.  Using inherent logic like this is not
formal, but then again I'd leave my tux (if I had one) in the closet while
reading postings here.
I do want to point out proudly, though, that I did use a pluperfect
subjunctive ('will have') in one posting, and everyone apparently thought it
was normal behavior.  What a great group of people!